Ex-evangelical missionary, now podcasting the ridiculousness of it all

[Lerk]

On 2/2/2019 at 2:15 PM, Geezer said:

Oh yeah, they believe they are the only restored church from AD33 and thus the only true Christians on earth.

 

I've actually seen engraved on their signs, right below "Eastside Church of Christ," the words "Est. 33 AD".

[Tsathoggua9]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:02 PM, Lerk said:

 

Actually, the Wikipedia article isn't bad.

 

Church of Christ websites probably have more detailed explanation of their own doctrines than any other denomination because they're really steeped in getting their doctrine "right." They claim that they "speak where the Bible speaks" and are "silent where the Bible is silent." This came about because one of the early CoC leaders, Alexander Campbell, believed that there were Christians in all of the denominations, and he was sick of them all (including his branch of Presbyterians) thinking they were the only ones being saved. He figured if everyone would take a few steps back and start over, they'd all come to an agreement and there wouldn't be any more denominations. Thus, they claim that they are non-denominational. And the most ironic thing is that in the intervening 170 years, it has reached the point where the CoC are among the few who think they're the only ones going to Heaven -- Campbell would be turning  in his grave.

 

If you want to do some reading, do a search for the initials "ceni". You'll find a bunch of Church of Christ websites about "command, example, and necessary inference" which explain how they treat the Bible. Essentially, they're trying to take the New Testament and distill it down to a "Law of Moses" type law so that they don't have to deal with ambiguity. So much for the "perfect law of liberty!"

 

And if you want to see some real infighting, read the Mental Divorce website! These folks are really nasty to each other when arguing about trivia! (That website's been around since 2000. I was a believer back then and for the life of me couldn't figure out what the argument was about. It turns out that some are super-legalistic, and some are super-duper legalistic when it comes to the "MDR" (marriage, divorce, and remarriage) issue. The fight was over whether the "innocent party" in the case of adultery had to be the one to actually file for divorce in order to be able to remarry. Some argued that it was the principle of being the innocent party that allowed remarriage, and others argued that, no, the Bible only talked about the "innocent" party doing the "putting away," so if the adulterer was the one who filed for divorce, the innocent person could never remarry. No shit. No exaggeration.

 

 

 

Wow! I think I may have forgotten how sooper-dooper Pharisaical the Church of Christ can be. I was there, but not really so "churched-up", myself. Thanks for posting; that reminds me how crazy-legalistic COC'ers can be!