Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

I think it would be indisputable that the CofC assumes the Law of Moses was a works-based, meritorious path to salvation, but that Christ ended that and implemented salvation by grace. That is so foreign to the entire Bible I would not know where to begin....and really is the crux of its own conundrum as a denomination. Ironically, the CofC's raison d'etre became a "new" works-based salvation (the "law" of Christ) to replace that horrible "old" works-based salvation (the Law of Moses) that everybody just messed up. Both perspectives are based on just pursuing the law as if it were based on works rather than pursuing it through faith. So, just like Israel didn't get it, so the CofC didn't get it either....

Here is an excerpt from John Piper that kind of summarizes how there has never been any difference in how one attained salvation before God, that being salvation by grace through faith, from Genesis on:

In conclusion, then, the points are these: first, the law is fulfilled in us when we love our neighbor as ourselves. Second, love is the outworking of genuine, saving faith. Third, therefore, the law did not teach us to try to produce meritorious works, but only taught us to trust the gracious God of the exodus and to live out the obedience of faith. Fourth, therefore, the Mosaic covenant is not fundamentally different from the Abrahamic and New Covenants, for we should obey the commandments of all three from the very same motive—not to win God's favor, but because we already depend on his free grace and trust that his commands will lead to full and lasting joy. The final point, then, is that we should delight in God's law, meditate on it day and night (Psalm 119:97), and sing of his value to all generations (Psalm 19:7–14).

Here's the entire article...it is very interesting to read as an ex-CofC'er and I think it to be extremely helpful generally in just trying to get out of the mental fix of the CofC:

h**ps://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-the-law-was-given

Yes, the CoC definitely preaches a legalistic, works-based salvation regardless of how strongly they deny it. It seems that they have to deliberately distort such books as Romans and Galatians in order to come up with some of their ideas.

When it comes to religious legalism my experience tells me the root of the problem is the belief that the Bible is literally true, historically accurate, and God breathed. Once a person becomes convinced of that then they have no choice but to try and follow every word in the Bible literally. That approach made sense to a lot of people in the late 19th century primarily in rural America. That was the basic premise of the Restoration Movement and it made sense at that time and place in history. Why wouldn't it?

The historical critical perspective of the Bible and the Christian faith goes back some 300+ years. That scholarship existed but the technology to communicate it to the masses did not. Even if such communication technology did exist scholars were still left with the problem of tradition. Once something becomes accepted as a tradition it becomes written in stone and then it becomes nearly impossible to change anybodies mind.

A check of history will reveal many of America's founding fathers were Deists or something other than Christian. Thomas Jefferson's writings indicate he considered the Bible to be a fairy tale. History challenges the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. History indicates not everyone believed the Bible to be the inerrant words of God in colonial days and even earlier than that, but that was clearly the traditional belief of the majority of people.

Evidence and proof, however, has little chance of changing a traditional belief. That kind of change often takes hundreds of years to made any inroads. The two main obstacles besides tradition are cognitive dissonance and information bias. Those occur naturally and they apply to many more things other than religion. Trying to change anyone's religious or political beliefs is paramount to trying to parallel parking an aircraft carrier. I suppose it can be done but is it really worth the effort?

Thus the c of C and other fundamentalists groups like them will continue to follow & interpret the Bible as literally as possible. And that will lead to a legalistic view and understanding of the Bible. Obviously, there are other Christian alternatives to a conservative or fundamentalists environment for those that are seeking such an option.

Opie wrote:Yes, the CoC definitely preaches a legalistic, works-based salvation regardless of how strongly they deny it. It seems that they have to deliberately distort such books as Romans and Galatians in order to come up with some of their ideas.

Would anyone argue that Abraham could have just ignored God's directions say about circumcision, Isaac, or even leaving home to begin with and things would still have been fine? I mean could and would Abraham be "faithful" if he just ignored what God said or considered it just a suggestion or opinion from God?

Abraham is admired as an excellent example of obedient faith, but the reason Abraham obeyed was because he believed and trusted the promises of God as explained in Romans 4. Abraham didn't obey God because he was legalistic. Legalism is based on human effort and work, and not on trusting God. Legalism is a system of works that people develop that they think helps to save them. Just as one example of many in the CoC, legalism shows up by the way they have reduced salvation to a business transaction of "5 Steps". The unspoken understanding in the CoC seems to be "Hey God, I've carefully checked off the 5 Steps, so now you're obligated to save me."

Opie wrote:Abraham is admired as an excellent example of obedient faith, but the reason Abraham obeyed was because he believed and trusted the promises of God as explained in Romans 4. Abraham didn't obey God because he was legalistic. Legalism is based on human effort and work, and not on trusting God. Legalism is a system of works that people develop that they think helps to save them. Just as one example of many in the CoC, legalism shows up by the way they have reduced salvation to a business transaction of "5 Steps". The unspoken understanding in the CoC seems to be "Hey God, I've carefully checked off the 5 Steps, so now you're obligated to save me."

Really nicely put, Opie.....

Cootie:
Trying to change anyone's religious or political beliefs is paramount to trying to parallel parking an aircraft carrier. I suppose it can be done but is it really worth the effort?

Moogy wrote:Cootie:
Trying to change anyone's religious or political beliefs is paramount to trying to parallel parking an aircraft carrier. I suppose it can be done but is it really worth the effort?

I sent a PM to Ivy a few minutes ago asking her to check up on you. You haven't posted in awhile and I was worried about ya. Glad to know you're okay.

KLP wrote:

Opie wrote:Yes, the CoC definitely preaches a legalistic, works-based salvation regardless of how strongly they deny it. It seems that they have to deliberately distort such books as Romans and Galatians in order to come up with some of their ideas.

Would anyone argue that Abraham could have just ignored God's directions say about circumcision, Isaac, or even leaving home to begin with and things would still have been fine? I mean could and would Abraham be "faithful" if he just ignored what God said or considered it just a suggestion or opinion from God?

Not circumcising his sons almost cost Moses his life. Do you remember that story?

Opie wrote:Abraham is admired as an excellent example of obedient faith, but the reason Abraham obeyed was because he believed and trusted the promises of God as explained in Romans 4. Abraham didn't obey God because he was legalistic. Legalism is based on human effort and work, and not on trusting God. Legalism is a system of works that people develop that they think helps to save them. Just as one example of many in the CoC, legalism shows up by the way they have reduced salvation to a business transaction of "5 Steps". The unspoken understanding in the CoC seems to be "Hey God, I've carefully checked off the 5 Steps, so now you're obligated to save me."

So Abraham obeyed but he didn't obey because he thought he had to? or his obedience was different because his thinking was different from someone else who obeys?

Seems they are both obeying...so what is the practical difference if you still have to do the same thing? Seems like a distinction without a difference. Just my two cents. If we are arguing the "mind has to be right about grace" when you are obeying then how is that different from cofc arguing you have to think a certain way about baptism for it to be valid? Seems to me obedience is obedience is obedience. Unless one is unhappy or being forced to obey...what difference does it matter why one is happy or willing to obey?