Truth Magazine

By Garreth L. Clair

In this lesson, I would like to discuss two more of those biblical terms used to describe the church of Christ. There are many terms used to describe facets about the New Testament church and these two will assist us in coming to a better knowledge of its nature. The study in this lesson considers the church described as “a kingdom” and as “the called out.”

The Church As “A Kingdom”

Through the years brethren have established several general rules by which they point out the use of the “kingdom analogy.” Some of those rules are scriptural in content and are:

1. The term kingdom implies:

A. A King (Christ – Luke 1:31-33).

B. Subjects (all the saved ones are citizens).

C. Territory (all the world – Matt. 28:18-20).

D. A set of laws (Heb. 5:8,9; Jude 3).

2. The term “kingdom” is used occasionally interchangeably with church:

A. Matthew 16:18,19, Jesus said to Peter: “Upon this rock I will build my church. . . . I will give unto thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” From this reading we are convinced that Jesus is speaking of one institution. In this passage Jesus promised Peter the keys to the institution that he intended to build (v. 18).

B. The same kind of conclusion may be drawn from those passages surrounding the institution of the Lord’s supper by Christ (see Luke 22:29,30; 1 Cor. 1:2; 11:18-34).

From these facts it is apparent that the term “kingdom” is a term that applies to the divine institution and is intended to portray the nature of its government.

3. The prophecies foretelling the establishment of Messiah’s kingdom (i.e., church) give additional evidence that the church of Christ established on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is the Kingdom of Christ that they predicted. (In connection with this point see “The Church In Old Testament Prophecies. ” This lesson deals with those Old Testament prophecies in Isa. 2:2-4; Mic. 4:1-5; and Dan. 2:31-35.)

4. From the study it is evident that the kingdom of Christ is to be understood as the government feature of the divine institution. When we accept the plain teaching of the New Testament on this subject we are able to eliminate the false concepts surrounding the kingdom of Christ that exist in the minds of many today, including such ideas as:

A. The kingdom will be set up at Christ’s second coming. This false concept is referred to as premillennialism. A careful study of the scriptural evidence given herein will definitely create problems for those who advocate that false idea.

B. The kingdom was set up during the lifetime of Abraham. The view that Abraham established the kingdom of Christ is as false a view as that of premillennialism. The facts contained in lesson number four refute this idea.

C. The kingdom was set up by John the Baptizer during his personal ministry. This view establishes the church of Christ before the apostles received the Holy Spirit and before the prophets’ predictions came true (Acts 2:1-47; Dan. 2:31-35; Isa. 2:2-4; etc.). This concept would have the church established without a head.

Regardless of all the ideas advanced by man to the contrary, we must accept the teaching of the Scriptures as to the time of the kingdom’s establishment and the nature of the term as God intended we interpret it. If we will simply abide in the truth as it is revealed we will have no serious problems with the term “kingdom” as it is applied to the divine institution. On the other hand if we have arrived at a conclusion that is contrary to the revealed truth regarding this subject we may experience great distress in coming to grips with this differing view.

The Word “Church”

The Greek word translated “church” is ekklesia. If we had nothing else to determine the nature of the relationship we sustain to the world than this fact, we would know that we are called out of it.

The original word ekkiesia, translated “church,” occurs three times in Matthew, twenty-three times in Acts, sixty-two times in Paul’s letters, two in John, and twenty times in the book of Revelation. Jesus did not invent this word. He found it in common use.

Among the Greeks, ekklesia was the assembly of the citizens of a free city-state gathered by a herald blowing a horn through the streets of a town. In this sense the word is used one time in the New Testament to submit their case to the Greek ekklesia. (For a further discussion of the term see: E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance [p. 153]; W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, [pp. 83,84]; Gerhard Kittle’s Bible Key Words, Sec. “The Church,” Vol. 1).

Among the Jews (Hebrew people), ekklesia was the congregation of Israel assembled before the tabernacle in the wilderness by the blowing of a silver trumpet. In this sense the word is used two times in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Heb. 2:12). Stephen, rehearsing the history of Israel, says Christ was in the ekklesia in the wilderness. The writer of Hebrews quotes a prophetic Psalm by David where the sense is “congregation” (Psa. 22:20). Israel in the land of Canaan is never called a church.

Both with the Greeks and the Jews the word (ekklesia) denoted an assembly of the people, not a committee or council, and it did not refer to a building made with hands.

The word as it refers to Christians means either, a local assembly or the church universal, as the following Scriptures attest:

1. Referring to the local church: Acts 5:11; 8:1,3; 9:31; 15:22; 20:28; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:17; etc.

2. Referring to the universal church (all the saved of all time): Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; 3: 10; 3:2 1; 5:23,24,25,27,

29; Col. 1:18,24; 1 Tim. 3:15; etc.

Therefore, the Church as used by Christ refers to the saved and to the saved only, whether used of all the saved (universally) or of the saved in a specific location (local). Ekklesia, as used by Christ, means the assembly of the saved, called out of sin and darkness and into fellowship with him.

The calling out of the world is accomplished by the Lord through the gospel (Rom. 1:16). No one may be separated from the world who will refuse to comply with the conditions of the gospel (Heb. 5:8,9). To suggest that one may somehow be saved without being called out of the world and into fellowship with Christ is absolutely ridiculous simply because the saved ones are those who have been called out of the world by the word (John 6:44,45). Since the “called out” are the saved ones, how is their salvation accomplished?

1. We are saved through a new birth:

A. We must be born again (John 3:3).

B. That new birth is through water and the spirit (John 3:5).

2. We are saved through faith (John 8:24; Heb. 11:6; Mark 16:15,16; etc.).

3. We are saved through repentance:

A. Repent or perish (Luke 13:3).

B. The first converts were told to repent (Acts 2:38).

4. We are saved through a confession of Christ:

A. The confession is with the mouth (Rom. 10:10).

B. Peter made the good confession (Matt. 16:16).

C. The Eunuch made the good confession (Acts 8:37).

5. We are saved through baptism:

A. Peter says so (1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 2:38).

B. Baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

C. Baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:1-5).

D. Baptism places one in Christ (Gal. 3:26,27).

Those who will comply with the Lord’s conditions of pardon will be saved from all past sins (Acts 2:38) and will be added to the body of the saved (the called out) by the Lord (Acts 2:47).

Those who have been “called out” of the world ought to recognize that they have certain benefits that others in the world do not have, the “called out ones” have:

1. Freedom from sin (Rom. 6:17,18).

2. Purified souls (1 Pet. 1:22).

3. Have been granted entrance into the kingdom (Matt. 7:21).

4. Can expect God to answer their prayer (1 John 3:22).

5. Know God (1 John 2:3,4).

6. Have demonstrated that we love God (John 14:15).

7. Know that our faith is alive (Jas. 2:17,20,24).

8. Know that we will not receive eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:8,9).

9. Do not mind that the Lord is watching us (Heb. 4:13).

10. Know that we are children of light (1 Thess. 5:5,6; 1 John 1:6,7).

As you may now understand, the benefits of being a Christian (Acts 11:26) can be considerable. We bring this series to a close realizing that we have not presented nearly enough on this very important subject. We do hope though that the series might provoke the reader to a greater appreciation of the divine institution.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 392-393
July 7, 1988

By R.J. Evans

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul gave the brethren at Corinth proper instruction concerning the exercising of spiritual gifts. The main problem was how the Corinthians had been conducting themselves with regard to the gift of tongues. The Corinthians were being childish in that they delighted in the gift of tongues to the extent that proper judgment was not being used concerning the effect tongue speaking was having on others. Like children, they failed to see all that was involved in the inconsiderate use and display which they had been making of this gift. Hence, Paul wrote, “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men” (1 Cor. 14:20). To be like children in understanding is to act as though the mind is still in the undeveloped stage of childhood. So, instead of acting childish, they were told to be “men, ” that is, be mature. This suggests the idea of “having reached the goal.” It involves being fully able to use one’s powers of thought and good judgment. The Corinthians had not been doing this with regard to spiritual gifts.

The circumstances today are different from those found in 1 Corinthians 14. We no longer have spiritual gifts, for they have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-13). But, the principles set forth in 1 Corinthians 14:20 still apply and must be heeded by those of us who are Christians. We must not be childish in understanding. However, in this article I would like for us to notice in particular the phrase – “in malice be ye children. ” Malice is an evil disposition with the intention of injuring others. It is among the most destructive of all ugly attitudes. It is in this respect that it would be creditable to Christians to be “children. ” In fact, Jesus lays down this condition, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). This suggests humility, gentleness and the innocence of children, which, particularly is contrary to malice, envy, anger, strife, etc.

Those of us who seek happiness and success in serving God must eliminate malice from our hearts. There is no place in the life of a Christian for malice. Please notice the words of the inspired apostle Peter: “Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings ” (1 Pet. 2:1). The apostle Paul said: “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:31-32).

Malice is always harmful to those who harbor it, and usually damaging to the person who becomes the object of malicious words and deeds. Malice will destroy our personal happiness and damn our souls to eternal punishment. “Brethren . . . in malice be ye children.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 388
July 7, 1988

By Mike Willis

Living in a society which marries in order to divorce and divorces in order to marry, we should expect that this low view of marriage would spill over into the church. What Jesus taught about marriage is disregarded in this society to the extent that half of all marriages end in divorce. Without regard to the legislation of God, men enter marriage. We should expect that some would want to accommodate the Scriptures to those who have shown no regard for what God legislated concerning marriage.

Jesus revealed God’s law regarding marriage in Matthew 19:9. He said,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The clear teaching of this passage seems obvious: (a) The one who divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries another commits adultery; (b) The one who marries a person who has been divorced commits adultery; (c) The one who divorces his mate for fornication and remarries does not commit adultery. Adultery must be stopped in order for one to go to heaven (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Consequently, those who are committing adultery (as is the case in a marriage following the divorce for some reason other than fornication) must break the sinful relationship in order to go to heaven.

Some have not been content with this teaching. Consequently, they have undermined the teaching of Matthew 19:9 in these ways: (a) redefining adultery to mean “divorcing and remarrying”; (b) limiting the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians; (c) combining (a) and (b). When adultery is redefined to mean “divorcing and remarrying,” those guilty of divorcing their mate for some reason other than fornication and remarrying are told to repent of “divorcing and remarrying, ” resolve never to “divorce and remarry” again, and stay married to the present mate. This position was reviewed in the last issue of this paper. Those who limit the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians tell those unbelievers who remarried following a divorce for some reason other than fornication and who desire to become Christians to stay married to the mate they are living with at the time they become Christians. Those who combine (a) and (b) say that those Christians who divorce for some reason other than fornication and remarry should repent of “divorcing and remarrying,” resolve never to “divorce and remarry again,” and stay with their present mate. In this article, I want to examine the position that limits the application of Matthew 19:9 to Christians.

James D. Bales: Not Under Bondage

In 1979, James D. Bales issued his book Not Under Bondage which affirms that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to nonChristians. Already the influence of this book is being felt among brethren who oppose church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church, and church supported recreation. Bales wrote,

Christ’s legislation had reference to two people in the covenant who are married, but not with mixed marriages. Paul legislated on a different category of marriages, i.e., the mixed marriages. Neither legislated on marriages in the world (Not Under Bondage, pp. 40-41).

Hence, the alien sinner is not bound by Matthew 19:9. Christians should not be concerned about the marital status of any non-Christian they try to convert because he is not obligated to obey Matthew 19:9.

If Bales Is Correct, Then . . .

If brother Bales is correct in his understanding that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians, there are several conclusions which follow:

1. There is no marriage law which applies to non-Christians. He stated that non-Christians live under “the law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15). ” However, brother Bales did not define what the law written on the heart was. He did not give us the details of that law, neither can he. Rather, the vague and ambiguous law “written on the heart” reduces God’s law governing non-Christians to every man’s conscience. A man is married or not married based on whether or not he thinks that he is.

2. What should be done with aliens who refuse to live according to the law written on the heart? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a polygamous relationship later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his polygamous marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a homosexual “marriage” later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his homosexuality “marriage”? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter an incestuous marriage(1) later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his incestuous marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter a communal marriage later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his communal marriage? If the non-Christian who chooses to ignore the law written on his heart and to enter an adulterous marriage(2) later decides to become a Christian, can he continue his adulterous marriage?

If brother Bales states that the non-Christian does not have to cease his polygamous, homosexual, incestuous, communal, and/or adulterous marriage in order to be saved because the law of Christ does not apply to non-Christians, let him go on record in this regard. The law of Christ is no more or less retroactive to the one sinner than the other. However, one should clearly recognize that whatever rule applies to one of these sins applies to the others as well.

If brother Bales states that the Bible specifically condemns polygamy, homosexuality, incest, etc., he will also take note that it condemns adultery (1 Cor. 6:9). If he states that adultery is not a part of the law “written on the heart,” let him produce the “law written on the heart” in order that we can see whether or not it is part of that law. His arbitrary, subjective assertions are insufficient.

3. Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to authorize a divorce for fornication for non-Christian marriages or mixed marriages. Brother Bales’ doctrine that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to unbelievers and Christians in a mixed marriage is a two-edged sword. If that is the case, then a Christian cannot divorce his unbelieving mate for fornication and marry again, as Matthew 19:9 authorizes. In the case of a Christian who is married to a non-Christian who commits fornication against him but is content to dwell with him (the non-Christian does not want a divorce, he just wants to play around every once in a while), the Christian cannot put away his unbelieving mate for fornication and remarry. Rather, he must be content to dwell with her. Furthermore, in a marriage of two unbelievers, the innocent unbeliever could not put away the unbeliever guilty of fornication and remarry because Matthew 19:9 does not apply to them. If brother Bales states that two unbelievers can divorce for fornication and remarry, he needs to produce the passage from the law “written on the heart” to prove that they can; otherwise, we are left with his arbitrary assertion to that effect.

4. Non-Christians could not be guilty of adultery. If non-Christians are not governed by God’s marriage law, how could they commit adultery? Adultery refers to a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s wife. If God’s marriage law does not apply to non-Christians, how could it be violated? Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 6:9 indicates that adultery was committed by non-Christians. Hence, the marriage law must have been applicable to them.

5. The doctrine leads to nonsense. Suppose a Christian divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication and married an unbeliever. The unbeliever is not bound by God’s marriage law but the Christian is. Hence, if the Christian divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries again, he commits adultery when he enters the sexual relationship of the marriage. However, the unbeliever is not bound by Matthew 19:9. When he enters the sexual relationship of the marriage, adultery is not committed. Hence, two people engage in the one sexual relationship; for one the relationship is adultery and for the other it is not. This is nonsense.(3)

Examining The Evidence

Let us see whether or not brother Bales can prove that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to the non-Christian. Brother Bales states that in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 Paul interpreted Matthew 19:9 to limit “whosoever” of Matthew 19:9 to two Christians in a marriage (p. 27).

I accept the Spirit’s harmony of Matthew 19:9 with 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. Christ’s legislation had reference to two people in the covenant who are married, but not with mixed marriages. Paul legislated on a different category of marriages, i.e., the mixed marriages. Neither legislated on marriages in the world (p. 41).

Let us examine this thesis.

1. Matthew 19.9. The teaching of Matthew 19:9 was spoken by Jesus to “great multitudes” from the coasts of Judea and beyond Jordan (19:2-3). The ones who asked the question were Pharisees whose motive was to tempt Jesus (19:3). Surely these are the men of whom Paul said, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Hence, these Israelites were neither Christians nor saved. If the teachings of Matthew 19:9 applied to these unsaved non-Christians, they should also apply to unsaved non-Christians today.

The word “whosoever” also universalizes the passage. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Compare these other passages which use “whosoever”:

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin (Jn. 8:32). Does this apply only to Christians?

Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely (Rev. 22:17). Does this invitation only extend to Christians?

The word “whosoever” points to the universal application of the law of Christ.

Furthermore the law of Christ is addressed to every creature of every nation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-15). Paul applied the same gospel to all men everywhere (Acts 17:30). This stands in contrast with the law of Moses which was given to the house of Israel (Deut. 5:1-5). The law of Christ cannot be broken into separate parts to be applied as one judges best to different groups of people. The gospel is one gospel – a unit to be applied to all men everywhere. If one is going to divide the gospel into parts to apply to different people in different situations, he should give us the criteria he uses to make these divisions in the gospel. How does he determine which verse applies to Christians and which applies to non-Christians? Does “thou shalt not kill” only apply to Christians? Does “honor thy father and thy mother” apply to both? By what criteria do we determine which parts of the gospel apply to non-Christians? The truth is that the gospel – all of the gospel – applies with equal force to all men!

2. 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. This discussion revolves around one’s understanding of this critical passage. Here is what the passage says:

And unto the married I command, yet not 1, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak 1, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

From the text, brother Bales draws the inference that Paul limits the application of Matthew 19:9 to two married Christians when he writes “unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord.” By the statement “but to the rest speak I, not the Lord” Paul refers to Christians married to non-Christians to which Matthew 19:9 does not apply. Then he adds that neither speaks anything regarding two unbelievers in a marriage.

The text is divided into these categories:

a. The unmarried (vv. 8-9). Paul advises the unmarried and widows not to marry in view of the present distress. Nevertheless, he does not forbid marriage. In the event that these people should decide to get married, Matthew 19:9 would apply to them.

b. The married (vv. 10-11). Brother Bales is correct in referring the teachings of Matthew 19:9 to the personal instruction of the Lord which Paul here applies. The law of the Lord was: (a) Let not the wife depart from the husband; (b) Let not the husband put away his wife; (c) If she departs (chorizo: to divorce), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.(4)Like Luke 16:18, Romans 7:3-4, and 1 Corinthians 7:39, this passage does not consider the “except for fornication” clause of Matthew 19:9.

c. The mixed marriages (vv. 12-15). The discussion of these verses is applied to Christians married to non-Christians. The law is the same for mixed marriages as for all other marriages.(5)(a) “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not . . . let not the husband put her away” (7:12; cf. 7:11) and (b) “the woman which hath a husband . . . let her not leave him” (7:13; cf. 7:10). This coincides with the teaching of Matthew 19:9.

However, the question which Paul is addressing is different from the one which the Lord addressed. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus was answering the question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (19:4) Paul is answering the question, “Is the Christian obligated to divorce his non-Christian mate?” This question is based on the Old Testament command that the Jew not marry a non-Jew and the obligation to put away the foreign mate in the event that such a marriage had occurred. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, this commandment was enforced by the people of God (Ezra 9:1-3; 10:3,11,44; Neh. 13:23-31). The Corinthian Christians apparently asked Paul if they were obligated to put away their non-Christian companions. Paul responded saying, (a) “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (7:14) and (b) the children of such a marriage which before had been unclean are now holy (7:14). Hence, the Christian should not put away his unbelieving companion.

The Lord had not directly answered this question while on earth. The Lord could not have answered the question because the Old Law specifically instructed what Jews who were married to non-Jews were to do in such marriages. The New Law changed this ordinance completely. Hence, Paul said, “To the rest speak I, not the Lord” (7:12).

Conclusion

There is nothing inconsistent in these verses with the command of Matthew 19:9. There is nothing in these verses which demands that Matthew be applicable only to the marriage of two Christians. Hence, neither the context of Matthew 19 nor I Corinthians 7:10-15 demands that Matthew 19:9 be applied only to two Christians. The teaching of Matthew 19:9 is not limited to two Christians; it applies to all of mankind.

Endnotes

1. By incestuous marriage, I refer to a marriage such as Herod was in when he married his brother Philip’s wife; John the Baptist said, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk. 6:18).

2. I refer to a marriage entered after a divorce for some cause other than fornication.

3. Brother Bales sought to answer this objection on pp. 191-193 of his book by saying, “An unbeliever is not free to marry a believer who is not free to marry. . . . ” This leads to the conclusion that the unbeliever must learn God’s law of marriage to conclude whether or not his prospective mate is free to marry. Suppose he goes ahead and marries anyway. Would he then be obligated to break the relationship should he decide to become a Christian? If so, then God’s law of marriage does apply to him. If not, then the one sexual relationship can be acceptable for one party but not acceptable for the other in the eyes of God.

4. This assumes that the divorce is not for fornication. In a divorce not for fornication, the parties are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. This constitutes inspired commentary on the application of Matthew 19:9 in a divorce not for fornication. The two are to remain unmarried. When this advice is given today, some protest stating that one is teaching celibacy, practicing penance, under the influence of Catholic dogma, etc. Nevertheless, Paul’s inspired commentary was “remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”

5. The exception which Bales would take to this is based on his understanding of “not under bondage.”

(The next article will discuss “not under bondage.”)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, pp. 386, 405-407
July 7, 1988

By Robert C. Welch

“I have traveled over the nation and somewhat over the world and have visited many churches, but I want to know whether or not you are ecumenical.”

That is a hard question to answer with just a yes or no. Too many things are involved and too many ideas exist as to what the word means. Perhaps you need to explain just what you mean.

“First, then, let me ask if you belong to a world wide organization or denomination.”

There are churches of Christ like this congregation scattered over the nation and over the world. But they are not part of denomination or organization. Each congregation is complete and autonomous. No function of worship, work or government, depends upon, or is connected with, another congregation. If you ask about my personal relationship, I belong to Christ, as do all others who have been born again; thus all of us are subjects of his kingdom, or members of his body, making up his ecclesid or church. In this last sense I am ecumenical or universal. But if you refer to the congregation or church wherein I worship and work, it is not ecumenical; that is, it is not a part of a denominational organization.

“Do you not think that all the churches and all those who believe in Christ are in the one church universal?”

That is the thinking of most of those who belong to Protestant denominations. But it is not a biblical concept. Roman Catholics have traditionally held that they are the universal or ecumenical church. In recent years they are not so strongly stressing that, but are yielding to the usual denominational idea. The fact is the Bible teaches that not all who say they believe in Christ are actually acceptable to him. In that great sermon on the mount he said: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). So the field of your ecumenism. is narrowed. Only those who are staying within the word (versus iniquity) in what they do make up the Lord’s people.

“But you did not deal with my question about all denominations making up the whole of the church. Is not each denomination a part of the world wide or ecumenical church?”

That is not the way it is presented in the Bible. Jesus gave a parable of the vine and its branches for the disciples, and our, benefit. In its application he says, “I am the vine” (John 15:5). Then he says to those disciples, “Ye are the branches” (v. 5). Lest they and people today think that because the plural is used this includes the denominations he goes on to specify what the branch is: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). The branches are not denominations. The branches are disciples. They are to abide in Christ; not to be in a denomination which in turn is in him. The Bible says nothing about denominations. They are the product of man’s doctrine, one of those works which the Lord condemns in Matthew 7:21-23, the passage we cited earlier.

“I have been reading where some churches of Christ and some Christian Churches have been getting together to study about having unity; are you not even that ecumenical?”

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that two or more churches are to have unity unless they are to become one congregation. As has already been said, one congregation has no organic or organizational connection with any other. This notion of ecumenicity is the denominational concept of a federation of churches, and has no basis in Bible teaching.

As a Christian, I may go about among other Christians and churches of Christ, having fellowship or partnership with them in worship and work. There is nothing said in the Bible, however, which gives me the right to make any arrangements for some connection between the congregation of which I am a member and some other congregation, because no such organic connection is provided.

– Reprinted from the Northern Kentucky Light

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 13, p. 389
July 7, 1988