Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you`! or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13)

The first Christians claimed no human merit and were forbidden to exalt my human leaders (Matt. 23:1-12). The “worthy name” of Christ was a sufficient banner and the only badge of identification (Jas. 2:7). Jesus Christ had shed His blood and sinners received the benefits of that redeeming . blood when they were baptized in His name. Christ is not divided – His people must not divide. Since the Bible teaches this so plainly, we may well wonder why there are so many denominations today. A world which accepts this situation might be shocked to learn what God thinks of it. The more we study what the Bible says, the more ,we will understand the dangers of denominationalism.

Why So Many Different Denominations?

Modern denominationalism ranges from the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) which emphasizes traditional creeds, to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) which is so broad as to include the likes of the now-defunct Peoples Temple with its communistic-style leader Jim Jones. Jesus Christ warned that during the first century false Christs and movements falsely claiming to be His own would arise (Matt. 7:13-23; Acts 15; 1, 2, 3 Jn.). Counterfeit Christs and churches multiplied after the first century but were overshadowed from about the 600s to the 1400s by the monolithic power of Roman Catholicism. Most dissenters from Catholicism during these Middle Ages were adopted into the Catholic fold, persecuted out of existence, or else died a natural death.

Beginning in the 1500s, several efforts were made to remove the most extreme corruptions from Catholicism, but it rejected from its fold the reformers instead. Reformation movements were inaugurated under Martin Luther (1483-1546), Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), and John Calvin (1509-64) – resulting in Lutheran, Reformed, and Calvinist crusades. Lutherans were based largely in Germany. Reformed and Calvinist groups, based in Switzerland, often converged and formed various phases of Presbyterianism. While Lutherans and Presbyterians spread their teachings in Europe and sought political power, more radical reformers who were generally labeled Anabaptists (because they re-baptized people who had been sprinkled as infants) attempted to reproduce the New Testament church in strict detail. The visions and experiments with that restitution concept varied and were sometimes bizarre, but seed was sown contributing to the rise of such bodies as Mennonites; Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and several varieties of Brethren. King Henry VIII (1491-1547) engineered a break with Roman Catholicism that resulted in only mild religious reform but in a separate Church of England or Anglican Church. Overall, the Protestant Reformation changed the religious landscape of the West from one dominated by Catholicism to one dotted with nationally established churches in competition with smaller parties.

The major churches of Europe were to be represented in America: (1) Roman Catholic; (2) Lutheran; (3) Reformed and Presbyterian (including mixed groups of Puritans, Separatists, and ., Congregationalists); (4) Anglican (Episcopal in America after the Revolution, and the Anglican offshoot Methodism); and (5) assorted radical reformation groups such as Baptists, Quakers, and others. Some of these major groups were further divided internally along lines of national origin, language, and culture (for instance, Lutheran, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches were splintered). The process of division has continued in America as well as in other countries. A summary on the origin of some major groups formed since 1500 and found in modern America is provided on the chart (Time, Place, and Founder).

Time	Place	Founder	Church
606	Rome	Boniface III (first “universal bishop”)	Roman Catholic
1520	Germany	Martin Luther	Lutheran
1534	England	Henry VIII	Episcopal
1536	Switzerland	John Calvin	Presbyterian
1550	England	Robert Browne	Congregational
1607	Holland	John Smythe	Baptist
1739	England	John Wesley	Methodist
1830	America	Joseph Smith	Latter Day Saints (Mormon)
1830	America	William Miller	Adventist
1866	America	Mary Baker Eddy	Christian Scientist
1872	America	Charles T. Russell	Jehovah’s Witnesses

The number of divisions is difficult to compute, depending on how many fringe elements, factions, cultists, and self-styled religions are included. The standard Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches lists 296. Arthur C. Piepkorn’s seven-volume Profiles in Belief (issued by Harper & Row) enumerates 735 North American groups, but J. Gordon Melton’s new Encyclopedia of American Religions (Consortium Books; $75) counts 1,187 denominations in the U.S. alone!

Prominent Characteristics of Modern Denominations

Historians and other analysts have made a few generalizations about the confusing medley of churches arising after 1500. Some appearance of unity with each other and even with Roman Catholicism centers around certain themes deemed the core of Christianity: “namely, the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus” (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity [New York: Harper & Bros., 1953], p. 1472). Many of the groups have continued to acknowledge a few post apostolic age formulations of faith such as the so-called Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. “However, a minority either rejected these, or, endeavoring to go back to the primitive church and its beliefs and practices as pictured in the New Testament, declined to be bound by creeds” (Ibid., p. 996). All the groups can be identified negatively by their rejection of the Pope and “the corruptions for which the Pope stood,” including the invocation of the saints, the cult of the Virgin Mary, indulgences, and the obligatory celibacy of the clergy (ibid.). Positively, a few distinct ideas widely held include: (1) appeal to the Bible rather than tradition, Pope, or the Roman Catholic Church as the authoritative revelation of God’s will; (2) salvation by faith – generally understood as “faith alone”,- rather than by the works stipulated by Roman Catholic leaders of the Middle Ages; and (3) the priesthood of all believers, rather than the dominant role of the priestly hierarchy in Roman Catholicism. These generalizations have been complicated since about 1875 by the development of Liberalism or Modernism which rejects all external authority – Bible, Church, Pope, creed, or any other. Latourette summarized,

Indeed, what we call Christianity changed from time to time. In most of its forms what came from Jesus and his apostles was regarded as primary and determinative, but other contributions entered, among them the cultural background of individuals and groups, the personal experiences of outstanding leaders, and inherited religions and philosophical conceptions (p. 1472).

A modern denomination is an organized form of religion that begins with some things taught or practiced by Jesus and His apostles, but changes those things by the application of human conceptions. The changes are made in the name of progress, service, peace, love, or some other positive sounding term. A denomination is not an individual Christian. It is an organization larger than the local church to which local churches belong, but usually does not claim to be the whole body of the saved. Denominational boundaries are determined by such factors as a human designation or name which is worn, a creed composed by men, some favorite doctrine emphasized to the exclusion of other truths, close adherence to one or more human leaders, and institutional loyalty.

Typical institutions generating denominational loyalty are the parent body which receives local churches, missionary boards, educational bodies such as colleges, publication houses, journals which attempt to speak for the denomination, summer camps, hospitals, old-age homes, apartment complexes, retirement centers, orphanages, and assorted humanitarian service organizations. The individual member of some denomination very often identifies such institutions with the church. He experiences a sense of pride and loyalty centered in them. Once the approved leader, parent body, or other important institution rules on a matter of faith or practice, the denomination as a whole tends to “line up” and to throttle any further open debate. Dissenters are seldom tried before ecclesiastical courts any more, but such people are easily labeled and their influence isolated by the bureaucratic machinery of the denomination.

The most widely held view among denominations of all sorts is: it is not essential to a person’s salvation for him to join any denomination at all so long as he in his own way respects, serves, or worships God. If he wishes to honor God or serve humanity by joining one of the myriad denominations, one church is about as good as another. That is, God accepts and approves them all.

With this background we may readily understand why there are so many denominations. The question is, does God really accept modern denominationalism?

The Shocking Truth

Most religious people today would be shocked to learn that, no, God does not accept modern denominationalism! We cannot wave aside the question by saying that religious people should not question one another’s faith and practice. Christ and His apostles spent much of their time challenging and teaching other religious people. We cannot wave aside the question by saying that we should “leave other people alone” in our preaching. In calling gospel preachers “Back to the Old Paths,” C.R. Nichol said,

Exactly what will one teach and “let others alone”? If one preaches “God is,” the atheist cries: there is no God, let us alone! If you preach that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Savior, the Jew raises his voice, saying: “Let us alone.” If you preach that faith in Christ is necessary to salvation in this life, the Universalist insists that you leave him alone. If you teach that one must live the faithful Christian life, the Baptists declare you should let them alone, for they declare it IS NOT necessary to salvation to live faithful! If you teach that believers only are subjects of baptism (immersion) the Methodists and Presbyterians insist you let them alone. What can one preach and “let other people alone?” (Abilene Christian College Bible Lectures 1952 [Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publ. House], pp. 97-98).

The question, “Does God accept modern denominationalism?” must be faced.

All who claim to serve the God of the Bible must go to the Bible to learn what He does and does not approve. What man’s eye, ear, and heart cannot of natural power know – i.e. the wisdom of God – He Himself has revealed in the words of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9-13). All who claim to respect the Bible as God’s Word are obligated to test every religious practice by the Bible. Knowing that false teachers abound, we must test every teaching by the apostolic word (1 Jn. 4:1-6). All who claim to believe in Jesus Christ must follow His word in all things and shun “the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:4-5). Jesus asks, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46).

In the excellent little book Can We Trust the Bible? (Earl D. Radmacher, ed; Wheaton, III.: Tyndale House, 1979), Edmund P. Clowny speaks precisely to the point:

The authority of Scriptures cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. The Word of the Lord bears witness to the Lord of the word (p. 39).

If we lose the Lord’s Word we lose the Lord (p. 41).

We cannot separate the Lord Jesus Christ from the Bible. If we turn away from the Scriptures, and suppose that we are turning to Christ, then what we turn to is not the Christ of the Scriptures but a myth of our own imagination (p. 53).

Other writers in the same little book underscore the close connection between God, His Son, and His revealed Word:

Just as Christ himself is Life and Light, the words he has spoken are Spirit and Life (Robert C. Preus, p. 58).

But just as Jesus Christ is God’s Son for the world, so Holy Scripture is God’s Word for the world . . . . Because the Bible is the Word of God, it is utterly trustworthy and utterly authoritative for our lives – not just relatively so, as being the best source we have, but absolutely so, as being God’s pure word of address which stands for all eternity (James I. Packer, p. 24).

The Bible is the focal point both of God’s authority and of all that man can know about what God approves and accepts.

What the Bible Says

Ephesians points to salvation in Christ, the one head of one body, as God’s plan from eternity (1:4, 22-23; 3:8-11). Through Old Testament promises and prophecies, God unfolded this plan for salvation in Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham, in His kingdom alone, or under this one shepherd in His fold alone (Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3; Isa. 2:1-5; 11:1-12; Dan. 2:44; Ezek. 34:23-26 & Jn. 10). In John 17, Jesus prayed for the unity of those disciples He personally selected and “for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one” – a unity to be based upon the word of truth (17:17-21). That prayer became a reality when, on the first Pentecost after Christ arose., Peter proclaimed the resurrected Savior. When thousands “were pricked in their heart” and cried, “What shall we do?” Peter told them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized . . . . And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2). All were added to the same thing, to the one church, to the Lord’s body.

This glorious gospel, this perfect salvation, this unity in Christ spread throughout the world with the same result. Upon hearing and believing the word, lost souls repented of sin, confessed Christ, and were baptized in water. Their sins were forgiven in the Savior’s blood and these precious souls became one in Him. They were known as “believers,” because they believed in Christ (Acts 5:14); “disciples,” because they were learners and followers of Christ (6:7); and “Christians,” because they belonged to Christ (11:26). These early Christians were without exception undenominational Christians. They belonged to Him without joining or taking the label of any other group, party, sect, religion, division, name, institution, or organization! We, too, can be Christians only, as they were.

God planned for Christians to keep this unity in Christ in love and peace by serving Him in a local church (with no hierarchy or additional structure other than local elders, deacons, evangelists, teachers, and other saints working together; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3), in a spiritual mission of spreading the gospel and in a simple worship (songs, prayers, Bible study, and “upon the first day of the week” the Lord’s Supper and fellowship in giving for the work of the church; Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Any tendency toward division through exalting human leaders was strictly forbidden (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Division through the formulation of human doctrines was also forbidden (Matt. 15:8-9; Gal. 5:19-21). “There is one body,” unity of organization; “and one Spirit,” unity of life; “even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” unity of desire and expectation; “one Lord, ” unity of authority; “one faith, ” unity of message; “one baptism, ” unity of practice; “one God and Father of all,” unity of worship (Eph. 4:4-6). Those who refuse to abide in the doctrine of Christ destroy their unity with God and His people, and therefore must be rejected (2 Jn. 9-11). God does not, nor should we, accept denominationalism because: (1) God is undenominational, (2) the Bible is an undenominational book, (3) Jesus Christ is an undenominational Savior, (4) the gospel is an undenominational message, and (5) the New Testament church is an undenominational body.

To resist the dangers of denominationalism, we must resist both without and within the church popular denominational concepts: God accepts any denomination, salvation by faith alone, unity in “gospel” with diversity in “doctrine,” various schemes of unconditional grace, creeds of men, fear of open debate, human organizations attached to the churches, and institutional loyalty. Let us maintain unswerving loyalty to Christ and uphold New Testament Christianity. This alone, God has revealed. This alone He accepts.

Questions

1. Memorize 1 Corinthians 1:10.
2. Name some leaders and results of religious Refor mation since about 1500.
3. Using the lesson material and other resources (encyclopedia, phone book, newspaper, etc.), list as many denominations as you can find. Can you read about any of them in the Bible?
4. Name any six characteristics which help us to define and recognize a denomination.
5. Why do we go to the Bible to answer the question, “Does God accept modern denominationalism?”
6. What can we learn about God’s attitude toward denominationalism by reading about God’s plan from eternity, Old Testament promises and prophecies, and the prayer of Jesus?
7. What conditions were lost sinners called upon to obey in order to be saved by Christ’s blood and added to Him when the apostles preached the gospel?
8. What are some things which God planned to help us keep the unity we have in Christ?
9. Should we “leave other people alone” in our preaching? Why or why not?
10. What are some popular denominational concepts which we must resist and which of them are being taught by some among us today?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 3, pp. 56-60
January 17, 1980

By S. Leonard Tyler

This question demands a characterization as well as a categorization of the church and denominationalism. Are the churches of Christ and denominations established and sustained by the same authority? If the church is a denomination, is there a real identifiable church of Christ? If the true church is composed of the saved in all denominations, then is the Lord’s church lost (at least her identifying qualities) in denominationalism? Would not this mean that the denominational qualities are stronger and more to be desired than the church’s? The church of the Lord or the Lord’s people, according to denominational reasoning, becomes .unidentifiable, in reality indistinguishable, and in fact visibly non-existing. If otherwise, how in a real recognizable .sense can it be identified?

It is impossible upon an empirical basis or mythical feeling to discover, to come to know, the qualifying characteristics of the Lord’s people. If one, by understanding the teaching of the Bible, can learn how to identify the Lord’s people, can he not recognize the church`’ For that is what the church is: the saved, called out people, of the Lord (Acts 2:37-42, 47; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:19-20; 1 Pet. 1:22-23; 2:9; Eph. 1:1, 13, 20-23; Rev. 2:1).

The Church of Christ Is Not A Denomination

I. The church is not a denomination because of what a denomination is. A denomination is “a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). Denominationalism is “a class, kind, or sort designated by a specific name; ecclesiastically, a body or sect holding peculiar distinctives” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 1960, pp. 163, 164). Therefore, a denomination is a division, a part of the whole-real thing, designated by its name, doctrine, organization and practice usually consisting of a number of local groups of the same class, kind or sort bound together by superficial or real ecclesiastical laws. Denominational teaching and/or practice encompass, circumscribe, or allow “more than” or “less than” the Bible or it would be the church. Compare a human creed with the Bible; it must contain “more than” or “less than” the Bible or else it would be the Bible. The denominational theology accepts and nurtures the sectarian spirit that affirms that a divided religious condition is justifiable wherein most of the saved are found. Notwithstanding, they sometimes completely bypass the church and all denominations and have some saved disassociated with any religious group. If the church of Christ is a denomination, it is non-essential to God’s eternal scheme of man’s salvation.

Where does the Bible fit denominationalism or denominationalism fit the Bible? It presents the religious world as an arena for contentions, a maze of divisions and contemptuous wranglings, a mad house of doctrines and emotional justifying and condemning. How can any one with Bible authority, approve or commend such a worldly, dissentious and humanized anarchy as representing the chosen, sanctified, saved or “called out” people of the Lord? God is not the God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). He is the God of peace and salvation to them that obey Him.

What Is The Church Of Christ?

II. The church is not a denomination because of what it is. The church of Christ is defined as follows: “The” is a definite article to specify. “Church” is from the Greek word ekklesia which means “called out or from” and is translated “assembly, congregation, company, church.” “Of Christ” is a prepositional phrase of possession and means, Christ owns or possesses. The church of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures, circumscribes and is the people belonging to the Lord by right of their faith in and obedience to Christ to the saving of the soul (Acts 2:37-38, 41-42, 47; Col. 1:18). They are called by the gospel (1 Cor. 1:9; 15:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:14) into fellowship with God, Christ, Holy Spirit and all the saints (1 John 1:3-10; Rom. 1:16). Christ is the absolute head of His church with all authority in every sense in which the church of the Lord is used with approval in the New Testament (Eph. 1:1, 20-23; James 4:12). If and when sin enters the church, it must be stopped and repented of, for salvation of the sinner. If sin effects or corrupts the whole body, the candlestick will be removed and she loses her identity with the Lord (1 John 2:1-6; Rev. 2:4-5, 20-23; 3:19). Therefore, the Church of Christ is the saved anywhere and everywhere in\the whole wide world, in the individual relationship with God (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:18; Gal. 3:26-27). In the local sense, it is the saved in any given locality meeting together worshiping and working within the divine arrangement prescribed in the New Testament (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). These belong to Christ through their total commitment to Him in respect to His voice (Heb. 12:22-29). The local congregations must be one in name, doctrine, organization, worship, work or promises for the same authority regulates them all (Matt. 24:20; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; Col. 2:5-9).

The Church Is God’s Creation

III. The church is not a denomination because it is God’s own creation. Paul, setting forth the mystery hidden for ages in God, said, “Who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10-11, NASB). He continued, “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:13-14). And concludes, “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end” (Eph. 3:21). God designed the church. Christ established and sustains the church which is to stand through all the ages to give God glory.

The Church Is Essentially One

IV. The church cannot be a denomination because~the church of the New Testament is from design to accomplishment essentially one. The Bible contains all the divine information and instructions there are relative to the Lord’s church. As J.W. Shepherd wrote, “God has revealed to us the things that pertain to his church – the faith, the practice, and the promises – and with these it is my purpose to deal. Here, all is faith and assurance; beyond this, all is opinion and fruitless speculation” (Church, Falling Away And Restoration, p. 6, 1948).

This article is based upon the understanding that the New Testament is written to reconcile and unite in one body, the church, man to God and to one another (Eph. 2:13-22; 2 Cor. 5:18-21). These “called out, united” people, under the teaching of Christ, are designed to serve God’s purpose upon the earth and the faithful will enjoy His eternal blessings (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 15:58).

I doubt, if one can express this fundamental truth more decisively or understandingly than did Thomas Campbell in his first proposition of his Declaration And Address. He said, “That the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct; and of none else, as none else can be truly and properly called Christians” (Memoirs Of Alexander Campbell, by Robert Richardson, Vols. I-II, page 256). This quotation I believe, expresses very forcefully and emphatically a truth firmly established in the Divine Volume.

Christ Built His Church

V. The church of Christ cannot be a denomination because Christ said, “1 will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). He sent His apostles to disciple all nations and said, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Those who are taught, have believed, are baptized and observe His teaching are to be His people (Mk. 16:15-16; John 6:45; Matt. 17:5).

In the fulness of time, this came to pass. It was on the first Pentecost after Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit, sent from heaven, filled the apostles and they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. The multitude came together and were confounded because they heard each one of the apostles’ speak in his own language (their dialect) the wonderful works of God. The hearing of the gospel pricked their hearts and they asked, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter responded, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” They that received his word were baptized and continued in the apostles doctrine. “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2). This was the beginning, but before the close of the first century, the gospel was heard throughout the whole world (Col. 1:23) and the church of Christ was established in such places as Antioch (Acts 11:26), Corinth (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:2), Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5; Rev. 2:1), Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1), the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:1, 6-12; 3:26-27) and on and on. The preaching of the gospel, believed and obeyed, made Christians and Christians made the church.

The Word Is The Seed

VI. The church of Christ is not a denomination because the word of God is the seed of the kingdom and produces only Christians and Christians make up the church of the Lord (Luke 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:23; Acts 11:26). This is what Christ commissioned His apostles to preach, the gospel (Mk. 16:15-16). They preached it (1 Cor. 2:1-13; 15:1-3; Acts 8:4) and charged others to preach it (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

They were warned not to preach any other doctrine (Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Tim. 1:3-5; Rom. 16:17) and of false teachers who would destroy the church and lead them into divisions (I Tim. 4:1-3). Paul pointed the elders at Ephesus “to God and the word of His grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). The seed of the kingdom today is the word of God and will produce the same product as always. If and when the word is preached today, it will produce the same product – nothing more and nothing less than it did when preached in the first century. It produced Christians, disciples of Christ, or children of God who made up the church as revealed in the New Testament and that is exactly what it will produce today.

Terms Used Show Oneness

VII. Christ expressions during His personal ministry leads to a oneness: (a) “The kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 13:44-45) which must be first (Matt. 6:33, 13:38); (b) The vineyard or householder (Matt. 20:1-16; 21:28-31); (c) The sheepfold, even the “other sheep” of whom Jesus said, “They shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn. 10:1-16); (d) The vine and branches; Jesus is the vine, Christians are the branches (“ye”) who must abide in the vine and bear fruit (Jn. 15:1-8). Each of these expressions teaches a oneness – not a denominational concept.

The expressions of the apostles teach oneness, unity and peace: (a) The church (Acts 8:1; Eph. 3:10); (b) The body (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24; 1 Cor. 12:18, 27); (c) The bride of Christ (Rom. 7:1-4; 2 Cor. 11:1-3; Eph. 5:21-32); (d) The house of God (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:17; Heb. 3:6); (e) The church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), of the Lord (Acts 20:28 ARV), of first born (ones) whose names are written in heaven (Heb. 12:23); (f) The kingdom (Col. 1:13; Heb. 12:28); and “the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16). All these terms circumscribe the Lord’s people identifiable by their absolute dependence upon Christ for doctrine, faith, practice and promises. No denominational division can be found or justified by any of these terms. Jesus said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth” (Luke 11:17).

We Stand Or Fall Upon The Word Of God

VIII. The church of Christ is not a denomination because she most sincerely believes and faithfully submits to the teaching of Christ as revealed in the New Testament (Rom. 6:17-23; 1 Cor. 12:13-27; 15:1-3, 58; 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:15). The word of God reveals all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). It is the standard or means, by which men are led to be reconciled to God in Christ (Eph. 2:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-19). This is essential because: (1) Man is unable to direct his own steps (Jer. 10:23); (2) It may seem right to man but result in death in the end (Prov. 14:12); (3) Man’s thoughts and ways are not God’s. We must obey God rather than man (Isa. 55:8-9; Acts 5:29; 2.Cor. 10:3-6, 12-18).

We need to call attention to some essentials at this point. (1) Men are made believers by the gospel (Rom. 1:16-18; Mk. 16:15-16). (2) Christians live by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). (3) Faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17). (4) The word of God is effective when believed and obeyed (Heb. 4:2; James 2:17, 20, 24; 2 Thess. 1:7-10). (5) Christians must keep the faith firmly with confidence unto the end (Heb. 3:6, 12-15; 10:39; Gal. 5:6). (6) The word of the Lord is the means by which one is led to Christ by faith for salvation and by which he is sustained in life (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:1-4; 5:12-14; 10:25-27) both individually and collectively.

Paul demonstrated these truths when he counted “all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ . . . that I might win Christ” (Phil. 3:8). He brought his body into subjection, lest after preaching the gospel he might be lost (I Cor. 9:27). He gave the outcome of such a life when he said, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” and with assurance declared the crown of life to be hirs 0 Tim. 4:7-8).

The only way Christians can speak the same thing and have no divisions among them, “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”; “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together; “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;” and enjoy the unity for which Jesus prayed is to abide in the teaching of the Lord as revealed in the Bible (I Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:3-6; John 17:20-22). This will effect “the faith once delivered,” the practice set forth, the characterizing features by which recognition can be given, the hope and aspirations of a Christian resulting in complete acceptance at the eternal judgment. Therefore, all Christians should pray, and earnestly pray, “Father, help us to humbly and sincerely pray, as Jesus, `Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt, (Matt. 26:39). Help us to honestly seek to know Thy will and to apply it to our lives.” This will bring forgiveness, peace at heart, unity among believers, accomplishment in God’s service and eternal salvation.

Questions

1. What is a denomination?
2. What is the “church”?
3. Can the two be distinguished? If so, how?
4. How is the word “church” used in the Bible? Is it used in any sense which might fit modern denominationalism?
5. Was the church established through the devisings of men? If not, how did it come into existence?
6. What does the following sentence written by Alexander Campbell mean: “The church of Christ is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one”?
7. How was the Lord’s church established? How is it established in a community today?
8. In what sense is the word of God the “seed of the kingdom”?
9. What is the one distinguishing characteristic of the church as pertains to its basis for determining right and wrong?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 3, pp. 53-56
January 17, 1980

By Daniel H. King

To successfully deal with the question which is the theme of our study, two things are necessary. First, we must appreciate the fact that the church or kingdom of Christ and God saw the light of earthly day in the first century of our own era. This is manifestly evident if one recognizes the thrust of the Master’s declaration in Mt. 16:18, “I will build my church” and hosts of statements flowing from the pens of His apostles. For example, that of Paul, “To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places, might be made known through the church. that manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10). Also, it should be noted that Scripture sets forth solemn warnings of the impending apostasy of that body. It was thus already revealed to and known by the first generation of the Savior’s flock that “the faith once delivered to the saints” would not be held fast by many (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Jn. 4:1ff; 2 Jn. 7ff; Jude 3-5; etc.). A “falling away from the faith” was to occur, in fact, was already happening at the close of the apostolic age. The digression itself was to be from “the faith,” the body of teaching, instruction and admonition delivered by Jesus through His ambassadors, the apostles (Jude 3; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; etc.). History declares that the results of this apostasy were devastating, though deceptively so. The saddest and most destructive element of the defection was the fact that so few recognized it for what it was or is.

Therefore, most professed Christians have been (and still are) satisfied to unquestioningly accept and embrace whatever retrogression has transpired since the apostles, the earliest days, and that first faith which bound primitive disciples together. Moreover, there eras and is a startling apathy about recapturing what once was: And yet the reason is obvious; unless one comes to realize that something has gone awry, then he will be content to allow things to continue as they have for centuries. Worse than this, the backward movement only gathers momentum, impetus, and the respectability of age as time marches on.

The Attempts of the Reformers

The sixteenth century witnessed heroic efforts on the part of great and good men .like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and others toward revitalizing and reforming that which the papists had been .perverting and corrupting for nearly a millennium. One of the repercussions of their courageous work was the shattering of papal power over world governments: For such a boon to the common weal, we will all forever `remain in their debt. But more important than this was the unique plea which they contributed (or should we call it rather a statement of fact since it is entirely biblical and their special gift was simply its recognition and popularization). Sold scriptura, “Scripture alone” was their slogan. They tossed it into the face of the irate papists, stole the hearts of the common people with it, and made it their, banner. For all that, as their own movements took separate courses in such areas as church government, polity, and doctrine, they fell prey to the same foul beast that had .conceived and given birth to popery. Creeds took the place of Roman sovereignty for many of those salvaged ‘from the sinking hulk that was Romanism.

Now “the faith” had two enemies: Roman Catholicism tire the one hand and Protestant creeds on the other. Both represented something quite other than that which the earliest Christians held as their authority. Sold scriptura had been unseated by the various confessions, creeds and church disciplines. The Bible had been just as thoroughly supplanted by the creeds as it was by the popes. The warring sects and parties were the fruit of another “falling away.” The children of this movement had left the original ground of their very existence – which would undoubtedly have eventuated a full restoration of the New Testament order. If only its slogan had meant more to its founders and converts than a mere watchword or rallying-point! But, alas, it did not.

“Restoration of New Testament Christianity”

James O’Kelley of the Methodist church, Abner Jones and Elias Smith of the Freewill Baptist communion, Barton W. Stone a Presbyterian, and Thomas and Alexander Campbell of the Seceder Presbyterian church – these, with a multitude of others, decried conditions current in denominationalism and broke with it in both spirit and allegiance. The movement which has been the result of their toil and travail has come to be known by religious historians as the “Restoration Movement”, since its intention was the restoration of apostolic authority and the order which it brought in the early church.

Regardless of this noble ideal, since its very beginning it has had its traitors as well as .detractors and opponents. Sometimes they have posed as friends of the church and “true heirs” of the pioneers. Almost always, though, they have argued the merits of the existence of such an association or union of Christians on the ground that it is unnecessary, even bigoted and prideful. One advocate of this sort of thinking has recently voiced his objection thus:

Segments of God’s community need to be reformed and revived but not restored. We restore something, that is missing. If God’s new Israel was ever lost we had a head without a body, a king without a kingdom, and a shepherd without a sheep. Churches or religious parties can be started, lost, and restored. But our king has never been without a kingdom.

In this case, a sophistic detractor avoids the real issue raised on historical and scriptural grounds and introduces a false charge against those of us who urge “restoration of apostolic Christianity.” I do not recall preaching, nor do I remember anyone else ever saying; that God’s new Israel was ever lost or that. the body of Christ ceased to exist. Should it be obliterated from the face of the earth even now (a thing which may well be impossible), still would that “heavenly Jerusalem” persist, yea “stand forever” (Dan. 2:44; Heb. 12:22, 28). The promise that it would “stand forever” includes its earthly sojourn but embraces something more: its existence beyond time and eternity. This same point would assuredly cover any period when saints were either few or absent from this world’s multitudes. Additionally, the presence of saving grace, of the blood of Christ, of the ekklesia, and the rest in Scripture absolutizes that which may seem to be abstract in any generation or among any race of men. After all, the same knife cuts both ways, so to speak. How would our accuser explain the fact of any nation or race of men or geographical area where the message seems now or in the past to have had difficulty in taking root, much less flourishing? India, China, and Africa are excellent cases in point. Recall that the passage says also, “it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms” (Dan. 2:44). As a matter of simple observation it is clear that these two are parallel in every respect. If there can be a nation at a given period which does not accept the truth of the gospel, then there may certainly be an entire generation of men that may so decide. Whether that has ever happened I do not pretend to know, nor are any of us in a position to tell. I am perfectly willing for God to know that which it is impossible for me to ascertain. I would counsel all others to do the same (Deut. 29:29).

Another thought strikes me at this juncture with regard to our critic’s censorious blast: our use of the word “restoration” is in complete harmony with both the dictionary definition and common sense. “To restore” is “to bring back to or put back into a former or original state” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1936). That is precisely what we intend on all fronts, just a few of which we shall mention here:

1. Restoration of the baptism which the early church practiced: immersion “for” or “in order to” remission of sins (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12).

2. Restoration of the government of the church: congregations were autonomous, severally overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops, pastors) from their own number, qualified for the task (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-5; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:lff; Tit. 1:5ff).

3. Restoration of apostolic authority over the individual churches, and the Lordship and headship of Christ over the entire body through the acceptance of Holy Scripture as the full and complete revelation and the sole Divine Law for all Christians (2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:14-17; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19).

4. Restoration of the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” by the forsaking of denominational titles and names which demonstrably serve only to separate and divide would-be disciples of Christ (1 Cor. 1:l0ff; 3:4). Let men who follow Jesus be called Christians (Acts 11:26), and aggregates thereof simply “churches of Christ”, or “of God” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 1:2).

5. In short, restoration of the church of Bible times, of fellowship with God. Divinity has always been in the “restoration” business, since Eden anyway. All that God has done in human history has been toward the restoration of alienated humanity to Himself. The church represented in the very first place a “restoration” of this broken relationship. Albeit men are evermore moving away from Him in a plentitude of ways – moral, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, etc. God says to them, “Return, O backsliding children,” and to those who would restore that attitude of harmony, “restore such a one.”

The. aforementioned writer has obviously rejected the historic vision and aim to cultivate unity without regard for Divine authority and with precious little concern for Divine truth.

“Restore What?”

Another contemporary of ours has expressed himself in this area under the caption, “Restore What?” He objected to the thinking of many with: “Which one of the `New Testament churches’ is it proposed to restore? They were all different in some important respects.” To which question he also replies, “None of them in particular, and not all of them in the aggregate.” He further argues that the ideal for the church is in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, rather than having been perfectly demonstrated by a first-century congregation:

There is a standard against which the church is to measure itself. That standard is the apostolic description of the church as the body of Christ, agent of reconciliation and redemption in the world. To speak of `restoration’ is not to suggest that once there existed a perfect group of congregations after which all subsequent Christian communities were to be modeled. It is rather to point to the true character of the church disclosed in apostolic testimony.

That disclosure is permanently relevant and authoritative. Any assembly of people calling itself `church’ is authenticated or accused in the light of its resemblance to, or deviation from; the scriptural norm (Fred P. Thompson, in Envoy for November, 1978; quoted in Fred O. Blakely, “Pertinent Thoughts on Restoration,” Banner of Truth, August, 1979, p. 2).

Much of what the author of the above says is on target. Howbeit, there is present in these thoughts a discernable effort to loosen the authority of apostolic examples contained in Scripture. The standard is significantly more than what the author alludes to as “the apostolic description of the church as the body of Christ, agent of reconciliation and redemption in the world.” This is a part, but only that. It is one aspect of a larger whole and may be simply defined as one man’s condensation of a multifaceted truth. Indeed, the early church is exemplary for- us in the. role of “agent of reconciliation and redemption,” but from whence do we learn that this is the sole measure for the church today? Will a mere claim to such suffice, or must it be proven in other ways? Did the apostles not demand and receive absolute adherence to their word in the first century? Were the churches not completely submissive to their rule (a rule not their own but that of the Spirit for the Head)? And if that rule is to extend to our own day, then how shall it be determined what they would have the church to do today aside from the examples of that which they commanded the early congregations to do and the instructions which they delivered to them in their letters or the oral edicts provided in Acts? It is manifestly a question of apostolic authority! Such human sidestepping of the plain sense of Scripture serves only to dethrone the apostles! Remember that Jesus told them that “in the regeneration” (a period which none would say we have left behind), “when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28).

It is altogether beside the point to claim that one congregation exhibited the ideal for which we should strive. We arrive at the model by a simple “composite,” in this case allowing the full New Testament to speak in the matter. That is exactly what we do in all cases (or at least what we should do). All that the Bible says about any subject represents the Word of God on that point. If that particular is found absent or perverted, then it needs to be “restored” to its original purity in order for that man or group of men to be “restored” to God’s grace and favor.

Too, it will not do to allege as Thompson does that “they were all different in some important points.” Naturally the churches of the New Testament showed individuality and even diversity in areas important and unimportant. However that may be, the unimportant aspects are precisely this and require neither definition nor discussion, while the significant ones were subject to apostolic rebuke and refutation. For example, the Corinthian disciples diverged from the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper at the same time in the assembly apart from ordinary meals or feasts. With a stern hand Paul put them back on the right track in their observance in 1 Cor. 11. A church which similarly digresses from the apostolic pattern today would be similarly rebuked by the same divine guidance found in the precise document in the exact location. Corinthian or any other kind of deviation from the apostolic norm offers no refuge and provided no comfort for those who question the existence of such a New Testament ideal or pattern for the church. The same would apply to all other instances in the same category. “For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4:17).

Our reason for introducing this point and for arguing it with such vigor is quite plain: rediscovery of the apostolic pattern, renewed appreciation for its place in the individual and common life of Christians, and reapplication of the pattern to both is the very heart and soul of genuine “restoration.” Nothing is really restored if we fail to restore this primitive norm in outward form, inward piety and conviction, and acceptance of the actual teaching of Jesus and His apostles.

Conclusion

To the question “Can the church of the first century be restored’!” we are compelled to voice a resounding “Yes!” Whenever and wherever the pure seed of the kingdom, the Word of God (Mk. 4:14) is planted, the crop may be expected to be unswervingly synonymous with that of the first century: Christians. As they individually and collectively follow the instructions of Jesus and His apostles and prophets in working and serving God in both spheres, it may truly be said that the church of the first century has been restored then and there. Men have been restored to their former fellowship with God, and the Lord has been glorified. May God bountifully use us all to that end!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 3, pp. 50-53
January 17, 1980

By Johnny Stringer

In referring to God’s people, the New Testament uses several different terms which describe us from different standpoints. We are called saints (1 Cor. 1:2, 16:1) because we have been sanctified – that is, set apart unto the service of God. We are called disciples (Acts 11:26), for we have dedicated ourselves to learning and following the teaching of Christ. Inasmuch as our lives are devoted to God’s service, we are called servants (Rev. 1:1). In reference to the relationship that exists between us and God, we are called children (1 John 3:1); being children of the same spiritual Father, we are referred to as brethren (Gal. 6:1). Having submitted ourselves to King Jesus, we are described as citizens in His kingdom (Eph. 2:19). When God’s people are pictured as constituting a body comparable to the physical body, the New Testament refers to us as members of the body (Rom. 12:5). Since we are engaged in warfare against the forces of evil, we are appropriately described as soldiers (Philemon 2). The name which most specifically identifies us as whose religion we practice, as to the Leader to Whom we are devoted, is the name “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 26:28-29; 1 Pet. 4:16).

Some have questioned the divine origin of the name “Christian,” arguing that it was an epithet given to the followers of Christ in derision by their enemies. The scriptural evidence, however, leads to the conclusion that it was God who gave the disciples the name “Christian.” In presenting the earliest history of Christianity, Luke says that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The word which is translated “called” is chrematizo. It is found eight other times in the New Testament (Matt. 2:12, 22; Lk. 2:26; Acts 10:22; Rom. 7:3; Heb. 8:5, 11:7, 12:25) and is translated by the terms “warned,” “called,” “revealed,” and “spake.” The significant point is that, in each of these eight verses, the word has reference to a divine utterance. It is clear, therefore, that if chrematizo is used in Acts 11:26 in the same way that it is used every other time it occurs in the New Testament, God is the one who called them Christians. There were inspired men there (Paul and Barnabas) through whom God could have spoken in revealing this name for His people; the fact that they were called Christians is mentioned in connection with Paul and Barnabas’ work with them. Moreover, the fact of their being called Christians is simply stated as a significant point in the history of God’s people, without even the slightest hint that the name was without divine approval or not of divine origin. It should also be noted that when Agrippa spoke of being converted, he referred to it as becoming a Christian; Paul’s reply indicates that he found nothing objectionable to that terminology (Acts 26:28-29). Finally, Peter endorses the name “Christian,” and shows that it is a name we can wear without shame (1 Pet. 4:16).

Denominational Names

It is scriptural and right to call ourselves by the various designations found in the New Testament. However, there are many who claim to be followers of Christ, H ho call themselves by names not found in God’s word. The reason for this is simple. Those who claim to be Christians have divided into hundreds of factions. Denominational bodies have formed, and each denominational group has given itself a name to distinguish itself from every other denominational group. A member of such a denomination cannot simply refer to himself as a Christian, for people in other denominations claim to be Christians, too. Hence, in order for people to know his religion, he must identify himself by his denominational name (such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran).

It is contrary to God’s will for Christians to divide into factions and to distinguish themselves from other Christians by sectarian names. Paul rebuked the saints in Corinth when they began to form factions and call themselves after certain human leaders so as to distinguish one faction from another. In I Cor. 1:10, he urged them to have no divisions among them. In verses 11-12, he described the situation which reportedly existed in the church at Corinth. Various factions were calling themselves after various prominent men. In response, Paul made the point that Christ is not divided, hence could not be the head over many different factions. He then sought to impress the Corinthians with the fact that it was Christ who had been crucified for them, and that it was in Christ’s name that they had been baptized; hence, their loyalty should not have been to anyone other than Christ (v. 13). How sinfully inappropriate it was, therefore, to call themselves after men, thereby exalting men rather than Christ. If all would be utterly loyal to Christ, then all would be united in following Him, the factions would cease to exist, and all would simply be Christians.

Sectarians today who wear names to identify themselves as to which faction they belong, do so in violation of the principle established in 1 Cor. 1. Some identify themselves as “Baptists” because they believe in immersion; some identify themselves as “Presbyterians” because of their form of church government; some identify themselves as “Methodists” because of the methodical practices of the group from which their denomination arose; some call themselves “Lutherans” after the human leader whose work resulted in the development of their denomination. These are just a few of the many sectarian names worn by people who claim to be followers of Christ. The outrageous thing about the whole situation is that many actually defend such factionalism as good! Those who defend this pitiable condition among professed believers must completely ignore our Lord’s prayer for unity among believers (John 17:20-21), Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians for the division among them (1 Cor. 1:10-17), and Paul’s plea to the Ephesians that they maintain unity (Eph. 4:3-6).

Just Christians

We do not read in the New Testament about any of today’s denominations and denominational names. We do not read of one group of congregations being organized into one denomination and another group of congregations being organized into another denomination, so that an individual had to call himself by a denominational name in order to identify his religious affiliation. The Christians we read about in the New Testament formed local churches (congregations) as saints in a particular locality would band together to worship and work as a unity; no local church was affiliated with any denominational system. Being united through their common loyalty to Christ and His teachings, all of God’s people were simply Christians. One man was not one brand of Christian, while another man was another brand of Christian.

Is it possible to be just a plain, simple Christian today, without being a part of a sect and therefore having to wear the name of that sect? It most assuredly is. In fact, not only is it possible, but it is the only scriptural thing to do. There are people today who have avoided all denominational structures and are simply Christians. They have become Christians by complying with the terms of Acts 2:38. Such people in various localities have banded together to form local churches, just as the Christians did in the New Testament. These local churches are independent, not affiliated with any denominational group – just like those we read about in the New Testament. The church of which I am a part is such a group. We are just a group of plain, simple Christians, such as the one at Ephesus, the one at Philippi, and the others we read about in God’s word. We have no ties with any denominational structure; hence, we wear no denominational name to identify us as such.

Hence, if I am in a conversation in which people begin giving their religious affiliations, and one person says he is a Presbyterian, another says he is a Methodist, and another says he is a Catholic, I will simply say that I am a Christian. Some might think I should say that I am a “Church of Christer.” It is true that the local congregation of which I am a part refers to itself in its advertising as a church of Christ. However, this is not because it is a member-congregation in a denomination by that name. We are not affiliated with a denominational organization by that name. We use that name simply because it describes what we are – that is, a local church belonging to Christ. The local churches in the New Testament were described in that way (Rom. 16:16). Therefore, in the conversation in which people are identifying themselves by sectarian names, it would be wrong for me to chime in with the announcement, “I’m Church of Christ,” thereby implying that I am a part of a denomination by that name and that the name “Church of Christ” is nothing more than a denominational name to distinguish my sect from other sects. Rather than thus using the phrase “church of Christ” in a denominational sense, I will simply say that I am a Christian. Their response may be to affirm that they are Christians, too, but they want to know which particular denomination I am in. To that, I will reply that I am in none of them, that I am a part of a local church which is independent, not connected with any denominational body, that I am simply a Christian, and that I have maintained my undenominational status because such was the practice of local churches in the New Testament. This will open the door for further teaching.

Sometimes we have forms to fill out in which we are asked to give our religious preference. We are asked to check whether we are Catholic, Jew, or Protestant. In case we are neither of these, we can put a check by the word “other,” and then state what we are. I would not check Catholic, for I surely am not that; I would not check Jew, for I am not a Jew; and I would not check Protestant, for I am not a part of any religious body that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. I would check other, and then write simply, “Christian.” That is all I am. That fully identifies me as to Whose teachings I believe and practice. I am a member of no sect, hence I have no sectarian name by which I must identify myself. How wonderful it would be if all who profess to follow Jesus would truly follow Him and Him alone, giving up all denominational affiliations and denominational names, practicing pure, simple, undenominational Christianity, so as to be nothing but Christians.

We leave you with the words of two of history’s best known theologians. Martin Luther pled,

I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves “Lutherans,” but “Christians.” Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for anyone. St. Paul would not permit that any should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How, then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of Christ? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions; away with them all; let us call ourselves only “Christians” after him from whom our doctrine comes.

Charles Spurgeon, one of the most famous and highly esteemed Baptist preachers ever to live, said,

I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the “Baptist” name will soon perish, but let Christ’s name last forever.

Questions

1. Name several terms used in referring to God’s people and tell what ideas each implies.
2. How many times and where is the word “Christian” used in the Bibles?
3. Why do some who claim to be followers of Christ call themselves by names not found in God’s word?
4. Where is it recorded that Paul rebuked saints for calling themselves after certain human leaders?
5. What practices are identified by the use of the name Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist?
6. How can one become just a simple Christian today?
7. What were the thoughts of Martin Luther and Charles Spurgeon concerning the wearing of denominational names?
8. How can Christians today use the phrase “church of Christ” in a denominational sense?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 43-44
January 10, 1980