Truth Magazine

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

By Earl E. Robertson

The fact of the existence of the church of Christ seems to be sufficient to satisfy some to the point of expressing no interest in any specifics concerning its establishment. While on the other hand others place stress on its origin but have little interest in its present condition. We are, however, interested in the prophecies, promises and facts given in the word of God concerning the Lord’s church. Many problems are extant in the churches because an appreciable interest and understanding of the origin of the church does not exist. Holding a position that the church was established before the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2) or a premillennial view that the kingdom is yet to be founded will inevitably cause problems within churches. The evil ramifications necessary to these false positions have in the past and will in the future divide churches and, in some instances, destroy them completely. This study is then vital and essential to the life and well-being of any congregation.

Prophecy

Though some are adamant that it makes no difference when and where the church was founded, the word of God stresses both the time and place. Isaiah wrote, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (2:2-4). With added dimension Daniel foretells the establishment of God’s kingdom, the church, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the interpretation of it (Dan. 2). Isaiah and Daniel prophesied near the same time (Isaiah during the Assryian empire and Daniel during the Babylonian – about one hundred years apart) and of the same people. While Isaiah called it the “house” of the Lord Daniel called it the “kingdom”. They were not speaking of two different things, but one and the same thing – the people of God while Jesus is on the throne ruling.

These two prophets prophesied some six-hundred to seven-hundred years before Christ. Isaiah’s prophecy covers some four phases of the church: time, extent, place and nature. The time would be in the “last days”; the extent embraces “all nations”; the place would be “Jerusalem”, and “peace” would be the nature of the kingdom. The church was a part of the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:10, 11). It was not an afterthought of God to bridge the gap when the Jews rejected the Messiah, thus preventing Him in the establishing of the kingdom, as falsely claimed by the modern millennialists. God eternally planned the church and caused the prophets to tell beforehand of its beginning. Isaiah specifies the time when this would happen. The last days remove forever the possibility of the church beginning prior to Pentecost of Acts 2. It could not, therefore, have been established during the Mosaic dispensation. This was, the time Jesus lived. John the Baptist also lived at this time. However, John did not found a church and neither did Jesus during his personal ministry. Baptist preachers used to contend that Jesus founded His church during the days of John the Baptist’s ministry, but they could never prove such by the scriptures.

The prophecy of Isaiah 2 demands that the church of Christ be founded in Jerusalem. No other city in all the world can serve as a substitute. The man of God specified Jerusalem. Acts 2 gives a perfect and total fulfillment of this prophecy.

The prophet shows that the provisions of the reign of the Messiah would be extended to man universally. The “house of the Lord” would be made up of all nations. During Moses’ time it was to the Jew; but the last days would bring God’s blessing to all men through Christ in the church. The commission Jesus gave to the apostles was world-wide in scope.

The church would be the sphere and relationship in which peace would obtain. Peace with God is established through Christ in His body (Eph. 2:16). It is in this house that all peoples have peace with each other; it is in the church we find the barriers removed.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had a dream but in the passing of the night shadows forgot it. He was sore troubled and called the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans to reveal unto him this dream. These men were unable to tell Nebuchadnezzar anything about the dream and openly declared unto him, “there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh” (Dan. 2:11). Daniel the prophet of God was called and he both told the dream and the interpretation of it. The dream was one of an image whose brightness was excellent, but whose form was terrible. The image consisted of a head of gold, breast of silver, belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron with feet of part iron and part clay (Dan. 2:31-33). Nebuchadnezzar further saw in his dream a stone cut out without hands that smote this image, and became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Daniel revealed this entire dream unto the king and then gave him the interpretation of it. He tells the king that the head of gold represents himself and the Babylonian empire; that the second kingdom, the Medo-Persian empire, is represented by the breast of silver; the third kingdom represented by the belly and thighs of brass was the Grecian empire with Alexander the Great; and the fourth kingdom, the Roman empire, was represented by the legs of iron. This fourth and last kingdom consisted of the Caesars and Herods, and it would be during the fourth kingdom that the God of heaven would set up the kingdom (Dan. 2:44). It was during the reign of the Herods and Caesars that John the Baptist began his work (Matt. 3:1) saying, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus was born in these days (Matt. 2:1 ff; Lk. 2:1 ff). Jesus began His own ministry in those days preaching “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15).

Isaiah said the house of the Lord would be established in the last days and Daniel says the kingdom of God would be set up in the days of the Herods and Caesars. Daniel shows that God can change the times and seasons, remove kings and set up kings (2:21). God’s word being true the world could expect God’s kingdom to be established while the Herods and Caesars were ruling. This not only rules out the possibility of the church being established prior to Pentecost of Acts 2, but it demands that the church be set up before the so-called millennial period.

Promise

Jesus promised to build His church and give the keys of the kingdom to the apostles (Matt. 16:18, 19). When the Lord was confessed by the apostle Peter to be the Son of God, Jesus gave the promise to build upon that rock – the rock of truth couched in the confession – “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the only foundation the church of Christ can possibly have (1 Cor. 3:10, 11). Paul emphatically says “other foundation can no man lay” than the one already laid – Christ Jesus. Jesus is the tried and precious foundation stone (Isa. 28:16). “Will build” is future tense. So, during the personal ministry of Christ, He was promising to build His church. He spoke of it as “at hand” or “nigh.” It was to come soon, but it was not at that time in !existence. Jesus taught the disciples to pray for it to come (Matt. 6:9-10). He sent the 12 to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7), and the 70 to preach “that the kingdom of God is come nigh” (Lk. 10:10, 11). Jesus told some that “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mk. 9:1). This kingdom which Jesus promised had to come into the world during the lifetime of the disciples to whom He then spoke, yet, the millennialists say the Christ had to postpone the establishment of the kingdom because He was rejected by the Jews (John 1:11, 12) and just set up the church to bridge the gap! Pshaw. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people. The people who make up the church and the kingdom of Christ are the same people. They both are blood-bought (1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7). To be a blood-bought member of the church is to be a blood-bought citizen of the kingdom of God.

In the promise made by Jesus that some of the disciples would not die until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mk. 9:1) is the Lord’s veracity. In Luke 24:44-49 Jesus told the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait until they were endued with power from on high. Luke further shows they were not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4). All of this was just before Jesus ascended back to heaven. The promise of the Father was the coming of the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Holy Spirit would give the power – the power as promised by Jesus in Mark 9:1. The Holy Spirit came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:1 ff). Pentecost was an annual feast of the Jews (see Lev. 23:16). It was 50 days after the Passover. Jesus had gone to Jerusalem for the Passover feast (Matt. 26:1ff). The disciples made ready for the Passover and, as they sat together, Jesus announced to them that one of them would betray Him. On this occasion He instituted His supper, they sung an hymn and went out into the Mount of Olives. After this the mob took Jesus away. Mockingly He, was tried and condemned to die. He was crucified then buried in Joseph’s new tomb, but God raised Him from the dead the third day. He walked among men for forty days teaching them things concerning the kingdom of God and proving Himself to be the resurrected Christ with many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). When the forty days were over He ascended and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Pentecost was some 10 days away. While they waited in Jerusalem these ten days God made ready the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. The Spirit came on Pentecost and the power came with Him (Acts 2:1-4). But remember, the Kingdom was to come with power! When the power came the kingdom would be there, too. The power came at Pentecost; therefore; the kingdom came at Pentecost. No, the kingdom was not in existence during His earthly ministry. Luke 22 shows the church and the kingdom are one and the same people. Here Jesus said, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” Mark’s account says, “. . . until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (14:25), and Matthew says, “. . . until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (26:29). When the “disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7) such was the church and the Lord’s supper was in it (1 Cor. 11:18-34). Either the Kingdom and the church are one and the same or the disciples stole it from the kingdom and put it in the church. Who can believe it?

From the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the kingdom/church has been in existence and Jesus has all this time been the king over the kingdom and the head of the church. Let no millennialist deceive you in this matter! Furthermore, let none of the middle-of-the-roaders influence you to compromise such fundamental Bible doctrine.

The church could not have been established before the resurrection of Christ. God would use David’s seed (Christ) in fulfilling the prophecies and promises made through the prophets concerning the building of the church (2 Sam. 7:12; Psa. 132:11; Acts 2:29ff). In the synagogue at Antioch, Paul used these scriptures to prove to the rulers and others that God had kept His word in raising the ion of David from the dead, that He saw no corruption in the flesh, and through Him “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” The kingdom/church could not be established until after Christ’s ascension into heaven (Lk. 19:12; Dan. 7:13, 14; Acts 1:11). When He ascended heaven received Him (Psa. 24:7-10) and He was seated on David’s throne over His kingdom (Lk. 1:32, 33). So, Pentecost was the beginning (Acts 11:15) of the last days (Acts 2:17); the reign of Christ (Acts 2:34, 35); the first gospel sermon (1 Cor. 15:1-5; Acts 2:23, 32); and the kingdom of Christ (Mk. 9:1; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4).

The various passages dealing with the establishment of the church before Pentecost point to Acts 2, and the passages after Acts 2 point back to this Pentecost identifying the church as an established fact. After the preaching of Acts 2, Luke tells us the Lord added to the church the saved (Acts 2:47). No more do we read of promises that the church will be established; rather, they affirm its existence. The tense on the verb “are built” in Ephesians 2:20 shows its existence at that time was a fact. Various apostolic letters were addressed to the churches (see 1 Cor. 1:2 for example).

Conclusion

We can rejoice in having the facts which inform us of the Lord’s doing concerning the establishment of the church. We rejoice to know that the church is a product of prophecy and divine promise (not an accident or afterthought); that Jesus built His one and only church; that it was established in Jerusalem; that it came into existence on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; that the Lord adds the saved to it (yea, translated into it, Col. 1:13), and live with the promise that He will deliver it up to the Father when the end comes (1 Cor. 15:23, 24).

Questions

1. Name two false positions taught as to the time of the church of Christ being established.
2. Why is it necessary for us to know when the church was built?
3. How could men foretell accurately when the church would be established?
4. In what city did Jesus build His church?
5. How many churches did Jesus promise to build?
6. Does the Lord add unsaved people to the church?
7. Can one join the church (1) universally (Acts 2:47) ___________________ (2) locally (Acts 9:26) _______________?
8. How do you prove the church and the kingdom are one and the same?
9. With what did Jesus purchase the church?
10. What will happen to the church when Jesus ceases to reign on the throne at the right hand of the Father?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 40-42
January 10, 1980