Truth Magazine

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

By Bob Buchanon

More and more I am amazed at the colossal ignorance of, and unconcern for, the purpose of Christ’s blood shed on the cross! Liberal-thinking preachers for many years have been making efforts to eliminate the blood of Christ from man’s need of coming to God and some even look upon the blood as repulsive. Many work hard trying to separate the church from salvation saying that the church has nothing to do with salvation.

God Chose Blood

Since man’s first sin in the Garden of Eden, God has required the shedding of blood for the atonement for sin. God instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted. It is said of Abel, that by faith he “offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). This blood sacrifice must have been precisely what God wanted since faith comes by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark was offer a burnt-offering (Gen. 8:20). When Israel was delivered out of the slavery of Egypt, blood was used in their deliverance (Ex. 12:7-13).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “The rite of circumcision is an Old Testament form of blood ceremony. Apart from the probably sanitary importance of the act is the deeper meaning in the establishment of a bond of friendship between the one upon whom the act is performed and (Jehovah) Himself. In order that Abraham might become `the friend of God’ he was commanded that he should be circumcised as a token of the covenant between him and God, Genesis 17:10-11” (see “Blood,” p. 489). The patriarchal age was marked by sacrifices and rites of blood by those desiring to please God.

In Abraham’s covenant, his own blood had to be shed. Later an atoning animal was to shed blood, but those who did appropriate the blood of animals were only ceremonially, and temporarily clean, because it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Heb. 10:4). In all ages, however, there must always be a shedding of blood. The covenant under Moses was dedicated by the blood of animals. Moses took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all .the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things by the law are purged with blood and without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:20-22).

Since there is no salvation but by blood, and since the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, it naturally follows that some blood of greater merit must be applied. As the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, the New Covenant was sealed by more precious blood, the blood of Jesus.

The Individual Is Bought With A Price

Each child of God has been purchased. Paul wrote, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirits, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). This was accomplished by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), something of far greater value than silver and gold (1 Pet. 1:18). Each child of God has the same hope, having been purchased by the blood of Christ.

Unto the saints in Galatia, Paul wrote, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). Paul would not be found guilty of minimizing the cross of Christ, and what it had done for him. He would never equate the cross of the Lord, as some do today, to some $2 ornament worn as jewelry about the neck. To Paul, the cross was the symbol of the blood which Christ had shed thereon, and this gave it the fullest meaning.

It is only when we find what the blood of the cross did for lost men that we have an appreciation for it. The view of Paul is far different from those who claim such love for the blood of Christ, and sing loudly of the “Old Rugged Cross,” yet spurn the very thing which the shed blood of the cross purchased for us. To fully appreciate the cross of Christ, we must look much further than the shape of the tree on which Jesus died.

The Church Purchased By The Blood

Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 6:20 shows that every member of the church has been bought with the price of the blood of Christ; the church is composed of members; hence, the church has been purchased with the blood of Christ. He has given for it His own most precious blood, thus making it His own by the dearest of all ties. The transcendent sacredness of the church of Christ is thus made to rest on the dignity of its Lord and the consequent preciousness of that blood which He shed for it. We must maintain that, had not this Lord been God, His blood could have been no purchase for the souls of a lost world and the promise of redemption in His church would have been impossible. Since the church has cost heaven its dearest treasure, we ought to value it very highly indeed!

When Paul met the elders from Ephesus at Miletus, he discussed many important things. Included in the discussion was this thought: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Paul wanted them to know that the body of Christ owed much to the blood of the cross! This cannot be emphasized enough. Jesus Christ gave His blood to purchase the church and it should be remembered by all that He has never complained of being defrauded in the deal.

It was by this sacrifice that the church was bought and sanctified. When Paul wrote back to his friends and brethren at Ephesus, he said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). This divine institution was the spiritual body of Christ. Nothing is like it is in the world, and nothing else like it in the Bible. Now, if Jesus had promised to build a multiplicity of churches, then we might have the option of choosing one to our liking. But since He promised to build only one (Matt. 16:18), and added the saved to only that one (Acts 2:41-47), then no option is extended!

Since Jesus Christ loved that church so dearly that He gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:23), God “gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). You just cannot afford to down-grade any institution so important to the Lord, that it was purchased with His own blood! To belittle the church of the Lord is to belittle the very blood of the cross which bought it. Unto the saved in Christ, Peter said they were redeemed with “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19).

The Highest Price

The word, “purchase,” as used in Acts 20:28, occurs but in one other place in the New Testament – 1 Timothy 3:13: “For they that have used the office of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith.” The word properly means “to gain or get for oneself, purchase” (W.E. Vine’s, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 231). This may be done by a price, or by labor.

No verse in the New Testament, or any other statement that could be imagined, could possibly exceed the power of Acts 20:28 in declaring the eternal importance and necessity of the Church which Christ established. Here the heretical notion of salvation by “faith alone” is shattered and counter-manded forever. By any definition, salvation by “faith alone” means salvation without the church of Jesus Christ; and in such a view the crucifixion of our Lord is reduced to the status of a senseless murder. As James Coffman said, “If men are saved, in any sense by the blood of Jesus, they must be saved through the church of which that blood is here declared to be the purchase price” (Commentary On Acts, p. 395).

That the church is, therefore, of peculiar value – a value to be estimated by the price paid for it – is clearly taught. This fact should make the purity and salvation of the church an object of special solicitude with the elders. They should be deeply affected in view of that blood which has been shed for the church; and they should guard and defend it as having been bought with the highest price in the universe. The chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying is that the church has been bought with a price. If the Lord Jesus so loved it, if He gave Himself for it, they should be willing to deny themselves, to watch, and toil, and pray, that the great object of His death – the purity and the salvation of that church – may be obtained. Too many men like the title of elder, but do not like the work that is required; they like to see their name on a piece of stationery or bulletin, but do not want to put in the hours of labor that is required.

The Shepherd

Paul’s figure of speech to the elders is directly connected with a reference to the church as a flock; to the officers as overseers, or shepherds; and to their duty of feeding the flock. The figure as used by our Lord in John 10 should be compared with the expression in Acts 20:28.

How does a shepherd purchase his sheep with his blood? Pulpit Commentary noted, “The shepherd may actually give his life in fighting and killing the wolves. If he kills the wolves he saves the sheep, though he may himself die of his wounds; and then he plainly purchases the safety of the flock with his blood. These figures may be applied to the work of the Lord. He imperilled his life for our defence. He met our great foe in conflict. He overcame sin and death, and plucked death’s sting away. He died in the struggle, but he set us free; and so he has purchased us by his own blood. He has won, by his great act of selfsacrifice, our love and life for ever” (Vol. 18, p. 168).

Implications

It is easily seen that some count the blood unholy when they have little regard for the church of the Lord and see it as just another denomination of no importance in God’s scheme of redemption. Such say by their lack of respect for the church that the blood was wasted in purchasing the church.

Let it be said, in teaching and in practice, that the purchased church was not purchased to be a social club, but it has business second to none – that of saving souls. The borders of the kingdom must expand yet at the same time purity must be maintained within the church for it is Christ’s desire to present it a glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

Questions

1. How long has God required the shedding of blood as the atonement for sins?
2. How do we know that God Instructed Cain and Abel concerning the kind of sacrifice He wanted?
3. What was the first thing Noah did after he came out of the ark?
4. Explain why those who offered animals for atonement were only temporarily clean.
5. If the first covenant was sealed by the blood of animals, by what was the New Covenant sealed?
6. The cross was a symbol of what, to Paul?
7. Quote several scriptures in which Paul mentions the purchase of the church by Jesus’ blood.
8. What is the chief consideration that will make elders faithful and self-denying?
9. Discuss how a shepherd could purchase his sheep with his blood.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 37-39
January 10, 1980

By Mike Willis

In my last article, I gave a brief history and explanation of what the social gospel is. After doing that, I tried to demonstrate wherein the social gospel differed from the gospel of Jesus Christ. In that section, I showed that the social gospel (a) was borne in infidelity, (b) perverts the nature of the mission of Christ, (c) perverts the nature of the gospel, (d) perverts the nature of the mission of the church, and (e) perverts the one hope of the gospel.

Yet, these articles are entitled “The Social Gospel of the Churches of Christ.” They are so named for a reason. I firmly believe that the churches of Christ have become involved in the social gospel. This article is designed to prove that thesis. I shall present evidences to demonstrate that churches of Christ are involved in the social gospel.

Let us begin by remembering what the thrust of the social gospel is. It is involving the church in the work of improving the quality of life in this world. Hence, it is the work of building hospitals, orphan homes, colleges, recreational facilities, and any other number of works pertaining to life on this earth beneath.

Incidences of Churches Involved in the Social Gospel

Those who have lived through the split of the church over church support of orphan homes do not need to be reminded that the church is involved in supporting such human institutions. However, we may need to be reminded that this is one phase of the social gospel. Involvement of the church in the building and maintaining of such facilities was the first step, historically, which the churches of Christ took in the social gospel. Rather than allowing social ills of this nature to be taken care of as a by-product of New Testament Christianity (i.e., through those who were converted to Christ personally adopting the orphaned children), some were bent upon perverting the mission of the church into involvement in the social gospel through church support of orphan homes. This, however, was just the beginning of a major movement in the churches of Christ which is taking them deeper and deeper into the social gospel. Here are some other incidences of the social gospel among the churches:

1. Church support of education. When the orphan home issue raged, Batsell Barrett Baxter, well-known speaker for the Herald of Truth and Chairman of the Department of Bible at David Lipscomb College, wrote a tract entitled Questions and Issues of the Day. In this tract, he wrote the following words:

Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphan’s home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphans’ home and the Christian school must stand or fall together (p. 29).

Brother Baxter was right in stating that the two stand or fall together. He and I differ, however, on whether they stand or fall, he holding to the former and me to the latter. However, in keeping with his belief, he sent out a form letter dated November 29, 1971 on David Lipscomb College stationary, appealing for church support of colleges; he wrote:

Back in the summer I wrote you concerning our pressing and continuing need for congregations to help us in our program of teaching. the Bible to each of our students every school day. We deeply appreciate the way in which many congregations across the land are concerned that this program of teaching the Bible – the most extensive program undertaken anywhere in the world so far as we are able to determine – may continue. We are grateful for the number of contributions received since this request, and we are hopeful that; as you make you financial plans for 1972, you will include this effort in your budget. In a very real sense, this is one of the most extensive mission efforts being undertaken anywhere.

There are currently on our campus 3361 students from kindergarten through college, with 2196 of these in college. The Bible itself (not books about the Bible) is being taught to each of these students every school day by faithful, consecrated Christian teachers. The toal cost of this effort is about $700,000 each year. The students pay less than half of this amount in tuition. We are asking churches to pay the other half, over $350,000 each year.

Not all of those who accept the church involvement in the social gospel of church support of orphans homes are ready to accept the church support of colleges. Yet, the effort to involve the church in the support of secular education is a subtle foe to fight.

When churches refused to become involved in sending contributions to colleges, the church began to become involved in “Christian education” on another level. All over this country, brethren have been building day-care centers, kindergartens, and eventually full elementary schools.. Brethren have been deceived by the promoters of this aspect of the social gospel. They have been taught that so long as the church does not write a check from its treasury to send to this secular educational enterprize that it is not involved in the work. However, these secular education facilities are housed in the buildings owned by the churches, they are promoted through bulletins published by the church, and any activities held by these secular educational enterprizes are promoted in the church. Brethren, do not be deceived. The church is being yoked to another plow of the social gospel!

2. Church support of medical missions. Even as the church has become involved in supportig orphans homes and colleges, it has become involved in “medical missions” as well. The 29 May 1979 issue of Christian Chronicle carried an article entitled “Medical Missions Increasing.” It reported,

Christian medical professionals and students from around the world will gather in Atlanta October 19 and 20 for the annual Medical Evangelism Seminar, hosted by the Decatur Church of Christ and Medical Outreach, Inc ….

The Decatur congregation has long been active in medical mission work. But, in the last three years, members of the congregation have organized to focus on solutions to the personnel problems that have hampered mission clinics and hospitals in the past.

As early as 24 May 1963, the Christian Chronicle was reporting the church being involved in medical work in foreign countries. In “Money Buys Medicine For Korean Endeavor,” written by A.R. Holton, the following report was given:

Our Lord gave some great promises in relation to the sick. In the 25th chapter of Matthew, He tells us that to visit the sick is to visit Him. It makes a contribution to the growth of a Christian to be closely associated with Jesus. You will see to do this is to visit the sick.

The church of Christ clinic in Seoul, Korea offers such an opportunity. We have reached over three thousand families by this medical service in Korea. It is a service to enable the people to care for themselves in illness and to teach them to care for their children

Our medical clinic on the mission ground in Seoul, Korea is in continual need of money for medicine and equipment. This appeal is made in order that churches may make such a contribution and that individuals may make such a contribution.

The groundwork has been laid for a “Church of Christ Hospital,” similar to the Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic hospitals all over this country, right here in America. Although I know of no plans to begin construction on one, I have no doubt that such lies ahead for the churches of Christ who have accepted the concept of the social gospel.

3. Church care of the aged. The October 4, 1968 issue of the Atlanta Journal reported that the Decatur Church of Christ was constructing a 12-story apartment building for senior citizens. The article included a picture of the proposed structure attached to an article announcing the building of Christian Towers under the direction of the Decatur Church of Christ Senior Housing, Inc. This project was to cost a mere $3.8 million.

4. Church sponsored recreation. I do not have the space to report the numbers of articles which I have in my files reporting church sponsored recreation. It ranges from church sponsored ball teams to church sponsored talent shows. The church buildings are already using their property for playground areas; soon they will be building gymnasiums and other recreational facilities. One church purchased land and erected a lodge for a place of recreation for its members. What began as an innocent basket lunch in one of the classrooms of the church building has blossomed into full involvement in church sponsored recreation. “Youth ministers” are hired by those involved in these activities; their primary work is to be is sure to keep a full calendar of social, recreational activities going for the young people.

One Baptist preacher with deep insight into the dangers of church sponsored recreation wrote a tract entitled The Devil’s Mission of Amusement: The Church’s Task Entertainment or Evangelization? (by Archibald Brown, available from Tabernacle Baptist Church, P.O. Box 3327, Lubbock, TX 79410). He made the following penetrating comments:

The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church of Christ that part of her mission is to provide entertainment for the people with a view to winning them into her ranks. The human nature that lies in every heart has risen to the bait. Here, now, is an opportunity of gratifying the flesh and yet retaining a comfortable conscience. We can now please ourselves in order to do good to others. The rough old cross can be exchanged for a “costume,” and the exchange can be made with the benevolent purpose of elevating the people.

Even denominational people are able to see what some of the brethren cannot see. The church’s involvement in sponsoring recreation is’ a perversion of its mission; it involves the church in the social gospel.

5. Full program of the social gospel. Some churches have simply accepted the totality of the social gospel rather than individual specific programs alone. For example, Good News From Chicogaland (Vol. I, No. 6, August 5, 1979), the bulletin published by the Downtown Church (P.O. Box 49333, Chicago, IL 60649), reported their receipt of a service award for their “Evangelism Chicagoland” program in the following words:

Evangelism Chicagoland recently received a service award from the Chicago Boys Club, Kiwanis Unit. The award was presented for services rendered to the Boys Club in the area of printing . . . .

Evangelism Chicagoland has been involved in training a number of young people since inception. fifteen high school juniors and seniors have received specialized training in printing, office management, addressing, folding, darkroom and shipping through the Evangelism Chicagoland printing facility. A few of the youth have police records and have received vocational and personal counseling as well as training . . . .

Evangelism Chicagoland has cooperated with various high school occupational study programs as well as city, state and federal training programs . . . .

My brethren, one would have to have his eyes closed to fail to see that some among the churches of Christ have totally accepted the social gospel.

Time and space would fail me if I cited documentation of the erection of church of Christ reform schools, church of Christ unwed mothers homes, a project to take cows to Korea, and other activities too numerous to even mention in passing. However, each of these provide further documentation that churches of Christ have become involved in the social gospel. However subtly it has happened, one cannot doubt that it has happened!

What Does The Future Hold?

I make no pretensions to being a prophet; hence, comments under this section should be simply considered as one man’s opinion. However, I think that I can judge what is going to happen so far as the church being involved in the social gospel is concerned. Every congregation has just so many dollars with which to work, so many volunteers willing to donate their labor to the works in which they are involved, and other limited resources. It takes dollars and time to operate the social gospel, just the same as it takes to do the scriptural works authorized of God.

When a congregation’s limited resources are completely expended upon its God-given mission of saving souls, the work progresses slowly at best. However, when these resources are subdivided in order to give a portion of those resources (money and labor) to promoting the erection and maintenance of orphan homes, schools, and other human institutions, to sponsor recreation, to erect hospitals, to build kindergartens and grade schools, etc., the number of resources which can be used to evangelize the world, edify the saints, and relieve the benevolent needs of Christians is diminished to the degree that a given congregation is involved in these activities. Therefore, just so much as brethren chase after the social gospel, they cannot accomplish their God-given mission.

The result will be that the soul winning work of the church will be destroyed. Brethren who have already seen this happening are fighting back with reward motivation programs to persuade people to come to their services. So long as these reward motivation programs are continued, large crowds will be in attendance, but few will be converted. (Do not make the mistake of thinking that all public responses to the gospel are conversions.) Those who are baptized will have little knowledge of the truth, so the church will move more and more toward the mainstream of modern Protestant denominationalism.

Unless something happens to change this trend, I am confident that this is what lies ahead for our brethren who are becoming more and more involved in the social gospel. The question which remains is this: How far are you willing to go with these brethren?

Some Have Had Enough

There are countless brethren among those congregations which have opted to depart from the revealed work of the church in following the humanly devised hope of establishing a heaven on earth who are sick and tired of seeing the church chase after earthly goals. Brethren, there is an alternative to what you are witnessing and experiencing. There are brethren all over this country who are dedicated to letting the church be the church. Our brethren who are following the social gospel call us “anti’s.” That is all right with me. Both of us recognize that we are heading down different paths at a fork in the road. We who are branded as “anti’s” are simply committed to following the revelation of God as it pertains to the mission of the church. We shall not consent to involving the church in any activities for which there is no Bible authority. We find no Bible authority for church support of human institutions (whether they be evangelistic, benevolent or educational in scope), for church sponsored recreation, for church sponsored hospitals, and any number of other works in which some of our brethren are involved.

We invite you to join with us in working to let the church be the church. We have no interest in pursuing the mundane goals of the social gospel. Rather, our citizenship is in heaven where Christ is seated on the right hand of God (Phil. 3:20). We are interested in the salvation of souls. We, therefore, understand the mission of the church to be to save the lost, edify the saints, and relieve the benevolent needs of our members. If you would like me to help you get in contact with some who have no sympathy with the social gospel, fell free to contact me.

Questions

1. Is church involvement in support of human institu tions a phase of the social gospel?
2. Rather than involving the church in support of orphan homes, what would have been an acceptable means of taking care of the orphans?
3. Name and discuss some other incidences of the social gospel among the churches in your area.
4. What two issues did Batsell Barren Baxter say would “stand or fall together”?
5. What are the dangers of church sponsored recreation?
6. What happens when the resources of a church are divided in order to give a portion of them to promote the social gospel?
7. What happens when reward motivation programs are carried out? Are all public responses to the gospel conversions?
8. What is the mission of the church?
9. What can the congregation with which you worship do to lead people out of liberalism?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 2, pp. 34-37
January 10, 1980