Bible Questions for the Church of Christ
| GospelChristian Unity True ChurchInstrumental MusicDenomination | BaptismHoly Spirit Lord’s SupperFreedom |
Introduction
Church of Christ members are among the most sincere students of the Bible. They are attempting to bring the church back to a pure biblical faith and obedient practice. This is most refreshing!
They are a beacon of light in their effort to restore biblical Christianity. But critics say that they have strayed from their original purpose of Christian unity. Further, many within mainstream historic orthodox Christianity think that Church of Christ teachings are contrary to the plain letter of the New Testament in several ways—including on sin, faith, repentance, regeneration, baptism, the agency of the Holy Spirit, church government, Christian ministry, Christian harmony and hypercriticism, and the whole scheme of Christian benevolence. They accuse the Church of Christ of being divisive and sectarian, legalistic, and ignoring or explaining away passages of Scripture that do no fit their presuppositional interpretation.
Perhaps a greater charge against at least some members of the Church of Christ is that others who do not hold to their interpretation are condemned. Indeed, many in the Church of Christ apparently have been led to believe that those outside of their narrow group are doomed to hell or at least seriously deceived. Others are not believers at all but unbelievers, and are to be treated as heathen and pagans. Only they are the Israel of God and may refer to themselves exclusively as "the Lord's people." We had a Church of Christ respondent to this article confirm this thinking by declaring his group as "God's people." Here is an article by a Church of Christ insider offering a candid look at their exclusive thinking: http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap18.html.
We have been given an audio taped lesson from a Church of Christ that said that it is possible that someone in another group or denomination might be saved, but such people certainly could not remain in those groups indefinitely as they become fully aware of their errors. Pamphlets available in most Churches of Christ also make it quite clear that unless you are a member of their group, you are not a true Christian.
The Church of Christ is not monolithic, however, and there appears to be moderating changes occurring among them. So the above charges hold mainly to the traditional faction within the group.
Here's a brief history of the so-called Restoration Movement from which the Church of Christ came. Note: Much of this material comes from the books below, the first three of which are available on line at http://www.freedomsring.org/books.html. This is an inside look at the Restoration Movement. All these men are preachers or authors within the Church of Christ. Ferguson is also a professor emeritus of Abilene Christian University.
- Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship by W. Carl Ketcherside & Leroy Garrett—a book certain to enlighten Christians everywhere
- Free in Christ by Cecil Hook
- Free to Change by Cecil Hook
- The Church of Christ; A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today by Everett Ferguson
The movement began in the early 1800's in Kentucky by Alexander Campbell and others including Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Walter Scott. Alexander Campbell, while still living in Scotland, became concerned about the strict sectarianism of his Presbyterian group, which practiced a form of closed communion in which one had to have a token in order to participate. The whole idea repelled Alexander. He was convinced that no man had the right to determine the worthiness of another to receive God's forgiveness. When his turn came at one point, he returned his token to the elders and did not take communion.
In his heart he renounced allegiance to any church that proclaimed its path as the only way to the throne of God. Yet he insisted that the members of even these churches were true Christians. His concern was that the denominational structure imposed requirements that were not consistent with biblical unity.
Barton Stone, a Presbyterian minister on a similar tract, rejected sectism and started his own movement independent of Campbell. While the two groups had very different views on many issues, they agreed to accept one another as brothers in the faith and merged in 1832.
Stone and Campbell became leaders of the idea that Christians should be able to spiritually unite on a few fundamental ideas. They held that insistence on matters of interpretation, denominationalism, credism, and ecclesiastical tyranny were not in the spirit of Christianity—given the many calls for peace and unity in the New Testament. Personal interpretation of Scripture should not be the basis for judging others or made the basis of Christian communion. Reflecting this noble idea, Stone and Campbell often said in slightly different variations,
Let us acknowledge all to be our brethren who believe in the Lord Jesus, repent of their sins, and humbly and honestly obey him as far as they understand his will and their duty.
What a wonderful picture! If we may editorialize, this movement is perhaps the most underappreciated movement at least in modern church history. These men had a passion for unity as fundamental to the Christian faith. They hailed with enthusiasm the least indications of a growing spirit of forbearance and brotherly love among the different denominations. They saw a spirit of unity among Christians as dethroning sin and Satan and converting the world.
We find much to admire in the original Restoration (Stone-Campbell) Movement. While today's members of the Church of Christ recoil at the term, we ourselves would indeed be honored to be called Cambellites!
Every Christian group has its own set of warts. Campbell noted the status of Christian division, "The constant insisting upon them [doctrinal opinions], as articles of faith and terms of salvation, have so beaten them into the minds of men, that, in many instances, they would as soon deny the Bible itself as give up one of those opinions." He believed that while we can debate doctrinal matters, they should not divide us.
However, reflecting the sinful and divisive tendencies of all of us humans, the Restoration Movement itself soon began dividing over differences. Three distinct groups emerged—the Church of Christ (conservative), the Christian Church (moderate/mainstream), and the Disciples of Christ (liberal). These have further divided so that today one can count over 2 dozen factions. Divisions came from every manner of opinion including instrumental music, the manner of serving the Supper, millenial theories, missionary methods, orphan homes, cooperative programs with other Christian groups, whether to have Sunday School classes, etc. Those with opposing views were labeled "not sound in the faith" or "liberals" or "extremists" and were marked to be avoided, according to W. Carl Ketcherside in http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap15.html.
By the latter part of the 1800's a wing of the Church of Christ became so certain of their doctrinal interpretations as the only true way that they began refusing fellowship with other professing Christians. The turning point of division came in 1889 with the Sand Creek Declaration. According to Ketcherside, with this declaration, the elders of some Churches of Christ pronounced the sentence of "spiritual death" upon sister congregations over which they held not the slightest degree of jurisdiction (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap12.html). Non-conformists were cut off without trial or appeal. People in the condemned congregations were given the "deep freeze" treatment by even former friends, were branded as "traitor, heretic and apostate." Essentially, these people were disinherited from the family of God and were no longer recognized as his children.
We infer from Ketcherside and Garrett's inside look at the Church of Christ that this would be all but forgotten and forgiven history if a spirit of separation and condemnation were not still present today. There is adequate evidence for this claim, including a refusal to attend any non-approved church (except perhaps grudgingly at weddings and funerals)—and a special aversion to taking the Lord's Supper in any other church. CC churches seemingly spend a great deal of time studying other groups with the intent of condemming what they believe to be their many agregious errors. This has a tendency to bolster unity within their group. Sadly, the noble goal of uniting Christians ended up dividing us further.
Interestingly, the Church of Christ disavows its lineage to Stone-Campbell and instead claims lineage back to the apostolic age. The group denies that it is a denomination at all (even though they appear to meet the dictionary test of a denomination). Many of them attempt to avoid the denominational label by writing it church of Christ instead of Church of Christ (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap13.html). It is claimed (indeed as do many other Protestant, Catholic, as well as non-Christian cults) that they are the one true heir of primitive Christianity. The difference is that most other mainline churches do not go to the extreme of refusing to fellowship with other groups.
If you are a Church of Christ member, would you be willing to explain your views on these various matters? Faith Facts ministry specializes in theology, Christian evidences, world religions, and cults. We are currently studying the beliefs of different Christian groups in order to understand them better. We would like to get the opinion of Church of Christ folks on these matters in order to clarify your views, and to help put other Christians on the correct (narrow) way. Since you are so well versed in the Bible, would you be willing to give us answers for the hope that lies within you (1 Peter 3:15)? Frankly, there are some things we find hard to understand and perhaps you can enlighten us.
Below is a list of questions that would help many understand your views on the Bible better. If your views have not been correctly given, please set the record straight. These questions and comments are rather tough and dig very deeply into the Bible and Church of Christ theology. Trained theologians believe that you may have some difficulty with these questions, thus you may be inclined to resist answering.
We have liberally documented our sources, most of which come from people within the Church of Christ—the books listed above. Clarification for our questions comes from these sources and are integral to the questions. Yet we have noticed a strange reluctance of Church of Christ folks to read these references, and these learned men are often afforded various ad hominem attacks. We are perplexed by this.
As mentioned, there is a very wide range of views within the Church of Christ. Some would be considered mainstream within Christianity. We are addressing these questions to those within the Church of Christ who refuse fellowship with non-Church of Christ groups. However, we are interested in the experience of anyone who may have knowledge of the Church of Christ and invite you to email us.
So we hope you will give us your views on these things. These matters are truly important to millions of people who call themselves Christians; their eternal life in heaven or hell depends on understanding these things properly. If you wish, you may copy the article into a Word file, add your comments next to the questions below (perhaps in bold or in color to distinguish them) and email them to mail@faithfacts.org. Just skip any questions you cannot answer. Since there are so many questions, you may wish to answer those in one or two sections at a time. Thanks!
May this dialogue be taken in love and not in scorn, that iron may sharpen iron. We always welcome our brothers views.
What is the Gospel
Is it correct that the understanding of most in the CC is that the gospel is the whole New Testament? And further, that that the whole of the New Testament must be believed to be saved? CC author Leroy Garrett has tried to convince his brothers that the gospel is not the whole of the New Testament, for the gospel was a reality long before the scriptures were written (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap10.html).
He explains that perhaps some have confused gospel and doctrine. Thomas Campbell (son of Alexander) made a distinction between the two. The difference is similar to the difference between fact and interpretation. There is no cause for opinion or differences respecting the fact of Christ. The gospel is a proclamation of good news that one accepts or rejects. This led Alexander Campbell to refer to a belief in the one fact (Christ is Lord) and a submission to the one act (baptism) as the basis for unity.
Strictly speaking, the teachings of the apostles are not facts as the gospel is, but interpretations, implications, and edification. Even the apostles had different opinions and emphases on docrtrine. Thus Peter said of Paul's teaching, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand." (See also http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap5.html.)
If you think that one must believe and obey all of the New Testament writings to be saved, were those who converted on Pentecost saved? How about the Ethiopian eunuch, and the jailor? They had not had the whole course of the New Testament, so would they have been saved? Did they have a different standard than you and me—if so, where does it imply that in the Bible? Isn’t it correct—as those in the historic orthodox church teach—that salvation occurs at the moment of faith rather than after years of instruction? Thus isn’t one’s justification made right by faith itself rather than by being right in all matters of faith as Cecil Hook suggests (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap8.html)?
Is it true that the CC teaches that the gospel was not preached before Pentecost? Do not these passages show that it was in fact preached before Pentecost: Mat 15:5, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 20:1, Rev 14:6?
Doesn’t gospel mean “good news” in Greek (as the ancients used the word for events such as the birth of an emperor or a major military victory)? Doesn’t 1 Cor 15:1-11 give the clearest and principle definition of the gospel as being something to be believed about Christ dying for our sins? Is it not ultimately found in the grace of God (Acts 20:24 and Col 1:3-6)?
Just what is the gospel Paul preached (1 Cor 15:1-3, 1 Cor 2:2, Rom 1:16-17)? Do you preach the gospel Paul preached?
Leroy Garrett further clarifies what the gospel is (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap10.html): "Surely we can see that Jesus was referring to a specific message, a proclamation of certain heavenly facts to be believed. This is why Paul in 1 Cor 1:21 spoke of the gospel as 'the thing preached.' This is why he could speak of 'obeying the gospel,' for the gospel is one thing and obeying it is something else. This is why he could refer to 'the defense and confirmation of the gospel,' for the gospel is one thing, while to defend it and confirm it are something else." (See also http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap33.html).
Is baptism a part of the gospel? Doesn't 1 Cor 1:17 make it perfectly clear that it is not?
Isn't the gospel described in 1 Cor 15:1-3 as something that is past tense (Christ's dying for our sins) rather than a list of things that we must do now?
Were you redeemed by your acts of obedience or by the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:18-19).
Thomas Campbell said, "That although inferences and deductions from the Scripture... when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the conscience of Christians further than they perceive the connection....Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap28.html)."
This distinction between gospel and doctrine, between gospel and obedience, is crucial and seems clear to most Christians except certain modern CC parties. The founders of the Restoration Movement certainly understood the distinction. And the founders of the Protestant Reformation clearly understood the difference as they insisted on a distinction between, as they put it, gospel and law. This helps us understand why Alexander Campbell taught that we should consider as brothers even those new Christians who may not fully understand all of the details of Christian doctrine, or indeed even those who may have legitimate disagreements as to interpretation—and even those who err out of weakness or misunderstanding as we all do. Thus, the basis of unity should be gospel (in Greek kerugma), rather than doctrine (in Greek Kerugma).
Ketcherside says, "This does havoc to what many of us have been calling 'gospel sermons.' Campbell says that a clear, scriptural sermon on faith, repentance and baptism is not gospel preaching. It may of course be truth, and even related to the gospel, and yet not be the gospel."
In the spirit of the Restoration Movement, the focus of the remaining questions below is to try to establish that there are valid differences of opinions among sincere Christians, even as to important doctrines. (Perhaps God wanted it to be that way in order to enrich our faith experience and learn to live together as believers.) We regularly reference the authors listed above. While we have noticed a reluctance to read the information provided on the links, it is really vital to the questions.
These questions will probably generate some strong reactions. Leroy Garrett says that in the days of his sectarian understanding of these things, he "never lost a debate"in his own mind. Garrett and others like him say that it was only after fully understanding God's love that he could truly put aside his party spirit to experience joy in the diverse opinions of his brothers —and with that a great burden was lifted from him. Even more than exploring what is the "best fit" interpretations of Scripture, we hope to demonstrate to all fellow believers in Christ that we ought naught to restrict our fellowship to those who are closest to us in doctrine.
Christian Unity
Is it true that the CC believes that it alone is "the New Testament church?" Is it correct that members of other Christian denominations cannot be saved if they remain in those groups (or that saved members of other denominations would surely leave those groups in time)? Yet is it also correct, as Cecil Hook says, that there is disagreement among CC members on some 100 issues: http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap1.html? There are some important issues on this list, including matters of life and death—war, abortion, euthanasia. Is it fair to ask this question: How can one be sure of his salvation if there is disagreement about what one must believe and do?
Members of the CC ask, "How can we accept professing Christians who are in error?" Given the diversity of opinion within your own group, every one of the group must be in error on some things, right? Hook offers some interesting insights into the divisions within the Church of Christ: http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap25.html.
Stone and Campbell’s original concept was to foster unity within the church. They recognized that even the apostles had disagreements, but in love they could remain united. How do you respond to Leroy Garrett's charge that the CC has "rediscovered the horrid sin of partyism"—the pride of being right and exclusive and superior with an "arrogant demand for conformity." Isn't partyism such a horrible sin that it can prevent one from reaching the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20-21)?
Garrett says, (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap46.html) "We do not work for unity; we rather accept the Spirit's gift of unity to the church. We are already united with all those who are in Christ." If he is mistaken, what do the many passages on unity mean (Jn 17:20-23, Rom 15:5-7, 1 Cor 1:10-12, Eph 1:10, Eph 4:1-16, Php 1:27, Php 2:1-11, Col 3:11-16)? Is it a sin to fail to be in spiritual unity with your Christian brothers on the gospel—one fact of Christ?
Ferguson says, "There is no place for a diversity born of party spirit. Division is a denial of salvation, since the goal of Ephesians 1:10 is uniting all in Christ. Saying that these things are not enough to unite people is a denial of the fundamentals of Christianity." He reminds his brothers in the CC "not to be too quick to draw lines of fellowship or division....as the church will never be perfect; otherwise there would be not need for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and no need for human history."
The basis for unity for the CC are both (a) the New Testament, and (b) the New Testament church. That sounds like a reasonable thing for Christians. But Garrett makes an interesting point that perhaps these are, in fact, contradictory goals (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap44.html)! He points out that the New Testament church itself was not modeled after the New Testament! They did not have the New Testament!
So if we are to use a model of unity based on the New Testament church, shouldn't our unity be based on what theirs was—the fundamental facts of the gospel? Could Garrett be correct that there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the "Bible alone?" In fact, isn't he correct that, "If unity is a matter of seeing the Bible eye-to-eye, then believers will never be united, for they never have and never will see the Bible alike (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap51.html)."
Obviously, a line must be drawn somewhere since everyone is not a Christian. But we must not draw a line where the Bible does not draw a line. Wasn't the unity of the New Testament church what Paul says in 1 Cor 1, with "all those in who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?"
To what extent can we pass judgment on another? What does Paul mean in Romans 14:4: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls."?
Is the CC ever a “stumbling block” to the gospel? Do those who hear this emphasis on law and guilt ever “perish of thirst beside what should have been a refreshing pool of the water of life (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap17.html)?
Apparently the CC spends a good bit of time studying other groups' theology in order to condemn what they see as egregious errors. And labels are attached such as "sectarian," "liberal," "ultra-conservative," "heretic," "not sound in the faith," "not of us," "dishonest," or "institutional," or an "anti" or an "extremist." Such labels are put on denominational churches as well as sister Churches of Christ. Ketcherside insisted that the apostle Paul would vehemently reject such labels, and said, "Unless our brethren are transformed by the Spirit and renounce their false premise they are destined to become the most narrow and antagonistic sectarians of our age."
Let us emphatically assert that such sectarian feelings are not unique to the CC! We have enough experience with denominations to know that many in the denominational world see themselves as members of the denomination first and as Christians second. They are bound by inbred traditions and uninspired creeds which they feel a necessity to defend. Lengthy confessional statements are the way that many organizations put a straight jacket on pastors, teachers, and lay leaders. But, unlike the CC, most will allow fellowship and communion with those outside the denomination and certainly consider others as true Christians.
Some say that what the CC really means by “unity on the Bible” is to follow their particular view of things, including no instrumental music, gospel plan, Bible name, weekly communion, ruling elder church government, etc. Is it correct that your answer to division is for everyone else to line up with you, as Leroy Garrett claims? We hear from CC people that they will fully accept anyone who "repents." But what seems to be meant by repent is to forsake non-CC views and come on over. What did Paul mean in Romans 14:18-19? Does it mean that whoever serves Christ in the way you think they should is "acceptable to God?" Or what did Jesus mean when in Mark 9:38-51:
“John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.”
Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35). Ketcherside says (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap50.html), "It is not by being baptized or by faithfully attending services that the world will be impressed, nor by being right or doctrinally sound. It is rather the magnificent Christian dynamic of love that will press the claims of Jesus upon men's conscience."
Fellowship
One respondent to our article said this: "Those erring members of the church who refuse to grow out of false teachings and grow into a knowledge of and submission to the Truth are to be rejected, not tolerated." Of course, what is meant here by Truth is truth as the Church of Christ understands it.
Is it correct that CC will not fellowship with Christians who are "in error?" Is there any other kind of Christian? In other words, since CC members both acknowledge their own sin and disagree on so many points among themselves, is it not correct that each member of the Church of Christ must be in error on at least some points?
Isn't Ketcherside correct when he says "All of this talk about 'full fellowship' is sheer poppycock. It is wholly without scriptural warrant and has been conjured up...God has no stepchildren so we can have no half-brothers. If we are in his family we are in it wholly or not at all. The idea that you can be in partial fellowship is like loving the right side of your wife and hating the left side. You cannot parcel God out and you cannot carve up his spiritual offspring either (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap15.html)".
Ketcherside clarifies that, "Harmony is not essential to fellowship but is a goal of those who are in fellowship....There is no passage in the apostolic doctrine commanding harmony which was written to bring the saints into fellowship. Every such passage was written to those who were in the fellowship and because they were in it. We suggest that you study Phil 2:1-2, 1 Cor 1:9-13, and 2 Cor 13:11 (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap24.html)."
Garrett and Ketcherside challenge the usual CC interpretation of certain proof texts for disfellowship. For example, 2 Thes 3:6 says to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." First of all, the verse implies that those so identified are still brothers. It does not say to disfellowship from them. Please read what Garrett has to say: http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap26.html. He explains that the context of this passage is the urgent expectation of the expected Second Coming (mentioned regularly in 1st and 2nd Thes) in which some brothers were not bearing their load. Paul says that those who did not work should not eat (2 Thes 3:10), and that the church should discourage this freeloading by not being a party to it. As this is no doubt a different interpretation than you have been taught, your comments are welcome.
Another such proof text is Rom 16:17, which says to avoid those who cause division contrary to what they had been taught. Ketcherside is of the view that some have turned this passage into a meaning exactly opposite to its intent. What had they been taught? Hadn't they been taught to love one another, not to dispute over opinions, and to live in harmony? (See Rom 12, 13, and 14, etc). Ketcherside says that "Without realizing it, every partisan who has ever used Romans 16:17, to justify his pet division, and condone his unwritten creed, has pronounced his own condemnation by quoting this verse (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap27.html)!"
What do you think of Leroy Garrett's statements regarding 1 John 1:1-4, "If we use fellowship to refer to anything less than the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church throughout the world, we are using it in a sectarian sense. There is no such thing as 'our fellowship' except in terms of a sect (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap41.html)." And, "True, one may not approve or endorse what some denomination teaches or practices, but this has little or nothing to do with fellowship, which is a relationship that exists between a person and God and with other persons (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap42.html)."
Isn't it correct that even Alexander Campbell himself would not be accepted in many Churches of Christ today since he did not believe that baptism was absolutely essential for salvation, was not himself baptized for the remission of sins, believed that there were Christians in the sects, and served for some sixteen years as president of the first CC missionary society? And Thomas Campbell could not be fellowshipped for the most of the same reasons and also because he was a Calvinist in his theology?
True Church
Walter Scott in the preface of his book, The Gospel Restored, said: "In 1827 the True Gospel was restored. For distinction's sake it was styled the Ancient Gospel." In a more recent Church of Christ tract, the writer says: "She [the church] was HIDDEN for 1260 years, that she might be protected from the power of the Popes." Is it true that some within the CC still teach that the true church was really completely hidden for some 1260 years, so hidden in fact that Alexander Campbell had to find a Baptist preacher to baptize him?
Apparently not all CC people have this understanding of the 1260 year church gap. Some only say that the true church existed during those 1260 years, although believers had to worship in secret lest they be persecuted by the apostate Catholic church. But if you do hold to the gap view, what is the meaning of Mat 28:20 (“And lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age.”)? And Ephesians 3:21 (“Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.”) If the church was in apostasy for centuries, why does Jesus say, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?
Is it correct that sometimes the CC considers Christians who "do not walk with you," as Ketcherside claims (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap22.html) to be "hobbyists, or dishonest, or insincere, or sectarians, or unworthy of notice?" Did Jesus die for a particular party within Christendom? Do you know precisely where God would draw the line to eliminate certain people from being considered Christians?
Hasn’t the church always been in need of reform and restoration—even from the beginning, as evidenced by Paul’ letters to his churches? If a man loses his leg, doesn’t he still have the essential nature of a man? If the church loses some correct practices, doesn’t it still have the essential nature of a church (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap19.html)?
The concept of the restoration of the true church is a view that the CC holds in common with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. If the church only existed in “seed” (meaning the Word) as you say during this church gap period, where in the “seed” does it prophecy that Alexander Campbell and his followers would restore the church? Or where in the “seed” does it authorize anyone to restore the church?
Is it fair to accuse other Christians groups of being started by men, when history clearly shows that the Church of Christ was started by men—Thomas and Alexander Campbell on May 4, 1811?
Traditions of Men vs. the Word of God
We have been told by a CC preacher that what unites the Church of Christ is hermeneutics (method of biblical interpretation) more than anything else. The formula used is "specific commandments, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences." This is further clarified by the rule of "inclusions and exclusions." This means, as we understand, that anything that is included in the New Testament must be obeyed; and anything that is not in the New Testament must be avoided, except those things which are deemed to be required or avoided by necessary inference. When they see other groups who fail these tests as they define them, they accuse them of practicing things that are "traditions of men rather than the word of God." But are these formulas themselves traditions of men rather than the word of God?
Cecil Hook documents in his books Free to Change (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap33.html) and Free as Sons (http://freedomsring.org/fas/chap20.html) that: "Let's Face It: None of us is willing to follow those three rules consistently. We accept what seems to fit our understanding, and we reject or overlook teachings of the same classification that do not fit our mental picture."
These formulas bring up a long list of questions that we might ask, especially regarding necessary inferences. It seems that what is a necessary inference varies even among CC folks. But suffice it to wonder whether a "necessary" inference becomes any doctrine or practice that someone in the Church of Christ deems necessary (or whether the formula is a necessary tool to exclude many other Christians and Christian practices). Since these formulas are not specific commands in the New Testament and since "necessary" seems to be merely an interpretation, shouldn't others necessarily infer that these formulas themselves are traditions of men rather than the word of God?
Are examples and incidental details in the Bible binding? How does one answer the issues raised by Mr. Hook’s explanation on this: http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap2.html? What about methods of carrying on church business and of selecting of elders—are such laid out in the Bible (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap22.html, http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap23.html)? Are these things from the word of God, or are they traditions of men?
The Church of Christ also teaches that tradition is to be avoided based on Mat 15:2-6 and Mk 7:3-13. But doesn't the Bible itself teach that there are verbal traditions to which one must hold (2 Thes 2:15)? If it is not okay to use tradition in the Christian faith, how do we even know who wrote the first book of the New Testament? While the Bible contains all truth, is all truth in the Bible? Isn't it reasonable to think that there are as many ways to honor God as his infinite nature would imply?
Your motto is, "Where the Bible speaks we speak; where the Bible is silent we are silent." But don't you break that rule all the time? For example, you say, "He that is baptized not shall be damned." But that phrase does not appear in the Bible, does it? What does appear in the Bible is, "He that believeth not shall be damned." So haven't you twisted Scripture?
Instrumental Music
A study of CC doctrine is, of course, not complete without a look at instrumental music! The non-instrumental music wing of the CC feels so strongly about this that they will not fellowship with churches who use instrumental music, saying "We don't fellowship the instrument."
A cappella singing is wonderful and most worshipful! The concern is why this issue would cause folks to break fellowship with other Christians.
Why is instrumental music not allowed in worship when the definition of psalm (which you do allow) is a hymn set to instrumental music (see Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, as well as any English dictionary)? Since psalms are included in a proper worship (Ephesians 5:19), shouldn’t instrumental music necessarily be used in worship to be obedient to Scripture? Is it being disobedient to Paul’s instruction by not using psalms correctly in the worship service? In other words, given the definition of psalm, by your own rules of "inclusion and exclusion," doesn’t the Bible require instrumental music?
Aren’t there instruments of music in worship to God in heaven (Rev 5:8)? Aren’t there instruments of music in worship in the Old Testament? Is there any condemnation of instruments of music anywhere in the Bible? While there are many Psalms quoted in the New Testament, why are there no statements of caution to make sure to not obey the musical instrument passages in the Psalms? Is this practice from the Word of God or is it a tradition of men? Is it really so important as to break fellowship with other Christians?
Denomination
A CC website (http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/20070218.htm) makes the statement that, "One becomes a Catholic differently than one becomes a Christian. The two are not synonymous. Likewise, becoming a Baptist is incompatible with becoming a Christian. These and other denominational groups are not segments of Christianity; they are all different from Biblical Christianity."
The CC says that denominationalism is bad, should be shunned and abandoned —a goal which may be worthy as denominationalism does unnecessarily separate Christians. But Webster gives these definitions of a denomination: (1) act of denominating or naming, (2) a name, designation, or title, (3) a class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect. Is not the CC a denomination on every one of these points? Has the CC, perhaps with good intention, added to the denominational problem by using the Church of Christ name exclusively (see http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap11.html)?
Is it true that if one is truly seeking to please God that he must wear a name "approved by God?" CC materials say that, “Investigate and be a member of no church but the one you can read about in the Bible.” Are we correct in inferring that this limits one to the Church of Christ? Does this mean that those who "wear a name" such as Methodist or Baptist should be condemned and disfellowshipped? Could the insistence on the name be a tradition of men rather than from God, as Cecil Hook suggests: http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap12.html?
Has the CC assumed a sectarian spirit with the exclusive use of this name? If it is important for the group to be titled biblically, while Church of Christ seems like a good name, why not sometimes use the following terms that the Bible says of the church—the “Churches of God in Christ Jesus” (2 Thes 14), or “Church of God” (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 15:9), or “The Way” (Acts 9:2, 16:17, 18:25-26, 19:9,23, 22:4, 24:14, 22, 2 Peter 2:2), or “Bride” (John 3:29). Or—the “Pillar and the Ground,” “The Body,” “Temple,” “Building,” “Household Flock,” “City,” “Candlestick of Christ,” “Churches (plural) of Christ,” “Sheep,” “Elect,” “Living Stones”—all of which are used in the Bible for the church or for God’s people? Does the Bible in ANY place command to use a definite, specific name consistent for the church? Were the many churces in the New Testament that were not called by the name of Church of Christ saved or lost?
The word translated church (Greek ekklesia) is used in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 11:20 and Rev 1:10, and it means “belonging to the Lord; pertaining to the Lord.” Cecil Hook asks several questions of his brethren in his book about this (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap11.html). For example, how could a word which has a limited counterpart in the New Testament be a part of an authorized title for God’s people?
The Bible (Acts 11:26) says that Christians were first called “Christians” in Antioch, eleven years after Pentecost when CC claims the church began. Were the followers of Christ truly Christian during these intervening eleven years? Were any of them saved before they got a name? Isn’t this a long time for a bride to take on her husband’s name? Why wasn’t the name “Church of Christ” used?
What God Requires
The CC seems to think that other professing Christians are lax in obedience. That may be so. We are, indeed, sympathetic to the idea that a true saving faith must be a living faith. There is little room in the Christian faith for "easy-believism" which could be defined as turning one's back on clearly understood biblical instruction. Certainly, the believer should seek to conform his life to the will of God as best as he understands it. Faith implies faithfulness. The New Testament speaks often of such concepts as the obedience of faith. The protestant reformers put it this way: Salvation is through faith alone, but not through a faith that is alone. So, we stand with you in attempting to overcome the shallow view of easy-believism in Christianity.
Yet even the apostle Paul could not always carry out what he knew to be right (Rom 7:15-20). What is meant by obedience within the CC seems to be different in the CC than in other parts of Christianity. Would you be more specific as to exactly what you think others should do better (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap25.html)? What are the essentials for a Christian in order to be saved (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap13.html)?
Works Righteousness and Legalism
Has obedience been so stressed so that the CC has crossed the line into legalsim and fallen into the trap of the Pharisees? Does the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) apply as Garrett suggests (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap34.html)?
The CC view on justification seems confused and contradictory to us, and always seems to end up with obedience as the way one is justified. When we asked a dear CC friend how he knows that he is saved, he responded, "Because I have been pleasing to God." Herein lies the crux of the charges against the CC. Can one really be "pleasing" to God? Is there anyone who is righteous—Mark 10:18, Rom 3:10-11 (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap12.html)? We would rather state that God sees believers through the prism of Christ's righteousness.
We cannot help but wonder whether the CC fails to appreciate the depth of our sin. The Bible says that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). It also says that "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (Jas 2:10, Mat 5:48). So, if you believe the Bible, your heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. And assuming that you acknowledge at least some sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law. Right?
Are you not therefore guilty under the law and deserving of hell? How can one possibly say that he is pleasing to God?! (What seems most ironic is that in spite of its insistence on New Testament commands, the CC seems to have missed the New Testament purpose of the law—which is to show us our own sin Rom 3:20.)
To reiterate, the CC view on justification seems to be contradictory. The laws of logic say that two distinctly different or opposite things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. So, how is it reconcilable to say that we are saved by a free gift (Romans 5:15, 5:16, 6:23) from God (grace) and at the same time imply that the gift is not free—that we are saved by our works after all? Isn’t the only real way to do so—that is, to reconcile the differing passages on grace and works—is to say that obedience defines the type of faith that saves? Isn’t that what Paul does over and over in the Bible, especially in Romans? Isn’t that what, in fact, James is doing? In other words, wouldn't it be better to merely say that we are saved by grace through a living faith in Jesus?
There are other examples of how CC theology seems to us to contradict itself. Here is what one CC teacher says: "The church of Christ does not teach salvation by works. We teach salvation by the grace of God, which is given to those whom God says will receive it: specifically, those who humbly submit to his will." When we asked, doesn't the Bible make it clear that it is one's inward character that is important (Titus 1:15), this same person responded: "Yes, and the inward character will result in humble obedience, which God requires in order for one to be saved."
We reviewed an audio tape of a lesson from a Church of Christ gentleman. In explaining Ephesians 2:8-9 he said that “Well, this passage must mean that there are some works that do not save,” implying that there are some works that do. But in other contexts this man said, “This of course does not mean that works can earn salvation.” Isn't there a contradiction in these two apparently different statements? What then is a straight forward answer to how one is saved?
If a Christian can sin so as to lose one's salvation, just what sin or sins will place him in such danger. Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.
We may be very wrong, as we often are. But those of us who look at the CC from the outside see such statements as these as inherently contradictory and legalistic. It seems to us that the hermeneutic error that the CC makes is to make biblical statements about justification additive rather than reconciled. So, instead of making conflicting statements about, on the one hand, how we are saved by grace and elsewhere saying that we must be obedient to be saved—a contradictory construction—a better and non-contradictory construction would be to say that we are saved by grace through a type of faith which leads one to conform his life to the will of God. Does the Bible contradict itself? The distinction here may be subtle, but crucial.
CC members have told us that they choose to “emphasize obedience” in faith and practice. Why would one choose to emphasize anything? Do some passages of Scripture have more authority than others? Is the message of the Bible slanted by arbitrarily emphasizing obedience over grace, when there are over 100 passages in the New Testament that emphasize grace or faith or election as the means to salvation? (If you would like to see a comprehensive list, you may email us at mail@faithfacts.org).
If works are so important, why not emphasize the ones that Jesus emphasized—namely mercy and evangelism (the Great Commandment and the Great Commission)? If you will “know them by their fruit,” why not be known by these things rather than the things the CC is known for such as like a cappella singing, church attendance, separatism, water gospel, etc.?
In fact, doesn’t God despise the idea of works righteousness (Mat 23)? What was the Galatian heresy (Gal 1-5)? Does it mention a particular kind of work, or was it a general statement about works righteousness? Wasn’t Paul underscoring the concept that works and obedience cannot save us?
Perhaps a more poignant question is—Are you now free (Gal 5:1)? Or do feel like you are in bondage? Is your burden easy or light (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap25.html)? While liberals think the Christian faith is a country club, does CC doctrine make it seem like a prison?
Is CC theology similar to that of Pelagius, who taught that man by his own powers, without the imputation of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law—and thus merit forgiveness of sins and eternal life (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/
Augustine.html)? Wasn’t this theology declared a heresy even by the Catholic Church—which places a high importance on obedience—because it is contrary to Holy Scripture, being the same works righteousness theology as the Galatian heresy?
Is the message of the New Testament simply that one legal system replaced another? Please see these links from those within your own tradition and offer your comment on them: http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap3.html, (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap22.html). Are these men possibly correct that legalism is indeed the "fatal error" of CC theology?
Is there any new law in the New Testament, or only new forgiveness and the fulfillment of the shadows of this forgiveness found in the Old Testament? (Here are all the scriptures in the New Testament about a “new covenant” or “new law”: Mt 26:28, Lk 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8-13, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24, Gal 6:2, James 2:8-13. Do you notice a theme?)
Are we obedient in order to be saved or because we are saved? Doesn’t the Bible teach that people are obedient because God has already saved them (2 Cor 9:8, James 2:26, 1 Jn 2:29, 1 Jn 3:9, 1 Jn 4:7, 1 Jn 5:18)?
Are we reconciled to God by what we do or by what God did to present us holy in his sight (Col 1:21-22)?
How does the CC respond to those who may accuse them of following the letter-of-the-law and not the spirit-of-the-law? For example, the Bible says we should care for widows and orphans (the letter of the law), and were astounded to hear a CC person tell us that charity should thus be limited to these groups. But Jesus gives the example of caring for the outcast and others who need help (example, the Good Samaritan) and commands us to be merciful (Mat 5:7). Is the CC attitude legalistic in this regard?
The CC has been known to define legalism as either (a) “putting human tradition above God’s commandments,” or (b) “taking one commandment out of context and twist it to make it contradict another.” Couldn’t one make a pretty good case that Church of Christ theology in fact is guilty of both definitions?
We have asked the CC why they keep coming back to James 2 in an attempt to show that salvation is through works, and the answer has been, because others "keep denying what it clearly teaches." This answer implies that, in spite of insisting elsewhere that we are not saved by works, that in fact the CC really believes after all that we are. Perhaps we just can't get it, but even James himself makes it clear that he means that works are merely evidence of a true saving faith—that is, explanatory of the kind of faith that saves us?
(Note: In James 2:14 in the Greek there is a modifying adjective in front of “faith” which is left out in the King James translation, but is translated in other versions as “the” or “that” or “such.” So James is asking here, “Can such a faith save? Or, “Can that faith save?” Notice also that James does not deny that faith justifies; he simply says, “and not by faith only.” So James acknowledges that it is indeed faith that justifies.) Most theologians down through the ages have insisted that the way to reconcile the biblical message of faith and works is to explain that works describe a true saving faith but do not save unto themselves?
Is not faith very much alive before good works are performed, and not because of good works? Christians in the historic orthodox faith thus believe that we are saved by grace through faith and strongly agree that a faith without works is dead; that is, a true saving faith will be accompanied by works. Christians also believe that faith before it has a chance to work is a saving faith—for example, the thief on the cross. The CC would have others believe that faith is dead until one rises out of the water. Thus someone on his way to be baptized could not be one whose faith is working by love. Isn’t this view therefore legalistic and contrary to Scripture?
How does one answer the following charge made by Bob Ross in his book Campbellism; It’s Histories and Heresies: “Campbellism is salvation by works because it requires one to obey—in order to be saved—a ‘gospel plan’ that in order requires (a) faith, repentance, good confession, baptism, remission of sins, and the Holy Spirit—thus requires a sacramental ordinance, and (b) requires the assistance of another person [“priest”] and thus the obedience of the one assisting.” Is this construct a tradition of man rather a commandment of God?
Christians throughout the ages have pointed out that Christianity is uniquely different from all other religions and cults because salvation is through faith and not through works. Can you see that the view of salvation through works puts the CC in close company with false religions and cults?
Isn’t salvation not of him who willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that calleth (Rom 9:11) and of God that showeth mercy (Rom 9:16)? Isn't believing itself the work that God requires (Jn 6:28, 29, 40)?
Here is a single question that may quicky determine whether the CC is in fact legalistic: If it would bring more people to your church to hear the gospel, would you allow instrumental music?
Or, if you are a CC member, would you consider taking this Legalism Questionnaire?: http://ex-churchofchrist.com/legalismCoC.htm.
Baptism
Because the CC places SO much emphasis on baptism and because it is another key issue over which the CC refuses to fellowship with other Christians, we are obliged to spend more time on this topic than we would like. If you prefer, just skip this section. There is plenty of time to come back to it. But first, if you are a CC person with an open mind, we ask you to read Leroy Garrett's article about "one baptism"— http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap37.html. Among many other points in this article, Garrett says, "We as immersionists must rid ourselves of the ungracious notion that those who do not baptize the way we do have rebellious and disobedient hearts. They can be mistaken without being degenerate. And they can be mistaken and still be Christians who are pleasing God, just as we can still be Christians when we are mistaken."
It is wondered whether the CC uses baptism as a tool to separate from other Christian groups. CC theologian Everett Ferguson in his book instructs against such practice (page 403): "Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 protests against any view of baptism which would make it a badge of distinction among Christians instead of a unifying act."
Ferguson also warns (page 195): "Baptism provides an objective assurance of having received God's promised salvation in Christ. That may lead to the subtle temptation to trust in baptism for salvation instead of trusting in God, his act in Christ, and his word of promise." As it seems that many within the CC have yielded to this temptation, it is asked, is your faith in Christ or in baptism (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap13.html)?
Is it true that the CC teaches that a baptism is only valid if done by a CC preacher? If not, we would like to hear from any individual who is a member of a Church of Christ who has not been baptized by a Church of Christ preacher (or elder). (Email us at mail@faithfact.org). If so, doesn't that mean that there is then more than one mediator between God and men (1 Tim 2:5)—Jesus plus a Church of Christ preacher? What do you think about Carl Ketcherside's charge (please read the link http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap9.html) that,"To demand that one of God's children be forced to submit to re-baptism at the hands of one of 'our preachers' in order to be in 'our fellowship' is sectarianism pure and simple...Such Church-of-Christ-isms like all other 'isms' are an insult to the persons and dignity of the Holy Spirit by whom we 'are all baptized into one body.'"
Is baptism even necessary for salvation? According to the Christian Research Institute, reflecting the dominant view among Protestants, "Acts 10 states that some Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved) before they were baptized. This is significant, for the Holy Spirit is the seal of the believer’s salvation (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; Rom. 8:9). Furthermore, Jesus saved the thief on the cross without water baptism (Luke 23:39f). It would seem therefore that baptism is not essential for salvation....As a sacrament (like Holy Communion), baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it does establish the Christian as a member of God’s visible church."
In addition to the thief on the cross, are there other instances in the Bible where a sinner was saved without baptism (Luke 7:48, Acts 15:9, Acts 26:18, Eph 1:11-13, 1 Jn 5:4, etc.)?
Is Jesus Christ the head of the Church of Christ? Since the head of the Church received ONLY John's baptism, is not John's baptism Christian baptism? What kind of baptism did the apostles receive? Were they saved or lost? What kind of baptism did these disciples who who were baptized by the apostles on the authority of Christ during his personal ministry receive (John 4:1-2)? Were they saved or lost? Was this before Pentecost?
What do you think of Cecil Hook's thoughts on this subject: http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap27.html?
Most Christians from the historic orthodox tradition say that while baptism is closely associated with salvation—and is either the first act of obedience or a symbol of the substance of what God will do for us through his mercy—but it does not in itself save anyone. Probably anyone who had the opportunity to be baptized and refused would be rejecting the Christian faith. But baptism is like the ring in a Christian marriage; the ring always accompanies the marriage ceremony but it is not the ring that creates the marriage. Even though the marriage vows say literally, "With this ring I thee wed," what creates the marriage is the commitment under God between the parties.
It is recognized that the modern CC does not claim a heritage from the original Restoration Movement and will probably recoil at these next few questions. However, the modern CC undeniably traces its lineage to it, and so one would think that CC folk would have at least some respect for the views of the founders. So, what should one think of the fact that none of the 4 primary founders of the restoration movement—Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, nor Barton W. Stone—were ever immersed to “wash away sins?” Why did Mr. Scott and the Campbells never “obey” the “Ancient Gospel” which Mr. Scott “restored?”
Since Alexander Campbell was baptized by and Baptist preacher (Elder Luce) and was thus put into the Church of Christ, why will not Baptist Baptism do the same for people today? If Elder Luce did not baptize Campbell into Christ, when and where and how did Campbell ever get into Christ, since he died with Baptist Baptism and never repudiated it? If Campbell was baptized into Christ by Luce's act, then was nto the Church of Christ in fact already here?
For the record, when the Campbells founded their first church, the Brush Run Church, they accepted "sprinkled" people as baptized, and the Campbells would not then rebaptize such ones. Included in the group who were baptized included a baby.
Also of note, Thomas Campbell immersed three people before he himself had been immersed. Alexander Campbell in fact taught that, “Baptism is an ordinance by which we formally profess Christianity….It confirms nothing…. The seal of the Holy Spirit requires no external ordinance to perfect it.”
Is it true that anyone who is not baptized according to the CC formula is considered an "unsaved child of the devil?" Were the founders of the Restoration Movement then unsaved children of the devil? Could they be "fellowshipped" by their congregations today?
Indeed, there is a more fundamental question about the CC teaching that a person who is to be baptized should profess to be an unsaved child of the devil. Is this not missing the point entirely—that it is a child of God who is to be baptized—one who is saved by grace?!
Other things are listed in the Bible besides baptism for remission of sins—belief, confession, repentance. Why emphasize that a person must be baptized “purposely” for the remission of sins when not asking whether a person believes/confesses/repents “purposely” for remission of sins? If not done purposely for remission of sins, must a person re-believe/re-confess/re-repent?
CC relies heavily on Mark 16:16 (first part) and Acts 2:38, but Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. And many of the ancient church fathers reveal no knowledge of these verses, so scholars say that they are not really part of Holy Scripture. How can one rely on this verse for important doctrine?
Is it possible that the Church of Christ has misinterpreted Mark 16:16 by not understanding the original Greek? The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (page 1260) says about Mark 16:16, “The word ‘believeth’ is pisteuo [4100], an aortist participle referring to one who has believed at some time in the past. Also, baptistheis (907), translated ‘is baptized,’ is an aorist participle but in the passive voice. This form refers to an act of outward obedience, in this case, baptism. Therefore, the correct translation here should be stated, 'He who believed and who was baptized shall be saved.' However, the Lord adds, ' …but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ It should be noted that this negative statement does not include a reference to baptism, making it clear that what saves a person is living faith in Jesus Christ. This is made clear in Ephesians 2:8, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith….’ The word ‘saved’ is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present, being accomplished by Jesus Christ Himself.
"If baptism were necessary for salvation, Ephesians 2:8 and many other verses should have been translated ‘ye are saved through faith and baptism.’…Baptism is a distinct act of obedience apart from salvation. This is clarified by the order in which the words ‘believe’ and ‘baptize’ occur in the text…”
CC has also apparently hung enormous weight on the interpretation of Acts 2:38 that the word “for” (the remission of sins) means “in order to obtain.” How would it affect this theology if it is an incorrect interpretation? The dictionary gives about a dozen ways that the Greek word translated “for” is used. For example, consider the statement, “John was beheaded for his faithfulness.” Is it not accurate to say that “for” does not mean “in order to obtain” in this sentence? Using a biblical example, doesn’t the phrase “for thy cleansing” in Luke 5:14 is used as a testimony for the healing the person received and not the healing itself?
Further regarding Acts 2:38, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (page 1357) says this, “The main verb in this verse is metanoesate (3340), meaning 'repent.' This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated ‘be baptized’ is in the indirect passive imperative of baptizo (907) which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command of ‘repent.’ The preposition ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ in Greek is eis (1519), ‘unto.’ Literally it means ‘for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.’ This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase ‘and were all baptized unto [eis] Moses.’ These people were identifying themselves with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to other people. That is why baptistheto, ‘to be baptized,’ is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but he is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.”
Is it thus possible that the Church of Christ has misinterpreted Acts 2:38? In this verse, wasn’t baptism (unto the remission of sins) a part of the results promised rather than part of the command?
Still further regarding Acts 2:38, Geisler and Howe (book When Critics Ask), offer several reasons why this passage does not really suggest that those who responded had to be baptized before they could receive the Holy Spirit:
“First, the word 'for' (eis) can mean ‘with a view to’ or even ‘because of.’ In this case, water baptism would be because they had been saved, not in order to be saved. Second, people are saved by receiving God’s word, and Peter’s audience ‘gladly received his word’ before they were baptized (Acts 2:41). Third, verse 44 speaks of ‘all who believed’ as constituting the early church, not all who were baptized. Fourth, later, those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, ‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have’ (Acts 10:47). Fifth, Paul separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel’ (1 Cor 1:17). But it is the Gospel which saves us (Rom 1:16). Therefore, baptism is not part of what saves us. Sixth, Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (Mat 3:15). But the Bible declares clearly it is ‘not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us’ (Titus 3:5). Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (John 20:31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should ‘believe’ and be saved (cf. John 3:16, 18, 36).
"In view of all these factors it seems best to understand Peter’s statement like this: ‘Repent and be baptized with a view to the forgiveness of sins.” That this view looked backward (to their sins being forgiven after they were saved) is made clear by the context and the rest of Scripture. Believing (or repenting) and being baptized are placed together, since baptism should follow belief. But nowhere does it say, ‘He who is not baptized will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16). Yet Jesus said emphatically that ‘he who does not believe is condemned already’ John 3:18). So neither Peter nor the rest of Scripture makes baptism a condition of salvation.”
Here are further notes from the NET Bible as to Acts 2:38. Any thoughts on this exegesis?—"(2:38) There is debate over the meaning of eis in the prepositional phrase eis .... Although a ‘causal’ sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage:
(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eis has the meaning of ‘for’ or ‘unto.’ Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance [and sins blotted out] often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18);
(2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of ‘baptism’ in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41);
(3) The text should be re-punctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, ‘Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized...’ Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eis, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it;
(4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, ‘Acts,’ EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eis 4.f."
Regarding Acts 10:44-48, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (page 1372) says, “This is similar to the circumstances at Jerusalem and Samaria in that each time, many believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit at the same time 9cf. Acts 2:1-4, 8:14-17). It is interesting to note that apostles were present in each instance. The special manifestation of the Holy Spirit here which allowed these Gentiles to speak in tongues proved that God gave the Gentiles the same ‘gift’ (v. 45) as the Jews. Notice that the baptism of the Holy Spirit took place prior to the water baptism. ‘Spiritual’ baptism is what actually places believers into the body of Christ while water baptism only demonstrates to others that a person is in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)….”
Regarding 1 Peter 3:21, the notes in the The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (pages 1539-1540) explain, “The expression ‘baptism doth now save’ should be understood in light of verse twenty: ‘eight souls were saved by water.’ Noah and his family, being in the ark, were able to pass safely ‘through’ the waters….In the same way, the term ‘baptism’ should be understood as the visible representation of deliverance through Christ, just as the ark represented deliverance from the waters of the Flood. When a person accepts Christ, he is saved; when the believer is baptized, he is identified with the One who has delivered him (i.e. Jesus Christ).”
Wasn’t Noah saved before the flood (Genesis 6:8)? So aren’t believers saved before baptism in the same way, baptism being a symbol of a saving faith?
It also seems significant that Peter here explains his own statement by stating that baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ." Could the CC have misunderstood this passage, especially in light of the previous analysis of Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16?
Did Jesus know the plan of salvation (John 14:6)? Did Christ personally, at any time or place tell a sinner to be baptized FOR or IN ORDER to the Remission of Sin? If so, where and when? Why didn’t Jesus regularly practice baptism if it is so important?
Does the word water as used in John 3:5 mean baptism? Why didn't Christ say what he meant to say? If he really meant baptism—when he said water—by the same reasoning he evidently meant baptism in the next Chapter (John 4:7-15). Read again the story of the Woman at the Well and substitute the word baptism for water everywhere it is found in the story exactly as you substitute the word baptism for water in John 3:5, and see what a story you make. False doctrines always lead to muddy water. WHERE THE BIBLE SPEAKS, WE SPEAK.
Why did Paul say in 1 Cor 1:17 that he did not come to baptize?
If people fall away, is it possible to tell if they were really saved or not (Heb 6:4)? What if the person only appeared to fall away when in fact he was never truly a believer in the first place—but then later does in fact come to a saving faith? If he had been baptized previously, should he now be re-baptized? How does one know if they should be re-baptized?
Paul obeyed before he was baptized (Acts 9:6-9). Was his faith a dead faith before he was baptized?
Why use 1 Cor 5:11 (“ye are washed”) to support the CC view of baptismal salvation? Is there anything here that says washing means baptism? Isn’t washing just another word for cleansing? Doesn’t Rev 1:5 make it clear that the washing is from Christ’s blood rather than water baptism?
Is it correct that the healing of Naaman in the Jordan River (2 Kgs 5) is used to support this water gospel doctrine? If so, isn’t this distorting the Bible in an attempt to prove a wrong doctrine? (Healing of leprosy is not evidence of salvation, is it? And Naaman did not even believe in God when he was healed, right?)
Is it even theoretically possible for someone to have met all the biblical requirements to be saved—but died en route to being baptized—and still go to heaven? If the answer is yes, doesn’t that show that the emphasis on baptism might be misplaced?
If the answer is, “I cannot put myself on the judgment throne of God and pronounce him lost any more than you can put yourself on the judgment throne of God and pronounce him saved.”—isn’t this an admission that indeed baptism is not necessary requirement to be saved (in every situation)? Thus, if it is not a necessary requirement to be saved in every situation, it is not a requirement at all?!
We have a friend who was ordained as a minister in the Church of Christ who has left the CC. The reasons he gives is that "he studied his way out of it." But further, the question of a person dying before baptism is not a theoretical question for him. He actually led a young man to Christ who was killed in a car accident on his way to be baptized. Our friend is confident that this young man met all of the biblical requirements for salvation and is in heaven today. He remains dismayed that some of his CC friends still maintain that the young man is experiencing eternal torment in hell because he was not baptized.
Immersion
Garrett says (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap38.html), "An interesting book on the history of the dispute about baptism, entitled The Water That Divides, shows that the issue is not as simple as we have supposed. He notes that while there is universal agreement that baptism was often by immersion in the New Testament, it is not universally agreed that all baptisms were by immersion. And so throughout the history of the church, the author states, baptism has been administered by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling."
Garrett also quotes Barton Stone in the same article: "Shall we make immersion the test of religion, and why is immersion emphasized more than the love of God, holiness, mercy, and self denial." Stone argued that if God could accept Cornelius before he was immersed, those in the CC should be able to accept those who have not yet attained to your understanding.
Is immersion proved by example (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap34.html)?
Doesn’t the Bible use the word baptism in ways other than immersion? For example, in 1 Cor 10:1-4 the Israelites were baptized by only getting their feet wet, while it was the Egyptians who got immersed. In Mark 7:4 baptism is described as washing of vessels, which is not necessarily immersion but could be pouring or scrubbing. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of “various ceremonial washings.” The word here is baptismos. The ceremonial washing, or baptisms, that follow are rites of purification in the Old Testament (cf. Heb 9:13-31). In all of these ceremonial washings, the method of application was sprinkling.
In fact, all Old Testament purifications or washings were by sprinkling (Num 8:7, 19:19, Lev 14:7, etc). Doesn't it stand to reason that New Testament Jewish Christians would have appreciated that method of baptism?
It just seems to many this is another example of the CC taking a legalistic stance to separate from other Christians. Doctrine allows (requires) interpretation. It is not appropriate to take everything in the Bible in a wooden literal sense. The CC would not say that one must literally eat Jesus' body to be saved —Jn 6:50-58 (as some Catholics believe). In the same way, when the Bible says we are baptized unto remission of sins, it is not a necessary inference that in order to be saved we must perform a ritual baptism exactly as the Church of Christ does it!
Finally, this observation about baptism. A faithful CC man responded to the above questions in great detail, arguing that these opposing views are wrong. But he also said, "Baptism does not procure [i.e. purchase] salvation. It is entirely the gift of God." This seems to contradict his other arguments for the necessity of water baptism for salvation. But anyway, his statement seems to be one we can all agree on! So, we ask, is baptism really so much of an issue over which you must draw the line of fellowship with the rest of us?
God’s Holiness vs. Man’s Sin
The CC flatly and emphatically denies the historic biblical doctrine of Original Sin (as do, interestingly, every cult and all non-biblical world religions). Doesn't the Bible teach that man is born with a fleshly (sinful) nature that is in some way inherited from Adam (Rom 5:12-Rom 6:23)? Historic Christian theology has been insistent on this doctrine and it makes Christianity unique among world religions. It is this understanding that makes the work of Christ so important.
Ferguson, in attempting to explain the CC view makes a distinction between the "human condition" of sin and the "human nature" of sin (pages 137-148). This seems to be a distinction without a difference, unless the CC is merely using this topic to try to separate from other Christians. Yet, Ferguson acknowledges the universality of sin as a consequence of the Fall.
By denying original sin, does the CC make Christianity similar to all other religions who teach that man is born good? Doesn’t this view minimize the work of Christ—his perfect life, his death and resurrection to atone for our sins? Wasn’t the intensity of Christ’s suffering on the cross necessary as payment for the intensity of man’s sin?
For the record, here are important passages about our sin: Gen 6:5, 8:21, 1 Kgs 8:46, Job 14:1-4, 25:2-6, Ps 14, Ps 51:3-5, 53:1-3, 58:3-5, Prov 14:12, Ecc 7:20, Isaiah 53:6, 55:8-9, 59:2, 64:6, Jer17:9, Dan 9:1-11, Mk 7:20-23, Rom 3:9-23, Rom 5:12-21, 7:13-25, 8:5-8, 14:23, Gal 5:16-21, Eph 2:1-3, Js 2:10, 1 Jn 1:8-10? Is there even one person on earth who is righteous (Ecc 7:20)? Aren’t we sinful by our very nature (Eph 2:3)?
Doesn’t the CC view on sin ignore the obvious observable sin nature of little children—their selfishness and even hurtfulness that comes quite naturally at an early age? Don’t children have to be taught to be good? In fact, don't adults as well have to be taught to be good? (These are arguments we make to non-Christians, and it seems so surprising that we have to make these same arguments to those who profess the authority of the Bible.)
We wonder whether the CC has failed to fully grasp the enormity of God’s holiness (Ex 3:5, 15:11, 19:23, 1 Chr 16:29, 2 Chr 20:21, Ps 29:2, 93:5, 96:9, Isaiah 6:1-8, 29:23, 40:25, and Revelation 15:4)? The theological question then becomes: could it be that the CC view grossly fails to appreciate the enormity of the unbridgeable gap between man’s sinfulness and God’s holiness?
Christians in the historic biblical Christian faith down through the ages have said that the more they understand man’s condition and God’s holiness, the more they understand how truly weak and sinful they are—beginning with St. Paul (Romans 7:18-20), and Isaiah before him (Isaiah 6:1-8)?
The CC prides itself on baptizing in a certain way, church attendance, and instrumental music. But these are all outward things. Jesus emphasized the inward sins.Here is a self-examination questionnaire that we find helpful for ourselves to think more deeply about our sin. Perhaps you would like to comment on this:
Have I enjoyed, relied on, or feared other things or people more than I enjoy, rely on, and fear God (First Commandment)? Have I committed idolatry by seeking comfort from my own efforts or man-made things rather than from God (Second Commandment)? Have I misused God's name by using prayer or thoughts to twist God's desires for me into what I think I want (Third Commandment)? Have I failed to keep the Sabbath day holy by harboring negative feelings toward other people in my congregation or other congregations (Fourth Commandment)? Have I ever disappointed my parents, failed to pray for them, been sullen toward them, or failed to encourage and nourish them (Fifth Commandment)?
Have I ever murdered my neighbor in my heart with thoughts of anger, contempt, hatred, or ridicule (Sixth Commandment. Mat 5)? Have I ever dishonored my marriage by having sexual thoughts of others or failing to cherish my mate in all things (Seventh Commandment, Mat 5)? Have I ever stolen anything by cheating, by working for myself rather than for Chist and the benefit of my neighbor, or by being lazy—or wasted time, food, and money by my neglect (Eighth Commandment)? Have I ever lied or gossiped—excusing myself by saying that I only spoke the truth—or put on a front to make others think differently of me than I am (Ninth Commandment)? Have I ever been guilty of coveting worldly goods—just can’t stand it till I get the next gadget. Or have I ever been stingy, felt envy, or do I keep wishing for and dreaming about things I don't have before I can work with a joyful heart (Tenth Commandment)?
Have I ever felt my understanding to be superior to other Christians, and thus committed the abhorrent sin of pride through sectism? Do I ever fail to do something I ought to do (James 4:17)—for example, failed to evangelize someone that I could have? Do I ever fail to do all things without murmurings and disputing (Phil 2:14-15)? Am I always joyful (Gal 5:22) and a peacemaker (Mat 5:9)? Am I always poor in spirit (Mat 5:3)? Do I ever lose my patience or fail to exhibit self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)?
Am I guilty of getting upset, angry or failing to love even those closest to me—let alone my enemies? Have I ever failed to be encouraging to anyone, including my spouse or children? Have I ever been disobedient or lazy? Ever neglected anything? Do I really love God with all of my mind, or do I in fact sometimes have secret unclean thoughts (Mt 22:37)? Do I complain about the troubles, people, work and suffering God lays on me? Do I see my worry and fretting as a sin against God? Am I always thankful for the blessings God showers on me? And have I refused to confront my weaknesses by denying that they are weaknesses?
We ourselves acknowledge that the depth of our transgression is beyond hope. Even in this article, our sin is transparent, for which we do not even know how to compensate. Even as we attempt to express these things we see that we have such a prideful spirit, a laziness to pursue truth from biases through peer pressure and tradition, and a glaring weakness in understanding even as to how to be obedient. What punishment must we deserve in God’s eyes!
Thank God we do not have to rely on our own strength but on that of the Savior.
Holy Spirit
According to a CC website, at least some CC folks believe that "the Holy Spirit is no longer active and God uses the New Testament to bring people to Himself." This seems puzzling, especially in light of how the Holy Spirit is mentioned in virtually every book of the Bible (http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/christian_cram_course.html#holyspirit). But Ketcherside, a CC insider, charges that "The answer to the problem of division is the indwelling of the Spirit of God....All who separate from their brethren, who seek to segregate, isolate and divide them do so because they do not possess the Spirit."
Could this attitude toward the Holy Spirit, heaven forbid, even be related to the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-30)? In any case, it would seem to be belittling of the third person of the Trinity, which would be very serious.
It would seem that some members of the Church of Christ know as much about the Holy Spirit as Nicodemus in John 3. Here is a link that will be most interesting to CC members as well as to anyone who may desire to see how the CC interprets the Bible:
Is the Church of Christ a Cult?
If you believe that the Holy Spirit is not active today in the lives of believers, here is you chance to refute the claims from this website.
The Lord’s Supper
We understand that it is universal practice within the CC to allow non-CC people to partake of the Lord's Supper at a CC church. But the CC does not allow its members to partake of the Lord's Supper in other churches. Isn’t that inconsistent, even hypocritical (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap20.html)?
We understand further that the CC teaches that to be fully obedient to God, one must take the Supper weekly, and that it must be on Sunday rather some other day in order to be saved. Is that correct? If so, why insist that communion must be on Sunday, when the first observance of the Lord’s Supper was prior to the death of Christ and at least 3 days and nights before his resurrection? Are these views commandments of God or traditions of man?
Why call on Acts 20:7 to support the view when there (1) were no disciples at Troas, (2) was no church there, (3) this was a “lecture” not a “preaching service” by Paul, and (4) the Lord’s Supper was not observed, and (5) it apparently occurred on Saturday evening not Sunday, (6) apparently Paul did not eat with them, (7) there is no indication that they broke bread on this day of the week previously or afterward? Even so, why should this be a binding rule on the church? Does the fact that the Philippian jailer was baptized during the middle of the night mean that every one must be baptized at such a time? The fact that offerings were given on the first day of the week at Corinth (1 Cor 16:1) does not mean that they can’t be given on some other day also, does it? What about Mr. Hook’s comments at: http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap2.html?
Is it not true that the use of grape juice instead of wine within the CC only began during prohibition and only in the United States? Regarding wine, by the CC own rules of inclusion and exclusion, since wine was consumed by Jesus and his disciples at the last supper, aren't you required to use wine also? Apparently it is believed that merely consuming an alcoholic beverage is a sin. Since Jesus turned water into wine, would Jesus cause those at the wedding feast to sin?
Does one have to be worthy to take the Lord’s Supper? Isn’t Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11) for taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner related to drunkenness or not sharing? Isn’t it correct to say that the more unworthy we are is all the more reason to be reminded through the Lord’s Supper that we are freely forgiven by God?
Freedom
Are you free in Christ (John 8:36) or are you a slave (http://www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap24.html)? What is the truth that frees (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap7.html)?
Summary
Stone and Campbell referred to their movement as the Reformation Movement. It is significant that only the heirs of the movement called it the Restoration Movement. The difference is that "restoration" implies that the church had gone out of existence. "Reformation," on the other hand, accepts that the church has continually been in existence, just as Jesus said it would. But it has continually been in need of reform.
Church of Christ preacher Cecil Hook discovered the love of Christ when he realized he was free to change and finally gave up partyism (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/). W. Carl Ketcherside, Church of Christ author of 34 books was "a factionalist of the factionalists" until he too realized he too was free to change. He referred to his changed life as a "Pilgrimage of Joy." He abandoned partyism and discovered that he could love those who differed with him as much as he could those who concurred in his views. He exclaimed, "It is a genuine thrill to know that the only brethren you have are brethren in error....But I receive them all like God does. If he doesn't drive out out his children I will not drive out my problem brethren. If they are in him, we are in him together. And I am not going to leave him or them. They don't have to love me for me to love them."
We see a New Reformation developing. We welcome members of the Church of Christ to rejoin hands with the rest of the biblical Christian community in accord with the original principals of the Stone-Campbell Reformation Movement. While in the recent past you may have led in dividing, we invite you to lead in uniting Christians in this exciting new Reformation.
