The Church of CHRIST

     What is the church of Christ? What do we mean when we talk about the church of Christ? What should we mean? It seems like many, even within the church itself, don’t have a clear understanding of what the church is, evidenced by the phraseology commonly used.

     Maybe you’ve heard something like, “He’s Baptist, she’s Methodist, I’m Church of Christ.” This gives the impression that the church of Christ is just a denominational sect among many others. Or, “John is a Church of Christ preacher, Freed-Hardeman is a Church of Christ university, and weekly communion is a Church of Christ doctrine.” But the expression “Church of Christ” is not an adjective. It would be more proper to speak of gospel preachers, Christian schools, and biblical doctrines. I’m a member of the church of Christ, but I’m not “Church of Christ.” The word “church” applies to a collectivity of believers, not to an individual. The designation “Church of Christ” is not a denominational label. It is not an adjective. It is a descriptive phrase for the church belonging to Christ.

     Sometimes the question is asked, “Will only the church of Christ be saved?” This is a valid question and deserves a biblical answer. When people derogatorily say, “The Church of Christ think they’re the only ones going to heaven,” they usually have in mind a denominational sect wearing the name “Church of Christ” who believe their denomination is better than all others. This misguided perspective has led to considerable misunderstanding and prejudice. Here’s a good response: “You know, I’ve heard that rumor too. Would you like to see what the Bible says?”

A Biblical Response to Common Misconceptions

     The Bible teaches that salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10). In fact, salvation is only in Christ (Acts 4:12; John 14:6). How, then, does one get into Christ where salvation is available? There are only two verses in the Bible that specifically state at what point in our response to God we enter Christ, namely Rom. 6:3 and Gal. 3:27. Both of these passages say the same thing: as penitent believers we are “baptized into Christ.”¹ Yet elsewhere Paul says, “we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Which is it? Are we baptized into Christ or into Christ’s body? If I swallow a coin, is the coin in me or in my body? Yes it is. To be in Christ is to be in the body of Christ.

     Does this mean that one must be in Christ’s body to be saved? Again Paul writes, “… Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). Those outside the body of Christ are not and cannot be saved. And what is the emblematic body of Christ? “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23). The body of Christ is the church of Christ.

     The church of Christ is not a physical building or denominational sect. All penitent believers who have obeyed the gospel, having been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins, are added by the Lord to the church/the community of the saved (Acts 2:38-47; 1 Cor. 12:13), and by remaining faithful to Christ’s teachings, comprise the church of Christ. It’s not a matter of joining the church of your choice; it’s a matter of obeying the word of God and being the church of Christ’s choice.

     Will only the church of Christ be saved? The only biblical answer is affirmative. To give any other answer is to misunderstand what the church of Christ is. Someone might ask, “Do you think your church is the only right one?” This is an easy question to answer, because I don’t have a church. If I did, it wouldn’t be any better or worse than any other man-made religious group. But Jesus Christ does have a church. His church is the only right one. This is the only church I want to be part of.

Attempts to Justify Denominationalism

     In an attempt to justify the current state of the religious world, many try to define the church as a universal brotherhood of various (all, some, most?) denominational bodies, all wearing different names and adhering to different doctrines. But this concept is foreign to the Bible. When Jesus employed the imagery of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-18), there was no such thing as a denominational sect. In fact, the Lord’s own church had not been established yet. Jesus is the vine and individual disciples are the branches.

     Christ promised to build only one church (Matt. 16:18). By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians, there was just “one body” (Eph. 4:4a), just as there is one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God the Father (vv. 4b-6). As much as I’d like to rationalize the current condition of the religious world and affirm that everybody and everything is okay, this can’t be done if the Bible is to be taken seriously (cf. Matt. 7:13-14).

Whose church? Whose name?

     To be the church of Christ, the teachings of Christ must be respected and followed. If a group meets in a building with a sign that reads “Church of Christ” but are not abiding by Christ’s teachings, they are not the church of Christ. If a group meets in a building with no sign, or in a schoolroom, or in a living room, or in a cardboard shack, and the teachings of Christ are faithfully obeyed, they are the church of Christ.

     The church of the New Testament does not have a single, proper name – just descriptive designations (e.g. Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 11:16; 14:33; etc.). Nevertheless, there was only one church in the New Testament era, so irrespective of which biblical expression was used, there would be no confusion. In modern times, however, the religious environment is very different. There are hundreds of churches claiming allegiance to Christ, wearing different names, worshiping in different ways, and teaching conflicting doctrines. It can be very confusing. Therefore, it is surely expedient to have a designation that helps identify and unify those of like-precious-faith, while distinguishing from those on a different path.

     If Christ is the builder of his church (Matt. 16:18), the foundation of his church (1 Cor. 3:11), the purchaser of his church (Acts 20:28), and the head of his church (Col. 1:18), why shouldn’t we wear his name? When we speak of the church of Christ, it ought to be for the purpose of honoring Christ and identifying ourselves with him. Any other usage is unbiblical.

Putting it in Perspective

     If the Lord says there is only one true church (Matt. 16:18), am I narrow-minded if I say the same thing? If Jesus promises, “you shall know the truth” (John 8:32), is it arrogant to say that I know the truth? If the name of Christ has been exalted above all other names (Phil. 2:9), am I sectarian if I only want to wear the name of Christ? If God condemns religious division (1 Cor. 1:10), how can I justify denominationalism? If Jesus is the savior of all who obey him (Heb. 5:9), am I legalistic if I emphasize the importance of obedience? If God specifies the kind of worship that is acceptable to him (John 4:24), who am I to prescribe something different? If human innovations in worship are unacceptable to God (Matt. 15:8-9), am I judgmental when I object to human innovations in worship? If we speak where the Bible speaks (1 Pet. 4:11), why are we ridiculed for trying to follow the revealed will of God?

Conclusion

     I only want to be a member of the church I read about in the New Testament: nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. If, for whatever reason, I’m not a member of that church, the greatest service anyone could do for me is to open the Bible and point me in the right direction. At the same time, I sincerely want others to be in heaven. If that means I have to step out of my comfort zone and lovingly confront those who are in error, am I not doing what the Lord expects? “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnote:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

Related Posts: Where's the Church in the Gospel Plan of Salvation?, The Church of the NT, Preach Jesus

Related articles: Wayne Jackson's The Indestructible Church of Christ, Patrick Swayne's I am a Member of the Church of Christ, and Why the Little c Matters

Image credit: Photo taken by Lynne Moore of the sign on the building where the church of Christ in Nazareth meets.

Does Romans 9 Teach the Calvinistic Doctrine of Unconditional Election?

   The sovereignty of God is not disputed and is readily acknowledged and accepted on both sides of the debate.¹ Nonetheless, Romans 9 is about the overall “purpose of God” (v. 11) in implementing his redemptive scheme through Christ (v. 5) but is not addressing the Calvinistic notion of specific persons whom the Lord has allegedly elected to save or not save.² Contextually Paul is confronting the wayward attitudes and misconceptions of ethnocentric Jews who were discounting Gentiles from the Lord’s circle of acceptance (vv. 6-8, 24 ff.; cf. 2:1–15:33). Romans 9, a portion of this discussion, serves to vindicate God’s judgment against the obsolete system of exclusive Judaism.

     After expressing his remorse over the spiritual condition of fleshly Israel alienated from Christ, Paul acknowledges that Abraham’s biological descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) were selected by God to be instrumental in bringing the Messiah into the world (Rom. 9:1-5). But the divine purpose goes far beyond the physical.³ In fact, merely having a hereditary link with Abraham is not sufficient for being right with God, therefore Israel’s current spiritual condition cannot legitimately be blamed on God as though he were unjust (v. 14).

     Certain individuals (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Pharaoh) were divinely chosen – while others (e.g. Ishmael, Esau) were not – to play an important role in God’s plan based on his sovereign will. Calvinists claim that the focus of this chapter is on individual salvation and individual condemnation, but note that the passages quoted in vv. 12-13 (Gen. 25:23b; Mal. 1:2-3) are not about Jacob and Esau as individuals but are corporate views of their respective descendants: “Two nations … two peoples” (Gen. 25:23a); “Israel … Edom” (Mal. 1:1-4).⁴

     In stark contrast to human reasoning and preferences and innovations, the Lord’s purpose is rooted in his omniscience, foreknowledge, and infinite wisdom. In Rom. 9:15 Paul quotes the LORD’s statement in Exodus 33:19, in sparing a sinful nation (note chap. 32!):  “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy …” Yet the extending of divine mercy is not indiscriminate or arbitrary. Allowing the Bible to interpret itself, we read in Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (see also Exodus 20:6; Psalm 119:132; Luke 1:50).

     Then in Rom. 9:16 Paul observes, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” This has nothing to do with someone who might desire to be saved but is disallowed, or one who is incapable of seeking salvation; it is all about the unfolding of God’s purpose (v. 11). Irrespective of Sarah’s ploy involving Hagar (Gen. 16:2), and Abraham’s initial choice of Ishmael (Gen. 17:18), and Isaac’s preference for Esau (Gen. 25:28), human ingenuity and fallibility neither determine nor improve nor thwart the divine scheme.

     Accordingly, in Rom. 9:17 Paul quotes words spoken to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” What’s the point? “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens” (Rom. 9:18). God has chosen to have mercy on those who humbly submit to his will (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and hardens those who defiantly reject his will (like Pharaoh). God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17), not by subverting Pharaoh’s free will, but by simply making demands that Pharaoh did not like. At the same time Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15, 19, 32; 9:34-35; 10:3; 13:15) because of his own stubborn pride and rebellion. God’s actions and demands in Egypt softened the hearts of many (Exodus 4:30-31; 9:20; 10:7) but hardened the heart of Pharaoh because of the brazen opposition of Pharaoh’s obstinate will.⁵

     In Rom. 9:21 we read, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (cp. Isa. 29:16; Jer. 18:6). This statement responds to someone who might be spiritually short-sighted and oblivious [i.e. the misguided Jew], having the audacity to question the Creator’s sovereign purpose and work (vv. 19-20). God’s thoughts and ways are much higher than ours (Isa. 55:8-9). The Lord could have created each person as a pre-programed robot, unconditionally predestined for either honor or dishonor (the Calvinistic reading of the text). Or God could have designed each person as a free moral agent and predetermined that the submissive and obedient ones are destined for honor and the rebellious and disobedient ones are destined for dishonor (same “lump,” different results). The fact that God “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath” (v. 22) indicates that sinful persons are afforded sufficient opportunity to repent and alter their destructive course [cf. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9]. God “prepared beforehand” condemnation for the defiant and glory for the compliant,⁶ regardless of Jew/Gentile ethnicity (vv. 22-33; cf. 2:1–15:33; Acts 10:34-35).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See 1 Chron. 29:11-12; 2 Chron. 20:6; Isa. 46:9-10; Dan. 4:35; Psa. 115:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; etc. All scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² John Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 9 can be briefly summarized as follows: “… that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just” (Commentary on Romans 307, <Link>). In response, we maintain that from the foundation of the world God has chosen (elected) and predestined (predetermined) to save all who are in Christ (Eph. 1:1-14; cf. Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pet. 1:2). Note the key phrase "in Christ" (and comparable expressions) in Eph. 1:1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20. It is not a matter of the Lord having preselected particular individuals to be saved and everyone else to be condemned. Rather, all who are "in Christ" have been predestined and chosen; every person must therefore decide whether or not to respond to the universal gospel call with obedient faith in order to enter Christ and be counted among the called/chosen/elect (Mark 16:15-16; Gal. 3:22-28; etc.).

     ³ Abraham had many more biological descendants than just those through Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 25:1-6; 36:1-9; 1 Chron. 1:32-33). Up to this point in Romans Paul has been using the national/political designation “Jews” (1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28; 3:1, 9, 29), but here he switches to the theological term “Israelites” (9:4, 6, 31).

     ⁴ In v. 13 Paul quotes Mal. 1:2-3, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Perhaps the English term “hate” seems a bit harsh, but the Greek miseō magnifies the sense of “esteem less” with respect to the absolute importance of one’s priorities (cf. Luke 14:26). Moreover, “love” and “hate” are not emotional expressions (as per modern westernized concepts) but are demonstrated actions (cf. Dan. 9:4; John 14:15; Rom. 5:8; etc.). In the 5th-century BC context of Malachi, “Jacob” represents the descendants of Jacob/Israel (1:1, 5) and “Esau” stands for Esau’s descendants, the people of Edom (1:4). The Israelites were being reminded of their special role in God’s scheme (“Jacob I have loved”), despite the persistent abuse of their privileged status, while the defiant Edomites were destined for destruction (“Esau I have hated”).

     ⁵ See Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? 

     ⁶ E. F. Harrison points out the ambiguity of the expression “prepared for destruction” (v. 22), which does not necessarily implicate God in the action (in contrast to v. 23). He comments: “The preparation for destruction is the work of man, who allows himself to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience” (“Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Ed. F. E. Gaebelein] 10:107).

Related Posts: Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints 

Related articles: Dave Miller, Flaws in Calvinism

Image credit: http://www.crusaders.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/potter_s.jpg

Relativism Vs. Objective/Absolute Truth

     It has been estimated that about 70% of Americans do not believe in absolute truth, and as few as 38% of those who attend what is perceived to be conservative Christian churches believe in absolute truth.¹ Only 9% of American adults hold a biblical worldview, whereas less than one half of one percent of those aged 18 to 23 do.² The majority seems to favor an open, tolerant, pluralistic society, where individual choice is more important than absolute standards. Relativism currently reigns as the non-standard standard: “What I consider right and wrong is true for me, and what you consider right and wrong is true for you.”

     The “politically correct” agenda, as advocated by media outlets, politicians, the entertainment industry, and other secular entities, has consistently indoctrinated impressionable minds with ideas such as: (1) the supremacy of individual choice as the ultimate criterion; (2) personal feelings and opinions as the primary basis of morality; (3) truth is subjective and relative to circumstances; (4) diverse viewpoints are equally valid; (5) unconditional acceptance, inclusiveness, and tolerance; and (6) the demonization of making negative judgments about others.³

Relativism in Religion

     Postmodernism is a popular model of thinking that affirms there is no real knowledge or facts or truth in the objective sense (only subjective interpretations); no uniform or universal reality.⁴ And postmodernistic relativism is not limited to atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics. Universalism is the belief that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God. Syncretism is the combining of different religious beliefs, asserting unity and the inclusion of diverse faiths. Pluralism is accepting all religious paths as equally valid and promoting coexistence. It is all too common to hear the adage, “One religion is as good as another.”

     For professing Christians who at least pay lip service to the exclusiveness of the Christian faith (see John 14:6), alternative slogans include, “One church is as good as another,” “Join the church of your choice,” and “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere.” Now that Christianized Relativism is so commonplace in our society, who can be surprised by messages like that of Victoria Olsteen? She announces to the world: “just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God, really, you’re doing it for yourself ...”⁵

Relativism in Churches of Christ⁶

     With the inroads of relativism and the denial of absolute truth, we are witnessing among churches of Christ a rejection or compromise of fundamental tenets such as biblical authority, the restoration plea, the distinctiveness of the church, worship guidelines, doctrinal integrity, and a strict moral code. Teachings regarded as harsh or unpleasant or inconvenient are diluted or changed. Grace and unconditional acceptance take precedence over repentance, accountability, and obedience. Rather than appealing to Bible authority and what we know pleases the Lord, greater emphasis is placed on what interests members (felt needs) and/or what attracts people in the community. Doctrinal and procedural change is hailed as essential to salvaging or transforming what is perceived to be an antiquated and dying church.⁷ Then there are the catchphrases that prematurely end dialogue: “Everyone’s entitled to his/her own opinion.” “That’s just you’re interpretation.” “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” “Who are you to judge?!”

The Biblical Perspective

     The Bible addresses two types of human judging; one is condemned, while the other is enjoined. (1) Wrongful judgment (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 4:3-5) involves hypocritical assessments, or trying to discern another’s intentions and motives, or drawing conclusions without having all the facts, or making judgments based on misinformation, or using oneself as the standard. (2) Righteous judgment (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5) relies on God’s word as the standard, evaluates observable actions and substantiated facts, and sincerely has the person’s best interests at heart.⁸

     If the Bible is to be taken seriously, the following affirmations must be conceded:

·      There is an objective body of spiritual truth (John 4:24; 8:32; 17:17; Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 6:7; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 4:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:12; 11:6; Jas. 1:18).

·      Truth is attainable (Mark 12:32; John 4:23-24; 16:13; 17:20-21; Eph. 5:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).

·      Truth is knowable (John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 14:6; Rom. 2:2; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; Heb. 10:26; 1 Jn 2:21; 2 Jn 1).

·      Truth is mutually understandable (Matt. 13:10-16, 23; Mark 7:14; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Col. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:7).

·      One may err from the truth (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25; Gal. 2:14; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:1-5; Titus 1:14; Jas. 3:14; 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:4; cf. Rom. 1:18).

·      Truth is to be believed (John 8:45-46; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-13; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25).

·      Truth is to be obeyed (John 3:21; 8:47; 18:37; Rom. 2:8-9; 6:17-18; Gal. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 1:6; 2:4-5; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4).

·      Truth is to be defended (Gal. 4:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3; cf. Acts 9:22; 18:28).

·      Truth is to be proclaimed (John 5:33; 8:40, 45-46; 18:37; Acts 26:25; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 5:10-20; 7:14; Eph. 4:15; 1 Tim. 2:7).

Conclusion:

     Moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God and his word in favor of individual preference (cf. Rom. 1:18-31). But history has proven many times over that fallible human beings are an inadequate standard (cf. Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Without divine guidelines, there is no such thing as absolute truth, absolute evil, or absolute good, and everyone does “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). One of the best arguments against relativism is the sad state of our society and world and the turmoil and disunity in religion, including the Lord’s church. An objective standard of truth that is mutually accepted, understood, and obeyed is a logical necessity. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:2-3 NKJV).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “Religious Beliefs of Americans: Does Absolute Truth Exist?,” Religious-Tolerance.org, <Link>.

     ² “Barna Survey Examines Changes,” The Barna Group, <Link>. Alvin Kernan observes that modern education has taken “uncertainty to its nihilistic extremes in the humanities and social sciences, 'demystifying' traditional knowledge, replacing positivism with relativism, substituting interpretation for facts, and discrediting objectivity in the name of subjectivity” (In Plato’s Cave xvi).
     ³ In reality, it would appear that all are exempt from criticism except those who espouse conservative Christian values.

     ⁴ See Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian Part 1.

     ⁵ “Bill Cosby's response to Victoria Olsteen,” YouTube, <Link>. Conversely, see K. L. Moore's “What Are You Getting Out of Worship?” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Phil Sanders, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2000; and the sequel, A Faith Built on Sand: the Foolishness of Popular Religion in a Postmodern Age. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2011.

     ⁷ See James Norad’s “Why are Churches of Christ Shrinking?” <Link>; and K. L. Moore’s response, “Musicals, American Football, and Folks Leaving the Church,” <Link>.
     ⁸ “The truth of the gospel is uncomfortable precisely because it is true. The truth of the gospel shows us the strength of self-denial rather than the indulgence of self-affirmation. Clearly stating the truth of the gospel, we have a message with substance and relevance for all of life. It is the way of salvation” (Gregory Alan Tidwell, “The Splendor of Truth,” <Link>).

Related Posts: The Inconsistency of Relativism

Related articles: Dave Miller's “Political Correctness and 'Bashing',” <Link>; Steve Higginbotham's “Religious Tolerance,“ <Link>; Eric Metaxas, “The new normless: the toll of relativism on our kids,” <Link>. For an interesting comparison to the history of art, watch this video from Prager University.

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNZE6EobrvxFCRbr4nhzIvz-Wi8OyBG0TFLyq5pcdhXC6lYURBSFvgAvp_ikdABeCaRNsVOoDhE4aghODKKKTG25s1iQcjhqhVvdsEOx-RfNCE5Py3Yx3i6kvaFe6OysDDMmuEQu85WtfE/s1600/question_clipart.gif