Errors of the Church of Christ (10)

10. 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 (chapter 17, Mortality Rate)?”

RT – As revealed in Scripture, the Lord’s church is NEVER a stumbling block to the gospel. His church is surely a stumbling block to man-made institutions, however. The second question I can’t answer because I have not heard such things.

11. 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.

RT – In this commentary of yours may help another in some way; perhaps this is a good thing. However, that said, it’s just a commentary and its value is limited.

12. 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? Isn’t there a difference between unity and uniformity? In other words, can’t we have unity without uniformity? 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.”

RT – If Leroy Garrett was my only source I might be inclined to think your first question would have merit. Since, however, the Scriptures speak nothing of Leroy Garret I can only answer it in accordance with that – 1 John 1:1-3. Your second question is answered yes. Your third question is, potentially, yes. The remainder of your questions are loaded with much bias. The Lord’s church can accept no one, but those who repent (Acts 17:30-31), and it is the Lord who adds to the church, not man (Acts 2:47). With regard to Romans 14, it is not responsible to interpret Paul’s words in light of denominationalism – since it did not exist in his day like it does in our day. Moreover, what Paul had in view was not a compromise with regard to what the Lord explicitly taught, but with regard to interpersonal relationship and private opinions. Additionally the passage in Mark 9:38-41 does not allow – even for a moment – teachings that are contrary to one another as if both came from God! To suggest as much is to abuse the passage. 

 

As this series continues I have grown weary of these commentary remarks. Nevertheless, in my view, there is warrant for tackling the issues by this author and giving biblical answers on my own commentary on his remarks. Perhaps some have tired of these posts. I hope that is not the case, but if it is, I beg your indulgence as they will continue.