Errors of the Church of Christ (15) – Denominations

There is not a single person I know who likes to be considered wrong in (or on) a particular belief. In fact, when another comments that you are wrong there might be a number of responses to that assertion. You could become angry, defensive, you might respond by putting distance between you and the accuser, or you might attempt to counter the assertion by a reasoned reply.

Not long ago a brother (Stephen Bradd) brought to our attention a website that accused the Lord’s church of being wrong on some particular topics; at the very least, they have questioned what is believed by them. 

Thus, the “Bible-based, para-church ministry not affiliated with any denomination” website has given us the opportunity to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the website that poses to ask tough questions did more commentating on various topics than asking questions. Nevertheless, questions were asked. The Fellowship Room is currently running a series of articles (in dialogue fashion) that addresses these questions and comments. 

If you have an interest in looking at it in its full context, let me encourage you to check it out.

 

http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/church-of-christ 

Ron Thomas 

**************

A Church of Christ 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.”

1. 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 (chapter 11, Denominate Ourselves)?

RT – A proper understanding of the word “denominate” is useful to our discussion. When the word is used most often it pertains not to a name and to doctrine. In your remarks you recognize this problem. With regard to a name let me say that there is something in a name. A church can have a name that has its origin in man, or it can have its name that has its origin in the Lord. Which do you think is better between the two? Moreover, the term “Church of Christ” designates ownership. It is the church that belongs to Christ. In the New Testament, one will read of a designation or owner (church of Christ, church of God, church of the firstborn, etc.), and one will read of a church in regard to location. So, to denominate, in the strict sense of the word, may be an unavoidable problem, but by what designation will you choose to be called?

 2. 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: chapter 12, Sectarianism?

RT – Is there anything in a name? To understand you, you think not. What do the Scriptures say? In Matthew 16 the Lord said it would be His church; are we to understand from you that it is acceptable to call His church by another name? To illustrate further: you are married; do you want your wife to be called by the name of another man? To ask is to answer! Since there is no other name given unto man by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), I think I will stay with the name of the Lord – won’t you?

 3. 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 churches in the New Testament that were not called by the name of Church of Christ saved or lost? Indeed, isn’t it correct that no individual congregation is called Church of Christ in the New Testament?

RT – In answer to your first question: I suppose it could be true that some were (are) quite sectarian in their thinking and insistence. Since there is something in a name, biblical names (designations) are appropriate, and there will be no fussing from me on that. With regard to your third question, the New Testament gives no command (that I am aware of) on a designation for the local assembly. If Isaiah 65:15 is prophetic (and I maintain it is), then what name do you think might be in mind here? Your fifth question has what design in the asking of it? It reads rather unfortunate to me. On your last question, if there is a plural, there is a singular (Romans 16:16); will you deny this?

 4. 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 (chapter 11, Denominate Ourselves). 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?

RT – I do not know where Cecil Hook got his information, but surely you saw that he was pitifully wrong? The English word church is used quite a number of times in the New Testament. Any good concordance will demonstrate this. Also, the Greek word that gives us our English word is, likewise, used quite a number of times in the New Testament. A good Greek concordance will demonstrate this. With regard to your question I will answer that if the Lord so identified his people in a particular way, I will chose to be identified that way – regardless of the frequency of use in the New Testament.

5. 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?

RT – Again, your questions are fraught with pejoratives. If one is a follower of Christ, is that one a Christian? If so, why the fussing about 11 years (or whatever amount of time intervened)? Simply because an outsider calls one a particular name at a particular time does not negate the fact of it being true before that time. Because your questions are asked in this manner, I think it is best that you continue to have the name of a man attached to your way of thinking – since this is what you desire, while a great many of us will take the Lord’s name.

6. Have you become a nondenominated denomination?

RT – This question means nothing to me.