I have in front of me an article titled Local Church of Christ adds instrument to worship. It was published last week, April 16, 2015, from The Daily News Journal out of Rutherford County, Tennessee. The article reports that “the Stones River church of Christ made a radical move – at least by denominational standards – to allow instrumental worship to take place on Sunday morning.”
There are several things that concern me about this article. I am concerned that this congregation would decide to introduce instruments into worship, thereby departing from the New Testament pattern for true worship (as we discussed yesterday). However, perhaps the addition of the instrument is a symptom of a much larger problem – that is, a problem of misunderstanding the uniqueness of the one, true church of the Bible.
This article follows in the footsteps of one published by USA Today last month. The national newspaper ran an article on March 6, 2015 with this headine: Church of Christ opens door to musical instruments. The article chronicled the journey of the Otter Creek church in Brentwood, TN as they, too, decided to add the instrument into some of their worship services.
In the Otter Creek piece, Heidi Hall writes, “Church of Christ commitment to a cappella dates to the faith’s emergence in the 1800s Restoration Movement.” Hall goes on to say, “Scriptural citations backing the a cappella tradition include a passage in Ephesians about singing hymns and making music in the heart. But Otter Creek’s preaching and teaching minister, Josh Graves, said church history is a stronger influence.”
Have some members of the Lord’s church forgotten the distinctiveness, the purity, the separation from worldliness (including worldly religions) of the one, true church of the Bible?
With all of the love in my heart, I must say that the Bible only speaks of one church. It’s the Lord’s house that Isaiah said would begin in Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3). It’s the kingdom that Daniel said the Lord would set up which would never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44). It is the church that Christ Himself promised to build (Mat. 16:18-19). It is that kingdom that Christ said is not of this world (John 18:36), that would come even before some of Jesus’ apostles and first-century disciples died (Mark 9:1).
This is the one church to which the believers were added upon their baptism in Acts 2:47. It is that church that spread like wildfire throughout the New Testament world (Acts 8:1-4), that walked in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:31). That is the kingdom of which the Christians in Colossae were a part (Col. 1:13).
Jesus is the Head of that church (Eph. 1:22-23). He is the Chief Shepherd of it (1 Pet. 5:1-4). It is that one church that He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). He gave Himself for the church (Eph. 5:25).
It is that church, referred to as Christ’s body in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians, and elsewhere, that the New Testament clearly teaches that there is only one (Eph. 4:4).
Let’s wrap it up: I return to this article that I have before me which states that the Church of Christ is a denomination that came out of the Restoration Movement in the 1800’s. That’s just not true.
I don’t want to be a member of a denomination. I want to be a member of the church that Jesus promised to build, the one that was established in His name in Acts 2. This is real history! These are the facts. That’s the church that I want to be a part of. Don’t you?
So why are articles about instrumental music, women serving as preachers, and a host of other topics popping up in newspapers all across the country? It seems that at least one reason is because some people have forgotten that the Lord’s church is not a denomination. It’s precious. It’s Christ’s bride (Eph. 5). It’s unique.
So since a church of Christ is not a denomination, but just a saved church, it must be possible that a saved Baptist assembly could be a church of Christ.
Anyone who does what the Bible says to be saved is saved (Acts 10:35; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; etc.). But would it be scripturally acceptable to take a man-made religious name? Paul didn’t want that in 1 Cor. 1:10-17.
All I want us to do is to do things the way that they were done in the New Testament. If they were saved Christians then – without denominational distinctions or names – then we can be today. That’s what I want.
Then that’s where folks get confused. We need to let all the folks in Baptist churches, and Methodists, and Pentecostals that they are possibly part of the church of Christ. Most folks think that church of Christ means the church you attend… But here you mean all saved people.
I agree that the church is comprised of saved people, and there is no one who is saved who is not in the church (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23).
I disagree that denominations are the same as the church about which we read in the Bible. For example, if you were to ask people from each of the three religious groups you mentioned in your previous comment a question like “What must one do to be saved?” you would receive three different answers. And yet each time someone asked that same question in the New Testament, they were given the same answer. There are eleven instances of that very thing happening in the book of Acts.
Since the New Testament teaches, for example, that one must be baptized in order to get into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27), which is in His church (Acts 2:47), then how could a religious group that teaches that baptism isn’t necessary for salvation be considered the same as the church of Christ described in the Bible?
I thought we were using your definition. By that, we would say that if at maximum those people were baptized, then they are part of the church of Christ.
So is the church the group of saved people or is it the building you go to?
We have to forget all of this denominational stuff. The Bible says absolutely nothing of denominations. It speaks very simply of one church. In Acts 2:47, the Lord “added to the church” those who were baptized believers. They had been baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38). They couldn’t have been saved without their belief, repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
We don’t have to ask to which church they were added there in Acts 2:47. There is only one spoken of in the New Testament. Any denominational church (the original word simply means an assembly) that does not teach what the New Testament teaches cannot be the New Testament church.
That New Testament church was called the “kingdom” (Mat. 16:18-19), the “house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15), the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), and, yes, the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16).
You arguing against your case. You say there is one church (head count of baptized believers) and that there is no division in the church (saved people). That’s exactly the same thing I said. People who go to a Baptist building to worship are part of the church(saved people) if they are baptized believers. Procedural worship does not make a church the church even if there were a list that we could go by to get the service exactly right. As you said, The Lord adds to the church those who are saved.
Tim, we’re not saying the same thing. I’m not sure why you think that I think that “procedural worship” is my only standard for who is and is not a Christian. I guess it’s because of my previous post about worship. I do believe that worship is important, and that we can know how to acceptably worship God today. Otherwise, why would Jesus say that the Father is seeking true worshippers (John 4:23-24)? But that’s a different discussion.
In order for one to be saved, he or she must do what they did in the New Testament. The people in the New Testament (11 different examples throughout the book of Acts, plus many others indicated in the epistles) were guided by inspired individuals as to what they needed to do to be saved. Amazingly, they all did exactly the same thing. It follows, then, that if we wish to be saved we will do today what they did then.
Only people who obey the express teaching of the New Testament are saved. One who is a part of a religious assembly under a man’s name or under some man-made name is not a part of the church for which my Lord died (Acts 20:28). That’s a man-made church, not the Lord’s church (Gal. 1:6-10).
Give me the Lord’s church. That’s what I want. I want to obey the gospel in the way that they did it. I want to worship the way they did. I want to pattern my actions, my words, and my thoughts the way they did (Col. 3; Phil. 2:5-11; etc.). And I want to do all of that for the REASON that they did it (Col. 3:17).
Modern denominationalism is not New Testament Christianity. Otherwise, there would not be the division in doctrine that we see contrasted between the denominations. There would be unity upon the teachings of the Bible.
Take, for example, passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:10, Ephesians 4:1-6, and John 17:21. These passages discuss the unity of the Lord’s church. Denominationalism doesn’t match any of these passages.
I’m not asking you to reject your denomination for my denomination. That’s silly. I’m asking you to reject denominationalism as a whole. We don’t need it. It is a departure from Scripture and is, therefore, sin (Mat. 15:13). The Bible teaches that Jesus’ church is also called His body (Eph. 1:22-23). It also teaches that there is one body (Eph. 4:4). Therefore, there is one church. Not many churches united under one Lord, that’s unbiblical. There is one church.
That’s the church I want.
“In order for one to be saved, he or she must do what they did in the New Testament. The people in the New Testament (11 different examples throughout the book of Acts, plus many others indicated in the epistles) were guided by inspired individuals as to what they needed to do to be saved. Amazingly, they all did exactly the same thing. It follows, then, that if we wish to be saved we will do today what they did then.” 1. If you are saying that “doing what they did” being baptized adds you to the “assembly” of the saved, then we can for now agree. There are millions that do not attend a church building with the name “Church of Christ” on its marquee that would fit this description of church. 2. If you are saying “do what they did” as in we must do all things the early church did just to be saved, then that’s an incredible list. We will need to sell these computers in front of us and live in a socialistic commune where all our needs are met by one another. We will need to never attend a church building, but instead meet in houses. Maybe most importantly, we will need to meet every single day. If we don’t, then we are not the church by your definition. As I said, you argue against your very stance. In fact, you can’t say the sentence, “The church of Christ is not a denomination,” By that very sentence, you are grouping certain church bodies together that are divided from other bodies based on procedural worship or theology. If you can speak for the Church of Christ as a whole, then it is the very thing you are arguing against. In fact, not capitalizing the first “c” doesn’t change its status as a proper noun, a brand, a denomination. If the church of Christ is referring to the universal assembly of the saved, however, {and not a group of people who believe everything alike, or do worship in the same orders}, then many that go to a Baptist building, Methodist building, etc… would be a part of that church. So is church everyone who is baptized and added to the saved? or is it a brand that all interprets scripture and worships exactly the same? If it’s the second, then that definition of church did not exist from around the second century until the eighteenth century. Lastly, your argument of one church, I think is misapplied. Paul told the universal church that there were no Jew churches and there were no Gentile churches, that there was only one church. Now, to use the COC interpretation, the Jew church should have spoken up and condemned the Gentile church for not being the one true church. “See Gentiles, they would say, there is only one church, and we are it.” Or the Gentiles could speak out against the Jews claiming that the Gentile church was the one true church. Obviously the message was that the Gentiles and Jews were both part of the universal assembly of the saved, and Paul’s exhortation was for unity between them. Now, we can either join with other Christians in our community and positively direct our efforts as part of the assembly, or we can continue to say our faction is the true church, and the rest of baptized believers are the people causing division.
Hi again, Tim.
First, let me apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Clearly, we both agree that these are important distinctions.
I’ll try to respond to your comments by the numeric order that you used in your remarks.
1. You’re right that, by “do what they did,” I mean to be baptized in order to be added to the church. We see that happening in Acts 2:38, 41, 47. This is important because they could not be saved without their repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). They were saved at the point of their baptism. I know this because Peter says, “… be baptized FOR [in order to obtain] the remission of sins.”
Ephesians 5:23 says that Christ is “the Savior of the body.” We know from Ephesians 1:22-23 that the body is the church. The two terms are used synonymously. Here’s what I learn from Ephesians 5 when I couple that with what Acts 2:47 teaches — All of the saved people are in the church (Acts 2:47), and there is no one who is saved who is not in the church (Eph. 5:23).
Therefore, whether I am or am not in the Lord’s church becomes extremely significant. It literally is the difference between heaven and hell. I can’t join the Lord’s church. He adds me to it when I obey Him (Acts 2:47). These truths make me want to be sure that what I do is biblically right. I’m going to be judged by whether I have obeyed the gospel (2 Thes. 1:7-9), so I MUST get this right.
2. Obviously I do not mean “do what they did” to the extent that you stated in the second part or your comment. If I meant that, then I wouldn’t be on this computer right now. To be obedient to the Lord in the way that the first century church was obedient to the Lord doesn’t mean that we have to act as though modern technologies, medicines, facilities, and other conveniences and advancements don’t exist. Truth is truth in any age (John 17:17; Mat. 24:35; John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
We do not have to live in a “socialistic commune” to fulfill the Lord’s command to provide for each other. We do not have to meet in homes in order to worship God acceptably. We certainly could meet in homes for worship and be acceptable. But we could also meet in a “church building” or a school or in a park or anywhere else. The “assembly” is the church. The place doesn’t matter.
Tim, please show me the Scripture that says that denominationalism is acceptable to God. I simply cannot find it. Let me explain what I mean when I use the phrase “church of Christ.” I am not referring to some type of denomination. I’ve already told you, I entirely reject denominationalism. I do that on biblical grounds. So when I use the phrase “church of Christ,” I’m simply referring to the church that belongs to Christ.
Some people use the phrase “church of Christ” to mean “the entire body of Christians throughout the world, regardless of denomination or tradition, i.e. the Christian Church of Christendom” (Wikipedia). But that simply does not agree with what the New Testament teaches.
Paul said that Christians should be “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). That word translated “endeavoring” (NKJV) means to be bent on, eager. In other words, I will do everything within my power to uphold the unity of the Spirit. So Paul continues with the familiar list in Eph. 4:4-6. The first one on the list is this: “There is one body.” Again, the body and the church are the same thing (Eph. 1:22-23). So the clear teaching is this: There is one church.
Does that mean that there is one Christendom and that all denominations are covered under that umbrella? I can’t believe that is the case because of what Paul continues to teach in Ephesians 4. “There is one Spirit,” he says (Eph. 4:4). Yet, some denominations teach that the Spirit continues to give revelations from God that are not found in the Bible. How can that be unified with passages that teach us not to add to or take from the Word of God?
Paul continues: “… just as you were called in one hope of your calling.” Obviously, hope refers to the promise of heaven. My denominational friends teach that there are many roads to get to the same place, heaven. However, Jesus teaches that there is one road, the “strait gate” (Mat. 7:13-14), and that few will find it. The only way they can enter is through Him (John 14:6). He said that both belief and baptism are necessary to be saved (Mat. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16).
There is “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5). Perhaps most religious people in Christendom agree on this. Yet, once again, there are differences in salvation, worship, and doctrine in Christian living. Jesus says that if we call Him Lord, we must do what He says (Luke 6:46). Jesus prayed for all believers to be one as He is with the Father. Yet, He repeatedly stated that His unity with the Father included the doctrine which He taught and lived (John 4:34; 6:38). Would Jesus have been in unity with the Father if He had taught something completely different from the Father’s will? What if He had taught something similar, but not exactly the Father’s will? Of course, Jesus wouldn’t do that. He is perfect. Nevertheless, the point stands. Something either is or is not the Father’s will. It either is or is not acceptable. It may be similar, but it either is right or wrong.
There is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5). This refers to the system of doctrine revealed from God, and obeyed by God’s people (Rom. 6:17; Jude 3). Denominations don’t all teach the same thing. The Lord is the Head of His church (Eph. 5:23). Would the head tell the body to do totally different things? Of course not. That’s why Paul affirmed that Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13), and pleaded with people to have “no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). That is only possible when we reject anything but the Bible for our authority in religion. Anything more than the Bible is too much and anything less than the Bible is too little.
Finally, to your point about the Gentiles and the Jews, you are right. They were at odds. This was undoubtedly because of the division that had existed among them for centuries. You remember in Acts 10-11, when Peter preached to Cornelius (who was a Gentile), and Cornelius and some of his family members were baptized, the Jews didn’t like that Peter had allowed the Gentiles to be baptized. After Peter explained the signs that God had shown to him – how that the gospel is for all people – the Jewish Christians rejoiced and glorified God (Acts 11:17-18).
Galatians 3:26-29 teaches us about this Jew and Gentile thing. Paul says that the Jews and the Gentiles were, indeed, part of the same church. They were united in the body of Christ. But why? They weren’t teaching different doctrines. They weren’t claiming to be saved in different ways. No. They were united in following the Bible. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
They were united in Christ (Eph. 2:14-16). That wasn’t just their belief in Christ; it was their acceptance of Christ and their obedient faith that led them to put on Christ in baptism. They were added to the one body, and they proceeded to believe and practice the one faith as the one Lord, one God, and one Spirit prescribe.
I don’t believe that “my faction” is the true church. No one should believe what I do simply because I believe it. I’m nobody. People should believe the Bible because it is God’s inspired word and it is right (2 Tim. 3:16-17; John 17:17). Tim, what I want you to do is to reject anything but the Bible. That’s why I wrote the blog post that has sparked this discussion. That’s why I preach. That’s why I am a Christian.
So what does the Bible teach? I don’t read anything about Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and on and on. There’s not one word about those denominations in Scripture. But I do read this: my Lord gave His life to purchase His church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). That’s the church that He promised to build (Mat. 16:18). He claims ownership of that church; it’s His. That’s the only church about which I read in the Bible. That’s the church I want, and that’s the church that I desperately seek to restore in our day and time.
Sorry for the length of this comment. Let’s just say that I’m making up for taking so long to respond 🙂
“Therefore, whether I am or am not in the Lord’s church becomes extremely significant. It literally is the difference between heaven and hell. I can’t join the Lord’s church. He adds me to it when I obey Him (Acts 2:47). These truths make me want to be sure that what I do is biblically right. I’m going to be judged by whether I have obeyed the gospel (2 Thes. 1:7-9), so I MUST get this right.”
Being in the church simply means you are going to Heaven… you are saved. I agree here. It is redundant to say that I have to make sure I am part of the church so that I will be saved. Being saved is being in the church. The words are the same.
“Obviously I do not mean “do what they did” to the extent that you stated in the second part or your comment. If I meant that, then I wouldn’t be on this computer right now. To be obedient to the Lord in the way that the first century church was obedient to the Lord doesn’t mean that we have to act as though modern technologies, medicines, facilities, and other conveniences and advancements don’t exist. Truth is truth in any age (John 17:17; Mat. 24:35; John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
We do not have to live in a “socialistic commune” to fulfill the Lord’s command to provide for each other. We do not have to meet in homes in order to worship God acceptably. We certainly could meet in homes for worship and be acceptable. But we could also meet in a “church building” or a school or in a park or anywhere else. The “assembly” is the church. The place doesn’t matter.”
This is where you have an obvious contradiction. You very flippantly say that we do not have to keep the economic arrangement that was so clearly demonstrated in the New Testament, nor do we have to even meet in the same place that the early church did. Somehow, however, you see no problem with requiring groups of people to observe a worship procedure (ex. a method of singing, praying, teaching, etc …) So you must then very readily admit that the only instances where we should perfectly emulate the early church are those instances where the Church of Christ has agreed we should. In other words, COC tradition dictates which practices of the early church should be replicated and which practices should not.
But as I said, if by doing what they did you just that they were immersed (which you said is the option you went with), then there are millions that do not attend a building with the name COC that would easily fit that description of church.
“Tim, please show me the Scripture that says that denominationalism is acceptable to God. I simply cannot find it. Let me explain what I mean when I use the phrase “church of Christ.” I am not referring to some type of denomination. I’ve already told you, I entirely reject denominationalism. I do that on biblical grounds. So when I use the phrase “church of Christ,” I’m simply referring to the church that belongs to Christ.”
If you mean the church (saved people) that belongs to Christ, once again we will have to define what that means. If by church you mean baptized believers, then you must be referring to the millions outside of COC walls who have been immersed. You are claiming that you are not referring to the church of Christ as an institution or denomination, but simply the universal saved that belong to Christ. Your arguments, however, are not formed by that decision… instead you argue as if the Church of Christ is a brand that can be found in the yellow pages… which in fact it can be.
“Does that mean that there is one Christendom and that all denominations are covered under that umbrella? I can’t believe that is the case because of what Paul continues to teach in Ephesians 4. “There is one Spirit,” he says (Eph. 4:4). Yet, some denominations teach that the Spirit continues to give revelations from God that are not found in the Bible. How can that be unified with passages that teach us not to add to or take from the Word of God?
Some groups teach we should use one cup for communion according to our logic, they are the real church or we are, but it can’t be both.
Paul continues: “… just as you were called in one hope of your calling.” Obviously, hope refers to the promise of heaven. My denominational friends teach that there are many roads to get to the same place, heaven. However, Jesus teaches that there is one road, the “strait gate” (Mat. 7:13-14), and that few will find it. The only way they can enter is through Him (John 14:6). He said that both belief and baptism are necessary to be saved (Mat. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16).
He seems to omit that we should do everything the early church did here
“There is “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5). Perhaps most religious people in Christendom agree on this. Yet, once again, there are differences in salvation, worship, and doctrine in Christian living. Jesus says that if we call Him Lord, we must do what He says (Luke 6:46). Jesus prayed for all believers to be one as He is with the Father. Yet, He repeatedly stated that His unity with the Father included the doctrine which He taught and lived (John 4:34; 6:38). Would Jesus have been in unity with the Father if He had taught something completely different from the Father’s will? What if He had taught something similar, but not exactly the Father’s will? Of course, Jesus wouldn’t do that. He is perfect. Nevertheless, the point stands. Something either is or is not the Father’s will. It either is or is not acceptable. It may be similar, but it either is right or wrong.”
This is not true; most activities in life are arbitrary. There is no answer as to whether or not shooting basketball is wrong or not. It is completely arbitrary, as are most things.
There is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5). This refers to the system of doctrine revealed from God, and obeyed by God’s people (Rom. 6:17; Jude 3). Denominations don’t all teach the same thing. The Lord is the Head of His church (Eph. 5:23). Would the head tell the body to do totally different things? Of course not. That’s why Paul affirmed that Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13), and pleaded with people to have “no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). That is only possible when we reject anything but the Bible for our authority in religion. Anything more than the Bible is too much and anything less than the Bible is too little.”
Here again you have gone back to saying that the church (saved) is all of those who do what the early church did, (Specifically you really mean do what the Church of Christ does). If all groups of people have to have the exact same interpretations of scripture (doctrine), then there are no two people on earth who will be saved. Your definition of unity is not even found in the bible. This is a very specific text given to Gentiles who were reluctant to consider themselves unified with the Jewish group of saved. Now, it’s not even debatable that the two factions had completely different views on most issues (The Acts 15 council would be irrelevant if Jews and Gentiles had a uniform theology, yet somehow Paul encourages them to be unified. There were more than 15 factions of Judaism around the second temple, yet none of them were “the one true church (assembly) of Jews” The Pharisees thought they were, but turns out they were wrong. They were all the assembly of Israel.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the discussion. I want to know which definition of church you want to use, and we will stick to it.
Which definition are we going to use?
Tim,
You said that I contradicted myself in my previous reply. “You very flippantly say that we do not have to keep the economic arrangement that was so clearly demonstrated in the New Testament, nor do we have to even meet in the same place that the early church did.”
That’s not what I said. I’m beginning to think this discussion is going sour. Having “all things common” (Acts 2:44) is a must. What I said was that we don’t have to be in a commune for that to happen. We can care for each other – both financially and spiritually – without living in the same place. It happened in 2 Corinthians 8-9 with the Macedonians. It’s happening today.
How could we possibly “meet in the same place that the early church did”? Surely you don’t mean that we have to travel overseas to meet physically where they did. Maybe I’m missing your meaning there. Whatever the case, they met in homes and wherever else they could. We meet wherever we can, too. I know of churches that meet in hotels, in schools, outside, and in church buildings. The point is that the church is meeting. That’s what they did in Acts 2, 20, etc., and that’s what we must do today. And, yes, I still believe that we must do it in the way that the New Testament specifically prescribes. That’s not “COC doctrine,” that’s just the Bible.
I’m not sure why you keep wanting to make a distinction in a definition of the church. Haven’t we already been through that? I’ve told you what the New Testament teaches the church is. The church is those who have obeyed the New Testament through immersion to be added to the Lord’s body.
“Some groups teach we should use one cup for communion according to our logic, they are the real church or we are, but it can’t be both.” What you’re saying is totally different from what I’m saying. Would it be wrong to use only one cup for communion? You might could argue that it would be in terms of hygiene, but in terms of Scripture, it’s not wrong. Drink from one cup or from a bunch of tiny plastic cups – it’s all the same. I don’t advocate one cup, but I can’t say it’s Scripturally wrong. However, I can say that so-called modern-day “revelations” from the Holy Spirit are wrong because the Bible teaches that those revelations would cease (1 Cor. 12-14).
“He seems to omit that we should do everything the early church did here.” – Do you really want to argue that the details of the church are unimportant to Jesus? He’s the Head of His church (Eph. 5:23). He died for it (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). It’s His (Mat. 16:18). The church is Christ’s bride (Rev. 21:9; Eph. 5:22-33). We can’t deal flippantly with the details.
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17). Prior to His ascension, Jesus told the apostles that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would “guide [them] into all truth” (John 16:13). What the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles would be consistent with what Jesus taught: “for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-14).
My point is this: If any of the New Testament writers wrote about it, then it’s important AND it’s consistent with the teaching of Christ. But not only is it consistent with the teaching of Christ, Jesus said that it IS the teachings of Christ because the Holy Spirit would “not speak on His own authority…” So, again I say, the details are important to Jesus.
You said, “This is not true; most activities in life are arbitrary. There is no answer as to whether or not shooting basketball is wrong or not. It is completely arbitrary, as are most things.” The problem with this, Tim, is that you didn’t really respond to what I said. Sure, there is nothing wrong with shooting basketball. Is there anything wrong with shooting a person in murder? Of course. So where’s the distinction? We can look at it from two angles. First, has God spoken about it? Then we have to listen and listen carefully. Second, can’t we take the teachings and principles of the Bible and determine whether ANYTHING is Scripturally right or wrong? Of course we can. So is basketball wrong? No. It provides exercise, which is profitable (1 Tim. 4:8). It’s fun and helps us to build relationships with other players … all of that is good and is right in God’s sight. Paul talked about “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). We can know truth and we can use it to regulate our lives so that we have fellowship with God.
Finally (this is such a long reply!): let me address your comments about what I said about the “one faith” from Ephesians 4:5. First of all, do you reject that there is “one faith”? The Bible says there is one, but you said there isn’t one. So where’s our standard? I want our definitions to be from the Bible. I do believe that we should follow the example of the early church. If, by that, you believe that is what the church of Christ does today, then I’m glad you think that because that’s the plan. Our goal is to restore New Testament Christianity, not to feed present-day denominationalism.
I do not argue that there was division between Jews and Gentiles of the first century. This was undoubtedly the result of hundreds of years of separation between the two. Further, we see through the Pharisees, Sadducees, and many others (as you mentioned) that there was division among Jews in the first century. Jesus came to unite all into one body (Eph. 2:16; Gal. 3:28). That body was required to be united. I’m sorry you don’t see that unity in the Bible, but it’s there. I gave you Bible verses that show it. I’ll list some of them again: Rom. 6:17 (they believed and obeyed the same thing), 1 Cor. 1:10 (they were commanded to be of the same mind and judgment), 1 Cor. 1:13 (Christ is not divided), Jude 3 (they were to contend for the faith).
The Bible teaches that unity is possible and necessary. We can understand the Bible and we can understand it in the same way.
Tim, I have noticed that I have given you verse after verse of Scripture, but it seems that all you are doing is arguing with the Scriptures that I present without providing me any Scriptures of your own. Are your arguments based in the Bible or in yourself?
Respectfully,
Robert