The Bible Teaching Regarding the Lord's Church
The Nature of Our Lord's Church by Dave Brown
Becoming a Member of the Lord's Church by Dave Brown
The Lord Added Me to His Church -- What's Next? by Brian Gibson
A Close Look at New Testament Churches by Brian Gibson
Name for God's People by Dave Brown
You Really Need to Be Here by Brian Gibson
Back to the Beginning by Brian Gibson
Semantics by Aude McKee
Return to Bible Subjects Articles page
Please also visit the section of the main site called God's Called Out People, which contains a systematic review of many essential aspects of our Lord's church.
The Nature of Our Lord's Church
by Dave Brown
The Greek word for both the local and universal church is ekklesia, which literally should have been translated "called out." This was not a religious word as the word "church" has become today (see Acts 19;39, 41, where it is translated "assembly" in most scholarly versions). The religious mind set attached to the word "church" tends to hamper our understanding of the word. When we hear or read the word "church" used in a local sense, we should think of a group of people called out for a given purpose (in our case, a religious assembly). When it is applies in a universal sense, we should think of it as all the saved for all times (Hebrews 12:18-24), since there is no provision at all in the New Testament for the organization or governance of the church universal. The idea of the universal church is that it is the people called out of the world for all times, some of which are still physically alive.
Let us not be distracted by the definitions, Jesus is building His church on the rock of faith that Peter exhibited: “Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Mat. 16:18: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” This church is spoken of as existing after the events of Acts 2 (5:11, 8:1-3, 9:31, 11:22-26, 12:1, etc., etc.). Churches sprang up wherever the gospel of Jesus was heard and obeyed (Act 13, 14). There was no sanctioning authority for these churches — when people obeyed the truth and determined to work together in obedience to the truth, they were a legitimate church in the local sense of the word. Thus, in the bible we often read of “home churches” or churches that met in members’ houses, especially when they were in small groups.
The word church in Mt. 16:18 is singular, and thus refers to no single local church (as opposed to Rom. 16:16 and most other places, where local congregations are being discussed). We can call this the “church universal,” as opposed to the local church. While local churches are required to be organized (1 Timothy 3:1f; Titus 1:5f), there is no organization specified for the church universal. This displays the obvious wisdom of God and the sublimity of the scriptures. It is totally impossible for mankind to conceive of a religious body that is not centrally organized. And yet, that is exactly what the bible teaches. For, unity is brought about by common obedience to the truth, not by any central organization contrived of mankind. Indeed, anyone who can open his eyes can see that the centralized organizations that control religious organizations are corrupting in their nature and ultimately self-serving. In most cases they freely admit to not being the organization of the church universal, admitting guilt of the sin of 1 Corinthians 1:10 — that of dividing the Lord’s body by denominating.
Becoming a Member of the Lord's Church
by Dave Brown
In Matt 16:16-18, Jesus had asked who they say that Jesus is, and "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responded that "upon this rock will I build my church," referring to the faith in the truth that Peter had displayed. Clearly Jesus was not talking about any local church; He was referring the total body of believers which we call the universal church (see Hebrew 12:22-24). When we talk about the Lord's church in this article, that is what we are referring to.
Let us ponder this question: is one saved by being a member of the Lord’s church? or, is one a member of the Lord’s church by virtue of being saved? Consider that the church universal is often called “the body of Christ,” e.g., Col. 1:24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ's afflictions.” So when we get “into Christ” we are, by biblical definition, in His church. We get into Christ when we accept the privileges that he has given us to conform our lives to His Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6). Click here for a discussion of Jesus' conditions of salvation.
In Romans 6:3-7, Paul talked about the rebirth that Jesus had commanded as essential to salvation in John 3:1-17. Paul asked rhetorically: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). This rebirth, accomplished at the point of baptism, not only saves us but also puts us into our Lord’s body, his church. You cannot have one without the other. All who are saved are added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:46-47) at that point. So, the church does not save, but when the Lord saves you, He adds you to His church.
This is a very important concept since many spend much of their religious time searching for the "right church" with the idea that if they can just join (associate themselves with) the "right church," somehow that will save them. They have the cart before the horse as far as understanding God's cause and effect mechanism. The truth, and obedience to the truth is the cause, being added to the universal church is the effect.
At that point the newly born Christian should seek out a local church that is dedicated to being totally consistent with that described in the New Testament (and which will be described in most of the other articles on this page). This task is greatly simplified if our search is constrained to only those who have obeyed the gospel plan of salvation. If they are teaching the whole truth from God’s word, and if they are indeed practicing it by not going beyond that which is written (2 John 9), then they have the same attitude as those who have been saved according to God’s plan. The burden of proof is on the local church teachers to demonstrate to you that all that they practice and preach is not from men, but is based on the revealed will of God. Since this revelation can only be found in the Bible, it is quite simple to validate -- the burden is on them to provide the passages that support, not just some, but ALL of their practices and teachings.
We expect many reading to be quite skeptical of this approach. Having grown up with the denominational model, this should surely seem strange. But let me assure you that there are groups of Christians all over the world who are practicing their religion with no guide other than the bible. And they are united by that alone.
The Lord Added Me to His Church—What’s Next?
by Bryan Gibson
In the previous article, we focused our attention on Acts 2, where souls were “added to the church,” the same church Jesus had earlier promised to build (Matthew 16:18). These people had asked what they needed to do to be saved (Acts 2:37). They were told to “repent…and be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The obedient were saved from their past sins and added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:40-41, 47). But what did they do next? That is the focus of this article.
Look carefully at Acts 2:42: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (v. 42). This verse describes what they did together, or collectively. God’s plan is clear. When one becomes a Christian, God wants him to join together with other Christians, so that they might work and worship together. We see the beginnings of this in Acts 2, and then the further development in later New Testament passages (Acts 11:26; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 1 Corinthians 14; Hebrews 10:25).
For a time, the church was confined to Jerusalem, meaning that all the saved remained there after the events of Acts 2. That all changed in Acts 8 when many Christians in Jerusalem were scattered by persecution. Those who were scattered took the gospel with them, preaching it wherever they went (Acts 8:4). Soon people were being saved in other cities. Now, what were these people going to do? Travel all the way back to Jerusalem and meet with those left behind there? No, passages like Acts 15:41 and Acts 16:5 tell us what happened (notice the word “churches” in these passages). Instead of one group of Christians, there were now many, scattered in different places. In other words, when people were saved in these other cities, they did just what those in Jerusalem did, back in Acts 2. They assembled together for worship, and they did the work appointed to them by the Lord.
Some see the word “churches” in the passages mentioned earlier, and think of different denominations. But that was not the case at all. These new groups of Christians were just like the group back in Jerusalem because of one important reason. It was said of the church in Jerusalem that they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.” So did all these others; at least they were supposed to. And if they were all following the apostles’ doctrine, their teachings and practices would have been the same (unlike the situation in denominations today). Being guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles certainly would not have contradicted each other. They would not have taught one thing in one place, and then something entirely different in another place. We know that the apostle Paul personally visited many of these churches, and as he points out in 1 Corinthians 4:17 and 7:17, he taught the same thing in every church.
But did any of these churches ever stray from the apostles’ doctrine? Yes, they did, but when they did, they were severely rebuked (see Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 2:14-15). These churches had been given a pattern to follow, and they were warned not to stray from this pattern. What about the situation in today’s religious world? It is clear that many churches have strayed far from the apostles’ doctrine. The Lord’s attitude has not changed. He is not pleased with churches that stray from His teaching.
In the next article, we will learn more about these churches that were following the apostles’ doctrine. We will see what they were called, how they were organized, the work they did, and what their worship was like. They serve as a pattern for us today. Those who respect the Lord’s authority will want to follow that pattern down to the last detail.
A Close Look At New Testament Churches
by Bryan Gibson
The churches we read about in the New Testament serve as a pattern for us to follow today, because they were all taught the apostles’ doctrine, or the doctrine of Christ (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 14:37).
What were they called? Or, how were they described?
In Romans 16:16, they are referred to as “churches of Christ”; in 1 Corinthians 11:16, as “churches of God.” Sometimes they were described simply by their location, other times by whom the church was composed. None of the present-day denominational names were used, such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
How were they organized?
Elders (otherwise known as bishops, pastors, overseers) were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). These men had to meet certain qualifications in order to be appointed (1 Timothy 3:1-7). They were given the work of ruling, or overseeing the flock (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; 1 Peter 5:1-4). The Lord’s plan also called for deacons to serve in these local congregations (Philippians 1:1). They too had to meet certain qualifications before being appointed (1 Timothy 3:8-13). But in no way was all the work done by these men. In New Testament churches, every member had a vital role to play (Ephesians 4:16). Some served as evangelists and teachers (Acts 13:1; 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Titus 2:3), others helping in any way they could, in keeping with their abilities and opportunities (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11). One thing we do not see in these New Testament churches is the clergy-laity system found in so many religious groups today. None wore titles that exalted them above others. One other very important point about organization: There was no organization beyond this local church level. These churches did not join themselves together to form anything larger than the local church. There were no synods, conventions, associations, districts, etc.
What about their worship, particularly on the first day of the week?
Together they sang psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Nothing is said about the use of mechanical instruments of music, or choirs. They would also offer prayer to God when they came together (1 Corinthians 14:15; Acts 2:42). Additionally, they were taught to give on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). They were not taught to give a “tithe,” which was an Old Testament practice. Instead, they gave as they prospered, and as they purposed in their hearts. They were to give gladly, not grudgingly (2 Corinthians 9:6-7). They also ate the Lord’s Supper when they came together, and this was done every first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20-30). Finally, we read of preaching or Bible study being done in these assemblies (Acts 20:7; Acts 11:25-26).
What work were they given to do?
Ephesians 4:11-16 gives us a glimpse of what God has in mind with Christians working together. Still other passages make it clear that these local churches had a spiritual function to perform. God designed these local churches to make people more spiritually fit, not more physically fit. Unlike what we find among churches today, these New Testament churches were not recreational centers, secular education centers, etc. In a nutshell, their work was bringing the lost to Christ, and building up those who were already in Christ.
Name for God’s People
by Dave Brown
CHRISTIAN: The Only Name Given
Our society uses the word “Christian” in a wide variety of ways. Before commenting on this, let us look at how the bible defines this word. This is simple, since it only appears three times in the bible (all in the New Testament).
Its first usage is in Acts 11:25-26: “Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The writer (Luke) was making a major point about the church in this predominantly gentile city of Antioch. The church at Antioch would soon send out Paul and Barnabas on what is generally called Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13). There was something special about the work that was going on there, and this church was honored to be where disciples were first called Christians. However, Luke does not say who called them this, nor who coined the name. Most scholars believe that it was a name of derision assigned by the gentile populace of Antioch in that the Jews would never recognize that the disciples of Jesus were followers of the true Christ. The text supports this, since it just says that they “were called Christians,” and not that any follower of Christ invented the name.
We do not gain too much more insight on this from the second reference. This one is found in Acts 26, many years later when Paul was giving his defense after returning for the final time to Jerusalem. He presented the truth of the gospel to Festus the Roman governor of the region and to King Agrippa. In the process, the following exchange occurred (Acts 26:27-28: “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
This usage does not help us to understand if it had its origins in derision or not. However it does establish the fact that it was a well-established name by this time. Agrippa could use the word knowing that Paul would understand his meaning. And further, it is clear that Agrippa himself was not using it in derision since he was definitely entertaining the prospect of becoming one himself. (We have no evidence that he ever did become a Christian.)
The final use of the word is probably the most enlightening. Again, well after the word had become established in identifying disciples of Christ, Peter made the following statement (1 Pet 4:14-16): “If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if {anyone suffers} as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name.”
The only name given. The word “name” in the New American Standard version comes from the Greek onoma, which Strong defines as follows: “3686 onoma (on'-om-ah); a "name" (literally or figuratively) [authority, character]. The passage starts “if you are reviled for the name of Christ …” and ends “but in that name [referring to the word Christian] let him glorify God. The implication is that “suffering as a Christian” is synonymous with being “reviled for the name of Christ.”
Here Peter clearly establishes that “Christian” is an honorable name and one that we should wear to glorify God. It is thus a God-given name, as Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, has not only authorized it but commanded us to wear it. Peter’s admonition to “let him not feel ashamed” adds weight to the argument that this name originated in persecution.
Those who understand the biblical meaning of the word Christian and who want to please God will not misuse or abuse the name. Turning the word into an adjective in order to imply some scriptural basis for a work of man would be an example of an abuse of this word. We fear that it has been so misused and abused by our society that it would be better if it were still a name called in derision. At least then it would preserve it original meaning.
Other Descriptors
We see from the bible that this was the approved name by which disciples of Christ were called. There were other descriptions given to Christians, e.g., "believers" (Acts 5:14; 1 Tim 4:12), "saints" (Acts 9:13,32,41; Rom 1:7), "brethren" (Acts 6:3; 10:23, etc.), "the elect" (Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10), "the church of God" (Acts 20:28), "servants (slaves) to God" (Rom 6:22; 1 Pet 2:16); "servants (slaves) of Christ Jesus" (Phil 1:1), and several others. The distinction between these and the word “Christian” is that these other terms all have descriptive meanings in and of themselves, and none of them is ever called a name.
The word translated to our bibles as “church” is from the Greek word ekklesia. The following is from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers:
ekklesia NT:1577, from ek, "out of," and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call"), was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens "gathered" to discuss the affairs of state, Acts 19:39. In the Sept. it is used to designate the "gathering" of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a "gathering" regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel; in 19:32,41, of a riotous mob. It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My Church," Matt 16:18, and which is further described as "the Church which is His Body," Eph 1:22; 5:23, (b) in the singular number (e. g., Matt 18:17, RV marg., "congregation"), to a company consisting of professed believers, e. g., Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Tim 3:5, and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district.
This word (church) has become part of the names of many religious organizations, and, as such, has acquired a special sacred and religious meaning in our day and age. This should not be so. The word should have merely been translated directly to us as “called out” or possibly as “assembly” or “congregation.” When you read the word church, just think “called out” and your thinking will be scriptural.
With regard to the use of the word "church" in conjunction with the descriptions of God’s people in the New Testament, Bryan Gibson has assembled the following list of how local churches were described …
Sometimes simply by their locations:
- church in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1; 11:22).
- church at Antioch (Acts 13:1).
- church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1)
- church in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc. (Revelation 2-3).
- churches of Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1; Galatians 1:2).
- churches of Asia (1 Corinthians 16:19, Revelation 1:4).
- churches of Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1).
Sometimes by their relationship to God and to Jesus Christ:
- church(es) of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 10:32; 11:16, 22; Gal. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5).
- church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15).
- churches of Christ (Romans 16:16).
- churches of Judea which were in Christ (Galatians 1:22).
- church of God which is at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1).
- churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:14).
And, sometimes by whom they were composed:
- churches of the saints (1 Corinthians 14:33).
- church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1).
- church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12:23).
From this list we can see that there is no unique scriptural “name” for our Lord’s church – the one that He promised to build in Matthew 16:18. In fact, this large number of descriptors would seem to be a great discouragement from taking any one of them and making it into THE unique descriptor of name for some church. It is correct and proper to describe a local congregation consistently with any of the applicable examples given above. It is wrong to invent a name that is foreign to the New Testament.
You Really Need to be Here
by Bryan Gibson
We live in a day when perhaps more emphasis is put on the “individual” aspect of life than the “together” part. People nowadays tend to see themselves more as individuals, living their own independent lives, rather than as a part of a larger network of relationships, as was truer in the past. Maybe this is because of the changes in society that have scattered our families so far and wide. No longer do many of us live in close proximity to our “extended family.” As a result, we tend to live “isolated” lives, just taking care of ourselves and not having much to do with those around us. Sometimes we don’t even know our next-door-neighbors!
But as Christians, we need, in some ways, to resist this tendency toward “radical” individualism. God has designed the plan of salvation such that there is a together part, as well as an individual part. We’re not saved on the “group plan,” certainly. But it’s still a fact that God has set up the local church to be an important part of that which aids and helps us on our way to heaven. We can’t neglect the “together” part of Christianity without some serious negative consequences.
God has authorized the local church to meet together on a regular basis (Acts 2:42; 11:26; 20:7; etc.). One thing that takes places in such assemblies, obviously, is the worship and glorification of God. But it is God’s will that something else takes place, too. We are to edify one another when we assemble as the church. The writer of Hebrews said, “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching” (Hebrews 10:24,25). This makes assembling something more than something we can do – it makes it something that God requires of us.
Yet, we should not do it just because we have to. If you are not spiritually mature, you need the fellowship of your fellow Christians. We are molded by our environment – “Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). The difference between humans and creatures in the animal world is that each one of us can choose who our close associates will be and how we will be influenced. It is up to each one of us to seek out those who are doing their best to serve the Lord and associate ourselves as closely as we can with them. If you are strong spiritually, you already realize your responsibility to do whatever you can to server your fellow Christians by participating in every assembly, teaching, praying, worshiping, giving and remembering Jesus in His way.
No doubt there are times when circumstances beyond our control keep us from the assembly. But when we’re choosing between our priorities, there ought not to be any higher priority than being with the Lord’s people whenever they meet.
Back to the Beginning
by Bryan Gibson
“Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24).
Wouldn’t it be great if we did that to settle religious questions today? Let’s go back to the beginning in this article to see what was true of local churches in the New Testament, and what should therefore be true of churches today. Study carefully, and then compare your church to what was taught “from the beginning.”
Let’s begin with this basic point.
New Testament churches were taught the same doctrine—the apostles’ doctrine, or the doctrine of Christ. So whatever they did in terms of organization, work, and worship, they were taught to do so, and their instruction came from the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 14:34-35; 16:1-2; Colossians 4:16; Acts 2:42; 20:26-27; 1 Corinthians 14:37; Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). Want to know how your church should be organized, what it should do in worship, what its work should be? Go back to the beginning, to the pattern left by these New Testament churches.
New Testament churches were sternly warned against following any other doctrine (Galatians 1:6-9; Ephesians 4:11-16; Colossians 2:8, 19, 22-23; Revelation 2:14-15). How can a church claim to be “of Christ” if it does not follow the doctrine of Christ? Remember the passage at the beginning of this article: “...If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:24).
New Testament churches' work was distinguished from the work assigned to individuals within the church (1 Timothy 5:16). The argument, “anything the individual can do the church can do,” is completely opposed to the teaching in the New Testament. There is some overlap in responsibilities, such as support for the preaching of the gospel (Philippians 4:15; Galatians 6:6), but this still doesn’t mean that the church can involve itself in anything and everything. How do we know what God expects the church to do? That’s right. Go back to the beginning. Look at the pattern in the New Testament and follow that.
New Testament churches supported their work by the voluntary contributions of their members (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 9:6-7; 11:8). No other method was used, and they certainly didn’t solicit the support of those outside the church. Have you thought about all the different methods used by churches today to fund their work? They sure didn’t go back to the beginning to find them.
New Testament churches had regular worship assemblies, and these were conducted according to the instructions of the Lord. A distinction was made between what should be done “at home” and what should be done “in church,” or in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11:20-22, 34; 14:34-35). Let’s go back to the beginning, observe what they did in the assembly, and then be content with that. To do otherwise would be to go beyond the word of the Lord, and we are specifically forbidden to do that (2 John 1:9; Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9).
Semantics in Understanding the Lord's Church
adapted from an article by Aude McKee
edited by Bryan Gibson and Dave Brown
We are hesitant to get too involved with the way that words are used since the New Testament warns about “doting [being sick] about questions and disputes of words …” However, there are certain times when the usage of words and terms (combinations of words) convey a false impression in and of themselves. It is important for us to recognize what we are communicating implicitly when we use words in certain ways. Let us look at some examples:
Do not say: “Church of Christ people.”
It is better to say: “Christians” (Acts 11:26), or “God’s children” (1 John 3:1-2), or “saints” (Romans 1:7), etc.
Do not say: “Church of Christ doctrine.”
It is better to say: “New Testament doctrine” (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8-12), or “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 1:9), or “doctrine of God” (Titus 2:10).
Do not say: “Church of Christ preachers.”
It is better to say: “gospel preachers” (Romans 10:15; 2 Timothy 1:10-11), or “evangelists” (2 Timothy 4:5).
Do not say: “I am trying to teach him/her our position.”
It is better to say: “I am trying to teach him/her the word of God” (Acts 13:5; 18:11).
Do not say: “Come, let us hear what the church of Christ teaches.”
It is better to say: “Come, let us hear the word of the Lord” (Acts 13:44).
Do not say: “I am trying to convert him/her to the church of Christ.”
It is better to say: “I am trying to convert him/her to the Lord” (Acts 11:21; 2 Corinthians 3:16).
Do not say: “The church of Christ teaches this or that.”
It is better to say: “The Bible, or the New Testament, teaches this or that.”
Do not say: “Congregations of the church of Christ.”
It is better to say: “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16).
Do not say: “The church of Christ is right.”
It is better to say: “The word of God is right.
We would hope that the church of Christ (as a description, not a name of a denomination) where you attend is making a sincere effort to conform to the word of God in its worship, work, organization, teaching, and practice” (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17). But let's face it; there are many churches that call themselves "a church of Christ" that are not at all even trying to conform to the Bible, despite what they might say. Thus, there is no term that can represent the truth other than the Bible, God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. To use the term "church of Christ" or "churches of Christ" as some standard is just wrong and misleading.
In the days of Nehemiah, Jewish men married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. As a result, children born out of those unions spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak purely the language of God’s chosen people. In very much the same way, speech, such as that listed above under “do not say,” is the product of the influence of denominationalism, and is not pure, Biblical language. We must always be careful in our speech to convey that which is truth. Those expressions listed under “do not say” are language which is foreign to the teaching of the New Testament, and it will lead people to have a denominational concept of the Lord's church.
It is true that every departure from the truth in years past has been characterized by unscriptural terminology. As is true in the realm of politics, quite often terms are invented not for their truth value but to sugar coat something that would be quite bitter if it was described in truthful terminology. A good rule always to follow is this: If you cannot describe a practice of a group with Bible language, used in exactly the same sense in which the inspired writers used it, then that practice is not scriptural. For example, if the organization of a religious group cannot be explained with language that is totally consistent with correctly used New Testament language, then it is hard to see how that group is scripturally organized.
So, let’s be sure we keep our practice scriptural and then let’s be sure that we describe scriptural things with language that is in harmony with scripture. That is the only way that we can know that we are communicating pure truth.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
Return to Bible Subjects Articles page