IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT?
Gary W. Summers
On a few occasions the church of Christ has been called a cult by some. The purpose of this article is to explain why this statement is inaccurate. One disclaimer, however, is necessary, and that is that in the late ’70s there was a group that split off from us that did become a cult. Chuck Lucas began what he designated the Crossroads Church; later Kip McKean became the head of the movement, and it was referred to as the Boston Movement. Currently it is known as the Church of Christ International. This group has been separate from us for more than two decades, although some individuals may not have this knowledge and erroneously believe that any church of Christ is a cult. The fact is that they divided churches and, once churches discovered their cultic practices, were opposed by brethren everywhere. They went out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19).
Characteristics of a Cult
The best way to determine whether or not something is a cult is to set forth definitions and see how many of them may apply to any religious group. The following definitions are provided by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in their book Handbook of Today’s Religions. All of the information cannot be repeated, but the main distinguishing marks are listed below.
1. “A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian Church” (17).
2. “…cults justify their existence by claiming they have something more than just the Bible and its ‘inadequate message’” (20).
3. “Some cults make no claim to new truth or extra-biblical revelation, but believe that they alone have the key to interpreting the mysteries in the Bible” (20).
4. “…a sure mark of a cult is that the final authority on spiritual matters rests on something other than the plain teaching of the Holy Scripture” (21).
5. “One characteristic that is found in all cults is false teaching about the person of Jesus Christ in the light of historical biblical Christianity” (21). “All cults ultimately deny the fact that Jesus Christ is God the Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity, and mankind’s only hope” (24).
6. “Characteristic of many cultic groups is a frontal attack on orthodox Christianity. They argue that the church has departed from the true faith” (22).
7. “A feature of some cultic groups is that they say one thing publicly but internally believe something totally different” (22).
8. “Another characteristic of all non-Christian cults is either an inadequate view or outright denial of the Holy Trinity” (23).
9. “Cult doctrines are continually in a state of flux and have no sure foundation on which to anchor their hope. Adherents of a particular cult will learn a doctrine only to find that doctrine later changed or contradicted by further revelation” (23).
10. “Cults are characterized by central figures who consider themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. …he can dictate the theology and behavior of the cult” (24).
11. “Another feature of the cults is they often promulgate false prophecy. Cult leaders, who believe they have been divinely called by God, have made bold predictions of future events, supposedly revealed by the inspiration of God. …these predictions of future events do not come to pass” (24-25).
12. “One teaching that is totally absent from all the cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and ‘do this’ or ‘follow that.’ All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else, but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone will save anyone” (24).
Before commenting on these, let us add the definitions of others. Walter Martin has both studied and written about cults. He said:
A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone’s interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ (Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults p. 12) (McDowell and Stewart 17).
Similar to these are: “What Are Some Characteristics of a Cult?” from Carol Giambalvo’s Cult Information and Recovery website (carol2180@aol.com). She lists most of the preceding characteristics and a few additional ones (all emphasis is mine):
1. Authoritarian in their power structure
2. Totalitarian in their control
3. Deceptive in recruiting and/or fundraising
4. Exclusive and innovative in appearance
5. Dependent on others in the group
6. Led by a charismatic, self-appointed leader
7. Maintained by a fear of leaving the group
8. Skilled in thought reform techniques
9. Isolated physically or psychologically from society
10. Zealous in controlling the flow of information; many use mind-altering techniques (such as chanting, meditation, hypnosis, and other forms of repetitive actions) “to stop normal critical thinking.”
Now anyone who is familiar at all with the churches of Christ would know immediately that, out of all the characteristics given above, only one could possibly be applied to us. We simply do not fit the pattern on practically any level of consideration. For someone to even accuse us of being a cult is to show a tremendous lack of knowledge on their part of 1) what a cult is, and 2) what members of the body of Christ actually teach. No one who had knowledge of either could so charge us.
Our Defense
First, the churches of Christ have had no strong central leader apart from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Some have tried to credit Thomas or Alexander Campbell with beginning the church of Christ, but such is folly. Others were teaching some of the doctrines they taught prior to them, as well as about the same time that they reached their conclusions. Furthermore, Alexander Campbell would have made a poor cult leader, since he not only did not act in secrecy, but set forth his views publicly for years. He edited first The Christian Baptist (1823-30) and then The Millennial Harbinger (1830-1866, the time of his death). These are thick volumes; he taught nothing in secret. Furthermore, he engaged in five public debates, including one with atheist Robert Owen. What cult figure was ever so public? Furthermore, he had no revelation of his own but called people to abide by what the Scriptures teach. He invited people to read and study for themselves—a poor way to control information. He championed critical thinking, as brethren always have.
When we preach and teach, we often ask people not to take our word for anything but instead to study the Scriptures to see if what we are saying is so (Acts 17:11). We are one of the few religious groups who invite critical thinking. Many religious groups defend themselves by saying, “That’s our tradition,” or “That’s just the way we do things.” The important thing to remember is not what we or Campbell teach—but that the Scriptures themselves teach critical thinking. How often did Jesus reason with His enemies? As one studies His life, He is constantly encouraging others to think upon the evidence and draw the proper conclusions.
We do not teach that we have any authority of our own, nor is there anyone among us who claims to be authoritative or is dictatorial. All we do is attempt to discern what the Bible actually teaches. We have no one with latter-day revelations who wastes his time making foolish predictions. As we consider this point, however, where does this description leave Pentecostals, who claim that God speaks to them constantly? We, not they, are abiding by the teachings of the revelation from God found in the New Testament; they are the ones saying, “God told me this” and “God told me that”—and we are considered a cult? The pope claims Divine interpretive power. He is a charismatic leader; has anyone called the Catholic Church a cult?
Churches of Christ have no leader besides Christ (Matt. 28:18). We not only do not have an earthly head over us; we don’t even have a denominational structure. The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians all have annual conferences to decide what they will believe for the next year; they even take votes on it. We never need one because God has already declared in His Word what Christians are going to believe next year, as well as every year after that. Has anyone accused these various denominations of being cultic because they have a human authority (themselves) in addition to the Bible?
So we are neither authoritarian in our power structure (since we do not have one), nor totalitarian in trying to control our members. Our only “control” is to appeal to fellow Christians on the basis of what the Bible teaches.
We are not deceptive in recruiting; we teach the Bible to those who are interested. We do not engage in fund-raising of any kind. We do not use thought-control techniques or isolate members to get them to conform. We do practice withdrawing of fellowship, as the New Testament teaches (1 Cor. 5:1-13), but no one, apparently, is intimidated by this practice, since people depart all the time. We use no physical pressure on people whatsoever, since we do not have a commune, and the only psychological pressure comes from what the Scriptures themselves apply to a person.
Historic Teachings
The churches of Christ have not changed with respect to the historical teachings on moral issues, but look at what various religious groups have done. Anyone who wants to take the trouble to trace what has been taught about homosexuality through the centuries would discover that virtually all religious denominations have been opposed to such a perversion. We still are! How many denominations have reversed themselves regarding this doctrine—yet we are called a cult? We are the ones still upholding what the Bible teaches as it applies to moral issues.
The same is true of worship. Historically, just about every religious denomination opposed the use of instrumental music when it was added to worship—leaders such as John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Charles Spurgeon, Albert Barnes, and others. Now some have turned the concept of worship given unto God into entertainment for themselves. We are not the ones who have changed the historic teachings of the Christian Church.
The Deity of Christ
Christians cannot hold to any other doctrine but that Jesus is the Son of God. If there is any doctrine that has been upheld by us, this is it. Some of the greatest lessons ever presented by preachers in the church of our Lord have been on this topic. By this one definition of a cult alone we must be excluded. We truly believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and have defended these truths for centuries.
Of course, we do not hold to any of these doctrines because others do; the only reason Christians believe any doctrine is that the New Testament teaches it. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church did change many teachings. History records them. The appeal of the churches of Christ has always been to return to the doctrine and practices of the New Testament. Something, such as infant baptism, may have been practiced incorrectly for centuries. Longevity does not validate it.
Our One “Aberration”
The only accusation that could possibly be leveled against us is that we teach something in addition to grace and faith—obedience. Cults may demand so many works be done, or one’s salvation is in jeopardy; we have no such practice. The Scriptures do teach, however, that there is a correct response to God’s grace. Nowhere does the Bible teach salvation by “faith only.” We are saved by faith—one that obeys the Lord. Do McDowell and Stewart wish to argue that one can be saved without any obedience whatsoever?
They obviously showed their bias in what they wrote on this cultic characteristic. Churches of Christ teach the grace of God and the necessity of faith. It would be foolish for anyone to think he could earn salvation. No one possesses that much goodness; no one has the ability to counteract his own sins by laboring diligently in the kingdom or doing so many acts of kindness. Only the blood of Christ, shed by the sinless Jesus, the Son of God, can remove sins. Works cannot do it.
A person’s “faith,” however, if it will not lead him to repent and have those sins washed away (Rev. 1:5), is not genuine faith. If Hebrews 11 teaches anything, it is that faith acts. Jesus promises salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Does that sound like “faith only”? Again, Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Does that sound like “faith only”? “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Does this Bible verse make it sound like we are saved by “faith only”?
So, are we saved by faith or works? We are saved by faith that obeys God. We are not trusting in ourselves to save us—only Jesus can do that. But He saves us when we repent and are baptized (Acts 2:38). Being baptized does not merit salvation, but it is an expression of compliance with God’s commands—the answer of a good conscience toward Him (1 Peter 3:21). Even after we are baptized, we will not be 100% obedient to God in all things and will still not merit salvation (1 John 1:8, 10). This fact, however, does not mean that we must not walk in the light anyway (1 John 1:7). Imperfection does not disprove the need for obedience. God still requires that we obey Him in all things to the best of our ability.
This is not some new doctrine. It was taught in the New Testament, and early Christians practiced baptism for the remission of sins. People departed from that truth, along with others, at a later time. The question is, “Do we want to stand with the doctrines of men that developed over time—or stand with what the Holy Spirit revealed in the New Testament?” May the members of the body of Christ stand with truth—despite what all others do! We have debated this issue with denominations for 200 years—with great success—and will continue to do so.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CULT? (02/26/06)."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)
SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO "COMMON SENSE" QUESTIONS (PART 1)
GARY W. SUMMERS
Recently, we were made aware of a Website (www.biblebelievers.com) which contains a document with the ambitious title, "Common Sense Questions A 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer." Its author is "Pastor" David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee.
His low opinion of the Lord's church and of our preachers and elders is made evident from the outset. If he possessed any respect whatsoever, he would not have used "Church of Christ" as an adjective, thus implying that we are a denomination and that we believe in denominationalism as he does. He also uses intentionally the epithet Campbellite, by which we have never referred to ourselves. It is a term of derision which the enemies of the cross of Christ use, thinking that, if they call us names, it will somehow diminish the Truth (which it fails to do). Martin knows that we study the Word of God--not Campbell; in fact, it is doubtful that even 10% of the members of the body of Christ know what Campbell taught concerning any particular subject.
Martin regards himself highly; he boasts of his tract:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any [note: ANY gws] of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
We have one question for him before we answer his thirteen to us: When he was ordained a "pastor" in 1986, did he meet all of the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Such would preclude his knowing how the New Testament defines pastor.
Prior to the thirteen questions, Martin seeks to prejudice the reader by calling us "a most deceptive and dangerous cult" and comparing us with "the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." He does not like the idea that we believe we are "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." Well, then, by implication he is admitting that the Solid Rock Baptist Church is not "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." So why does anyone attend there? He has admitted he belongs to a man-made religious organization--not the church established by Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching over the centuries, departing from New Testament doctrine on salvation, worship, and church structure. The Mormons have additional revelation people must know in order to be saved (to which no one had access for 1800 years). We are like neither of these groups; our philosophy is to abide by what the New Testament teaches and to present that to others. We have not changed the faith (Jude 3), nor do we have additional revelations (whether in the form of one man speaking ex cathedra or of several men adding multiple and contradicting revelations to the Bible). Our plea is for all men to study the Word of God and follow it.
Martin's complaint about the one true church may be founded upon a really dangerous concept that no one can know the Truth. Yet Jesus said that we could--if we continue in His Word (John 8:31-32). How intelligent is it to tell someone: "I'm a member of the Solid Rock Baptist Church; we're not the true church you read about in the New Testament"? That would be truthful.
Martin's solution to anyone who has come in contact with our "dangerous" doctrines is to ask his thirteen questions--"then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13)." How can anyone trust this man? He does not know the first thing about understanding the Scriptures. Any one who thinks he makes sense should read John 16:12-13. Jesus is promising the apostles (not all Christians) that they will be guided into all truth when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (which occurred on the day of Pentecost). Everyone else receives the Truth by reading what the apostles wrote. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Word to be recorded and then have to interpret it for us, also? The apostles recorded "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); when we read what they wrote, we can understand it (Eph. 3:1-4). God is fully capable of communicating effectively with His creation.
After making several "cutesy" comments, Martin begins with his questions. Not one of them shows any original thought; the reader has probably heard them all before. They have been asked and answered hundreds of times--often in public debates. Martin, however, thinks he has provided insurmountable problems for "Campbellites." He is as wrong as he is rude.
1. "Where was the New Testament church before1800 (some questions are paraphrased due to space limitations)?" "What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?" Prior to 1800 the New Testament church existed in various locales, beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The church underwent persecution several times during its first three hundred years. After that, it developed into the apostate church which is now called Roman Catholicism. Martin may have heard that this body persecuted and put to death those who disagreed with her. Thus, records are rare and spotty. We do have evidence of brethren meeting in various locations in the 1600s. We have never claimed to come into existence in the 1800s. Truth was always in the Word of God--several manuscripts of which have survived, which shows that most people probably had access to the Truth.
2. "If a 'Church of Christ' elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will?" Mr. Martin demonstrates that he is clueless on this point. Where did he get the idea that we teach that only elders can baptize someone? Unfortunately, he failed to document anything he writes. [Does not the Pensacola Bible Institute (from which he graduated in 1984) teach its students to document their claims?] The fact is that elders, preachers, deacons, and members have all baptized those who are ready. If a Christian is not handy, then a total stranger (even an atheist) will do. The one doing the baptizing is not important; rather it is the one who knows he needs to be baptized.
This question has a second part:
Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation--the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
No. All this diatribe consists of is emotion, mixed with smoke and poor logic. Has Martin not read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)? What? Is a mediator needed? Was Peter a mediator on the day of Pentecost? Was Philip a mediator when he baptized the eunuch? Was Ananias a mediator when he told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? This charge is fatuous. Jesus is the only Mediator because only He can save; only His blood can wash away sins (Rev. 1:5). But God chose to put the Gospel into earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). We do not save; we bring people to Christ so that He can save them. This question is so absurd that it really deserves no response.
3. "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up?" Haha. Martin should turn his attempt at humor back on himself. If the spokes on the eunuch's chariot had broken apart, would he have had to wait for a wheel repairman before obtaining salvation? If Naaman had been wounded in the leg by a bandit, would his leprosy not have been removed just because he could not get to the Jordan River? Any time God attaches a condition to something, then that condition must be met. Fortunately, there are other bodies of water besides the one in the church building.
4. "If my sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to 'lose my salvation' and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!" If people are saved at the moment they recite the sinner's prayer (or whatever Martin has them do), wouldn't the best chance of their going to heaven be to be struck by lightning at that moment?!!
5. "If as a Christian I can fall and 'lose my salvation,' is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him an 'Indian giver'? How could I know for sure that I was saved or lost?" Obviously, Martin has been studying John Calvin far more than he has been perusing the Sacred Volume. Apparently, he thinks salvation cannot be lost, yet practically every book in the New Testament teaches precisely that. He might be careful about calling God an Indian giver, for it is He who writes a person's name in the book of life--and blots it out.
Some things that God does are conditional. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:30 God tells Eli:
"Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.'"
Does David Martin want to accuse the Almighty of being an "Indian giver"? The man ought to be ashamed that, in his irrational and emotional determination to discredit the church of Christ, he is willing to accuse Deity. Those who obey the Gospel have salvation, but if, like Eli's house, they dishonor God, God can take that salvation away from them.
Moses understood this principle. As he prayed for the nation of Israel, he said:
"Yet now, if you will, forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of the book you have written." And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book" (Ex. 32:32-33).
Likewise Jesus told the apostle John to write to the church at Sardis:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5).
There exists a Book of Life. Paul said that the names of his fellow laborers were written in it (Phil. 4:3). Some names are never written in it (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Those individuals will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life get to enter the eternal city (Rev. 21:27). So, some people's names never get into that Book, but the names of others do. But of those whose names are therein recorded, some will be blotted out. Moses knew that; Jesus knew that. One of the final verses of the New Testament proclaims this fact:
And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:19).
In other words, it is not true that once a person's name is written in the Book of Life, it must remain there; it may be blotted out (erased, expunged). "Once written, always written," is just as erroneous as "once saved, always saved." God is not an "Indian giver": we choose to become saved, and we can choose to give up our salvation, also. God pleads with us to become Christians (Matt. 11:28-30) and to remain faithful (Rev. 2:10), but the decision always rests with us.
Numerous other passages substantiate the point that those who have been saved can sin so as to be lost. Paul taught that he would be lost unless he was able to bring his body into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27). He also taught that any brother who would bind portions of the law of Moses upon Christians (circumcision, e.g.) was estranged from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). It is impossible for a person to be estranged from someone (Christ) with whom he was not familiar in the first place. One cannot fall from grace if he was never saved.
Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan; how is that possible unless they were first in the kingdom of Christ (1 Tim. 1:20)? If they had never departed from the kingdom of darkness (Col. 1:13-14), then Paul could not have sent them back. James says that if a Christian wanders from the truth, his soul will face death (James 5:19-20).
If continued faithfulness is not important to maintaining salvation, then why is the book of Hebrews replete with exhortations against falling away (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:12-4:2;10:23-39)? It is entirely possible that some will draw back to perdition (Heb. 10:39). We are encouraged by past examples of faithfulness (Heb. 11) and particularly by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12:1-3). Christians must not "refuse Him who speaks"; we shall not escape, for "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29).
John speaks of seeing a brother sin. One kind of sin does not lead to death; another type does (1 John 5:16-17). The observing brother is not asked to pray about the sin leading to death. Some who become Christians are determined to commit certain sins no matter what. They will not ever repent of them; thus, they are lost.
Can one who has lost salvation regain it? Yes, but he must humble himself, repent of the sin (quit practicing it), and pray for forgiveness. This was Peter's prescription for Simon the magician in Acts 8:20:22.
Can we know that we are saved or lost? Yes, it is not that difficult. Are we living faithfully and walking in the light (1 John 1:7), or have we returned to the darkness, from which we were delivered? We know that we are imperfect; we know that we continually fall short of what God ideally wants us to be. But surely we can determine for ourselves whether we are doing the best we can to walk with God or whether we are walking in our own stubborn way. Do we persist in some immorality? Then, we are lost. Do we care nothing for the worship and work of the church? Then our salvation stands in jeopardy. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation (chapters 2-3) serve as an excellent guide as to what Jesus thinks about salvation. We can be confident of, not uncertain about, our salvation. The Word is given to us for just that reason--to communicate to us the right attitudes and the right actions.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO 'COMMON SENSE' QUESTIONS (PART 1) (05/19/02)"
GARY W. SUMMERS
Recently, we were made aware of a Website (www.biblebelievers.com) which contains a document with the ambitious title, "Common Sense Questions A 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer." Its author is "Pastor" David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee.
His low opinion of the Lord's church and of our preachers and elders is made evident from the outset. If he possessed any respect whatsoever, he would not have used "Church of Christ" as an adjective, thus implying that we are a denomination and that we believe in denominationalism as he does. He also uses intentionally the epithet Campbellite, by which we have never referred to ourselves. It is a term of derision which the enemies of the cross of Christ use, thinking that, if they call us names, it will somehow diminish the Truth (which it fails to do). Martin knows that we study the Word of God--not Campbell; in fact, it is doubtful that even 10% of the members of the body of Christ know what Campbell taught concerning any particular subject.
Martin regards himself highly; he boasts of his tract:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any [note: ANY gws] of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
We have one question for him before we answer his thirteen to us: When he was ordained a "pastor" in 1986, did he meet all of the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Such would preclude his knowing how the New Testament defines pastor.
Prior to the thirteen questions, Martin seeks to prejudice the reader by calling us "a most deceptive and dangerous cult" and comparing us with "the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches." He does not like the idea that we believe we are "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." Well, then, by implication he is admitting that the Solid Rock Baptist Church is not "the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ." So why does anyone attend there? He has admitted he belongs to a man-made religious organization--not the church established by Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching over the centuries, departing from New Testament doctrine on salvation, worship, and church structure. The Mormons have additional revelation people must know in order to be saved (to which no one had access for 1800 years). We are like neither of these groups; our philosophy is to abide by what the New Testament teaches and to present that to others. We have not changed the faith (Jude 3), nor do we have additional revelations (whether in the form of one man speaking ex cathedra or of several men adding multiple and contradicting revelations to the Bible). Our plea is for all men to study the Word of God and follow it.
Martin's complaint about the one true church may be founded upon a really dangerous concept that no one can know the Truth. Yet Jesus said that we could--if we continue in His Word (John 8:31-32). How intelligent is it to tell someone: "I'm a member of the Solid Rock Baptist Church; we're not the true church you read about in the New Testament"? That would be truthful.
Martin's solution to anyone who has come in contact with our "dangerous" doctrines is to ask his thirteen questions--"then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13)." How can anyone trust this man? He does not know the first thing about understanding the Scriptures. Any one who thinks he makes sense should read John 16:12-13. Jesus is promising the apostles (not all Christians) that they will be guided into all truth when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (which occurred on the day of Pentecost). Everyone else receives the Truth by reading what the apostles wrote. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the Word to be recorded and then have to interpret it for us, also? The apostles recorded "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); when we read what they wrote, we can understand it (Eph. 3:1-4). God is fully capable of communicating effectively with His creation.
After making several "cutesy" comments, Martin begins with his questions. Not one of them shows any original thought; the reader has probably heard them all before. They have been asked and answered hundreds of times--often in public debates. Martin, however, thinks he has provided insurmountable problems for "Campbellites." He is as wrong as he is rude.
1. "Where was the New Testament church before1800 (some questions are paraphrased due to space limitations)?" "What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?" Prior to 1800 the New Testament church existed in various locales, beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The church underwent persecution several times during its first three hundred years. After that, it developed into the apostate church which is now called Roman Catholicism. Martin may have heard that this body persecuted and put to death those who disagreed with her. Thus, records are rare and spotty. We do have evidence of brethren meeting in various locations in the 1600s. We have never claimed to come into existence in the 1800s. Truth was always in the Word of God--several manuscripts of which have survived, which shows that most people probably had access to the Truth.
2. "If a 'Church of Christ' elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will?" Mr. Martin demonstrates that he is clueless on this point. Where did he get the idea that we teach that only elders can baptize someone? Unfortunately, he failed to document anything he writes. [Does not the Pensacola Bible Institute (from which he graduated in 1984) teach its students to document their claims?] The fact is that elders, preachers, deacons, and members have all baptized those who are ready. If a Christian is not handy, then a total stranger (even an atheist) will do. The one doing the baptizing is not important; rather it is the one who knows he needs to be baptized.
This question has a second part:
Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation--the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
No. All this diatribe consists of is emotion, mixed with smoke and poor logic. Has Martin not read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)? What? Is a mediator needed? Was Peter a mediator on the day of Pentecost? Was Philip a mediator when he baptized the eunuch? Was Ananias a mediator when he told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? This charge is fatuous. Jesus is the only Mediator because only He can save; only His blood can wash away sins (Rev. 1:5). But God chose to put the Gospel into earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7). We do not save; we bring people to Christ so that He can save them. This question is so absurd that it really deserves no response.
3. "If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up?" Haha. Martin should turn his attempt at humor back on himself. If the spokes on the eunuch's chariot had broken apart, would he have had to wait for a wheel repairman before obtaining salvation? If Naaman had been wounded in the leg by a bandit, would his leprosy not have been removed just because he could not get to the Jordan River? Any time God attaches a condition to something, then that condition must be met. Fortunately, there are other bodies of water besides the one in the church building.
4. "If my sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to 'lose my salvation' and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!" If people are saved at the moment they recite the sinner's prayer (or whatever Martin has them do), wouldn't the best chance of their going to heaven be to be struck by lightning at that moment?!!
5. "If as a Christian I can fall and 'lose my salvation,' is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God 'takes away' my salvation, doesn't that make Him an 'Indian giver'? How could I know for sure that I was saved or lost?" Obviously, Martin has been studying John Calvin far more than he has been perusing the Sacred Volume. Apparently, he thinks salvation cannot be lost, yet practically every book in the New Testament teaches precisely that. He might be careful about calling God an Indian giver, for it is He who writes a person's name in the book of life--and blots it out.
Some things that God does are conditional. For example, in 1 Samuel 2:30 God tells Eli:
"Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: 'I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever'; but now the Lord says: 'Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.'"
Does David Martin want to accuse the Almighty of being an "Indian giver"? The man ought to be ashamed that, in his irrational and emotional determination to discredit the church of Christ, he is willing to accuse Deity. Those who obey the Gospel have salvation, but if, like Eli's house, they dishonor God, God can take that salvation away from them.
Moses understood this principle. As he prayed for the nation of Israel, he said:
"Yet now, if you will, forgive their sin--but if not, I pray, blot me out of the book you have written." And the Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book" (Ex. 32:32-33).
Likewise Jesus told the apostle John to write to the church at Sardis:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Rev. 3:5).
There exists a Book of Life. Paul said that the names of his fellow laborers were written in it (Phil. 4:3). Some names are never written in it (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Those individuals will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). Those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life get to enter the eternal city (Rev. 21:27). So, some people's names never get into that Book, but the names of others do. But of those whose names are therein recorded, some will be blotted out. Moses knew that; Jesus knew that. One of the final verses of the New Testament proclaims this fact:
And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:19).
In other words, it is not true that once a person's name is written in the Book of Life, it must remain there; it may be blotted out (erased, expunged). "Once written, always written," is just as erroneous as "once saved, always saved." God is not an "Indian giver": we choose to become saved, and we can choose to give up our salvation, also. God pleads with us to become Christians (Matt. 11:28-30) and to remain faithful (Rev. 2:10), but the decision always rests with us.
Numerous other passages substantiate the point that those who have been saved can sin so as to be lost. Paul taught that he would be lost unless he was able to bring his body into subjection (1 Cor. 9:27). He also taught that any brother who would bind portions of the law of Moses upon Christians (circumcision, e.g.) was estranged from Christ and fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). It is impossible for a person to be estranged from someone (Christ) with whom he was not familiar in the first place. One cannot fall from grace if he was never saved.
Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan; how is that possible unless they were first in the kingdom of Christ (1 Tim. 1:20)? If they had never departed from the kingdom of darkness (Col. 1:13-14), then Paul could not have sent them back. James says that if a Christian wanders from the truth, his soul will face death (James 5:19-20).
If continued faithfulness is not important to maintaining salvation, then why is the book of Hebrews replete with exhortations against falling away (Heb. 2:1-4; 3:12-4:2;10:23-39)? It is entirely possible that some will draw back to perdition (Heb. 10:39). We are encouraged by past examples of faithfulness (Heb. 11) and particularly by the example of Jesus (Heb. 12:1-3). Christians must not "refuse Him who speaks"; we shall not escape, for "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:25-29).
John speaks of seeing a brother sin. One kind of sin does not lead to death; another type does (1 John 5:16-17). The observing brother is not asked to pray about the sin leading to death. Some who become Christians are determined to commit certain sins no matter what. They will not ever repent of them; thus, they are lost.
Can one who has lost salvation regain it? Yes, but he must humble himself, repent of the sin (quit practicing it), and pray for forgiveness. This was Peter's prescription for Simon the magician in Acts 8:20:22.
Can we know that we are saved or lost? Yes, it is not that difficult. Are we living faithfully and walking in the light (1 John 1:7), or have we returned to the darkness, from which we were delivered? We know that we are imperfect; we know that we continually fall short of what God ideally wants us to be. But surely we can determine for ourselves whether we are doing the best we can to walk with God or whether we are walking in our own stubborn way. Do we persist in some immorality? Then, we are lost. Do we care nothing for the worship and work of the church? Then our salvation stands in jeopardy. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation (chapters 2-3) serve as an excellent guide as to what Jesus thinks about salvation. We can be confident of, not uncertain about, our salvation. The Word is given to us for just that reason--to communicate to us the right attitudes and the right actions.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SCRIPTURAL ANSWERS TO 'COMMON SENSE' QUESTIONS (PART 1) (05/19/02)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)