Bible Questions for the Church of Christ

Introduction

Note: In addition to this article, please see also our article on "Cults, Heresies, and Heterodoxies." In particlular please note the section on heterodoxy that discusses Five Critical Issues of Liberalism and Five Critical Issues of Legalism. 

Church of Christ members are among the most sincere students of the Bible. They are attempting to bring the church back to a pure biblical faith and obedient practice. This is most refreshing! They are a beacon of light in their effort to restore biblical Christianity. We, as evangelicals, unite with them on the view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

But critics say that they have strayed from their original purpose of Christian unity. Further, many within mainstream historic orthodox Christianity think that Church of Christ teachings have dangerously distorted the New Testament in several ways—including on the gospel, sin, regeneration, baptism, hermeneutics, the agency of the Holy Spirit, church government, Christian ministry, Christian harmony and hypercriticism, and the whole scheme of Christian benevolence. They accuse the Church of Christ of being divisive and sectarian, legalistic, and ignoring or explaining away passages of Scripture that do no fit their presuppositional interpretation. Worse yet, the Church of Christ preaches A PLAN instead of THE MAN, a charge that means that they demean the work of Jesus.

An important charge against at least some members of the Church of Christ is that others who do not hold to their interpretation are condemned. Indeed, many in the Church of Christ apparently have been led to believe that those outside of their narrow group are doomed to hell or at least seriously deceived. Others are not believers at all but unbelievers, and are to be treated as heathen and pagans. Only they are the Israel of God and may refer to themselves exclusively as "the Lord's people." We had a Church of Christ respondent to this article confirm this thinking by declaring his group as "God's people." Here is an article by a Church of Christ insider offering a candid look at their exclusive thinking: www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap18.html.

We have been given an audio taped lesson from a Church of Christ that said that it is possible that someone in another group or denomination might be saved, but such people certainly could not remain in those groups indefinitely as they become fully aware of their errors. Pamphlets available in most Churches of Christ also make it quite clear that unless you are a member of their group, you are not a true Christian.

The Church of Christ is not monolithic, however, and there appears to be moderating changes occurring among them. So the above charges hold mainly to the traditional faction within the group, which is sometimes referred to as the "hyperconservative Church of Christ." Here is one person's list of the Top Ten Ways to Know You're Dealing with a Hyperconservative Church of Christ Person. (Scroll down a bit on this link to see the list.)

Following is a brief history of the so-called Restoration Movement from which the Church of Christ came. Note: Much of this material comes from the books and articles below, mostly available at www.freedomsring.org/books.html and also at http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/default.asp. This is an inside look at the Restoration Movement. All these men are preachers or authors within the Church of Christ. Ferguson is also a professor emeritus of Abilene Christian University. Hicks is a professor at David Lipscomb University.

  • Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship by W. Carl Ketcherside & Leroy Garrett—a book certain to enlighten Christians everywhere
  • Free in Christ by Cecil Hook
  • Free to Change by Cecil Hook
  • The Church of Christ; A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today by Everett Ferguson
  • various essays by C. K. Moser
  • various writings of John Marks Hicks

The movement began in the early 1800's in Kentucky by Alexander Campbell and others including Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Walter Scott. Alexander Campbell, while still living in Scotland, became concerned about the strict sectarianism of his Presbyterian group, which practiced a form of closed communion in which one had to have a token in order to participate. The whole idea repelled Alexander. He was convinced that no man had the right to determine the worthiness of another to receive God's forgiveness. When his turn came at one point, he returned his token to the elders and did not take communion.

In his heart he renounced allegiance to any church that proclaimed its path as the only way to the throne of God. Yet he insisted that the members of even these churches were true Christians. His concern was that the denominational structure imposed requirements that were not consistent with biblical unity.

Barton Stone, a Presbyterian minister on a similar tract, rejected sectism and started his own movement independent of Campbell. While the two groups had very different views on many issues, they agreed to accept one another as brothers in the faith and merged in 1832.

Stone and Campbell became leaders of the idea that Christians should be able to spiritually unite on a few fundamental ideas. They held that insistence on matters of interpretation, denominationalism, credism, and ecclesiastical tyranny were not in the spirit of Christianity—given the many calls for peace and unity in the New Testament. Personal interpretation of Scripture should not be the basis for judging others or made the basis of Christian communion. Reflecting this noble idea, Stone and Campbell often said in slightly different variations,

Let us acknowledge all to be our brethren who believe in the Lord Jesus, repent of their sins, and humbly and honestly obey him as far as they understand his will and their duty.

What a wonderful picture! If we may editorialize, this movement is perhaps the most underappreciated movement at least in modern church history. These men had a passion for unity as fundamental to the Christian faith. They hailed with enthusiasm the least indications of a growing spirit of forbearance and brotherly love among the different denominations. They saw a spirit of unity among Christians as dethroning sin and Satan and converting the world.

We find much to admire in the original Restoration (Stone-Campbell) Movement. While today's members of the Church of Christ recoil at the term, we ourselves would indeed be honored to be called Cambellites!

Every Christian group has its own set of warts. Campbell noted the status of Christian division, "The constant insisting upon them [doctrinal opinions], as articles of faith and terms of salvation, have so beaten them into the minds of men, that, in many instances, they would as soon deny the Bible itself as give up one of those opinions." He believed that while we can debate doctrinal matters, they should not divide us.

However, reflecting the sinful and divisive tendencies of all of us humans, the Restoration Movement itself soon began dividing over differences. Three distinct groups emerged—the Church of Christ (conservative), the Christian Church (moderate/mainstream), and the Disciples of Christ (liberal). These have further divided so that today one can count over 2 dozen factions. Divisions came from every manner of opinion including instrumental music, the manner of serving the Supper, millenial theories, missionary methods, orphan homes, cooperative programs with other Christian groups, whether to have Sunday School classes, etc. Those with opposing views were labeled "not sound in the faith" or "liberals" or "extremists" and were marked to be avoided, according to W. Carl Ketcherside in www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap15.html.

By the latter part of the 1800's a wing of the Church of Christ became so certain of their doctrinal interpretations as the only true way that they began refusing fellowship with other professing Christians. The turning point of division came in 1889 with the Sand Creek Declaration. According to Ketcherside, with this declaration, the elders of some Churches of Christ pronounced the sentence of "spiritual death" upon sister congregations over which they held not the slightest degree of jurisdiction (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap12.html). Non-conformists were cut off without trial or appeal. People in the condemned congregations were given the "deep freeze" treatment by even former friends, were branded as "traitor, heretic and apostate." Essentially, these people were disinherited from the family of God and were no longer recognized as his children.

We infer from Ketcherside and Garrett's inside look at the Church of Christ that this would be all but forgotten and forgiven history if a spirit of separation and condemnation were not still present today. There is adequate evidence for this claim, including a refusal to attend any non-approved church (except perhaps grudgingly at weddings and funerals)—and a special aversion to taking the Lord's Supper in any other church. CC churches seemingly spend a great deal of time studying other groups with the intent of condemming what they believe to be their many agregious errors. This has a tendency to bolster unity within their group. Sadly, the noble goal of uniting Christians ended up dividing us further.

Interestingly, the Church of Christ disavows its lineage to Stone-Campbell and instead claims lineage back to the apostolic age. The group denies that it is a denomination at all (even though they appear to meet the dictionary test of a denomination). Many of them attempt to avoid the denominational label by writing it church of Christ instead of Church of Christ (www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap13.html). It is claimed (indeed as do many other Protestant, Catholic, as well as non-Christian cults) that they are the one true heir of primitive Christianity. The difference is that most other mainline churches do not go to the extreme of refusing to fellowship with other groups.

If you are a Church of Christ member, would you be willing to explain your views on these various matters? Faith Facts ministry specializes in theology, Christian evidences, world religions, and cults. We are currently studying the beliefs of different Christian groups in order to understand them better. We would like to get the opinion of Church of Christ folks on these matters in order to clarify your views, and to help put other Christians on the correct (narrow) way. Since you are so well versed in the Bible, would you be willing to give us answers for the hope that lies within you (1 Peter 3:15)? Frankly, there are some things we find hard to understand and perhaps you can enlighten us.

Below is a list of questions that would help many understand your views on the Bible better. If your views have not been correctly given, please set the record straight. These questions and comments are rather tough and dig very deeply into the Bible and Church of Christ theology. Trained theologians believe that you may have some difficulty with these questions, thus you may be inclined to resist answering.

We have liberally documented our sources, most of which come from people within the Church of Christ—the books listed above. Clarification for our questions comes from these sources and are integral to the questions. Yet we have noticed a strange reluctance of Church of Christ folks to read these references, and these learned men are often afforded various ad hominem attacks. We are perplexed by this.

As mentioned, there is a very wide range of views within the Church of Christ. Some would be considered mainstream within Christianity. We are addressing these questions to those within the Church of Christ who refuse fellowship with non-Church of Christ groups. However, we are interested in the experience of anyone who may have knowledge of the Church of Christ and invite you to email us.

So we hope you will give us your views on these things. These matters are truly important to millions of people who call themselves Christians; their eternal life in heaven or hell depends on understanding these things properly. So let's wrestle with these issues together. Spiritual truth is more important than "your pride or my pride."

If you wish, you may copy the article into a Word file, add your comments next to the questions below (perhaps in bold or in color to distinguish them) and email them to mail@faithfacts.org. Just skip any questions you cannot answer. Since there are so many questions, you may wish to answer those in one or two sections at a time. Thanks!

May this dialogue be taken in love and not in scorn, that iron may sharpen iron. We claim no exclusive knowledge except as the Bible teaches. We always welcome our brothers views.

Top of page What is the Gospel?

"I was raised in the Church of Christ and always assumed that the way the Christian faith was presented there was biblically sound. But a girlfriend in high school shared the gospel with me. I had never heard that the gospel was actually something that God did for me. I had been taught, or at least I inferred, that the gospel was something that I did for God."   ----Susan

Please see our article What is the Gospel.

Is it correct that the understanding of most in the CC is that the gospel is the whole New Testament, or a compostion of all of the doctrines of the New Testament? And further, that that the whole of the New Testament or its doctrines must be believed correctly to be saved? Or that the gospel is a formula of things to be done by man? If true, this is dangerous distortion of the essence of the gospel. CC author Leroy Garrett has tried to convince his brothers that the gospel is not the whole of the New Testament, for the gospel was a reality long before the scriptures were written (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap10.html).

He explains that perhaps some have confused gospel and doctrine. Thomas Campbell (son of Alexander) made a distinction between the two. The difference is similar to the difference between fact and interpretation. There is no cause for opinion or differences respecting the fact of Christ. The gospel is a proclamation of good news that one accepts or rejects. This led Alexander Campbell to refer to a belief in the one fact (Christ is Lord) and a submission to the one act (baptism) as the basis for unity.

Strictly speaking, the teachings of the apostles are not facts as the gospel is, but interpretations, implications, and edification. Even the apostles had different opinions and emphases on docrtrine. Thus Peter said of Paul's teaching, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand." (See also www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap5.html.)

If you think that one must believe and obey all of the New Testament writings to be saved, were those who converted on Pentecost saved? How about the Ethiopian eunuch, and the jailor? They had not had the whole course of the New Testament, so would they have been saved? Did they have a different standard than you and me—if so, where does it imply that in the Bible? Isn’t it correct—as those in the historic orthodox church teach—that salvation occurs at the moment of faith rather than after years of instruction? Thus isn’t one’s justification made right by faith itself rather than by being right in all matters of faith as Cecil Hook suggests (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap8.html)?

Is it true that the CC teaches that the gospel was not preached before Pentecost? Do not these passages show that it was in fact preached before Pentecost: Mat 11:5, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 20:1, Rev 14:6?

Doesn’t gospel mean “good news” in Greek (as the ancients used the word for events such as the birth of an emperor or a major military victory)? We fear that a non-believer visiting a Church of Christ and hearing that the "good news" is a list of things that they have to do, would not see it as good news. Doesn’t 1 Cor 15:1-11 give the clearest and principle definition of the gospel as being something to be believed about Christ dying for our sins? Is it not ultimately found in the grace of God (Acts 20:24 and Col 1:3-6)?

Just what is the gospel that Paul preached (1 Cor 15:1-8; 1 Cor 2:2; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Rom 1:16-17)? Do you preach the gospel Paul preached? Are you resolved to focus on preaching Christ crucified as Paul did, or do you preach yourselves and your works and another gospel?

Do you teach that the gospel is a formula: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized—all things which must be done by man? Don't Rom 1:16 and 1 Cor 1:18 teach that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not the power of man? Doesn't the Bible specifically separate baptism from the Gospel in 1 Cor 1:17? Certainly obedience is most important, but it is not the gospel!

Leroy Garrett further clarifies what the gospel is: "Surely we can see that Jesus was referring to a specific message, a proclamation of certain heavenly facts to be believed. This is why Paul in 1 Cor 1:21 spoke of the gospel as 'the thing preached.' This is why he could speak of 'obeying the gospel,' for the gospel is one thing and obeying it is something else. This is why he could refer to 'the defense and confirmation of the gospel,' for the gospel is one thing, while to defend it and confirm it are something else." 

Isn't the gospel described in 1 Cor 15:1-38 as something that is past tense (Christ's dying for our sins) rather than a list of things that we must do now?

Were you redeemed by your acts of obedience or by the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:18-19).

Thomas Campbell said, "That although inferences and deductions from the Scripture... when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the conscience of Christians further than they perceive the connection....Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap28.html)."

This distinction between gospel and doctrine, between gospel and obedience, is crucial and seems clear to most Christians except certain modern CC parties. The founders of the Restoration Movement certainly understood the distinction. And the founders of the Protestant Reformation clearly understood the difference as they insisted on a distinction between, as they put it, gospel and law. This helps us understand why Alexander Campbell taught that we should consider as brothers even those new Christians who may not fully understand all of the details of Christian doctrine, or indeed even those who may have legitimate disagreements as to interpretation—and even those who err out of weakness or misunderstanding as we all do. Thus, the basis of unity should be gospel, rather than doctrine. (See also www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap33.html).

Ketcherside says, "This does havoc to what many of us have been calling 'gospel sermons.' Campbell says that a clear, scriptural sermon on faith, repentance and baptism is not gospel preaching. It may of course be truth, and even related to the gospel, and yet not be the gospel."

So what about the term obey the gospel (Rom 10:16; 2 Thes 1:8; 2 Pet 4:17)? The word for obey (Greek hupakouo) is defined in Strong's Concordance as "to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority—hearken, be obedient to, obey" (emphasis ours). So this is another factor in favor of seeing obedience as a result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself. For a more detailed discussion on this, see the last part of the section entitled "What God Requires for Salvation" below.

In the spirit of the Restoration Movement, the focus of the remaining questions below is to try to establish that there are valid differences of opinions among sincere Christians, even as to important doctrines. (Perhaps God wanted it to be that way in order to enrich our faith experience and learn to live together as believers.) We regularly reference the authors listed above. While we have noticed a reluctance to read the information provided on the links, it is really vital to the questions.

These questions will probably generate some strong reactions. Leroy Garrett says that in the days of his sectarian understanding of these things, he "never lost a debate"in his own mind. Garrett and others like him say that it was only after fully understanding God's love that he could truly put aside his party spirit to experience joy in the diverse opinions of his brothers —and with that a great burden was lifted from him. Even more than exploring what is the "best fit" interpretations of Scripture, we hope to demonstrate to all fellow believers in Christ that we ought naught to restrict our fellowship to those who are closest to us in doctrine.

Top of page Christian Unity

"I knew within my heart that something was not right  with the way we dealt with each other as Christians. Hostility, jealosy, judging, ostracizing, and the like abounded. All of these were being practiced [in the church of Christ]. Grace and love were very rare. As I began to read and study, I realized that for about thirty years I had been duped, misled and brainwashed. I could not believe the magnitude of this deception. As the scales began falling from my eyes, I began to see more and more clearly, and I grew more and more angry. I have harbored a lot of resentment in my heart since my eyes were opened. But lately, thanks be to God, I have been able to let it go."  -----(testimony of a Church of Christ sister. For the rest of her testimony see Ashamed.)

Basis for Unity 

Is it true that the CC believes that it alone is "the New Testament church?" Apparently only Churches of Christ—and only some of them (!)—qualify to be included in the "church of Christ." Is it correct that members of other Christian denominations cannot be saved if they remain in those groups (or that saved members of other denominations would surely leave those groups in time)? Yet is it also correct, as Cecil Hook says, that there is disagreement among CC members on some 100 issues: www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap1.html? There are some important issues on this list, including matters of life and death—war, abortion, euthanasia. Is it fair to ask this question: How can one be sure of his salvation if there is disagreement about what one must believe and do?

Members of the CC ask, "How can we accept professing Christians who are in error?" Given the diversity of opinion within your own group, every one of the group must be in error on some things, right? Hook offers some interesting insights into the divisions within the Church of Christ: www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap25.html. Is unity to be defined as getting people into a non-instrumental congregation and wearing the revered name of Church of Christ? Is the message that you proclaim intending to promote unity itself divisive?

Stone and Campbell’s original concept was to foster unity within the church. They recognized that even the apostles had disagreements, but in love they could remain united. How do you respond to Leroy Garrett's charge that the CC has "rediscovered the horrid sin of partyism"—the pride of being right and exclusive and superior with an "arrogant demand for conformity." Isn't partyism such a horrible sin that it can prevent one from reaching the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20-21)?

Garrett says, (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap46.html) "We do not work for unity; we rather accept the Spirit's gift of unity to the church. We are already united with all those who are in Christ." If he is mistaken, what do the many passages on unity mean (Jn 17:20-23, Rom 15:5-7, 1 Cor 1:10-12, Eph 1:10, Eph 4:1-16, Php 1:27, Col 3:11-16)? Is it a sin to fail to be in spiritual unity with your Christian brothers on the gospel—one fact of Christ?

Ferguson says, "There is no place for a diversity born of party spirit. Division is a denial of salvation, since the goal of Ephesians 1:10 is uniting all in Christ. Saying that these things are not enough to unite people is a denial of the fundamentals of Christianity." He reminds his brothers in the CC "not to be too quick to draw lines of fellowship or division....as the church will never be perfect; otherwise there would be not need for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and no need for human history."

The basis for unity for the CC are both (a) the New Testament, and (b) the New Testament church. That sounds like a reasonable thing for Christians. But Garrett makes an interesting point that perhaps these are, in fact, contradictory goals (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap44.html)! He points out that the New Testament church itself was not modeled after the New Testament! They did not have the New Testament!

So if we are to use a model of unity based on the New Testament church, shouldn't our unity be based on what theirs was—the fundamental facts of the gospel? Could Garrett be correct that there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the "Bible alone?" In fact, isn't he correct that, "If unity is a matter of seeing the Bible eye-to-eye, then believers will never be united, for they never have and never will see the Bible alike (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap51.html)."

Obviously, a line must be drawn somewhere since everyone is not a Christian. But we must not draw a line where the Bible does not draw a line. Wasn't the unity of the New Testament church what Paul says in 1 Cor 1, with "all those in who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?"

To what extent can we pass judgment on another? What does Paul mean in Romans 14:4: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls."?

Is the CC ever a “stumbling block” to the gospel? Do those who hear this emphasis on law and guilt ever “perish of thirst beside what should have been a refreshing pool of the water of life (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap17.html)?"

Apparently the CC spends a good bit of time studying other groups' theology in order to condemn what they see as egregious errors. And labels are attached such as "sectarian," "liberal," "ultra-conservative," "heretic," "not sound in the faith," "not of us," "dishonest," or "institutional," or an "anti" or an "extremist." Such labels are put on denominational churches as well as sister Churches of Christ. Ketcherside insisted that the apostle Paul would vehemently reject such labels, and said, "Unless our brethren are transformed by the Spirit and renounce their false premise they are destined to become the most narrow and antagonistic sectarians of our age."

Let us emphatically assert that such sectarian feelings are not unique to the CC! We have enough experience with denominations to know that many in the denominational world see themselves as members of the denomination first and as Christians second. They are bound by inbred traditions and uninspired creeds which they feel a necessity to defend. Lengthy confessional statements are the way that many organizations put a straight jacket on pastors, teachers, and lay leaders. But, unlike the CC, most will allow fellowship and communion with those outside the denomination and certainly consider others as true Christians.

Some say that what the CC really means by “unity on the Bible” is to follow their particular view of things, including no instrumental music, gospel plan, Bible name, weekly communion, ruling elder church government, etc. Is it correct that your answer to division is for everyone else to line up with you, as Leroy Garrett claims? Isn't there a difference between unity and uniformity? In other words, can't we have unity without uniformity? We hear from CC people that they will fully accept anyone who "repents." But what seems to be meant by repent is to forsake non-CC views and come on over. What did Paul mean in Romans 14:18-19? Does it mean that whoever serves Christ in the way you think they should is "acceptable to God?" Or what did Jesus mean when in Mark 9:38-51:

“John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.”

Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35). Ketcherside says (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap50.html), "It is not by being baptized or by faithfully attending services that the world will be impressed, nor by being right or doctrinally sound. It is rather the magnificent Christian dynamic of love that will press the claims of Jesus upon men's conscience."

Fellowship

One respondent to our article said this: "Those erring members of the church who refuse to grow out of false teachings and grow into a knowledge of and submission to the Truth are to be rejected, not tolerated." Of course, what is meant here by Truth is truth as the Church of Christ understands it.

Is it correct that CC will not fellowship with Christians who are "in error?" Is there any other kind of Christian? In other words, since CC members both acknowledge their own sin and disagree on so many points among themselves, is it not correct that each member of the Church of Christ must be in error on at least some points?

Is it correct that in some cities there are as many as half a dozen different groups of Churches of Christ, none of which will fellowhsip with the others? 

Isn't Ketcherside correct when he says "All of this talk about 'full fellowship' is sheer poppycock. It is wholly without scriptural warrant and has been conjured up...God has no stepchildren so we can have no half-brothers. If we are in his family we are in it wholly or not at all. The idea that you can be in partial fellowship is like loving the right side of your wife and hating the left side. You cannot parcel God out and you cannot carve up his spiritual offspring either (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap15.html)".

Ketcherside clarifies that, "Harmony is not essential to fellowship but is a goal of those who are in fellowship....There is no passage in the apostolic doctrine commanding harmony which was written to bring the saints into fellowship. Every such passage was written to those who were in the fellowship and because they were in it. Please consider (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap24.html)." Does fellowship require the endorsement of another's position or views? Are people in fellowship by being called by God through the Good News of Jesus Christ or some other means?

Garrett and Ketcherside challenge the usual CC interpretation of certain proof texts for disfellowship. For example, 2 Thes 3:6 says to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." First of all, the verse implies that those so identified are still brothers. It does not say to disfellowship from them. Please read what Garrett has to say: www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap26.html. He explains that the context of this passage is the urgent expectation of the expected Second Coming (mentioned regularly in 1st and 2nd Thes) in which some brothers were not bearing their load. Paul says that those who did not work should not eat (2 Thes 3:10), and that the church should discourage this freeloading by not being a party to it. As this is no doubt a different interpretation than you have been taught, your comments are welcome.

Another such proof text is Rom 16:17, which says to avoid those who cause division contrary to what they had been taught. Ketcherside is of the view that some have turned this passage into a meaning exactly opposite to its intent. What had they been taught? Hadn't they been taught to love one another, not to dispute over opinions, and to live in harmony? (See Rom 12, 13, and 14, etc). Ketcherside says that "Without realizing it, every partisan who has ever used Romans 16:17, to justify his pet division, and condone his unwritten creed, has pronounced his own condemnation by quoting this verse (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap27.html)!"

What do you think of Leroy Garrett's statements regarding 1 John 1:1-4, "If we use fellowship to refer to anything less than the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church throughout the world, we are using it in a sectarian sense. There is no such thing as 'our fellowship' except in terms of a sect (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap41.html)." And, "True, one may not approve or endorse what some denomination teaches or practices, but this has little or nothing to do with fellowship, which is a relationship that exists between a person and God and with other persons (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap42.html)."

Isn't it correct that even Alexander Campbell himself would not be accepted in many Churches of Christ today since he did not believe that baptism was absolutely essential for salvation, was not himself baptized for the remission of sins, believed that there were Christians in the sects, and served for some sixteen years as president of the first CC missionary society? And Thomas Campbell could not be fellowshipped for the most of the same reasons and also because he was a Calvinist in his theology?

Top of page True Church

Walter Scott in the preface of his book, The Gospel Restored, said: "In 1827 the True Gospel was restored. For distinction's sake it was styled the Ancient Gospel." In a more recent Church of Christ tract, the writer says: "She [the church] was HIDDEN for 1260 years, that she might be protected from the power of the Popes." Is it true that some within the CC still teach that the true church was really completely hidden for some 1260 years, so hidden in fact that Alexander Campbell had to find a Baptist preacher to baptize him?

Apparently not all CC people have this understanding of the 1260 year church gap. Some only say that the true church existed during those 1260 years, although believers had to worship in secret lest they be persecuted by the apostate Catholic church. But if you do hold to the gap view, what is the meaning of Mat 28:20 (“And lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age.”)? And Ephesians 3:21 (“Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.”) If the church was in apostasy for centuries, why does Jesus say, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

Is it correct that sometimes the CC considers Christians who "do not walk with you," as Ketcherside claims (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap22.html) to be "hobbyists, or dishonest, or insincere, or sectarians, or unworthy of notice?" Did Jesus die for a particular party within Christendom? Do you know precisely where God would draw the line to eliminate certain people from being considered Christians? How would you define "sect?" Would you define it differently than Cecil Hook (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap24.html)?

Hasn’t the church always been in need of reform and restoration—even from the beginning, as evidenced by Paul’ letters to his churches? If a man loses his leg, doesn’t he still have the essential nature of a man? If the church loses some correct practices, doesn’t it still have the essential nature of a church (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap19.html)?

The concept of the restoration of the true church is a view that the CC holds in common with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. If the church only existed in “seed” (meaning the Word) as you say during this church gap period, where in the “seed” does it prophecy that Alexander Campbell and his followers would restore the church? Or where in the “seed” does it authorize anyone to restore the church?

Is it fair to accuse other Christians groups of being started by men, when history clearly shows that the Church of Christ was started by men—Thomas and Alexander Campbell on May 4, 1811?

How does the Bible differentiate between joining a local congregation and joining the universal church of Christ (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap22.html)?

Top of page Instrumental Music

A study of CC doctrine is, of course, not complete without a look at instrumental music! The non-instrumental music wing of the CC feels so strongly about this that they will not fellowship with churches who use instrumental music, saying "We don't fellowship the instrument."

A cappella singing is wonderful and most worshipful! The concern is why this issue would cause folks to break fellowship with other Christians.

Why is instrumental music not allowed in worship when the definition of psalm (which you do allow) is a hymn set to instrumental music (see Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, as well as any English dictionary)? Since psalms are included in a proper worship (Ephesians 5:19), shouldn’t instrumental music necessarily be used in worship to be obedient to Scripture? Is it being disobedient to Paul’s instruction by not using psalms correctly in the worship service? In other words, given the definition of psalm, by your own rules of "inclusion and exclusion," doesn’t the Bible require instrumental music?

Aren’t there instruments of music in worship to God in heaven (Rev 5:8)? Aren’t there instruments of music in worship in the Old Testament? Is there any condemnation of instruments of music anywhere in the Bible (http://www.freedomsring.org/fas/chap5.html)? While there are many Psalms quoted in the New Testament, why are there no statements of caution to make sure to not obey the musical instrument passages in the Psalms? Is this practice from the Word of God or is it a tradition of men? Is it really so important as to break fellowship with other Christians?

It seems to us that the Church of Christ is desparately inconsistent in interpreting the Bible. If necessary to prove a point, the CC calls on the Old Testament. Examples: In order to try to disprove Original Sin, you call on Ezekiel 18:19-32. If you want to support patternism, you call on Leviticus 10:1-2. Aside from both of the passages taken out of context to prove a point, why do you conveniently ignore the Old Testament passages about instrumental music? 

Top of page Denomination

A Church of Christ website (www.lookinguntojesus.net/20070218.htm) makes the statement that, "One becomes a Catholic differently than one becomes a Christian. The two are not synonymous. Likewise, becoming a Baptist is incompatible with becoming a Christian. These and other denominational groups are not segments of Christianity; they are all different from Biblical Christianity."

The CC says that denominationalism is bad, should be shunned and abandoned —a goal which may be worthy as denominationalism does unnecessarily separate Christians. But Webster gives these definitions of a denomination: (1) act of denominating or naming, (2) a name, designation, or title, (3) a class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect. Is not the CC a denomination on every one of these points? Has the CC, perhaps with good intention, added to the denominational problem by using the Church of Christ name exclusively (see www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap11.html)?

Is it true that if one is truly seeking to please God that he must wear a name "approved by God?" CC materials say that, “Investigate and be a member of no church but the one you can read about in the Bible.” Are we correct in inferring that this limits one to the Church of Christ? Does this mean that those who "wear a name" such as Methodist or Baptist should be condemned and disfellowshipped? Could the insistence on the name be a tradition of men rather than from God, as Cecil Hook suggests: www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap12.html?

Has the CC assumed a sectarian spirit with the exclusive use of this name? If it is important for the group to be titled biblically, while Church of Christ seems like a good name, why not sometimes use the following terms that the Bible says of the church—the “Churches of God in Christ Jesus” (2 Thes 14), or “Church of God” (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 15:9), or “The Way” (Acts 9:2, 16:17, 18:25-26, 19:9,23, 22:4, 24:14, 22, 2 Peter 2:2), or “Bride” (John 3:29). Or—the “Pillar and the Ground,” “The Body,” “Temple,” “Building,” “Household Flock,” “City,” “Candlestick of Christ,” “Churches (plural) of Christ,” “Sheep,” “Elect,” “Living Stones”—all of which are used in the Bible for the church or for God’s people? Does the Bible in ANY place command to use a definite, specific name consistent for the church? Were the many churches in the New Testament that were not called by the name of Church of Christ saved or lost? Indeed, isn't it correct that no individual congregation is called Church of Christ in the New Testament? 

The word translated church (Greek ekklesia) is used in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 11:20 and Rev 1:10, and it means “belonging to the Lord; pertaining to the Lord.” Cecil Hook asks several questions of his brethren in his book about this (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap11.html). For example, how could a word which has a limited counterpart in the New Testament be a part of an authorized title for God’s people?

The Bible (Acts 11:26) says that Christians were first called “Christians” in Antioch, eleven years after Pentecost when CC claims the church began. Were the followers of Christ truly Christian during these intervening eleven years? Were any of them saved before they got a name? Isn’t this a long time for a bride to take on her husband’s name? Why wasn’t the name “Church of Christ” used?

Have you become a nondenominated denomination? 

Top of pageTraditions of Men vs. the Word of God

"I, like most in the churches of Christ, was raised up on the notion that we must "restore" the first century church to present day America. It was something I never questioned, and just assumed (like most) that it was a biblical concept and goal. However, some years back I began a personal quest to confirm my beliefs, and I soon learned that many of my cherished convictions came more from my forefathers in the faith than from my Faithful Father! This notion of restoration of the first century church is one of them, in my view."   ----Al Maxey 

We have been told by a CC preacher that what unites the Church of Christ is hermeneutics (method of biblical interpretation) more than anything else. The formula used is "specific commandments, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences." This is further clarified by the rule of "inclusions and exclusions." This means, as we understand, that anything that is included in the New Testament must be obeyed; and anything that is not in the New Testament must be avoided, except those things which are deemed to be required or avoided by necessary inference. When they see other groups who fail these tests as they define them, they accuse them of practicing things that are "traditions of men rather than the word of God." But are these formulas themselves traditions of men rather than the word of God?

Cecil Hook documents in his books Free to Change (www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap33.html) and Free as Sons (freedomsring.org/fas/chap20.html) that: "Let's Face It: None of us is willing to follow those three rules consistently. We accept what seems to fit our understanding, and we reject or overlook teachings of the same classification that do not fit our mental picture." So we ask, is the pattern you seek in church not there after all? Is Hook correct that patternism is evidence of legalism? Does such patternism subtract from the focus on Christ?

What is the vital factor which God sees to be known by him? Is it loving God (1 Cor 8:2f) or the code of rules that you suppose to be the law of Christ? 

These formulas bring up a long list of questions that we might ask, especially regarding necessary inferences. It seems that what is a necessary inference varies even among CC folks. But suffice it to wonder whether a "necessary" inference becomes any doctrine or practice that someone in the Church of Christ deems necessary (or whether the formula is a necessary tool to exclude many other Christians and Christian practices). Since these formulas are not specific commands in the New Testament and since "necessary" seems to be merely an interpretation, shouldn't others necessarily infer that these formulas themselves are traditions of men rather than the word of God? See Al Maxey's comments on Necessary Inference.

Are examples and incidental details in the Bible binding? How does one answer the issues raised by Mr. Hook’s explanation on this: www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap2.html? Is it the detail or the purpose that is important, such as at the Lord's Table? Is it correct to assume that breaking bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7f) is binding? Remembering that the Jewish day was from sundown to sundown, and since this gathering in Acts 20:7 was at night, it had to be on what we know as Saturday night. Is the CC's insistence on a Sunday Communion therefore breaking this New Testament example? Since that was the only such instance in the New Testament, how can one be certain to the point of law that this was not an isolated example? How can you even be certain that this was Communion rather than a fellowship meal? Would Jesus pronounce a woe on such sacred cows?

What about the so-called "Law of Silence" or the "Principle of Prohibitive Silence"—that is, not doing what the Bible is silent on? Isn't this actually a fallacious  principle, as pointed out by Church of Christ preacher Al Maxey: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx354.htm? Isn't Maxey on to something when he insists that in the areas in which God has said nothing, that this is NOT PROHIBITIVE? Where in the Bible is this principle enumerated?

Consider this example. Let's say that a father has prescribed list of things for his children to do and not to do to honor him. He is insistent that he is to receive a greeting card on his birthday. They are to kiss him good night each evening. They are never to speak ill of him. But let's say his daughter loves him so much that one day she picks a bouquet of wildflowers and gives it to him—an act that is not on the father's list. Is she to be condemned or chastised for this act of love? Aren't there inumerable ways to honor God out of our love which are not specifically mentioned in the Bible? Maybe, just maybe, playing beautiful instrumental music in church might fit into this category! Did you know that there is in fact NO pattern to worship in the Bible (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap26.html).  

Isn't the Bible silent on many things which Churches of Christ do or use: church buildings, "placing membership," plan of salvation, shaped notes, four-part harmony, audio and visual equipment, "five acts of worship," worship leaders, located preachers, youth director, campus ministers, pitch pipes, tuning forks, Sunday school, greeters, ushers, collection plate, invitations song, church budget, pledge cards, "laying contributions at the elders' feet," prohibitions against helping community organizations, song leader, grape juice, auditorium, etc? Nothing wrong with these, for sure. But they are indeed traditions, no?

And a bit more on the notion of "Patternism," that is, the idea that we MUST follow the pattern of the disciples as found in the book of Acts. Where in the Bible is this command found? Cecil Hook demonstrates that the proof text of Heb 8:5 is misplaced (http://www.freedomsring.org/fas/chap20.html). We would be interested in your comments on this reference and also from Al Maxey: Patternism.

Do you really think that you are following the New Testament pattern? Well, let's just do a little check. Are you following all of these New Testament patterns? Or are you arbitrarily assigning reasons why some should not be followed?

  1. Do you allow speaking in tongues? (1 Cor 14:39)
  2. Do all who believe have all things in common? Do you sell your possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
  3. Do you greet one another with a holy kiss. (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14)
  4. Does every wife who prays or prophecies do so with her head covered covered? (1 Cor 11:5)
  5. do you wash one another's feet. (John 13:14, et. al.)
  6. Do you have Deaconesses (Romans 16:1)
  7. Do you annoint with oil, lay on hands, etc, etc.?
  8. Do you in every place lift holy hands when you pray (1 Tim 2:8)?

On the other hand, do you show patterns that are not in Scripture, such as weddings, funerals, election of elders, business meetings, thrice weekly meetings at church, and so forth? Are elders given authority to ordain scruples and standards and to withdraw from those who do not comply? If so, isn't this contrary to the warning of Jesus, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you... " (Mat 20:25-26). See http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap23.html.  

Is there such a thing as Church of Christ doctrine? Here's a testimony of a Church of Christ preacher who after for 40 years changed his mind on this: Church of Christ Doctrine. 

What about methods of carrying on church business and of selecting of elders—are such laid out in the Bible (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap22.html, www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap23.html)? Are accepted practices really from the word of God, or are they traditions of men?

The Church of Christ also teaches that tradition is to be avoided based on Mat 15:2-6 and Mk 7:3-13. But doesn't the Bible itself teach that there are verbal traditions to which one must hold (2 Thes 2:15)? If it is not okay to use tradition in the Christian faith, how do we even know who wrote the first book of the New Testament? While the Bible contains all truth, is all truth in the Bible? Isn't it reasonable to think that there are as many ways to honor God as his infinite nature would imply?

We would again suggest that you read Cecil Hook's comments in http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap33.html. Is our sufficiency in a written code in the New Testament, or rather in the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6)? Can people who have no written code have the law written on their hearts (Romans 1:18-2:16)? Do we have eternal life via the Scriptures or simply in Jesus (John 5:39)?

Top of pageWhat God Requires for Salvation

Concerns about Works Righteousness and Legalism

"I've tried my entire life to keep all the rules and was so deadened staring at a mean, vindictive God who handed out more rules for 'comfort'."                                 ----a Church of Christ sister in Phoenix 

The CC seems to think that other professing Christians are lax in obedience. That may be so. A true saving faith must be a living faith (James 2). There is little room in the Christian faith for "easy-believism" which could be defined as turning one's back on clearly understood biblical instruction. Certainly, the believer should seek to conform his life to the will of God as best as he understands it. Faith implies faithfulness. The New Testament speaks often of such concepts as the obedience of faith. The protestant reformers put it this way: Salvation is through faith alone, but not through a faith that is alone. So, we stand with you in attempting to overcome the shallow view of easy-believism in Christianity.  

Actually, a case can be made that those accepting Church of Christ theology are not doing ENOUGH to satisfy God! How so? Tim Keller in his book The Reason for God explains how a legalist he knows came to understand the problem. He says that a certain young woman began attending his church who grew up in a church that taught that God accepts us only if we are good enough. She said that the new message of the true gospel was scary. When asked why, she responded:

"If I was saved by my good works then there would be a limit to what God could ask of me or put me through. I would be like a taxpayer with 'rights'—I would have done my duty and now I would deserve a certain quality of life. But if I am a sinner saved by sheer grace—then there's nothing he cannot ask of me."

What is meant by obedience within the CC seems to be different in the CC than in other parts of Christianity. How about reading this essay by Cecil Hook:(www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap25.html) and then tell others as specifically as you can exactly what we must do to be saved? (We do not think you can possibly comply with this request.) What are the essentials for a Christian in order to be saved (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap13.html)? Please consider this essay by Hook. Is Hook correct that God requires different things for different people?

Has obedience been so stressed so that the Church of Christ has crossed the line into legalism and fallen into the trap of the Pharisees? Does the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) apply as Garrett suggests (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap34.html)?

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15)." What is the context of this command? Isn't it love? Have you subtly abstracted the law of God from its original context? Is your motivation for keeping Christ's commandments the law for its own sake and the supposed results that you get from law-keeping? Or is your motivation a deep and abiding love for Jesus! Has your insistence on carefully and mechanically keeping the law robbed the essence of the New Testament of its love, joy, and life (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap26.html)!

Jesus warned the scribes and Pharisees: Woe to you! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law—justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23). If works are so important, why not emphasize the ones that Jesus emphasized—namely justice and mercy, as well as evangelism (the Great Commandment and the Great Commission)? If you will “know them by their fruit,” why not be known by these things rather than the things the CC is known for such as like a cappella singing, church attendance, separatism, water gospel, etc.? What message do you seek to send to non-Christians? Doesn't Jesus want us to be known as those who have a radical motivation to mercy and love?

Have you added legislation to God's law and treated it as if it were from God? If so this is a perilous danger! Have you added regulations that seek to bind the conscience? Have you added prohibitions against card playing, lipstick, dancing, wine, etc. as external tests? Where are such prohibitions in the Bible? Have you moved subtly from Godly morality into moralism? If so, as theologican R. C. Sproul explains, THIS IS A DEADLY VIOLATION OF THE GOSPEL. (Regarding wine in particular, see http://www.freedomsring.org/fts/chap8.html).

The Church of Christ's view on justification seems confused and contradictory to us. It always seems to end up with obedience as the way one is justified. When we asked a dear CC friend—who is an elder in a Church of Christ—how he knows that he is saved, he responded, "Because I have been pleasing to God." Can one really be pleasing to God? Is there anyone who is righteous: Mk 10:18, Rom 3:10-11, 1 Jn 1:8-10? Isn't our justification imputed by the righteousness of Christ rather than from ourselves? As put by C. K. Moser, "If man pleads his own works, he ignores the blood of Christ. Whoever does that will most certainly be ignored by God. No insult could be greater to God than to ignore the gift of 'His only begotten Son.' Hence Paul wrote again and again, "Not of works.' See Eph 2:8-9, Tit 3:5, Rom 4th chapter." See Moser. If you don't read any other of Cecil Hook's essays, please read this one. We believe that he hits the nail on the head on just how we get to heaven: 

http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap12.html

We cannot help but wonder whether the CC fails to appreciate the depth of our sin. The Bible says that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). It also says that "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (Jas 2:10, Mat 5:48). So, if you believe the Bible, your heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. And assuming that you acknowledge at least some sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law. Right? Thus, if you are guilty of breaking the whole law, are you really pleasing to God?

In fact, since each one of us is guilty of breaking the whole law, aren't we therefore guilty under the law and deserving of hell no matter how hard we try to keep the law? How can one possibly say that he is pleasing to God?! What seems most ironic is that in spite of its insistence on New Testament commands, the CC seems to have missed the New Testament purpose of the law—which is to show us our own sin Rom 3:20. If you have, in fact, missed the deeper penetrating spirit of the law rather than the external letter of the law, isn't it fair to say that God is not pleased?! 

There are other examples of how CC theology seems to us to contradict itself. Here is what one CC teacher says: "The church of Christ does not teach salvation by works. We teach salvation by the grace of God, which is given to those whom God says will receive it: specifically, those who humbly submit to his will." When we asked, doesn't the Bible make it clear that it is one's inward character that is important (Titus 1:15), this same person responded: "Yes, and the inward character will result in humble obedience, which God requires in order for one to be saved."

We reviewed an audio tape of a lesson from the same Church of Christ gentleman. In explaining Ephesians 2:8-9 he said that “Well, this passage must mean that there are some works that do not save,” implying that there are some works that do. But in other contexts this man said, “This of course does not mean that works can earn salvation.” Isn't there a contradiction in these two apparently different statements? What then is a straight forward answer to how one is saved?

If a Christian can sin so as to lose one's salvation, just what sin or sins will place him in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.

To reiterate, the CC view on justification is contradictory. The first law of logic—The Law of Non-Contradiction—says that two distinctly different or opposite things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. So, how is it reconcilable to say that we are saved by a free gift (Romans 5:15, 5:16, 6:23) from God (grace) and at the same time imply that the gift is not free—that we are saved by our works after all? Your method of interpretation makes the Bible contradict itself at every turn. Grace does not mean grace; a free gift is not free. Man is not hopelessly sinful; but then again he is. Christ is necessary; but then he isnt't. The law does not save; but yes it does (and only a Church of Christ preacher can interpret all the details of which works save and which ones don't). This hermeneutic leaves the Bible in hopeless shambles.

Let us ask this question of biblical logic: Is grace necessary for salvation? If you say yes, then does it not follow that NOTHING one can do will be sufficient to save us? Thus, no matter how hard you labor to earn God's favor, there is still something missing, namely God's grace? If you say no, how do you deal with the over 100 passages in the New Testament that insists that we are saved by grace?

Is CC theology similar to that of Pelagius, who who in the 4th century taught that man by his own powers, without the imputation of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law—and thus merit forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Wasn’t this theology declared a heresy even by the Catholic Church—which places a high importance on obedience—because it is contrary to Holy Scripture, being the same works righteousness theology as the Galatian heresy and the Pharasaic heresy?

In fact, doesn’t God despise the idea of works righteousness (Mat 23)?

We may be very wrong, as we often are. But those of us who look at the CC from the outside see such statements regarding justification as inherently contradictory and legalistic. It seems to us that the hermeneutic error that the CC makes is to make biblical statements about justification additive rather than reconciled. So, instead of making conflicting statements about, on the one hand, how we are saved by grace and elsewhere saying that we must be obedient to be saved—a contradictory construction—a better and non-contradictory construction would be to say that we are saved by grace through a type of faith which leads one to conform his life to the will of God. Does the Bible contradict itself? If so, it cannot be the Word of God. The distinction here may be subtle, but crucial.

The Galatian Heresy

"I was trying to convert others to a body of truth or system of doctrine more than to Christ. Often addessing those who already believed in Jesus, I sought to convince them of a code of law which I thought they had failed to recognize and understand. But I was the one who needed more insight. Jesus rebuked me along with others like me in his day: 'You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they they bear witness of me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.' John 5:39"    ----Cecil Hook, Church of Christ preacher, from his book Free to Change. 

J. Gresham Machen explained that, "Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical...order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God and the best he can, and then (3) is justified." So, correctly understood, sanctification follows justification as growth follows birth. (From Christian Reconstruction by Gary North and Gary DeMar.)

Here is where we think the Church of Christ misinterprets the Bible. As phrased by North/DeMar, "A Judaizer is someone who believes that salvation is by grace through faith plus keeping the law....But no one is can be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible's point when Romans 6:14 says that the Christian is not under the law. This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. Prior to regeneration, a person is unable to keep the law and is condemned for his 'lawlessness.' After a person comes to Christ the curse of the law is lifted." So it seems that the Church of Christ makes the same mistake as the Judaizers!

North/DeMar continue: "This question needs to be answered in a no/yes fashion. No! Christians are not sanctified by the law if one means that the law is added to faith to save someone (the Judaizing heresy). 'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly' (Galatians 2:21). If there is anything that man can do to merit or retain his salvation, then there is room for boasting. The Bible says that rebellious sinners do not even add faith; it too is a 'gift of God' (Ephesians 2:8)....'We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law' (Romans 3:21-28)."

A Church of Christ preacher told us that "We do not need the righteousness of Christ to be saved." This statement should horrify any Christian. How dare you minimize the finished work of of our Lord?! 

CC members have told us that they choose to “emphasize obedience” in faith and practice. Why would one choose to emphasize anything? Do some passages of Scripture have more authority than others? Is the message of the Bible slanted by arbitrarily emphasizing obedience over grace, when there are over 100 passages in the New Testament that emphasize grace or faith or election as the means to salvation? (If you would like to see a comprehensive list, you may email us at mail@faithfacts.org).

Are we obedient in order to be saved or because we are saved? Doesn’t the Bible teach that people are obedient because God has already saved them (2 Cor 9:8, James 2:26, 1 Jn 2:29, 1 Jn 3:9, 1 Jn 4:7, 1 Jn 5:18)?

Perhaps a more poignant question is—Are you now free (Gal 5:1)? Or do feel like you are in bondage? Is your burden easy or light (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap25.html)? What does God really require? While liberals think the Christian faith is a country club, does CC doctrine make it seem like a prison?

Is the message of the New Testament simply that one legal system replaced another? Please see these links from those within your own tradition and offer your comment on them: www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap3.html, (www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap22.html). Are these men possibly correct that legalism is indeed the "fatal error" of CC theology?

The CC seems to make a distinction between the "law of God" and the "law of Christ," as if there were two law systems operating in the Bible. But isn't it correct that the Bible teaches that "the law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psalm 19:7)? And isn't the law of Christ described as perfect (James 1:25)? What law is then perfect—both the "law of God" and the "law of Christ," because they are one and the same!

What source does Jesus quote when he declares, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"? Isn't it Leviticus 19:18? Aren't all Ten Commandments repeated or alluded to in the New Testament?

Please bear with us on some further thoughts on the Law of Christ. As Cecil Hook points out (http://www.freedomsring.org/fas/chap7.html), an incorrect interpretation of this turns Jesus into a diabolical creature if we think of him giving us a law and then saving us from our transgressions of that law. It would be like someone pushing you down into a well, then throwing you a rope. Besides making Jesus into a nasty character, this idea is not biblical. John 3:17 says that "God sent his son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved by him." So, whatever Paul means by the law of Christ, it is not meant to be something that condemns us! It must therefore mean that the law of Christ is a phrase that merely emphasizes or gives certainty to what Paul preaches continuously in the New Testament—that we are saved by faith in Jesus. This fact (belief in Jesus for salvation), then, is so certain that it becomes a law, like a law of logic, or a law of physics—something given us by God rather than a set of commands to be obeyed.

Do you think that only those laws that are repeated in the New Testament from the Old Testament are valid? Where is such principle of interpretation found in the Bible? We think that the better method of interpretation is that there are some laws that are cancelled or their importance neutralized in the New Testment (specifically the Jewish ceremonial and civil laws); the rest remain in effect (the moral laws).

Is there any new law in the New Testament, or only new forgiveness and the fulfillment of the shadows of this forgiveness found in the Old Testament? (Here are all the scriptures in the New Testament about a “new covenant” or “new law”: Mt 26:28, Lk 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 8:8-13, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24, Gal 6:2, James 2:8-13. Do you notice a theme?)

Cecil Hook in the preceding reference link also suggests that the CC formula HEAR/BELIEVE/REPENT/CONFESS/BE BAPTIZED may be flawed, at least in the order given. Hook points out that the 3 times in Scripture that belief and repentence are coupled together in the Bible, repentance actually precedes belief! How can that be? Read his explanation. Clue: It has to do with the New Testament view of the purpose of the law.

Are we reconciled to God by what we do or by what God did to present us holy in his sight (Col 1:21-22)?

How does the CC respond to those who may accuse them of following the letter-of-the-law and not the spirit-of-the-law? For example, the Bible says we should care for widows and orphans (the letter of the law), and were astounded to hear a CC person tell us that charity should thus be limited to these groups. But Jesus gives the example of caring for the outcast and others who need help (example, the Good Samaritan) and commands us to be merciful (Mat 5:7). Is the CC attitude legalistic in this regard too, adding insult to injury to the Christian faith?

The CC has been known to define legalism as either (a) “putting human tradition above God’s commandments,” or (b) “taking one commandment out of context and twist it to make it contradict another.” Haven't we already shown that Church of Christ theology in fact is guilty of both definitions?

Is not faith very much alive before good works are performed, and not because of good works? Christians in the historic orthodox faith thus believe that we are saved by grace through faith and strongly agree that a faith without works is dead; that is, a true saving faith will be accompanied by works. Christians also believe that faith before it has a chance to work is a saving faith—for example, the thief on the cross. The CC would have others believe that faith is dead until one rises out of the water. Thus someone on his way to be baptized could not be one whose faith is working by love. Isn’t this view therefore legalistic and contrary to Scripture?

How does one answer the following charge made by Bob Ross in his book Campbellism; It’s Histories and Heresies: “Campbellism is salvation by works because it requires one to obey—in order to be saved—a ‘gospel plan’ that in order requires (a) faith, repentance, good confession, baptism, remission of sins, and the Holy Spirit—thus requires a sacramental ordinance, and (b) requires the assistance of another person [“priest”] and thus the obedience of the one assisting.” Is this construct a tradition of man rather a commandment of God?

Christians throughout the ages have pointed out that Christianity is uniquely different from all other religions and cults because salvation is through faith and not through works. Can you see that the view of salvation through works puts the CC in close company with false religions and cults? While we are not saying the the Church of Christ is a cult, we cannot help pointing out the similarities between the Church of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons:

  1. They were founded at about the same time (early 1800's) in reaction to Reformed theology. 
  2. The refusal to read "apostate" literature. (If the Church of Christ reader has refused to read the links we have provided in this article, our point is proven.)
  3. God's grace through Christ's finished work on the cross only makes up the small portion left out by my man's own meritorious works toward salvation. (See Christian Grace vs. Mormon Grace. See also Mormon document Grace vs. Works. Note how craftily this Mormon document quotes the Bible as well as Christian thinkers.)
  4. Their group restored the true faith. (See Mormon document Restoration of the Gospel.)
  5. Their group is the only one saved.

Isn’t salvation not of him who willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that calleth (Rom 9:11) and of God that showeth mercy (Rom 9:16)? Isn't believing itself the work that God requires (Jn 6:28, 29, 40)?

Here is a single question that may quicky determine whether the CC is in fact legalistic: If it would bring more people to your church to hear the gospel, would you allow instrumental music?

We suggest reading an article by John Marks Hicks of David Lipscomb University: Legalism.Then, if you are a CC member, would you consider taking this Legalism Questionnaire?

The Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification

We have attempted above to show above that the Church of Christ hermeneutic of of legalistic patternism is flawed. So how should the Bible be interpreted? Because this is so crucial, we repeat. First and foremost the Bible must be interpreted in such a way as not to be contradictory. If the Bible is contradictory, it cannot be God's word. Let us examine a statement made to us by a Church of Christ preacher regarding justification (how we are saved):

"I completely teach, believe, and agree with this idea: No person who has ever lived, is living, or will live, can in and of himself do something by which he earns, merits, deserves, or is given salvation. Every person, however, who hears and does what God has said to do in the way that God has said to do it will be saved by the grace of God through the blood of Christ."

Is it not clear that this statement—which is typical of how CC folks state justification—is contradictory? If grace is a free gift (Rom 5:15, 16, 18; Rom 6:23), if it is unmerited favor—then God does not require ANY work in order to be saved. As Paul says in Rom 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

St. Paul clarifies what the Church of Christ is risking in its hermeneutic. He states, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Gal 2:20)." This is serious. By its legalistic patternism hermeneutic, the Church of Christ is nullifying the grace of God! It is giving too much credit for sinful man and too little credit to God and Christ's finished work on the cross. As put by C. K. Moser, "If man must still work for salvation we have in Christ an atonement that does not atone!" See Moser.

We fully understand how difficult the concept—that our salvation is completely by Christ's work and none of our own—is. This is incomprehensible for our Church of Christ brothers and so too for Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, and every other religion. Yet the Bible insists over and over again that we are saved by faith and specifically not by our works (Romans chapters 1-9, Galatians chapters 1-3, Ephesians 2, Titus 3, etc). In fact, we count over 100 instances in the New Testament when it is stated that we are saved by grace rather than works. Yet the Bible commands us to obey! So how do we reconcile faith and works?

We have asked the CC why they keep coming back to James 2 in an attempt to show that salvation is through works, and the answer has been, because others "keep denying what it clearly teaches." This answer implies that, in spite of insisting elsewhere that we are not saved by works, that in fact the CC really believes after all that we are. Is James contradicting the rest of the Bible? Perhaps we just can't get it, but it seems clear to us that James himself is teaching that works are merely evidence of a true saving faith—that is, explanatory of the kind of faith that saves us?

In James 2:14 in the Greek there is a modifying adjective in front of “faith” which is left out in the King James translation, but is translated in other versions as “the” or “that” or “such.” So James is asking here, “Can such a faith save? Or, “Can that faith save?” Notice also that James does not deny that faith justifies; he simply says, “and not by faith only.” So James acknowledges that it is indeed faith that justifies. Most theologians down through the ages have insisted that the way to reconcile the biblical message of faith and works is to explain that works describe a true saving faith but do not save unto themselves?  

James gives us the clues we need. First of all, James makes it clear how futile it is to think that we can be saved by our works. He insists that even one single sin on our part is equivalent to breaking the entire law (James 2:10)! Then in verse 14 he asks an explanatory question whether a dead faith can save us? (Can that faith or such a faith save us?) Of course he means, no it cannot. Then in verse 18 he says that a living saving faith is shown by our works. So James is not saying that we are saved by works, rather our obedience is evidence of a legitimate faith.

So, there is, then, a simple way to reconcile faith and works in a way that is faithful to Scripture without making Scripture contradict itself. We are saved by a living faith—that is, one which expresses itself in obedience. Note that this is very different from saying that we are saved by faith plus works or any such construction. We are saved by grace through faith, not of works can we boast.

So what about the term obey the gospel (Rom 10:16; 2 Thes 1:8; 2 Pet 4:17)? The word for obey (Greek hupakouo) is defined in Strong's Concordance as "to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority—hearken, be obedient to, obey" (emphasis ours). Paul is saying in the 3 instances, something like a parent would warn a wayward child, "Now listen up, buster, and listen up good! I am telling you the truth." There is an implied result of the listening, but that is not what is being said.

This concept of "obeying the gospel" is similar to the concept of believing in Jesus. The English word translated in is the Greek word eis. This word is more correctly translated into. So John 3:16 would be correctly translated "whoever believes into Jesus will not perish but have eternal life." But English does not have an idiom to believe into. So it is translated believe in Jesus. But it carries an implication that when you believe in Jesus you will not have mere intellectual assent, but you will put your trust in him.

So the English translation gives too little weight to the actual meaning of the word eis, but overstates the meaning of hupakouo. For both words obedience is the implied outcome for whoever believes in Jesus and the good news of the gospel, but it is not the first or primary meaning. Obedience is the result of our hearing and believing. Thus the implication of these statements in the Bible is that we are to hear (listen attentively) and believe in Jesus so deeply that we will surrender our lives to him. Many Christians have a shallow view of what it means to believe. But this still does not mean that we are saved by our works. Obedience does not save us. We are saved by God's free gift through the means of a living faith.

C. K. Moser gives several biblical examples of how it is faith that saves, regardless of whether or not that faith is expressed in some sort of action. He cites the stories of Jesus healing the blind in John 9 and Matthew 9. In one case, the blind man did something—washed in the pool of Siloam. In the other case, nothing was done done other than what Jesus did. Moser asks, "Were these blind men cured upon different principles? In both cases the blind received sight upon the principle of faith in Christ. In one case faith expressed by overt acts, in the other case it was not. After all it is faith that the Lord wants....Faith expressed remains faith." (See Moser.)

What about repentance—isn't that a work? First of all, we concur that without repentance the sinner cannot be saved. Moser continues, "But salvation is by faith. Repentance, then, must in some way relate to faith. And it must relate to faith in such a way as not to oppose it." We argue that repentance is merely the flip side of faith. If you turn to Jesus you will by definition turn from your life of sin and selfishness. You will automatically repudiate your fleshly nature.  This is the deep meaning of repentance. So, repentance is technically not a work per se. It is part of surrendering to Jesus that occurs at the point of a living faith. After we are saved by faith, we begin to show outward confirming acts such as confession and good works because of our gratitude for what God has done for us. Confession is faith expressed in words (Romans 10:9). Again, it is the faith that saves, not any expression of it.

What about baptism? Isn't it a work? Just as repentance is technically not a "work" of man, baptism is technically, according to Titus 3:4-7, not a work of man either! Baptism is a work of God! This leads us into the next section. But before that, one last word. If we are wrong in this, our error is putting too high a view on God and his work (and too low a view on our own work). If the Church of Christ is wrong on justification, your error is putting too low a view on Jesus (and too high a view on man's work)!

Top of page Baptism

"Being raised in the Church of Christ, I began a lifelong devotion to the Word of God. But there was an incident that began to shake my faith in the Church of Christ. When I was in college, a boy I knew was killed in a car accident on his way to being baptized. He had gone through an extensive process of learning the Christian faith at my church, had professed his deep and abiding faith in Christ, and had fulfilled every requirement to being a Christian—except being baptized. Most of my friends in the church believed that because he had not been baptized that this boy was in hell for eternity. This event started me questioning other teachings of the Church of Christ. In time, I studied my way out of this sect."     ----Ed

Because the CC places SO much emphasis on baptism and because it is another key issue over which the CC refuses to fellowship with other Christians, we are obliged to spend more time on this topic than we would like. If you prefer, just skip this section. There is plenty of time to come back to it. But first, if you are a Church of Christ person with an open mind, we ask you to read Leroy Garrett's article about "one baptism"— www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap37.html. Among many other points in this article, Garrett says, "We as immersionists must rid ourselves of the ungracious notion that those who do not baptize the way we do have rebellious and disobedient hearts. They can be mistaken without being degenerate. And they can be mistaken and still be Christians who are pleasing God, just as we can still be Christians when we are mistaken." What is the difference, according to Garrett, in the etymology of a word and the meaning of a word?

The purpose of this section is not to try to show that the view of the Church of Christ—baptismal regenerational of mature believers by immersion—is wrong, but rather to attempt to show that such a view should not by itself be used to as a hatchet to separate from other Christian groups. CC theologian Everett Ferguson in his book instructs against such practice (page 403): "Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 protests against any view of baptism which would make it a badge of distinction among Christians instead of a unifying act."

Ferguson also warns (page 195): "Baptism provides an objective assurance of having received God's promised salvation in Christ. That may lead to the subtle temptation to trust in baptism for salvation instead of trusting in God, his act in Christ, and his word of promise." As it seems that many within the CC have yielded to this temptation, it is asked, is your faith in Christ or in baptism (www.freedomsring.org/fic/chap13.html)? What is the difference, according to Hook, in baptism for remission of sins and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit?

First, just a point of logic. Physical life, we're sure you will agree, begins at conception rather than at birth. Similarly, we argue along with Cecil Hook that spiritual life begins with faith and not at baptism (http://www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap27.html). In the rest of this section we will attempt to prove this biblically.

Moser argues about baptism similarly as he does about repentance: "If baptism is a condition of salvation which is given on the condition of faith in Christ, it too must be related to faith, and so related that its meaning will not oppose the meaning of faith. Now as confession is faith expressed by words, baptism is faith expressed by deed....This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ." (See Moser.) 

Please watch this video and the related ones: video on baptism.  

Your motto is, "Where the Bible speaks we speak; where the Bible is silent we are silent." But don't you break that rule all the time? For example, you say, "He that is baptized not shall be damned." But that phrase does not appear in the Bible, does it? What does appear in the Bible is, "He that believeth not shall be damned." So haven't you twisted Scripture?

Other things are listed in the Bible besides baptism for remission of sins—belief, confession, repentance. Why emphasize that a person must be baptized “purposely” for the remission of sins when not asking whether a person believes/confesses/repents “purposely” for remission of sins? If not done purposely for remission of sins, must a person re-believe/re-confess/re-repent?

Is it true that the CC teaches that a baptism is only valid if done by a CC preacher? If not, we would like to hear from any individual who is a member of a Church of Christ who has not been baptized by a Church of Christ preacher (or elder). (Email us at mail@faithfact.org). If we are correct that every CC person is baptized by a preacher, doesn't that mean that there is then more than one mediator between God and men (1 Tim 2:5)—Jesus plus a Church of Christ preacher? What do you think about Carl Ketcherside's charge (please read the link www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap9.html) that,"To demand that one of God's children be forced to submit to re-baptism at the hands of one of 'our preachers' in order to be in 'our fellowship' is sectarianism pure and simple...Such Church-of-Christ-isms like all other 'isms' are an insult to the persons and dignity of the Holy Spirit by whom we 'are all baptized into one body.'"

Is baptism even necessary for salvation? According to the Christian Research Institute, reflecting the dominant view among Protestants, "Acts 10 states that some Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved) before they were baptized. This is significant, for the Holy Spirit is the seal of the believer’s salvation (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; Rom. 8:9). Furthermore, Jesus saved the thief on the cross without water baptism (Luke 23:39f). It would seem therefore that baptism is not essential for salvation....As a sacrament (like Holy Communion), baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it does establish the Christian as a member of God’s visible church."

In addition to the thief on the cross, are there other instances in the Bible where a sinner was saved without baptism (Luke 7:48, Acts 15:9, Acts 26:18, Eph 1:11-13, 1 Jn 5:4, etc.)? By the way, if your response regarding the thief on the cross is that he was not subject to baptism because he was under the old covenant, what about Romans 2:12: "for as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law?" If your response is that he must have been baptized previously, aren't you reading an assumption into the text in order to suit your pre-conceived doctrine?

Is Jesus Christ the head of the Church of Christ? Since the head of the Church received ONLY John's baptism, is not John's baptism Christian baptism? What kind of baptism did the apostles receive? Were they saved or lost? What kind of baptism did these disciples who who were baptized by the apostles on the authority of Christ during his personal ministry receive (John 4:1-2)? Were they saved or lost? Was this before Pentecost?

What do you think of Cecil Hook's comparison to baptism/beginning of spiritual life and physical birth/conception: www.freedomsring.org/ftc/chap27.html? Does baptism initiate life or was it initiated earlier—at the point of faith, or at the point of the work of the Holy Spirit, or even at the point of God's election?

What do you think of R. C. Sproul's strong conviction, based on Ephesians 2:1-10, that regeneration actually precedes faith (regeneration).

Most Christians from the historic orthodox tradition say that while baptism is closely associated with salvation—and is either the first act of obedience or a symbol of the substance of what God will do for us through his mercy—but it does not in itself save anyone. Probably anyone who had the opportunity to be baptized and refused would be rejecting the Christian faith. But baptism is like the ring in a Christian marriage; the ring always accompanies the marriage ceremony but it is not the ring that creates the marriage. Even though the marriage vows say literally, "With this ring I thee wed," what creates the marriage is the commitment under God between the parties.

It is recognized that the modern Church of Christ does not claim a heritage from the original Restoration Movement and will probably recoil at these next few questions. However, the modern CC undeniably traces its lineage to it, and so one would think that CC folk would have at least some respect for the views of the founders. So, what should one think of the fact that none of the 4 primary founders of the restoration movement—Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, nor Barton W. Stone—were ever immersed to “wash away sins?” Why did Mr. Scott and the Campbells never “obey” the “Ancient Gospel” which Mr. Scott “restored?”

Since Alexander Campbell was baptized by and Baptist preacher (Elder Luce) and was thus put into the Church of Christ, why will not Baptist Baptism do the same for people today? If Elder Luce did not baptize Campbell into Christ, when and where and how did Campbell ever get into Christ, since he died with Baptist Baptism and never repudiated it? If Campbell was baptized into Christ by Luce's act, then was not the Church of Christ in fact already here?

For the record, when the Campbells founded their first church, the Brush Run Church, they accepted "sprinkled" people as baptized, and the Campbells would not then rebaptize such ones. Included in the group who were baptized included a baby.

Also of note, Thomas Campbell immersed three people before he himself had been immersed. Alexander Campbell in fact taught that, “Baptism is an ordinance by which we formally profess Christianity….It confirms nothing…. The seal of the Holy Spirit requires no external ordinance to perfect it.”

Is it true that anyone who is not baptized according to the CC formula is considered an "unsaved child of the devil?" Were the founders of the Restoration Movement then unsaved children of the devil? Could they be "fellowshipped" by their congregations today?

Indeed, there is a more fundamental question about the CC teaching that a person who is to be baptized should profess to be an unsaved child of the devil. Is this not missing the point entirely—that it is a child of God who is to be baptized—one who is saved by grace?!

CC relies heavily on Mark 16:16 (first part) and Acts 2:38, but Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. And many of the ancient church fathers reveal no knowledge of these verses, so scholars say that they are not really part of Holy Scripture. How can one rely on this verse for important doctrine?

Is it possible that the Church of Christ has misinterpreted Mark 16:16 by not understanding the original Greek? The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (page 1260) says about Mark 16:16, “The word ‘believeth’ is pisteuo [4100], an aortist participle referring to one who has believed at some time in the past. Also, baptistheis (907), translated ‘is baptized,’ is an aorist participle but in the passive voice. This form refers to an act of outward obedience, in this case, baptism. Therefore, the correct translation here should be stated, 'He who believed and who was baptized shall be saved.' However, the Lord adds, ' …but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ It should be noted that this negative statement does not include a reference to baptism, making it clear that what saves a person is living faith in Jesus Christ. This is made clear in Ephesians 2:8, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith….’ The word ‘saved’ is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present, being accomplished by Jesus Christ Himself.

"If baptism were necessary for salvation, Ephesians 2:8 and many other verses should have been translated ‘ye are saved through faith and baptism.’…Baptism is a distinct act of obedience apart from salvation. This is clarified by the order in which the words ‘believe’ and ‘baptize’ occur in the text…”

CC has also apparently hung enormous weight on the interpretation of Acts 2:38 that the word “for” (the remission of sins) means “in order to obtain.” How would it affect this theology if it is an incorrect interpretation? The dictionary gives about a dozen ways that the Greek word translated “for” is used. For example, consider the statement, “John was beheaded for his faithfulness.” Isn't it accurate to say that “for” does not mean “in order to obtain” in this sentence? Similarly, the statement "Take two aspirin for a headache" does not mean "Take two aspirin in order to get a headache." Using a biblical example, doesn’t the phrase “for thy cleansing” in Luke 5:14 is used as a testimony for the healing the person received and not the healing itself?

Further regarding Acts 2:38, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (page 1357) says this, “The main verb in this verse is metanoesate (3340), meaning 'repent.' This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated ‘be baptized’ is in the indirect passive imperative of baptizo (907) which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command of ‘repent.’ The preposition ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ in Greek is eis (1519), ‘unto.’ Literally it means ‘for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.’ This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase ‘and were all baptized unto [eis] Moses.’ These people were identifying themselves with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to other people. That is why baptistheto, ‘to be baptized,’ is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but he is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.”

Is it thus possible that the Church of Christ has misinterpreted Acts 2:38? In this verse, wasn’t baptism (unto the remission of sins) a part of the results promised rather than part of the command?

Still further regarding Acts 2:38, Geisler and Howe (book When Critics Ask), offer several reasons why this passage does not really suggest that those who responded had to be baptized before they could receive the Holy Spirit:

“First, the word 'for' (eis) can mean ‘with a view to’ or even ‘because of.’ In this case, water baptism would be because they had been saved, not in order to be saved. Second, people are saved by receiving God’s word, and Peter’s audience ‘gladly received his word’ before they were baptized (Acts 2:41). Third, verse 44 speaks of ‘all who believed’ as constituting the early church, not all who were baptized. Fourth, later, those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, ‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have’ (Acts 10:47). Fifth, Paul separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel’ (1 Cor 1:17). But it is the Gospel which saves us (Rom 1:16). Therefore, baptism is not part of what saves us. Sixth, Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (Mat 3:13-17). But the Bible declares clearly it is ‘not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us’ (Titus 3:5). Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (John 20:31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should ‘believe’ and be saved (cf. John 3:16, 18, 36).

"In view of all these factors it seems best to understand Peter’s statement like this: ‘Repent and be baptized with a view to the forgiveness of sins.” That this view looked backward (to their sins being forgiven after they were saved) is made clear by the context and the rest of Scripture. Believing (or repenting) and being baptized are placed together, since baptism should follow belief. But nowhere does it say, ‘He who is not baptized will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16). Yet Jesus said emphatically that ‘he who does not believe is condemned already’ John 3:18). So neither Peter nor the rest of Scripture makes baptism a condition of salvation.”

Here are further notes from the NET Bible as to Acts 2:38. Any thoughts on this exegesis?—"(2:38) There is debate over the meaning of eis in the prepositional phrase eis .... Although a ‘causal’ sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage:

(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eis has the meaning of ‘for’ or ‘unto.’ Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance [and sins blotted out] often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19, 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; Acts 13:38-39, 48; Acts 15:11; Acts 16:30-31; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:18);

(2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of ‘baptism’ in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41);

(3) The text should be re-punctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, ‘Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized...’ Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eis, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it;

(4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, ‘Acts,’ EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eis 4.f."

Lanny Tanton is a former Church of Christ preacher that changed his mind on Acts 2:38. For his detailed analysis see Change of Mind.

R