Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The American concept of the church is largely a product of what is seen to be practiced by those who call themselves a church. Americans should draw their concept of the church from the New Testament rather than from their experiential contacts with denominations. However, since the normal method of coming to an understanding regarding the church is what it is, Americans equate the church with a building, a socio-recreational group, and an agency which accomplishes anything labeled as a good work. To anyone familiar with the New Testament concept of the church, the American, twentieth-century concept of the church is only a badly mutilated imitation of the New Testament church. Perhaps this article will clarify some mistaken concepts about the church.

What Is The Church?

The church is the people of God. They are the ones who have hearkened to God’s call to come out of darkness and into the light. These are those who have believed the good news that God has provided salvation for sinful man through Jesus Christ. Their faith is one which has taken God at His Word, expressing itself in obedience to His divine commands to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Therefore, these are the ones who. are recipients of Christ’s blessings; they have’ received “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since they have believed and been baptized, they are the saved (Mk. 16:16). The church, then, is the body of believers-all of the saved persons in the world.

Some will immediately conclude that the church is a mystical body which has no visible organization. Indeed, this is the usual concept maintained by Americans about the church. Yet, in New Testament times, the church was not something, which was undefinable, ambiguous, or vague because, although the church was the body of all the saved of the world, it also had local manifestations. Every local group composed of those who had responded in submission to. Jesus worshiped regularly in the respective towns and was known as the church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 14:23). Keep in mind that these local groups were all alike in doctrine, worship, organization, and work; any local congregation which deviated from the apostles’ doctrine was quickly the recipient of apostolic rebuke (cf., for example, Rev. 2:1415,20-21). There is no evidence which indicates that the different congregations could, under divine approval, teach conflicting doctrines. There did not exist a thirty-second cousin to twentieth-century denominationalism in New Testament times.

To only those who were in the blood bought church (Acts 20:28) did Jesus promise to be the Savior (Eph. 5:23). The New Testament doctrine revealed that the only way to God the Father was through Christ Jesus (Jn. 14:6); His way involved the church. I say this because not a few believe that one can be saved without worshiping and working with the church. God did not plan from all eternity a church which was unimportant or non-essential; it has a purpose in the scheme of God. Realizing this, let us notice so m!e of the distinguishing marks of the Lord’s church.

Distinguishing Marks of the Church

Our list of distinguishing marks is designed as only an introductory lesson about the New Testament church and makes no pretentions to be exhaustive. However, no church can be scripturally called the Lord’s church without these distinctive marks. The plight of each of us should make the remainder of the lesson relevant and important. We must be a part of the people of God to be saved; the church is the people of God. Thus, you need to know how to find God’s people.

We can begin by saying that no group can properly be called the Lord’s church which teaches a different plan of salvation than Jesus taught. Surely this is self-evident. The church is the saved; A group which does not properly tell people what to do to be saved is not the saved! Here is what Jesus revealed to be necessary for salvation: (1) Belief in Jesus Christ (Mk. 16:16; Jn. 8:24), (2) Repentance of one’s sins (2 Pet. 3:9; Acts 17:30; Lk. 24:47), (3) Baptism (an immersion in water) for the remission of one’s past sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Mk. 16:15-16), and (4) A life of faithful service (Rev. 2: 10; 1 Jn. 5:18; 3:9). If you will simply contrast this with what you hear the different groups teaching about salvation, you can quickly perceive which group is the Lord’s church. Notice that you can not read the following popular methods of salvation in the Bible: (1) “Just accept Jesus as your personal Savior.” (2) “He that believeth and is saved should be baptized” (contrast with Mk. 16:16). (3) “A man can be saved the moment he believes.” (4) “Just get on your knees and pray to God and you will be saved.”

Perhaps we could list other contemporary schemes of redemption devised by man but just remember that Jesus revealed the only way, which says: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). No group which teaches otherwise is the Lord’s church! Secondly, we should notice that the Lord’s church will wear a Bible name. Either God will allow a congregation to wear any name or there are some revealed appellatives chosen by God for it to wear. If God allows a congregation to wear just any name, it could scripturally be called “The Devil’s Domain,” “Mike’s Mumblers” or “The Lutheran Church.” However, if God has designated several names, anyone of which is approved by God for the church to wear, the New Testament church must wear them only. Here is a partial list of scriptural names:

Church of God (I Cor. 1:2)

House of God (I Tim.3:15)

Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23)

Church of the Living God (I Tim. 3:15)

Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 16:19).

Church of Christ (Rom. 16:16)

No group which wears any name other than one of the approved Bible names is the church of the Lord. Let me emphasize that if you cannot find the name of the church with which you worship in the New Testament, you can rest assured that it is not the Lord’s church. Let me insert a word of caution: a group can wear a Bible name without being the Lord’s church. To illustrate this suppose that I was looking for James Smith in Indianapolis. The 1974 phone book contains two columns of men bearing this name and another column bearing the name J. Smith. Knowing the name of the individual is insufficient information to locate the individual. Likewise, knowing the scriptural names of the church is insufficient information to locate the Lord’s church. One group, for instance, known as the Church of God, wears a scriptural name but teaches a false plan of salvation.

A third mark which distinguishes the New Testament church is its program of work. The New Testament church had a limited field of endeavor; it taught the gospel to the lost, assisted the needy among the saints, and edified the saints (Eph. 4:11-12). The primary work of the church, as you can easily perceive, was spiritual; the benevolence practiced by the church was secondary to the preaching of the gospel (no attempt was made at universal benevolence as was made at universal preaching). Any church which is involved in activities other than these cannot be called the Lord’s church. One reads nothing of church-sponsored recreation, a church entering business ventures, a church supporting secular educational institutions or having its own kindergarten or grade school, or church hospitals. Despite this fact, American churches engage in business ventures (usually tax-free) ranging from the Christian Brothers distillery operated by the Catholic Church to Burlington Mills operated by the Baptists. Churches are supporting hospitals, schools, old folks homes, the NAACP, and practically any other work which someone of some influence has labeled as “good.” If the church you attend is engaged in these extra-biblical activities, it is not the Lord’s church. Are you in the Lord’s church or a humanly devised and governed institution?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 8-9
June 27, 1974

By Donald P Ames

So many times when we are trying to teach people the importance of doing all that God has commanded relative to salvation, we encounter the objection that they desire to be saved “like the thief on the cross.” It does not matter how plain to them such passages as Acts 2:38; 22:16 or I Pet. 3:21 may point out that baptism is essential to our salvation, they are determined that if the thief on the cross was saved, then they can be saved just like he was.

We are, not interested in debating whether or not he had been baptized (either by John’s baptism, per Matt. 3:5-6; or by Christ’s baptism, per In. 4:1-2), although indeed he may have been. The fact remains, that if Jesus was willing to forgive him of his sins at this point, all that preceded is immaterial. Nor are we debating whether or not he was saved at this point. I believe a study of the passage and similar related passages would indeed imply that Jesus’ statement, “today you shall be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43) means He was forgiving the man’s sins and assuring him that He would save him. Nor are we interested in how much he had been exposed to the teachings of Christ, although his comment regarding the kingdom (Lk. 23:42) implies he had a better understanding of the spiritual nature of the kingdom than did many of his time.

There is one particular point about this case that does interest me though, and that is why this particular case seems to be the favorite one used by those objecting to the necessity of being baptized in order to have remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). During the life time of Christ, he forgave many of their sins, as illustrated by the thief on the cross (Lk. 23:39-43), the people who were crucifying Him (Lk. 23:34), the woman taken in adultery (In. 8:3-11), the man who was paralyzed (Matt. 9:2-8), and the sinful woman who annointed His feet (Lk. 7:36-50). Why do some people feel that the thief on the cross is somehow different from any others, forgiven by Christ during His life time? Why not be saved like any one of the others as well?

The truth of the matter is that we cannot be saved like any of them, any more than we can be saved like those who lived under the Law of Moses. God had specific requirements for those under the Law of Moses, and He has specific requirements of us as well. During the life time of Christ, He had the authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6), and did. The thief was forgiven of his sins by Jesus while He was still alive, just as the others mentioned here were. But that does not make this a pattern for us today, any more than it did for those under the Law of Moses. It was an exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. In Heb. 9:15-17, we find that Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, which is the governing means of our salvation today. The writer goes on to point out, “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” Jesus forgave the thief while He was still living, hence it was before His new covenant (the New Testament) went into effect.

What those who appeal to the thief on the cross need to find is where anyone after the death of Christ on the cross was given salvation without baptism. Paul prayed and fasted a total of three days, yet was commanded, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16); Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit to convince Peter that the Gentiles were indeed to be accepted, yet was commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:47); the eunuch teamed from Philip, yet sought to be baptized when they came upon some water (Acts 8:36); and on and on we could go. The thief was not, and cannot be an example for us today! Why not just accept the will of God, and be saved the way He desires-it’s the only way.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 7
June 27, 1974

By H. L. Bruce

John Roach Straton once wrote, “Disillusionment came to the present writer when he discovered that Evolution is not a fact of science, but a dogma of philosophy; that both its history and its essential nature prove that it belongs primarily to the realm of subjective speculation and not to the field of objective fact” (ISBE, p. 1048A). “It is evident that it originated in heathen and pagan minds and was not a native product of Christian intellect” (ibid.).

Science Is On The Side Of Divine Creation

In the article “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” by A. Cressy Morrison, former president of the New York Academy of Science, in Reader’s Digest, December, 1946, the following is found:

“Suppose you put ten pennies marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one. to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chances of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on; your chances of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.

“By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at 1000 miles an hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze.

“Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this ‘eternal fire’ warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.

“The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If the moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.

“It is apparent from these and a host of other examples that there is not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident.”

Evolution’s Difficulties

Charles Darwin himself said positively, “The beginning oi the universe is an unsolvable mystery” (ISBE, p. 1048A). “So great is the difficulty of evolution, that Professor J. B. S. Haldane, declined to debate evolution with Col. L. M. Davis and Douglas DeWar, unless the question of the origin of life on the earth was excluded from the debate” (The Transformist Illusion, Chapter 1, p. 9). How many atheists and other evolutionists of repute do you know today who are willing to meet a person in a debate on the origin of matter?

Neither Scientific Nor Scriptural

The theories of evolution will stand neither the test of science nor the scrutiny of scripture’s eye. “An all-powerful God could have made the world and created man and woman by evolutionary process if He had so desired and willed; but the Bible revelation tells us that He did not so make the world, man and woman, and we may stand upon that revelation with full assurance. There is ample ground, therefore, for the emphatic conclusion of such scholarly and discriminating recent writers as professor Mullins, Prof.. Machen, Dr. Conrad, and others, that the acceptance of Evolution leads not merely to a type of religion (?) that is radically different from Christianity, but diametrically opposed to real Christianity” (ISBE, op. cit.).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 6
June 27, 1974

By Cecil Willis

There are many different religious organizations in existence in our country this day. A multitude of differences: separate and divide these religious groups. Yet they have one thing in common. They each have a creed. The English word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo,” which means “I believe.” Strictly speaking a creed would only be what one believes. The dictionary defines “creed” as being “a brief, authoritative formula of religious belief.” The church of Christ has a creed, but it is very unlike the creeds of denominationalism. Our creed, that which we believe, is the New Testament. We have no other creed. But almost without exception, religious organizations founded by men have a man-written creed.

During the time that I have been preaching I have continually run into this difficulty: Most of the people in denominational churches are not even aware of the fact that their church has a man-made creed. Yet, their creed, is, as the dictionary says, “a brief, authoritative formula of religious belief.” It is considered to be authoritative in the different churches. Different churches call their creed by ,different names. Some will speak of a “Discipline,” some of their “Confession of Faith,” others will speak of their “Rule of Faith and Practice,” some have a “Manual.” But just about every denominational church that I have encountered has a man-made creed of some kind. If you are a member of a denominational church, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of the creed of your church. I have copies of the “Creeds” of most of the more prominent churches. You will be surprised to find some of the things taught in your creed.

In order to be admitted to many denominational churches, one has first to confess allegiance to the creed. He has to promise to abide by the decrees of the creed writing council. Remember these creeds purport to be an authoritative statement of religious faith for that particular denomination. If you do not believe what is authoritatively stated in your creed book, the church to which the creed belongs is no proper place for you. But even more than that, if the church to Which you belong has a man-made creed, you are not in the right church. The church of the Lord has a divinely written creed-book, the New Testament. Churches of Christ do not have man-made creeds.

Objections

There are certain very weighty objections that are to be made against the practice of creed-making. These objections are applicable to any specific creed written by man. First, let us point out that “it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23). Had man been able to write ‘ his own creed book, there would have been no need for God to reveal His revelation. Solomon gave us a very timely warning on this point when he said, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). Isaiah, the prophet, reiterates this same truth in this language. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8, 9). The best that you can say about your creed is that it is written by the best men in your church. But observe the difference. Your creed is written by men; that which I believe, my creed, is written by God, through inspired writers. Regardless of how good men may be, they yet are unable to improve upon what God has already said to us. The apostle Paul points out the futility of trusting in men in 1 Cor. 1. “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made the foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe . . . . Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (I Cor. 1: 18-21,25). That which is often mere foollishness in the sight of men is great wisdom with God. And that which is often wisdom in the views of men is mere foolishness with God. A group of men which the world deems to be wise may write a creed that “seems right unto man,” but the ends thereof are the ways of death. The best you can say of these creeds is that they contain the combined wisdom of a group of fallible men. And this is not enough to guide you from earth to heaven.

A second reason why men should not be engaged in the nefarious business of creed writing is because it impeaches the wisdom of God. Why do men need to write a creed? Is it because God did not do good enough a job when He wrote the New Testament? Did He omit things that the creed writing committee can prove should have been inserted into His revelation? Every time a meeting is held with the intention of writing a creed for a group professing to be followers of Christ, God is slurred. Was God not wise enough to give us an adequate revelation?

And if one does not impeach the wisdom of God, but should still insist that a conclave of men needs to write a creed by which they shall be guided in their religious life, if God’s wisdom is not impeached, His goodness must be. If God could give us an adequate revelation, and did not, why did He not? Was it because He was not good enough? Did He purposely clothe His revelation in such ambiguous language that it remained for the creed-maker to make plain for the first time what God meant?

The practice of writing creeds censures the revelation of the Spirit. It says that the Bible is inadequate. There were not such creeds in the New Testament era. There were no “Church Manuals,” or “Disciplines,” or “Confessions of Faith” in the New Testament period. None of these creed books is older than the denomination for which it speaks authoritatively. And none of these denominations can be traced back more than a very few hundred years. How did the New Testament Church get along without these creeds? The simple truth is that they got along quite well with the revelation of the Spirit, which is recorded in the New Testament. It contains all that you could ever want or need. Human creeds slander the Bible by insinuating that it is inadequate.

But if the New Testament makes anything plain, it is that it is all-sufficient. To say that the New Testament is all sufficient is to say that it is equal to the end proposed. Now it is true that the New Testament does not tell one how to operate a man-made church, for it was never proposed for that purpose. It was intended to tell one how to enter, and live in the Lord’s church in such a way as to go to heaven when he dies. Paul says, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). The Bible is complete or perfect. It does not need supplementation from any group of ‘men. It is God’s revelation just as God gave it, and man hid better leave it like it is. Peter said, “Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). The Bible grants you all things that pertain to life and godliness. My friends, if I know my heart like I think I do, that is all that I am interested in. The message in the Scriptures is adequate to save you. What more do you need? What more do you want? James says, “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). If God’s word does what it says it does, then the creeds of men are not needed. If the Scriptures are adequate for your salvation, what more could a creed writing committee give you? Yet every denominational church has undertaken to write its own creed.

Another objection to the creeds of men is this: if they should contain more or less than the Bible, they are to be rejected, and if they contain only the Bible, they are unnecessary. If I were to ask a member of a denominational church which creed I should accept, I am sure he would tell me to accept the one that is nearest like the Bible. The Bible tells us “if any man shall add unto them (prophecies of this book), God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part, from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19). One must neither add to nor take from the words of the Bible. If a creed contains more than the Bible, it contains too much, and is therefore to be rejected. But if a creed contains less than the Bible, it contains too little, and therefore must be rejected. But suppose a group of men were able to construct a creed that contains no more or no less than the Bible, what would be its additional value? It would be unnecessary. If it says only what the Bible says, why not accept the inspired word of God rather than the product of men? You see, there is no reason that can be given that is sufficient to justify the efforts of the creed-makers. Every creed must claim to be either less evil than the Bible, or must admit that it is more evil than the Bible. Of course, either of these alternatives is derogatory of the Bible. But if the creed is the same as the Bible. it is unnecessary.

Arguments Used To Defend Creeds

While there really has never been a valid reason given for the writing of creeds, there have been several attempts made to justify the writing of them. Probably the most frequently stated reason for the writing of creeds is that they are plainer than the Bible. They can reduce to fewer statements the word of God. However, one can have much more difficulty understanding what the creeds say than understanding what the Bible says. And they are not as simple as these men would have us believe. For example, not long ago I saw a book advertisement concerning a ten volume series of books by Herman Hoeksema that had just been completed on the Heidelberg Catechism, the Reform ed Confession of 1563. To assert that the creeds written by men are plainer than the Bible inspired of God, is to cast reflection either upon the power or the goodness of God. The Bible claims that it is a book that can be understood by men. Either it is, or it makes 4 false claim. John says “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (Jno. 7:17).

The second reason given for the writing of creeds is an absurdity. We are told that the creeds are necessary to unity. I wonder if the New Testament church never had any unity before the writing of the creeds. In fact, my friends, I know of nothing that has caused more division than the creeds and councils of men. If we can never achieve unity until creeds are written, the New Testament is defective. We now have, perhaps, a few hundred creeds and catechisms in existence, and we are yet a long way from having unity. Actually, every new creed gives birth to a new religious sect. And this seems to be a pretty poor way to create unity. In John 17, we find a record of one of our Lord’s prayers. In it he was praying for the disciples. He says, “Neither for these (apostles) only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jno. 17:20). The unity of the disciples depends upon the words of the apostles, not upon the dictates of the creed-writers.

Conclusion

The church of Christ is of divine, not human origin. There was no man that started it; Christ was its builder. It is not of recent origin; one has to go back to 33 A. D. to find its beginning. It was started on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Being divine in its beginning, it likewise has a divine charter. Its rule of faith and practice was not drawn up by a group of uninspired wise men. Rather, its guide-book, the Bible, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. They spoke not from themselves, but spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21), not in words which man’s wisdom taught, but which the Spirit taught, combining spiritual thoughts with the Spirit-given words. (I Cor. 2:13). This is our only creed. And any deviation from it must be protested and halted. We must speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 3-5
June 27, 1974