Mistaken Perception

Mistaken Perception


When Jesus used righteous indignation to clean out the temple and presented anger at what the Jews had made of His “Father’s house” (John 2), some people think He should have never gotten angry and especially shouldn’t have expressed such anger in public, and that John should not have used a public media to circulate this behavior in public. But, that is a perception that is quite mistaken. There are appropriate times to deal firmly and with anger even in public. “Be angry and sin not” (Eph.4:28) shows that not all anger is sinful of itself. Sometimes it is wrong NOT to get angry.

When Paul wrote his rebuking letter to the church at Corinth, and he had good reason to rebuke them and call them spiritual babes, there are some today who seem to think that such behavior in Christians is out of place and should not be aired publicly. He wrote because he loved their souls and hoped that they would take the rebuke in the right manner. Some perceive that it is never appropriate to write on publicly accessible media things that expose error that otherwise have a free reign in that media. Some think that such a letter as Paul wrote to Corinth and Galatia should be handled only in private. God guided Paul to write these letters and approved the passion of Paul’s rebuke. God also approved of Paul’s open rebuke of Peter. Perception that such should never be done publicly is not correct, else Paul should have only dealt privately with Peter and Barnabas and should not have written about it. See Galatians 2. Some would perceive that to be poor behavior and very “unloving”, while the truth is that Jesus and Paul’s actions were displays of real love.

Sometimes perception is very mistaken. Looking at the externals of these events is not pleasant, and sometimes we get mistakenly angry at people who express anger for ANY reason including those who really have justifiable reason to rebuke firmly and publicly. All anger and all words of rebuke and correction are not wrong. There are times when it is right and calculated. As Paul wrote the rebuking words of the first letter to the Corinthians he was aware that they could be childish and choose to take it in the wrong way. God was not embarrassed about making this case public. Paul was not mean, and he was not being a bully, and he was very concerned with how some might chose to perceive of this letter. But, he was right. He was glad that they chose to take his words in the right way and with godly sorrow chose the way of correction and repentance. See 2 Corinthians 7.

We live in a time of a very misinformed culture and many very misinformed churches filled with people who are not truly yoked to Jesus and thereby learning from Him, else they would have their senses exercised to discern the place for the firmer side of love that possesses and expresses righteous indignation at sin and hardened hearts. There are times to be sensitive and gentle and compassionate, and there are proper times to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather EXPOSE them”(Eph.5:11). There are times to rebuke “before all”(Gal.2) and to “mark those who teach contrary to the doctrine” we learned from the inspired apostles (Rom.16:17). There are times when the sin is public that the rebuke or exposure needs to have the same venues and avenues to be heard as the error gets. We need to choose those times carefully, and measure it with righteousness, fairness, and love. But, we do not need to become so sensitive that we allow error to have free reign in public media, and try to make modern public rebuke sinful or to posit that public correction of error is wrong. That would be placing a standard on modern teaching that would, by necessary inference, make Jesus and Paul into sinners who pushed people around in sinful ways. That is simply a perception that is mistaken.

Instead of being so unapproving of those who correct public error in the same medium that the error is pushed publicly, I would like to see those who believe it is wrong to ever do this, to show that their way of not ever correcting wrong is better. I have never seen the superiority of the way of letting public error go unchallenged and uncorrected. There are many times when going private HAS been done by this writer, and still the teacher of error kept right on publicly teaching their error. When all private effort has been ignored and the teaching of error continues on public media, then it is only right to use the same medium to expose the error. It would be wrong not to. Any other perception is simply mistaken because it makes Jesus and Paul sinners. -Terry W. Benton

What is included in faith?

 

When I ask certain change agents, who have swallowed the modern doctrine of salvation by faith alone, what is included in their “faith alone” things get strangely quiet. Since Muslims have “faith” will their faith save them? We get an answer then that it is a certain faith in a certain person, named Jesus. So, they qualify the faith that saves as “faith in Jesus” by pulling in other verses, and rightly so. So, now we need to explore this a little further. Since it matters about the content of faith, can we be saved by believing in a Jesus that the apostles did not present? Remember, Paul was afraid that some brethren had been taught “another Jesus” (2 Cor.11:3-4). What if people are unwittingly taught “another Jesus” and they believe in that Jesus? Will their faith in THAT Jesus be the means of their salvation? Now the issue of faith in Jesus must be explored a little further because faith in the wrong Jesus will not give us real salvation. It may deceive us into a false assurance. We cannot afford to be believing the wrong Jesus and entertain a false assurance.

What are the necessary ingredients of saving faith?

 

So, now we explore a little further about the content of saving faith. It has to believe the right Jesus and have knowledge of the right Jesus. Does it have to be a faith in the Jesus who came in the flesh? Reading 1 John we find that some were teaching a Jesus who only appeared to be in the flesh but was not actually come in the flesh. What if we believed in a Jesus that we sincerely believe only appeared to be in the flesh but really wasn’t? Do we have enough of the right Jesus to save us? No, John said that a person believing such “is not of God”(1 John 4:2,3). So, we have to know enough about the right Jesus to be able to confess that He HAS come in the flesh. So, the right ingredients of faith has to be in place before one can have fellowship with God.

Now, there are other facts to believe regarding Jesus that are essential to believe before salvation occurs (1 Cor.15:1-6). So, let me pose a question right here. If belief requires knowledge, then it requires the work of hearing the evidence and considering it. Would the belief in Jesus include a knowledge of our sins and why we need Jesus? And, I think we can safely say that belief in Jesus would have to include conviction of our sins and of our need for what Jesus’ death was all about. So, it is safe to say that belief includes “conviction of sins” and “godly sorrow”. Would anyone say that you can be saved by faith before there is godly sorrow for sin? Now, godly sorrow is not a synonym for “faith”, is it? Yet, in all honesty, we cannot say a person has saving faith that does not have godly sorrow as a necessary ingredient of saving faith.

This leads me to another question about what all else might be necessary ingredients of saving faith. If a person has godly sorrow but has not yet repented, does his faith contain all the necessary ingredients to save him? We really need to know also if the Lord might require believing His requirement of repentance is essential to salvation. IS THAT POSSIBLE? Could it be possible that saving faith MUST have the essential ingredients of godly sorrow AND repentance? Can one really “believe” in Jesus who commanded repentance, and not repent? Or, does true faith require repentance before one is “accounted righteous”? Jesus said “except you repent, you will all likewise perish”(Luke 13:3). Can a person really “believe” in Jesus and be saved before they have decided to leave a life of sin and turn to God? Since repentance is a change of the mind and will, can a person possess saving “faith” before they change their mind and will about sin and God? If not, then repentance is an essential ingredient of the kind of faith that connects us to salvation.

Now, if a person can see that godly sorrow and repentance are indeed necessary ingredients to saving faith, then it should be easy to see why Peter told the sin-convicted Jews on Pentecost to “repent and be baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”(Acts 2:37-38). Here, we can see that repentance is a necessary ingredient of “faith in Jesus Christ”. In other words, a person who believes in Jesus must possess these necessary ingredients of saving faith.

Remember, faith in Jesus without believing specifically that he “came in the flesh” does not possess the necessary ingredients of the faith that saves. The faith that saves has to have the right ingredients. Faith without believing what Jesus said about repentance is not the faith that possesses the necessary ingredients of saving faith. But, now we see also that baptism is the point in faith where a person buries the old sinful man with Jesus (Rom.6:3-5) and has faith that God will operate to cut away sins (Col.2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16). This is the point in faith where a person becomes “united together with Christ”(Rom.6:4-5). Do you believe this just as Paul did? Or, do you believe “another Jesus” (2 Cor.11:3-4) that does not teach this?

So, it should be easy to see that scriptural baptism is “for remission of sins” and to “wash away sins” because in being “united together with Christ in baptism”(Rom.6:4-5) we then make the connection with His blood that becomes applied to our account at this moment in saving faith. Thus, repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus are also necessary and essential ingredients of “faith in Jesus”. This is why Paul said that “you are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. For (because) as many of you as were baptized INTO Christ have put on Christ”(Gal.3:26-27). This is the point of entering into relationship with God. This is the moment and the ingredient in faith where the connection to the blood is exchanged in the divine books. The question is whether you really believe Jesus in these matters. Can you truly believe in Jesus without the necessary ingredients that HE says is the moment of unity with Him? Did the Lord promise remission of sins without these necessary ingredients? Or, did some people who did not believe Jesus’ words make that promise in spite of what Jesus said?

Remember, if “another Jesus” is teaching that one is saved before and without repentance, you cannot afford to believe that Jesus or that preacher. The right Jesus said, “He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved”(Mark 16:16). Do you believe what He said? If not, how can you claim to believe in Him? You cannot afford to get this wrong. Believe the scriptures. Let the scriptures correct your views and your faith. It DOES matter what the ingredients are in your faith. –Terry W. Benton

The First Century Change Agents

The First Century Change Agents

Departure from the faith is not something new.  Getting people on board the “non-traditional” wagon is not something new.  Promising liberty is not something new (2 Peter 2:18f).  It has always been going on. Among the churches of Galatia Paul was shocked that they were “so soon” removed from Him who called you into the grace of Christ to “another gospel”(Gal.1:6-10).  They were soon tired of the traditionalism that kept them under threat of rejection or persecution.  It was uncomfortable to live in Galatia where Judaism had a large influence and talk like Jesus was the only way.

These change agents were not mentally ignoring the truth that Jesus was and is the Son of God, but they felt that we were making Jews unnecessarily mad at us for teaching that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross and that we are now to be exclusively under the authority of Jesus alone.  They simply wanted to repackage themselves as teaching what a large element of society thought the church of Christ ought to teach if they want to fit in with the rest of society.  A more appealing way to win people over is to make the gospel more appealing to those who want a teaching program that is more accepting of the religious faith of others.

The early change agents were wanting to “make a good showing in the flesh”(Gal.6:12). They were feeling the effects of social rejection and wanted to make the gospel more palatable.  This is also the way change-agents operate in churches today.  The gospel is inclusive of all who will obey Jesus  and exclusive of those who only want to obey certain choice items.  Of the early change agents, there was fear of rejection and persecution that socially comes when you believe that Jesus’ way is the ONLY way.  Consider the spirit of those wanting to “make a good showing in the flesh”.

 

[A fair show in the flesh.] The Jewish religion was general in the region of Galatia, and it was respectable, as it appears that the principal inhabitants were either Jews or proselytes. As it was then professed and practiced among the Jews, this religion had nothing very grievous to the old man; an unrenewed nature might go through all its observances with little pain or cross-bearing. On the other hand, Christianity could not be very popular; it was too strict. A Jew made a fair show there, according to his carnal system, and it was a temptation to a weak Christian to swerve into Judaism, that he might be exempted from persecution, and be creditable among his countrymen. This is what the apostle intimates: "They constrain you to be circumcised, lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ."(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

Barnes observes:  If they insisted on entire dependence on the merits of his blood, and renounced all dependence on rites and ceremonies, they would suffer persecution. This verse shows the true cause of the zeal which the Judaizing teachers evinced. It was the fear of persecution. It was the want of independence and boldness in maintaining the doctrine that people were to be saved only by the merits of the Lord Jesus. By attempting to blend together the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity; by maintaining that the observance of the Jewish rites was necessary, and yet that Jesus was the Messiah, they endeavored to keep in with both parties; and thus to escape the opposition of the Jews. It was an unhallowed compromise.  It was an attempt to blend things together which could not be united. One must really displace the other. If people depended on the rites of Moses, they had no need of dependence on the Messiah; if they professed to depend on him, then to rely on anything else was in fact to disown and reject him.  Embracing the one system was in fact renouncing the other.  Such is the argument of Paul; and such his solemn remonstrance against embracing any doctrine which would obscure the glory of simple dependence on the cross of Christ.(from Barnes' Notes).

The first century change agents simply wanted to find ways to believe in Jesus without offending people, and it did not seem to occur to them that they were offending the Lord by making His gospel insufficient for all the truth that all men needed.  Change agents then did not consider how offensive they were to the apostles who stood their ground and engaged “much dispute” in the same matters discussed in Acts 15. The change agents had so leavened the churches in this teaching that it does not hurt to mix a little of the Law of Moses into the gospel since people might be more inclined to accept us if we were not always being so negative about their traditions.  Change agents then and now have a lot of similarity. It may be different traditions that they want to adopt, but it is usually for very similar reasons: to be able to be accepted by the denominations around us.  A fair showing in the flesh does not help to change the world, but always works to change the church so that she looks like a close friend, and Jesus, well, He is such a nice fellow who accepts everyone just as they are. Never mind that it is “another Jesus”, not the One the apostles presented.  –Terry W. Benton

These Things Became Our Examples

These Things Became Our Examples

So much talk about “examples are not binding” is really not helping brethren understand the reason why examples are very important.  It did not matter to Paul about whether the Old Testament contained “narrative” or “story” (who would ever dispute that?).  Yet, as he read the stories embedded in the Old Testament, he found things that “became our examples”(1 Cor.10:6).  The mistakes of Israel were examples NOT to follow in the church.  He said “they happened to them as examples and they were written for our learning”(v.11).  Get this!  Christians are to learn from the examples embedded in the stories of the Old Testament.  That would especially be so in the New Testament as well.  From examples we learn what is NOT acceptable to the Lord, and from other examples we learn what IS acceptable to the Lord. 

By the same token, if Paul “ordained” things in “all the churches” (1 Cor.7:17), one of which was to learn from examples, then what we see in the uniform practices of the early churches would be examples for us to follow.  Paul urged the Corinthians “not to think beyond what is written”(4:6). That means to get all your ideas and information from this source and don’t even desire to listen to something if it is beyond what is written.

One thing that is written is “imitate”(follow the example of) Paul (1 Cor.4:16), and let yourself be reminded of his “ways in Christ”(which includes his approved examples)(v.17).  The reason we can follow the apostles “ways in Christ” is because they had “the mind of Christ”(2:16). The wisdom of God was revealed to them by the Spirit (2:10).  These men were led by the Spirit and they were “ministers of the new covenant”(2 Cor.3).  The Old Testament had been a ministration of death, but the New Testament was a ministry of the Spirit and of life.  As we follow the examples of the apostles we learn things that we can “prove are acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:1-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  What Paul taught in one church, he also taught “everywhere in every church”(1 Cor.4:17).

When the church at Corinth got off track with the Lord’s Supper and made it into a meal to feed their appetite, Paul reminded them of the EXAMPLE of what Jesus did the night of His betrayal when He SHOWED what He wanted done (1 Cor.11:23).  Jesus showed them what He wanted (example to follow), and He told them what He wanted (command). “Do this in remembrance of Me”.  From the command and example Paul also drew some necessary inferences: 1)When you partake of the Lord’s Supper you are “proclaiming His death till He comes”, and 2) when you do not take it with the focus on the body and blood, you do it in an unworthy manner and therefore are guilty of the body and blood.(v.26,27).

When did the early disciples come together and partake of the Lord’s Supper?  We learn from the examples in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7, that they did it “on the first day of the week”.  Nobody questions but what that is “acceptable to the Lord”.  The same thing done in one church with apostolic approval is what all churches did.  Those who follow that same example are no doubt doing what is acceptable to the Lord.  But, what of those who want to do it on Thursday?  They cannot “prove it is acceptable”. They have no statement or example after the Lord “drank it new IN THE KINGDOM” except the examples of doing it on the first day of the week.  Thus, if you cannot “prove it is acceptable” you have no business doing it. It should be that simple since even the uniform practice of the early disciples “became our examples” and are written for our learning.  The apostles showed us things that were acceptable to the Lord as well as told us. They even showed us how they reasoned from examples and came to the necessary inference that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised (Acts 15). That gave us an example of how to use statements and examples and come to the “necessary conclusion” or judgment of what the will of the Lord is.  Using the model of settling issues and questions by this process shows us how to go about “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.  These things also became our examples in how to “test all things, hold fast what is good”(1 Thess.5:21).  Some examples are incidental and do not form a uniform pattern.  But, some examples clearly show us what we can prove is right and cannot be wrong, and those examples ought not be dismissed in favor of something you cannot prove.  The stories and narratives of scripture are to show us examples of what we can safely follow and of things we should avoid.  –Terry W. Benton

Jeroboam's Mistakes

Jeroboam’s Mistakes

There were many different factors that led up to the division in Israel that left that nation split in two. We read of this split in 1 Kings 11-12.  There were the usual attempts to make the northern ten tribes to be convinced that they were right. They were wrong, but they tried to justify their new divided state and what they were now doing.

In the New Testament John mentioned that those that “went out from us were not of us”. In other words, they had been in a mental and spiritual drift away from us long before they decided to relocate their bodies away from the faithful brethren.  There are brethren today like that.  Some have left for liberal churches, and some have left to join denominations. Some are still physically among us but their heart is not with the authority and teaching of God’s word and with brethren who seek to maintain the authority of scriptures and the commitment to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.  They will be leaving soon but they want to see if they can take whole groups with them.  Please notice the parallels to be seen in the division in Israel and the divisions among spiritual Israel today.

Jeroboam made the following mistakes:

1.       Trying to appear legitimate by outward honor of special historical places. 12:25

2.       Cutting off the house of David. V.26

3.       Cutting off exposure to truth. V.27

4.       Making his religion more appealing, liberated, and convenient. V.28

5.       Ignored the “example” of David, the nature of “specific authority”, and hated the idea of seeking authority first before acting. V.31,33; 13:33-34; 14:7-10

6.       Employed the doctrines and commandments of men. V.32

 

How can the people be led to worship with a different place of worship, with a priesthood that is not from Levi, and in the manner so different?  How does such a change become accepted?  I can see that all it would take is to lead the people to question the “old hermeneutic” and those who interpreted the scriptures incorrectly all this time did so because of “traditionalism” and “legalism”. The change agents can keep criticizing the old practices as “traditionalism”. The old “traditionalism” of worshipping at Jerusalem was because the “legalists” had been very arbitrary in WHICH examples they followed.  Because of “traditionalism” and the blindness of the old hermeneutic and being so arbitrary in which examples to follow, they had neglected these important places like Penuel and Shechem.

 

The 10 northern tribes can say, “We will not be legalists and traditionalists that think their traditionalism is the only way. If others were more open-minded they would realize that we should have never neglected places like Shechem, Penuel, and Bethel. Here are some examples that they have not been keeping. They are so inconsistent with which examples are binding”.  In view of the way change agents today are operating, I can begin to see more clearly how such a large segment in Israel could have gotten swept into the change and justified it in their own minds.

Today there are change agents that use Facebook and other social media to gather “friends”. But, like the northern ten tribes, they then begin “cutting off” brethren who might question their views on this media. These brethren grow their number of friends, appealing to the weak and undiscerning, cut off dissenting  voices as “traditionalists”, “Pharisees”, and” legalists”, gathering sympathy from the undiscerning, blocking friends who do not agree with their views.  By cutting of dissenting voices and keeping only those who approve or will say nothing negative, and feeding prejudice against faithful brethren by such terms as “legalists”, “Pharisees”, and “traditionalists”, the crowd they keep on their list are now swallowing the Kool-Aid. Those are points two and three in Jeroboam’s program of justifying his promoting and maintaining the division in Israel he was now leading.

 

Look at the six mistakes listed above again.  Point three is cutting off exposure to truth.  To maintain a sense of legitimacy, Jeroboam could not afford to let his people be exposed to the truth taught by the old traditionalists in Judah.  So, he cut off the opportunities for his friends to see and hear discussions where his views could now be challenged.  It is easy to say the Levites in Jerusalem were “traditionalists” using a faulty hermeneutic, but that cannot hold up well is actual discussion where the change agents have to prove their own hermeneutic is correct and where they are actually called on to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.  Prejudice does not work as well when someone can answer them.  So, the change agent must always back away from actual discussion and debate with the old “traditionalists”. They could never stand up in the kind of discussion and “much dispute” seen in Acts 15. They know it too, and so their mode of operation must always be to cut off those voices of truth that might expose them.

 

The modern change agents cut off any on their “friends” list who might expose the weakness of their teachings, or those who might give their readers a different impression of the change agent. Thus, they create a cult of personality and use the old “promise liberty” routine that false teachers have long used in the past (2 Pet.2) to “allure” people into the changes.  The change agents promise liberty from misguided, hypocritical “traditionalism”, and they have their “friends” swallowing the bait and regurgitating it to each other as they now have little or no voices on their list who might reel them in and provide a needed scriptural rebuke and effort at correction.

 

Look at the list of mistakes Jeroboam made again.  We have seen parallels in those first three items. There is an amazing similarity between the mistakes of Jeroboam and the modern change agents. I hope you can see what is happening now and how it is moving among brethren in so many congregations. The bodies may still be together, but soon those who have influenced them the most through social media will have convinced them to change the local church or move out from those close-minded traditionalists.  The devil has been at work.  He is seeking to devour you and any church that still believes in “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.  We will consider the last three items on the list in our next post.  Please, give it careful attention.  Terry W. Benton

 

What Makes A Church A Denomination?

Part 3

One brother pushes for changing the sign from something biblical (“church of Christ”) to something else (no more expedient than the other sign). He argues that to object to changing the sign is a “denominational marker”.  But, if the sign was scriptural and right to start with, if brethren see no need to change the sign, why would he be divisive about it? He perceives that it is important to change the sign because he perceives that the name on the sign has become an obstacle to outsiders.  On the one hand he argues that those who do not change the sign are in a denomination.  If this is so, he needs to be honest and tell everyone in a church of Christ to LEAVE the denomination.  Changing the sign does not make a denomination become a scriptural church.  If the Baptist Church changed the name to “the church at _______” has it now ceased to be a denomination?  Masking the exterior name on the sign becomes deception. We don't need to use deception to get people in.  It is still a denomination that teaches the distinguishing doctrines that formed the Baptist denominations. 

If our brother wants to charge “churches of Christ” with being a denomination, he needs to address the doctrines or teachings that distinguish modern churches of Christ from the first century churches of Christ.  This is hard to do on an issue of expediency.  The early churches of Christ did not have an expedient option of a building, and if they had a building, it was not expedient to put a sign up to advertise the nature of the group that met there.  That is still the case in some places like China.  It is more expedient to meet in secret and never put up a sign to advertise your meeting and the nature of the group.  But, in a free society, we find it expedient to advertise the nature of the group that meets in this building.  This may not always be the case, but so far it has been helpful. 

 “Church of Christ” is a good and expedient description.  It does not denominate us FROM Christ and His church.  It does not denominate us from the nature of the early churches.  We are not only advertising what we are, but what the early churches were.  If the time comes when it is expedient to meet in secret again because of similar circumstances of persecution, then we will still be churches of Christ, but will opt to not have a sign.  The sign does not make us any less the undenominational church belonging to Christ. Changing the sign does not make us change from being a denomination to now being non-denominational.

We need a better definition than our brother gave in Part 2 of this series.  A better definition of what constitutes a denomination is as stated in the following quote:

As far as I know, there is no denomination using the name "Church of Christ." A typical definition for a denomination is: "A group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." While churches of Christ are united under a common faith, that which is found exclusively in the Bible, and many, but not all, use a common name based upon Romans 16:16, there is no single administrative and legal hierarchy here on earth. The only head recognized by Christians is Christ Jesus (Matthew 28:18). http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/04-13c.htm

Now, this is what makes a denomination. A church is not a denomination just because someone imagines that it is, nor that someone with an ax to grind SAYS it is.  It is not a denomination because it shares common faith with other like churches (that would make the early churches a denomination). It is a denomination if it divides itself from the original order in how it describes itself AND in the doctrines and practices that separate it from the original order.  It can do this by organizing into a group larger than the local church but smaller than the universal church.  The Southern Baptist association is an example of an organization of churches into an order larger than a local church but smaller than the universal church.  Thus, a division that is away from the New Testament pattern.

 

 A local church can become a denomination by dividing away from a legitimate, scriptural local church in order to press some unscriptural practice such as making the Lord’s Supper into a common meal and making a distinguishing law that they must meet in personal houses instead of in buildings purchased by the group.  A church is not denominational because they happen to meet in a home with no sign out front, but by divisive, distinguishing doctrines of men.  

All denominations are actually “sects”. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “sect’ as “Body of persons agreed upon religious doctrines, usu. different from those of an established or orthodox Church from which they have separated, and usu. having distinctive common worship, non-conformist or other Church as described by opponents, party of faction in a religious body, religious denomination. . . followers of a particular philosophy or school of thought” The Greek equivalent to “denomination” is “HAIRESIS”, it is translated in our English Bibles as either “sect” or “heresy”. It means “An opinion, then, a party” (Bullenger’s Lexicon) W.E. Vine defines “HAIRESES” a division developed or brought about by an issue” The word appears among the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and has a marginal definition of “parties”. Today there are thousands of parties (or denominations) which were begun by men at various times in history. http://www.churchofchrist.com.au/Tracts/Denom.htm

It is SINFUL and fleshly to start and continue to support a heresy or sect or division.  If one is in a denomination, they must destroy it or get out.  There is no scriptural authority to be in one and to support one. The only way to avoid being in one is to obey the will of God. That will mean proving what is acceptable to the Lord (Rom.12:2-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  If the organization is acceptable to the Lord and you can prove it, then it is to that extent the will of God and undenominational.  If it is local only in order and organization and the local order is within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.  If the assembly is conducted within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.  If the teaching advanced and supported is provable by handling aright the word of truth, then it is not a denomination.  If what the local group calls itself is within the will of God, then it is not a denomination. 

When all of the above is proven by the will of God, then the local church should object to someone trying to characterize them as a denomination.  When preachers start doing this, it is time to test what he says and object when he is wrong.  I know that I have never been part of a “church of Christ denomination”.  I don’t intend to start being a part of one. But, neither am I going to sit quietly and say nothing when some preacher wants to make the charge that unless we are willing to change a scriptural designation on the sign that it MAKES a church a denomination, I will object to this unfounded charge. There are several preachers pressing for such a change of sign, but that can be making a divisive issue where it does not need to be pressed.  Divisive brethren need to be marked and avoided (Rom.16:16-17).  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Let Jesus have “all authority” and be “preeminent” and do all in His name. Prove what is acceptable to the Lord and then act accordingly. You will not be in a denomination, but you will be working with brethren of like precious faith.  That is part of truly living for Christ.  If you are in a local church of Christ that makes doing the will of God their mission and priority, and the groups is acting by the authority of scriptures, then don't let someone get away with calling you a denomination just because you don't see a need to change the sign and they want to be divisive about it.  Put the responsibility on them to prove that it is necessary to do the will of God to do what they say we must do. –Terry W. Benton

What Makes A Church a Denomination? Part 2

What Makes A Church a Denomination?

Part 2

Quote: The Evangelical theological dictionary defines "denomination" as: "anything distinguished by a name … such as Baptists and Methodists.” Second, “Associations of congregations that have a common heritage.” There is no doubt that there exists a "church of Christ" denomination that belies the claims of those within it to local autonomy. And, the unwillingness to consider changing a sign outside a building is an indication of a sectarian attachment - not an attachment to Christ but to a denomination. (Jeff Young)-Unquote!

TB: If the above definition really gives the scripturally-based definition of a “denomination”, then the early church was a denomination.  They were “distinguished by a name”, “Christian”, and there was a “common heritage” of associated congregations (Rom.16:16).  They were associated together with their common heritage of hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ.  There is something very lacking in the above definition when it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination by definition while only really wanting to make modern “churches of Christ” out to be a denomination.   Was there “local autonomy” in the early churches?  We could easily argue that they shared a common heritage that made them tend to share common practices.  Does sharing a common heritage make a denomination?  I think that is not really a good argument to make.  If it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination then it is probably not a good, sound argument to make.

Since I am unwilling to change the sign outside because I really think “church of Christ” is one of the best ways of describing the Lord’s church, the above writer says I MUST be willing to change the sign or I will be in a denomination or possess a “sectarian attachment” to the name on the sign.  But, think about it. Isn’t it sectarian to be so set on changing a sign to something else that only sectionalizes brethren into smaller sections?  What will a different description on the sign accomplish?  Will it prevent people from thinking you are a denomination?  It never has. It never will.  As we pointed out in part 1, the sign does nothing.  A person with only denominational concepts will still have denominational concepts. Teaching the TRUTH and believing the truth is the only way to get concepts corrected.

A person or group of people may have an “unwillingness to change the sign” because they think the sign is an adequate description of what they are, a church belonging to Christ, not a denomination.  Think about this carefully. The above argument says that unless you are willing to change the sign from “church of Christ” to something else, you have a “sectarian attachment” to a “denomination” instead of to Christ.  Hold on a minute!  How often will we need to change the sign to make sure we don’t have a denominational attachment?  Is there a schedule of sign changing that will avoid this?  I doubt very seriously that changing the sign is crucial at all.  In fact, could it not also be the case that one can have a factious and denominational spirit that says in essence that “the nature of this denomination will be our devotion to changing the name on our sign”?  This will be our common denominator with others who are also willing to change their signs often.

 

I knew of a case where the preacher was so set on changing the sign that he divided the brethren. His accusation was that they were too denominational in wanting to retain the name on the sign and their accusation was that he was too denominational in wanting to change a legitimate sign. Who was really denominational in this case?  To me, the preacher was trying to create a denomination that would be known for sign-changing as the key issue of his new denomination.  It was not devotion to Christ that demanded a change on the sign.  It was a divisive spirit that would ultimately make sign-changing the key doctrine of those he would associate with. 

 

Those brethren who would not make that THE issue would be mentally assigned to a different denomination while they think only they have captured “undenominational” status.  Brethren and outsiders would take note that this new denomination will make changing descriptive signs THE distinguishing feature to this new denomination.  If it is really so that a church becomes a denomination if they keep “church of Christ” on their sign, then it is still a denomination if they change the sign.  Changing the sign is not out of devotion to Christ. Christ has no interest whatsoever in brethren pushing for a change on the sign out front from “church of Christ” to “the church at ________” .  It is out of devotion to their denominational marker of making sign-changing their distinguishing doctrine.  If they are a denomination if they describe themselves as a “church of Christ”, then they are a denomination if they call themselves “the assembly of Christ”. 

The definition our brother offered above is very inadequate and applies just as well to his own local church.  There is a “distinguishing name” involved and his church is still associated with a common heritage of churches.  If he succeeds in changing the church till no other church feels a common heritage with his church, he has created a new denomination that is starting a new heritage.  You see the definition our brother gave of a denomination still fits his church and church heritage.  He has not escaped the parts of the definition he offered.  That is because his definition is wholly inadequate. He gave a partial definition that indicts his own church that changed the sign out front, and his partial definition indicts every local church you read about in the Bible.

I cannot look at the early churches of Christ (Rom.16:16) as a denomination, nor can I believe that describing local churches today as “churches of Christ” is any more a denominational indicator than it was in the first century.  Thus, we need to quit bashing brethren and calling them a denomination if they are only imagined to be a denomination.  Imagining the local church I attend as being a denomination or part of a denomination does not make it so. There is inadequate definition and a lot of imagination at play here.  I don’t accept our brother’s definition or his imagination.  We need to understand what the universal church was in the first century in order to know what it is now, and we need to understand the local church in the first century in order to know what is should be today.  We also need to know that the early churches did not form denominations and denominations are not supported now.  The Bible does not support divisions, seditions, and heresies (1 Cor.1:10; Gal.5:19-20). We need to challenge people who do not teach the truth and mischaracterize churches of Christ.

(to be continued)

Terry W. Benton