International Bible Teaching Ministries
General Information
Question 1: Is the church the house of God?
ANSWER:Yes! Please read I Timothy 3:15.
Question 2: Who is the head of the church in the world and where is he found?
ANSWER:There is no earthly head of the church! Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Acts 2:29-35) and has been made "to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). Each congregation of the Lord's church is self-governing, answerable only to Christ!
Question 3: Does the church save?
ANSWER:The saved are added to the church by the Lord (Acts 2:47). After having been added to the church, the saved in the church then are directed to go into all the world preaching the Gospel so that others can be saved (Mark 16:15-16; II Timothy 2:2). Paul says that the church makes known the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10). By preaching the gospel then, the church makes known the wisdom of God unto salvation. In this secondary and indirect sense it can be said that the church saves, but it must be realized that there is no direct authority in the church. All authority resides solely in the word of God! Some in the denominational world, such as the Catholic Church, teach that saving authority resides in the church and not the Word of God! Faithful Christians will reject any such notion!
Question 4: Would you tell me about the unity of the church?
ANSWER:In Ephesians 4:4, the Bible says that there is only "one body." In Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18 & 24, we learn that the "body" is the church. Therefore, if there is only "one body," there is clearly and logically only “one church.” This church is the church of the Bible and is the only church that is of divine origin. All others are of men and will eventually fail (Psalms 127:1). Neither is there salvation to be found in them (Acts 4:12). The only church in which one can be saved is described in the Bible as the "church of Christ" (Romans 16:16). It is the church that Christ promised to build (Matthew 16:18); the church that He died to build (Acts 20:28); and the church to which baptized believers were added on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:47). It is that body of believers, called out from this world, who look only to the word of God for their worship practices and conduct of life. It, and it alone, is the Church of Christ!
Question 5: Why was the church of Christ divided?
ANSWER:In had been prophesied early in the history of the church that such would happen (Acts 20:28-30; I Timothy 4:1-4; II Timothy 4:3-4; II Peter 2:1-3). These passages (and others) clearly tell us "why" division occurs. It occurred in the first century and in our generation as well! When false teachers are permitted to bring in "damnable heresies" unauthorized by God's Word (most recently; worldly entertainment, instruments of music, missionary societies, etc.) and when people, having itching ears, heap these teachers to themselves, refusing rather to "try" them (I John 4:1), disciples will be drawn away and divisions will occur.
Though divisions are sure to come, we can be assured that His church; His kingdom shall have no end (Luke 1:33)!
Question 6: Were the Campbell’s inspired?
ANSWER:No! With the completion and confirmation of the word of God, the need for inspired men ceased (Mark 16:20; I Corinthians 13:8-13).
Question 7: What was the Restoration Movement?
ANSWER:Following the "Dark Ages," (A period of time lasting for several hundred years through the fourteenth century), men like Martin Luther and others began the task of trying to "reform" the apostate Catholic Church. They were unsuccessful in this attempt and created an atmosphere in which denominationalism had its rise. More recently, primarily during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, men on both sides of the world began to simultaneously, through the providence of God, realize the need to restore New Testament Christianity to its original design and intent. These men had realized that the "Reformation" was a failure and, thus, began what was to become known as the "Restoration Movement." The success of this effort is seen in the many congregations of the Church of Christ (Romans 16:16), which now encircle the globe!
Question 8: Where was the Church of Christ during the Dark Ages and how could it grow without the Bible?
ANSWER:It had been prophesied in Scripture that a great falling away would come (I Timothy 4:1-5; II Timothy 4:1-5). This apostasy, occurring over many years, was realized in its fullest sense with the development and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in about 606AD. During these years, and for many years to follow, the Church of Christ was greatly oppressed. There are two opinions as to the state of the church during these years. The first is that the true church temporarily ceased to live and function as it did during the first century; that it only existed in "seed form." The Word of God is described as a "seed" in Luke 8:11 and it is, therefore, held that as long as the "seed" existed, it then follows that the church also would be existent, but in a dormant state. When the "seed" was eventually replanted following the "Dark Ages," it produced the original church, which began then to live and function as it did at the beginning. The second opinion, which I have adopted, is that the church as originally established, though oppressed and driven into near obscurity, never totally ceased to live and function in accordance with the Bible, the will of God. Which opinion is the accurate one is not really important! What is important is that God's Word (which shall never pass away - Matthew 24:35), though severely suppressed, obviously continued throughout and we have it in its purity today. So no matter where we may be; no matter who we are, if we adhere to its precepts and patterns only, faithful congregations will come into existence and grow exactly as Christ intended, being totally and in every sense congregations of the Church of Christ! It is comforting for us to know with assurance that His kingdom, the church, will never be destroyed (Daniel 2:44); that it is without end (Luke 1:33) and you and I can be members of it today (Acts 2:38-47)!
Question 9: If an individual has never been to a congregation of the Church of Christ can he diligently study God's Word, become a Christian, and establish a congregation of the Lord's church in his area? Can a hand of fellowship and acceptance be given to such an establishment?
ANSWER:Yes to both questions! This is what the Campbell’s and others did at the beginning of the Restoration Movement. Many are doing the same thing around the world today!
Question 10: If a Christian man marries a second wife, we know he (as a polygamist) has sinned, but what will the duties of this person be in the church?
ANSWER:The person in question should not be assigned any responsibility in the congregation until he repents! All of the people involved in the relationship described need to be taught the truth about their condition. Polygamy is sin! God has ordained that marriage is between two people, one man and one woman, until separated by death (Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 7:1-3). When a man and a woman are scripturally married and another person enters that relationship, all of those actively involved do so without the blessing of God. Further, all that knowingly participate in such a marriage are in sin as long as it continues. The above passages demand that the third party be excluded from the relationship, and that all that have participated come to repentance. Without scriptural repentance (Matthew 21:28-31; Luke 13:3; Acts 8:22; Acts 17:30), none can be saved. After the person in question has been taught and every attempt has been made to win his soul again, if he refuses to repent scripturally, it is commanded of God that fellowship be withdrawn from him, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (I Corinthians 5).
Question 11: May the person referred to in the preceding question continue to lay hands on the sick?
ANSWER: Laying on of hands in the New Testament was the practice of those who had been endowed by the Holy Spirit with miraculous ability. Since the gifts have long since passed away (I Corinthians 13:8-11), no reason exists today for the laying on of hands. This, notwithstanding, (as stated in the answer to the preceding question) the person in question should be assigned no responsibility in the church until repentance is forthcoming! In fact, in accordance with I Corinthians 5, he must be purged (removed) from the congregation lest he affect the others by his sinfulness.
Question 12: Is it better to walk alone or worship with those who have compromised the truth?
ANSWER:We have a responsibility to teach the erring and compromising to believe and practice the truth! Failing to do so (either on our part or theirs) does not mean that we are relieved of our responsibility to engage in corporate worship (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; Hebrews 10:25)! If there are no faithful congregations in our area, then it becomes our responsibility, in carrying the Gospel to the lost, to congregate with those whom we convert to the truth! It only takes two people to congregate!
Question 13: Since the Church of Christ was established in Jerusalem, why is its headquarters not there?
ANSWER:There is no authority in the Bible for an earthly headquarters. To add an earthly headquarters to the organization of the church would be to add to God's Word, resulting in sin (Revelation 22:18-19). Also, if there were an earthly headquarters, there would have to be an earthly head. Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:22 that there is only one (the) Head who is Jesus Christ! Our Head, who established the kingdom/church (Matthew 16:18-19) and paid the price for it (Acts 20:28), is enthroned at the right hand of God (Acts 2:29-36) as Lord of lords and King of kings (Revelation 17:14) over His kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14). Since our Head, our King, is in Heaven, our headquarters is also in Heaven.
Question 14: Would you explain about the church that Jesus built; that it has no earthly headquarters?
ANSWER:In Ephesians 4:4, the Bible says that there is only “one body.” In Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18 & 24, we learn that the “body” is the church. Therefore, if there is only “one body,” there is clearly only one church. This church is the church of the Bible and is the only church that is of divine origin. All others are of men and will eventually fail (Psalms 127:1). Neither is there salvation to be found in them (Acts 4:12). The only church in which one can be saved is referred to in the Bible the “church of Christ” (Romans 16:16). It is the church that Christ promised to build (Matthew 16:18); the church that He died to build (Acts 20:28); and the church to which baptized believers were added on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:47). It is that body of believers, called out from this world, who look only to the word of God for their worship practices and conduct of life. It is the Church of Christ!
The head of the church (the one Body) is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:22). Each congregation is self-ruling and overseen by a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28), independent of all other congregations (I Peter 5:1-2). By this we are given to understand that there is no higher governing body on this earth. Each congregation answers only to Jesus Christ and His Word! Deacons are to serve the congregation under the oversight of the elders (I Timothy 3:8-13). Evangelists are to proclaim the Word (II Timothy 4:1-5). A religious group without this prescribed organization cannot be the church of the Bible! A religious group with an earthly headquarters staffed by people with unscriptural titles such as “Father, Archbishop, Cardinal, and Pope (Matthew 23:9)” cannot, therefore, be the church of the Bible!
Question 15: Did Christ really appoint Peter and his successors as head of His church until the end of time?
ANSWER:No! The Bible does not even mention the notion or title of "Pope." Neither does it mention or authorize the ecclesiastical structures prevalent in both the Catholic and Protestant organizations of today. These ideas, having their roots solely in the teachings of men, are clearly in violation of plain scriptural teaching as outlined above. Besides this, Peter had no successor; nor can he have any today! To be qualified to be an apostle, one must be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22) as were the twelve (Acts 1:21) and the apostle Paul (Acts 26:13-18). None living today (including the Pope and the so-called “Apostles of the Mormon Church”) have seen the resurrected Christ! Therefore, none today can be qualified to be an apostle or the successor to an apostle! We can be sure, then, that those who claim apostleship today do not represent the Christ of the New Testament!
Question 16: Are we to obey church doctrines or Bible doctrines?
ANSWER:If the doctrines of your church are different from the doctrines of the Bible, then you are in the wrong church! If they are different from the Bible, it follows then that they are of man and not of God. Jesus said that the doctrines of men constitute vain (empty) worship (Matthew 15:9). Surely, we will not be judged by their (church) doctrines in that day, but, rather, by the words of Christ (John 12:48). Therefore, "we ought to obey God (the Bible) rather than men" Acts 5:29).
Question 17: If a person is in sin; refuses to repent; is withdrawn from; divides the congregation, and starts another congregation, will it be recognized as the church of Christ?
ANSWER:Such questions are often difficult to answer without knowing all of the details. However, if a person is involved in a sin, of which he refuses to repent, and is scripturally withdrawn from, Christians everywhere who have the knowledge of that sin and the refusal to repent (regardless of prior relationships) must also withhold fellowship, not because the first congregation did, but based upon their own proven, factual knowledge of the situation! The man in question is not only guilty of the sin that necessitated the initial withdrawal, but has also become guilty of causing division in the Lord's Body! Those members of the first congregation who are in support of the man are in error by not honoring the withdrawal action, and by participating in the sin of division. Those who may later knowingly affiliate with such a divisive group (as described above) are themselves in sin. Though these are still recognized as Christians, they are "erring" Christians. Each involved must repent of their sins to be forgiven and saved eternally.
Question 18: Is the church supposed to be in the business of making money?
ANSWER:No! The church is in the business of making Christians (Matthew 28:18-20)! The only authorized method of giving and collecting finances to support the work that Christians are directed and authorized to do is set forth in I Corinthians 16:1-2 and II Corinthians 9:6-15.
Question 19: Is it a sin for a church to practice "Sunday School?"
ANSWER:It is my opinion that as much as possible we need to avoid using denominational terminology or phrases, simply because they many times denote and define activities which are unscriptural! However, if by using the term "Sunday School" we mean a certain time set aside on the first day of the week during which people assemble to study the Bible, it is not sin. In fact we are commanded, both by precept and example, to study (II Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11). Nothing in God's Word prohibits us from doing so on Sundays! Of course, "Sunday School" should not be engaged in as a substitute for the scriptural worship assembly (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 16:1-2; Hebrews 10:25).
Question 20: Would you support a "Non-Sunday School Church" that engages in serious Bible correspondence courses?
ANSWER:If the "Non-Sunday School Church" decided not to have a Sunday Bible Study on the basis of opinion and did not attempt to make it a matter of doctrine to be bound on others, I could support them in teaching the Bible, provided that all other of their teaching and practices were in compliance with the will of God.
If the "Non-Sunday School Church" holds that their decision not to have a Sunday Bible Study is a matter of doctrine to be bound on others; that if others engaged in such they would be sinning, then I would not and could not support them, because such teaching is not scriptural, but is of those who "transgress and abide not in the doctrine of Christ" (II John 9-11). Therefore, any support given would of itself be sin!
Question 21: There is in Nashville an African Christian Schools Foundation and in Searcy, Arkansas, an African Christian Hospital. These two groups regulate the money sent by American brethren to support people in Africa. Is it right to support these organizations?
ANSWER:If the work being done by these two groups is secular, i.e., it is not work for which the church is scripturally responsible, then support by individuals would be a matter of option and would not be improper.
However, if these two organizations were engaged in doing work for which the church is responsible, then support of their work would be sinful. In fact, such organizations would be sinful. No organization can assume the work of the church, in place of the church, without sinning! Any organization, other than the Lord's church, that presumes to assume the responsibilities of the church, as given to it by God, sins and scripturally forfeits its right to exist!
Question 22: Is it wrong for a congregation to have a fellowship hall (I Corinthians 11:20-22; 33-34)?
ANSWER:Generally speaking, it is not wrong! The Lord has appointed that a plurality of elders is to have the rule over their own congregation. They are to rule only in matters of option, since the Lord has already ruled in matters of faith and doctrine. Some congregations have opted not to own a building, but to rent a facility for worship services. Some have opted to buy a building already erected, others to build a place of worship. There is no specific commandment as to "houses of worship," other than the fact that since it is commanded that we worship, a meeting "place" is clearly and of necessity implied. The "where and how" is a matter of opinion falling under the jurisdiction of the local eldership! If a need arises in a congregation for a fellowship hall in the opinion of the elders, either within or without the "place" of worship, it is their decision to make. God will judge that decision! It would be presumptuous, arrogant, and sinfully judgmental for any man (or group of men) to pronounce that all congregations that used a “fellowship hall” were sinning by so doing.
A "place" of worship is just that, nothing more; nothing less! It is not to be understood as a "holy place" that can be desecrated by using it for other purposes, such as having a common fellowship meal within it, outside of the worship service!
Without doubt, the erection and use of fellowship halls has been abused by some through misuse and excessive expenditures, to the near exclusion of the Great Commission! It is, as well, true that the same thing can be said about "meeting houses," more aptly described as "Cathedrals!" However, the misuse of "buildings" by some does not mean that having a "fellowship hall" is of itself sinful, as some would claim. Certainly, the passages you suggest (I Corinthians 11:20-22; 33-34) have nothing to do with "buildings" per se! In context, the Corinthians had turned the Lord's Supper into a banquet for the express purpose of enjoying the satisfaction of their own physical hunger and thirst, thereby thwarting the divine purpose of this act of worship. Paul is simply saying, 'when you come together to partake of the Lord's Supper, do it for the right reason (Vs.26). Satisfy the physical needs of your bodies in your own houses, not in the worship services!' Note in I Corinthians16:19 and Romans 16:5 that Paul talks about (and sanctions) the church that meets in the "house" of Aquila and Priscilla. Clearly, this righteous couple ate and drank in the same building (their house) in which the church worshiped. Apparently then, their house (in which they dined) also doubled as a place of worship and a "fellowship hall" (Acts 2:46).
Question 23: Since I Corinthians 16:1-2 is an example for us today, is it also implied that our offerings should be given to others? If so, how will the needs of the local congregation be met?
ANSWER:I Corinthians 16:1-2 and related passages such as II Corinthians, Chapters eight and nine, give us an example only of how "needs" are to be met, not where we are to send the collection! The specific "need" in these passages related solely to the poor saints (and others) in Jerusalem. Certainly, if we would assume that this passage implies that the local congregation is to send all of their collection to others, we would also (in order to be consistent) have to assume that all congregations would have to send all collections to the poor saints in Jerusalem. This, of course, is not the case! The example given us to meet any "need" (whether it is local or distant) is by every one of us 'laying by him in store upon the first day of every week.' If there is a scriptural need in a distant city, it is to be satisfied by using the funds collected in this way. If there is a scriptural need within the local congregation, it, too, is to be satisfied from the same funds!
Question 24: If a group wants to erect a church building should they develop a money-raising scheme to do so?
ANSWER:The work of the church can be financed only through freewill offerings (I Corinthians 16:1-2; II Corinthians 9:6).
Question 25: Our preacher told us that the Church of Christ will not take medicine or go to the hospital. Is this true?
ANSWER:No! It is totally false. Perhaps your preacher is confusing the church of Christ with a denomination called "Church of Christ, Scientist." It is this false organization that preaches against medicine and hospitals! Please inform your preacher of his error!
Question 26: Our preacher told us that the Church of Christ will not cooperate with unbelievers. Is this true?
ANSWER:It is true that the church of Christ does not condone or promote the sin of the unbeliever. The unbeliever is of the world. Christians are commanded to "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (I John 2:15). James said, "know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (James 4:4).” Christians do, however, cooperate with those in the world to the extent of being good neighbors (Luke 10:30-37), loving their souls (Matthew 22:39), and preaching the Gospel to them in accordance with the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-16).
Question 27: Our preacher told us that the Church of Christ does not allow the wearing of necklaces or earrings. Is this true?
ANSWER:It is not true! Your preacher has been misled and is misleading others! All should be certain of their facts lest they be found guilty by God (Psalms 101:7).
Question 28: If the kingdom is the church, as you teach, and it has already come, then why did Jesus teach us to pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, etc.?"
ANSWER:Jesus, through His Word, does not teach people today to pray "Thy kingdom come!" In Luke 11:1, "one of His disciples said unto Him, Lord, teach 'us' to pray." Jesus was teaching His disciples of that time to pray for the kingdom to come, because it had not yet come! In fact, both He and John the Baptist were preaching at that time, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand (near)" (Matthew 3:1-2; Matthew 4:17). In Mark 9:1, Jesus said to those standing by that the kingdom would come and be established in their lifetime.
Matthew 16:18-19 clearly shows that Christ intended to build His church and give Peter the keys to that which He had built, i.e., the kingdom, or the church! That the church was established on the Day of Pentecost of Acts two cannot be denied (Acts 2:47). Neither can it be denied that Acts 2:29-36 is an account of the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Jesus Christ at the right hand of God! Daniel tells us in Chapter seven, Verses thirteen and fourteen, that upon the ascension of Christ and His return to the Father that He was to be given a Kingdom that would never be destroyed. Obviously then, Christ, upon His ascension, was enthroned over the kingdom that He had been given, and over which He had been given "all" authority (Matthew 28:18). Shortly after this, we see Philip preaching to the Samaritans things concerning the kingdom of God and the authority of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12). As a result, those to whom he preached were baptized. Into what were they baptized? Obviously, into that which he was preaching about, i.e., the kingdom of God. But in Acts 2:37-47, we find that those who were baptized were (placed into) added to the church. Certainly, both the people on Pentecost and the Samaritans were baptized into the same institution! The only conclusion to be drawn is that when one is baptized, he or she is baptized into the kingdom, which is the church! This is why Paul could say in Colossians 1:13, that the Colossian Christians were "translated" into the kingdom of God. Can one be translated into something that doesn't exist? Of course not! Baptism is clearly the point of translation! We are baptized into "one body" (I Corinthians 12:13), which is the church (Ephesians 1:22-23). It is the very act, the only act, by which we are translated into the kingdom of God!
Why do we not pray for the kingdom to come? Because it came two thousand years ago! To pray for something to come that is already here would be a violation of Scripture (James 4:3; I John 5:14).
Question 29: If we are to be true followers within the church of Acts 2:47, should we not do as they did and sell all of our possessions and hold all things in common (Acts 2:44-45)?
ANSWER:The passage in question is not proposing the idea of communism. That is, it is not to be understood that “all” followers sold “all” they possessed and then placed the proceeds into a single treasury so that every man within the church would be economically equal. The phrase “as every man had need” in Verse forty-five restricts the suggested action to the extent of the current “need.” The idea is as true today. Christians, who have the resources, should be willing to supply the “needs” of poorer brethren when the occasion arises. It is in this sense that Christians have “all things common” (Vs.44).
That this was the case in the early church is evidenced by Peter’s statement to Ananias (Acts 5:4), “whilst it (the property that he owned) remained, was it not thy own? And after it was sold, was it (the money received from the sale) not in thine own power?” Clearly, then, we see that the property owned by this Christian was his to use according to his own intent. His sin was not directly related to his handling of the possession, but rather related to the fact of his lie ‘about’ the handling of the possession!
Question 30: Is it right for a congregation to write a letter of disassociation to a sister congregation for any reason whatsoever? If yes, biblically prove.
ANSWER:It is not right for a congregation to withdraw fellowship from a sister congregation for any reason whatsoever! However, it is right for a congregation to withdraw fellowship from a sister congregation that has ‘caused divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of Christ’ (Romans 16:17) when the cause of Christ is being detrimentally affected and souls under the oversight of the local elders are being unfavorably and sinfully impacted! Whether individually or congregationally, the principle remains valid, i.e., such dividing apostates are to be marked and avoided. The principle is valid in either case! If this biblical principle is applicable in a singular sense locally, why would it not be applicable in a collective sense in a close locale that is negatively impacting the advance of truth locally? Such brethren, whether in-house or nearby, singularly or collectively, being in sin, are engaging in the unfruitful works of darkness and, Paul, in Ephesians 5:11 says, ‘have no fellowship with them, but rather reprove them.’ Does not one remain in fellowship with those whom he refuses to disfellowship? Of course! But Paul says, “have no fellowship!” So not only are we directed to sever the relationship (withdraw fellowship), but we are also “commanded” to confront them (reprove) with their sin. Whether that is done face-to-face or via other communication is a matter of option.
However, we must understand that “disfellowshipping” another congregation is not to be understood in the same sense as the totality of “congregational disciplinary action” that is to be directed to individuals within a particular congregation! Nonetheless, there are some congregations, under the guise of “church autonomy,” that suggest that they can teach and practice anything that they would like, whether scriptural or not, and that the rest of the brotherhood must ignore such! Not so! As the elders of a congregation teach against denominationalism and lead their own flock not to fellowship such, they indeed have the same obligation when a congregation of the Lord’s church apostatizes and becomes as a denomination! Those who maintain fellowship with sister congregations that apostatize from the truth are themselves sinning and in violation of the principles mentioned heretofore!
However, a word of caution: Though elders of a particular congregation may indeed lead the flock that is among them to no longer fellowship a congregation that has apostatized, that eldership’s leading and that congregation’s action is not binding upon other elderships and other congregations of the Lord’s church. If such were the case, congregational autonomy would be destroyed in favor of a de facto hierarchy (as is often the case) that would determine for all others who is in the church and who is out of the church, and all would have to toe the line dictated by the de facto hierarchy! This danger is often actualized through the teachings and actions of some “significant” lectureships and some “significant” lectureship circuit rider groups. When a lectureship or a combine of preachers on the lectureship circuit denounces a congregation (or an individual) as “apostate” and others fall in line with that dictum on their say-so, they tacitly agree to a hierarchy within the body of Christ! Congregational autonomy is thereby destroyed! When such is taught, perpetuated, and actualized sin occurs!
Note, nonetheless, that there is a significant difference between disfellowshipping another congregation and “exercising church discipline” toward another congregation! In a nut shell, the elders of Congregation “A” may lead the flock among them to discontinue fellowshipping Congregation “B’ that has apostatized and is teaching other than the doctrine of Christ! However, the action of the elders of Congregation “A” in this regard is not binding upon the elders of Congregation “C.” If Congregation “C” is to disfellowship Congregation “B,” it must be so led by its own elders! Such “disfellowshipping” must not be understood to be equal to the scriptural practice of church discipline within a congregation! To the contrary, it must be understood that elders are to provide, feed, and care for their own flocks and for their own alone! Neither are local elderships to lead their congregations to disfellowship other congregations or persons simply upon the say-so, action, or direction of another congregation, lectureship, preacher, preacher group, or individual.
Question 31: Should Churches of Christ build gymnasiums?
ANSWER:Without doubt the primary assignment given to Christ’s followers is that we go into the entire world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15-16). Additionally, there are many countries in the world where the Church of Christ is, presently, non-existent. As well, there are faithful brethren who would go and work in these areas, but are often told that there are no funds available to send them, while at the same time these are building gymnasiums, ornate and overdone fellowship halls, and “cathedrals” in which to worship and to be entertained under the guise of improved fellowship and strengthening of the family, while ignoring the Great Commission of our Lord. Missionaries have gone into hard places with the barest of essentials, often sacrificing and doing without to preach to the lost, because of insufficient funds! There is little doubt by any that, even in many countries where the church has been established, there are faithful native brethren that are struggling to survive physically and spiritually while Americans living in the lap of luxury in the finest of personal and congregational facilities ignore their plight. Some elderships will occasionally send a pittance into the mission field to assuage their consciences, while, at the same time, diverting huge sums that should be going to save the lost into gratifying their own member’s desires to exercise and “shoot” basketballs! How can any say, in view of the fact that thousands around this world every day are going into eternity without ever hearing the saving Gospel of Christ, that we first need a gymnasium? How will one stand before God in Judgment and explain the need for such facilities when those for whom God, through love, sent His Son to die are lost eternally because of misused funds given to Christians through His blessings? God forbid that we should take the blessings that He has given us and use them for our own purposes to the exclusion of the Great Commission and those precious souls who, more than anything, need to hear the saving Gospel of our Lord!
Question 32: If I cannot trace the beginning of my church all the way back to Pentecost, how can I know it is the true church?
ANSWER:You can’t trace your church all the way back to Pentecost, because Christ only established “one” church; His church; the church of the Bible; the church of Christ (Matthew 16:18; I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 4:4). As prophecied, that church was to be established in Jerusalem in the days of the Roman Empire (Isaiah 2:1-5; Daniel 2:44). Any group that does not answer to this prophecy cannot be the church that Christ died to bring into existence. The “tracing” of a religious group’s origins has to do with its “name,” organizational structure, its patterns of worship and service, and its doctrine. A congregation of people meeting today for the first time, in any city, with strict adherence to these matters may be said to have their source (origin, roots) in Jerusalem in the days of the Roman Empire, not that they are a new or different church, but because they, being identical in all respects, help make up the church that Christ died for and established on that day!
When a person, for example, says, “My church (the Baptist Church), was established by John Smythe in Holland, Europe, in the year 1607,” and that church does not adhere to a biblical name/description; does not adhere to the biblical organization of the church of Christ; does not worship and serve according to the New Testament; and practices a doctrine that is different from what the Bible teaches, then we can know that its roots do not go back to first century Jerusalem; that its roots only go back to Holland, Europe in 1607 to a man by the name of John Smythe!
If a congregation of people had begun meeting in Holland, Europe in 1607, having been brought together by a John Smythe, and described itself as a congregation of the “church of Christ,” and its patterns of worship, service, organization, and doctrine adhered to the New Testament principles that undergird the church of the Bible, it could then be said to have its beginning in Jerusalem of the first century, though this particular group began congregating in a different place at a different time. However, we know that this particular group (Baptist) has a non-authorized name/description; its organization is foreign to the Bible; its worship service is unlike the early church, and its doctrines are contradictory to truth. Therefore, we can know that its beginning was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and cannot, therefore, be the church that Christ built and for which He died!
Question 33: Do you believe one congregation can support another in an evangelistic effort without violating church/congregational autonomy?
ANSWER:Yes! I believe that one congregation is authorized to help another congregation on the basis of Acts 11:27-30. Relief was sent by the hand of Barnabas and Saul to the elders who were in Judea. This passage coupled with II Corinthians 8:1-5 and Romans 15:26-28 provides clear evidence of church cooperation as relates to physical needs. This should be enough to prove the matter, relative to any need. Nonetheless, we see in Acts 15:22-33 one church sending men, along with a prepared document, to render a spiritual service to another church. Can an eldership today cooperate with another eldership by sending prepared documents that they have financed to that other eldership? Obviously yes! Would you think that all right, but believe that they couldn’t send the finances for the other eldership to prepare the document? There seems to be no doubt it’s proper to send literature, which relieves that congregation of the financial obligation of buying the material. We have that example! Obviously then if the written material is not sent, but money instead is sent, and the other congregation in that way is relieved of the financial obligation that also adheres to the example! Does not cooperation exist in either circumstance relative to evangelization, if the written material sent deals with spiritual matters? In II Corinthians 11:8, other churches sent wages to Paul while he was at Corinth. Were they sent directly or through the local eldership? Neither of us knows. The result, though, was that Paul was supported through church cooperation in the proclamation of the Gospel, whether it was sent to Paul’s Post Office Box in Corinth or to the elders’ Post office Box in Corinth, who then handed it to Paul! It is also clear that no matter the route taken by the support that was given, it did not violate church autonomy, and, indeed, violated no other scripture!
This issue has been argued for years and, as a result, much time as been wasted in spreading the Gospel by those that are looking for a matter to discuss or a nit to pick. I have listened to all of the old worn arguments against cooperation for years and, frankly, tire of hearing them. I trust you are not similarly looking for a never-ending discussion, but that you are truly searching for the truth.
Question 34: Why are there many denominations in the Church of Christ?
ANSWER:There are no denominations/divisions in the body of Christ (John 17:21-23; I Corinthians 1:10). When a group of men deviate from the teachings of God’s Word, though they may refer to themselves as the Church of Christ, they are no longer recognized by God as a congregation of the Lord’s church. For example: A group of Christians may decide in error to start using musical instruments in worship to God. They may call themselves a congregation of “The Church of Christ,” but in their error they have removed themselves, through their sin, from the Church of Christ as it is defined in God’s Word. Again, it is not wrong to use one cup during the Lord’s Supper, since the Bible doesn’t specify how many to use. However, when a group decides in error that the Bible teaches us to use only one cup when partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and that those who don’t do so are in sin, in their attempt to bind their opinion on others, they sin. The Church of Christ we read about in the Bible was not bound by this error, neither are we today. Therefore, a congregation that does such does not represent Christ’s church! It becomes a denomination separate and apart from the Church of Christ, though it may refer to itself as the Church of Christ.
Question 35: As a member of the Baptist Church, I was taught that the church started on the shores of Galilee when Jesus told Peter and the others, “come unto me and I will make you fishers of men.” You teach that it was on Pentecost Day. Would you please explain?
ANSWER:The position that the church started on the shore of Galilee is invalid for many reasons. Note, first of all, that the subject statement by our Lord was made very early in His earthly ministry (Matthew 4:19). Sometime later in Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “I will build my church.” Clearly, we can see that the action He promised to take was yet future. Obviously then, it had not already been built! Often the Baptist Church will teach that it had its beginning with John the Baptist and that John was a member of the church. Neither can this be the case, because John had been beheaded and had been buried before Jesus said, “I will (future) build my church!”
Note also in Matthew 16:18 & 19 that the “church” and the “kingdom” are one and the same, i.e., He was going to build something (the church) and He was going to give Peter the keys to that which He was going to build (kingdom/church)! In Mark 9:1, it is obvious that the kingdom/church had not yet come. We also see that when it did come, it would come “with power.” When the kingdom/church came, the power would come and when the power came, the kingdom/church would come. One would not come without the other! After Jesus had been resurrected, He told the eleven (Luke 24:47-50) that, repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name (the Gospel – Mark 16:15-16) “beginning in Jerusalem.” Then He told them to go and wait in the city of Jerusalem “until ye be endued with power from on high.” The “power” that was to accompany the coming of the kingdom/church (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:3) had not yet come when Jesus spoke these words shortly before His ascension to be enthroned and to receive that kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14). Clearly, Christ did not have a kingdom until He received the kingdom. Just as clearly, none could have been a citizen of the kingdom that belonged to Christ until Christ received the kingdom! Further, if the “power” had not yet come from Christ as promised, then we can know that the kingdom/church had not yet been established. In Acts 1, we find the disciples in Jerusalem waiting for that “power” to come. In Acts 2, we find the “power” coming. On that day, when the “power” came, we find people being added to the kingdom/church for the first time (Acts 2:47), the kingdom given to Christ following His ascension. Thus, on that day, the promises of Jesus regarding the establishment of His church/kingdom were fulfilled. It was on that day that Peter first used the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” the church (Matthew 16:19). In this first Gospel sermon, Peter explained what one would have to do in order to “enter” that kingdom/church, thus using the “keys” to open her doors for the first time. When people did exactly what Peter told them to do, their sins were forgiven (Acts 2:38, 40, & 41) and they were admitted entrance into the church (Acts 2:47). What Peter told them to do has been bound in heaven (Matthew 16:19)! It is, therefore, the only way one can gain entry into the church, even today! Prior to this day, references to the church in the Bible looked forward. Subsequent to this, references to the church/kingdom looked backward.
There can be no doubt that the birthday of the church was on the first Pentecost Day after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ!
Question 36: What do you think of change agents in the church? Should we withdraw fellowship from them in love?
ANSWER:Change agents in the Churches of Christ (and the things that you mention that they want to bring into the church) are sinful and divisive. There is no authority in God’s Word for any of these! Not only, they, but weak-willed elders, not willing to stand for the truth who allow these things to happen, will be called to account on Judgment Day. Christians who support such by their contributions and presence play a part in their ungodliness and will also be called to account! We are not permitted to bid God speed to those who bring other than the doctrine of Christ, lest we be partakers of their evil deeds (II John 9-11), nor can we have any degree of fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11)! After all attempts to correct such errors by teaching the truth in love, the faithful child of God will honor his Master’s will by obedience to the above passages!
Question 37: Can the church fellowship other churches that use choirs?
ANSWER:No, it cannot! Choirs are not authorized in the New Testament and are, therefore, not of the doctrine of Christ! II John 9-11 states that if we fellowship those who bring other than His doctrine we are partakers of their evil deeds! Additionally the use of choirs, being sinful, is an unfruitful work of darkness, with which we are to have “no” fellowship (Ephesians 5:11)!
Question 38: Is it right for those in one congregation to correct others of another congregation?
ANSWER:Yes! The principle found in James 5:19-20 is applicable to “any of you,” a phrase not restricted only to those within the local congregation.
Question 39: What should you do if you find a deacon of another congregation drinking alcoholic beverages publicly?
ANSWER:Go privately to him at the first, following the direction and steps found in Matthew 18:15-17. This man, if he would be saved, clearly needs to repent and confess his sins publicly before the congregation of which he is a member and certainly we have a responsibility to respond to any brother so affected (James 5:19-20). The brother sinned publicly and he needs to repent and confess in the same manner! If he refuses to do so after the visit with witnesses, then the church where he attends must be informed. If he will not confess and repent with the urging of the church, then fellowship should be taken from him in accordance with I Corinthians 5:1-13 and II Thessalonians 3:6-15.
Question 40: Should we insist that a person stand before the congregation and confess when their sins are known by the entire congregation, even that of forsaking the assembly?
ANSWER:One’s confession and repentance should be as public as the sin committed. However, reason should be used as to “how” it is to be done, which should be a matter for the elders to decide. They may decide that one should come before the congregation or, perhaps that one may speak from their seat, or from a standing position at their seat. In cases of bed-ridden illnesses, one may repent and confess his or her sins to another person who then will cause a public statement to be made. The important thing is that a person repents and confesses and that action is known just as publicly as was the sin!
Question 41: Is it scriptural for the church to loan money to its members?
ANSWER:The church is not in the “banking business!” Money is collected each Lord’s Day for the express purpose of furthering the cause of Christ through proclamation of His Gospel and to aid those who can’t help themselves. When the elders decide that aid should be given to one in need, they have no authority to demand repayment! If a person subsequent to receiving aid responds by contributing on the first day of the week as he has been prospered, the matter is private and should not be for the purposes of repaying a “loan.” Obviously, to use the church’s finances so that the members may make personal purchases is to misuse the Lord’s money. Those who need to make loans should be encouraged to go to lending establishments!
Question 42: I agree with you that the church should not be in the business of loaning money. However, some suggest that the making of loans by the church to its members is authorized by Matthew 5:42ff and Luke 6:34. Is this the proper interpretation of these verses?
ANSWER:No! As stated previously, the church is not in the “banking business!” Money is collected each Lord’s Day for the express purpose of furthering the cause of Christ through proclamation of His Gospel and to aid those who can’t help themselves. Obviously, to use the church’s finances so that the members may make personal purchases is to misuse the Lord’s money. Those who desire to make loans should be, as previously stated, encouraged to go to lending establishments! Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:34 do not deal with the loaning of money by the church out of her treasury. Without doubt, these passages deal solely with matters between individuals!
Question 43: Is it right to dismiss some from the main assembly to partake of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening in a different room?
ANSWER: I certainly would not make such practices by another congregation a “test of fellowship.” However, personally, I can find no biblical authority for dividing one group into two groups with each engaging in their own particular acts of worship simultaneously. The biblical authority that I see is that the church is to gather "together" in “one place” for collective and congregational worship to God (I Corinthians 14:23; I Corinthians 14:26; I Corinthians 5:4; Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 11:18-20.) It is worthy of note that these passages were written to "the" church and that the key word in each verse is "together." When the congregation is divided it can not be a church that is "together," no matter the rationalization to the contrary. Some would say that those who are separated from the main body of the congregation to partake of the Lord's Supper are able to do so more effectively in a quieter, isolated part of the building. To me that is pure assumption and rationalization! I was fortunate to attend a congregation for many, many years (and attend one now) where the main body of the congregation waits in respectful quietness while those they love complete their worship responsibilities to God. More often the real reason for the division appears to be that it shortens the service which gladdens the impatient hearts of many! As an aside, it also seems that the same hearts are gladdened when the song leader omits most of the verses of a song (especially toward the closing of the service) and the preacher is directed to shorten his message to fit a "more appropriate time frame."
It is sad indeed to see the main body of the congregation often rush out without even noticing those who have been ushered elsewhere to commune in private! I see a significant conflict in this arrangement in light of I Corinthians 11:33, "Wherefore, my brethren when ye come together to eat, 'tarry' one for another.” I see little "tarrying" taking place when some are directed to leave and complete their worship somewhere else outside of the common assembly! The word "tarry" is from 'ekdechomai' that Strong's Concordance defines as, "to await, expect, look (tarry) for, wait for." I should think that Mr. Strong, if he were alive today, would see little, if any, 'tarrying" one for another in the split assembly arrangement under discussion. As for me, I see none!