WHAT IS A "CHURCH OF CHRIST" POSITION?

Neal Pollard

Sometimes a new or weak Christian, still learning, says, "The church of Christ believes that..." Such a statement is dangerous if the person making the statement has the concept that the beliefs and teaching of the church of Christ are merely part of a man-conceived system peculiar to the group of which he now is a part. Proper teaching should change that mind set through the course of time. Perhaps, positively, one who speaks of a "church of Christ position" speaks of the distinctiveness of the Lord’s church on a Bible matter as contrasted to how the world and denominations stand on such.

It is disturbing to think, however, that some within the body of Christ who speak of a "church of Christ position" speak disparagingly of some of the doctrinal stands gospel preachers and godly elders take on issues like modest apparel, mechanical instruments in the singing portion of worship, woman’s role in the worship and leadership of the church, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, along with a host of other moral and doctrinal "positions." There are several unfortunate implications stemming from a statement like the one under consideration.

Is it implied that one view is as good as another? One viewpoint on a matter of judgment may be as good as another, but the examples given above do not fall within the realm of judgment. For example, it is not scriptural to teach that immodesty is acceptable to God. It is dangerous to limit a biblical matter to a "church of Christ position" as if it were a single stance among several other, equally acceptable positions. The net result of such tolerance is the religious confusion that exists today. No rational person would say, "It is his position that an untreated rattlesnake bite will kill the one bitten." It probably is "his" position, but what other position would one take? In the same way, when the "church of Christ preacher" preaches "one husband, one wife, for life, except for spousal fornication and death," that is clearly "his" position as he derives it from Bible study. However, what other position could one hold and still please the Lord? And, it is the same with every matter of faith within the Bible.

Is it implied that the Bible and belief therein is purely subjective? In a cultural climate that is openly tolerant of diverse views and expressions, some religious people may feel the pressure to be as tolerant with every religious view and conclusion. Yet, it is important to see that the Bible is an objective standard rather than a subjective suggestion. Such attempts to dilute the pattern of Scriptures opens the door for any "position" to be valid. If there is no set right or wrong on a matter, is everything right? The Bible teaches that there is a "form of doctrine" to be obeyed (Rom. 6:17). "Truth" sanctifies (Jn.17:17), but if there are a hundred truths, which one should be believed? The Bible commands that one "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13). God and Christ expect religious unity (cf.Jn.17), and one can be confident that they have made it possible for such unity to exist.

Is it implied that erroneous views will not be condemned? If the church of Christ holds the "position" that baptism is essential for salvation, and the Baptist believes that faith apart from baptism saves, will both be saved? Can it be said that those who believe, teach, obey, and thereafter live according to error will be lost? Of course, no one desires to be offensive in teaching the Bible, and one should never be unnecessarily offensive. However, moral courage must cause Christian teachers to identify sin and its wages (Rom. 6:23). The Bible teaches that many will be condemned (Matt. 7:13-14). Those who stand condemned are those who are disobedient and who walk contrary to the will of God (cf. Matt. 7:21-24; Heb. 5:8-8; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17; etc.). Certainly Christ will be the Judge before whom every individual stands (Matt. 25:31-34). But, as certainly, He will judge justly- according to the written Word of God and the book of one’s life. If He will save those who lived contrary to His will, who will be lost on that day? Will anyone be lost?

One should never accept anything simply because a "church of Christ" preacher, teacher, elder, or other member says it! The standard of right will always be the Bible. Whatever is done religiously must be according to the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). May one never dismiss Bible teaching by crediting the stand as only a "church of Christ position." May our every position, as God’s people, be what God teaches. Let us stand boldly there (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-12)! Then, the position one holds can confidently be shared with the saints and the lost.

Taught Wrong and Baptized Right?

Wayne Jones

Under the banners of acceptance and "unity," many in the Lord’s church have developed an open door policy with members of the denominational world. Many, by their own admission, have chosen not to "question" a person’s claim to salvation or even method of salvation when they leave a denomination to become a member of the Lord’s church. Some have even adopted this idea when it comes to denominational baptism. How can this be? Is it possible to be instructed under a false system and to be baptized for the wrong reasons and still be saved as a result? Can a person be taught incorrectly and baptized correctly?

While all of us might be quick with a response that is based on opinion and supposition, we should be careful in answering this question. Our caution in answering will allow us to consider what the Bible has to say on the matter. Does the Bible teach that a person can be taught wrong and baptized right?

First, it must be understood that baptism is not the only step in God’s plan to save man. Man’s response to God’s grace must begin in the mind. Man must realize that he is lost in sin, just like those on Pentecost realized their condition (Acts 2:37). Once a person realizes his spiritual condition, he must also understand that Christ (the only begotten Son of God) is the only source for relief of the burden of sin (Acts 4:12).

Consider for a moment the account of Philip and the eunuch as recorded in Acts 8:26-39. When the eunuch realized that he was lost, he inquired about baptism (8:36). Phillip responded by saying, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (8:37). If baptism was the only step in the eunuch’s salvation, there would be no need for verse 37. However, Philip understood that unless the eunuch understood some things and was convicted of some things, then baptism would only get him wet.

The same is true in the case of the Jews in Acts 2. When those present asked the apostles what they needed to do in order to have the sin removed from their record, Peter’s response was two-fold. According to Acts 2:38, Peter told them to repent and be baptized. While baptism is an action that can be seen on the outside, repentance is a step in God’s plan for salvation that is primarily mental. When a person repents, he changes his mind based on what he knows about God, His Word, and His plan for man’s salvation. Peter realized that unless these men and women were willing to make a mental decision to turn from Judaism, then being immersed in water would do them no good.

Peter and Philip realized that baptism was not the only step in God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. In fact, both of these men realized that baptism would only benefit those who were thinking correctly. It is for this reason that both Peter and Philip took the time to verbally teach their audiences the Word of God. It is the Word that produces faith (Rom. 10:17) and is an understanding of that Word that leads us to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10).

Perhaps the clearest example of this is found in Acts 19. As this chapter opens, Paul comes to Ephesus and realizes that some of the Ephesians had been baptized by Apollos after hearing his teaching. According to the later portion of chapter 18, Apollos was teaching the baptism of John after the cross of Christ. John (the baptizer) taught repentance and baptism because Christ was going to die and establish His kingdom. However, after the cross the apostles were teaching repentance and baptism because Christ had already died and established His kingdom. Apparently, those in Ephesus had been taught John’s baptism on the wrong side of the cross. They were sincere and at one time the doctrine that they were taught was correct. However, at the time it was taught to them it was outdated. Paul realized this when those in Ephesus had not even heard of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (19:2) which took place on Pentecost. Did Paul say, "Well, as long as your are comfortable with it, I won’t question your baptism"? No, that was not Paul’s attitude at all. In fact, notice what Acts 19:4-5 reveals that Paul did. He taught them the truth and the men were baptized with the correct thinking. Could those in Ephesus be taught wrong, but baptized right? Apparently, the answer is no.

Has the doctrine of God changed since Acts 19? Has God’s plan to save man been divinely altered since the days of Acts 2, 8 or 19? No, dear friends, it has not. God still demands that for baptism to be scriptural and effective, the one who is being baptized must understand why he is being baptized. Incorrect thinking and understanding will lead to an incorrect baptism. May we never provide false hope to someone under the banners of acceptance and "unity."

Back to top.