Printed version of Church of Christ dilemma 

To print press 'CTRL P'. Content updated 31 July 2022. Copyright © 2001. Registration No. TXU995-900. All rights reserved. No permission necessary to copy or print material for personal non-profit use.

* * * *

Church of Christ dilemma

Answering the New Testament pattern controversy by sharing the doctrine of justification by faith alone

“Any time you have a (salvation) theology based upon God and man, you can never be absolutely sure of your salvation. Why? Because if my salvation depends upon both God and me- I might mess up.”

John MacArthur- “Saved beyond a Doubt”

Introduction:

Churches of Christ often begin their study of the gospel by closely examining the conversions listed in the historical narrative of the book of Acts.

Acts 2:38 sound familiar?

Here the assumption is made that if a person will simply read the book of Acts and be careful to perform all of the same moral and religious commands that the first century believers did at salvation, that through our own obedience we can be saved as well.

These commands include hearing, believing, repenting from sin, confessing the name of Christ and being baptized in water, and then (once in a saved condition) that we can keep ourselves saved by being faithful and continuing to live a moral and religious good life.

In Church of Christ language, this is sometimes called 'following the gospel', 'meeting God's conditions of pardon', 'following the New Testament pattern', or the '5 step plan of salvation', and is a theology teaching 'salvation by New Testament law-keeping'.

Unfortunately beginning any study with a false presupposition, pretext, or false doctrinal bias can (and often does) prevent someone from ever understanding how we are saved by placing faith in Jesus Christ alone, and can lead a person into a salvation theology of works.

Here Church of Christ dilemma seeks to explain from the Scripture the often misunderstood doctrine of justification by faith alone to those in the Churches of Christ, and provide answers to many of the objections they have regarding this doctrine.

Galatians 2:15-16

“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

Church of Christ doctrinal dilemma- Part 1

Chapter One: What was the 5th century Pelagian Controversy? How was the doctrine similar to what is taught in the Churches of Christ today?

Chapter Two: How does the Church of Christ view of the gospel compare with that of evangelical Christianity?

Chapter Three: What is the doctrine of Justification by faith alone? How is it misunderstood by the Churches of Christ?

Chapter Four: What about James chapter 2 and faith without works is dead?

Chapter Five: What about baptism? Does a person need to be baptized in order to be saved?

Chapter Six: Why are worship methodology issues such as non-instrumental music so important to those in the Churches of Christ?

Chapter Seven: Are Church of Christ beliefs outside that of evangelical Christianity?

Chapter Eight: Is the Church of Christ a good biblical church? Do all the Churches of Christ have a ‘faith plus works’ salvation theology?

Chapter Nine: Provide some examples that help illustrate the doctrinal differences between the Churches of Christ and evangelical Christianity

Chapter Ten: Is there any practical information that might be helpful to know when sharing with those in the Churches of Christ?

During the early part of the 5th century there was a religious controversy which occurred that placed at odds a very earnest, moral, and zealous monk by the name of Pelagius, against the Bishop of Hippo we may know today as St. Augustine. This controversy became known at the Pelagian Controversy and came to a crisis point at the council of Carthage in 418 AD.

Now to understand this controversy, we need to know something about the background of Pelagius.

Pelagius was born on the British Isles. And sometime later in life when he traveled to Rome, he became alarmed about the godlessness he saw in the clergy and other professing Christians. It was while in Rome that Pelagius had the reputation for the calling of Christians 'to the attaining of virtue and righteousness.'

In this way he and his followers had much in common with the Puritans in that they loved the law and the precepts of God, and were also very concerned about the moral laxity they saw in their own day.

The crisis point came, however, when Pelagius read a famous prayer written by St. Augustine, and in this prayer there was a statement that troubled him greatly. The statement was, “Oh God, grant unto us what thou dost command...".

It was this very statement in that prayer which set into motion the controversy that was to ensue.

The question on Pelagius’ mind was, why would anyone need to pray such a prayer? For what Augustine was asking for was that God grant unto them the moral and religious power and ability to do the very things that He had commanded.

For Augustine believed that, unless God grants the necessary grace, man by himself is inherently unable to live in perfect obedience to God, and that in our fallen humanity we lack the moral power and ability to do the things that God commands.

This teaching deeply concerned Pelagius.

How can it be that a Just and Holy God could render a law or a command that in our own humanity we do not have the moral power and ability to obey? For God to be just and at the same time issue a law or command that we cannot possibly obey…(and then punish us?)…would not only be unthinkable but also monstrous.

It was here that Pelagius rejected the teaching that man requires any kind of grace, or divine assistance outside of himself in order to live in perfect obedience to the laws and commands of God.

No, Pelagius argued, God saves us by providing us with His laws and commands, by giving us the excellent moral examples of Christ and the saints, and by the cleansing waters of baptism.

For according to Pelagius, salvation can and is received by our own cooperation and obedience to the commands and laws of God as found within the pages of the New Testament.

St. Augustine’s Response

Augustine’s response, however, was that Pelagius’ doctrine was a spiritual impossibility. In light of Adam’s fall and what that meant to all of humanity, the idea that man can somehow decide to live and be saved by being obedient to all of the commands and laws of God is simply an ability we do not have.

Adam had it, but when he sinned he lost it, not only for himself but also for all of his descendants as well.

It would be like an illustration of a long column of paper cups where, should a pin or needle be run completely through, not only would the integrity of the first cup be compromised, but also the character of all the succeeding cups would be ruined as well.

So it is with all of humanity, because of Adam’s sin, we have a flawed character, or a fallen, sinful, nature.

And because of this sinful nature, we have a predisposition that makes us inclined to sin and thus makes it impossible for us to be saved through our own moral and religious "law-keeping."

This is why we are in such great need of a Savior.

An Argument for Augustine

In Romans Chapter 5:10-21, the Apostle Paul contrasts how that through Adam we were made sinners but through Jesus Christ we can be made righteous. In verse 19 he says, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many were (past tense) made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man (Jesus Christ) the many will be (future tense) made righteous.”

Paul continues this thought in the context Romans Chapter 7 and says, ‘I agree that God’s law is good. But I see another law (the sinful nature) at work within the members of my body. For the very things I want to do, I do not do. And the things I do not want to do are the very things that I do. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of sin and death?’

Historically Christianity has said, ‘We did not become sinners because we sinned. Rather, we sin because we are sinners.' In other words, we sin and fall short of God’s holiness and righteous standard because that is what sinners do.

And this is why in our fallen humanity we need of the grace and mercy of God.

Comparing Church of Christ theology

For anyone familiar with the Stone/ Campbell Churches of Christ, it is their view of the fall that makes them very similar to that of Pelagian theology.

This is due to the fact that they also believe or assume that man is basically “good” or morally neutral, and that man has the moral power within himself to save himself through his own cooperation and obedience to the necessary moral and religious requirements of God.

In other words, they deny (or minimize) the effects of the fall, and do not believe that Adam’s sin adversely affected man’s moral and religious abilities to follow commands and laws in order to be saved. Thus, it is the Church of Christ view of the fall (that the effects of the fall were negligible) that is the enabler of their theology of salvation by works.

By contrast, evangelical Christianity begins with the view that man is fallen, that his heart is inclined towards evil, and that he has an inherit inability through 'New Testament law-keeping' to be righteous in the sight of God, and in this way save his own soul.

So what is this 'gift of righteousness' that God provides to believers? What does it mean to trust in Christ for the very righteousness we need?

Other Bible references to the effects of the fall and how it adversely affected humanity:

Genesis 3; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9

Romans 3:11-20; 5:10-21; 7:14-25; 8:3-4

Ephesians 2:1-10

Chapter Two: How does the Church of Christ understanding of the gospel compare with that of evangelical Christianity?

Ask a member of the Church of Christ what the doctrine of justification by faith alone is, and they will most likely tell you 'It is a doctrine teaching that a person can be saved simply by believing the basic facts or truths of the Christian faith.' These facts may include believing in God, believing that the Bible is the Word of God, and believing the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again.

But here the Church of Christ member will often justify their rejection of this doctrine by saying, 'But even the demons believe and of course this doesn't do them any good whatsoever.'

Here it's important to know that those who believe we are saved by personal faith in Christ do not believe salvation is merely by believing facts of the Christian faith, or by simply believing in some general way that Jesus Christ lived, died on the cross, and that He rose again.

Rather, we are believing God's promise that Jesus Christ saves us.

That is, as Abraham "believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness," so we too are also believing God's promise that on the cross, Jesus took upon Himself and received in His body ALL of God's wrath, anger, and righteous indignation for OUR sin, that God punished Jesus (our substitute) so that He would NOT have to punish us, and raised Him from the dead.

Please note, if God has spent all of His anger and wrath for OUR SIN out on Jesus Christ, He is no longer angry at us. As Jesus said in John 5:24, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." John 5:24

However, there is another important point that those in Church of Christ often fail to understand- that Jesus Christ lived holy for us as well. That Jesus lived holy FOR US so that the basis of us going to heaven is based on His perfect life, and not our own.

The Word of God tells us that ‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law,’ (Galatians 4:3) and that Jesus became FOR us “our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” 1 Cor. 1:30

Question: So where is Justification by faith taught in the New Testament?

There are over 150 places in the New Testament that tell us salvation is by believing, that it is by trusting, that it is by placing our faith upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Romans 1:16 Paul writes “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, For it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” He continues on to say, "For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed- a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "the righteous will live by faith."

People often assume that the righteousness Paul is speaking about here is God's own personal righteousness. And they aware that they are not righteous and that God is righteous, and they cannot understand how there can be much good news in a gospel that reveals God's righteousness and holiness to a people who are not righteous.

But when Paul speaks about 'the righteousness of God that is revealed' in this passage, he is not speaking about the same righteousness by which God Himself is righteous. But rather he is speaking about a righteousness that God provides and gives freely to all and upon all who will believe in Jesus.

This righteousness is not a righteousness that arises out of ourselves by our own moral or religious conduct or obedience to the commands given to us in the New Testament. Rather it is the gift of righteousness that God gives to all and upon all who will believe and place faith in Jesus Christ.

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." Romans 3:21-22.

The bottom line is that people are to believe upon Jesus Christ, to trust in Him as their Savior. As Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”

It is that simple.

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” John 1:12

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

“Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears my Word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5:24

“I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” Rom. 1:16

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God not by works lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified." Gal. 2:15, 16

These are just a few of the verses, over 150 places in the New Testament in all, where the Bible says those who place faith in Jesus Christ HAVE eternal life.

Other References to Consider:

Romans 1:16-17, 3:21-31, 4:1-25, 5:1-2, 9:30-33, 10:1-21, 11:1-23; Galatians 2:11-21, 3:1-29, 5:1-6; Ephesians 1:1-21, 2:1-10; Philippians 3:1-11

Many times Church of Christ members will not even consider the doctrine of justification by faith simply because they are convinced it is in direct conflict with James chapter 2.

Here the passage is interpreted to mean that both faith and works are required for salvation, rather than understanding the good works shown and demonstrated in the life of the believer are simply the practical result of a true and genuine faith.

In other words, the point made by James but missed by the Churches of Christ is that if there are not good works shown or demonstrated in your life, you had better go back and check your faith.

Here it cannot be emphasized enough that when interpreting James 2 that the Churches of Christ read a number of assumptions into the passage.

These assumptions include:

a) Justification by faith alone is a false doctrine.

b) It was an error thought even in the first century.

c) That James was speaking out against it even then.

What the Churches of Christ fail to consider is that salvation by faith alone was taught in the early church.

But unfortunately there were some who were confusing salvation by faith alone with salvation by mere intellectual assent alone, and some were deceiving themselves thinking they were saved simply because of a superficial profession of faith and a casual acceptance of the Truths of the Christian faith.

In light of this we can certainly understand why James would see a need to challenge those who believed they were saved by mere intellectual assent.

Starting in vrs 14 he writes:

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

So what is shown itself to be dead?

Your faith, not accompanied by action, is revealing and demonstrating itself to be dead since good works are not being shown in your life.

Understanding the word "Justify"

But undoubtedly the most frequent objection raised by the Churches of Christ regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone is James' use of the word justify- "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

Since the view of justify is understood by the Churches of Christ as "to make righteous," how then can anyone possibly suggest that we are made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ alone when James clearly says that Abraham was 'made righteous' by what he did?

Here the Churches of Christ ought to reconsider their understanding of the word justify.

For rather than to mean to make righteous, justify is a legal term which means "to show or to declare as righteous."

For example, when an officer of the law uses deadly force in the line of duty, an investigation is made to determine whether or not the use of deadly force was justified.

If it is determined that the actions were justified, this certainly does not it mean the officer was 'made righteous' by using deadly force. Rather it means that after viewing the evidence, the tribunal (those who were tasked to investigate the incident) determined and declared that the officer's actions were right and appropriate.

Now such a definition may seem to be of little consequence. But consider the ramifications.

In Luke 7:29 the Word tells us that "the tax collectors justified God."

Clearly this cannot mean that the tax collectors made God righteous, because God already was, and they certainly were unable to add anything to God's righteousness and holiness. However in the context of the passage the tax collectors did 'show, deem, or declare' God as righteous by being baptized by John.

In this way James 2:21 should be understood as “Was not Abraham our father 'shown or declared as righteous' by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?"

After all, Abraham did not actually sacrifice his son Issac upon the altar.

How then could he have been “made righteous” by works that he never did?

Summary

What separates the Churches of Christ from evangelical Christianity is not the presence of works in the life of the believer, but the proper role of works in the life of the believer.

Are works a necessary precondition for salvation, or are they merely a fruit, result, or byproduct of the believer's own regeneration and salvation?

R.C. Sproul in his book Faith Alone uses two formulas shown here to distinguish between the evangelical and Roman Catholic understanding of works, which is very similar to that of the Churches of Christ.

Here the terms faith, works, and justification are present in both formulas. However, the order of these terms shows the radical difference between these two opposing views:

Roman Catholic view: Faith + Works —(results in)—> Justification

The Evangelical view: Faith —(results in)—> Justification + Works

In the Roman Catholic formula, works are a necessary precondition for justification. In the evangelical view, good works are merely the fruit or result of justification.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

In light of the Scripture, we maintain that salvation is a gift of God, brought to us by Christ, and received by faith. Good works are merely the practical result of a born again life and the result of a true and genuine faith

One objection that will certainly need to be addressed when discussing the doctrine of justification by faith with those in the Churches of Christ is the subject of water baptism.

For if the Word of God does teach that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone and our obedience to the commands of God are only the result of our salvation and divine grace (which they contest), how is it then that baptism saves us?

And to be sure, evangelical Christianity does believe we are identified and baptized into Christ when we are saved. However, let us be clear that what we are talking about is true, actual, or Holy Spirit Baptism, rather than rite, ritual or “water” baptism, which is the believer’s outward sign or symbol of that event.

This will be discussed in greater detail in a moment. However, may I first say that much can be written comparing the different views of water baptism held by the Churches of Christ and those beliefs held by evangelical Christianity.

Here those in the Churches of Christ are convinced that the only way an individual can ever receive the forgiveness of sins is through obedience to the command of water baptism. And the salvation of the believer who has done everything as written in the New Testament except have their sins 'washed away' through water baptism is uncertain at best.

However, water baptism is viewed by evangelical Christianity in the same light as Communion and the Lord’s Supper in that it is an ordnance practiced by those who are already saved.

Therefore to say that we have been saved through baptism, is referring to regeneration or the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs the moment the individual places their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

As Titus 3:5 says, we were saved “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

Perhaps then the best way to explain baptism is that 'water' baptism is the outward sign or symbol of the believer’s true or actual baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Those in the Church of Christ think of baptism as being first and only with water, as though the definition of baptism (to dip, plunge, or immerse) implies being dipped, plunged or immersed in the medium of water.

Yet in all four gospels and twice in the book of Acts the Word of God tells us that while John baptized with water, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ (See Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 11:16)

Now viewing baptism in its proper context we can now begin to understand the passages often misused by the Churches of Christ to defend their gospel of 'water' baptism for salvation.

1 Peter 3:21

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preach to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype (the superior, true, or actual) which now saves us- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

Scripture often refers to the Holy Spirit as “the living water” that God provides, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. For example in John 4 Jesus said, “Everyone who drinks this water (h2o) will be thirsty again, but those who drink the water I give them (the Holy Spirit) will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Also in John 7 Jesus said, ”Let anyone who is thirsty come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this He meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive.”

Thus, it seems apparent “this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you” is talking about the anti-type “water” baptism- that is, the superior, real, or actual baptism of the Holy Spirit baptism that now saves you.

May I also point out that if the writer were simply referring to h2o baptism here, then the wrong people in this passage were “water” baptized. For just as the example of Pharaoh and his army in 1 Cor. 10:1-4, the only ones who had h2o baptism applied to them were those who perished in the flood!

So while it is true that water baptism points us to the spiritual reality of the believer’s Holy Spirit baptism, we dare not be trusting in it (the type or the symbol) to save us. For just as there are those within the body of the church who administer the rite of water baptism to new believers (Matt. 28:18-19), it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that actually places us into the body of Christ:

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13

Other Related Scriptures

Isaiah 44:3, Ezekiel 36:24-27, Joel 2:28-29

Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 1:13-14, Col. 2:11-14, Titus 3:45

Although both the Church of Christ and evangelical Christianity often use the same Christian words and phrases, it usually does not take long before each begins to notice some significant differences or emphasis in areas that one would think are well understood and accepted practices throughout Christianity today.

A perfect example, I believe, would be over the observance of Christmas or Easter, the use of instrumental music, or the observance of Communion and the Lord’s Supper.

For those within evangelical Christianity, one cannot help to be curious over why some in the Churches of Christ are sometimes so dogmatic, and tend to make such methodology and procedural issues so emphatically important.

And conversely, there are those within the Church of Christ who are just as perplexed over why some worship practices seem to be of little concern among other Christian movements and fellowships today.

To be rather candid, issues of worship sometimes become all important to those in the Church of Christ simply because of their view of justification.

If righteousness is provided to the believer only through their own obedience to the moral and religious requirements of the New Testament (i.e. sacramentalism), then it becomes imperative that the correct methodology and procedure be used in worship in order to be saved.

Therefore, by understanding that the Churches of Christ often take an Old Testament approach to salvation and apply it directly to the New Testament, we can certainly begin to understand their concern.

As Deuteronomy 6:25 says, “And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”

The GOOD NEWS message of the gospel, however, is that the very righteousness that God requires, He also provides. And rather than depending upon our own ability to meet all the necessary requirements of God, Jesus Christ lived holy for us so that the basis of going to heaven is based upon His perfect life and not our own.

As Romans 10:4 says “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

This is why evangelical Christianity believes that good works by Christian believers are merely the result of their faith and the working of divine grace in them, not their own personal contribution to their own salvation.

Jesus Christ is the only Savior; One does not save oneself.

For those determined to try and save themselves through what they do through their own cooperation and obedience to all the necessary moral and religious requirements of God, consider for a moment the righteousness that God provides on the basis of faith that the Apostle Paul talks about in Phil. 3:1-9:

“Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh— (i.e. those in the church who want to mix works with grace) For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If others think they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that (righteousness) which is through faith in Christ- The righteousness which is from God and is by faith.”

Chapter Seven: Are Church of Christ beliefs outside that of evangelical Christianity?

The Encyclopedia Americana (Year 2000 Edition) defines evangelicalism as "a distinctly Protestant movement that stresses the Reformation doctrine of salvation solely by faith in Jesus Christ. (See also Evangelical Alliance.)"

Here we may even wish to think of it as a unifying term used by the Protestants during the Reformation.

For although the Protestants could be divided over various theological positions, such as church doctrine, church government, methodology and procedural matters used in worship, they could nevertheless agree on two essential Christian doctrines.

These two central doctrines embraced by all of evangelical Christianity were the supreme authority of Holy Scripture in all doctrinal matters of the church, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Here under the term "evangelicalism" we can see the difference between Protestants and Catholics even today.

In the matter of Holy Scripture, although the Roman Catholic Church considers the New Testament authoritative, it also places equal authority in the Pope and the decisions of various church councils.

And in the matter of justification, although the Roman Catholic Church believes that belief and faith is essential to justification, they do not believe that justification of the believer is by faith alone.

Now lest I be misunderstood in this comparison of evangelical Christianity and the Stone/ Campbell Churches of Christ, I am not for a moment suggesting that the Church of Christ churches use any additional sources of authority beyond that of Holy Scripture.

However, it is well understood that the Church of Christ disagrees with evangelical Christianity's understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Thus, it is the doctrine of justification by faith alone that sets evangelical Christianity apart from the Stone/ Campbell Churches of Christ.

* * *

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” John 5:39-40.

Chapter Nine: Provide some examples that will help illustrate the doctrinal differences between the Churches of Christ and evangelical Christianity

I believe one of the best ways we can draw a contrast between the Church of Christ and evangelical Christianity is to compare lyrics of each one’s beloved songs and hymns.

For although both views enjoy most of the same great Christian songs and hymns, the Church of Christ may be surprised to learn that some of their songs would actually be considered heretical in evangelical Christianity.

Now I realize that’s quite an accusation to make.

And may I say that I do not make it in a careless, reckless, or cavalier manner.

However to demonstrate what I mean, let’s take a moment to look at a few of the songs that are easily recognized in the Church of Christ, and then consider why they would not be accepted in evangelical Christianity.

A Beautiful Life

Each day I’ll do a golden deed,
By helping those who are in need;
My life on earth is but a span,
And so I’ll do the best I can.

Chorus: Life’s evening sun is sinking low,
A few more days and I must go.
To meet the deeds that I have done.
Where there will be no setting sun.

To be a child of God each day,
My light must shine a-long the way;
I’ll sing His praise while ages roll
And strive to help some troubled soul.

The only life that will endure,
Is the one that’s kind and good and pure;
And so for God I’ll take my stand,
Each day I’ll lend a helping hand.

(Traditional/ Public Domain)

At first glance we may not see anything wrong with this song, for certainly both the Church of Christ and evangelical Christianity believes that God has called us to live holy lives that honor Him, and that each of us will be called to give an account of our lives.

However, there is a radical difference.

While continuing to live a good life is a necessary condition for salvation in the Church of Christ, evangelical Christianity believes that a good life is merely the fruit or result of a person's salvation.

In other words, when we place faith in Jesus Christ, He saves us and our works have nothing to do with it. Thus for the believer, since their sin has already been judged at the cross, the judgment they will experience has nothing to do with salvation but rather is about eternal rewards. (See 1 Cor. 3:10-15)

But here we can see Pelagian or works theology being taught in that, if we can just live a “good enough” life, we can have a home forever in heaven. Yet no where does it ever mention that salvation is by the grace and mercy of God, brought to us by Jesus Christ and received by faith.

I’ll Be List’ning

When the Savior calls I will answer,
When He calls for me I will hear,
When the Savior calls I will answer,
I’ll be somewhere list’ning for my name.

Chorus: I’ll be somewhere list’ning
I’ll be somewhere list’ning,
I’ll be somewhere list’ning for my name.
(Repeat )

If my heart is right when He calls me,
If my heart is right I will hear,
If my heart is right when He calls me,
I’ll be somewhere list’ning for my name.

If my robe is white when He calls me,
If my robe is white I will hear,
If my robe is white when He calls me,
I’ll be somewhere list’ning for my name.

(Traditional/ Public Domain)

May I say if you understand this to mean that salvation is dependent upon you and your good heart and your good works....Well, Good Luck with all that.

The Bible tells us that except by the blood of Jesus Christ, our hearts and robes are anything but white.

Scripture reveals that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and DESPERATELY WICKED; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) "there is NOT a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins" (Ecc. 7:20), that "there is NO ONE righteous...NO ONE who does good...ALL have turned away" (Rom. 3:10-12), that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), that "ALL OUR righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6), and that "if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves." (1 John 1:8)

Which again is why we are in such GREAT NEED of a Savior!

Hard Fightin’ Soldier

I am a hard fightin’ soldier on the battle field (Repeat 3 times)
Chorus: I keep on bringin’ souls to Jesus, by the service that I give.

You’ve got to walk right and talk right and sing right and pray right
on the battlefield. (Repeat 3 times)

Chorus: I keep on bringing souls to Jesus by the service that I give.

I got a helmet on my head and in my hand a sword and Shield (Repeat)
Chorus: I keep on bringin’ souls to Jesus, by the service that I give.

(Traditional/ Public Domain)

Earlier we mentioned that the reason we must “walk right and talk right and sing right and pray right“ according to the Churches of Christ is because of their performance view of justification.

If righteousness is available to us only through our own co-operation and obedience to the necessary moral and religious requirement of God, then we must be fully obedient in every way in order to attain to it. In fact as James 2:10 says, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

However, the good news message of the gospel is that God has provided the very righteousness we need and is available to all and upon all who will place faith in Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law," and that Jesus became FOR US "our righteousness, holiness and redemption." 1 Cor. 1:30.

One final note

As we draw this section to a close, I would like to say again that most of the classic songs and hymns embraced by evangelical Christianity are going to be found in Church of Christ hymnals.

Of course, someone may be inclined to ask that if the Churches of Christ actually teach “Pelagian” or "works-for-salvation" theology, why then would songs that teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone be accepted in their own hymnals?

And that’s a good question.

And as one who has grown up in the Church of Christ, the only answer that I can give is that the lessons these songs taught us were hidden from our eyes.

After all, when you stop to think about it, the term justification by faith alone never appears in any of the these well-known Christian songs and hymns:

Just As I Am
My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less
Nothing But The Blood
‘Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus

And yet, when we stop to consider the context and message of the lyrics, clearly the implications of this doctrine are being taught.

Chapter Ten: Is there any practical information that might be helpful to know when sharing the gospel with those in the Churches of Christ?

Part 2 FAQ/ Apologetics Section

Answers for Church of Christ baptism-for-salvation verses:

Chapter 1: Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 An Overview

Chapter 2: Mark 16:16

Chapter 3: John 3:5-8

Chapter 4: Acts 22:16

Chapter 1: What about Baptism? Doesn’t a person have to be baptized in order to be saved?

One objection that will certainly need to be addressed when discussing the doctrine of justification by faith with those in the Churches of Christ is the subject of water baptism.

For if the Word of God does teach that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone and our obedience to the commands of God are only the result of our salvation and divine grace (which they contest), how is it then that baptism saves us?

And to be sure, evangelical Christianity does believe we are identified and baptized into Christ when we are saved. However, let us be clear that what we are talking about is true, actual, or Holy Spirit Baptism, rather than rite, ritual or “water” baptism, which is the believer’s outward sign or symbol of that event.

This will be discussed in greater detail in a moment. However, may I first say that much can be written comparing the different views of water baptism held by the Churches of Christ and those beliefs held by evangelical Christianity.

Here those in the Churches of Christ are convinced that the only way an individual can ever receive the forgiveness of sins is through obedience to the command of water baptism. And the salvation of the believer who has done everything as written in the New Testament except have their sins 'washed away' through water baptism is uncertain at best.

However, water baptism is viewed by evangelical Christianity in the same light as Communion and the Lord’s Supper in that it is an ordnance practiced by those who are already saved.

Therefore to say that we have been saved through baptism, is referring to regeneration or the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs the moment the individual places their faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

As Titus 3:5 says, we were saved “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

Perhaps then the best way to explain baptism is that 'water' baptism is the outward sign or symbol of the believer’s true or actual baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Those in the Church of Christ think of baptism as being first and only with water, as though the definition of baptism (to dip, plunge, or immerse) implies being dipped, plunged or immersed in the medium of water.

Yet in all four gospels and twice in the book of Acts the Word of God tells us that while John baptized with water, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ (See Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 11:16)

Now viewing baptism in its proper context we can now begin to understand the passages often misused by the Churches of Christ to defend their gospel of 'water' baptism for salvation.

1 Peter 3:21

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preach to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype (the superior, true, or actual) which now saves us- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

Scripture often refers to the Holy Spirit as “the living water” that God provides, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. For example in John 4 Jesus said, “Everyone who drinks this water (h2o) will be thirsty again, but those who drink the water I give them (the Holy Spirit) will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Also in John 7 Jesus said, ”Let anyone who is thirsty come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this He meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive.”

Thus, it seems apparent “this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you” is talking about the anti-type “water” baptism- that is, the superior, real, or actual baptism of the Holy Spirit baptism that now saves you.

May I also point out that if the writer were simply referring to h2o baptism here, then the wrong people in this passage were “water” baptized. For just as the example of Pharaoh and his army in 1 Cor. 10:1-4, the only ones who had h2o baptism applied to them were those who perished in the flood!

So while it is true that water baptism points us to the spiritual reality of the believer’s Holy Spirit baptism, we dare not be trusting in it (the type or the symbol) to save us. For just as there are those within the body of the church who administer the rite of water baptism to new believers (Matt. 28:18-19), it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that actually places us into the body of Christ:

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13

Other Related Scriptures

Isaiah 44:3, Ezekiel 36:24-27, Joel 2:28-29

Gal. 3:26-27, Eph. 1:13-14, Col. 2:11-14, Titus 3:45

Chapter 2: 

Chapter 3: 

Chapter 4:

Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

The Churches of Christ will often read into the text of Acts 22:16 to explain why Paul is told to go into the city 'to find out what he must do.' Here, the Churches of Christ make an assumption that he is going to be told what he needed to do to be saved- that is, be baptized.

FAQ/ Apologetics Section- Part 3

Answers for other Church of Christ objections:

Chapter One: Is the doctrine of salvation by faith alone a Calvinistic doctrine?

Chapter Two: What is the controversy over instrumental music in worship?

Chapter Three: What is the controversy over having a correct church name?

Chapter Five: Show where "faith alone" is found in the Scriptures

Chapter Six: What about James 2:24 and 'not justified by faith only'? 

Chapter One: Is the doctrine of salvation by faith alone a Calvinistic doctrine?

It is interesting to note that the Churches of Christ often "write-off" the doctrine of justification by faith alone simply because they are convinced it is a "Calvinist" doctrine.

Church of Christ evangelist Gene Taylor of Centerville Road Church of Christ of Tallahassee Florida wrote the following in his introduction to the doctrine of Calvinism:

"Whenever someone contends that a) faith is a gift from God b) affirms that he has been saved by faith only c) embraces false teachings about the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of sinners d) and believes it is impossible for a child of God to sin and be eternally lost, he has fallen victim to the Calvinist system of doctrine."

This is amazing because when one compares these points with the actual teachings of Calvinism and the “free-will” (i.e. Arminianism) view, one would think the only difference between the two from what Mr. Taylor writes is the "P" of TULIP and the perseverance of the saints.

In other words, the Churches of Christ may be surprised to learn that BOTH Calvinists and "free-will" types believe in the doctrine of the fall AND the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

However, what is actually debated between Calvinists and "free-will" types is not the dynamics of the fall nor the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, but rather how resistible God's grace is to man- i.e. the doctrine of election.

Here, the point of contention is that if God calls you- must you respond positively to His gospel, or in the finial analysis does man reserve the ability within himself to reject the God and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and thus be lost and eternally condemned?

At this point the Arminian will say yes to “free-will” while the Calvinist answers no.

However, it is the “Pelagian” or Church of Christ view that is being argued against here.

Pelagianism rejects the doctrine of the fall and rejects the teaching that man has a "sin nature" or predisposition to sin and to do evil. In contrast it believes that man has the ability within himself to respond positively to all the necessary moral and religious commands and laws of God in order to be saved.

Thus, making the same assumption about human ability, the Church of Christ therefore rejects the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, believing anyone can be saved through "Patternism" or in other words- New Testament law-keeping.

Again, both Calvinists and Arminians or "free-will" types reject this view.

Both believe that because man is fallen, has a sinful nature, and therefore lacks the moral and religious ability to save himself "by New Testament Law-Keeping", the only hope for sinful man is to place faith in Jesus Christ, trusting in Him alone to do what we could not possibly do in our own sinful selves.

What kinds of music are in the Bible?

The words "music," "musical," and "musician(s)" are used in the Bible 75 times, and 55 of these are "captions" to the Psalms.

The word "music" is used 15 times in the Old Testament and refers to instrumental music: 13 times literally, once allegorically (Ecc. 12:4), and once metaphorically (Lam. 3:63).

"Music" is used ONE time in the New Testament (Luke 15:25) where it translates the Greek word "sumphonia," which means the same as our word "symphony."

Thus, in the Bible, "music" is used of instrumental music only. There are, however, two classes of instruments: (1) wind instruments, (2) hand-played instruments. These have been here since the days of Adam (Gen. 4:21, harp and organ).

These classes of instruments are also said to be in God's own heavenly presence (Ex. 20:18; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 8:2; 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). It appears that the Lord has his own "musical staff" in the heavenlies (and the instruments are stamped "made in Heaven" if stamped at all!).

Is not singing a kind of music in the Bible?

In the Bible, "music" is not used of vocal singing. Singing has been so closely associated with instrumental music, we usually use the word "music" to cover singing, as well as other related items such as lyrics, musical notes, performances, etc.

However, in scriptural nomenclature, there is only one "kind" of music, and that is with instruments. While the words, "vocal music," are sometimes used by some, there is no direct statement, account of action, or implication that "vocal music" is a Bible expression.

If the use of musical instruments were under the Old Testament Law, didn't the Law end with the New Testament?

The anti's (non-instrumentalist) are all in "one accord" in call for New Testament authority for the use of instrumental music. Here they would have us believe that the Old Testament, wherein various instruments were commonly used in the praise and worship of the Lord, has no bearing upon the matter.

The fact is, the only scriptures used during the ministry of Jesus and the early church were the Old Testament Scriptures, and they are often quoted and referred to. Look up the word "scriptures" or "as it is written" in a Bible concordance and you will see it used many times by the New Testament writers.

Thus, it is a gross error to assert that everything in the Old Testament is somehow "abrogated," or has no application to us now (See 2 Timothy 3:15; Romans 15:4; 1 Cor. 9:9,10; Acts 24:14).

Since instrumental music has the Old Testament precedent of being approved of God ("musical instruments of God" 1 Chronicles 16:42), and there is no evidence that there was a time when this approval ceased, we have biblical authority for its validity.

What is the Church of Christ "silence" argument about the non-use of instrumental music?

The "silence" argument alleges that silence excludes musical instruments. For example, 'if God said sing, it therefore excludes singing with mechanical instruments.'

However, the New Testament is not silent about instrumental music.

To answer to the objection that 'God only authorizes singing and what is included in the New Testament' is found in Eph. 5:19 where God authorizes the use of psalms without any modification as to the use, or non-use, of musical accompaniment. Therefore whatever was encompassed by Psalms in the Old Testament is still encompassed in the New Testament, modified only as revealed in the New Testament.

Secondly, if the New Testament is silent, that means it says NOTHING either for or against music. If this (silence) is the case, then the Old Testament Law on instrumental music has not been annulled. Silence does not annul; rather it perpetuates. If instrumental music was included in the Law which was "nailed to the cross," then the New Testament is not (or could not be) silent; but if the New Testament is silent, then music was not a part of the Law "nailed to the cross."

Why do some churches reject instrumental music?

Church groups, such as Churches of Christ and Primitive Baptists, here in Texas, reject instrumental music. One reason for this is a particular theory about the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It is thought by some that we are "not under the Old Testament."

But while there are indeed a number of things which changed with the coming of Jesus Christ, these are carefully delineated in New Testament writings and we must not go "above that which is written" (I Cor. 4:6).

The scriptures of both testaments are to be studied and "rightly divided" (2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church had the Old Testament; the Gospels and the Epistles came along as the apostolic days transpired.

The Old Testament is "for our learning" and is "scripture" (Romans 15:4; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). Paul admonishes us to use "psalms" in our singing, and these are admittedly the Psalms of the Old Testament (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

If we take instrumental music from the Old Testament, would we not also have to take animal sacrifices and everything else?

We are authorized to use "psalms" (Eph. 5:19), not to offer animal sacrifices. Many things taught in the Old Testament are still lawful; many things which are called "patterns, figures, and shadows" were fulfilled. The Law is still "good, if a man use it lawfully" (I Timothy 1:8).

But there is perhaps nothing about which there is as much confusion as the Law and its relation to New Testament teachings. This was also the case in apostolic times, and the apostles often had to address the problem.

And today, we are not authorized to subtract anything from God's Law without authority for so doing (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:19; Mark 7:5-13). Neither are we to add to His Law.

Also, wouldn't we likewise be authorized to bring in many other questionable religious practices?

To hear some critics of instrumental music present the case, instrumental music "opens the floodgates" to a regular "Vanity Fair" in church worship! This is the old ploy of the sophist who seeks accreditation for his point of view by the discreditation of another view, and to do this he uses what is called the "slippery slope" or "domino" fallacy.

This approach fails to recall that psalms were used with instrumental music in the worship of God for thousands of years before anyone ever thought of the "floodgate" idea! Isn't it rather "strange" that instrumental music did not have that effect in Israel?

If we are instructed to use psalms, this does not carry with it the "blanket approval" of anything and everything that happens to pop-up.

If we are authorized to use instruments, would not every member have to play an instrument?

The church "body" is a unit with individual "members" with differing "gifts" as it "hath pleased Him" (I Cor. 12:18). Paul discusses the "parts" such as the foot, hand, ear, eye, and nose and explains that they have their respective roles in the one "body" (I Cor. 12:11-31).

He is discussing the same matter in Ephesians and says "unto every one is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (4:7). Not every member in the one body is gifted to preach, or teach, or lead public prayer, or lead singing, or do mission work, or some other work in which the body as a church unit is engaged. See the "unit" principle in 1 Corinthians 12:26.

The "account of approved action" which we have in Scripture is that those who were "cunning" with instruments, "willing skillful men," "all that could skill of instruments,"-these served in the "ministry" playing instruments (I Chron. 25:7; 28:21; 2 Chron. 34:12; 29:25; 7:6; 8:14; 23:18; 1 Chron. 16:4-9).

It was not every Israelite who played, neither does every member of the "body" play today. We learn this from these Scriptures as we are authorized to do (see Romans 15:4).

How does one 'make melody,' according to Scripture?

The words "making melody" are used in Ephesians 5:19, but "how" this is done is found in Isaiah 23:16, and it is with a musical instrument: "Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered."

Also, Amos 5:23 speaks of "the melody of thy viols," which is also reference to a musical instrument. So if "the Bible interprets itself," these passages show "how" to make melody – with musical instruments.

Does Ephesians 5:19 mean that the heart is the 'instrument'?

Some who reject musical instruments in worship contend that Eph. 5:19 is "figurative," or "metaphorical;" however, this idea goes "begging" for any support in the Scriptures. James D. Bales, an anti-instrument writer, even acknowledges that there is "no passage" which says "the instrument typified the melody of the heart," yet this is the theory of those who oppose music.

"Strings of the heart" is not a Bible phrase. "Singing and making melody in your heart" simply means the same thing as in other passages where something is done "in" or "with" the heart. All obedience and worship are to be "in the heart," for this is what God's Law requires (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:30).

We are to worship "in spirit" and "in truth" (John 4:23, 24), but this does not mean that acts of worship are eliminated. There is no example of "making melody" in the heart in the "hidden" sense, if we go by Scripture.

How do we know that Jesus participated in the use of instrumental music in worship?

The practice of Jesus and his parents was to worship in accordance with the Law of God at the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 2:40-43). Included in that worship was the use of instrumental music (II Chronicles 5:1-14; 30:21).

Also, since Jesus was "made under the Law" (Gal. 4:4, 5) and came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17, 18), it was of necessity that He obey in all respects (Heb. 5:7-10). The Lord had incorporated musical instruments in the approved worship, so we must conclude that Jesus worshipped accordingly, otherwise He did not do all that the Law required.

If musical instruments were under the Law, did not the Law end with the New Testament?

Many things under the Law have been "fulfilled" such as the patterns, figures, and shadows, and we are told about this in Hebrews and in other epistles. However, the use of Psalms in worship has been re-promulgated (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and instruments were used with Psalms.

What Bible prophet used musical instruments for inspiration?

A: Elisha. Read II Kings 3:15. This demonstrates that music has a "spiritual" usefulness and is consistent with the spiritual character of those who love and worship God. The right use of music effects good results, as the case of Elisha demonstrates.

It is often helpful to promote the right "frame of mind," and this may be one of the reasons it was popular with the Old Testament prophets (I Sam. 10:5; 16:14-23; II Chronicles 29:25; Isa. 38:20, 21; Habakkuk 3:19).

Music which promotes the spiritual, the honorable, the pure, the lovely, and things of "praise" (Phil. 3:8) is pleasing to the Lord. Music which promotes vanity, the carnal, the impure, and the sinful is not pleasing to the Lord.

Like words, music can be used for both good and evil. Christians are to use both for the glory of God (Col. 3:17).

Musical instruments were not part of the Ten Commandments, nor the Law for the Tabernacle services. Where is it commanded?

Actually, both singing and instrumental music became a part of the more "spiritual" elements of Israel's worship after the Ten Commandments and the laws pertaining to sacrifices, etc.

The Ten Commandments define the type of moral behavior that is pleasing to God, and the Levitical laws on sacrifices were designed as "typology" of the work and attributes of Jesus Christ who would eventually come into the world.

Singing and musical instruments were not a part of these, but were spiritual "by-products" of an obedient and worshipful people who praised the Lord. Singing and music were not done because they were "commanded," but because they are legitimate means of praising the Lord.

However, there was certainly authority for the use of both singing and playing instruments (II Chron. 7:6; 29:25; I Chron. 25:5-7; 28:19-21).

Also, using a Concordance, the reader may see how trumpets were used in worship (for example, Psalms 98:5, 6).

Where did the idea come from that David did wrong in using musical instruments in worship?

So far as I can find, the chief source of this idea is the Methodist commentator, Adam Clarke (1762-1832). He was very antagonistic to the use of instruments, contrary to the founder of Methodism, John Wesley.

I recently went thru Wesley's 8-volume JOURNAL to check on his views and I found numerous entries where Wesley used and commended musical instruments. He himself played a flute.

Clarke misappropriates a remark of Wesley's which was actually against poor organ music, but otherwise Wesley had high praise for good organ music and said he would like to have an organ in all the Methodist chapels.

David Lipscomb (1831-1917), the "god-father" of the Church of Christ, followed Clarke's idea about David and he wrote a series of articles against music in THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE magazine in 1895.

His ideas were accepted by many, but his associate, James Harding (1848-1922), did not agree with Lipscomb, and many other Church of Christ writers also differ with him.

If you read or hear someone who condemns David on musical instruments, the person probably picked it up from Clarke, Lipscomb, or another person who followed their ideas.

What is meant by the 'law of exclusion' in relation to the use of musical instruments in worship?

Those who oppose music in worship used to say that "the expression of one thing in God's Word excludes all else," then they would proceed to the erroneous claim that the New Testament specifies "singing only." They then would claim that this therefore "excludes" instruments.

However, they have generally seen the error of this assertion, for as Roy Deaver has put it, "A command does not exclude," and "The 'sing' did not exclude the 'play.'" He also says, "Sing does not exclude play. It authorizes singing" (ASCERTAINING BIBLE AUTHORITY, pp. 84, 85).

THE SPIRITUAL SWORD magazine (July '90) also says that "sing" does not "preclude or interdict" musical instruments.

Thus, for the so-called "law of exclusion" to be of any validity one would have to find some basis for excluding musical instruments besides the fact that "singing" is specified.

What relationship does the 'strange fire' in Lev. 10:1, 2 have to the use of instrumental music?

None whatsoever. Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, violated specific instructions in Exodus 30:9. The use of "strange fire" would create the strange offering of a "strange incense," which was forbidden. Furthermore, since the use of Psalms (Eph. 5:19) carries with it the authority for instruments, we are not using any "strange" item in worship.

What does the 'gopher wood' of Noah's Ark have to do with the use of instruments?

Nothing!

This is one of many similar "arguments" used in vain by those who oppose music. The idea is that God told Noah what kind of wood to use to build the Ark, thus excluding all other kinds of wood. They then try to parallel this to the idea that "singing only" is for church worship, excluding instruments.

But the use of Psalms, with the instruments thereby authorized, clearly refutes this objection. Furthermore, instruments do not "change" the command to sing, but simply accompany singing.

If psalms in Ephesians 5:19 incorporates the use of instruments, would it not also require that instruments would always have to be used?

Not at all. Psalms may be used in several ways, such as (1) read silently, (2) read aloud, (3) sung privately, (4) sung in a group, and sung with instrumental accompaniment, privately or publicly by an individual or a group.

The Scripture presents no modification of the use of Psalms from what we find in the Old Testament.

Gus Nichols, late minister of the Church of Christ, is quoted in the February 1994 FIRM FOUNDATION magazine as follows:

One may read prayers of praise from the psalms without singing or praying the psalm read (p. 21).

So the command to "sing" Psalms does not exclude reading Psalms. The verse is comprehensive of all uses of Psalms, including the use of Psalms with music, as there is no modification of such use in the New Testament such as the modification of many other Old Testament items mentioned in Hebrews.

What about solos, choirs, choral groups, and quartets in church services?

Procedures for a "church service" are not specified in the Scripture; in fact, it does not teach anything about places and times of a "service" or "services." Everything that is "in Spirit and in truth" is acceptable in worship (John 4:23, 24).

Since singing is authorized, without any specified procedures, it may be done in all possible forms which contribute to worship. Preaching, teaching, praying, singing – all are to done in ways that contribute to "order" (I Corinthians 14:40).

The "rule" or "measure" of singing is summed-up in Psalms 150:6: "Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord."

Some who ask for a "verse" for every particular thing generally will "pick-and-choose" what they approve and disapprove as being "lawful." They are consistently inconsistent, for they have scores of things in their own sect for which they cannot give a specific verse.

Bill Jackson wrote in CHRISTIAN WORKER magazine:

"We think brethren are seeking in vain if they expect to find, in the New Testament, a step-by-step worship service laid out for us, giving detailed information on Sunday morning, Sunday evening meetings, and exactly how all worship matters were held. We are indeed told what constitutes the avenues of worship, and we know that these are to be done, but we have no 'complete' service laid out for us" (Oct. '90, p. 2).

In another article on similar matters, Mr. Jackson says that some men "have been busy manufacturing patterns for us!" and that "what some believe or practice is not the standard of right!" He goes on to mention such things as "rules on food and buildings, rules on weddings and funerals, and a dozen side issues" that tend to cause division (CHRISTIAN WORKER, Feb. '89, p. 4).

We agree with Mr. Jackson on this, and he could have named the items mentioned in this question.

David Lipscomb once wrote in THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE magazine that the organ was introduced into the worship of the Romish church in the year 1290.

“We have no account of it having been used in worship by professed Christians previous to that time” (1878, p. 567).

The organ is first mentioned in Genesis 4:21 and was also as far back as the time of Job who evidently played the harp and organ (Job 30:31).

To condemn the organ because it was put to use in a Roman Catholic Church at any given time would be like condemning church buildings because a Roman Catholic church built a building.

To reject music because "we find no account" of its use by professed Christians "before" any given time in history is to make recorded history the measure of what is scriptural in what we are to believe and practice.

One might ask Mr. Lipscomb if his GOSPEL ADVOCATE magazine or anything similar was published before "1290?" If not, was it an "innovation?"

Regardless of what one "finds" or does "not find" in incomplete historical records, the fact is musical instruments are revealed in the Bible, they were used in worship, and they are not excluded from Christian worship by any New Testament teaching.

Added note from the ministry of Church of Christ dilemma:

Since there may be those who are unfamiliar with the objections the Churches of Christ raise against the use of instrumental music, we must understand that it is a matter of biblical authority.

Here the question that must be answered is if the scripture allows for its use.

And two of the most often sighted and quoted scriptures used by the Churches of Christ are Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, which taken together says 'Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your hearts to the Lord.'

It is from these passages of scripture that the Churches of Christ draw the conclusion that, although (vocal) singing is authorized in worship, the use of musical (mechanical) instruments is not.

And if you missed the phrase, 'sing and make music in your heart'-it is here that the Churches of Christ are often very insistent that it is only with our hearts that we can make "acceptable music" unto the Lord.

And never mind all the examples given to us from the book of Psalms. That precedent (they believe) was given only under the Old Testament law system.

Therefore, any “musical instruments” outside of our own hearts, must be avoided and excluded because of a perceived lack of scriptural authority.

Explaining biblical idioms

It is at this point of the instrumental music debate that I would like to introduce the subject of idiomatic expressions.

And for those who may not be familiar with this term, you will certainly recognize them immediately as those phrases used in any given language which cannot be understood by an individual unless the intended meaning is known or can be discerned by the listener.

For example, some very common American idioms are "he put his foot in his mouth" and "I want to put a bug in your ear." Obviously these kinds of expressions are not intended to be taken literally (thank goodness), for what is actually being said here is that "he said something foolish" and "I have an idea I want you to think about."

Now it should be of no surprise then that idioms are used in the scripture as well.

For example the Hebrew phrase "he rested with his fathers" and "they will become like women" actually means that "he died" and that "they will be afraid or terrified."

And don't miss the fact that if we were to take these verses (idioms) literally, we will actually miss the real intent of the passage.

It is here, though, that I would like to ask if the phrase 'sing and make music in your heart' is to be taken literally, or should it be understood as a biblical idiom? For if this passage is intended to be taken word for word, then I must point out that God has given us a command we cannot possibly obey.

Why? Because in a literal sense, we do not have the ability or physical capability to sing or to make music inside our own hearts.

Not with our physical hearts.

Not with our minds.

Therefore, I think it should be apparent that we ought to view this verse as a biblical idiom. For if we take this passage literally, again by definition, we will miss the actual intent of the passage.

So what is the message?

Sometimes, when we come across an unclear or difficult section of scripture, we can gain additional insight by looking at similar passages to help us understand the spirit of what is being taught. For we know that scripture when viewed in its proper context it cannot contradict itself.

And certainly the last thing we want to do is build a theology based upon a single verse that has been misunderstood and taken out of its intended context.

With this in mind, please consider Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 in light of the following passages of scripture:

"I will sing and make music." Psalms 57:7

"I will sing and make music with all my soul." Psalms 108:1

"My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts." Isaiah 65:14

"Sing and make music in your hearts to the Lord." Ephesians 5:19

Chapter Three: What is the controversy over having a correct church name?

One brother put it rightly when he wrote: “They (the Campbellites) have been quarreling over a name for their baby ever since it was born.”

They have called themselves “Reformers,” “Restorationalists,” Disciples of Christ,” “Christians,” “Christian Church,” “Church of Christ,” and even a few other titles. Barton W. Stone contended for the name “Christian,” while Alexander Campbell thought “Disciples” was better.

Apparently there was quite a bit of “heat” between Campbell and Stone on this point.

The matter of having the correct name is still an important issue in the Churches of Christ and many do not believe that one can be saved unless he wears the right name. Some will even go so far as to say that “The” must not even be attached to “Church of Christ” while others will not even allow any additional items to be added which would identify its locality.

For example, ”Main Street Church of Christ” would be considered wrong.

Of course, not all Campbellites believe alike on these foregoing restrictions, but all of them are concerned about the name they wear. And often they will cite some verses in the Bible which they believe teach the wearing of a “correct” name.

Here, we will take a look at of some of those passages that are often used.

Matthew 16:18: “… and on this rock I will build My church.”

Campbellites reason from this verse that since Christ said “My church,” it must have been named after Jesus Christ.

However, you will notice that there is no name given in the verse and there is no command to wear a name in the verse. When we read “My church” it simply tells us whose church it is.

One may say “I will build by fence,” but does these mean he will place a name on the fence which reads, “The Fence of Mr. Jones”?

Certainly not.

Someone may build and own a fence, but it does not mean that the person will provide a name for his fence.

Acts 4:12: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Question: Does this verse command us to hang out a name over the church building?

If so, what is that name?

Isn’t it amazing how the Campbellites grab on to this verse to justify their “name,” yet miss the great doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ alone which is the emphasis of the apostle?

There is not one word about wearing a name in the verse, yet the great doctrine of salvation through the person of Jesus Christ is lost.

Romans 16:16 “… The churches of Christ greet you.”

This is the only verse that even comes close to the Campbellite “name,” yet it does not teach their notion. Here “the churches of Christ” is in the possessive sense indicating ownership and the verse simply says that ‘the churches owned by Christ greets those of you in Rome.’

Even if this verse were giving a name to wear, the Campbellite name would be wrong, for the word “church” is not a proper translation, much like the word “baptize” is not a proper translation.

Even Alexander Campbell recognized this fact and in his translation of the New Testament, he rendered Romans 16:16 as follows: “The congregations of Christ salute you.”

Of the word “church,” Campbell said: “Church, or kirk, is an abbreviation of the words kuriou oikos, ‘the house of the Lord’ and does not translate the term ekklesia.” (Living Oracles, page 55).

All Greek authorities tell us that it is the word “ekkesia” means assembly or congregation. The word “church” like the word “baptize” is in the King James translation because King James’ rules to the translators demanded that it be used.

In view of these facts, the title “Church of Christ” is incorrect, unless Campbellites can prove that “the tradition of men” is acceptable, and then they would still have to produce a command that this particular title should be worn.

Ephesians 3:15: “…from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.”

Campbellites teach that this verse means the church is to wear a name. Yet no such thing is taught here. The Greek of this verse is “each” or “every” family, not the whole family. So it is not referring to the idea of a universal church, but to every family of creation.

Furthermore, it is not Christ of whom each family is “named,” but God the Father (vrs. 14). The word “is named” simply refers to the fact hat God is the source of all existing families; He is their creator and sustainer.

There is no title for the church, nor a command to wear a title, stated in the verse.

Acts 11:26: “And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

This happened about eleven years or so after the day of Pentecost, the day on which Campbellites contend the church was born, and one was called “Christian,” nor were churches named “Church of Christ,” during those eleven years.

The Bible says “the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.” Yet we will agree there were Christians (followers of Christ) before they were ever called “Christians.”

This ought to be enough to prove that one can be saved without wearing a certain brand name.

“We are the church you read about in the Bible.”

Over and over again you hear this one. “Investigate and be a member of no church but the one you can read about in the Bible,” they say. Well, that’s good advice, but the Campbellite church is not mentioned in the Bible!

Someone might say, “Haven’t you read about the churches of Christ in the Bible?” Yes we have. But tacking that expression on a sign or building does not make a group of heretics who follow the interpretations and doctrines of Alexander Campbell & Company a church of Christ.

Understand then, we are not objecting to the use of terms in order to designate certain items for identification’s sake. But we are objecting to the false claim made by Campbellites when they say they “call Bible things by Bible names.”

The truth is, they are just like the rest of the religious world, using “non scriptural” terms to designate certain items. For example, their “gospel meeting,” for instance is no more a Bible name than “revival meeting,” or ”Bible school” or “Bible Study” is no more a “Bible name” than “Sunday School” or “VBS.”

Their claim is foolish and ridiculous and an insult to human intelligence.

Are Campbellites a Denomination?

Another favorite hobby horse of the Campbellites is their harping about “not being a denomination.” They condemn “denominationalism” and claim they are not a denomination, but simply the “Church of Christ.”

Well, even if they were the church of Christ, they would be a denomination.

What does “denomination” mean?

Webster gives these definitions: 1. Act of denominating or naming. 2. A name, designation, or title. 3. A class or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect.

On every one of these points the Campbellites are a denomination. They are denominated by a name: “Church of Christ,” “Disciples of Christ,” Christian Church.” They are also distinguished as a denomination by their doctrines.

Furthermore, they have definite bounds to their religious associations, recognizing only groups of like faith, thus they are a particular “class” or “society.”

It is just another appeal to ignorance for Campbellites to try and pan off the notion they are not a distinct religious denomination. Actually, they are one of the most rigidly sectarian denomination in existence, often teaching that outside their religious movement, there is no salvation!

Chapter Four:  How can I know if I'm attending a traditional Church of Christ? 

1. Believe or assume that man is born basically 'good' or morally neutral, and does not have a prior inclination or predisposition to sin or to do evil.

Here they will point out that 'this is the only place in the Bible where these two words (faith & alone) come together, and the Bible is very clear when it says 'that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.'

FAQ/ Apologetics Section- Part 4

Questions for those in the Churches of Christ:

Chapter One: Why isn’t the question in Romans 6:1 asked in the Churches of Christ?

Chapter Two: What is the Church of Christ myth regarding baptism in the book of Acts?

Chapter Three: What is the purpose of the Old Testament Law?

Chapter Four: Does the Church of Christ reverse the order of faith and repentance?

Chapter Five: How does a person obey the gospel of Christ?

Chapter One: Why isn’t Romans 6:1 ever asked in the Churches of Christ??

The apostle Paul asks an interesting question in Romans 6, "What then? Shall we continue to live in sin?"

So when was the last time you've heard anyone, after hearing the Church of Christ gospel message, ask this question?

Think about it.

If we are saved by hearing, believing, repenting from sin, confessing the name of Christ, being baptized in h2o, keeping ourselves saved by continuing to live a moral and religious "good" life...

Would the reaction to that message be 'What then? Shall we continue to live in sin?'

Of course not.

Any infraction or failure of performing all the necessary "steps" or moral/ religious requirements would endanger that person's salvation.

But if we are saved by simply placing faith and trust in the Savior, doesn't it make sense why Paul would anticipate and answer the obvious objection of, "What then? Shall we continue to live in sin?"

And if the Churches of Christ are actually teaching the same gospel as the apostle Paul, shouldn't they be addressing the very same objection of why as believer we do not continue to live in sin?

Yet Church of Christ types are constantly having to defend themselves that they are not teaching a salvation theology of works!

Romans 3:8 is another question you will not hear of the Church of Christ: "And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? -as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say."

Here, Paul tells how the gospel message is deliberately mischaracterized as though it taught 'we can continue to live in sin' or 'live any way we want and still be saved' -as Baptists and other evangelicals are often accused of by the Churches of Christ.

Is this a mischaracterization that has ever happened to the Church of Christ? Conversely, did the apostle Paul ever have to defend himself by saying that, NO, that he was NOT teaching a gospel theology of salvation by works- as the Church of Christ constantly is?

If we are not saved by our own cooperation and obedience to' all the necessary moral and religious requirements of God', but by simply placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone, 'What then, shall we continue to live in sin?' is a question that one could easily anticipate, especially if the message being taught is-

Salvation is by simply placing faith in JESUS CHRIST ALONE!

So why even live holy?

In regards to why the believer does not continue to live in sin, Bob L. Ross makes these comments from his book Campbellism- It's History and Heresies. Used by permission.

Campbellites say, "Well, if baptism and the church are not necessary for salvation, why be baptized and join the church?" This is typical language from merit-mongers who think only in terms of salvation by works. Those who speak in this manner have the attitude of "We will be saved by our works, or we just won't work at all.

Apparently those in the Churches of Christ know nothing about the love of God in the believer's heart which will motivate him to do those things that God Has commanded (Galatians 5:6). They think the only reason we should obey God is to keep Him from punishing us for disobedience.

If it were not for this reason, they themselves admit that they would not obey God. A Campbellite preacher once told me that if his salvation did not depend upon his works, then he would just yield to any temptation and sin against God.

That is why God despises the heresy of salvation by works: the "obedience" of such people is rotten at its heart; it arises from a selfish motive and not from a pure love of God. Read the scathing denunciation by Christ of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 and you will see how contemptible the heresy of salvation by works and those who believe it are in the sight of God.

The point is, God does righteousness because He is a righteous person. Jesus Christ does righteousness because He is a righteous person. God's people hunger and thirst after righteousness because of the righteous nature they now have of God. Therefore believers serve God because they love Him for what He has done for them.

I'd be ashamed to have a religion that is followed only because I want something for myself. I'd be ashamed to have a faith that produced no more love in my soul for God than does the notion of salvation by works. Some people say, "Why, if I believed as you do- saved by grace and can't fall- I'd just take my fill of sin."

Such people reveal what they really love- sin. If they were righteous in their hearts, they wouldn't want to commit sin, regardless. The truth is they are committing heinous sin by sticking their filthy rags of self-righteousness in the face of God, rather than trusting in Jesus Christ for the perfect righteousness that could be theirs simply by placing faith in Him.

Chapter Two: A question about baptism and the “5 step plan of salvation”.

Edited from Bob L. Ross’ book Campbellism- Its History and Heresies. Used by permission.

A myth that is often told by the Church of Christ to prove the importance of water baptism is that “in every case of conversion in the book of Acts, baptism is specifically mentioned.” (Spiritual Sword July 1970, page 16 & Jan. 1979, page 9)

Is this true?

Here are the instances where baptism is mentioned:

Acts 2:37-41; 8:15-13; 8:37-38; 9:1-18; 10:43-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:5 (A total of nine)

Here are the instances of conversions where baptism is NOT mentioned:

Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 9:35; 9:42; 11:21; 11:24; 12:24; 13:12; 13:43; 13:48; 14:1; 14:21; 14:27; 17:4; 17:12; 17:34; 19:17-20; 28:23-24. (A total of twenty)

Notice, not one of the conversions recorded on Paul’s first missionary journey is baptism mentioned. Also, while some converts are not mentioned by name, other converts are, such as Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:7-12 and Dionysius and Damaris in Acts 17:34.

The truth is, you cannot find a single place in the entire New Testament where the "5 step plan of salvation" is listed without having to go from one example to another, from one chapter to another, or from one book to another.

This is interesting considering the fact that the New Testament is the product of 27 individual books and 8 different authors.

In other words, with so many different authors and books, wouldn't there be at least one place in the New Testament where everything a person must do to be saved would be listed if the Church of Christ gospel of "water" baptism for salvation were true?

What is the gospel?

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says, “I declare to you the gospel…which I preached…which you received…in which you stand…by which you are saved…that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…that He was buried…that He rose again the third day… according to the scriptures.”

The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ came to earth, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, that He was buried, and that He was raised the third day.

That is the gospel message.

We are to go and tell people that God loved them so much, that He sent His Son to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and that He rose again.

What is our response?

What do we want people to do?

We want people to believe.

Continuing in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says (verse 11), “…This is what we preached, and this is what you believed.”

The bottom line is that people are to believe upon Jesus Christ, to trust in Him as their Savior. As Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”

It is that simple.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves.” Eph. 2:8

“I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” Rom. 1:16

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” John 1:12

“Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears my Word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5:24

These are just a few verses, 154 places in the New Testament in all, where the Bible says those who place faith in Jesus Christ have eternal life.

Chapter Three: What is the purpose of the Old Testament Law?

One of the most common misconceptions in the Church of Christ is the purpose of the Old Testament Law. Here it is assumed that as God gave the Israelites the Old Testament so that the people could know what they had to do to go to heaven, God has thus given us the New Testament.

This view has led many in the Church of Christ to believe that God’s love and acceptance is directly proportional to our own moral and religious obedience to the requirements of the New Testament. And because of this, many believe that unless a person does everything just right, they cannot be loved and accepted by God.

However, the purpose and ministry of the Old Testament law wasn't to save anyone, but to make our own sense of right and wrong more acute to make us understand how much we are in need of a Savior.

Jesus said that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven,” (Matt. 5:20) And many people in the Churches of Christ have tried in vain to attain an "acceptable" level of righteousness.

But the Bible says that if we will place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, that the very righteousness of Christ Himself is given to us. That is why Romans 3:31 says that by faith ‘we uphold the righteous requirements of the law,’ for the righteousness of Jesus is credited or imputed to us.

The law was never intended to save anyone, but rather to magnify our sins to such a degree that we would despair of ever trying to save ourselves by keeping the Law. It’s real purpose was to cause us to say, ‘God, if this is your standard of perfection, holiness and righteousness, -I can’t do it. Please forgive me and have mercy on me through Jesus Christ.’

In Roman society, children were often committed to the care of trusted slaves. This would happen when the child was between six or seven, and would last until puberty. These slaves and tutors were severe disciplinarians and were charged with guarding the children from the evils of society and giving them good moral training.

In the same way, Galatians 3:24 says that “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be saved by faith.”

So how does the Law point us to Christ?

By showing us our inability of keeping the law perfectly, we come to realize we must stop trusting in ourselves and our own moral and religious performance and to call upon God and place our faith in the Savior.

Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

As our substitute, Jesus lived holy for us so that the basis of going to heaven would be based on His perfect life and not our own (1 Cor. 1:30). Jesus also paid the penalty for our sin that we deserved so that God would not have to punish us (1 Peter 3:18).

It is God’s desire is to reconcile mankind to Himself, not to judge them…”not imputing their sins against them…” 2 Cor. 5:19. And a perfect, righteous and holy God seeks to take away our sin and anything that would separate us from Him.

God has done this through Jesus Christ and He offers us the perfect righteousness we need, not based on our own goodness, piety or moral or religious goodness, but to all who will place faith in Jesus Christ.

* * * *

"For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe...Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:21-24

Other References:

Romans 4:3, 5:17, 6:23, 10:3, 1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 5:19, Phil. 3:9, 1 John 1:9 

* * * *

“For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe…Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Galatians 3:21-24

Chapter Four: Does the Church of Christ reverse the order of faith and repentance?

The Church of Christ gospel “plan” is to hear, believe, repent, confess, and be “water” baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Here it is reasoned that if one will simply perform these “5 steps,” the believer will thereby save himself.

Notice that this plan places faith before repentance.

To those in the Churches of Christ, this is “common sense” because it is believed that ‘one must believe before he can repent.’ This view arises from their understanding of both “faith” and “repentance.”

“Faith” in the Churches of Christ is understood as nothing more than ‘intellectual assent” or accepting the facts of the Christian faith. To them it is believing God’s historical testimony about Himself, Jesus Christ, and that of the rest of the Bible.

Repentance on the other hand is understood as moral “self-reformation.”

In regards to faith, those in the Churches of Christ often fail to understand that there is a deeper, more substantive aspect of faith which is believing on Jesus Christ for eternal life, and most cannot distinguish between mere intellectual belief or assent from a personal faith that is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

Here, they will cite that “even the devils believe” (from James 2:19) in their sermons and will contend that even the "faith of devils" is the same as any other faith except that the faith of devils lacks any moral or religious good works.

Thus, their understanding gives rise to their reversal of the scriptural order of repentance and faith, and yet as we will find, there is not a single scripture in the New Testament to support their view.

To the contrary, when we consider this in light of Scripture, we find repentance actually preceding Faith:

“…you did not repent and believe him.” Matt. 21:32

“Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15

“…repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:21

“…repent and turn to God.” Acts 26:20

“…not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.” Hebrews 6:1

These verses should make it clear that repentance actually precedes faith.

So why is this important?

This is significant because when Church of Christ members read passages like Acts 2:38 and “Repent and let each one of you be baptized,” they assume that the passage teaches that if you want to be saved, what you must do is make the commitment not to sin anymore (i.e. repent or "self-reformation") and then get yourself baptized in water.

However, the word Repentance literally means “a change of mind.”

The word for Repent is “metanoia” and it’s actually two Greek words put together, “meta” meaning after, “noia” means mind or thought.

It literally means “an after-thought”, "post-thought", or “a change of mind.”

The word was used that if you said one thing, “I think I’m going to go do this…” and then changed your mind, “No, I’m not” –then you have repented.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter just has been telling them about Jesus, whom they thought was just a carpenter, or teacher from Nazareth. He says, “No, Jesus is Messiah, He is the God-Man who came doing the miracles, whom YOU put to death, Whom God raised up, He is both Lord and Christ…”

So when Peter says to “Repent,” he was not merely talking about "self-reformation", but was telling the people to change their minds about Jesus Christ. They saw Him as a teacher or Rabbi from Nazareth. But Peter was saying, 'You have got to see Him as Lord, you've got to see Him as Messiah, you have got to repent (i.e. change your mind) about Jesus Christ.'

The bottom line is, this whole idea of repentance is that we see Jesus Christ as the Messiah, to trust Him as our Savior. And when you believe in Him there will be the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And BTW, everyone one of us who put our faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, changed our minds, we all repented.

Whatever else we were trusting in before we put our faith in Jesus Christ, we changed our minds about when we realized that Jesus Christ is the only way, that He is the Savior, and that He is the only One who will take us to heaven.