Written By: Sewell Hall
On this page last month, we observed from Ephesians 4:4–5 that “there is one body … one Lord, one faith and one baptism.” That one body is Christ’s church (Ephesians 1:22–23; Colossians 1:18), composed of all persons in all the world who have been saved by Jesus Christ. He adds all who are saved to His church (Acts 2:47).
The one church is not a denomination, nor is it a collection of denominations. It is not even a collection of local churches; it is the body of all saved individuals, and it has no earthly organization. One does not have to investigate all of the churches in the world to find the Lord’s church. Any believer in Jesus Christ who follows the simple instructions of Acts 2:38 will be saved and added to it (Acts 2:41, 47). He has no other decision to make or joining to do.
Membership in a local church is another matter. The Ethiopian who was converted on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8) was surely saved and added to the church. But he was not a member of any local church; he had left Jerusalem and there was no local church in Ethiopia at that time.
The examples in the book of Acts clearly indicate that the Lord intended for saved individuals in a community to have fellowship in a local church. Such a church (assembly) was invariably organized when several individuals in a community were saved. In this sense there were many churches—we read of seven in the province of Asia (Revelation 1–3). Local churches were identified as “churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16) and “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). They were, however, independent of each other, each exercising autonomy over its own affairs.
Are All Local Churches Right? If you should ask the leaders of most local churches, regardless of the name they wear, if theirs is a church of God or a church of Christ, they would say, “Yes.” But sadly enough, more questions must be asked before we affiliate with such a church. We must be careful not to compromise our membership in the “one body” by affiliating with a local group that would make substitutions for the “ones” of Ephesians 4. That passage not only states that there is one body; it also says, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (vs. 5). In view of this, it is important to ask the following questions:
Who is the head of this church? If we are informed of a president, general overseer, archbishop, superintendent, pope or any other human being or legislative assembly exercising authority over the faith of that congregation, we must avoid that church. There is “one Lord” (Ephesians 4:5), and that one Lord is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6). “He is the head of the body the church” (Colossians 1:18). To acknowledge any other head or religious lord is to be guilty of disloyalty to Him. Religious titles of any kind violate the unique position of Jesus who said, “Do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:8–10).
Show me a copy of your creed. If a manual, catechism, discipline, confession of faith, or any other book written by a mere man or group of men is offered, that church must be rejected. There is “one faith” (creed) according to the same verse (Ephesians 4:5). That faith is the gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27). No clergy class is authorized to hand down official interpretations of God’s word.
What baptism do you recognize? If the answer is: “We will accept just any baptism—immersion, sprinkling or pouring,” you will need to avoid that church. Ephesians 4:5 says that there is “one baptism” and according to Romans 6:4, it is a burial. If the answer is: “Any baptism administered by one who has been ordained or licensed by our church,” then you can know you are in the wrong place because the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), not by the authority of a church—any church.
Is this church affiliated with any denomination or association of churches? Again, if the answer is “Yes,” you are in the wrong place. Jesus did not establish a denomination. A denomination, by the very definition of the word, is a division; and Jesus prayed for unity of all believers in Himself and in the Father (John 17:20).
Do you believe there is more than one church? Although it is considered arrogant, narrow-minded and bigoted to say that there is only one right church, anyone who says otherwise contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Anyone, referring to anything other than local assemblies, who says that there is more than one right church is speaking of something other than the church which Jesus established. Any “church” other than the “one body” of Ephesians 4:4 is a plant that the heavenly Father did not plant, and it will be rooted up (Matthew 15:13).
Originally appeared in the October 1995 issue of Christianity Magazine.
Written By: Collin Stringer
Brooklyn, New York. Salt Lake City, Utah. Rome, Italy. These are answers that some give when asked about the location of the headquarters of the church. How would God answer?
An organizations headquarters are the center of its operations from which orders are issued. So, where is the center of operations for the Lord’s church? From where does the church receive its orders? If we answer these questions correctly, we have found the headquarters of the church.
As we go to the Bible for answers, we must understand how the word church is used. It may refer to the universal church which is the body of saved people in fellowship with Christ (Hebrews 12:23; Ephesians 5:23). It is composed of individuals, not churches, from all over who are known only to the Lord (2 Timothy 2:19). A local church, on the other hand, is a group of believers in a location who are in submission to and in fellowship with one another (Ephesians 1:1; 5:21).
When some refer to the church, they are thinking of neither the universal church nor a local church, but rather a group of local churches which is distinguished from other groups by their common name and shared beliefs. Such a church is a denomination, something foreign to God’s word. We can easily identify the headquarters of denominations. In the cities mentioned above, you can locate the center of operations for certain denominations. In these organizations leaders will legislate and pass on decisions they expect to be accepted and followed in their churches.
When we speak of the headquarters of the church in scriptural terms, though, it is the universal church that is in view. The Bible tells us how this church is organized. Read carefully: “He raised Him (Christ) from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, … And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church …” (Ephesians 1:20–23).
Christ alone is head of His church. He rules His people from His throne. While earthborn men wield their power and authority from denominational centers, Christ reigns far above their ignoble dominion. Isn’t it clear that the center of operations for the Lord’s church is His throne? Since Christ has issued orders from there, the headquarters of the church cannot be on earth—it is in heaven.
Since “all things” are under Christ’s rule, men on their own have no authority. The Lord, though, has authorized elders to rule over local churches (1 Timothy 5:17). Their oversight is limited to the local church which they shepherd (1 Peter 5:2). They do not legislate for the church; they lead them as they themselves are led by Christ’s word. In His word we find no organizational hierarchy between Christ our head and the local congregation. Each local church, apart from any human institutions, is authorized to do things such as appointing their servants, ordering their worship, and controlling their finances (Acts 6:3; 1 Corinthians 14:40; Acts 11:27–30).
Not only do earthly church headquarters violate the law of Christ, but by regulating congregations they also impinge upon the privilege of the individual Christian to walk by his own faith. Paul writes, “We live for the Lord … we are the Lord’s” and, “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God” (Romans 14:8, 22). Each one who is the Lord’s should be living by his own faith, not by the dictates of a denominational head. The church belonging to Christ is indeed a “priesthood of believers” who get direction directly from their head through His word.
The headquarters of one denomination makes this bold claim about itself: “It is God’s sole collective channel for the flow of Biblical truth to men on earth” (The Watchtower, July 15, 1960, p. 439). Can we trust the purity of a such a flow? When we debate over divisive religious issues, we may be torn and troubled as we seek to know the truth. We should find assurance in knowing that we must not wait upon the ruling of a synod or conference of an earthly headquarters to determine truth for us. We can open our own Bibles, draw our own conclusions, and then walk by our own faith—a faith arising from and grounded in the word that flows from our head who reigns in the heavenly headquarters of His church.
Originally appeared in the August 1999 issue of Christianity Magazine.
Fundamentals of Faith
Faith and Baptism
When Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, many listened and believed. Convicted of their sins, they asked a logical question: “What shall we do to be saved?” This question was an exercise of the faith they had after hearing the word preached (Romans 10:17). They believed and wanted to submit to whatever God command them to do. Peter told them to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (see Acts 2:37–41). These people were saved by faith.
Some theologians argue with this analysis. Since they view baptism as a work of law they contend that teaching the necessity of baptism is something akin to teaching salvation by works of law. They see but two alternatives: one is either justified by perfect performance of law or one is saved without reference to anything he does. Since the first is ruled out by passages like Galatians 2:16, they declare the second the only possible alternative: salvation comes by grace through faith only. Though this assertion fails to address the fact that even basic faith is doing something (Jesus calls it the “work of God” in John 6:29), they are resolute in their assertion of the dilemma and proceed to discard baptism as an unnecessary addition to God’s plan.
Is there such a dilemma? “Our problem is that Augustine, Luther and other Western theologians have convinced us that there’s an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the ‘false dilemma,’ by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it’s either (1) a gift from God or (2) it’s something we earn by works.” (David Bercot, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? Scroll Publishing Co., Waco, TX, p. 62).
Bercot’s right. The false dilemma has caused many to struggle with the place of baptism in a system of salvation that is clearly based on faith (Romans 1:17; 3:21–26). Yet there is no contradiction between justification by faith (trusting submission to the will of God) and the requirement to be baptized. Baptism is no more foreign to the concept of faith than Abel’s offering a sacrifice (Hebrews 11:4) or Noah’s building of the ark (Hebrews 11:7) or Abraham’s “going out” (Hebrews 11:8). Who would question the act if the texts said, “by faith, Noah, being divinely warned, was baptized for remission of his sins”? And no reasonable person would argue that Noah still exercised a saving faith if, being divinely warned, he refused to be baptized? Even if called “faith,” it would have been no more effective that the faith that devils practice (James 2:19).
Baptism is so clearly a part of the plan of God to save man that Peter says “baptism now saves us” (1 Peter 3:21), Paul ascribes the clothing of ourselves with Christ to it (Galations 3:26–27) and Paul makes our union with Christ dependent upon it (Romans 6:1–7). How can anyone assert that it is not essential?
Ironically, some opponents of the necessity of baptism have proved it’s significance by the form of arguments they lodge against it. For example, A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, makes this comment on Romans. 6:3: “The translation ‘into’ makes Paul say that the believers union with Christ was effected by baptism.” His bias doesn’t allow him to accept the translation, but the translators of nearly every version have chosen “into” to translate the Greek term.
For another example, the Campus Crusade for Christ seeks to undermine the effect of Acts 2:37–38 with these comments in a paper entitled “Bible Study on Water Baptism”: “It is true that Peter tells them to be baptized. However, his sermon in Acts 2 is probably not a part of the original sermon.” In case that doesn’t work, they try this: “it seems possible that if the people hadn’t asked ‘what shall we do?’ (not ‘what must we do’ as in Acts 16:30) that Peter may never have mentioned baptism at all!” And that’s meant to convince college students! I hope they can see through that.
Clearly, baptism is an essential act of faith. Those who say otherwise have an agenda that is not from the Lord.
The Nature of Faith and Evidence
Contrary to what some think, faith and evidence are in harmony with each other. God does not ask us to believe Him in spite of evidence to the contrary. He wants us to consider the evidence and make a decision to put our faith in Him based upon that evidence (e.g., Matt. 11:2–6). It is our purpose in these articles to overview some of the evidences God has provided. First, we want to think about the nature of evidence and faith.
What Is Evidence?
“Evidence” is proof that helps to establish something as valid. It helps us to form a proper conclusion about a matter. The type of evidences to which we appeal are not scientific. For something to properly belong to science, it should be observable, repeatable, and testable. This excludes unique, historical events. Science is limited. There are matters of science that have a bearing upon the Bible, but these cannot directly test the historical events.
The kind of evidence to which we appeal is historical. Historical evidence involves data such as eyewitnesses, written documents, and archaeological finds. Historical data leads us to conclude that certain people existed, or certain events occurred. In this way, we know that Jesus Christ lived, died, and arose again from the dead. Faith in Jesus is based upon the historical validity of the events which are ascribed to Him. In seeking to know and understand history, we are building a foundation upon which to understand and trust God.
The testimony of eyewitnesses is significant. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony can help convict or acquit a defendant. The Bible claims to have been confirmed by eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4). The resurrection of Jesus was confirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:1–8). This is of primary importance.
What Is Faith?
The basic idea of faith is “trust.” When we put faith in God, then we are willing to listen and do what He says. Why would one choose to trust God? Because of a conviction that God is true. This conviction comes by examining the evidence God has left for Himself. The evidence is strong enough that it warrants a choice of faith.
Biblical faith is built upon evidence. This is shown in John 20:24–31. After Jesus was raised, He appeared to His disciples. Thomas, not present, later said that he would not believe unless he saw (v. 25). Jesus appeared to the disciples again. When Thomas saw, he responded, “My Lord and my God” (v. 28). The fact that Thomas would not believe did not change the nature of the evidence. Christ had risen whether Thomas believed it or not.
Jesus replied, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and believed” (v. 29). The resurrected Christ was evidence of the power of God. Note that in verses 30–31, the signs Jesus performed were designed to be evidence that would lead one to believe in Him. We have not seen Jesus, but the written records testify to His historical validity.
Faith is a reasonable response to the evidence. “Blind faith,” which has no supporting evidence, is unreasonable. Faith is not “believing something you know isn’t true.” It is accepting and acting upon that which has credible evidence to support it.
We should not take an approach to God solely on the basis of our reasoning. If we rely too much on our own thinking, we may reject biblical principles and commands because they don’t “make sense” to us (see Proverbs 14:12). We have the ability to reason and think, and God expects us to use our minds. But once we are convicted that “God is” and that He rewards (Hebrews 11:6), then we have reason to trust Him, even if we don’t understand everything (see Hebrews 11:8).
The study of evidences does not create faith, but it does help remove some stumbling blocks and give us greater confidence in the things of God. Faith comes by hearing God’s word (Romans 10:17). Let’s be convicted of this, and accept what God has done for us.
Faith That Overcomes
In Atlanta, as in all metropolitan areas, there are thousands of displaced Christians who once were faithful, but now are completely inactive spiritually. When approached, they almost always have excuses. Some blame others: their parents, families, or brethren in Christ who they feel have mistreated them. Others blame their new environment where the church is strange or unknown and where unbelief and immorality are the norm among their new acquaintances. A few even blame God, complaining that He has forsaken them: they have been sick, had accidents, lost jobs or suffered other disasters from which they feel He should have saved them.
In the book of Genesis, we read of a young man who was abruptly removed from his homeland and taken into a strange country—Egypt. Joseph had been a faithful servant of God in Canaan and could have made all of the excuses described above if he had chosen to forsake God in Egypt.
Joseph had been wronged. He was in Egypt because his brothers had sold him into slavery. With no way of knowing that his father assumed him dead, he had reason to blame his father for not sending to rescue him. When he refused to be seduced by his master’s wife, she lied about him and he was imprisoned; then a prominent fellow-prisoner whom he befriended forgot his promise to remember Joseph after his release. The situation in which he found himself was strange. No longer a son, he was a slave; no longer a native, he was a foreigner. The God of his fathers was unknown in Egypt and idols were worshipped instead. Immorality was the rule in the land and a young teenager could hardly be expected to resist the fleshly appeal of such an environment, especially when so much of his suffering was a direct result of his efforts to please his God. Surely God had forsaken him!
Joseph did not forsake God. He did forget his father’s house, as indicated by his naming his first born son “Forgetfulness” (Genesis 41:51), but this was the means by which he escaped the bitterness that otherwise would have clouded his life. He made a new place for himself in his new home. As a slave, he became the best slave he could be; imprisoned, he became an exemplary prisoner; as prime minister, he was loyal to his king and highly respected for his service to his adopted land. But, above all things, he remained loyal to God in his personal life and worship. He gave God time to work out His purpose for him and in later years he was able to see that God had used even the reverses of his life as the means of bringing his own exaltation and the salvation of his people.
As remarkable as these evidences of faith are, however, they are not the one featured in Hebrews. There it is noted: “By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones” (Hebrews 11:22). Joseph was aware of the promise made to Abraham that his seed should inherit the land of Canaan after a sojourn in Egypt. Though none of that land actually belonged to his family at the time of his death, God’s promise meant more to him than all of his achievements in Egypt. He might have had an extremely honorable burial in Egypt with a great monument erected to the memory of Zaphnath-Paaneah (his Egyptian name), but he understood the transient nature of human honors and preferred to lay hold of the promises of God and be buried in Canaan. He did not even ask for immediate removal of his body to Canaan, but chose rather to have it taken when God’s promise of an exodus was accomplished.
As prime minister of Egypt, Joseph enjoyed the best which that land had to offer for the remainder of his lifetime. In addition, his descendants received a double portion of Israel’s inheritance, for his two sons were given an inheritance equal to that of each of his brothers. But, above all of this, he lived with a clear conscience and peace of mind in knowing that he was approved of God. And you and I, who likely would never have heard of Zaphnath-Paaneah, now honor Joseph and imitate his faith in the hope of sharing with him in that eternal reward which God has for all of the faithful. Faith is the victory!