Confirmation Sunday No Bibles Required

Our local paper has an article in it this week by a woman pastor/preacher from one of the nearby denominations entitled, "What is Confirmation?" which she wanted to explain since they have a confirmation Sunday planned. Needless to say, since I have never read of such a thing in the Bible and have known many people in this particular denomination over the years I ended up reading the piece knowing all the while that the silence of the Bible on a subject has never stopped a denomination from its own inventions and desires as pertains to its faith, worship, and practice.

After reading the article I went to my e-sword concordance and searched on the word "confirmation." I did find it in 2 locations. Paul spoke about "confirmation of the gospel" in Philippians 1:7 and the writer of the book of Hebrews spoke of how an "oath for confirmation" (Heb. 6:16) is for men an end of all dispute making an observation about secular matters among men to make a greater point about the confirmation God has made to man. Another search on the word "confirm" only brought up 2 hits (Rom. 15:8 and 1 Cor. 1:8), and like the references above, neither has relevance for the practice of a "confirmation Sunday," a thing unknown in scripture.

So what are we doing here? Are we free to just make up worship practices to suit ourselves? The lady says in her article, and I quote directly from it, "Confirmation is a rite done in the church during worship." You cannot find such an animal in the New Testament, but you can find it in this denomination which went outside the New Testament for its practice and authority. Who has such authority? I would think it would take a bold person to say I'll bring into the worship whatever I want whether I can find it in the New Testament or not.

Jesus himself said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24 NKJV) Since God's word is truth, "your word is truth" (John 17:17 NKJV), and I "must" worship in truth, it seems to me I need a little truth (word of God) for what I practice in worship to God. Where is this truth, confirmation, found in God's word? I looked for it but could not find it. Am I to assume this group does not care about finding any word of God for their practice?

The lady attempts to give the history of confirmation so people like me can get a handle on it, but guess where she starts with that history. Are you guessing the New Testament and the first century? Better guess again. She starts not in the first century but in the third, approximately 200 years after the New Testament was signed, sealed, and delivered as God's new covenant or law for man "once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3 NKJV) She thus goes outside the word of God to the word of men to get her “confirmation Sunday.’’ Of course, I already knew it was not in the New Testament, as you also know if you have ever read it.

The lady says in the early church, early perhaps but not in the first-century church, not in the New Testament church, confirmation was associated with baptism. I understand from what she wrote that a bishop would confirm a new convert after his/her baptism, and sometimes quite a long while after that baptism. Confirmation consisted of some formula of words a bishop would utter in some kind of formal church setting or service, according to her, to symbolize the presence of the Holy Spirit in baptism and says it involved laying on of hands and anointing with oil.

I did a ChatGPT search on the topic and it seems to agree with what she said. I quote it: “The sacrament of Confirmation involves a person, often a young adult, receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by a bishop or a priest, usually accompanied by anointing with chrism (sacred oil).’’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “It increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.” At a site called aboutcatholics.com, I found this, “It is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.”

No, it is not. Confirmation does not grant you the power to speak in tongues, perform miracles, or teach infallibly, let alone raise the dead.

The lady goes on to say, "Up until the Reformation the Church retained Confirmation as a sacrament but gave, over the centuries, many explanations." Amen to that. I doubt not the truth in that. When you invent ways to worship unknown to the word of God many explanations as to what you are doing and why are likely. God is owed an explanation as well as man. If you are giving many stories (explanations) how do you decide which one to give to Jesus on the Day of Judgment when he asks you what this was all about and why?

The lady preacher (???) goes on to say that in her denomination that confirmation has become an educational event. It is a rite done in worship she says. I ask by whose authority, man's or God's?

The Bible says, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Col. 3:17 NKJV) It is a little hard to see how one can do things in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus said nothing. Can we invent things to do in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can we just make up things in our worship and say we are doing those things in the name of the Lord Jesus and have his approval? Is that how it works? It is certainly clear historically that Confirmation was a man-made invention. It did not come from scripture. However, if you can just make things up and claim you are doing them in the name of the Lord Jesus I guess anything goes. Perhaps we can have Christian ballet or Christian pantomime and who knows what else.

She says it is a public expression reconfirming the baptism received as an infant. Book, chapter, and verse, please? Don't hold your breath waiting for scripture. You will die of old age before you ever get scripture for this, for it does not exist in the word of God.

As for infant baptism, it is another topic for another day. If an infant can be baptized scripturally I do not see why Tator, my basset hound, cannot be baptized as well, for there is as much Bible authority to baptize him as there is an infant who can know no more than Tator does about what is going on and why. The Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6 NKJV) The infant cannot go to God in faith or act by faith nor does he/she need to as one is accountable for sin only when he/she has sinned.

The infant is born sin-free, not born in sin. If you say the baby is a sinner, name the sin. Sin is not inherited. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.” (Ezek. 18:20 NKJV) An infant can inherit a lot of things, but sin is not one of them.

There is sin involved in baptizing the infant, but not on the infant's part. It is on the part of those who put the infant through this and then allow him/her, when they come to an age of accountability, to be deceived into thinking they obeyed God in baptism. You lie to them. The child never obeyed anything as an infant, nor could he. It was impossible, and what is impossible God does not require. Yes, God requires baptism but not of babies.

I have no idea why people want to be in a denomination that has no more respect for the Bible than this one. The reality is they do not need a Bible for they have created their own religion and just adopted as much of the Bible as they want, leaving the rest alone, and have added the commandments of men to what they have adopted.

As for the lady preacher, Paul said (but does it matter with them?), "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12 NKJV) Yes, everyone is entitled to their own religion but just be truthful about it. Don't say it is Bible based when it is not. At least the Catholics were honest enough to try and burn Bibles and those who translated them, or in some cases those caught with them. There is some consistency there. As for me, I want nothing to do with either the denominations or the Catholics. "And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:7 NKJV)

(This was written many years ago, revised just a tad, a little added, but still as applicable today as when it was first written.)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Christ the Savior of the Church But Which One

Paul tells us, “Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) This passage is clear-cut and easy to understand, save for one thing--what body is he the savior of? The New Testament teaches the body is the church (Col. 1:24, Eph. 1:22-23) so is it the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, the Methodist church, the Nazarene church, or one of the hundreds of others that could be named? Many would say it is all of them taken collectively. It is a subject worthy of consideration, an important study, for if we do not get it right we will be found outside the body Jesus saves on the Day of Judgment.

It is essential that we understand when Paul said Jesus was the “savior of the body” he was talking about the church already in existence, a church that would continue to exist until the end of time. The church is the body, “And he (God the Father--DS) put all things under his (Jesus’--DS) feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV) Paul says again in Col. 1:18, “And he is the head of the body, the church.” (NKJV) The church is thus Christ's spiritual body, which Christ will save at the last day as he is the savior of the body. Being a church member then is essential for salvation.  There is not a word in scripture about salvation outside the body of Christ, outside the church.

However, we still have the burden of figuring out just which church it is that Christ is going to save as we have hundreds and hundreds of churches today. Is there any help in figuring it out? Yes, quite a bit.

I will start with what ought to be obvious to all. If the church of which a person is a member began centuries after the New Testament was written it is not the church that Jesus said he would save. How do we know? The church Jesus established and over which he was and is the Savior was established in the first century on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Let us say just as an example that a church began in the 1400’s. If a person claims the church of which he is a member is the one which Jesus built and is the Savior of and yet it was not begun until the 1400’s one does not have to be a mathematical genius to see the timeline does not fit.

Are we to believe Jesus saved people in a church that did not exist? Are we to believe Jesus saved people in any of the hundreds of churches now in existence before they were founded? A little common sense goes a long way. If people were saved in the hundreds of years before the reformation and the establishment of the multitudes of churches we have today, it only proves those churches were never needed for salvation and were not a part of the church Jesus saved and is saving. It proves they are man-made churches. Jesus promised to save his church, not man-made churches.

That the church was begun in the first century is so self-evident from even a casual glance at scripture I do not want to spend much time on it here. Many of Paul’s salutations in the epistles establish that fact for he often begins with words like, “To the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), “To the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), “To the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:2 NKJV). It is hard to write to a body not yet established, to something that does not exist. The church was begun on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 commencing with those who responded to Peter’s preaching that day. In Acts 2:47 the New King James version of the Bible reads, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Much more could be written on the establishment of the church but that is not the purpose of this particular article.

Every denomination that exists today was built many hundreds of years after Christ built his church. This puts every one of them in a terrible bind. Only emotion can rescue them; there is no hope that reason can. How can one claim his church, speaking by way of accommodation, is the church Jesus built when one takes chronology into account? People were saved and added to the church that Jesus is saving for many hundreds of years before any denomination existed.

If you admit the obvious that your denomination is not the church Christ built then troubling questions arise. Why does it exist? Who built it? Jesus built his church but the chronology says your church is not his church, so who built it? Was Jesus’ church insufficient by itself without your church (denomination)? If he did not build your denomination but man did, who gave man the right? Where is the Bible authority for any man to go out and build a church in addition to God’s church? That is the very thing that happened if God’s church already existed before your denomination.

If your church is not the church Jesus built then how can it be a friend to Christ’s church? It is in competition with Christ’s church. If it taught the same thing Christ’s church taught (the same doctrine), was the same in organization, work, worship, the same in every respect, then it would be his church and not a denomination, and yet I have never known a denominational person willing to declare that his church is the church Jesus built. Why not? Because that would make it exclusive as Christ built only one and that would necessarily exclude others in other denominations.

I think men generally realize these things, it is only common sense, a little logic, pretty much like two plus two equals four, simple reasoning, and yet it is so troubling to allow our minds to dwell on these things that we quickly shut the thoughts off before anxiety sets in. If we do not see an answer, a way out, our mind seems to say let it go. We pretend the problem is not there, is non-existent, and we refuse to think about it lest it cause us worry, concern, and trouble. But, like cancer, if the problem is there it will not go away on its own, and sooner or later, one way or another, we will be forced to deal with it. It refuses to be swept under the rug and forgotten. There is a Judgment Day when we will have to provide answers as to what we did and why in our lives.

Often the answer that comes up is that all the denominations taken together are the church Jesus built. We all know deep down that is not true, but again we do not like to think about it. Every one of them was built hundreds of years after the fact by man, not by God.

We also know that they do not teach the same doctrines nor practice the same things. One denomination is open to gay marriage and homosexuality, to women in leadership roles, to sprinkling for baptism, to this or that while another denomination is one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction on these issues and others. Their doctrines are as far apart as the East is from the West. They are not of one mind nor one practice.

To get everybody to heaven who just believes in Jesus which is a belief commonly held means there is no such thing as truth and that the things Jesus and the apostles taught about Christian living are at best simply good advice, not commandments, and are irrelevant to salvation. In the denominational world, one man’s truth is another man’s lie. Let a Baptist and an Episcopalian get together and talk about Christianity and homosexuality and see what happens. I use that as only an example. Make no mistake about it, if denominationalism with its generally held belief that we are all going to heaven just so we believe is to be accepted, a man must also accept the idea that neither truth nor practice matters. There is just no way in the world of getting around that.

In this article, I have said nothing about the Roman Catholic Church as I have excluded it from the denominational world. However, it does not get a free ride for the question with it is whether a totally apostate church can be saved. However, that is an article for another time.

We can answer the question “Christ the Savior of the church but which one” by saying it is none of the denominations, but it is the church Jesus himself built. It is the church that follows after the New Testament church as described in the scriptures, being as nearly free from sin and error as strictness to scripture can make it. It is the church restored to what it was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 in terms of initiation into it and in terms of its work, worship, and organization. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Can One Be Just A Christian Without Being In A Denomination

Many years ago I asked a lady this very question--can one be just a Christian in Christ’s church without being in a denomination?  Her answer was that while that was once possible it is not possible today.  I have never understood that kind of thinking.  To her the church that is Christ’s could not exist today, in the modern era, alone by itself, outside of denominationalism.  That is a position that raises all kinds of difficulties.

In the early years of Christianity, the gospel message when believed and obeyed made Christians and Christians only that were added by God to the church, Christ’s church.  “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47 NKJV)  If the pure gospel message of the New Testament will not do that today then when, where, and how did it lose its power to do so?   Why must I today be in a denomination when all I want to be in is the Lord’s church?

But it is said that the gospel still saves just like it did in the first century, still puts you in the Lord’s church, but then after obeying it you must join a denomination.  Why?  They didn’t in the first century.  Oh, it is said you join one for edification, fellowship, and joint evangelistic and benevolent efforts.   So, is it being said that the first-century church lacked these things?  Is it being said you cannot be in that church today for it does not exist as a stand-alone institution today?  If it doesn’t when did it die out as a stand-alone institution? 

Does the gospel message now when believed and obeyed add you both to the church Jesus built and to a denomination simultaneously?  If so, when did that begin?  If so where can I read about it in the Bible?  If so which denomination does it add me to in addition to the Lord’s church?  If so why is that needed now but was not needed for hundreds of years after the first century had come and gone?  If so when did the gospel lose its power to make me just a Christian, no more, no less? 

When did Jesus and the gospel begin to need help in the saving business?  When did his church alone cease to be the body of the saved?  “He is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)  The body is his spiritual body, his church, “He is the head of the body, the church.” (Col. 1:18 NKJV)  The Lord adds us to the church when we believe and obey the gospel (Acts 2:47).  Paul says of Christians, “You are the body of Christ, and members individually.” (1 Cor. 12:27 NKJV)

But it is now said that that is not enough--if the lady was correct.  Now to be saved you must also be a member of a denomination (the assumption being that all Christians are).  So, you must be both in the Lord’s church and a denomination to be saved, is that right?  It is if the church Christ built is not sufficient by itself.  But, most denominationalists would say it is not essential to be a member of their particular denomination to be saved, others will do.  Then please tell me of what earthly or heavenly good that denomination serves other than to be a divider of men, one group of believers divided against another group of believers?  If it is not essential to the salvation of men get rid of the thing that causes all the strife and division.

The truth is the church Jesus built does still exist on this earth today without the help of any denomination.  The gospel has not lost its power.  The church of Christ can exist anywhere in the world today when men and women are willing to forget just about everything they have been taught in denominationalism and just take the Bible alone as their guide.  If the church Jesus built does not exist as an operating entity upon earth today in your locality, wherever that be, as it did in the first century in the Middle East, there is only one reason for it in lands where the Bible is readily available--men love their denominations and would rather have them and their creeds and councils and governing bodies than just the simple New Testament church and its worship regulated by the word of God alone.

Let us be honest.  If we take the New Testament, the word of God alone, as our guide a lot of things will have to be given up.  One does not read in his New Testament of, as examples, sprinkling of infants, christenings, sprinkling of anyone at any age and calling it baptism (baptism is immersion), baptism for any purpose other than the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16), instruments of music being used in New Testament worship, dramas being performed, group musical performances, and a host of other things that have today become commonplace in denominational practices and worship services.  Are those things right?  You cannot read about them in your New Testament which raises the question of does one need a New Testament as a guide.

Nor will one read in his New Testament anything about one man rule of a congregation by a single individual designated as a pastor (each New Testament congregation had multiple pastors), oversight of a congregation by a national church organization, church-sponsored ball teams, raising funds by business ventures, seminars for everything from weight loss to how to do your taxes, and the list could go on.  One must go outside the New Testament for those things. 

No, if you want the New Testament church that Christ built a lot of things will have to go by the wayside and you will end up with nothing much that is attractive to worldly men.  The worship service will not be like attending a rock concert or an entertainment event.  It will be very simple--singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, prayers, partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, the word of God will be preached, and a collection will be taken on the first day of the week to carry on the work of preaching the gospel and carrying for the needy.   

It is a hard transition from a denomination into the simple New Testament church that is led not by a single man or a national oversight organization but by a few select men who meet the biblical qualifications to be elders as found in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.  These men have no authority to legislate for God.  Their role is simply that of overseers to ensure that the work is done that God has given the church to do.  These men will be chosen by the members of the congregation from among themselves.  No one person designated a pastor by the denominational world will run the affairs of the congregation nor will a national organization.

The name on the sign out front will not matter as long as it is a scriptural designation.  It could simply be called the church (for that is what it is), or the church of God, or the church of Christ, or any other scriptural designation.  The name is more descriptive than it is an actual name.

You will not be voted into the membership.  You cannot join this group of believers.  Why not?  Because God adds you when you obey the gospel.  As I heard one man say recently, he had it right but I had never thought about it that way, you cannot join the church because you are adopted into it and God is the one who does the adopting.

Critics say that in the very act of organizing such a group you immediately become just another denomination.  That goes along with the way they think for they do not want to leave denominationalism behind and thus insist one has to be a member of a denomination and cannot be just a Christian.  They thus proclaim the Lord’s church a denomination.  If they admit we can have just the New Testament church on earth today and worship in it they condemn themselves and they are not about to do that so all they can do is shout and shout over and over again “denomination.”  They will label you and truth be thrust to the wind.

But what they are really saying, if they would think it through, is that God’s word has lost its power to make just a Christian and lost its power to keep his church on earth today out in the open where it can be seen.  They are saying that the seed, “the seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11 NKJV), produces a different crop today than what it did back in the first century.  Back then it produced just Christians, now you plant it and you get both a Christian and a denominationalist.  Strange seed this is that has undergone a transformation like no other seed in human history.

They are caught in a bind.  On the one hand, they do not want to say you must be in a denomination to be saved but then on the other hand they want to insist you must because to them it is impossible to reestablish the New Testament church today and just have it alone.  They want it both ways; they want to eat the cake and save it all at the same time.  Life doesn’t work that way.  They cannot have it both ways.  But, that is their problem, not mine.

I think most people who are serious about their religion see the great contradictions in denominationalism.  However, they either do not know what to do about it or else their love for it is such that they will not give it up.  I readily admit it is hard to start over but that is what must be done if we are going back to the church Jesus built.

Denominationalism will always have a greater appeal to man than the Lord’s church for it allows more freedom of expression and gives man more say so in what is done and how it is done.  Man has a desire for that.  It has always been that way long before the church ever came into existence.  Mankind wants to do things they want to do unhindered by God.

The concept of restoration of New Testament Christianity is a valid one and there are many churches of Christ in the land today still operating on the principle that it is possible to be just a Christian alone outside of denominationalism, just be a member of the church Jesus built, take the Bible and do what they did in the first century, that and that alone, and be just a Christian.  Unless God’s word has lost its power it is still possible to do that.

The church can be established in its New Testament purity in any area where men and women are willing to leave denominationalism and just take the Bible alone.  It is not necessary to call it the church of Christ although no man should be hesitant to call the local congregation by that Christ-honoring name.  Just give it a scriptural designation, organize it by what you read in your New Testament, accept members based on the way men were made members in the original church Christ built, worship as they worshipped, do the work they did, and leave all manmade inventions out of it.

To answer the question that was the title of this article, “Can One Be Just A Christian Without Being In A Denomination” the answer is yes if the desire is great enough to do so.  But, be assured, those who love their denomination will have none of it.  The Catholics are not the only ones who love their traditions.  As the Apostle Paul said, “For do I now persuade men, or God?  Or do I seek to please men?  For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Gal 1:10 NKJV)  We can please men (humankind) or we can please the God of men.  Pleasing men means denominationalism.  We ought to choose to please God.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

One Church—A Thing Hard to Accept

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me.  One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it.  I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her.  Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor.  Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist.  I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion?  Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects?  There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth.  I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with. 

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them.  They would flunk out of a high school or college class for they will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning.  Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O.J. it simply cannot be so.  It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it.  That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their mind that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).  

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.”  Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV) 

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see?  Had God done it?  The text says "their eyes they have closed."  Why would a person do that?  Could it be they did not want to see?  Could it be they did not want to know?  Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know?  Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing.  Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV)  It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear. 

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will."  Both could have heard.  The only difference between the two parties was the heart.  The Jewish heart had grown dull.  The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull."  The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will.  Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV)  The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them.  It is hard to get a satisfied person to change. 

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man.  The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context).  It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions.  Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will.  Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong.  The eyes were deliberately closed.   

This brings me to what I really want to talk about it.  I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present.  The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology.  In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide."  In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000.  The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty some thousand?

How is it we have here in the Bible a plain statement of scripture as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews in centuries gone by and yet the eyes are closed today and the ears are hard of hearing and the hearts are grown dull so the plain statement of scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty some thousand?  Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old.  We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church.  Where do you read that in your Bible?  What book is that in, what chapter, what verse or verses?  It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said.  That parable is found in John 15.  Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations.  There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time.  When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it.  Why?  Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the 12 apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper (compare Mark 14:17-18 with John 13:1-18:3).  Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations?  It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account.  It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines.  When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.).  The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination then the reality is truth no longer matters.  Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error.  Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus.  That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means.  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?  That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock.  Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV)  Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men or the same group of men do the same thing after Pentecost.  What then?  They are believers that Christ is the Son of God.  Is that all that matters?  Are they then in the "one church?"  Are they saved?  The failure to confess Jesus is the same as denying him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief.  When you begin to define saving faith in stricter terms than just an intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are saying that doctrine does make a difference after all and if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church."  The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.  

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built.  God adds you when you obey the gospel.  The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved?  In Acts 2 in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted) we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter via the Holy Spirit preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach?  He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV)  Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached.  Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful?  Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation.  If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened.  He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter.  So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says.  That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus."  There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example).  No one wants that kind of faith.  We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject.  You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds.  They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts.  It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either.  They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question.  Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside.  Here are some examples:  the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc.  These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of.  These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question.  Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which any person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or on the other hand that there is only one church?  I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling.  It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them?  Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church.  I include Catholicism as just another denomination.  It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad).  But, this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost) or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built.   That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine.  Every congregation was to abide in it.  There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine.  It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church.  It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church.  If that church is not found in your community why not restore it?  You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]