Is Denominational Baptism Scriptural

Many different baptisms are being performed today by religious people, using different methods and modes and for different purposes.  However, the only baptism that I as an individual facing eternity ought to be concerned with is the baptism that Jesus spoke of when he said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

This is the baptism of the Great Commission when Jesus told the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (literally “into”—see NAS reference note—DS) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19-20 NKJV)  This is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of in Eph. 4:5 that places one in Christ (Gal. 3:27) where salvation is found (2 Tim. 2:10).  It is therefore spoken of as being “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and is a baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) of which he is the “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV), the body being the church (Eph. 1:22-23). 

It is a baptism you are required to teach for the Great Commission that was given to the apostles was that they teach those they had made disciples of and baptized to go and do the same thing teaching and baptizing others. (Matt. 28:20)  This continual handing down of the teaching and practice from one generation to another is to last as long as the Great Commission remains in effect--until the day of Christ’s return.  It is the one and only scriptural baptism that was to last for all generations.

While the baptism we have just discussed is the only one a man or woman needs to be personally concerned about the truth is man has come up with his own inventions thus we have differences in baptisms today.  Solomon said, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” (Eccl. 7:29 NKJV)  Human nature never changed and so it is today as it was back then.

The first invention of man, relating to baptism, was the idea that he could sprinkle men and call it baptism and put his man-made invention on an equal plain with the baptism of the Great Commission.  Man can try it and use that procedure and pay for his error in the end.  God never gave man the authority to change the meaning of his inspired word or to add to it.  “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.” (1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV)

The words baptize, baptism, etc., found in your New Testament were words from the Greek carried over into the English without ever being translated.  We call them transliterated words.  Why were these Greek words never translated?  Because the Greek means to submerge, immerse, to dip.  By the time the Bible was being translated into English men had already become wedded to their invention--sprinkling and calling it baptism.  To translate the word accurately using the word immerse would end their deception for any capable of reading.  Sprinkling for baptism was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1311 A.D. at the Council of Revenna hundreds of years after no apostles were around to object.

Vine’s “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” a standard work, says of the word baptism, “consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence.”  I encourage the reader to do a Google search or use any other computer search engine and do their own research.  Type into your search engine the keywords “transliterated +baptism” minus the quotes.  Read and learn.

Paul says, “We were buried with him through baptism.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV)  He was talking to people who had been buried in water, not sprinkled or poured, for baptism was a burial. Sprinkling and pouring are not only frauds but also exceedingly dangerous in that many who know no better believe they have been scripturally baptized.  It would only be scriptural if one could change the meaning of God’s word.  Wise people will not do that, not if they have read scriptures concerning those who would do so.

Scriptural baptism is immersion and immersion only but many denominations do practice immersion and are still in error on the subject of baptism.  How so?  They are in error on the meaning or purpose of baptism.

Let me ask a question that will help clarify.  If I dive off a diving board or someone pushes me into a swimming pool or a lake and I end up immersed is that a scriptural baptism?  If young children were in a backyard pool playing church and one immerses the other would that be a scriptural baptism?  We would all say no to both but why so?  It would be because baptism is about more than just being immersed in water.  There has to be understanding, purpose, and heart behind it of such a nature that will make it pleasing to God.

God has told us if we will accept it exactly what the purpose of baptism is and what it accomplishes.  Acts 2:38 tells us what we need to know about the purpose of baptism but how many believe what they read there today?  Not many.  Man came along generations later and began denying what Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said in that sermon recorded in Acts 2 and gave baptism a different purpose and meaning to suit themselves and then said “God is pleased.”  When one changes an ordinance of God and gives it an entirely different meaning than he gave it then it is a little presumptuous to just assume he is pleased.  What we have done is set ourselves up as God, displaced God as the lawgiver, and said this is now what this ordinance is going to mean.    We now decide.  He does not.

I do not know of a denomination that believes one must be baptized either for the remission of sins or to enter Christ (which is essentially the same thing) although there may be a few that do.  Generally speaking, they believe one is saved by faith with or without baptism and prior to baptism.  It is to them either a symbolic act or, in some cases, the means of entrance into their denomination.  In the latter case, there is a world of difference between entering a denomination (which they admit is not the body of Christ but only a segment of it) and entering the body of Christ, the church he established.  What denomination was Lydia a member of?  Lydia had it right, denominationalism has it wrong. 

Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and thus already in Christ’s church baptized to get into a denomination?  There were no denominations in New Testament times.  Not a single person in the New Testament was ever baptized to enter into a denomination so why do it now?  Certainly, this kind of baptism is not scriptural for as I have said it was impossible to do such a thing in New Testament times thus baptism was never designed for that purpose.

For those who believe they are saved by faith alone apart from baptism passages like 1 Cor. 12:13 become meaningless, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  It becomes meaningless for that is the very thing a saved by faith-alone advocate must deny.  He must deny that “we were all baptized into one body.”  His point of view is that he was already in the body (Christ’s body and thus saved) before and without baptism.

Salvation is in the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, 1:22-23).  You are baptized into that body (1 Cor. 12:13) but the saved by faith alone man must claim to have gotten into that body some other way since he claims to be saved without being baptized into the body of Christ.  It logically follows then that his baptism, since he feels it does not put him into the body of Christ, must be to put him into a denomination of which the New Testament knows nothing or else be merely symbolic since it is not a baptism into Christ.

If one is baptized only as a symbolic gesture much of what has just been said applies as well.  Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and is thus already in Christ’s church baptized as a symbolic gesture?  When did God command man to be baptized as a “symbolic gesture?”  My Bible does not say anything about “symbolic gestures.”  If someone would grab a concordance and look up the word “symbol” or “symbols” or “gestures” it might help but when I tried it I only got one hit on the word “symbol” and it related to the head covering in 1 Cor. 11.  I also tried the word “sign” and the word “figure” and came up dry as well.

The old King James does use the word “figure” in 1 Peter 3:21 related to baptism but it does not help those who want baptism to be just a figure for it says, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” and that is not the figure those who promote denominational baptism are wanting.  The bottom line is that all of this business about baptism being just a symbol is not found in my Bible or yours but only in the minds of men who have wandered from the truth.  It is a baptism that has no scriptural meaning and is an invention of men who want some changes in the Bible so it will read more to their liking.

Whether one views baptism as a passageway to enter a denominational church, to gain membership in it, or as just a symbol both are inventions of men and worthless as far as the Bible is concerned.  If you were baptized for either reason you were simply immersed like a man diving from a diving board (that is if you were immersed at all).

But the objection is made that I did it to obey God.  How can you obey God when you do a thing he has not commanded?  He never commanded you to be baptized into a denomination (obviously since they did not exist back then) nor did he ever command you to be baptized as a symbol for anything.  He did command you to be baptized for a specific set of purposes none of which are found in denominational baptism. 

One cannot accidentally obey God.  Let me explain.  If I was to partake of the Lord’s Supper without knowing the meaning of it could it be truly said I worshipped God in that act in a way pleasing to him?  We would all say of course not.  So it is with baptism.  To obey God you have to know what you are doing and why and desire to do it for the reasons he said.  One is to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7) and faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17).  We cannot walk blindly without knowing what we are doing and think we might just get lucky and do the right thing by accident.  There is no such thing as obedience in that type of action.

Finally, and this is important, when a person presents himself to be baptized with denominational baptism there are certain beliefs assumed by the body or congregation about him and what he believes.  By presenting himself to them as a candidate for their baptism he is assenting to their set of beliefs about what is happening in that procedure.  You are saying by your actions that you are doing this either to enter that denomination or as a symbolic gesture--whatever they teach.  If you did not assent to that and told them chances are they would not baptize you.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that certain things will be said during the baptismal ceremony about what is being done and why.  If you hold your silence you are assenting that you too accept those things.  If you do not agree and hold your silence (you are being baptized for some other reason than what the group holds to be the truth) then you deceive those around you.  Can a deceiver in the act of deceiving be scripturally baptized?

The bottom line is this--in presenting one’s self for denominational baptism one either believes the wrong things about baptism giving it an unscriptural meaning and application or else he believes correctly but deceives all around him into thinking he is going along with their erroneous beliefs about the subject and its results.

Say, for example, I believe baptism is for just what the Bible teaches and says it is--for the remission of sins, to place one into Christ, to place one in his body the church.  However, the denominational group I am associated with believes all that to be true by faith without baptism and believes that baptism is just a symbol of salvation already achieved.  I allow myself to be baptized by them never uttering a word of dissent to their belief or to what they say at the baptismal ceremony.  Have I deceived them?

Why bring this up?  Because years down the road after the fact there are those who learn the truth about baptism and need to be baptized scripturally but they look back some decades earlier and deceive themselves into thinking that way back when 30 - 40 years ago when they were baptized it was for the right purpose.  If it was for the right purpose those decades ago they deceived those baptizing them and being a deceiver is not a good way to go to judgment day.

Furthermore, we all learn the truth gradually, not all at once.  Minds are changed and/or brought to the truth gradually over time bit by bit.  This article will change no one’s opinion but it might be one straw that if other straws are added later will gradually change a mind given enough time which might be years.  Because this process is so gradual by the time we have finally come around a full 180 degrees in our thinking we look back and cannot remember a time when we did not think as we do now.  There is great danger in this.

Because of it we may never obey the truth, never be scripturally baptized, and thus never enter the church of which Jesus is the Savior, because we cannot remember the truth of our thinking and motives at the time years earlier when we first were immersed.  We tell ourselves we thought back then the way we think now thus we do nothing to change our state.  Denominational baptism ends up sinking another ship.  There is but one scriptural baptism and denominational baptism is not it. 

The purpose of this article has not been to be a wrecking ball but before one can build in a location already occupied the old structure must first be torn down.  Denominational baptism is an old structure that needs tearing down so that the truth can be built in the location that old structure once occupied.

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

 

 

  

Willful Sin--Can Anyone Be Saved

The text for this article is Heb. 10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.  But a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (NKJV)

These verses, when read in the King James and the New King James versions of the Bible, have probably caused Christians about as much anguish as any you will find in the pages of the New Testament.  Make no mistake about it the verses are directed at Christians as is the whole book of Hebrews.  Each of us knows we are guilty of having committed willful sin and this passage troubles us.  When we read the verses in the larger context of verses 24 through 31 it is very easy to become fearful and feel it is hopeless, we are lost without remedy.  We are sorry about our sins but we feel it is too late. 

However, there are things we ought to consider before reaching that conclusion.  When we take a look at verse 26 in the New American Standard version we readily see that the verse is not talking about a single act of willful sin.  It reads as follows, "For if we go on sinning willfully," thus the sin of verse 26 is a way of life rather than an individual act of sin.  (See also the NIV which reads, “If we deliberately keep on sinning.”)

All sin other than sins of ignorance is willful sin.  One may struggle mightily before committing the sin that has enticed him/her but nevertheless, it was their decision to take the leap and commit it.  It was a willful sin in that sense, a sin of personal choice. 

If a willful sin of that kind necessarily led to condemnation without hope then who could be saved?  Would it be Peter? 

Peter, according to Paul, stood condemned (Gal. 2:11).  Why?  Because "he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12 NAS) refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians.  Barnabas did the same thing.  Do you think this was a sin of ignorance?  Paul gives the cause which was not ignorance but fear of the circumcision party.  It was a willful sin in the sense that Peter knew what he was doing.  It was a sin committed out of fear, weakness of the flesh, we might say weak knees. 

How about the man in 1 Cor. 5:1, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife." (NAS)  Did this man who was doing this not know it was a sin?  You know he did.  Yet, in 2 Cor. 2:7 Paul urges the Corinthians to forgive the man as he had repented.  I remind the reader Paul wrote and spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 

2 Cor. 12:21 clinches the meaning of Heb. 10:26 for me.  It reads as follows, "I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced." (NAS)  What do we have here?  Christians practicing sin.  That implies certainly that we are not talking of one-time acts.  Are they lost?

Yes, if they do not repent but please note that is the very thing Paul is saying they can do.  Why is Paul fearful that he may end up mourning?  Because they have not repented but that implies they could if they would and thus would be forgiven.  We also understand they knew what they were doing.  The word translated "immorality" in this verse in the NAS is translated in the NKJV and others as "fornication".  It is the Greek word "porneia."  Do you really believe these people did not know fornication was sinful?  They were committing willful sin and yet we see they could be forgiven if they would but repent. 

What then is the meaning of Heb. 10:26-27?  Any sin you knowingly commit and continue is a willful sin as long as you continue in it and fail (refuse) to repent.  While involved in that there is no sacrifice for that sin that can save you as a willful practicing sinner.  When you repent that is another matter. 

I believe verse 27 bears the truth of this interpretation.  It says of such a person (a Christian involved in a sin on a continual basis willfully) that there is "a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (NKJV)  Why would you fear judgment if you were a complete apostate who no longer believed?  What you are is a man who believes but willing persists in sin.  Such a man fears judgment. 

Do not despair because you knowingly did that which was wrong even if you engaged in such a sin over a period of time.  Do not despair but rather repent and turn back to God. 

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

Ignorance Does Not Excuse Sin

God does not consider ignorance an excuse for sin and will not overlook a sin because you or I were ignorant of the sin when we committed it.  The verse that teaches this is found in Lev. 5:17, “If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.” (NKJV)  (See also Lev. 4:1-2, 13, 22, 27 and Lev. 5:2 and 5:15 bearing in mind as you read that to sin unintentionally in these verses is to sin in ignorance.)

God’s nature is such that he cannot bear nor tolerate sin.  The Psalmist said, in prophecy of Jesus, “You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.” (Psalm 45:7 NKJV)  Jesus hates wickedness and wickedness is just another name for sin.  God’s people are also to hate evil.  “You who love the Lord, hate evil!” (Psalm 97:10 NKJV)  That is what it will take within us to develop a Christ-like character.  “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” (Prov. 8:13 NKJV)  “Hate evil, love good.” (Amos 5:5 NKJV)

Since, as the Psalmist says in Psalms 119:172, “all your commandments are righteousness” (NKJV) deviation from them, whether it be intentional or not, is unrighteousness, thus evil, thus the thing God cannot tolerate and hates.  In Isaiah 61:8 the Lord says, “For I, the Lord, love justice.” (NKJV)  Thus when Jesus returns to judge the world he will be judging it in righteousness. (Acts 17:31) 

It is obvious that if God had not loved us and intervened on our behalf his righteousness would have demanded our condemnation for our sins, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)  Fortunately, God does love us and did intervene for us by sending Jesus into the world to be a propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10) which simply means Jesus paid the penalty for our sins so that we will not have to.  This allowed God to be just in punishing sin, for in Jesus and the cross he did punish it, and yet give unto us a way to be saved through faith in Jesus.  This is the gospel story.

We need to make applications of these truths regarding sin and ignorance.  What do we learn?

(1) The person who has never heard the gospel is lost.  We all have a tendency to say to ourselves, based on emotion, not the truth of God’s word, that if a person lives in a remote land far away where the gospel has not been taught and/or it is not readily available to him he will be saved without the gospel.  The Bible teaches just the opposite.

Why go preach the gospel anywhere if a person is saved without it?  Why bother a man if he can be saved, and already is, without the gospel?  If a man is saved without the gospel it is better to leave him that way than to teach him the gospel.  Why?  Because if you teach him the gospel and he rejects it he will be lost.

Why did God command the gospel be preached in all the world to every creature (Mark 16:15 NKJV) if it is not needed?  If a man can be saved in his sins then the conclusion must be that sin is no big deal and Jesus died for nothing.  Do we believe that?

(2)  Another lesson learned is that there is an enormous burden upon Christians to preach the gospel throughout every corner of the world no matter how remote.  If a person is lost without the gospel and we were commanded to take the gospel to them (the Great Commission) but did not nor did we make any efforts to do so then what becomes not only of those who did not hear but to those of us who made no effort that they might hear?

(3)  Another lesson we learn from this is that if ignorance is not an excuse that God will accept then it is our duty to study and work as hard as we can to learn all we can about God’s word.  We accept the fact we will be saved by God’s grace and not by perfection in commandment keeping and rejoice in that but, that having been said, what about the individual that takes a lackadaisical attitude toward learning God’s will and obeying his commands?  Does God’s grace cover man’s indifference?

Does a man want to try and go to heaven as one who never cared enough about God and his will to try and learn his commands so he could obey them?  I fear such a man may well meet up with 2 Tim. 2:15 on the Day of Judgment, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15 NKJV)  The indifferent man has not been much of a worker in God’s word.

God’s grace covers only a certain class of Christians and that class does not include the lukewarm and indifferent.  Jesus described the church at Laodicea as wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:17) and says, “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16 NKJV)  God’s grace is not for the lukewarm, indifferent, and disobedient unless and until they repent.

In closing I reiterate ignorance does not excuse sin with God.  We have an obligation to live a life of knowledge which means for all of us it is time to get the Bible out and read and study it.  The old King James Version says, “Study to show thyself approved to God.” (2 Tim. 2:15)  Let us not sin because of willful ignorance of God’s word--willful in that we prove ourselves to be too indifferent and lazy to study and try to learn from it. 

[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.]