THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

If the phrase “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16 reveals the name of the churches doing the saluting, then some New Testament churches were not included. The name of the church at Corinth (according to this line of thinking) was “The Church of God,” and the name of the church at Thessalonica was “The Church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (pretty fancy!). None of the other churches addressed by New Testament epistles was addressed “by name,” so we don’t know what their names were. Consequently, it is somewhat a mystery as to what churches Paul had in mind when he said “the churches of Christ salute you.”

The solution to the “mystery” should be obvious: no “naming” was intended, here in Rom. 16:16 or anywhere else. Be not deceived or confused by the pretensions of exclusive-minded Christians. To use the name “Church of Christ” is a distinction only in the eyes of those who have been trained to equate the wearing of a name with fidelity to the Lord. Where this idea originated, and why, is the real mystery. It certainly is not based upon scripture.

THINK OF THIS

Do you like for your fellow employees to criticize the way you do your job, even though the boss may be satisfied with your work? No? Well, remember that your fellow-Christian is a fellow-servant, answerable only to the Master.

Do you like for people to scold your children, or your children to scold one another? No? Well, remember that your fellow-Christian has a Father who is capable of disciplining him.

How do you like for people to make disparaging remarks about your property or abuse some belonging of yours which you hold very dear? You don’t appreciate it? Well, remember that your fellow-Christian is a purchased possession of the Son of Almighty God, bought with the highest of prices, and cherished intensely. “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40)

ON UNITY

Editor:

That we need to seek unity in the church, I agree. That we are too partyish, I agree also. But that we can agree, or have unity on the person of Christ and his Lordship, etc., without agreement on the Bible, I disagree strongly. “Person” suggests neither unity or division, fellowship or schism. We could agree as to Jesus’ being the Christ, but that is about all, one way or the other. Now, this leaves all the believers in Christ without a basis for unity. It is either the New Testament or nothing. Nothing else could unite us.

Restoration Review will do some good in tempering our attitudes in the church, but it will be limited in its effect so long as it offers nothing as a basis for unity. Love alone, “union” alone will not achieve what you aim for.

We can be united on what the Bible says. What it doesn’t say is the basis for division. One-cuppers bind their opinion, cuppers bind theirs, etc. A man who can recognize an opinion of his own as an opinion is really a discerning fellow, though. We don’t have enough of these fellows. If you cultivate opinion-discerners, then you will indeed do a great service for churches of Christ. In this I hope you succeed. — E. D. W.

WHAT CAUSES CONDEMNATION?

1. Are children born into a state of condemnation? Are they bound by and amenable to Christ’s law (Rom. 8:1-3)? If they are not bound by New Testament law in childhood, when do they become bound by such law? At “accountability”?

2. Assuming that a child is not bound by New Testament law, is it possible for him to sin? If it were possible for him to sin while not amenable to Christ’s law, would that sin be imputed to him (Rom. 5:13)?

3. At whatever time a child maturing into adulthood does become bound by New Testament law, for what purpose is that law bound upon him? Does it come upon him to save him or to condemn him? If it comes upon him to save him, what caused him to become lost? Sin?

4. How could sin cause one to be come lost prior to his becoming bound by law? How can he sin before coming under law? How could sin be imputed to him?

5. If the law of Christ comes upon a youngster to condemn him, how can Christ be portrayed as the bringer of salvation? If the binding of his authority makes transgression and condemnation possible, how much easier to solve the problem of sin by removing all law. Did Christ come to bring condemnation (John 3:17), or to save an already dead and lost world (2 Cor. 5:14)?

— R. Wright

IN HEART OR ON STONE?

A child of God is amenable to the will of Christ only to the extent that it is written in his own heart. God promised that the day would come when his people would respond to a covenant written in the heart, versus the “tables of stone” concept of the Old Testament. I have at least five reasons for believing that for us that day has come. They are listed as follows:

1. To contend that the New Testament contains a written law to which all must conform identically is to cry for a return to the bondage (the “law pots”) of Israel.

2. Christ taught that the law is broken in the heart (Matt. 7:28).

3. Paul said that “where there is no law there is no transgression.” Since transgression is in the heart, that is where the law is.

4. A law not written in the New Testament may exist only in the imagination of a Christian, but if he violates his conscience with respect to that imagined law, he violates that law in his heart and commits sin (Rom. 14; 23).

5. Christ taught that one’s obligation is in proportion to his ability (“To whom much is given, of him shall much be required,” etc.); therefore, obligation would vary from one individual to another.

Why then should we withdraw from a brother over a difference relative to “written” law?

— P. Francis

THE LORD’S DAY CONTRIBUTION

Surely Christians are a tradition loving people! It is so evident that several of the practices of which our brethren make such a point came into practice without real authority from the scriptures, and have persevered mostly because of our disinclination to change anything; and these things have become so firmly established now that to suggest a change is tantamount to heresy. For example, the Sunday collection. This custom has been the sale basis for financing the work of the Churches of Christ for some years. Not only is this method of finance universally accepted and followed among these groups, but it has been made a matter of doctrine, and the consensus of opinion is that any group which employs any other method for gathering funds is unscriptural and therefore sectarian.

The truth of the matter is that there is no authority in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 for any extended or perpetuated system of finance. There is not even any authority here for the church, as such, to own money at all. Each man was to lay by him until Paul’s coming, and no longer. Then the money was to be picked up and taken on to Judea. Now, when are we going to quit pretending to ourselves that we have here God’s plan for “church finance,” and accept this record for just what it is — a historical account of a temporary need and the temporary means given to provide for it.

— S. Taggart