Comments or Questions?

I really appreciate everyone's interest in my blog.  My last post generated a bit more traffic than usual, so I thought I'd give you the opportunity to respond. If you have any comments or questions regarding the last post, or any post for that matter, please feel free to use the "Contact Me" form at the bottom of the page. I look forward to hearing from you!

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18

If Peter Visited Your Church

The Lord's Church, Part 2

In Matthew 16, Christ promised to give Peter and the other apostles the keys to the kingdom (the church). In Acts 2, we see Peter using those “keys” to open the doors of the church when he preached the first gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost. With his heart-pricking message, the doors were swung wide open, and some 3,000 people were added to the Lord’s body (the church) that day.

As an apostle and inspired writer, Peter would know exactly how to identify the Lord’s true church. Let’s suppose Peter came back to life and you ran into him at the local fish market. You wouldn’t dare pass up the opportunity to invite him to church. So what if he actually came to church with you?

Would he be confused by the name outside the building?

I picture Peter stopping at the sign and literally scratching his head. Many churches today are named after men like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Wesley. There’s even a local church named after Peter & Paul; he would definitely scratch his head at that one. I understand that these churches would call themselves Christian and say they follow Christ; however, the way you identify yourself to the community says a lot about what you believe and teach.

There is no distinguishing name for the church because Christ simply established HIS church, THE church. In scripture, the church is referred to as: the church of God (1 Corinthians 1:2), the kingdom of God (Romans 14:17), the churches (congregations) of Christ (Romans 16:16), the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22), the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15), the church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12:23), and the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2).

Would he think it’s odd that money is collected every time the doors are open but the Lord’s Supper is rarely observed?

Most denominations have no problem taking up a collection on Sundays (and any other day of the week), citing 1 Corinthians 16:2. However, when the Lord’s Supper is at question, the frequency becomes sparse, even though “the first day of the week” is used in both instances. (Acts 20:7).

Would he wonder why your church is led only by “Pastor Bill" or "Reverend Bill" or "Father Bill" instead of a group of qualified elders (plural)?

God’s pattern for church “government” is the universal church, made up of local congregations, which are overseen by elders, with deacons carrying out works/tasks. There is no authority for one man to oversee a congregation.  Elders, who are all equal, are responsible for "shepherding the flock."   (1 Timothy 3, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:22, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1)

 

Would he be upset that your church is regulated by a creed book or other books of church laws?

The Baptist church has The Baptist Manual; the Pentecostal church has The Statement of Fundamental Truths; the Wesleyan church has The Discipline; the Mormon church has The Book of Mormon; The Catholic church has The Catechism of the Catholic Church; and so on. It's interesting that most of these creeds have multiple volumes and editions. Shouldn’t it be taken as a warning that the beliefs of these churches regularly change?

God’s word is unchanging (James 1:17), and it was once (and only once) delivered (Jude 1:3). The Bible alone provides all we need to know (2 Timothy 3:16). We flirt with danger when we add or take away from His word (Revelation 22:18). I briefly looked over each of the above-mentioned books, and all of them add to and take away from biblical instruction. There's nothing inherently wrong with a book outlining one's beliefs or a book that is used to supplement Bible study; however, when a book is not in harmony with what the Bible teaches, it becomes condemned by scripture.

Would he be baffled by the group dedication or baptism ceremony?

A common teaching amongst churches today is that a person is saved at the point of believing Jesus to be the Son of God and accepting Him as personal Lord and Savior.  It is further taught that once someone has accepted Christ, he/she is then, or oftentimes later, baptized as an outward showing of an inward change.  Many times, a certain day is picked out in the future for all of the recently saved individuals to be baptized. 

So what's wrong with this?  First off, in every conversion account in Acts, the individual being saved was baptized that moment.  It wasn't put off for a later time; there was a sense of urgency.  The Eunuch didn't ask Phillip to come back a month later to baptize him. He said, "Here is water. What prevents me from being baptized?"  After believing in Jesus, the Philippian jailor was baptized straightway.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a person is not saved prior to being baptized. Acts 2:38 says, "Then Peter said to them, '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" (emphasis added). In the original Greek language, the word "for" is eis, which means "into; unto; in order to; toward." It expresses that which has not yet occurred and, thus, points forward. It never expresses that which has already occurred.  The use of eis in the verse cannot mean that one is baptized because his sins have already been remitted.  The meaning of the verse is this: Repent and be baptized in order to have your sins remitted.

It is not until the point of baptism that someone puts on Christ (Galatians 3:27), contacts the blood of Christ (Romans 6), has sins washed away (Acts 22:16), has sins remitted (Acts 2:38), and is saved (Mark 16:16).

There's a lot more that can be said about baptism, so I'll devote a future post to it.  I'll talk about things like the thief on the cross and Cornelius.

Would he scratch his head over the speaking in tongues?

In Acts 2, the apostles spoke in tongues. They didn't speak in some kind of unintelligible babble or gibberish like people do today. They spoke in the common languages of all the nationalities present on that day.  It was miraculous because they had no training or knowledge in those languages. It was the Holy Spirit that gave them the ability to do this.  The age of miraculous gifts, including speaking in tongues has come to an end.  The whole purpose of miraculous gifts was to confirm the word the apostles were teaching (Mark 16:20, Hebrews 2:3,4). The gifts were to continue until the Scriptures were completed and confirmed (Ephesians 4:8-13, 1 Corinthians 12; 13:8-10). When Revelation was completed, there was no more need for miracles to confirm the message. Hence, there is no longer a need for miraculously speaking in tongues, and no one has that ability today.

Would he be speechless about the female preacher?

1 Timothy 2:11,12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This verse is pretty straight forward. Paul makes it clear that a woman could not serve as a preacher.  This does not mean that women are second-class citizens. Men and women have different roles in the church, and it is the man's role to hold positions of authority.  Jess and I have had in-home Bible studies with people, and she's been an integral part of them.  Men and women are both expected to teach the gospel, and I know many women who are very good at doing just that; however, women are not to hold positions of authority in religious contexts (i.e. worship,  teaching Bible classes with Christian men/young men present, etc.)

Conclusion

If Peter could answer yes to any or all of the above questions, he wouldn’t recognize your church as Christ’s true church. Honestly, I think Peter would be shocked and saddened to see just how far “Christianity” has strayed from the teachings of the apostles. He would be distraught over the fact that most churches in existence today are not the church for which his Lord and Savior died. 

Obviously, if Peter attended a worship service of the true church, he would be shocked to see things like electricity, padded pews, the audience sitting and the speaker standing (instead of vise versa), projectors, sound systems, etc.  There is nothing wrong with these expedients to worship, and he would only be shocked at the newness and strangeness of them.  On the contrary, I'm certain that Peter would be shocked to see the doctrinal error that has almost strangled out the church of the first century.

I really hope you'll investigate the history of your church and compare its teachings to what's found in scripture.  May God bless us all with wisdom in his word.

One last thought... Due to time and space constraints, I had to narrow down the list of questions above. It's not an all-inclusive list of doctrinal errors taught in denominational churches today.  I hope to mention other issues in future posts.