|
Frequently Asked Questions What are your foundational principles? Why should I consider becoming a member of the Christian Church? Why do you use the name “Christian Church”? Why don’t you teach “salvation by grace alone/faith alone”? Why don’t you accept infant baptism as valid? Why do you require baptism by immersion for salvation? Why do you offer the Lord‘s Supper every week? Why doesn’t this church seek spiritual gifts?
The Christian Church is part of a movement that began in the early 1800’s to restore the New Testament Church's life and pattern. Over the centuries, Roman Catholicism had developed an organization and many teachings that differed from Scripture. In response, a number of European Reformation movements arose - the Lutheran Church (Germany & Scandinavia), Calvinist Churches (Geneva, the Netherlands, Scotland, English Puritans and some Baptists), and the Anglican Church (The Church of England). Thomas and Alexander Campbell were an Irish father and son that grew up in the highly fragmented Presbyterian Church of Scotland (the Old Light, anti-Burgher, Seceder Presbyterian Church). Most of these divisions were rooted in Scottish political issues and did not apply to Ireland. When the Campbell's came to America, they found these same divisions over Scottish political issues being rigidly enforced even amongst the pioneers on the American Frontier. Circumstances and growing conviction led them to break with the Presbyterian Church and seek a return to the simplicity of the New Testament, which contains no mention of Scottish political divisions and Calvinistic teaching. As they forged their new approach to the Church (or recovered the old approach), they settled on some basic principles that they believed would encourage a return to a simple and Biblical Christian life and unity. These principles were spelled out in a document entitled the Declaration and Address, written by Thomas Campbell and printed in September of 1809. Its 13 propositions can be summarized under four basic propositions: (1) The authority of the Holy Scriptures as the only guide to matters of faith and morals, (2) the individual Christian’s responsibility before God and the right of private judgment concerning Biblical teaching. (3) The evil of sectarianism, based on human religious opinions and traditionalism that differs from Scripture. (4) The way to peace and unity in the body of Christ is through conformity to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.* These principles led them to gradually adopt such things as believer’s baptism by immersion for the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), weekly observance of the Lord’s supper, and congregational independence under local elders, in addition to some of the larger corrections of the 16th century reformation (salvation by grace through faith, priesthood of all believers, etc.). Since the early 1800’s, a number of people from various denominational backgrounds have found these principles a good foundation for simple, Biblical Christianity. ---------------------------------------------- *Taken from James DeForrest Murch’s Christians Only (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1962), pp. 42-47.
Hopefully, you will not think of this as joining an earthly organization, but of joining a group of people who are seeking to be a part of the church founded by Jesus. We have no earthly “denominational headquarters,” for we believe the “main office” is in heaven (Galatians 4:21-31; Hebrews 12:22-24) and that is where our spiritual citizenship is (Philippians 3:20-21). We believe that the true church’s foundation is Jesus and His Apostles and Prophets (1Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:19-22), so we have chosen to follow their teachings recorded in the New Testament in the belief that this is what they expected followers of Christ to continue to do throughout the age.* Accordingly, while not in a position to judge the ultimate validity of various alterations and departures from Biblical teaching (infant baptism, sprinkling water as baptism, various other schemes of church government and offices, etc.), we think it best to follow the “Apostolic pattern” as Paul advocated to believers in his time (Philippians 3:17). Warnings in the New Testament writings make us very concerned about departing from the Apostles’ teaching and example.** Therefore we expect and try to require nothing more (or less) than what Jesus commanded and the Apostles taught in regard to salvation and the Christian life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Following Jesus, Apostles, & Prophets - John 17:8,11,14,17,20-21; 1Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:6-9; 1John 4:6 **Warnings about false teaching and apostasy - Matthew 24:24; Acts 20:28-30; Galatians 1:6-9; 1Timothy 4:1-3; 2Peter 2:1-3; etc.
We believe that God predicted a new name would be given to His covenant people (Isaiah 62:2) and that Acts 11:26 identifies the new name as “Christian.” There is no evidence in the context that outsiders/detractors came up with this name and the Greek word for “called” in Acts 11:26 (chrematidzo) is used in a rather restricted sense in the New Testament for Divine communications. Later, Peter also identified the name “Christian” as the name in which we serve and suffer to God’s glory (1Peter 4:16). This name simply means “follower of/belonging to Christ” and we can think of no better or simpler name to be known by. The Lord built but one Church (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 4:4) and it is referred to by several simple names: the Way,* Church of God,** the church of the First-born (Hebrews 12:23), the Churches of Christ (Romans 16:16). None of these phrases was “the official” title, but were descriptive of the one body - it was following “the way” (John 14:6), and it was the gathering of those who belong to God/Christ, the first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:18). --------------------------------------------------------- * “the Way” - Acts 9:2; 19:23; 22:4; 24:14,22 ** “church of God” - Act 20:28; 1Corinthians 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; 1Timothy 3:5
According to our principles, we try to call Bible things by Bible terms (2Timothy 1:13; 2:2). Although a very popular notion/phraseology since the Reformation, when we search the New Testament for things associated with salvation, we cannot find even one instance where the Apostles taught salvation by the phraseology of “grace alone” or “faith alone.” The only occurrence of the phrase “faith alone” in the entire Bible is a bit troubling to us, with reference to the notion of "salvation by faith alone" because the Bible declares that we are “NOT justified by faith alone” (James 2:24). Accordingly, while we understand what those using this phrase mean, we are also not comfortable promoting doctrinal notions that clearly contradict Biblical statements (remember Genesis 2:15-17 and 3:4?). We believe that both “grace” and “faith” are important elements in understanding salvation, but neither (according to Scripture) is the “only” element involved in salvation. Since the New Testament writers clearly associated almost two dozen items with salvation, we believe that it is theologically unsound to speak of salvation as a "one item-only" doctrine.
One of our foundational principles is that we base our understanding of authentic Christianity on the original foundation of the Church - Jesus as Messiah and His Apostles and Prophets (1Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:19-22). Accordingly, we look to the Apostles' teaching/New Testament writings to supply us with the information as to what the essential doctrine and practices are to be. The crucial questions: Is "infant baptism" taught by precept or example in the New Testament? If not, then where did this practice come from and how is it justified? Are there reasons why this practice might even be in opposition to Biblical teaching?
Is "infant baptism" Biblical? - We cannot find any New Testament teaching that advocates (or even suggests) that unbelieving infants should be baptized nor can we find any example of such occurring during the lifetime and ministry of the Apostles. The New Testament concept of salvation and "covenant membership" is clearly aimed at those who have sinned and are capable of hearing the Gospel message and making a personal and conscientious decision and response to it. Salvation is tied to personal faith and faith involves hearing and responding to the Gospel message (John 3:16; Acts 8:12,36-37; 18:8; Romans 10:14-17; 1Corinthians 1:21; Hebrews 11:1,6), which would seem to argue against unbelieving infants being proper subjects. However, those already holding to the doctrine of infant baptism do have a few favorite "proof-texts" that they appeal to. "Let the little children come to me" - One of the favorites has been Jesus' comment to the Apostles when they tried to stop parents from bringing children to Jesus so that He could lay His hands on them and pray for them, But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew 19:14) Jesus' comment was a warning against adults who would hinder children's access to Jesus, but only by lots of creative imagination does this passage become a command to parents that they should have unbelieving infants "baptized"! The Mosaic Covenant was still in force when Jesus said this and Christian baptism was not yet commanded for anyone and there is neither mention of the word "baptism" nor any thought of it in the context of Jesus' comment. There is a major difference between "hindering" children already coming to Jesus and actively performing religious ceremonies upon infants for which they have neither understanding nor willing participation. This verse has nothing to do with the issue of "infant baptism," except in the minds of those desperate to find something that can be put forward as "Biblical support" for the practice. Household Baptisms? - Another favorite argument of those who already have the practice of infant baptism to defend is to point to the “household baptisms” and claim that there “must have been infants present.” The Roman familia was not the “nuclear family” we think of, but included extended family, close friends, business associates, slaves, etc. (Acts 10:24). Each of the four “households” noted probably did NOT involve infants: (1) Cornelius was not a young recruit, but a veteran soldier and those with him were gathered to hear Peter’s words (Acts 10:33; 11:44); (2) Lydia was a business woman away from home and those with her may have been slaves to aid her in business - with no husband mentioned and her in charge, why would anyone assume infant children are present in a traveling business woman’s entourage (Acts 16:14-15)? (3) The Philippian Jailor was also probably not a young man, but an older man with older children if any. The text indicates that all of those baptized were also able to hear Paul’s teaching and believe (Acts 16:32,34). (4) Crispus also, as leader of the synagogue, would probably be one of the older men and the “household” baptized was also said to have believed (Acts 18:8). "Circumcised by baptism" - Another argument is rooted in Paul's comment associating baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2:9-12, For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. Rather than note what Paul is saying in this passage, infant baptizers simply equate baptism with circumcision and then immediately fly back to Genesis 17:9-14 where it is noted that circumcision was for 8-day old infant males. The main problem with this approach is that Scriptural information indicates that fleshly circumcision was part of the Pre-Christian "Old Covenant" system and was specifically for infants and required no faith on their part, while Christian baptism is an element of the New Covenant "faith" system and was to be viewed as a burial and resurrection with Christ "through faith in the working of God." Elsewhere we are told that baptism is for believers (Mark 16:15-16), is the point at which faith is "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27), and where each individual makes their conscientious "covenant pledge" (eperotema - 1Peter 3:21). Paul did make an association between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2, but it was not that baptism is for unbelieving infants! Note this well - According to Scripture, Old Testament circumcision was stipulated for infants, while Christian baptism is stipulated for "believers" as a conscientious "covenant pledge"!
Where did "Infant Baptism" come from? - No clear reference to or example of infant baptism can be found in the Apostles’ teaching. The first mention of it in Church History comes in the later 2nd century, although Tertullian was opposed to it. The apparent reasoning for this originates in the early stages of the formulation of the doctrine of original sin - the Greek notion of the inherent evil of matter was being mixed with the New Testament teaching that baptism was for the forgiveness of sin, thus some were concluding that children with physical bodies are evil from conception and need baptism ASAP. It became more common after the 4th century A.D., as one more part of the massive theological retooling of Christianity into a “church and state” theocracy by Constantine and Theodosius. In this program, theologians dipped more and more back into the Mosaic Law for models. This is why later “European Christianity” (Roman Catholicism and the Reformation Protestantism that diverged from it) contain so many elements that cannot be found in the New Testament "Apostles' Teaching." Justified by the notion of "the continuity of the covenants," theocracy-minded theologians retooled a number of Old Testament and Jewish traditional elements into this theocratic "Christianity" - infant circumcision/bar mitzvah became infant baptism/confirmation; the Tabernacle/Temple became the model for Roman Catholic "Cathedrals" with a separate section for a sacred altar; the Aaronic Priesthood became a robed Clergy; David’s promised royal Messianic lineage became the European “Divine Right of Kings,” Israel’s commission to drive out or kill Canaanites justified the Dutch Afrikaner’s apartheid and treatment of native blacks in South Africa, etc. As this "Christian theocracy" notion spread throughout Europe via Roman Catholicism, it became well-entrenched long before the Protestant Reformation and they adopted and continued much of it. From these roots, many in the mainline traditional denominations have inherited the practice of "infant baptism" and assumed it to be valid because it has been going on for centuries and nobody wants questions raised about the salvation of generations of their ancestors. It is not our goal to consign generations of people to hell - that's God's business (and we hope this is not what happens) - but we also cannot determine Christian Doctrine on the basis of what some earthly church institutions have done for centuries. When we make whatever our ancestors did in good conscience for a long time the standard for valid Christian doctrine and practice, then we are NOT following God or Scripture anymore, but following the teachings and traditions of men (see: Matthew 15:1-14). If practicing unbiblical things for a long time makes them valid, then we might as well go back to the Roman Catholic Church, for they have been at it longer than others. If we truly are going to base our Christianity on the "foundation" of Jesus, the Apostles, and Prophets (1Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:19-22) and New Testament Scripture, then some questions about "infant baptism" have to arise in our thinking.
Infant Baptism and Scripture - I have already stated that no positive teaching for or any example of "infant baptism" can be found in the New Testament. In addition to these disturbing facts, there are some other clear and positive Biblical teachings that convince me that "infant baptism" is a misguided departure from sound doctrine. The "New Covenant" - Circumcision was specified for infants - 8-day-old males (Genesis 17:9-14) in what we would call the "Old Covenant" with Abraham* and continued during the Mosaic "sub-covenant." The Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenants were focused on a physical "covenant people" encompassing the Messianic genealogical lineage and an earthly "promised land." Thus, God clearly instructed that the primary means of entrance into those covenants occurred as infants were inducted and then later taught what their parents had entered them into as they were growing up (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). However, during the days of the Babylonian Exile, God promised that He would establish a "New Covenant" and it would be significantly different from the Mosaic Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Most notably, God's Law would reside inside each covenant member and they would not need to be taught and encouraged to "know the Lord" for all would. This seems to speak pointedly to the issue of infant induction into the New Covenant - that is not how the program will work. Hebrews 8 cites this passage from Jeremiah and declares the covenant established by Jesus as this promised "new covenant." It appears that a major difference would be that unbelieving infants will not be covenant-members until they know the Lord for themselves and understand forgiveness of sins. In essence, each covenant member will understand the principles of “righteousness by obedient faith” (Genesis 15:6) and the “forgiveness of sins” (Psalm 32:1-2) as did Abraham and David as mature believers. Accordingly, I would not expect to find any record of unbelieving infants being inducted into the New Covenant and none can be found. We find the New Testament and Apostles' Teaching consistently associating salvation and the New Covenant with each person's own conscious "faith/belief" and response to the Gospel message. Baptism was for believers (Mark 16:16) who heard and responded to the message (Romans 10:14-17; 1Corinthians 1:21). This is why we cannot find any positive instruction about infants or unbelievers being inducted into the New Covenant, for such is directly contradictory to God's own prophetic portrayal of what the New Covenant would be like. We believe that Jesus was the "mediator" of this “new covenant” (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and we are living in the "New Covenant" era. Thus, we find evangelism directed towards those old enough to hear a message, believe it, repent, and be baptized.** This is probably why Luke specifically notes that "men and women" (but not children) were being baptized in Philip's Samarian ministry (Acts 8:12). Salvation requires faith on our part, but “saving faith” is not bland mental assent - it is an assurance and conviction (Hebrews 11:1,6) that motivates appropriate actions. Paul’s “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 15:18; 16:25-26) and James’ “working faith” (James 2;14-26) were two ways of saying the same thing. None of this applies to infants.
"Original Sin" is not a Biblical Teaching - One of the key elements that seemingly justifies "infant baptism" is the doctrine of "original sin" - the belief that all humans inherit the guilt of Adam's sin and are "guilty before God" simply on the basis of their conception to sinful parents. Baptism is related to forgiveness of sins, but infants do not need to be baptized because they are NOT guilty of Adam's sin. Punishment on Adam's sin caused all of his descendants to live in a cursed world, thus all of humanity has been indirectly affected by Adam's sin (and all of humanity can be positively affected by Christ's act of righteousness - Romans 5:6-19) and our flesh is targeted by the evil one, but each of us stands guilty before God for our own sins (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 3:23; James 1:14-15). Rather than equally guilty of Adam's guilt with adults, Jesus taught that the innocence and trust of young children were qualities that made them models for adults about "kingdom citizenship" (Matthew 18:1-4; 19:13-15). In a marriage between a believer and non-believer, the believer renders the children "holy" (1Corinthians 7:13-14).
So, what about those "baptized as infants"? - Well, dead ancestors who were "baptized as infants" will stand before God and give answer for their deeds and the secrets of their hearts, based on (1) God's revelation/Jesus' words (John 12:48) and (2) the light they had with their own consciences bearing witness (Romans 2:1-16). They will be judged on the basis of what they knew of God's will (Luke 12:47-48) and those with more knowledge will be more accountable. Nothing that we do/do not do will help or hurt them before God in the slightest. Each will give answer for their own life and choices (Romans 14:12). However, we will be judged by the Gospel and words of Jesus (John 12:48; Romans 2:16), so listening to Jesus is much more important than continuing in "family religious traditions." We are saved by obeying Jesus (Hebrews 5:8-9), not honoring our parents above God (Matthew 10:34-38). Those who believed in Jesus as Messiah and in good conscience knew only "infant baptism" (infant sprinkling)," may be better off than a person who understands that baptism is a believer's immersion but refuses to do it out of misguided reverence for their parent's traditions. We do not wish anyone to be condemned and hope God will overlook this in the case of sincere folks who did not understand. However, to be true to the Bible and our foundational principles, we cannot endorse "infant baptism" as a valid practice, guarantee salvation to those who hold to it, or accept the unimmersed as "Christians" in the fullest sense. We believe that the Holy Spirit "conceives" spiritual life in people when they hear and believe God's Word, but they are not "born again" until they are born of the water and Spirit and "buried and raised with Christ" in the re-enactment of these saving events in Christian baptism. We do not feel that this would be the problem that it has become were it not for the many uninspired men that have altered and offered many versions of "Christian teaching" over the centuries that were not taught or practiced in the first century Apostolic church (Acts 20:28-30). We continue to be sobered by Paul's warning that the original Gospel was not to be altered in any way (Galatians 1:6-9) and that Christians are to continue in the Apostles' traditions as given verbally during their lives or in their writings (2Thessalonians 2:15). ------------------------------------------------------------------ * God’s initial promise to Abraham is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3 and contains personal blessing, prediction that his descendants would be a nation in Canaan, and ultimately, a blessing to all nations (through the Messiah). The “covenant” was sealed in Genesis 15 and the physical “sign” of the covenant (circumcision) was given in Genesis 17:9-14. ** NT Salvation embraced by people old enough to hear, believe, and obey the Gospel message - Acts 2:37-41; 8:12,36-37; 10:33; Romans 10:14-17; 1Corinthians 1:21
We try to note the many things that the New Testament writers associated with salvation, not just baptism. However, because baptism has been so generally distorted or removed from the picture in the larger “christian community” altogether, we appear to emphasize it more than other things. Salvation also requires an understanding of the role of God’s grace, Christ’s death/burial/ resurrection, our faith/belief, repentance, confession, faithfulness, etc. The Greek words bapto/baptidzo/baptisma all refer to a specific verbal action - dipping, immersing, submerging something in a liquid. Because sprinkling water on a person was officially adopted as valid for all “baptisms” by Roman Catholicism two centuries before the Protestant Reformation, most of the Reformation groups continued to use sprinkling water on someone’s head as “baptism.” With “infant sprinkling” well entrenched before the reformation, most reformers didn’t want to rock the boat (“what about grandma and grandpa?”) and English Bible translations ever since have also tended to transliterate (bring the sounds of the letters over into English) the Greek words rather than translate (select English words with the same meaning) them into English equivalents. The English word “baptism” didn’t mean anything specific in English, so every denomination could render baptism as a “ceremonial initiation involving water” and comfortably continue whatever tradition/practice they already had in place. However, the major Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin did note in their writings that the Greek word behind “baptize” means “to immerse.” For something as important as forgiveness and salvation, we think it best to do what Jesus and His Apostles said and meant. Biblical examples of human alteration of God’s instructions are not very encouraging. While we cannot judge in eternal matters, we also view it as unwise to assume that uninspired human alterations are acceptable and we cannot give an assurance of salvation to anyone that has not followed Apostolic teaching. Having a “minister’s” wet hand placed on your head is not doing what the Greek nouns/verbs spoke of, nor does it bear any symbolic “likeness” to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:5). Infant sprinkling may be an act of submission to some church’s teaching/tradition, but it is not obedience to the command of Jesus. Symbolically, there is no doubt that immersion is best suited to portray the intended re-enactment of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-11; Colossians 2:12). When Paul said “if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death” (Romans 6:5), he was clearly referring to the form of baptism - immersion. Is baptism symbolic? Definitely and only immersion portrays the intended event symbolized. Is baptism symbolic only? No, like circumcision (which was an essential act of submission for Abrahamic covenant membership - Genesis 17:14), baptism seems to be the time at which we by faith join Christ in His saving death and are “buried and raised up with Him (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), receive the forgiveness of sins provided through His blood (Acts 2:37-41; 22:16), are clothed with Christ’s righteousness (Galatians 3:26-27), participate in Jesus’ circumcision and become children of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29 & Colossians 2:11), and are saved and enter the New Covenant as we give our “covenant pledge” (eperotema) to God in His covenant blood (1Peter 3:21). Because of the apparent importance of baptism to New Testament teaching on salvation, we want to continue in this pattern as well.
The memorial meal instituted by Jesus in the context of the Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-29) is the only thing that Jesus asked His disciples to do “in remembrance” of Him (Luke 22:14-20; 1Corinthians 11:23-26). It is clear that the early church continued in this practice (Acts 2:42) and both Scripture (Acts 20:7; 1Corinthians 16:2) and early history and tradition indicate that the Lord’s Supper was the central focus of their weekly meeting. We not only want to maintain Apostolic tradition (2Thessalonians 2:15), but also see the importance of keeping the focus on the central and saving events of the Gospel: Jesus’ death for our sin, burial, and resurrection (1Corinthians 15:1-4) in a regular manner. We offer, but do not “police” (examine people and restrict it to “Christian Church” members only), the meal to all believers every week as an important means of obeying and remembering Christ. While some claim that weekly observation can render it a “commonplace” experience, this same reasoning never seems to be applied to any other activity that could equally become “routine” - church attendance, hymn-singing, prayer, preaching, paying the preacher, telling your mate that you love them, etc. We should note that there may be a deep spiritual reason why the frequency of the Lord’s Supper and mode/meaning of baptism have become so varied and controversial amongst believers over the centuries. These two ordinances, established by Christ, point unmistakably to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ - the heart of the Christian faith. If I was the Devil, I would make it a priority to remove the impact of the Christ-centered symbolism - make communion a rare occurrence so that people are less-frequently reminded of His death and shed blood and do away with the visible symbol of Christ’s saving event in baptism (either remove the visible symbol altogether by claiming baptism is a mystical spiritual event or change the mode so that it no longer represents a burial and resurrection).
Actually, we do value and seek to employ our spiritual gifts, but most of the spiritual gifts are NOT the flashy miraculous kind. While “spiritual gifts” are most commonly associated with “tongue-speaking/physical healing,” the New Testament “gift lists” are much broader. Paul told the Romans to employ their spiritual gifts (prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, showing mercy) for the benefit of others (Romans 12:6-8). To the Ephesians, Paul listed several leadership roles (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) as gifts given to equip believers for spiritual growth (Ephesians 4:11-16). Peter addressed the saints in Asia Minor about using their spiritual gifts (speaking, serving) for the benefit of others (1Peter 4:10-11). These passages tend to be forgotten because of the mistaken emphasis upon a part of Paul’s list of gifts addressed to the Corinthian church (wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, effecting of miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues), but the thrust of Paul’s argument is that even these gifts were intended to benefit others more than the possessor of the gift (1Corinthians 12-14). Paul specifically emphasized love and plain speech about God that others can understand (“prophecy”) over “tongues” (1Corinthians 12:31 - 14:19). From what we find in Scripture (Acts 2; 10; 19; 1Corinthians 12-14) and early church history, it appears that “tongues” were not ecstatic jibber-jabber, but the miraculously-given ability to speak other known languages without first studying them. This is why no “interpreters” were needed on Pentecost, for the audience already knew these languages and were amazed that uneducated Galileans could speak them (Acts 2:1-11), whereas in Corinth people were showing off their language gift with nobody present that knew the language - in that case, Paul told them to keep silent or pray for the gift of interpretation (1Corinthians 14:20-28). Paul also intimated that the “miraculous gifts” (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) would cease, while others (faith, hope, and love) would continue (1Corinthians 13:8,13). Historical information from the early church fathers is unanimous that all traces of the genuine miraculous gifts were gone by 200 A.D. - when the last person that could have had Apostolic hands laid on them would have been dead. However, the first of many pseudo-charismatic movements began with Montanus in the later 2nd century A.D. Apart from this, the modern concept is that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is an event separate from conversion that empowers believers to cast out demons, speak in unintelligible tongues, handle serpents, drink poison, and heal the sick (Mark 16:17-18). Many big media ministries have claimed these things - Oral Roberts, W. V. Grant, Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, etc. Advocates of this position tend to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to some of the more obvious problems - Oral Robert’s TV producer of three years denied ever seeing one real miracle during Oral’s ministry, W. V. Grant’s sham was exposed by Diane Sawyer’s investigation, Jim Bakker was sexually immoral/financially corrupt and he went to prison, Jimmy Swaggart was caught with prostitutes on two occasions and bolted rather than accept discipline from the Assemblies of God, Benny Hinn has been encouraged to stop his “healing ministry” by James Robinson and has repeatedly renounced it, but then gone back to it, and Paul Crouch has been involved in a scandal involving sexual immorality and “hush money.” Aside from the problems arising from major leaders espousing this position, we have other reasons for rejecting it. Mistaken exegesis - The powers described in Mark 16:17-18 were addressed, in context, to the Apostles about to go forth on their mission to establish the church, with verse 20 noting that those promised these things had already, largely, finished their ministries by the time this Gospel record was written. The “tongue-speakers” on Pentecost were not the 120 gathered in the upper room prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-26), but “the twelve Galilean men” in the house (Acts 2:1-2,7,14-15,37). Miracles were NOT being performed by all Christians even in the first century, but by the Apostles.* Except for the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-46; 11:15) and for a very special reason (Acts 11:18), miracles seem to have been restricted to the Apostles and those the Apostles laid their hands on: Stephen (Acts 6:6,8), Philip (Acts 6:6; 8:4-13), some of the early Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14-17), twelve disciples of Apollos (Acts 19:1-7), and Timothy (2Timothy 1:6). Simon the magician was rebuked for wanting to buy the Apostolic power to transfer miracle-working power, but it was denied him because his motives were bad and he was not an Apostle (Acts 8:18-24). Paul told the Corinthians in terse little sentences (often rendered in English as rhetorical questions) that all Christians, even then, are NOT apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle-workers, healers, tongue-speakers, or tongue-interpreters (1Corinthians 12:29-30). God gave “some” to have special leadership roles for the benefit of others (Ephesians 4:11; 1Corinthians 12). When people brag about their own alleged personal spiritual gift, divide believers by their insistence on these gifts for all, or claim them and build up a personal fortune in doing so, it is highly doubtful that they are spiritually gifted. For all of the talk, it is very difficult to find true and verifiable “miracles,” whereas in the Apostles’ time even non-believers had to admit the reality of what was happening (Acts 4:16). Forgotten anomalies - If “physical healing is in the atonement of Christ” (1Peter 2:24 “by His wounds you were healed”), as one woman (who missed a lot of work days for illness) told me once, then no Christian should ever be sick in the first place - our physical health should be as constant as is our continued forgiveness. Oral Roberts eventually started wearing eyeglasses and built a hospital - it wasn’t working for him either. Nor has this been a valid part of the Christian faith from the beginning. The Apostle Paul suffered from a “thorn in the flesh” which was a weakness/sickness of the flesh (2Corinthians 12:7-10; Galatians 4:13-15). Not only Paul, but also several of his close associates - Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Timothy (1Timothy 5:23), and Trophimus (2Timothy 4:20) - suffered physical ailments and not a word was said about them not “having enough faith” or “failing to claim the promises” as the modern charlatans assert to explain away the unhealed. --------------------------------------------------------- * the Apostles and miracles - Acts 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; Romans 15:18-19; 2Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4 --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles E. McCoy Severn Christian Church January 20, 2006 A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland) Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy All Scripture citations/quotations from the New American Standard Bible To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org
|
||
