# Questions The Church Of "Christ" Can't Answer



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 3, 2006)

I found this on an IFB site but thought it was so funny I had to post it. It poses some pretty good questions with a lot of sarchasm.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/david_martin/martin_church-Christ.html

The religious sect known as the "Church of Christ" has many peculiar and aberrant doctrines that are contrary to the word of God. It is a most deceptive and dangerous cult. Their teaching of baptismal regeneration is an age-old heresy that has damned millions to hell, and is still doing so today. The idea that they are the one, true and restored church of Jesus Christ puts them in the same league with the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.

If you are a member of this "church" or have been influenced by its teachings, we challenge you to ask your preacher the questions that follow, then get your King James Bible out, open it up, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you the TRUTH (John 16:13). If you have never been saved in the Bible sense, for heaven's sake, do not mistake being "washed in the baptistry of the church" for being washed in the blood of Christ.

If you ask one of these "preachers" any of the questions in this tract, you won't get a straight answer due to their "screwball" theology. You'll have them in "hot water," "swimming in circles," trying to explain their heretical positions. They'll be "hopping all over the pond" because they can't stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.

Don't YOU wind up being baptized in the "Lake of Fire" by accepting a "waterworks" based plan of salvation and rejecting salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 20:15; Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 5:9; Rom. 11:6).

Here are Questions for Campbellites
1. According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament Church in the early 1800's. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?

2. If a "Church of Christ" elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campebllite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation - the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?

3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.

4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to "lose my salvation" and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! - before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn't that my best opportunity?

5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to "lose my salvation," just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.

6. If as a Christian I can fall and "lose my salvation," is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God "takes away" my salvation, doesn't that make Him an "Indian giver"? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?

7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the "point of no return" so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.

8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash - would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.

9. Why does the "Church of Christ" insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the "church of God" eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the "church of Christ." The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn't say "church of Christ." Where does the Bible call the church the "church of Christ"?

10. If the "Church of Christ" claims to worship God only as "authorized" by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the "authority" to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are "aids to worship," where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an "aid to worship" for the song service in the "Church of Christ," then why can't a piano be an "aid to worship" for Baptists who may need more help in singing?

11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one's sins forgiven? Every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins," it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to "take away" sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that "for the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain' in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) - the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), all sin - past, present and future - was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that 'whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.

12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness," then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit - grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)

13. The "Church of Christ" teaches that "obeying the Gospel" includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were "purified by faith" (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theolgy of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without "muddying the waters" of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?

It would be impossible to discuss all the false doctrines of the "Church of Christ" in this small article. If you have a particular question not dealt with here, or need clarification on the issues discussed, contact us via email or at the phone number or address listed. We will provide you with sane, sensible and scriptural answers to your Bible questions.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 4, 2006)

I had some pretty nasty experiences with the International Church of Christ a few years back. Some say that they are a cult with no affiliation to the mainline CoC, but the cultish practices of the ICOC would be impossible without their view that they are the only true church, which in turn relies on the heretical doctrine they kept from the mainline CoC. 

A couple of years later I had a friend in Louisiana who seemed to be evangelical (ie. sola fide) but who belonged to the Church of Christ; I asked her if she believed that water baptism saved, she directed me to a debate on an official church website where one CoC pastor argued that water baptism saved, and another argued that we are saved by faith alone. I could not believe it, two ministers from one denomination could not believe on the most basic questions of the Gospel. Very sad.


----------



## Devin (Nov 4, 2006)

I got to admit: Number 4 made me laugh very hard.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 6, 2006)

For any students out there in a secular college that read this; they go by the name of 'the upside down club' in campuses around the US. They take that name supposedly because they turn campuses upside down for Christ. Boston Church of Christ movement if very tricky and very fast growing. Warn your children if they are in secular college.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 7, 2006)

Great post. Thanks.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 8, 2006)

reformedman said:


> For any students out there in a secular college that read this; they go by the name of 'the upside down club' in campuses around the US. They take that name supposedly because they turn campuses upside down for Christ. Boston Church of Christ movement if very tricky and very fast growing. Warn your children if they are in secular college.



That so-called "Church of Christ" is no longer growing, though until recently it claimed to be proportionally the fastest growing denomination in the world. Its own abuses have started to bring it down, and it has suffered serious internal ruptures. I have been praying that it would be destroyed, and was overjoyed after learning recently that it declined by 12.5% in a recent year, 2005 I think. That said the beast is not dead yet.


----------



## Jane (Mar 2, 2007)

*Church of Christ*

I regularly post on a dating website in their relgion forum. Defending the faith is one of "my things." 

There was a former Church of Christ pastor who was also posting last fall. He started out fairly nice to me, but when one thread got on the topic of salvation by grace alone and the subject of the thief on the cross came up, he just lost it. 

I jumped in to point out that the thief was saved. Jesus said so! This man called me a heretic. If I defended myself, he denounced me. I usually ignored everything he said about me which made him ever madder! It happened over and over again.  I pointed out that the thief was fully justified and quoted the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I enraged the man because I could show that the thief was saved without baptism! 

I think this guy may have been banned finally for a while although he is back. He has a tendency to commend or rebuke other posters as if he were some petty tyrant! I pity the congregation he used to pastor.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 3, 2007)

An answer they may and probably will have is that the thief died in a previous dispensation in which water baptism was not neccessary to salvation; their reasoning is that a dispensation does not go into effect until the testator( mediator? ) dies. The quick answer to that is when the soldiers went to break the crucified mens' legs so that they would die more quickly, Jesus was already dead, so they left Him alone. The thief was apparently still alive, because they broke his legs to finish him off.


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2007)

*Clarification request*

Is there more than one 'Church of Christ' denom?

I have heard that a group called the 'Los Angeles Church of Christ' is different than 'Church of Christ'. And now I read there is an 'ICOC'.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 3, 2007)

The reply I had from a CoC friend was that the thief on the cross was 'the exception which proves the rule'

JH


----------



## Greg (Mar 3, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> An answer they may and probably will have is that the thief died in a previous dispensation in which water baptism was not neccessary to salvation; their reasoning is that a dispensation does not go into effect until the testator( mediator? ) dies. The quick answer to that is when the soldiers went to break the crucified mens' legs so that they would die more quickly, Jesus was already dead, so they left Him alone. The thief was apparently still alive, because they broke his legs to finish him off.



Good answer Tyler! 

My wife and I had an brief encounter with the CoC some years back. In looking for a church home at the time, we attended one of the local congregation's services for almost a month at the invitation of our firstborn daughter's pediatrician who is a member of that church. Though we were unfamiliar with their beliefs at the time, after a few weeks of sitting under their teachings red flags began going up.



> The reply I had from a CoC friend was that the thief on the cross was 'the exception which proves the rule'



Yep, I've heard that one also in response. When asked to cite the scriptural basis for that line of reasoning, all I was told was that God can do what He wants to do. And if that means saving someone apart from water baptism, then He can.

They claimed the same line of reasoning when confronted with Acts 10:44-48 where the people received the Holy Spirit _just as_ Peter _prior_ to water baptism.

Again, their answer was that God just bypassed the waters of baptismal regeneration to make a point to those that were there. They could not scripturally account for passages such as these, so they just dismissed them.

A most inconsistent soteriology.


----------



## Chris (Mar 3, 2007)

I used to post on an apologetics site where some Campbellites frequented. They were rabid. No other word properly describes their deluded zeal. 

Some of them are otherwise nice folks, though. 

The key to dealing with them, In my humble opinion, is not to retreat to your own beliefs, but to take their proof-texts and systematically tear them down through proper exegesis. Don't counter their proof-texts with what they'll label as your proof texts. Just explain their error on their own grounds. 


On the bright side, one of those rabid Campbellites did tear down my defense of the 'sinner's prayer'. I'm thankful for that.


----------



## Jane (Mar 3, 2007)

*Church of Christ & thief on the cross*

I knew that Jesus had died prior to the thief so that "new dispensation" was in effect because the testator died. This guy tried to pull that one on me, but I recalled the scripture about the soldiers having to break the legs of the thieves and finding Jesus already dead. Therefore the thief died under the New Covenant. This guy laid into me! 

Of course, I make myself a huge target on that website. One Muslim decided to make MY SALVATION the issue on another thread on "Can a believer lose their salvation?" by taking everything I had posted and claiming that I was violating the precepts of Calvinism by "teaching" men. Thankfully I was able to respond that I post on the Puritanboard and it is moderated by elders of the Reformed Churches. I am a thorn in the flesh to some unbelievers but have earned a degree of respect from other unbeleivers.


----------

