The Five Solas: January 2015 Teaching Series

Handouts and Study Notes

The Exclusivity of Christ

There are three major perspectives among religious people in assessing the salvific efficacy of world religions. Pluralism is the view that all (or most) religions are equally valid, all roads lead to heaven, and what matters is religious commitment and (usually) basic morality. So Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians will all be saved because no one religion has all the truth or the only truth. Inclusivism is the view that one religion does express absolute truth but that adherents of other faiths will be saved, not by their devotion to their faith, but by the salvation offered by the true faith as ministered through their devotion to another religion. According to “Christian” inclusivism, Jesus is the only Savior, but His blood will cover and save those who sincerely follow other faiths. Exclusivism is the view there is only one true religion and one way of salvation. Anyone outside of that path, sincere or not, will be lost.

The Bible makes plain that true religion as revealed by the Creator is exclusivist in its orientation and affect. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The Lord demands exclusive allegiance from His people (Exod. 20:1-6). Other religions are regarded as vain and damnable (Psa. 115:1-8; Isa. 44:9-20). The gods of the nations cannot save (Isa. 46:6-7; Acts 14:11-18). Saul of Tarsus was not saved in his devotion to Judaism nor Cornelius by his piety (Acts 9-10). Both had to hear the gospel and believe to be saved. God calls all men in every nation to repent and turn from their false ways and false religions because He will one day judge the world by His Son (Acts 17:30-31).

Some people believe it is narrow-minded and unkind to say people can only be saved by believing in Jesus. But is it narrow-minded or unkind to tell a person he has cancer or to warn her to flee from a burning house? How shall they believe unless they hear the message of salvation (Rom. 10:13-17)? We should not preach the gospel in an unkind way (Eph. 4:15), but it is hateful and harmful not to warn people that Christ is the only Savior and faith in Him is the only way to salvation. Unless they repent, they will perish (Luke 13:3). Love them enough to point them to the only Savior, Jesus Christ. -JME

Female Preaching Interns and Legitimate Children

Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel. But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin—that is, the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan.

(2Kings 10:28-29)

And the LORD said to him, “Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.” (Hosea 1:4)

I grew up in the Churches of Christ. I was the fifth generation in my family to be a member of those churches. My grandfather and father served as elders. My father was even a full-time preacher/minister for ten years when I was a child. I learned a great deal in the Churches of Christ, truths for which I will be eternally thankful. I was baptized at fourteen and began fill-in preaching by appointment at fifteen. By the time I was eighteen I was preaching often, and shortly before I turned twenty I entered an internship program at the 77^th Street Church of Christ in Birmingham, AL. I worked in full-time preaching ministry in Churches of Christ from November of 1998 to June of 2013, serving at congregations in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia and speaking by invitation in many other states and in Eastern Europe. I know these churches, love the people, and have many friends and family still associated with them. So what I say I say with personal knowledge, understanding, and sincere love, not from ignorance or bitterness.

The Fourth Avenue Church of Christ in Franklin, TN recently brought in a new preaching intern. They are proud of her, yes, I said her, and Wineskins has posted a YouTube video introducing her to the rest of the world. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXglnMi0xA. The content of that video is not my concern today. What does concern me is the relationship between Fourth Avenue’s decision to openly practice egalitarian ministry and the churches in which I grew up and where I ministered for a decade and a half.

The Churches of Christ in which I spent the most time and where I did most of my ministry describe themselves as “non-institutional” Churches of Christ. They are conservative, or so they claim, strictly so, and are frequently labelled by the more mainstream Churches of Christ as “antis.” The non-institutional churches do not support evangelistic or benevolence ministry organizations from their church treasury. They do not support Bible colleges or schools from their treasury. They will not send money for evangelistic or benevolent ministry to an overseeing (sponsoring) congregation but insist on sending the funds directly to the place or person of need. And they do not eat in their church’s building. They have no fellowship halls for common meals. Most would be scandalized by the suggestion of hosting a potluck on the premises.

The non-institutional Churches of Christ share the same doctrinal distinctives as many of the mainstream Churches of Christ, e.g. a form of baptismal regeneration in which baptism is the occasion and instrument of regeneration and justification, rejection of instrumental accompaniment to the music in worship, the claim to be the one true church established by Christ in the New Testament and a corresponding opposition to denominations in all their forms and to most other churches independent or otherwise. The Churches of Christ in their many different forms have been plagued almost from their inception in the mid-nineteenth century by doctrinal disagreement and resultant divisions. I once listened to a Church of Christ preacher describe the three major divisions in Christianity through the centuries: the establishment of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church in the seventh century, the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, and the division over institutionalism and orphan homes in the twentieth century. It was so ridiculous I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Churches of Christ have divided and continue to divide over issues ranging from whether to have Bible classes and to use one cup or multiple cups in the Lord’s Supper to divorce and remarriage, the use of prayer veils by women, and the second serving of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening to those who were absent at the morning service. What began as a unity movement in the nineteenth century has become one of the most fragmented and sectarian sects in modern Christianity, so it is no surprise Fourth Avenue’s latest decision will incite controversy and further division.

Yesterday I posted a link to the aforementioned video with the following comment: “4th St. [sic] CoC has a female preaching intern. Some are thrilled, others appalled. Sadly most will miss the real issue.” Progressives are praising Fourth Avenue’s decision, while traditionalists are bewailing and denouncing it. But what is the real issue? The issue is not Lauren King (the intern) or Patrick Mead (the senior minister). The issue is not Fourth Avenue’s egalitarianism. Traditionalists say the issue is Bible authority. That is right, but perhaps not in the way they mean it. The issue is the utter disregard for Bible authority in the Churches of Christ as a whole. The issue is the lack of a coherent theology, an ahistorical and unbiblical ecclesiology, an anti-creedal, non-denominational form of confessional sectarianism, and a legalistic approach to Scripture that leads inevitably to Pharisaism and progressivism. The issue is not that Fourth Avenue has departed from the orthodox faith. The issue is that the Churches of Christ do not have the orthodox faith, none of them, liberal or conservative, traditional or progressive, mainline or non-institutional. Fourth Avenue is the offspring of the movement’s commitment to restorationism, and they are not a bastard but the legitimate heir.

A Lack of Coherent Theology

The Churches of Christ began through the influence of men like Barton W. Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Each of these men gradually separated himself in the mid-nineteenth century from denominations whose doctrines and practices they had come to reject. But unlike the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement was not primarily theological; it was social and ecumenical. These men recognized the division and disunity in modern denominationalism and called for the abandonment of creeds and confessions of faith. It was believed that returning to Scripture alone would produce unity among the sects.[i] But this was far from the case. Instead, historic Christian truth regarding the depravity of man, the working of the Holy Spirit in the unregenerate, and the principle of justification by faith apart from works began to be discarded, and in its place appeared Pelagian notions of human ability and an individualistic and ahistorical reading of the Bible.

To this day Churches of Christ are divided and diverse in their views of the atonement, divine omniscience, and eschatology. It is not surprising when progressives jettison penal substitutionary atonement[ii], but there are open debates and written works, even by the most extreme traditionalists in Churches of Christ, denying the penal substitution of Christ as a doctrine tainted by association with Calvinism. Open Theism[iii] is fairly common in even “conservative” Churches of Christ, though it is not always identified by that name. And the A.D. 70 doctrine[iv], better known as full preterism or realized eschatology in evangelical circles, has corrupted Churches of Christ for years and been embraced by entire congregations in some cases.

The Churches of Christ claim to simply “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent,” but their individualistic approach to interpreting Scripture leads inevitably and repeatedly to doctrinal innovations and divisions. Because they lack a coherent theology that stresses the unity of Scripture and the analogy of faith, individual passages are interpreted out of context and without regard for their relation to the rest of the Bible’s doctrine. Churches of Christ understand very well what they reject (e.g. instrumental music, salvation by faith alone, creeds and confessions), but they are less clear on what they positively believe. Therefore doctrines like the propitiatory work of Christ, the omniscience of God, and the hope of Christ’s future return are held loosely and are constantly in jeopardy as Scripture is re-read and re-interpreted in innovative ways.

What is needed in the Churches of Christ is a coherent theology that displays the unity of all Scripture and understands the culmination of every part in the work and promise of Christ. Of course, most of my friends in the Churches of Christ will insist they do have such a system, but one cannot reject the notion of systematic summaries of Christian doctrine and affirm you have a coherent system as well. The remarkable disunity among Churches of Christ on clear and historic theological questions in light of their unity on arguably ahistorical and innovative practices is a strong indicator of the lack of any coherent understanding of the Bible’s overall theme and message.[v]

An aHistorical and Unbiblical Ecclesiology

            The Churches of Christ are a product of the Restoration Movement, an enterprise designed to create Christian unity by setting aside human creeds and re-establishing the original church of the New Testament. This restoration effort has been understood variously in the Churches of Christ. Some think the New Testament Church is restored where the doctrines and practices of the Church are re-established in local congregations (e.g. no instrumental music, baptismal regeneration, and weekly communion). Others understand restoration in more personal terms of individual reconciliation to God through the gospel. But in any case, the theme of restoration is very important to the identity of Churches of Christ.

            The Restoration Movement is considerably different from the Reformation Movement of the sixteenth century. In the latter men like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin called for individual and institutional repentance in light of the teaching of Scripture. Their approach to Scripture was not innovative but deeply historical. They recognized the unity of the Church, that it was truly catholic (universal) as confessed in the Apostles’ Creed, even if the Roman Catholic Church had much to repent of teaching and practicing. The Reformers did not regard themselves as restoring the New Testament church. They sought to reform the contemporary expression of the Church in terms of biblical theology.

            When any sect of churches becomes defined by doctrines that are arguably unattested in the history of God’s people, when the church itself is understood in ways virtually unknown for almost two millennia, something is clearly wrong. History is certainly not an infallible guide, and any study of the history of the Church must convince the careful student that it has been characterized from the outset by disunity, corrupted doctrines, and unbiblical practices. Nevertheless, the Church has stood the test of time, and God has faithfully preserved a remnant by grace who did not bow the knee to Baal. Some Church of Christ historians endeavor to trace the doctrine and practice of Churches of Christ through the centuries by appealing to various minority and often heretical groups, but this is a thin effort to establish continuity in the face of such obvious discontinuity with Christian history. Because Churches of Christ have so little awareness of and connection to their heritage as believers in Jesus, there are fewer checks and balances against doctrinal innovations that defy the historic practice of the saints.[vi]

An Anti-Creedal, Undenominational form of Confessional Sectarianism

            The Churches of Christ, like many modern, independent Christian groups, claim to have no creed but the Bible, but this claim is, of course, a type of creed. What is really meant is Churches of Christ are not obligated to confess or affirm any particular creed written but men. The reality, however, is otherwise. There is most definitely a creed, albeit unwritten. The fallacy of “no creed but the Bible” thinking is that no one can then distinguish their beliefs (creed) from what the Scriptures actually say. If my creed is written, I can objectively examine it in light of Scripture. But if I think my beliefs are exactly what Scriptures say, it is much harder to be objective.

            The truth is Churches of Christ have a very definite creed, though it continues to evolve and diverge between the more traditional and more progressive congregations. While claiming to practice church autonomy (independent, self-government), when one Church of Christ steps outside of the recognized boundaries of the movement, other congregations are quick to criticize. But if Church of Christ anti-creedalism is correct, the digressive, autonomous congregation is simply doing what they are supposed to do. They are interpreting and applying Scripture without regard for human affirmations and declarations. So what if Fourth Avenue has a female preaching intern? Why should other Churches of Christ care? Yes, you can object that it is disobedience to Scripture, but Fourth Avenue believes it is actually obedience to Scripture. It comports with their anti-creedal confession, and who can say their interpretation is incorrect? Should Fourth Avenue bow to the historic or general interpretation of the rest of the Churches of Christ, regardless of their own convictions? If so, then the Churches of Christ should abandon their commitment to having “no creed but the Bible” and quickly move to adopt a formal statement that does synthesize and summarize the doctrinal distinctives that are important to them.

A Legalistic Approach to Scripture that Leads Inevitably to Pharisaism AND Progressivism

            Conservatives will say the real problem with Fourth Avenue’s decision to bring in a female preaching intern is the rejection of Bible authority, and that is certainly true, but it hardly goes far enough. The problem is that Churches of Christ in general have disregarded Bible authority in the areas where it counts most and have inconsistently appealed to it in other areas. You can be a preacher in the Churches of Christ if you deny God knows the future freewill choices of man or reject the penal substitution of Christ, but if you affirm sinners are justified by faith alone, apart from works, you will be branded a heretic and, in some cases, be regarded as an unbeliever. Bible verses are debated to determine whether women ought to be veiled in worship, whether the Lord’s Supper ought to be offered on Sunday night, and whether the saints can share in a potluck in the church’s meeting place. But the most fundamental questions relating to justification are largely passed over with simplistic appeals to verses about baptism and recitation of the common belief that to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” means one is not saved unless and until they are immersed in water, and not even then, perhaps, if it is performed in a Baptist church.

Churches of Christ do divide and must continue to divide over secondary doctrinal questions because they believe their salvation depends, in part, on having the correct doctrine and practice on these issues. But this exposes the real issue, the hinge on which everything else turns. The Churches of Christ lack a clear and biblical understanding of the gospel. Does this mean every member is unsaved? By no means! But it means those who are saved in those churches are saved in spite of the doctrine they are hearing, not because of it. Those who trust in Jesus are saved and will be saved, whether they realize their security in Christ or not. But it is not because they are in the one true church. It is not because they were baptized in the right way and for the right reason. It is not because they reject historic creeds and confessions. It is not because they are separate from those “denominationalists” meeting down the road.

The problem with the Church of Christ’s hermeneutic is not that they insist on Bible authority for all that they do. The problem is they create doctrines based on innovative interpretations of the New Testament text and inferences they claim are necessary. The problem is they approach the text heterogeneously, as if the various parts are separate and can be understood independently, rather than recognizing the theological unity of Scripture and relying on the analogy of faith. The problem is they believe their conclusions and practices derived from innovative interpretations of Scripture are, in part, the reason they are saved and stay saved unlike the other Christian sects. These errors can only lead to Pharisaism and progressivism. The “conservatives” and the “liberals” are standing back to back, their feet are resting on the same foundation of sand, and they are shouting loudly at the other never realizing they are standing on the same spot, only facing two different directions.

Jeroboam’s Calves Must Go Too

            The Lord raised up Jehu in the days of the Divided Kingdom to bring judgment on the house of Ahab and to destroy the religion of Baalism the latter had promoted. This act of judgment was good. It needed to be done, and Jehu did it faithfully, destroying Ahab’s family and essentially eradicating the Baal cult in the northern kingdom. But Jehu did not go far enough. When it was all said and done, Jehu continued to worship Yahweh by means of the golden calves King Jeroboam erected many years before at Dan and Bethel. He did not realize that Jeroboam’s calves were the progenitor of Ahab’s Baal. Jeroboam claimed to honor Yahweh with his golden calves, but in reality he had abandoned the true doctrine and worship of the Lord. It was only a matter of time before someone came along and introduced another god alongside the golden calves.

           

            This is the story of the Churches of Christ. The progressives are Ahab. They have taken the logical next step and introduced the religion of Baal. The traditionalists are Jehu. They are fighting a commendable battle, but with the wrong presuppositions. They will attack Ahab’s Baalism, though unlike Jehu, they will not succeed in overthrowing it. They will correctly decry and denounce the latest error introduced to Israel. But rather than call for true and total repentance and reformation, as Hezekiah and Josiah arguably did, they will only criticize the latest innovation while perpetuating the broken, sinful system which produced it. They are calling for a return to the status quo, not realizing the system was broken from the beginning.

What is needed is repentance. Repentance from egalitarianism, yes, but so much more. What is needed is repentance from an unbiblical, ungracious, and legalistic characterization of the gospel and the church. What is needed is a return to biblical orthodoxy, something the Restoration Movement abandoned from the outset. What is needed is repentance in the direction of the gospel. Jehu destroyed Baalism in Israel, but he continued to support Jeroboam’s idolatry. He rightly criticized the evil introduced by Ahab, but he advocated the very evil that produced it. Ahab’s Baal was the genetic and theological descendant of Jeroboam’s calves, and Fourth Avenue’s egalitarian progressivism, while deplorable, is the genetic and theological descendant of the “conservative” Church of Christ’s restorationism. It is not enough to overthrow Fourth Avenue’s Baal. The entire movement must be called to repentance and reformation toward the gospel. May God grant such repentance to my brothers and sisters.

-Joel M. Ellis, Jr.

December 5, 2014

---

[i] See Thomas Campbell, “Declaration and Address,” http://www.therestorationmovement.com/declaration.htm.

[ii] Penal substitutionary atonement says that Christ’s death actually provided payment for human sin by appeasing the wrath of God and enabling Him to forgive what would be otherwise unforgivable (cf. Isa. 53:4-6; 2Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1Pet. 2:24).

[iii] Open Theism says that God is all-knowing but that the future, freewill choices of man are not real yet and therefore unknowable, even to God.

[iv] Realized Eschatology says that all biblical prophecies concerning the end times terminated at the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full preterists deny a future coming of Christ and a general resurrection of the dead as a future event.

[v] For example, I am not aware of any Church of Christ that has divided over the question of God’s omniscience and whether He knows the future, freewill choices of human beings, but divisions over a second serving the Lord’s Supper and whether divorced and remarried persons can be admitted into membership are regular occurrences.

[vi] Who is to say egalitarianism and Open Theism are not the restored doctrine of the early church? Once we begin to interpret our Bibles individualistically and ahistorically, anything is possible. Perhaps Christ is not eternal after all.

"In" But Not "Of"...the Church?

The Bible clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically affirms the security of all who believe in Christ (John 3:16; 5:24; 10:27-29; Php. 1:6; 1Pet. 1:3-5; 1John 3:9). But Scripture is equally clear in repeatedly and emphatically affirming that not all who profess to believe in Jesus do so in a saving way (Luke 6:46; John 8:31-32). For instance, John says some “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1John 2:19). Likewise on the Day of Judgment, there will be many who called Jesus “Lord” and who did many mighty, religious deeds to whom the Savior will say, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:21-23).

There were many in Jesus’ day who professed belief in Him but were either insincere (John 6:26) or did not endure (John 6:64-66). Some were unwilling to accept the cost of being His disciple (John 12:48). Others confused confession and commitment (Luke 9:57-62). Still others believed for a time but later turned away (John 13:21-30). None of these received the promise of eternal life. As the Hebrews writer says, “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (3:14).

Those who believe simply a profession of faith will save without the corresponding grace of sanctification and perseverance cannot account for the real examples of visible apostasy noted in the paragraph above. The grace of salvation involves a change of heart (Ezek. 36:26; John 3:5) that leads inevitably to sanctification and good works (Gal. 5:19-24; Eph. 2:10). Such faith will endure because it is sustained by the grace that originally gave it (John 6:37; Heb. 10:39). Since this is so, we can see how some who profess to believe may later turn and fall away (Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 2Pet. 2:20-22). Such is not the apostasy of true believers, but of those visibly connected to Christ and His Church (John 15:1-7; Acts 8:13-23) who are not truly regenerate and elect. It is not visible connection to the Church that will save us, but union with Christ alone. -JME

Why Did God Choose the Elect?

The doctrine of election refers to God choosing those who would be His people (Deut. 4:37; John 15:16; Eph. 1:4; 2Thess. 2:13). Even though some people insist they do not believe in predestination or election, the truth is every Christian must believe in both of them because the Bible teaches both (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5, 11). Not all Christians agree on what the Scriptures teach about God predestining and electing (choosing) some to be His people. Some believe God unconditionally and individually chose certain people to save (John 6:37; 10:26-27; Rom. 9:6-18). Others believe God merely chose the conditions whereby people would be saved and left it up to each individual to opt in or out of the group (e.g. Jdg. 7:4-7). Many others believe God looked ahead through time and chose those He knew would one day choose to believe in Him.

This last view of election (that God chose on the basis of foreseen faith) is very common among those who accept God knows all things, including the future free choices of every person (Psa. 139:16; Isa. 46:8-10), but who are reluctant to accept God unconditionally and individually chose to save some. But there is a problem with this understanding of election, many problems, in fact, since this view turns election on its head and has God choosing those who logically chose Him first! Who chose who, according to the Scriptures (Eph. 1:4; 2Thess. 2:13; 1Pet. 1:1-2)? Did we choose God, or did He choose us? And who chose first? Do we choose God and choose to believe in Christ because He chose to make His will known to us (John 6:44; 10:27; Acts 13:48; 16:14), or did He choose us because He foresaw that we would choose Him?

There is a larger problem with this view of election, however, one which strikes directly at the heart of the gospel. If God chose me because He knew I would believe in Him, He must have seen something different in me than He saw in Judas. There must have been something better, more honest, more noble, more moral about me that was not true of others who do not believe. But the Bible is clear, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom. 3:10-11). I am not saved because I am better than my unbelieving neighbor. The only thing that makes me any different is God’s grace (1Cor. 4:7).

The gospel excludes boasting (Rom. 3:27). It leaves us no room to take pride in ourselves or our work. All glory belongs to God. If I believe I was chosen and am saved because God saw something in better than me, how can I fail to feel superior to others and boast? But if I realize it was God who changed my sin-hardened, dead heart (Ezek. 36:26), who made me alive in Christ (Eph. 2:1-7), who gave me the gift of faith and repentance and enabled me to love and choose Him (John 1:12-13; Php. 1:29; 2Tim. 2:25), then I have no reason for boasting. God chose me, not because of any good He foresaw in me (Rom. 9:11). He did it because He is good (Deut. 7:6-9). And for that, I will forever give Him thanks. -JME