Miscellany

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 8]

     A part of Webster's definition of this word is "a collection of writings on various subjects." It is in this sense that I am using the above heading for this article. There are some matters that are important (else I would not consume space for them), yet which will not require the entire ordinary space for their consideration. I have decided to handle them in this way.

     It is claimed by the "Restorationists" that the church is not the pillar of the truth; that the church cannot preach the Gospel. I will first quote Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15: "Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." On the second part of the claim I quote as follows: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known [revealed] by the church the manifold wisdom of God" (Ephesians 3:10). We are told that in order for the church to preach the Gospel, each member must be present and participate. On that basis there could seldom if ever be the performance of the Lord's supper, which is a congregational ordinance.

     Next we are told that the church is not a saving institution. This is a mere quibble and of course is a salve for the denominational groups who are too stubborn to recognize Christ's institution, yet wish to claim to be saved. Against this blasphemish charge I quote as follows: "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). If the church is not a saving institution, why add the saved to it? Besides, Paul plainly says that Christ "is the Saviour of the body" (Eph. 5:25).

     Next we are told that it is not necessary to pray in the name of Christ. In Colossians 3:17 Paul commands "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." But it is objected that we do not have to mention the name of Jesus orally, that God knows what is in our heart. On that theory it is not necessary to pray at all, for "your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him" (Matthew 6:8). Of course it will please the Jews and Mohammedans to blackball the name of Jesus, but not so with the heavenly Father.

     In direct contradiction of the sacred declaration, we are told that it is not possible for Christians to be one as God and Christ are. It is argued that Christ prayed that the apostles should be one. Since they were miraculously inspired it was possible for them to be one to the same degree as were God and Christ. But in their zeal on behalf of the denominational world, the "Restorationists" studiously evade the very text that belies their claim. "Neither pray I for these [apostles] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they all may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20, 21). It is evident that if we "brother" all the sectarian denominations that have been founded by men, we cannot recognize the absolute authority of Christ and the apostles.

[Page 9]

     I have offered an entire article on the name of the church, and hence it will not be necessary to repeat all the details of that article. However, this phase of the present innovation movement is so serious, it may be necessary to return to it for the sake of unwary souls who may be misled by it. Long before many of the leaders in the present departure were born, the denominational groups had adopted the same heresy that we now hear about the name. Their favorite slogan was "there is nothing in a name." And now come along some of our professed brethren with virtually the same notion. Yea, they have gone farther than the sects whom they once opposed and even tell us that the church was not given a name by its Founder!! Of course we hear Paul in Ephesians 3:14, 15 tell us that the whole family (or church) in heaven and earth is named. But the declaration of an apostle has little weight with men who are wanting to make common cause with the rivals of Jesus Christ with their human institutions, founded since the days of Luther, without a drop of divine blood in their veins. A persistent effort is manifest to avoid using the terms of the New Testament when possible. Assembly of Saints; Assembly of God; etc. Anything to get away from the phrases used by the apostles except at rare intervals.

     The motive of all this is transparent. We might read in a treatise of statistics about the various religious groups. Church of the Brethren; Christian Church; Methodist Church; Church of Christ; Assembly of Saints; Baptist Church, etc. The impression on the reader is that all the various denominations (including "us") are parts of the great body of Christ. Hence since all are parts of God's people we may freely mingle with any of them and treat them as brethren in Christ. May the Lord help us to steer clear of the wiles of men and be true to the "One Body" for which Christ died.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR

     The church does not save us. We are saved by God, through Christ. The saved are deposited in the church, and made a part of it. We are saved by a person, not by an organization, not even a divine one. I put my savings in a bank. The bank does not save my money. It does retain and hold what I save. Our beloved brother calls this blasphemish, and quotes Acts 2: 47 to sustain his position. Surely he knows the American Revised renders this, "And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved." The Revised Standard Version has it, "And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." We are saved by a pardoning act of God. Those who are thus saved are added to the church, not that it may save them, but because they are saved. That the church cannot save us, is evidenced by the fact that it has to be saved. Our brother quotes, "He is the Saviour of the body." The body cannot save, but has to have a Saviour. Can one cite the passage which says, "The body is the Saviour"?

     It is absolutely necessary to pray in the name of Jesus. No other prayer will be heard. But it is not necessary to say "We ask this in the name of Jesus" at the close of each petition for a prayer to be in his name, or by his authority. Our dear brother quotes Colossians 3:17, and emphasizes word. Why? The passage reads, "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Does our brother say at the close of each song, "In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen?" Does he say that at the end of each exhortation he delivers, or each sermon he preaches? If not, are we to conclude that he does not sing, exhort, or preach in the name of the Lord Jesus? The truth is, we never use this formula in connection with any other word or deed, yet we claim to do all these in the name of the Lord. In the case of prayer, we have developed a tradition, and we seek to defend it as God's require-

[Page 10]

ment. We cannot distinguish between praymg in the name of the Lord, and saying we are doing so!

     Ephesians 3:14, 15 is rendered in the RSV, "I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." The American Revised has, "I bow my knees unto the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." After the word family, our broth& writes in parentheses "or church." Does he mean to imply that the Father has named every church in heaven and on earth? But any student may ascertain for himself that the word translated "family" is not ekklesia, but patria. W. E. Vine, in his "Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words," says, "The phrase, is literally, 'every family.'" The apostle was not writing a proof text for those who want to make an exclusive title of "The Church of Christ." He was showing that every family on earth, Jew or Gentile, bond or free, had its derivation in a common fatherhood.

     We believe God's word supplies corporate designations for the saints. They are called the church, the body of Christ, the temple of God, the church of God, the flock of God, the church of the firstborn, the churches of Christ, the churches of God which are in Christ Jesus, the house of God, the churches of the saints, etc. Not one of these should be exalted to an exclusive title. To do so would be to sectarianize that name, and make it a party label. We believe it is scriptural to refer to the "assembly of God." The word ekklesia, is thrice rendered by the term "assembly" in Acts 19:32-4 1, so the "ekklesia of God" may be scripturally called "the assembly of God." It cannot be called "The Assembly of God," for that would be like titling it, "The Church of God," "The Church of God in Christ," or "The Church of Christ."

     In attempting to judge our motives, our good brother misjudges us completely. The various denominations are not parts of the body of Christ. They are results of the party spirit. This is a work of the flesh, not of the Spirit. But some of God's children may be in all of these. They should come out of them and be just Christians, and Christians only, and when they come out, we should not constitute them into another sect, or party, but truly be just the one body for which our dear Lord died!