The Church is Definitive in Doctrine
by Leroy Brownlow

Introduction

    Dear friends, we are now living in the best of days and the worst of days: the best of days in that we have the truth, and the worst of days in that there are those among us who are peddling denominational doctrine and seeking to restructure the church.

    A few years ago some out-of-state elders called me concerning their problems. The spokesman said, "We had rather have no preacher than to have an unsound preacher." Thank God for elders like that. This needs some amens.

    The topic assigned me is, "The Church of Christ--Definitive in Doctrine." And I hasten to say that if the doctrine given in the Bible--taught by the church--is not fixed, exact, settled and final, then our trying to take hold would be about like trying to catch a greased pig--too slippery, nothing to hold to. The problem is in the slippery hands that handle it. There is nothing so uncompromising and unchanging as truth--change it and it's no longer truth.

    This topic is exceedingly relevant and must be handled by every generation. It cannot be swept under the rug. Some churches have already swept so much under the rug that they are now walking uphill.

    The church must be definitive in doctrine to be the church of Christ and to preserve the faith. Yes, must! Must! This is not an optional matter! Fail here and we lose everything. Yet there are those among us who can't stand the word, "doctrine." Just mention doctrine and they become ill, start running a fever, and get nauseated. No offense. Just fact. They can't stomach doctrine. However, their problem is not their stomach--it is their heart. They need an unbiased heart that causes them to pray as Jesus prayed, "Not my will but thine be done" (Luke 22:42). This will cure a temperamental outburst against a Biblical doctrine they don't like. Temperamental--the trouble is some people are more temper than mental. Use your head. Two things are needed to ascertain the true doctrine of God: a head and a Bible; and both have to be used.

    A little boy was asked: "What are your hands for?" He replied, "To hold things." "What are your feet for?" "To walk." "What is your head for?" "To hold my hat," he replied.

    My friends, we need to be more than hat holders when we study the Bible. Each needs a head that has eyes that see and ears that hear (Matthew 13:15). Additionally, each needs the grit to stand for what he learns. Some have grit all right, but it's not in the spine; it's in the eyes and they got it running and burying their head in the sand.

    From Genesis To Revelation

    Twisting and perverting God's Word has been man's problem and downfall from the early dawn of time. God told Adam and Eve that they could eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mockers can mock and perverters can pervert, but it still remains that this command was very definitive; it had its limitations. But the serpent urged them to break the perimeters, to go ahead and eat. They did. They wanted a change of diet, and the whole human race has had indigestion ever since. It is noteworthy that the serpent--a snake oil salesman--made his pitch by appealing to intellectualism. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? He told them that eating the forbidden fruit would make them smart. But any departure from the definitive Word of God is not smart, no matter how many degrees it has beside it. Heresy wrapped in a diploma is still heresy. To major in apostasy and make straight A is worse than no schooling.

    Now we come to the last chapter of the Bible where God again warns us not to pervert His Word: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19). One thing we can't do is mess with the Lord's Word and get by with it.

    
Various Scriptures

    Paul gave these instructions on preaching: "Preach the word...reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). This tells us the Word is precise, exact and concrete, or else we wouldn't know what to reprove, rebuke and exhort. Yet, there are those who contend that we should preach a wineskin gospel that can stretch and fit any situation, that we should move with the times, and take our doctrine from public opinion polls instead of the Bible.

    However, our Lord taught us that we should not bend with the wind. He said, "What went ye out...to see? A reed shaken by the wind?" (Matthew 11:7). Men pleasers get up in the morning, go outside, and say, "Wonder which way the wind is blowing today?" Then they take off. Watch them go. Paul says, "...tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14). Cunning. Deceitful. Persuasive. They could coax a hungry dog into leaving a meat wagon.

    Those who preach a chameleonic gospel that changes colors in keeping with the colors around them stand rebuked by the apostle Paul who told the Galatians that they had drifted into "another gospel: which is not another." They just called it such. He further stated, "...there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:7-8). But how could another gospel be preached and how could the true gospel be perverted unless it is definitive, certain and sure? If the gospel is undefinitive and uncertain, a text could mean many things to many people and all be right.

    But hold on. Paul taught that the gospel is definitive and limited and the Galatians had erred concerning those limitations. Furthermore, he pronounced a curse of condemnation upon them for this sin. He said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). If the angels can't get by with perverting the gospel, then certainly we can't.

    There are several things that can cause people to sell their souls for another gospel. One is love of popularity. Another is love of money. The Bible says, "...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11). Filthy lucre. Merchandisers of souls (2 Peter 2:3). Oh, how error chases money! How it courts popularity! Popularity hounds and money grabbers are a blight on the church.

    Our own salvation and the salvation of others is dependent on our taking heed to ourselves personally and to the doctrine. Paul said, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (1 Timothy 4:16). However, one could not take heed unto doctrine unless the doctrine is knowable, certain and definitive. Trying to take heed to an undefinitive, uncertain, mobile doctrine would be like trying to pick up jello with your fingers, or like trying to eat soup with a fork. We just can't handle what the softies are trying to feed us. It is a little too thin for a fork and not thick enough for a spoon. MUSH. But the Lord's doctrine is not mush; it is not putty to be shaped and formed by designing and sinful hands.

    Therefore, it is essential--not optional--that we "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3), which means the faith is certain and precise or we wouldn't know what to contend for. Of course, there are some among us who speak harshly of those who preach an unchanging gospel. A prominent preacher labeled us (and I quote), "Guardians, defenders, contenders and Dobermans for Christ." Called us Dobermans. Wasn't very nice, was it? Apparently, the ecumenical me-too-ers will hunt with every dog in town except us poor Dobermans.

    If we oppose digressions and heresies among us, the proponents of such call us Dobermans. They think we should take two aspirins and say nothing. But Jude didn't tell us to passively endure a digression-caused headache with aspirins; he said to contend for the faith. If we remain silent, digression will have an unhindered field day. Edmund Burke said, "All evil has to do to triumph is for good men to be silent."

    God's Word must be taught and obeyed in its fullness and entirety. Paul said, "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). All! For a partial gospel is dangerous. A man can preach a lifetime and never, never preach a specific error and at the same time never preach the whole counsel of God--just omit a portion of the Scriptures. I heard a man three or four years ago read a lengthy text and give an expository sermon. But I counted ten distinct teachings in the text that rebuke denominational error that he completely bypassed. He chose to please the people rather than open their eyes.

    There are those who are strong on love, but forget to include the Scripture, "If a man love me, he will keep my words" (John 14:23). They eloquently preach on grace, but fail to mention that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11). All! And thus if grace alone saves, then all are saved--universalism. Their failure to preach the whole counsel of God is a pattern for apostasy. When a church has sermon after sermon, after sermon, after sermon, after sermon, etc., etc., that would be fully accepted in any denomination in town, that church will lose its identity. Just a matter of time.

    So we face these questions: Are we going to preach the whole counsel of God or not preach it? Are we going to be the church of Christ or not the church of Christ?

    In the crisis we are facing, it is obvious that some have forgotten why they are to preach. In a class of second graders a teacher had them to play church. She requested that some come back the next Sunday and tell why they are to preach. Different ones gave different reasons. When she came to Bobby, he said, "I have forgotten why I'm to preach." This is excusable for children, but it's intolerable for grown men in the pulpit.

    All of the negative teachings in the Bible testify to the definitive nature of God's Word. A negative pinpoints it--tells us here are boundaries that must be respected.

    Yet, there are those who are against any negative teaching. Now get ready for the shocker: I have counted at least fifty-two negatives in Christ's Sermon on the Mount, a short sermon of only three chapters. It is recognized as the world's greatest sermon, although it is loaded with negatives. Therefore, those who criticize negative teaching are actually criticizing Jesus Christ; they are crucifying Him afresh, crucifying Him on a cross of psychology between two thieves of modernism and liberalism.

    Moreover, the fixed and exact nature of the Lord's teaching is very evident in the labels that are used to describe certain people. The labels are definitive and descriptive. Liberals don't like to be labeled "liberal," but they freely label conservatives as "Bible-thumpers," "traditionalists," "legalists" and "Church of Christers." Though a person may not like the label "liberal," it is very mild in comparison with the labels in the New Testament.

    Here are some: "filthy dreamers," "brute beasts," "spots in your feasts," "clouds without water," "trees without fruit," "raging waves," "wandering stars," "mockers," "blind guides," "serpents," "deceivers," "false prophets," "liars," "traitors," "blasphemers," "heretics," "idolaters," "railers" and "wolves in sheep's clothing."

    I'm sure those people didn't like those labels, but they deserved such because the labels described them. You will have to say that the Holy Spirit knew how to express facts in a clear-cut manner.

    Even common sense tells us that the Lord's teachings must be definitive and certain, or else no one would know what to do. So the Holy Spirit has given a common sense illustration to prove the point. Here it is: "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Corinthians 14:8).

    Yet, there are those who wish to give a squeaky, unclear sound which they call a middle position. They won't take a stand on anything. They will preach on neither heaven nor hell and it's all because they have friends in both places. Reminds me of the preacher who concluded his sermon by saying, "If I said anything today that hits, reproves or rebukes anybody in the church or out of the church, living or dead, it is wholly unintentional and purely coincidental."

    Of course, there can be extremists both to the left and to the right, but the gospel itself has no middle ground. There is no middle position between truth and error. You can preach truth or error. There is no third way. The very moment one departs from truth he is in error.

    Middle of the road--what some wish to do is to go down the middle of the road with arms so long, reaching out to the left and to the right and get patronage and money from both sides. To accomplish this devious act they need to speak with a forked tongue. This may be good short-term politics, but it's mighty poor religion.

    The approaching 21st century should not change, stifle or modify the clarion sound of the gospel. However, the "Criers of Change" are urging us to move with the times, pull up the landmarks, and move forward into a model world with a religion less restrictive and more accommodating. Brothers and sisters, don't buy this apostasy bait. It is a manipulative tactic to break our unbending commitment to the Bible. It is a deceitful strategy to talk us into letting "Father Time" direct us instead of the Bible. If we buy it, then we shall become a people without a Bible--just a calendar. What a myth! What a travesty! How alarming to think that flipping the calendar flips the right and wrong of any doctrine or any worship or any moral. Those whose views of religion are determined by calendar-flipping are sure to become flip-floppers. No stability. Just "clouds...carried about of winds; raging waves of the sea...wandering stars" (Jude 3).

    In emphasizing the necessity of sound doctrine, John has said, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John 9). This proves that Christ's doctrine has boundaries and limitations; otherwise no person could ever transgress it or abide in it. Next, John links doctrine and fellowship--this is how important it is: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed: For he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11). I am aware that some academics apply this Scripture only to the people who don't believe in Christ. But what about Matthew 15:9? "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The doctrines of men make worship vain. If God won't accept them, then why should we?

    Shipwreckers of the faith must not be tolerated! Paul said that some made shipwreck of the faith "of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). If Hymeneus and Alexander were around today, I am sure they would work to get in the Bible department of one of our colleges where the opportunities are greater; and if Paul were around, he would strive to keep them out. I know he would because back then he delivered them unto Satan. Do you think that was hard? Yes. But it would have been a thousand times harder to let them remain in fellowship and knock holes in the old Ship of Zion. It breaks our heart to give them up, but we don't need passengers that threaten the ship and force the rest of us to spend so much time bailing water.

    Fellowship has become a sensitive issue among us. However, common sense, plain practicality, tells us that if the sheep run with the goats, it won't be long until they start smelling like them; and give it more time and you can't tell the difference between them. Of course, this is the goal of those who are working hard to pull down the barriers the gospel itself has erected around the church. They are hammering away to knock down those walls, to restructure the church, and to make it just another undistinctive denomination with a broad, liberal gospel. No distinctiveness, no exclusiveness.

    A well-known preacher at a lectureship spoke on fellowship and presented an open door to all except somebody "who says Jesus did not come in the flesh." This would turn the Lord's undenominational church into an all-denominational community church based on the doctrines of men.

    There are others who don't go this far in fellowship, but they do go way beyond the Scriptures. They want to fellowship everybody who has been immersed for any reason whatsoever. They contend, "These people have obeyed the command to repent and be baptized, Acts 2:38." Wait a moment, the command is not "be baptized." The command is "be baptized for the remission of sins." It is similar to the command to take the Lord's supper, which is not, "this do." The command is, "this do in remembrance of me." If we did it strictly out of custom, or in remembrance of no one, or in remembrance of George Washington, it would be in vain. The purpose for which you do a thing is as important as the act itself. Likewise, the command in Acts 2:38 is not, "be baptized." The command is, "be baptized for the remission of sins." Brethren, if you have eliminated half of this command from your mind, if you have cut half of this command from your teaching, then you might as well cut it out of the Scripture. Here is the Bible. Here are scissors. Now, who would like to come up here and cut "for the remission of sins" out of Acts 2:38? It sounds good when you want to appeal to the people, broaden your fellowship with sectarian bodies who believe there is no connection between baptism and the remission of sins, but it becomes shocking and putrid when you get to the point of using the scissors on the text.

    
The Church

    
This brings us to Christ's church, which was established with exact and definite boundaries. It is the most exclusive group in all the world. It consists of only the saved. "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47).

    Jesus built only one church. He said, "I will build my church." C-H-U-R-C-H is singular. It means one. Every elementary student knows this--too bad Ph.D.. don't know it. Paul said, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God" (Ephesians 4:4-6). One--O-N-E. Every first grader knows what one means--too bad some university and seminary professors haven't learned it. The number "one" is very specific and limited. It is not stretchable. You couldn't get hundreds or even two out of it to save your life. And remember that the passage states there are no more bodies, faiths and baptisms than there are Lords and Gods--just one!

    The characteristics of the church of Christ are very distinct and stand in opposition to denominationalism. Christ's church was built by Christ; it was founded on Christ; Christ is its only head; Christ's Word is its only creed; it wears Christ's name; its plan of salvation--faith, repentance, confession and baptism--given by Christ; it has no earthly headquarters, and preaches a definite gospel of salvation. Concerning baptism, it is a burial in water (Colossians 2:12); see how exact this is--excludes sprinkling. Regarding who should be baptized, Jesus said believers (Mark 16:16); see how definitive this is--prohibits infants. Pertaining to the Lord's supper, it was taken on the first day of the week and each week has a first day (Acts 20:7)--see how clear this is. Concerning the music in the worship, it was singing (Colossians 3:16)--see how fixed this is.

    But in denominationalism there are human churches built by humans; founded on humans; have human heads; follow human creeds; wear human names; teach salvation by faith only; the worship is regulated by human commandments; have national headquarters; and preach a non-binding, flexible view of God's Word.

    One is divine; the other is human. One was established in the first century; the other came a long time afterwards. One is in the Bible; the other is out of the Bible or a perversion of it. They are as different as day and night.

    They have come from different seeds. Corn produces corn; wheat produces wheat; and cotton produces cotton. The Word of God is the seed of the kingdom or the church (Luke 8:11). It produces Christ's church. Go into any community in the world and plant the unmixed Word of God and you will have exactly the same church that existed in the first century. It didn't produce sectarianism then and it won't now. To have hundreds of contradictory, human bodies, something had to be planted other than the Word of God.

    Nevertheless, the would-be justifiers of denominationalism say, "Hold on, hold on. All the churches are of the same vine, just different fruits." No, no. This would defy both common sense and Scripture. Suppose I plant some watermelon seed. Later I go into the garden and there is a vine which has a watermelon, a cucumber, a cantaloupe and a squash. I say, "Mr. Cucumber, what are you doing on this vine? I planted watermelon seed." He says, "I'm a watermelon all right, but I'm a cucumber watermelon." "And what about you, Mrs. Cantaloupe?" She says, "I'm a watermelon, but I'm a cantaloupe watermelon." And what are you doing there, Squash?" He answers, "I'm a watermelon, but I'm a squash watermelon." This is ridiculous! For seed produces only after its own kind.

    I'm not some kind of a Christian. I'm just a Christian, a member of the church to which the Lord added me. You can see the scripturalness and the beauty of this position. It's a winner. It will sell. And we did sell it. A few years ago we were the fastest growing religious body in America. Too bad that some among us are now trying to unsell it and restructure the church of Christ into a me-too denomination. If our future is rocky, uncertain, debilitating and divisive, it is not the fault of the definitive gospel; it is not the fault of those who heroically preach it and contend for the faith. It will be because of apathy, lack of conviction, love of popularity and infiltration of those who are not really with us.

    Yet, in spite of our obvious scripturalness and glorious successes, today we are hearing the constant cry of change! Change! That the church must change to grow! This is a new way of saying that the church is not fixed and definitive.

    Apparently, some advocates of change don't want the restoration of Christ's church. They want a new church that ever changes and blends with the times. They even deride the restoration of the New Testament church. They say, "If we are going to emulate a pattern, which one? Jerusalem with racism? Corinth with all its warts?" etc.

    I reply: The church is composed of humans who err, and it is ludicrous to think we would want to restore human errors. No, we restore the church from the viewpoint of divine teachings, some of which deal with errors. And in this sense we plant the same seed and reproduce the same church of the first century (Luke 8:11).

    Get ready for this shocker: One of the chief reasons given for a changing church of Christ is that it is a living organism. Whoa! This teaches evolution! Why should the church change because it is a living organism unless organisms evolve and change? There's your doctrine of evolution.

    Wait a moment! They have an argument that disproves their contention. The fact that the church is a living organism is proof that the church is not to change, that living organisms do not evolve.

    God created man whole and complete--no evolution, no changing. Likewise, God created the church whole and complete--no evolution, no changing. If the church is to evolve and change in keeping with the changing cultures of the passing years, then years hence it may have no semblance of the church--could evolve into a circus, country club or whatever. If what they say is right, then we can throw away the Bible and get a calendar--just let the changing years determine what the church becomes.

    But God has spoken! Let us remember: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom [church] which cannot be moved [shaken or changed to fit man's views], let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear," satisfied with the church God created (Hebrews 12:28).

    
Conclusion

    Years ago, older soldiers of the cross handed us the sword, but some didn't know what to do with it--thought it was to spread butter. We are losing sight of our role as soldiers (Ephesians 6).

    Back in 1836 when 186 ragged defenders of the Alamo were besieged by a mighty Mexican army, finally Colonel Travis called the forces together, took his sword and drew a line on the ground. Then he said, "All who are willing to fight and die for this cause, step across this line." All stepped across but one. He lay ill on a cot. Summoning all his strength, he raised his head and whispered, "Boys, move my cot across the line."

    Fellow Christians, we have fought a thousand battles and the struggle goes on and on. Sharpen your sword--you will need it. There are more battles ahead. No matter which way the war goes, we shall remain unbowed and unbroken. Our battle cry is not, "Remember the Alamo!" It is, "I am set for the defense of the gospel!"

    I appeal to the young, to the middle-aged and to the old. I appeal to the well and to the ill. And when we draw a line and say, "All who are willing to stand fast in the faith, to give your last full measure of devotion, step across this line," it would be wonderful if every able-bodied member, both young and old, would step across the line, except the ill, and from a thousand sick beds would come the whisper, "Boys, move my bed across the line."

    Truth today! Truth tomorrow! Truth forever!