The author of Hebrews begins a series of exhortations to his readers, reminding them first of all that through Christ's sacrifice, man may enter heaven. His blood accomplishes this. Before Christ, man had no access to heaven, for the animal sacrifices could not provide such access.

In verse 20 of ch. 10 he speaks of the new way, which in reality is the only way (Jn 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me."). We should note that the contrast is not between a new way and an old way, but between a new way and no way. So long as the tabernacle and its system of worship stood, there was no way into heaven (Heb 9:8). He continues to say that He (Jesus) consecrated or opened the way for us, by dying on the cross, giving man access into heaven. New ways in religion are continually being looked at, it was so during the N.T. times (Acts 17:21), and it is so today. The difference with Christianity is that it is old and new. Old in point of time--in existence since the beginning of time: Eph 3:8-11. New in contrast to the old system and new to many who have not learned it.

Jer 31:31-34--"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—(32) not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. (33) But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (34) No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Note the differences: The Old Law written on stone (Ex 32:15-16)—The New in the heart (2 Cor 3:3). The Old was faulty (Heb 8:7)---The New is perfect (Heb 7:19; Jas 1:25). The Old Law, a system of bondage (Acts 15:10)---The New, a system of liberty (Gal 5:1-2). The Old Law was for the Jews (Eph 2:12)---The New for all nations (Eph 2:13-14). The Old Law taken away---The New established (Heb 10:9).

Under the old system a lamb was required for the Passover. We read in Exo. 12:5, 21, and 27, “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. (21) Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Pick out and take lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb. (27) "that you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.' " So the people bowed their heads and worshiped.” As we noted earlier the Old Law was going to be taken away. Something had to be done. The apostle Paul tells us what took place in 1 Cor 5:7, “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. And Peter writes, “but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet 1:19).

As we continue to consider the differences between the Old and New Covenants another poignant process must be examined. Under the Old Law one is born into the covenant. In Gen 17:3 we read, “…My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” While under the New Law it is a spiritual birth. Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."…"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3-5). Peter also writes, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (1 Pet 1:23). This new birth makes new creatures “In Christ” (1 Pet 2:2; Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). We will continue with these thoughts.

CHURCH HISTORY: A BIBLICAL VIEW
Part II -No. 8 Compiled and written by Gary Eubanks

A. Definition of terms.

The term "church" is used in two basic senses in the New Testament. Firstly, it refers to the "aggregate of those throughout the world who have been saved by obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mt. 16:18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22). Secondly, it refers to "some such saved in a particular geographical area who band together for purposes of worship and spiritual work" (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:4 , 11). These are usually referred to as the "universal" and "local" senses, respectively, of the term, "church."

The term "catholic" is derived from a Greek word which means "general" or "universal." As this term is applied to the first of the two above senses it is quite accurately applied, for the Lord certainly intended for His disciples to be parts of one, universal body (Jn. 17:20-23; Eph. 4:4). There are no parties, or branches, of disciples making up the universal church. However, what is it that makes the church "Catholic?" What is it that gives the church its "oneness?" The element which compacts all Christians into one body is their common faith in, and relationship with, Jesus Christ. Thus, the oneness of the church is doctrinal in nature. The universal church is not so much an organization as it is a relationship. One is a member of the universal church, and thus related to all the other members of that church, because he has formed a relationship with Jesus Christ. The components of the universal church are individual Christians, not local congregations (I Cor. 12:27).

However, it is easy for men to lose sight of these concepts, as they did in the Second Century. First, men begin to conceive of the universal church as being composed of the various local congregations rather than simply individual Christians. The brotherhood becomes a union of local churches ("church-hood"). From this point it is easy to conceive of the local congregations as having a collective work to perform. As such concepts gain headway, members of the church, and local congregations, begin to think of themselves as being organically tied to one another rather than simply having a common faith and relationship. Organic unity and collective work require inter-congregational coordination of efforts, which, in turn, requires inter-congregational leaders. In the Second Century the monarchical bishops began to move into the role of inter-congregational leaders. Thus, the church was becoming "catholic," not by virtue of a shared relationship, but by virtue of an organic unity of Christians epitomized in the authority of the bishops.

B. Rationale. Historians usually assert that it was the Gnostic and Montanist crises which led to, and necessitated, this "catholicizing" of the church. Some system was needed to define the true church and its faith and protect it against heretics and schismatics. However, the Lord made provisions for such protection in the Scriptures to define the faith and local elders to see that it is properly taught. As history will clearly show, tying local churches together and allowing inter-congregational leaders to define the faith for them only increases the possibility and rate of apostasy.

A. The "visible church" and "visible succession." This is essentially the idea that the true church may be identified by its visibility in society and that a continuous line of churches and church leaders may be traced in history. Implied in this view is the idea that the true church will always predominate in influence and numbers. No mere "sect" will be the true church. Of course, this concept tends to minimize the Scriptures. They themselves teach that the word of God is the truth (Jn. 17:17) and gives rise to the church (Lk. 8:11). It is thought by those who adhere to the Catholic concept of the church that the church defines truth. Truth then becomes what the church says it is.

B. Church the sole repository, possessor, and interpreter of the Scriptures. This thinking follows from the preceding concepts. Since the visible church will always be the true church, then it will always have the right view of the Scriptures. Thus, the individual Christian need not interpret the Scriptures for himself; he needs only to conform to what the church says the Scriptures say.

C. Expansion of the authority of the episcopate. (1) The monarchical bishops, especially those of "apostolic" churches (those established by, or during the days of, the apostles), were viewed as successors of the apostles. In arguing against the Gnostic idea that the apostles left a secret oral teaching to which Gnostics fell heir, Irenaeus (c. 142-200), bishop of Lyons, proposed that apostolic teaching was fully preserved in the churches of apostolic foundation, or, more particularly, in their bishops. Indeed. apostolic teaching is fully preserved, but in the Scriptures, not in any oral traditions entrusted to bishops.

(2) Since it was thought that the doctrines and authority of the apostles were perpetuated in the bishops, it was naturally thought that they should be the ones to define the faith. Hence, faithfulness was contingent upon agreement with the bishops. Those who did not agree with the faith as defined by the bishops were heretics and schismatics. Commensurate with this authority of bishops to define the faith was the authority to excommunicate any who did not agree with them.

A. An "apostolic" church. Rome was naturally prominent because Paul had twice graced it with his presence. It was even believed that Peter served as bishop of the Roman church in his latter years.

B. In capital city of the Empire. Attention and prestige also accrued to the Roman church since it was at the center of political activity in the Roman Empire.

C. Diminution of Eastern churches. Churches in the East, such as Ephesus, Antioch, and Jerusalem, were hurt by the Jewish-Roman war (135) and the Montanist struggle in Asia Minor. The decline of these churches left a vacuum which Rome began to fill. By 200 Rome was the most imminent and influential church. Rome's growing power is illustrated in the Easter controversy. In the West Easter was always celebrated on Sunday, while in Asia Minor it was celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, regardless of the day it was. The controversy became so acute that synods were held in Rome and Palestine on the matter. These synods decided in favor of the Roman practice, and when the churches of Asia Minor refused to conform, Victor, bishop of Rome (189-198), excommunicated them. 

Quit Using "Church Of Christ?"
by Larry Ray Hafley

Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, "church Of Christ," perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited "the churches of God." However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of, "the church of God" (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God." In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned "the churches of Christ." Since the singular of "churches of God" is "church of God," what is the singular of "churches of Christ"? (If you do not know the answer to that question, there will be no need for you to worry, or to read further. Bless your heart, God will take care of you.)

Over the years, some have said it would be best if we ceased to put the name, "Church Of Christ," on our meetinghouses. Various reasons have been given. "It's confusing." "People with a negative view of the church won't attend when they see the name." "It's too traditional." What shall we say to these objections?

If we drop the name, "Church of Christ," and replace it with "Christians meet here," we will confront the same set of problems and objections. The name "Christian," too, is "confusing." When we use it to tell folks what we are religiously, many wonder "what kind of Christian" we are. Baptist-Christian? Methodist-Christian? Catholic Christian? Others have a "negative view" of it (Cf. James 2:7"Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"). It is a very traditional term, used widely and loosely around the world. Since the name "Christian" is greatly abused and misunderstood, shall we, therefore, cease to call ourselves "Christians"?

Shall we quit referring to "elders" because certain ones may link us with the Mormons and their "elders"? Obviously, we dare not call our elders, "pastors," for that would certainly confuse most people (even some of our own brethren!).

Shall we drop references to "baptism" since it is a traditionally used and often misunderstood term? "Baptism" makes some think we approve of "sprinkling," for that is their concept of it. Thus, they are misled about what we believe. Does that mean that 1 Peter 3:21, like the name, "church of Christ," must go by the way side, for it employs that confusing, traditional expression, "baptism doth also now save us"?

Neither can we speak of being "born again," for that designation is misunderstood and misrepresented. To use it would identify us with Protestant churches.

Obviously, we dare not speak of the Holy Spirit, or "Holy Spirit baptism" or "tongues," for those are "buzz words" of wild-eyed faith healers in particular and Pentecostalism in general. Of course, we absolutely must not even breathe the word "miracle," for everyone knows what would be assumed of us!

If we must cease references to "churches of Christ," to be consistent we must do away with these other terms--Christian, elder, pastor, baptism, Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, and miracles. However, the truth is that we need not dispense with any of them. Rather, without shame or apology, we must teach the world the truth and use every opportunity to show the distinction between the words of men and the word of God (Acts 17:23; 1 Pet. 4:11).