Espresso or Expresso?

We have a lot of words that we commonly mispronounce. People say “expresso” when it should be “espresso.” There is no “x” in espresso. Yes, I know that it is a small difference, and, yes, I know that I shouldn't be nit-picky (A nit-picker is one who is concerned about petty details). But facts are facts, and letters do make a difference. When it comes to Bible teaching, we especially need to be careful so that we say what the book says. We need to avoid some of the ordinary fallacies that pop up in conversation about the Bible or about the church of our Lord.Let us look a few of these terms that are commonly misused.

“I am a Church of Christer”
We may well understand what the person is trying to say; but it is a fallacious way of saying, “I am a Christian.” We come to think of the church in a denominational sense. We want to distinguish between being a Baptist or Presbyterian or the like, and so we use expressions that would indicate that we are a part of another denomination called “the church of Christ.” Why isn’t is sufficient to say, “I am a Christian?”Conjoined with this expression is another that we hear. A preacher may be referred to as “a church of Christ preacher.” What is that? Do you mean that he preaches “the church of Christ?” Why cannot we be content to say that he is “a gospel preacher?”  Isn’t that definitive enough? Or must we denominationalize the church by our expressions?

“Congregations of the Church of Christ”
This is perhaps even more common to hear. The thinking behind this expression is that “the church of Christ” is made up of congregations. This is indeed a denominational concept.  (A denomination is defined as “an organized group of religious congregations.”) But that is not what the Bible teaches about the church. Universally, the church is composed of all saved individuals on the face of God's earth. Christians are “the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23). The word “firstborn” is a plural word and therefore, properly would be “firstborn ones.” (You see, another fallacy is that people go to this passage and argue somewhat like this: “The church is the church of the ‘firstborn.’ The  ‘firstborn’ is Christ. Therefore, it is the ‘church of Christ.’” Such is more fallacious reasoning since the word is plural.) When we say that the church of our Lord is not a denomination, we mean that it is not composed of a group of congregations. It is composed of those individuals whose names are enrolled in Heaven. Further, the word ekklesia  basically means “an assembly” or “congregation.” Thus, it would be foolish to say, “churches of the church” or “assemblies of the assembly” or “congregations of the congregation.” We need to get away from this thinking and speaking in denominational terminology.

“The Church of Christ’ Is the Name We Must Use”
Some brethren are most vehement when it comes to the  designations of the church. You would think that God gave a divine fiat that says, “You must be called ‘the church of Christ.’” Did it ever occur to these good men that the expression “the church of Christ” does not occur in the New Testament? Yes, I know that when referring to several congregations, Paul used the term “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). It is eminently scriptural for a local church to be referred to as a “church of Christ.” But is this the only term by which a local church can be called? What about referring to the local church as “the church of God” (See 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 2:14)? “But,” you say, “people wouldn't know who ‘we’ are if we used the term ‘church of God.’” Face it, brethren, it is so easy to get caught up in a denominational mindset. What if a group of people in a remote area started studying the Bible, believed in Jesus and were baptized for the remission of their sins. I believe that all of us would agree that they are Christians. Suppose they began meeting regularly and simply referred to themselves as “the church of God.” Would this be scriptural? If you moved into the area and found them, would you try to convince them to cease using “the church of God” and begin using “the church of Christ?” What scripture would you go to in order to try to convince them of this? Can't you see that we get into some rather fuzzy thinking about the church?

“Unto” and  “Into”
When I began preaching some fifty years ago, I heard preachers preaching on the plan of salvation and making an argument on “unto” and “into.” This sounded good to me, and I began to use it also. The argument went like this: “We believe unto righteousness; we repent unto  life; we confess unto salvation. ‘Unto’ means ‘in the direction of.’ But when it comes to baptism, we are baptized into Christ. Believing, repenting and confessing are leading us in the direction of, but it is baptism that puts us into Christ.” This sounds good. The only thing wrong with it is that it just isn’t proper usage of the terms. The word translated unto in Romans 10:10 and Acts 17:18 is eis. The is the same word translated into in Gal. 3:27. In all of these passages the same word is used. Thus, we cannot make an argument on the difference between unto and into. It is fallacious reasoning and is not necessary to show the essentiality of baptism for the forgiveness of sins. No, I am not trying to be a nit-picker. But I am convinced that we ought to be Biblical in our usage of terms. Let’s get away from denominational thinking and speaking. Let us avoid erroneous arguments in our diligence to teach the truth. Let’s just speak as the Bible speaks.

Forrest D. Moyer