Expert: Marvin Howard - 4/29/2003

Question
I understand that the First Christian Church and the Church of Christ were once together and that the First Christian Church split off.  Is this true, and if so what were the differences over which the split occurred?

Answer
Hi!

Before I get to your question, I must give a brief church history leading up to the point in question.

The churches of Christ were in existence at least 70 years  before the split which became catholicism in about 425 A.D., let alone any protestant denominations which were formed. (Romans 16:16) We are named in the scripture. We are defined in our practice by scripture. Other groups may choose a proper description out of scripture, but I have yet to find one that takes the whole Bible without addition or deletion, thereby rendering themselves accursed according to Galatians 1:8-9. The church has remained in existence, though in very small numbers due to persecution by the group, which though a command to sheathe swords was given, decided to unsheathe them and kill those disagreeing with them religiously. You could neither buy, nor sell without the approval of this monster: dare I say beast?

Catholicism began when men, especially bishops (elders/pastors), desired preiminence over others. Eventually, one desired preiminence over all. They incorporated many pagan practices into worhsip.

Protestantism began with Martin Luther deciding the catholics were wrong on some things. Rather than going to God's word to find out everything to do, he fixed the things they knew to be wrong. This approach left many things not fixed. The same approach has been followed through the ages in the formation of all of the denominations, whether they split from catholicism, or from another denomination.

In the 1800's, several men, from different denominations, and independant of each other, saw the wrongness of division in accordance with Jesus' prayer for unity. After all, if He prayed for it, could it not be possible? they decided to go back to the Bible, rather than the created traditions and doctrines of men. If all took the Bible, and solely the Bible for their athority, there could be agreement. Division only happenned when people spoke where the Bible did not speak or were silen when the Bible spoke. They each were saved at this time, by being obedient to the revealed will of God, rather than thinking they were saved based on a feeling within themselves. In other words, they trusted God over man. They became Christians in the exact same way people are recorded as becoming Christians in the first century. God's Word is seed. Being seed, whenever planted, it will always produce the same fruit. If it produced Christians in the first century, it will produce Christians in the 19th, 20th, and even the 21st. If another crop comes up, it is not from God's seed, but rather is tares to be rooted up at the judgement.

Later, there have been found buildings (all over the world) bearing the same name, which have contained journals of proceedings within those walls. These records matched exactly what was found in God's word when it is finally examined. God's word was true; the gates of hell did not prevail against the church.

Now, we can come to your question. Shortly after Stone, Campbell, and Campbell (among others) came to this conclusion (imploring others to do the same), another split occurred (e.g., the Christian Church). Some "bretheren" began to form church governments on other than congregational levels (i.e., missionary societies), which the Lord did not command. While more than one congregation is athorized to help any missionary, nowhere do we find one congregation being bound to support one by other than its own eldership.

Also, about the same time, some decided they missed the use of mechanical instruments of music to which they had become accustomed. Early in church history recorded by Jocephus (and many others) in the first century, it has been proven the church used "A Cappella" music; that is, without instrumental accompaniment. It was not even introduced until after the year 400 A.D. Even then, it was soundly rejected. About 200 years later, it made another appearance, and remained in sporadic use until about 1200 A.D. within catholicism. As the denominations were founded by their various leaders, the most famous were all set against it. Luther, Calvin, Wessley, Spurgeon, and Zwingley are all on record in opposition. Comments were made such as, "I have no objection to a piano being in the church building, provided it is neither seen nor heard." Instruments were not widely accepted in the denominational world until about the 18th century. Why? The command is to sing in Ephesians 5:19. There is a command to make melody (psallo) there as well. People get contentious here, saying psallo means play. This is true. What you do not hear, is that the verb tense of this form, demands the instrument be named in the context. Is there one? Yes, the heart (not the harp). To use another instrument is to add to the word. People say David played a harp. Amen, David played a harp! The same law giving Him the athority and command to do so required animal sacrifice and incense. These are not to be done today, just as instruments in worship have been abolished in the New Law. Since God named an instrument (just as He named the emblems for communion), to add to it would be equal to placing burgers and Coke on the altar.

You know what type of music is "A Cappella" (its definition). Did you know it is a Latin phrase? Do you know what its translation is? Look it up in any latin lexicon you choose. It is translated as "of the chapel." Since a chapel is a place where a congregaion of the church meets, the music there is the type played where the church meets; "A Cappella." If there are instruments there, it is music that is "non-A Capella," or music that is not in places where the church meets. If the music there is not church music, it is not the church.

These two doctrines are known to me as causing the "Christian" church to be marked and avoided by the church. Since they would neither repent nor leave, we left them to their own devices.

There have since been other splits from both us and them. The most notable of these are the Disciples of Christ, the Church of Christ Scientists, the Boston Movement (also known now as the International Church of Christ), and the United Church of Christ. Even now, there are agents working within the church to divide it yet again, but I won't get into that, as it is still happening, and they are still wearing our description.

All of this was prophesied. I am sure you have heard the phrase, "itching ears," in reference to people deciding they only were going to listen to what they wanted to hear.

There are many more false doctrines practiced by this group. Many of them were incorporated long after they caused the split. There may even be more that caused them to go into apostacy; these are the things I have heard. I hope this has satisfactorily answered your question. If not, and the information below is not satisfactory, I am available for follow ups.

P.S., For more information on topics discussed, see also:
Acts 20:29
II Thessalonians 2:3
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962/archive2.html
http://www.bible.ca/history/eubanks/
http://www.myth-and-mystery.org/
http://www.piney.com/RMPiney.html
http://www.aburningfire.net/
http://64.247.50.2/~apostasy/apostasy.html
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/