“Got Questions” and the Churches of Christ

Recently, your congenial editor was given a document that was dated September 7, 2025 in association with the following website: www.GotQuestions.org. The question was: “Is the Church of Christ a Good Biblical Church?” The answer contains some accurate information, but occasionally there is a misrepresentation (whether accidental or intentional). This response will be sent to their website.

They begin with a correct statement about there being many groups who refer to themselves as churches of Christ. They are generous in saying that some groups are “borderline cult-like.” We would go further than that and call the Crossroads-Boston Movement a cult, period. They began in the late ’70s in Gainesville, Florida, and faithful brethren opposed them once it was known what they were doing. Chuck Lucas began this group before disappearing into oblivion, and it was taken over by Kip McKeen and centered in Boston. Later, they chose Los Angeles as headquarters and were known as the Church of Christ International. The Apostle John provides the best description of them:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:19).

There are few similarities between them and the churches of Christ.

Instruments of Music

The author(s) of “GotQuestions” find fault with one “‘minor’ issue”—“not allowing musical instruments in their church services”; in fact, they state that we are “fanatically against” them. We would oppose the use of the word fanatically. How about saying that we are faithfully and consistently opposed to their use in worship? Did God fanatically reject Cain’s worship? When fire went out from the Lord and burned to death Nadab and Abihu, was God fanatical? No. They used fire that had not been authorized by God. In the New Testament, God never authorized the use of musical instruments. So, why is it fanatical to abstain from using what God has not authorized?

They call this position dogmatic. We assume they are defining it as in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: “Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.” No, it’s based on Scripture. If “GotQuestions” will show where Jesus, the apostles, or any New Testament church used instruments of music in their worship of God anywhere from Matthew through Jude, we will give up the argument that there is no authority for their use. Surely, it cannot be regarded as fanatical to rely on Biblical authority for what we do in worship.

But they go even further, saying that this is “a clearly non-essential issue.” Obviously, it is to them, but do they not recall that Jesus taught that true worship must be in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24)? For it to be an optional matter, it must be authorized, which they cannot show. “GotQuestions” shows an ignorance of history on this matter. When instrumental music was introduced into worship, most spiritual leaders rejected it.

Sir Thomas Aquinus said: “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize (Bingham’s Antiquities 3:137).

Zwingli rejected “every church practice not expressly commanded in the New Testament,” which included instrumental music.

John Calvin: Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law.

John Wesley: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen” (Clarke’s Commentary 4:684).

Trust your congenial editor: You don’t even want to know what that Methodist commentator said about musical instruments, but it is likely “Got Questions” would call him fanatical.

The Church

The authors say that the “Church of Christ” came out of “the Restoration Movement.” There was a tremendous movement in the early 1800s in America with an emphasis of going back to the Bible, but the same kind of thinking can be found in England 200-300 years earlier. We prefer to say that the concept of the churches of Christ comes from the New Testament (Rom. 16:16).

When Hezekiah attempted to restore Judah to the way God had designed it (including especially worship), he did not set up a new kingdom. Neither did Josiah when he resumed following the Law of Moses. When we follow the New Testament, we are simply doing what they did—restoring the church, worship, and salvation the way it was taught in the New Testament. It doesn’t matter what happened in 16th-century England or 19th-century America; what matters is what the New Testament teaches. We do not follow men and what they believed in either era; our purpose is to follow the New Testament. If this is fanaticism and dogmatism, so be it.

The writers find fault with the idea that we believe we are the one true church. Why would anyone want to belong to a religious group that does not think so?

Jesus prayed for his followers to be one (John 17:21), and Paul condemned division (1 Cor. 1:10-13). So, yes, we oppose denominationalism because it is not authorized in the New Testament. All believers should be and can be united together in Christ. “GotQuestions” disagrees. Below is their statement.

The “one true church of Christ” is comprised of all those who have, by grace through faith, personally received Jesus Christ as Savior. The Church is composed of true believers everywhere, no matter what the local church or denominational affiliation.

It is embarrassing that the above statement has no Scriptural support whatsoever. Since division is denounced in the pages of the New Testament, how can anyone even discuss believers in denominations? Imagine someone saying, “Say, we know we should be united, but we’re going to divide ourselves into hundreds of religious groups that teach conflicting doctrines—but still call ourselves “the one church?” Seriously?

“GotQuestions” would lump the churches of Christ together with denominations, but we do not. We believe that if we follow the teachings of the New Testament, we are simply Christians, and we belong to the church for which Christ died. How many churches did Jesus promise to build (Matt. 16:18)? One. How many churches did He purchase with His own blood (Acts 20:28)? One. How many churches is He head over (Eph. 1:22-23)? One. How many bodies does Jesus have (Eph. 4:4)? One. In light of what the Scriptures teach, GotQuestions’ explanation cited above is so much gibberish. Furthermore, the phrase, receive Jesus, is nowhere found in the New Testament. Furthermore, they do not explain how someone receives Jesus.

Baptism

The writers are kind enough to quote the Scriptures we cite concerning the essentiality of baptism, but then they quickly downgrade essential to “very important.” They agree that “in the minds of the apostles and early Christians, baptism was so inextricably linked with salvation that the two were viewed as inseparable.” They add: “The idea that a person could receive Christ as Savior and not be baptized was completely foreign to the early church.” Wow! With admissions like these, how could they possibly disagree with the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins? Now if they would only move away from the receiving Christ as Savior phrase!

After admitting what they do above, one wonders where they could possibly go next. Ready? “With that said, however, baptism is not required for salvation.” Are the “GotQuestions” writers conflicted? Are they confused? It is obvious that their theology is leading their interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures they cited that we use are more than sufficient to make the case that baptism is involved in the removing of sins and that sins cannot be washed away without it. How much clearer would these verses need to be?

So, where do they go from here? They contend that there are numerous Scriptures “that declare salvation to be received by faith / believing, with no mention of baptism or any other requirement (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9).” Then they draw the erroneous conclusion that “if baptism is necessary, these Scriptures are in error and the Bible is contradictory.”

We humbly suggest that the Bible is thoroughly consistent but that their view of these Scriptures is wrong. First of all, we are saved by faith—but not “faith only” (James 2:24). Faith is that which acts, which obeys—that leads to repentance and baptism. Does “GotQuestions” think repentance is necessary for a person to be saved? Jesus said no one could be saved without it (Luke 13:3). Repentance, however, is not faith, and that fact proves that “faith only” is not enough. Faith moves a person to repent and brings him closer to salvation.

But salvation is not achieved until one is baptized. Peter said that baptism saves us (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). It concludes the salvation process and is part of what is meant by being saved by faith. So, what about the three passages they cited? None of them excludes baptism. Let’s consider each one.

John 3:16 mentions whoever believes in Christ should not perish (which means that he possibly can perish) but have everlasting life. There is no reason that baptism should be included here—any more than repentance—when other Scriptures make it plain that they are required. Perhaps the writers overlooked the fact that just a few verses previous, Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again—of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), which most commentaries understand to be a reference to baptism.

Acts 16:31 proves to be a bad choice for the authors of “GotQuestions.” Yes, Paul begins to explain salvation to the Philippian jailer by saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your household.” However, the very next verse says: “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” Verse 31 is the introduction; in verse 32 he explains salvation, which culminates in those present being baptized (v. 33). How could “GotQuestions” overlook these facts?

Ephesians 2:8-9 is simply a summary statement of salvation (“by grace through faith”) to those who were already saved. But even so, Paul mentions “one baptism” later on (along with “one faith”) (Eph. 4:4-6).

We do give “GotQuestions” credit for correctly stating that we do not view baptism as a human work that earns salvation. We teach that baptism involves the working of God to remove sins (Col. 2:11-12).

Overall, then, the writers of “Got Questions” tried to be fair, but their theology got in the way of their understanding of the Scriptures. “Faith only” is such a common false doctrine that even when the Scriptures declare plainly otherwise, they have a hard time letting it go. It is the standard by which they measure everything else.