"Disciples" And "Church"
In a recent lecture in support of institutionalism (June 10, 1956 — Central Church of Christ, Birmingham, Alabama), Brother Guy N. Woods took the position that there is no inspired record of one church "as such" ever contributing to another church "as such." (This position was also taken by Brother G. K. Wallace in the Gospel Advocate, May 3, 1956.) This position was calculated to falsify the claims of the opponents of centralization that a New Testament pattern exists and must be adhered to.
In support of this statement, Brother Woods cited Acts 11:27-30 and argued that this is an example of "individuals" contributing to a "church." The basis of his contention was that the term "the disciples" (verse 29) referred to individuals.
This premise breaks down without departing from the immediate context if the verse preceding the prescribed verses be taken in conjunction with them. Verse 26, "And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people; and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
Questions For Consideration:
1. Are the terms "church" and "the disciples" synonymous in verse 26?
2. If so, why is not the term "the disciples" in verse 29 also synonymous with the term "church" in verse 26? (Same setting.)
3. If the terms "church" and "the disciples" of verse 26 are NOT synonymous, how many of "the disciples" of the "church" were called Christians first at Antioch?
4. If only a part of "the disciples" of the "church" were called Christians, what were the rest called, whose names are enrolled in heaven? (Heb. 12:23.)
5) The NECESSARY inference is that the terms "the disciples" and the "church" are synonymous. Therefore, does not the qualifying term, "every man," show conclusively that this was a united effort on the part of the "church" at Antioch? (Note: The qualifying term, "every man," can only define a definite, known number; never an indefinite, unknown number.)