2. Sometimes our young people are treated with sinful intolerance at school because they refuse to engage in dances. Sometimes they are treated with intolerance when they fail to take part in the gambling games, games of chance, which are played in some of the schools. Very often when they refuse to go to picture shows they are laughed at and made fun of. It is not a question of somebody’s attempting with love and sincerity to persuade them to change their convictions; too often it is simply a matter of ridicule.
I could give some instances and call names of Christian young people who have been persecuted in public schools because they had a standard of morality and conduct which was different from that of the majority in the school. That is intolerance of a sinful sort. It is the wrong sort of opposition. Endeavoring to teach in love and kindness what one believes, even mistakingly, to be the truth is legitimate; but opposing contrary beliefs and ideals with ridicule and fun-making is wrong.
3. We saw an example of this at the panel discussion last Tuesday night. The chairman of the meeting was inclined to poke fun at some in the audience who arose to ask questions, apparently asking the questions in all sincerity. He would encourage the audience to give them the “horse laugh.” The meeting which was called to promote tolerance manifested intolerance of an ugly sort.
It was said that this meeting was being called to advocate the doctrine that we should discriminateagainst no one because of his color, his creed, or his race. These three words don’t belong together. Color, creed, and race do not come in the same category. A man is not responsible for his color. He had no choice in it. A man is not responsible for the race to which he belongs. He had no choice in it. He was born that way. But a man does have a choice in reference to his creed. He chooses his creed. He can believe what he wants to believe.
It is not right to put color, race, and creed all in the same class. Certainly, you should not hold a man responsible for his color. You should not hold him responsible for his race. He had no choice in the matter and where there is no choice there is no responsibility. But a man is responsible for what he believes. This the Bible abundantly teaches. For example, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
4. The irony of the situation was that some colored men, who endeavored to attend the meeting, which was to promote brotherhood of all the races, all the creeds and all the colors, were turned away from the door and not allowed to come in, because they were the wrong color. It is right to make a distinction between a man’s color and his creed, but the distinction ought to be made in favor of not holding him accountable for his color, while holding him accountable for his creed. It seems that the spirit of the occasion was just the opposite. “We won’t hold you accountable for your creed, but if you are thewrong color you can’t come in.” Well, that doesn’t quite make sense, does it?
We ought not oppose error by such illegitimate means as physical or political force, embarrassment and ridicule, or making fun. Such weapons are very powerful; but they are unlawful. We ought not try to get one to be baptized by making fun or ridiculing him. If I caused him to be baptized by physical or political force, or by the force of ridicule and sarcasm, it wouldn’t do him any good. He would be prompted by the wrong motive. One’s obedience to God must be of his own free will.
1. While I am talking about the advantage which is sometimes taken of people in school, I want to read something from Harry Emerson Fosdick. He is a man that I wouldn’t ordinarily quote or refer to. He is a liberal. There are a thousand things on which I disagree with him, but he has said something in a recent article which I think is worth passing on. I might not even agree with everything in this quotation, but you’ll see the point.
He says: “I am a liberal; I am not pleading for sectarianism or conventional orthodoxy or anything of that sort. What I want most of all is that Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants should prepare together some book or books by means of which the best elements in the spiritual heritage of our racecan be presented in our schools, objectively and without offense, as a matter of information.” Whether or not that is possible might be open to debate. But listen to what he says next.
“Meanwhile,” it’s this meanwhile that I am interested in, “Meanwhile, however, I am fed up with a familiar type of course in some of our institutions, where religion may not be taught but where, by innuendo and clever sniping, irreligion is taught. The Jewish prophets, Christ, and the creative seers of our spiritual tradition might as well never have existed, while Freud, for example, not simply as the great pioneer in psychiatry but as an atheistic materialist, is presented at length as though he were infallible.”
2. If I were to go into some of our public schools and teach the truth on church unity and the meaning of baptism, I would be considered intolerant, narrow minded and out of order in using the public schools to teach religion. But when a man gets up and teaches that the Bible is not true, he is teaching religion, even though it is a false religion. He is teaching a religion just the same as the man who says that the Bible is true.
That reminds me of one college professor who asked his class at the beginning of the course how many of them believed that God existed. Several students raised their hands. He said, “I predict that by the time this course is finished there won’t be any here who believe in God.” He was teaching religion—false religion. He was opposing the truth. He wastaking advantage of a state school in which to do it.
3. When I was going to high school nearly every chapel speaker who was not a member of the church of Christ would tell us that one church was as good as another. The members of the church of Christ who came never gave us the opposite side of that. They should have told us that one church was not as good as another—that there is only one church. However, if they had done so, they would have been accused of being narrow minded and of preaching their own peculiar doctrine. But the man who says that one church is just as good as another is preaching what he believes just as much as I am preaching what I believe when I say that one is not just as good as another. So you see this matter of tolerance ought to work both ways in public institutions. If one is not allowed to say that there is just one church, then someone else who believes differently ought not to be allowed to say that one is just as good as another.
But to continue with Mr. Fosdick. “The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of American democracy, but we are allowing it to mean what the fathers of the republic never dreamed it should mean: that youth, in our public institutions of learning, may be taught the denials of faiths but not the affirmations of them. Our postwar world cannot be reconstructed on the basis of any negative futilitarian philosophy. We desperately need greatfaiths about life issuing in great ethical standards for life.”[1]
In other words, Mr. Fosdick is saying that if it is contrary to the principles of democracy for one to teach in public schools the tenets of his faith, it is equally contrary for an infidel to teach his infidelity and try to destroy the faith of his students. Both are forms of religion. On that point I agree with Mr. Fosdick. It is wrong for infidels to hide behind a hypocritical plea for tolerance while they ply their evil trade of making unbelievers of American youth.
1. Now, I want to give you some Scriptures to show that we ought to oppose, that we areobligatedto oppose, what we believe to be wrong. 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that others may also be in fear.” That is active opposition, isn’t it? According to Webster, that is intolerance, but it is the sort of intolerance which the Bible demands. Paul said in Galatians, chapter 2 and verse 11, that he withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed. The apostle Paul opposed the apostle Peter concerning his attitude toward the Gentiles.
“Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). This doesn’tsay merely “Rebuke them,” but “Rebuke them sharply.” That is active opposition. “Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Here again earnest contention is not only permitted, but even commanded. Second Corinthians 5:11 says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”
2. God told Ezekiel that if he failed to warn sinners, then their blood would be required at his hands. Hear the charge: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; and thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 3:17-21). These texts are sufficient to show that we are boundby the law of God to give active opposition to the things which we believe to be sinful and harmful to the spiritual welfare of men.
3. That gentleness and longsuffering should characterize this work has been clearly revealed. “Brethren, if a man among you be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness,” [not in the spirit of braggadocio or sarcasm; not with ridicule, abuse, or persecution; not with physical or political force, but in the spirit of meekness] “considering thyself lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). Paul said to Timothy, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom, preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Hence, in the light of God’s Holy Word, it is my duty to do everything I can, in meekness and with persuasion, to correct those whom I believe to be in error.
4. If you believe that I am saying something today which ought not be said, it is your duty to come to me after the service is over, or even to speak up now, and tell me wherein I am wrong. This is the work of a friend. If you go away and tell somebody else that you think I made a mistake and never let me know it, then you are playing the part of an enemy. But if you come to me and endeavor to show me where you believe I made a mistake then you will be proving yourself to be a friend.
Before these things which I have been advocating can be successfully applied we must first of all have a common standard. It was brought out in the panel discussion last Tuesday night that the three men on the panel each had a different standard. Assumedly, the Protestant speaker accepted the entire Bible as the inspired word of God. The Jew did not. He did not accept the New Testament or the Christ of the New Testament; he accepted only the Old Testament. The Catholic speaker plainly stated that he accepted neither as his authority, but that he placed his confidence in the mind of man; of course, that meant the mind of one particular man whom they are pleased to call their pope. The word “pope” means father. The man whom they call pope is not married, never has been married. He is an old bachelor, yet he is called father by more people than anybody else on the earth. The Bible says “call no man your father upon the earth” (Matt. 23:9).
The Catholic speaker was addressed in the panel discussion as “Father So and So.” If I had been on that discussion I would have called him Mr. Cleary. I suppose during a meeting advocating tolerance he would have meekly tolerated my doing so. For me to call him father would be a violation of my conscience and of the word of God. I couldn’t have called Mr. Julius Mark “Rabbi Mark,” because my Bible says, “But be not ye called Rabbi” (Matt.23:8). I know Mr. Mark doesn’t agree with me on that because he doesn’t accept the New Testament as his Bible. I know the Catholic wouldn’t agree with that, because he says the Bible is not the standard, that this man whom he calls father is the standard.
Just think how ridiculous it is for three men to pretend that they are brethren when two of them propose to believe in Christ and the other one doesn’t; one believes the New Testament and neither of the others do; and one believes that the man whom he calls pope has all the authority and neither of the others do. They haven’t yet agreed upon the authority or standard to which we should make appeal in order to settle our differences.
During the few remaining minutes I want to talk about a different sort of intolerance—or rather a different sort of so-called tolerance—the kind that is being advocated generally by such meetings as we had last Tuesday night, and by a great many folk whom I meet from day to day. This particular type of tolerance simply means that we ought to agree with everybody on everything and oppose nobody on anything. That is what it amounts to. Its advocates pretend to endorse everything and everybody and oppose nobody and nothing.
Let me make it clear that this is only a theory.Even the people who advocate it do not practice it. Nobody practices it. If you are going to take the attitude of opposing nothing and endorsing everything and everybody, then you have to endorse intolerance. Such so-called tolerance would cut off all evangelism. You couldn’t try to convert anybody to anything if you put that into practice. You’d just have to agree with everybody on everything. So you see it is mostly a theory.
People don’t really agree on things on which they don’t agree. When they pretend that they are sacrificing their convictions in order to be together, if you will look right close, you’ll probably find that they don’t have any convictions. During this very hour while I am standing here talking to you, Mr. Julius Mark is preaching at the Vine Street Christian Church as a token of this “brotherhood” that we are talking about wherein everybody is supposed to endorse everybody. Think of it! Julius Mark will tell you plainly that he does not believe the New Testament, that he does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He denies it. And yet he is preaching at this very minute in a congregation which wears the name Christian. If there is anything in this world on which Christians must be united it is the belief that Jesus is the Christ. A fellow who doesn’t believe that has no right whatsoever to call himself a Christian.
This almost convinces me that the Vine Street Christian Church does not have too much faith in Christ themselves or they wouldn’t have a manpreaching for them who professedly disbelieves in Him. I think I might put this to a little test. I do not believe in the organ that the Vine Street Christian Church uses and they know I don’t. Suppose you try to get me an appointment there next Sunday. See if you can. If you can, I’ll go. If you get me an appointment at the Vine Street Christian Church Sunday I’ll go preach for them and get somebody else to come here. They won’t let me do it. Why? Because I don’t believe in their organ. They’ll let a man preach for them who does not believe in Christ, but they won’t let a man preach for them who does not believe in their organ. Which do they think the more of, their organ or the Christ? What do you think?
Maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe they would let me preach there. If they do, I’ll take this all back. If I’m not here next Sunday, you inquire and find out if I’m down there, and if I am, then you’ll know that I was mistaken in what I have said today. Think of this! They will let a man preach for them who doesn’t believe in the Christ. But will they let a man preach for them who does not believe in their organ? If they don’t, what does it mean? It means they think more of their organ than they do of the Christ.
And speaking of tolerance, did you ever know of a public meeting leaving instrumental music out of the worship because of tolerance for the members of the church of Christ who were present? I talked to a man one time who advocated that we ought to have one community church by just leaving out thosethings which we can’t agree upon and taking the things we can agree upon. I said, “What are you going to do about these people who don’t believe in instrumental music? Will you leave that off for the sake of their conscience?” He said, “No, they’ll just have to stay on the outside till they can come in with us.” The people who teach that sort of tolerance and so-called broad-mindedness don’t practice it. In reference to something on which they have no conviction they will appear to be very broadminded, but if you test them out on one of their pet theories or hobbies or something that they do believe, then they are just as narrow minded as anyone else, or more so.
In the forum last Tuesday night it was said that we ought to leave off all doctrinal differences and just love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Let’s put that to the test. What does it mean to love your neighbor? Do you love your neighbor as you do yourself when you see him on his way to hell and don’t try to stop him? Suppose you are thoroughly convinced that your neighbor is following a doctrine that will take him to hell, and you don’t try to stop him, just throw your arm around him and call him “Brother,” is that love? Why that’s the very opposite of love! If you see a man riding down the highway and know that a bridge has been washed out a fewmiles ahead and he is going to run off and kill himself, will you try to stop him? You will if you love him. If you see a man on his way to hell, you’ll try to stop him if you love him!
I agree that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, but I also insist that love will move us to do everything we can in order to correct him when we see him following a course which will lead unto his destruction. Love demands that we preach the truth. Love demands that we persuade people to obey Christ. Love brought Jesus to this earth, and if we have the love that he had, we will do everything in our power to get people to believe, understand and obey the truth.
In mathematics we have a very simple law which says that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If two things are both equal to a third thing, then they are equal to each other. Friends, that gives you the basis of Christian unity. When we all get with Christ we’ll all be together. Isn’t that simple? And that is the only ground for unity. Christian unity cannot exist on any other basis. The only way we can have Christian unity is for all to get with Christ, and then we’ll all be together. The unity problem will then be solved. There can be no unity when one takes Christ as his creed, another follows the Old Testament and denies Christ, and still another follows a man over in Rome and calls him “Father.” In such a group unity cannot exist.
Christ is revealed in the New Testament. When we all take our stand on the Bible and get withChrist, we’ll be together. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). That is what we have to do to get with him. Paul said, speaking by the Holy Spirit, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). That’s the way you get into Christ. When you believe and are baptized into Christ that puts you in Christ; then you will be with all the other folk who are in Christ and they are the only ones with whom you want to be. You don’t want to be with those who are outside of Christ because they are lost. You want to be with those who are in Christ.
If you have put on Christ through obedience to his will and continue to follow in the footsteps of Christ as revealed in his word, then some day you will go home and be united with Christ forever, and united with all other Christians forever, in the world better than this one. Surely in this large audience there are many people present who are ready to obey Christ. When you do, you’ll be taking your stand on the ground of unity, where unity must be established if ever established. Therefore, you will not be to blame for the division that curses the world today. We invite you to accept the invitation of Jesus Christ and come to him and let him save you now. Will you come?
Sometimes the question of our topic is asked for information. At other times it is presented argumentatively, with the implication that the mere existence of so many denominations is evidence of their right to exist. The implication is that churches of human origin, operating on human authority, could never have secured such a large following. Back of this implication is the assumption that the majority is necessarily, or at least usually, right.
Those who make this assumption underestimate the capacity of mankind for making mistakes! In the days of Noah only eight people on the earth were right. All the others were wrong. You who put your confidence in the majority would have said, “Noah, you’re wrong. It will never rain as you predict. There are only eight people in your little group; all the rest in the world, including many highly educated and brilliant men, are against you. The majority must be right; therefore, you are wrong.” I imagine a great many people reasoned after this fashion in Noah’s time; but those who did got drowned.
In the days of Jesus the majority was wrong again. When he died on the cross only a handful stayed with him. Practically all the world had turned against him. If the majority had been right, then Jesus would have been wrong, but we know that such was not the case.
The Bible clearly teaches that the majority will be lost. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13, 14). Hence in matters pertaining to your soul it is not safe to put your confidence in the majority.
In all sincerity then, where did so many denominations come from? Did they come from the Bible? No. The Bible reveals only one church. Jesus Christ said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Note that he didn’t say “churches.” The Bible teaches that God’s children should be united. Just before he died on the cross Jesus prayed that the unity which existed between Him and the Father might also exist among all believers. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they alsomay be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20, 21).
Recently I heard a college professor say he was glad that we have numerous denominations. I don’t think he realized what he was saying. His remark amounted to an expression of gratitude for the fact that the condition for which our Lord prayed does not exist among the majority of those who claim to be His disciples.
Unity of thought and word is required. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Divisions and parties are condemned (Gal. 5:20).
As you know, we have the opposite of this biblical requirement. All who profess to follow Jesus are not united. In the United States alone there are more than two hundred denominations. One group teaches one thing; another something different. One denomination says, “Lo, here is Christ.” Another says, “No, He is with us.” Consequently, people are confused and know not which way to turn. Some are driven into infidelity. Many decide that the whole thing is incomprehensible and just decide to follow the line of least resistance.
What is the source of all this division and consequent confusion? Is it the Bible? Is it possible that God failed to reveal clearly his will to man? Is it so ambiguous that we can not all “see it alike?” If so,the Bible is a failure. If the Bible is not an adequate ground of unity, there is no such ground. If the Bible is not a sufficient basis for unity then it is inconsistent; for certainly its ideal is unity. So I wish to go on record in declaring that the Bible is not the source of the trouble!
In our search for the origin of denominational divisions, with all their attendant evils, we must look in some other direction. Let me appeal to you as an individual. How did you come to be what you are religiously? Where did you get your conception of Christianity? From reading the Bible, or from some other source? Did you form your church connection because of conviction resulting from prayerful, diligent, and faithful Bible study? Or did you merely follow the example of your parents, the social set to which you belong, your personal taste, the law of convenience, or some other fallible standard?
If you will examine your own hearts, it will throw a lot of light, not only on where so many denominations came from, but especially on why they are able to continue, which is equally, if not more, important. Even in a congregation like this, most likely there are some whose religious course has been determined by convenience rather than conviction. Such persons are not steadfast. When it becomes more convenient to do something else, or to be something else, theywill turn aside. Unless you develop some convictions, you can easily become a liability rather than an asset.
In religion, as in politics, many blindly follow the example of their parents. Even if this policy leads you into the church we read about in the Bible, it is not sufficient. If you are a member of the Lord’s church, you ought to have a better reason than the fact that your parents happened to be members of it. You ought to have some convictions on the subject. You ought to be what you are because you believe you would go to hell if you were otherwise! If that is the way you feel, then you will be worth something to the group to which you belong. Then you will put the church first.
But how come our parents to be divided into more than two hundred different sects? The same false standards which cause our generation to be divided, including the example of their parents. And so we may trace the history of denominations and erroneous doctrines back up the stream of time from generation to generation, can’t we?
This, however, does not completely explain their origin. They had to begin somewhere between here and Pentecost. How far back can they be traced? When and where did they originate?
In order to answer these questions let us begin at the other end of the line, at Pentecost, and comedown toward the present to see what we can find. Since Jesus built only one church, at least one hundred and ninety-nine of the approximately two hundred now in existence had to get started somewhere else, at some other time, and in some other way.
In the church that Jesus built, each congregation is entirely independent of every other congregation. The Bible teaches congregational autonomy, which means that under Christ each congregation is entirely independent. According to the Bible, there can be no organization whatsoever binding two or more congregations together. This is the first fundamental fact to remember.
Second, in the church built by Christ, each local congregation is supervised by a group of men who are called by either of six different names: pastors, bishops, overseers, presbyters, elders, or shepherds. In the Bible these six names are used interchangeably. The words elder and presbyter are both from the same Greek word “presbyteros”; the words bishop and overseer are both translations of the same Greek word “episkopos”; and the words pastor and shepherd are also synonyms, being derived from the Greek word “poimenas.” Paul referred to the elders of the church at Ephesus as bishops and designated their work of feeding or tending the flock by using the verb form of the Greek word for pastors or shepherds (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2).
Hence, no distinction of title or rank is suggested by the Bible use of these words. It is very important that we remember this fact. The overseers, the pastors,the shepherds, the bishops, the elders, and the presbyters are all the same men. The nine men here whom we frequently call elders may by the same authority be called by either of these other five names. They are the pastors of this congregation; they are the overseers; they are the bishops; they are the presbyters; they are the shepherds of the flock.
Whenever one of these names is used to distinguish one person from the rest of the group they describe, trouble will always follow. That is exactly what happened in the early history of the church. It probably occurred in a very natural way and so gradually that only the most vigilant became alarmed. In a group of overseers, it is most likely that one of them will be more active than the others. It is natural for one of them to have more ability and more zeal as a leader than the rest, and he is liable to become known as the leader of the group.
Thus it came to pass in the history of the early church. One of the overseers, or elders, became so much more prominent and influential than the others that they began to designate him by a different name. They called him the bishop. The rest of the overseers were called presbyters. They took one of these six Bible names and made it apply to one of the men in the group to distinguish him from the others. Now, that looks like a very small departure, doesn’t it? If I had been living in those days and had warned the brethren against such a practice, they would have said, “That preacher is radical. He is making a mountain out of a molehill. What difference does it makeif we want to distinguish the man who does most of the work by calling him the bishop?” Anyone who opposed them would probably have been called old-fashioned, non-progressive, etc.
But, friends, I want you to know that that is the seed out of which has grown more than two hundred denominations in America. Out of that first departure from the Bible plan has come the ecclesiastical hierarchies that curse the religious world today. If you and I aren’t very careful, we will repeat the same error. Whenever one man in the congregation is set above all the others in the group and is distinguished by any title whatsoever, you are taking a step in the wrong direction.
Well, let us follow the matter still further. It was also perfectly natural for this congregation which had made one man more prominent than the others, and distinguished him by the title Bishop, to start some missions around over the country and exercise authority over them until they became self-supporting. Since the man who was now called the bishop was head of the mother congregation, you can see how it would be very easy for the same man to become the head of this group of churches. Thus, less than two hundred years after Christ, there came into being a form of church organization quite opposite the plan revealed in the Bible. Instead of a group of men, with equal authority under Christ, overseeing one congregation there was one man over a group of congregations.
Doubtless there were certain congregations whomaintained scriptural organization, contended against these departures, and refused to share in the digression. When some digressed and others did not, there was naturally a division—not because the Bible was at fault, but because some refused to follow the Bible.
The territory represented by a group of congregations over which a bishop gained control came to be known as a diocese. Later these geographic units were grouped to form larger units. In these larger units one of the “bishops,” usually the one residing in the capital of the province, gained ascendancy in rank and authority over his fellow “bishops” and was called the metropolitan.
The digression was augmented by conferences held in the various provinces and in which the local metropolitan served as chairman. At first, they were innocent “get-togethers” of delegates from the different congregations for the sake of fellowship, friendly discussion of their common problems, and reaching conclusions on disputed questions. But they soon partook of the nature of legislative bodies, and were called Councils by the Latins, and Synods by the Greeks. Thus there came into existence a source of legislation in addition to, and different from, the Bible. The congregations joining in this movement were deprived of their scriptural autonomy.
Until afterA.D.300 each province held its own separate conference, and each metropolitan was entirely independent of all the other metropolitans in the government of his province. You can imagine how the congregations that refused to “string along” withthe crowd were condemned and boycotted by the ecclesiastical leaders.
InA.D.325 the first general council was called, and the congregations represented were divided into five groups according to the political divisions of the Roman Empire. The ecclesiastical ruler of each group was called “Patriarch” or “Chief Father.” This council formulated what is known as the Nicene Creed, which was adopted by most of the churches and which is still acknowledged by many denominations today, including the Roman Catholic. Naturally there was rivalry among the five “Chief Fathers.” The “bishops” of Rome and Constantinople managed to gain supremacy over the other three (those at Jerusalem, Alexander, and Antioch). The warfare between these two was long and fierce. InA.D.588 John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, assumed the title of “Universal Bishop of the Church.” The Patriarch of Rome protested bitterly, but inA.D.606 the title of “Universal Bishop” was transferred from John the Faster to the “Roman See.”
Thus with more than five hundred years of gradual drifting away from the Bible plan they developed a complete ecclesiastical hierarchy, with its councils, creeds, and dignitaries, supposedly having authority in addition to, different from, and in some cases, greater than, the Bible. Authority was now divided between the Bible and men who were presumptuous enough to set themselves up as legislators in the kingdom of God, which eventually culminated in the “Pope’s” ridiculous claim to be infallible. By thecongregations sharing in this apostasy the Bible was no longer considered a complete and final authority.
Sometimes today people undertake to explain the existence of denominations by saying that we cannot see the Bible alike. Friends, that is an insult to God. Anybody who says that ambiguity and indefiniteness on the part of the Bible is to blame for all the division which God so plainly condemns is insulting God Almighty; accusing Him of being unable to write a book that would express what he wanted folk to know. It is to accuse God of passing a law against division, and condemning division, and coming right along and giving the world a book that would naturally result in division. I do not believe that God is characterized by any such inconsistency. I do not believe He would condemn us for being divided, and then give us a book that would inevitably divide us.
Friends, it is not because we are not able to see the Bible alike, but it is because so many people consider something else besides the Bible as authority. I have given you a brief outline of how it started. Any Roman Catholic “priest” in this town will tell you that, in his estimation, the Bible is not the final authority in what people are to do in religion, but that the man whom they call the Pope is the infallible guide.
“Well, that explains,” you say, “just one denomination, but where did all the others come from?” We shall try to show you the connection between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the other denominations. For a period of seven hundred years, the Roman Catholics held sway over a vast majority of people who called themselves Christians. I believe that all down through the ages there were some folk who rebelled against the Roman “Pope”; and I am of the opinion, although I could not prove it, that in every generation there were some faithful Christians not always numerous and prominent enough to win recognition in history, but who were nevertheless contending for and obeying the truth. Be that as it may, we know that the Roman Catholic Church dominated most of the religious world for many centuries—until finally the Roman Catholics and the Greek Catholics divided in the twelfth centuryA.D.Then those two held the reins until there came the period in history which is known as the Great Reformation.
I have great respect for such men as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Locke, John Calvin, and John Wesley. [I don’t know why so many of them were named John, I have often wondered.] Even though a great deal of harm has been done in the name of these men, we must recognize them as having done some noble work.
Take Martin Luther, for instance, who found a Bible while he was a student in a convent, and studied it diligently. He became convinced that the sale of indulgences was sinful and endeavored to reform the Roman Catholic Church on this point. As a consequence of this effort he was excommunicated. Naturally, he started an independent movement. His purpose was to get back to the Bible and throw off all human authority, taking the Bible as his only guide. If he and all of his followers had been true to this noble ideal, there would be no Lutheran Church on the earth today. They would have become Christians and Christians only.
I am convinced that Martin Luther did not intend to start a denomination. He pleaded with the people not to wear his name, but rather to call themselves Christians. He had strong convictions, and was willing to suffer for the sake of them. But, friends, Martin Luther had become well saturated with error before he began to study the Bible for himself. He could hardly have been expected to discover all the truth immediately.
He knew that the Roman Catholics were wrong on indulgences, but they were also wrong on a great many other points which he did not discover. If he and his followers had continued to study the Bible and to make reformations as the need for them was discovered, then they would have kept getting back closer and closer to the original plan. This they did not do. Instead they made the tragic error of formulating a creed or confession of faith. This they probablydid with good intentions, hoping thereby to protect their followers against the snares of Roman Catholicism and other errors, but they defeated their purpose. It was not long until the creed began to be recognized as authoritative—if not as equal to the Bible at least as a subordinate authority. Naturally the creed was erroneous and ambiguous. It was written by uninspired men and by men blinded and prejudiced by Roman Catholicism. The creed makers were wearing the colored glasses of Roman Catholicism. They who had had Romanism drilled into them from infancy could not instantly and entirely disabuse themselves of it. In some cases they retained Roman error; in other cases they were driven into opposite extremes.
Naturally, after a generation or so, they acquired members who were in the movement not because of conviction, but because of convenience, or because their parents were. This condition, with the deadening effect of a creed—of a human creed—made progress back to the Bible very difficult, if not impossible. Each step of reformation called for a revision of the creed, and creeds are hard to revise. People become attached to them; they come to think more of them than they think of the Bible itself, if they aren’t very careful. They develop a patriotic attitude toward the creed which is very difficult to overcome. Consequently, we have the Lutheran Church with us today.
This appraisal of Luther’s work will fit, in a general way, the work of other reformers. They madesimilar errors. If they had maintained the scientific attitude—which means to test every point, investigate to see if you are right and change when you’re wrong, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good—then they would have kept getting back closer to God. But when their movements became crystallized, when they became satisfied with theirstatus quo, and had acquired a number of members who were without conviction, then they not only ceased getting back closer to God but they began to drift away from Him. As a consequence, many of the denominations today resemble their mother, the Roman Catholic Church, more than they did in the beginning.
And so, my friends, we have before us a brief outline of how denominations got started. The Roman Catholic Church is the result of centuries of drifting away from the New Testament pattern. Since it reached the zenith of its power, many other denominations have resulted from unsuccessful and incomplete efforts to reform the Catholics or some other existing group. In most cases the movement of the reformers, because of indifference and a lack of conviction in their ranks, eventually lost ground. In every instance, consciously or unconsciously, something besides the Bible has been accepted as authority. Errors, which the Protestant churches, willingly or unwillingly, inherited from the Catholics have been handed down from generation to generation even to the present. Thus, many unscriptural practices and doctrines of the denominations are traceable to the church at Rome with its preposterousclaim of infallibility. Many members of denominations do not realize that much of what they get from their parents and preachers and which they fancy to be of Biblical origin, has, in fact, descended from Rome and can claim no higher authority.
But to pursue our historical survey a little further, at the beginning of the nineteenth century with three hundred years of Protestant denominational history before them, various religious leaders were awakened to the evils of creeds, and a “back to the Bible” movement was begun. In America the work of these men became known as the Restoration Movement. It was their purpose to go back to Pentecost, to begin at Jerusalem, as a surveyor begins at the established corner, mark out the lines revealed in the New Testament, and establish congregations just like the pattern that Jesus gave. That was a noble undertaking and it proved to be a very successful one. It was the fastest growing religious movement the world had seen since the days of the apostles.
But remember it is very difficult for reforms to stay reformed. In a generation or so there grew up in this movement also an element who were parties to it because their parents were and not because of personal conviction. Such an element is a liability to any movement. This element has become crystallized in the digressive wing of the movement, who, althoughsome of their followers may not realize it, no longer regard the Bible as complete and final authority. They have no written creed but they have discredited the Bible. Whether they admit it or not, their principle is: “Where the Bible speaks we may be silent; where the Bible is silent we are at liberty to speak.” Without any effort to explain how it is done, they claim that God is still revealing his will to man in some way independent of the Bible. They claim to have advanced beyond the wisdom of the apostles themselves, and regard their own intellectuality as equal to, or superior to, the Bible. Thus, each man becomes a law unto himself, and there is, therefore, no ground for unity.
I am thankful, however, that there were some who refused to assume an indifferent attitude, who are still contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, and who realize that we must be ever striving to get closer to the divine plan revealed in the New Testament. Since reformations will not stay reformed, the only way to keep on the right road is to be forever getting back on the right way. This we cannot do unless we have conviction, and unless we study God’s word. That’s one of our reasons for giving so much emphasis to the importance of your searching the Scriptures daily. It may be that we have some in our very midst who do not know the difference between the true church and a denomination, and who cannot give an intelligent reason for the hope that is within them. Such an element in a congregation is easily deceived by digressive influencesand must become strong in the faith for their own sake and for the safety of the church.
Hence, my brethren, we need to be watching today, lest we become slack and allow error to creep into our midst and become established among us. Remember that human nature is just the same now that it has always been. The same sort of indifferent attitude and drifting which resulted in the Roman Catholic Church and which resulted in the establishment of other denominations in the world, will make a denomination out of us if we are not always on the guard. Eternal vigilance is the price of being right. We have the same human nature that others have. If we aren’t willing to pay the price of being better students of God’s word, then we, too, will drift into another denomination, and not be worth the time and place which we occupy. We don’t need any more denominations! We have enough! If you want to be a member of a denomination you don’t need to start another one. You have more than two hundred to choose from. Some of them are very highly organized and well financed. There is no reason for starting another one;there are many reasons for not doing so! Unless we are going to understand the difference between the true church and denominationalism, unless we are going to contend earnestly for non-denominational Christianity, then we do not deserveto exist and the world would be better off if we did not.
There is one fact which I want to emphasize further. In every case of denominationalism some authority other than the Bible has been recognized. Otherwise denominations could not come into existence, and denominations could not continue to exist. The extra-Biblical authority might be the man whom they call the Pope at Rome. It might be your preacher in some denomination which you look up to as being the final authority. It might be the creed of the denomination to which you belong. It might be the people among whom you move. It might be your own feelings in the matter. It might be tradition or family heritage. But I don’t care what it is, if it is outside the Bible, it is not a true source of authority in religion. The existence of so many denominations today is not caused by people’s being unable to see the Bible alike. They are here because, while a few people take the Bible as their only guide, a great many take something else as their standard.
You meet a great many people who claim to take the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice, but when you press them to cite the scriptural authority for certain of their practices they are utterly unable to do so. If one takes the Bible as sole authority in religion, then he ought to be able to point to theScripture which gives the authority for everything he does. So don’t let a man get by with a mere statement “We take the Bible as our guide.” If you talk to him a few minutes, you will possibly find that he is following some preacher, following his feelings, or following the church to which he belongs. You may hear him use such expressions as, “What does your church believe on this point?” or “What does the church of Christ teach on a certain matter?” Well, I don’t have any church. And the church of Christ doesn’t teach anything on a certain point. If it did, its teaching would not necessarily be of any value. Such questions, such expressions betray a wrong conception of the church. The question should be: “What does the Bible teach in reference to a certain matter?”
If you can’t find authority in the Bible for your position, you’d better not depend upon it. Most of the people who are at worship this very hour belong to a church whose name they cannot find in the Bible. Yet the preachers who preach in those churches will tell you, “Yes, we take the Bible as our only guide.” To refute their claim you need only ask them one question: “Where did you get your name?” They would probably say, “It’s a nickname. Someone else gave it to us.”
“Well, how come you to acknowledge it?”
“Oh, we just got tired of objecting to it so we finally acknowledged it.”
“You didn’t get it out of the Bible then.”
Friends, think about how ridiculous it is for a manto say, “We follow the Bible, and the Bible only,” when the very name of the church to which he belongs cannot be found from Genesis to Revelation. The sad part of it is that a great many of the members don’t know the difference. I have asked people who wore an extra-Biblical name if they could find their name in the Bible. Frequently, they say, “Yes. I don’t know where it is but I’m sure it is in there somewhere.” It just isn’t there. I knew it wasn’t there, but the poor folk thought it was because they had heard some preacher say they were following the Bible.
Again I protest the statement that denominations are caused by people’s being unable to see the Bible alike. That is an insult to my God and I object to it. It is because many are following something besides the Bible. They may deny it but they are. Otherwise there could be only one church on this earth because there is only one church in the Bible.
If you belong to something this morning that you cannot read about in the Bible, won’t you come out of it? Won’t you say, “From this morning on, I will take the Bible as my guide. I will take one step at a time as that step is revealed in God’s word until it leads me home to heaven at last”?
Now, if you will do that, the way is simple. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “But without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). So if you are going to follow the Bible, the first thingyou must do is believe. Again Jesus said, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). So the next thing you will do is repent.
I heard a man say this week that the only thing you had to do in order to be saved was just believe, but the Bible says, “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,” and repentance is not believing. Repentance is at least one thing you must do after you believe or else the Bible says you will perish and have no chance to be saved.
And then on the day of Pentecost Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). It is not hard to see that. People who refuse to do it simply don’t want to see it or just don’t want to do it after they see it—one or the other! If you want to follow the Bible, the way is plain, isn’t it? If you take something else for your guide, then no telling where you will land.
But someone may say, “What is baptism?” Let the Bible answer. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Hence, according to the Bible, baptism is a burial and a resurrection. If you weren’t buried when you were baptized, then you were not baptized; because the Bible says we are buried by baptism.A so-called baptism which doesn’t involve a burial isn’t the kind of baptism the Bible talks about. If you do something else, you don’t get it from the Bible. If you stick to the Bible, you have the matter settled. You can’t get anything else from it except a burial. It doesn’t say anything else.
Incidentally, do you know where the doctrine of sprinkling and pouring came from? It came from the man who is called the Pope of Rome! At the Council of Vienna,A.D.1311, by no higher authority than the Roman Catholic Church, it was decided that sprinkling and pouring might be practiced for baptism. Most often today the people who accept sprinkling or pouring instead of baptism do not realize that they are following the man over in Rome who claims to be greater than the Bible. You probably got it from your parents, your parents from theirs and their parents from some preacher and so on, but the chain leads back eventually to the Roman Catholic Church. It has no higher authority. The Bible condemns it.
I beseech you in the name of Jesus Christ that you submit unto His will as revealed unto us in the Holy Bible. If you will follow Him, He will take you home to rest at last.