I. God Hath Spoken 7
II. Generic and Specific Commands 19
III. Intolerance 32
IV. Where Did So Many Denominations Come From? 53
V. Which Church Is Right? 76
VI. Why Not Be Just A Christian? 102
VII. Excuses 113
VIII. An Erring Child of God 132
IX. The Sabbath 145
X. Seventh Day Adventism Reviewed 161
XI. Leadership 176
XII. Congregational Objectives and Activities 196
XIII. Congregational Objectives and Activities (_Continued_) 214
XIV. How Much Is Liberal? 233
XV. And Such Like 250
XVI. What Must I Do to Keep Saved? 269
I
GOD HATH SPOKEN
Each author has his own individual literary style and critics of
literature can identify the work of an author by the construction and
diction of his writing. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible and
he has a literary style peculiar to himself, which distinguishes his
work from that of all human authors. There are certain literary
characteristics in the Bible that are not found in any book written by
man. It would be profitable to list a great number of them and show how
they distinguish the Bible from every other book in the world.
One of the characteristics of the Holy Spirit’s literary style is the
use of very long sentences, one of which I shall read for our text this
morning. It is the opening sentence of the book of Hebrews: “God, who at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom
he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
That is the reading of four verses but just one sentence. It is not easy
to write such a long sentence that is easily understood, but this one is
perfectly clear. If some high-school student were called upon to analyze
this sentence and to underscore its principal clause, he would
underscore these words, “_God hath spoken_.” These three words, “_God
hath spoken_,” are the principal clause in this long sentence, and they
express a very wonderful and a very profound truth. If you will just
remember these three words and let them dwell in your heart, meditating
upon them both day and night, the fullness of their meaning will unfold
to you more and more as the days go by.
I
God Hath SPOKEN
It’s a wonderful thing that God hath spoken. Just try to imagine what
condition this world would be in if God had never spoken. What if he had
not spoken to Adam, to Noah, to Moses, or to any of our forefathers down
through the centuries?
As a clue to the conditions which would prevail if God had not spoken,
consider the places on earth today where the Bible is unknown; where its
influence has had only a very remote and indirect effect. In such places
we find backwardness, ignorance, disease, darkness. By way of contrast,
you may consider our own country where the Bible is better known; though
far from being fully and faithfully followed. Here we have an effective
system of public education, industrial and scientific advancement, a
comparatively high degree of intelligence, numerous charitable
organizations and institutions, or what may be summarily described as a
high standard of civilization.
If such material blessings come to those who even partially respect the
word that God has spoken, just think how wonderful its influence would
be if every individual were a faithful student and faithful follower of
his word. The word that God has spoken _makes a difference_! If it were
not for his word, we would be in total darkness. “It is not in man that
walketh to direct his own steps.” The learned Grecian philosophers, with
all of their wisdom, were not able to figure out a way of life that
would lead to happiness on this earth, to say nothing of leading to
salvation in that world which is to come. If God had not spoken, we
would not know where we came from, we would not know where we are going,
and we would not know what to do in the meantime. We owe all of our
progress, not only spiritually but otherwise also, to the fact that God
hath spoken. Oh, we could learn from the material universe that God is;
we could learn that some sort of a great being had brought into
existence all of the things we behold but if God had not spoken, we
would not know his will concerning us. We would not know what he wants
us to do. We would not know about the Way that leads to happiness here
and hereafter. So I want you to meditate upon the fact that God hath
spoken. I believe that that meditation will beget within you a feeling
of gratitude for God’s word, a greater appreciation of it, and,
therefore, a more careful study of it and a more diligent adherence unto
it.
II
GOD Hath Spoken
Every word in our principal clause is significant. Not only is it
important that God hath _spoken_, but it is important that _God_ hath
spoken—that _God_ is the one who has done the speaking. Just think what
that means! The great God of this universe, creator of heaven and earth
and everything therein—God, who sprinkled the heavens with teeming
millions of bright sparkling worlds, which we behold by night, and made
these bodies of ours that are so wonderfully and fearfully
constructed—God, who has all power and wisdom, and who is characterized
by love, mercy, and tenderness—God, the everlasting God, hath spoken.
God, the Holy and Living God of all the universe, hath condescended to
speak unto us who are mere worms of the dust.
Sometimes we see a man on this earth who thinks himself too good to
speak to some other man. Some folk will not speak to each other. We
ought to stop and consider the fact that God hath spoken to us. Just
think about how great he is, how holy he is, how pure he is, how
powerful he is, and yet he condescended to speak unto us, who are weak
and sinful creatures of earth! He wants us to hear him that we may enjoy
the blessings that come from learning and obeying the word that he has
spoken.
III
God HATH Spoken
But the other word in our text is also important—the word “hath.” It is
present perfect tense. It means that God has already spoken. Our text
does not say that God is continuing to speak but that God _hath_ spoken,
indicating that at the time this fact was recorded God’s revelation to
the world through Christ had already been made. It had not all been put
in written form, but the gospel had already been revealed. It was
already in existence among men. The apostles had already been preaching
for a number of years. At the time they finished committing the gospel
to writing (about A.D. 96), it could truthfully be said that revelation
was already complete.
Our text does not say “God is speaking,” or “God continues to speak,” or
“God will speak,” but “God _hath_ spoken.” Of course, as far as you and
I are individually concerned, as we read and study his word, we are
still hearing his message. But the point is that that message was
completely delivered unto the world nearly two thousand years ago. No
additions have been made to it since then and no addition will ever be
made to it. God _hath_ spoken. His message is complete. It is,
therefore, final. Those who claim a later revelation are making a false
claim. Those who are waiting for a future revelation are waiting in
vain. This very simple clause with just three words in it indicates that
God’s message to us through Christ is complete. God _hath_ spoken. This
being true, we need not expect another revelation.
This truth is further emphasized by other statements in the Bible. For
instance, in 2 Timothy, chapter 3, and beginning with verse 16, “All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works.” Or, as one version says, “that the man of God may be complete,
furnished completely unto every good work.” So the word God hath spoken
is complete. It’s all we need. It furnishes the man of God completely
unto every good work. Therefore, we need not expect any further
revelation.
Notice the word “scripture.” The word “scripture” means that which has
been written. The word that God hath spoken has been put in written
form. We no longer receive it from the lips of the apostles, or from the
lips of those who first proclaimed it unto the world. After God had
spoken through them, they put his word in writing and it has been passed
down to us through the ages that have followed. By the providence of God
it has been translated into our own mother tongue so that we may read it
and study it for ourselves. Our testimony then is not an oral one, but a
written one.
In the 20th chapter of John, verses 30 and 31, we read, “And many other
signs, truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not
written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe.”
Notice that word “written.” The source of our faith has been put in
written form. This fact refutes the claim that God is speaking directly
to people today. He _hath_ spoken. His word has already been delivered.
During my recent meetings in Georgia and North Carolina, I heard two men
say that God had spoken to them audibly. One man said he was passing
through a pine thicket one day and God spoke to him. I asked him what
God said to him. He replied, “God told me I needed a saviour.” Well, God
had already told him that, two thousand years ago. We have that revealed
in the Bible. I have never talked to a man who could tell me what God
had said to him unless he got it from the Bible. When a man thinks he
hears God speak today, if anyone honestly thinks such a thing, he is
simply recalling something that he has read in the Bible, or learned
from somebody else who read it in the Bible. God’s message was
completely delivered nearly two thousand years ago. Thus it is seen that
every word of our topic is important. The Almighty God hath already
spoken unto us.
IV
Study the Bible
Now I want to draw a few conclusions from this great fact. In view of
the fact that God has spoken, let us consider how we ought to study his
word. Just think—it’s a message from God, a message from Heaven! It
applies to you, personally and individually, just as much as it would if
he were to speak to you this morning in audible tones and address you by
name. Suppose, for example, he should call you by name and say, “Now why
tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on
the name of the Lord.” Why, I believe you would hasten to do it. But
friends, he has already said it. In Acts 22:16, we find those very words
and they are written to you.
Notice again this sentence, “God hath spoken unto _us_.” His words are
addressed to us and they apply to you and me. Every word in the will of
Christ, the new testament or covenant, applies to us, and we ought to
regard it as a personal message from God Almighty unto us. Surely that
thought ought to inspire us to read the Bible every day. I don’t believe
anyone who has any regard for his own welfare and any respect for
Jehovah, can meditate upon the fact that God hath spoken without being
moved to study God’s word more diligently. God hath revealed to us his
word. Therefore, we ought to read it and study it.
V
God’s Word Is Final
Furthermore, friends, we ought to regard it as final and complete and as
the standard of truth, the standard by which all of our religious
questions are to be decided. This conclusion is fundamental and very
important. It needs to be emphasized. If you talk to the people of this
world and see how many different human standards they are relying upon,
you can see the importance of settling all religious questions by the
divine standard, the word that God hath spoken through Christ.
I want to use a simple illustration. Suppose three men measure the
length of this room and one of them uses a yardstick 35 inches long,
another uses a yardstick 36 inches long and the other a yardstick 37
inches long. They won’t get the same answer because they are not using
the same standard. The same is true in the field of philosophy and
religion. If each man uses a different yardstick, nothing but confusion
and division can possibly be the result.
And, friends, that is just exactly what is wrong with this world today.
One man uses the “Pope” at Rome for his yardstick. He says that whatever
the “Pope” says is right. He measures everything by that. Then I come
along and measure by the Bible, the Word of God, and he and I get
different answers. Somebody else takes the church to which he belongs as
his standard of measurement. People say, “My church teaches so and so,”
and “My church practices so and so.” I have even had them come to me and
say, “What does your church believe on this point? What does your church
teach here?” They simply mean, “What does the group of people with which
you are associated have to say about this matter?” Over and over again I
have them ask me, “What do you _think_ about it?” I have heard that
expression many, many times during the last four weeks.
Well, you can see how all these different yardsticks will get different
answers. One man wants my opinion about it, that’s his yardstick;
somebody else uses his church’s opinion as his yardstick; another takes
what his parents think about it; still another takes tradition as his
yardstick; and someone else takes simply the way he feels about it. I
hear them say, “Well, I like it, and therefore it must be all right,”
or, “It seems good to me.” I recently heard a boy try to justify his
going to a particular church on the basis that it made him feel good.
Well, those are just all irregular standards. They are not standards.
People who reason like that are using the wrong unit of measurement.
Friends, God hath spoken and when God speaks all the world should be
quiet and listen. We should take his word as final. It should be the
standard by which we decide all questions, and until the world can agree
upon the word that God has spoken as its yardstick, as its unit of
measurement, as its standard for determining truth, we shall continue to
have division and confusion in this world. So I want to impress you with
the fact that _God hath spoken_. Let us go to that word to find the
answer to every question that pertains to religion. In fact, I might
just say the answer to every question, for almost all questions are
answered in the Bible, at least in a general way. If we would apply the
principles of its teachings, all of our domestic and social problems
would be solved. Our industrial and political problems would be solved.
Our international problems would be solved, if all people would learn
what God hath spoken and follow it.
VI
Will You Obey His Word?
I hope you are impressed with the fact which God hath spoken. Are you
willing to hear that word? Friends, the word that God has spoken tells
us that we must believe, in order to be saved. “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). “Without faith
it is impossible to be well pleasing to God” (Heb. 11:6). Faith is the
very foundation of Christianity, so much so the Bible says, “The just
shall _live_ by faith” (Rom. 1:17). We are to walk by faith and not by
sight.
The word which God has spoken says that “Except ye repent ye shall
likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). This word which God has spoken unto us
through his Son, Jesus, tells us that if we confess him before men he
will confess us before his Father who is in heaven. But if we deny him,
he will deny us before his Father who is in heaven (Matt. 10:32, 33).
Then, friends, this same word which God has spoken says, “Repent, and be
baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the
promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord, our God, shall call” (Acts 2:38, 39).
This word which God has spoken tells those who have been baptized and
have gone astray, to come back repenting and confessing their faults and
praying for forgiveness (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). This word which God has
spoken promises that he will not let us be tempted above that we are
able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that we
may be able to bear it. (1 Cor. 10:13). This word that God has spoken
tells us to be faithful unto death and he will give us a crown of life
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away (Rev. 2:10; 1 Pet.
1:4).
Are you willing this morning to listen to the word which God hath
spoken? I am not asking you to listen to me or to listen to any group of
people, but to listen to the word of God. He said, “Come unto me all ye
that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” If you are
willing to hear and to heed that word that God hath spoken, then come
forward while we sing and make your wishes known.
II
GENERIC AND SPECIFIC COMMANDS
Our topic this morning is “Generic and Specific Commands.” This subject
may sound like a very technical one; but it is, in fact, a very
practical one. A study of this topic is valuable, not merely for its own
sake, but also because it throws light on many other questions, and is
designed to help in the study of some lessons which are to follow:
The Bible teaches that man must not add to, or subtract from, the word
of God. For instance, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19).
I
A Problem in Application
These Scriptures show very plainly that _one must neither add to nor
subtract from the word of God_. This fundamental principle is taught in
both the New Testament and the Old Testament. However, some have
difficulty in applying this teaching to many questions arising today.
Because of this difficulty we find people who object to such things as a
baptistry in the church building, Sunday morning Bible classes,
individual cups, song books, collection baskets, etc. These objections
arise from a misunderstanding of the basic principle announced in the
Scriptures just quoted. We hope that what is to follow will help.
First of all, let it be understood that a commandment authorizes
everything essential to obeying that commandment. For instance, the
commandment to meet and worship God authorizes a place and an hour of
meeting. The Bible does not tell us where to meet to eat the Lord’s
supper or upon what hour of the day to meet, but the very commandment to
observe this institution authorizes some place and some hour for the
meeting.
This leads us to consider the difference between a generic or _general_
commandment and a _specific_ one. A generic commandment is one that
authorizes or commands a certain action, but does not give the details
as to how that commandment shall be carried out. The difference between
generic and specific commandments must be recognized in applying the
Scriptures that have been mentioned. Let it be remembered that a
commandment may be mixed, partly generic and partly specific. It may be
generic with respect to certain details which it comprehends, and
specific in reference to others.
II
Examples
1. The best way I know to make these distinctions clear is by giving a
number of examples. God told Noah to build an ark. He specified the kind
of wood that should be used. He told Noah to use gopher wood. That
authorized gopher wood and eliminated every other possible kind of wood.
Since God specified that gopher wood should be used, it would have been
wrong for Noah to have used any other sort of wood. It would have been a
sin for him to have used cedar wood, or oak, or any other kind which
might be named. God also told Noah to put a door in this ark, in the
side of it. But he did not tell him in _which_ side to put it. Hence,
the commandment to build an ark was generic as to the side in which the
door should be located.
God specified the dimensions of the ark. He told Noah to build the ark
300 cubits long. It would have been a sin, therefore, for Noah to have
built it 301 cubits long or 299 cubits long, or any other length except
the one which God specified. God also told Noah to build some rooms in
this ark, but did not tell him how many to build. This commandment,
therefore, was generic as far as the number of rooms was concerned. On
that point Noah was free to build the number of rooms which he thought
was best.
Of course, he had to build some number. The very command to build
_rooms_ authorized some number of rooms, but God did not specify the
number so Noah was free to exercise his own judgment in that respect.
God specified the animals that were to be taken into the ark. He told
Noah to take certain ones but he did not tell him which animals to take
into the ark first. You see, therefore, that the commandment to build
the ark was specific in some respects and was generic in other respects.
2. The commandment to offer a passover sacrifice may also be used as an
illustration. If God had merely commanded the Jews to offer an animal,
that would have left them free to offer any sort of animal which they
chose. But he specified that they should offer a lamb, which meant
either a sheep or a goat. It was also specified that it should be of the
first year, a male, and without blemish. These details were specified
with the commandment. It would have been a sin for the Jews to have
ignored any of these specifications. In those days the word “lamb” was
understood to mean either a sheep or a goat. The Jews were free to offer
either, but they had to heed the specifications that it be of the first
year, without blemish, and of the male sex.
3. Coming to the New Testament for an illustration, we refer to the
great commission as recorded by Mark in the 16th chapter of his book,
verses 15 and 16: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he
that believeth not shall be damned.”
Here again we have a commandment which is partly generic and partly
specific. The word “go” is generic with respect to the means of travel
to be used. The general form of this commandment leaves one free to
travel by any suitable method. In obeying this commandment one may
travel by rail, by boat, by airplane, by automobile, on foot, on
horseback, or by any other method that is in decency and in order.
I recently held a meeting in Alabama which people attended by
practically every means of transportation. They came by train, by bus,
by automobile, on tractors, in buggies, on horseback, on foot, in
wagons, in trucks—in almost every conceivable way except by airplane or
motorboat. The general commandment to _go_ leaves one free to travel in
any of these ways.
But this same commandment is specific in respect to what shall be taught
after one gets to the place of teaching. It specifies that one shall
preach the _Gospel_. The message that is to be delivered is therefore
specified. It _must_ be the _Gospel_.
4. Matthew’s statement of this same commission says, “Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.” The commandment to teach is specific
as to the message, but it is generic with reference to the method that
shall be used in the teaching.
According to the general command to teach, the lesson may be either oral
or written. The teacher may be either a man or a woman, and the size of
the class may be whatever circumstances and expediency justify. This
commandment to teach does not specify the number that shall be in the
class, or the sex of the teacher, or whether the lesson shall be an oral
one or a written one.
In this same great commission we have the commandment to baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost those who have
been taught. Since these names have been specified, it would be a sin to
baptize in the name of any human being or any human institution.
The word “baptize” itself denotes the act. It means to be immersed,
buried in water (Col. 2:12). However, this commandment does not tell us
how the immersing shall be done. We may immerse one according to this
commandment face foremost, sideways, lying down, standing up or in any
other appropriate way, just as long as we obey the commandment to
baptize; that is, to _immerse_ or _bury_ in water.
III
The Principle Applied
1. Some one may say that according to this principle of interpretation
instrumental music may be justified. Let us see if this is true. If
God’s word had merely told us to make music, that would have been
generic as far as the type of music is concerned. But it so happens that
God did not leave this commandment in such a general form. He specified
the type of music we shall use in worshiping him.
Ephesians 5:19 says, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”
Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all
wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” God,
therefore, has specified the kind of music. He tells us to _sing_.
If God had merely told Noah to build an ark, he could have used any kind
of wood that he chose or any other material. He could have used either
cedar or gopher, but when God commanded him to use gopher wood, that
drew a ring around the word gopher and eliminated every other type of
building material. If he had merely told the Jews to offer a sacrifice
at the passover, they might have offered either a calf or a lamb; but
when he commanded them to offer a lamb, that drew a ring around the word
lamb and eliminated every other type of sacrifice that might be
conceived.
Likewise, with reference to the music that we offer in our worship, if
God had just said, “Make music,” then we could have used any kind we
chose, but he has specified singing. This eliminates every other
conceivable kind of music as far as our worship to Jehovah is concerned.
Sometimes I hear people say that God does not tell us not to use
instrumental music. This is a mistake. He does tell us not to use it. He
does so in Colossians 3:16 and in Ephesians 5:19. Those Scriptures that
tell us to offer vocal music in our worship tell us, as plain as day,
_not_ to offer any other kind.
Surely everyone will agree that it would have been a sin for Noah to
have built the ark out of cedar wood. Everyone will likewise agree that
it would have been wrong for the Jews to have offered a cow as a
passover sacrifice. By the same line of reasoning, and just as clearly
to be seen, it would be wrong today for people to substitute some other
kind of music for the kind that God has specified.
2. The commandment to eat the Lord’s supper in memory of Jesus Christ is
generic in some respects and specific in others. The Bible specifies the
day of the week upon which this institution shall be observed. This
lesson is taught by means of divinely approved example as recorded in
Acts, chapter 20 and verse 7: “Upon the first day of the week when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready
to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
The Bible therefore specifies that the Lord’s supper shall be observed
upon the first day of the week, but this teaching is generic as far as
the hour of the day is concerned. There have been people who argued that
it would be a sin to eat the Lord’s supper at 7:30 P.M. There are others
who believe it is wrong to eat it at 11:00 A.M., just because the Bible
does not specify that hour. But the same objection could be raised to
any other hour mentioned, and thereby eliminate the possibility of
eating it at all. The commandment to eat the Lord’s supper upon the
first day of the week, necessarily implies that it should be eaten at
_some_ hour, and God has seen fit to leave man free to use his own
judgment in selecting the hour of the day.
The Bible specifies that the fruit of the vine shall be used, but it
does not say whether that fruit shall be fermented or unfermented. The
failure to recognize this fact has led some to contend that it’s a sin
to use grape juice. The very same type of error has caused others to
contend that it would be wrong to use wine. We must recognize the fact
that God has left this commandment generic as to whether the fruit of
the vine shall be fermented or unfermented.
Likewise the Bible does not designate the number of cups that shall be
used, leaving us free to use our own judgment upon that point as well.
It is true that the Bible refers to “the cup,” but every careful student
knows that that refers to the contents and not to the vessel. As a
matter of fact, there must be some distribution made between the
original container and the lips of those who partake. The Bible does not
specify at what stage this distribution shall be made. God has endowed
us with intelligence, and expects us to use it in applying these
commandments which are left in generic form.
3. Other examples of generic commands of a slightly different form are
these: “Therefore, all things ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12).
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that
blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11-13). “Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this; to visit the fatherless and widows in
their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas.
1:27). All of these are general commandments governing Christian
conduct. They announce certain general principles that should guide us
in our behavior. We must use our own best judgment in applying these
principles to the various questions that arise, and we should pray for
wisdom to make the proper application. (Jas. 1:5).
IV
Important Conclusions
1. There are certain important conclusions which should be drawn from
what has already been said. First, in a sphere where God has made
specifications we must heed them. We must not ignore them. We must not
change them. What he specifies _must_ be done. In executing a command we
must heed these specifications. To do otherwise would be an act of
disobedience to God Almighty.
2. Second, where God has made no specifications we should not make any
and try to bind them on others. To do so would be to add to the word of
God, and to violate the principle taught in Revelations 22:18-19 and at
many other places in the Bible. God had a good reason for leaving
certain commandments in a general form. For me to work out
specifications concerning how those general commandments should be
obeyed and undertake to bind my inventions on others would be a very
grievous sin.
In the execution of a general commandment, each individual and each
congregation is left to make its own choices. It’s just as much harm to
make specifications where God has made none, as it is to ignore those
specifications that he has made. It would be just as wrong to specify
that the Lord’s supper must be eaten at 7:30 P.M. as it would be to
ignore the specification that music used to worship God must be vocal.
3. Third, in the execution of these general commandments, we should use
wisdom. Someone has said that there are three kinds of sense: revealed
sense, common sense, and nonsense. Where there is revealed sense we must
follow it; but where there is no revealed sense, where God has given a
general commandment and left us free to execute it according to our best
judgment, we should use common sense and not nonsense. In all matters,
wisdom should be exercised.
There are many Scriptures that verify this conclusion. For instance, “If
any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him
ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of
the sea, driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think
that he shall receive anything of the Lord” (James 1:5-7).
Wisdom has been defined as the ability to properly apply knowledge. In
this connection it would be ability to properly apply the knowledge that
we have received from God’s word. Such wisdom comes as a result of
experience and age and study and prayer. Hebrews 5:14 says, “But strong
meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of
use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Evidently that is the reason God has ordained that the older or
experienced men shall be the overseers of the local congregation.
Evidently that’s also the reason he ordained that children should obey
their parents rather than parents obey the children. Oftentimes those
who are older can discern good or evil where the younger and less
experienced are unable to do so.
Even the apostles were admonished to use wisdom. Christ said to the
twelve in Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst
of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
“Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).
4. Remember then these three important conclusions. First, in a sphere
where God has made specifications we must heed them. We must not ignore
them or change them. We must not substitute something of our own
choosing, for that which Jehovah has specified. Specifications in a
given sphere automatically eliminate everything else that comes within
the same sphere or category. Second, where he has made no specifications
we must not make any. We certainly must not try to bind any on others.
And, third, in applying his general commandments, we should use wisdom.
We should use common sense and not nonsense. Recognition and proper
application of these principles will furnish a ready solution to many
otherwise difficult questions.
5. In reference to the plan of salvation, God has been very explicit. He
specifies that one must believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:31). He
specifies that repentance is essential (Acts 3:19). He likewise
specifies that we should confess with our mouths the faith that we have
in our hearts (Acts 8:37). And he is equally definite in teaching that
baptism is a condition of salvation. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”
(Acts 2:38). “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). You
are invited and urged to heed these specifications.
III
INTOLERANCE
We are certainly happy to have so many visitors present and want you to
know that you are always more than welcome at our service. It is our
purpose to do everything we can to show our appreciation and make your
visit with us pleasant and profitable.
Our topic this morning is “Intolerance.” It is both timely and
important. During the past week an organization of churches throughout
the nation has been celebrating what is called Brotherhood Week and
preaching the doctrine of tolerance. There was a panel discussion on
this subject at Watkins Institute last Tuesday night which indicated
that people are interested in this topic and also illustrated the need
for tolerance. So we feel that we are speaking on something which is of
very great current interest.
Incidentally, the panel was also an index to the interest people have in
a public hearing of religious differences. A religious debate will still
attract a bigger crowd than any other sort of church service. It is a
mistake to conclude that people are not interested in a discussion of
religious issues. There was a debate just a few days ago at White House,
Tennessee, in a very small congregation, perhaps not more than forty or
fifty members. The crowds overflowed the building. They moved to the
gymnasium of the local school and filled it before the debate closed.
This indicates the extent to which people are interested in public
investigations of religious questions.
I
The Issue Defined
1. In order to study intelligently the subject of intolerance we need to
understand definitely the meaning of the term. The words “tolerance,”
“intolerance,” “tolerate,” and so on, have several different meanings.
If we aren’t careful, one person will be thinking of one meaning of a
term and another of a different meaning. If you look these words up in
your dictionary, you will see several definitions. In order that we may
understand each other, then, I want to cite two or three of them.
2. One definition says that intolerance means unwillingness to bear or
endure. In other words, it means unwillingness to suffer long. Of
course, in that sense intolerance is wrong, because the Bible teaches
that we should be longsuffering. One of the fruits of the Spirit is
longsuffering (Gal. 5:22). “And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the
disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be
longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14 ARV). There are many other
Scriptures in the New Testament which teach the importance, the
necessity, of our being longsuffering. So, of course, in this sense we
ought to be tolerant, we ought to be willing to endure, to suffer, and
to bear.
3. According to Funk and Wagnal’s dictionary, the word “intolerance”
also means “not disposed to tolerate contrary beliefs or opinions.”
There, you see, intolerance is defined in terms of the word “tolerate,”
so we need to know what it means. The word “tolerate” means “to suffer
to be, or to be done, without active opposition.” You put all that
together and you simply get this: tolerance means to let the beliefs and
opinions which are contrary to your own go without opposition; whereas,
intolerance according to this definition, or meaning of the word, would
mean to oppose the beliefs and opinions which are contrary to your own.
Now, the question is, should we be tolerant in this sense? Should we be
tolerant in the sense of allowing beliefs and opinions which are
contrary to our own go without any active opposition on our part? I
think this makes the issue clear.
II
Some Necessary Distinctions
1. In order to answer this question, I am persuaded that we will have to
make a distinction between belief and opinion, and a distinction between
things that are essential and things which are not essential. (In making
this statement I am aware that the study of such a distinction may
itself involve a debate, but I am not opposed to debates.) In other
words, saying that a man should be tolerant is something like saying he
ought to “be in favor of.” Well, in favor of what? Before you can say a
man ought to be in favor, you have to know what is under consideration.
Am I in favor of it? That depends upon what you are talking about. Am I
tolerant of it? That depends upon what you are talking about. There are
some things I can and should tolerate. There are some other things that
I cannot and ought not, in the light of God’s word, tolerate at all.
2. In reference to things which do not affect one’s salvation, we ought
to be tolerant. For instance, there are some folk who think it is wrong
to eat meat, and some other folk who think it is all right to eat meat.
You can go to heaven without eating meat and you can go to heaven while
you eat meat. It doesn’t make any difference as to your salvation. On a
point like that we ought to be very generous and very tolerant.
This question is discussed at length in the fourteenth chapter of
Romans. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who
is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth
not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God
hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To
his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for
God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:1-4).
Let a man eat vegetables only if he so desires. Let another man eat meat
if he wants to. In such cases the strong in faith should be considerate
of those who are weak. “For meat destroy not the work of God. All things
indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence”
(Rom. 14:20). “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of
the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his
neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not
himself: but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached
thee fell on me” (Rom. 15:1-3). If I had time this morning, it would be
well to read the entire fourteenth chapter of Romans and discuss it in
connection with the question of our attitude toward matters that are
indifferent.
3. What should be our attitude toward matters of belief that do effect
one’s eternal salvation? The question really boils down to this: What
should be our attitude toward people who are in error according to our
judgment? Should we allow people whom we believe to be in error to go
without correction, without some effort on our part to show them that
they are wrong and endeavor to get them to change? Certainly not.
On the contrary the Bible clearly teaches the duty of doing every thing
in our power to help people who are in danger. Before developing this
point, however, let us note the necessity of distinguishing between
scriptural and unscriptural methods or means of opposing error. We
cannot oppose false beliefs with physical or political force. Jesus
said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight ...” (John 18:36).
Even people who are wrong, who are in error, who are on their way to
destruction, who hold beliefs which will damn their souls, are not to be
opposed with physical force, or with political force. Neither are we
expected to oppose them with scorn and ridicule. We are expected to do
everything we can in love and kindness to teach them the truth and
persuade them to obey it.
III
Examples of Sinful Intolerance
1. My brethren and I should be the first to preach against the use of
unfair methods in opposing those who are thought to be in error. We have
suffered more at the hands of such intolerance than we have ever caused
others to suffer. In a certain town the members of a denomination
threatened to boycott one of their own group if he sold a building lot
to members of the church of Christ who were establishing a congregation
there, and thus caused him to back out on a trade he had already made.
Such prejudiced and unfair opposition was both undemocratic and sinful.
To have exercised freedom of speech in a public discussion of religious
differences would have been honorable and democratic, but this the
denominationalists would not do. They were too “broadminded” and
“tolerant.” It is strange that in politics people understand freedom of
speech to mean that one may publicly criticize his opponent, while in
religion they pretend that it means something entirely different.
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 discriminate against 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 the wrong 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.
IV
Intolerance in Schools
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 race can 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 was taking 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 great faiths 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.
V
Righteous Intolerance
1. Now, I want to give you some Scriptures to show that we ought to
oppose, that we are _obligated_ to 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’t say 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 bound by 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.
VI
Standard of Authority Necessary
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.
VII
Impractical “Tolerance”
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 man
preaching 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 those things 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.
VIII
The Basis of Unity
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 few miles 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 with Christ, 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?
IV
WHENCE SO MANY DENOMINATIONS?
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.
I
Majority Frequently Wrong
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.
II
The Bible Demands Unity
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 also may 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.