God Hath Spoken

by Harris J. Dark

CONTENTS

[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.

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!

III
A Partial Answer

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, they will 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?

IV
Early Apostasy and Roman Catholicism

In order to answer these questions let us begin at the other end of the line, at Pentecost, and come down 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 make if 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 who maintained 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 after A.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” with the crowd were condemned and boycotted by the ecclesiastical leaders.

In A.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. In A.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 in A.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 the congregations 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.

V
The Reformation and Protestantism

“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 century A.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 probably did 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 made similar 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 their status 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 preposterous claim 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.

VI
The Restoration Movement

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, although some 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 influences and must become strong in the faith for their own sake and for the safety of the church.

VII
The Need of Constant Vigilance

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 deserve to exist and the world would be better off if we did not.

VIII
Extra-Biblical Standards

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 the Scripture 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 man to 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 thing you 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.

V
WHICH CHURCH IS RIGHT?

(Note: As this sermon was being presented the outline seen below was on the blackboard before the audience.)