Truth Magazine

By Raymond Harris

In the title of this article we are using the ward “Fellowship” in an accommodative way. All who have carefully studied the New Testament use of the word Fellowship know that the word ALWAYS applies to spiritual sharing or partnership. All who have bothered to check the verses and the contexts where the word “Fellowship” is found in the New Testament know that it is NEVER used or found in a command, approved example or necessary inference authorizing church social activities. Hence, to try to justify church social activities by calling them “Fellowship” is a flagrant and inexcusable misuse of the term. It is parallel to calling sprinkling baptism. Yet we find the rebellious and self-willed doing both!

In this article we want to briefly point out how rapidly the facilities to accommodate the food, fun and games craze have increased. Back about 1940 a few brethren began to insist that we should put a sink and refrigerator in the basement of the church building so communion utensils could be washed and supplies could be kept fresh. And we wouldn’t have to carry all that paraphernalia back and forth. It was then suggested that surely no one could be so heartless as to deny the mothers use of the refrigerator to keep the babies’ bottles fresh. Then came World War II with gasoline and tire rationing. In large cities and in other areas where people had to come a long distance to services, it was suggested that if there was added a stove in the basement, some could remain at the building, warm the lunch that they had brought along, and stay over for an early evening service. Next came the coffee urn and then a mouse proof kitchen cabinet, it which to store various and sundry food supplies.

Then the war ended and everyone wanted a new building. By now brethren had gotten used to seeing the stove, sink, refrigerator and cabinets. So, the next step was to suggest that in the new building, a room be left large enough to accommodate the congregation. Those big pitch in dinners that were held during gospel meetings down at the park shelter house could be held right in the church building. It was pointed out that we could have total control of the affair and we wouldn’t have to compete with the sectarians for use of the shelter house. Besides in some climates the unheated park facilities were just not satisfactory. At this point few seemed to notice or care that what had been incidental use of the building and what had been individually planned and promoted social activity had now become church action. Few asked for scripture to justify that which seemed to be such a pleasant and natural thing to do. But at that point they had gone from a second-hand refrigerator in a corner to a modern kitchen and dining hall that added thousands of dollars to the cost of the building. Money was misappropriated and misspent without Bible authority.

Then elders, sensing that they were to oversee all church property, found themselves having to decide if the kitchen and dining area could be–used -for, wedding receptions and teen parties. Again few asked for scripture to authorize such. How could such a pleasant and natural thing be wrong?

Through the years some questioned the churches providing such elaborate facilities for social activities, and so in a lame effort to justify them they came to be “Fellowship Halls.” As the years went by, game rooms were added and the “Fellowship Hall” became quite popular and the most used part of many church buildings. Everything from class parties to baby showers, to elders meetings are now held where coffee, cokes and snacks can be served up at a moment’s notice.

And now the ultimate! You watch it. We predict that with inflation being as it is, soon some churches will have “Family Life Centers” that cost more than their places of worship. Now churches all across the country from Tennessee to Texas are building facilities that resemble a cross between the country club and the Y.M.C.A. They call them “Family Life Centers” and they include basketball gyms, sauna rooms, game rooms, craft rooms, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, many have come a long way from the dingy old sink and refrigerator in the basement. And it shows just how far they have evolved into the Social Gospel and how they have totally lost sight of what the Church is and what its mission is.

Woe be to the Shepherds of Israel!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 38, p. 610
September 27, 1979

By H.L. Bruce

The subject of the tithe is one that makes its way into numerous religious discussions. Some have used the idea of tithing to extract money from the public in general as well as to increase the contribution in churches throughout the land. Many assume that they know what the Bible teaches about the tithe while disseminating improper information with regard thereto.

The custom of giving the 10th part of the products of the land and of the spoils of war to priests and kings (1 Macc. 10:31; 11:35; 1 Sam. 8:15-17) was a very ancient one among most nations. That the Jews had this custom long before the institution of the Mosaic Law is shown by Gen. 14:17-20 (cf. Heb. 7:4) and Gen. 28:22. Many critics hold that these two passages are late and only reflect later practice of the nations; but the payment of the tithe is so ancient and deeply rooted in the history of the human race that it seems much simpler and more natural to believe that among the Jews the practice was in existence long before the time of Moses.

In the Pentateuch we find legislation as to tithes in three places. (1) According to Lev. 27:30-33, a tithe had to be given of the seed of the land, i.e. of the crops of the fruit of the trees, e.g. oil and wine, and of the herd or the flock (cf. Deut. 14:22-23; 2 Chron. 31:5-6). As the herds and flocks passed out of the pasture they were counted (cf. Jer. 33:13; Ezek. 20:37), and every 10th animal that came out was reckoned holy to the Lord. The owner was not allowed to search among them to find whether they were bad or good, nor could he change any of them; if he did, both the chosen and the one for which it was changed were holy. Tithes of the herds and flocks could not be redeemed for money, but tithes of the seed of the land and of fruit could be, but a 5th part of the value of the tithe had to be added. (2) In Numbers 18:21-32 it is laid down that the tithe must be paid to the Levites. (It should be noted that according to Heb. 7:5, `they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood . . . takes tithes of the people.’ Wescott’s explanation is that the priests, who received from the Levites a tithe of the tithe, thus symbolically received the whole tithe. In the time of the second temple the priests did actually receive the whole tithe. In the Talmud it is said that this alteration from the Mosaic Law was caused by the sin of the Levites who were not eager to return to Jerusalem, but had to be persuaded by Ezra – see Ezra 8:15.) The Levites were to receive the tithes offered by Israel to Jehovah because they had no other inheritance, and in return for their service of the tabernacle (Numbers 18:21-24). The tithe was to consist of corn of the threshing floor and the fulness of the winepress (v. 27), which coincides with seed of the land and fruit of the trees in Lev. 27. The Levites, who stood in the same relation to the priests as the people did to themselves, were to offer from this their inheritance a heave offering, a tithe of a tithe, to the priests (cf. Neh. 10:39), and for this tithe they were to choose the best part of what they received. (3) In Deut. 12:5, 6, 11, 18, (cf. Amos 4:4) it is said that the tithe is to be brought `unto the place which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put His name there,’ i.e. Jerusalem; and in vs. 7, 12, and 18 that the tithe should be used there as a sacred meal by the offerer and his household, including the Levite within his gates. Nothing is said here about tithing cattle, only corn, wine and oil being mentioned (cf. Neh. 10:36-38; 13:5-12). In Deut. 14:22-29 it is laid down that if the way was too long to carry the tithe to Jerusalem, it could be exchanged for money, and the money taken there instead, where it was to be spent in anything the owner chose; and whatever was bought was to be eaten by him and his household and the Levites at Jerusalem. In the third year the tithe was to be reserved and eaten at home by the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless and widow. In 26:12-15 it is laid down that the third year, after this feast had been given, the landowner should go up himelf before the Lord his God, i.e. to Jerusalem, and ask God’s blessing on his deed . . . .

There is thus an obvious apparent discrepancy between the legislation in Leviticus and Deut. It is harmonized . . not only theoretically but in practice, by considering the tithes as three different tithes, which are named the First Tithe, the Second Tithe, and the Poor Tithe, which is called the Third Tithe. According to this explanation, after the tithe (the First Tithe) was given to the Levites (of which they had to give the tithe to the priests), a Second Tithe of the remaining nine-tenths had to be set apart and consumed at Jerusalem. Those who lived far from Jerusalem could change this Second Tithe into money with the addition of a 5th part of its value. Only food, drink or ointment could be bought for the money (cf. Deut. 14:26). The tithe of cattle belonged to the Second Tithe. In the third year the Second Tithe was to be given entirely to the Levites and the poor. But according to Josephus the Poor tithe was actually the third one. The priests and Levites, if landowners, were also obligated to the poor tithe” (I.S.B.E., Vol. 5, page 2988).

Contrary to what some have thought, the Jews did not pay one tithe from which was extracted their many taxes, religious and secular. Their multiple tithe plus fractional tithes would easily elevate their overall religious and secular taxes to the excess of thirty per cent of their gross income. Their resourcefulness and liberality was certainly to be commended and admired.

Where does all this leave us? Are we to conclude that we are to imitate the Jew? Are we to preach tithing? If a person fails to tithe are we to keep after that person until they give up and start tithing to get us off their back? Thoughts along this line indicate that tithing is not in perspective in our thinking.

Brother G.C. Brewer, with but few exceptions, expressed this writer’s sentiments when he wrote, “In an effort to get Christians to give of their means to carry on the work of the Lord, some preachers insist that the Law of the tithe is binding upon us – that is, that the Lord requires us to give one-tenth of all we make. They point out that this law antedated the Mosaic code and was not, therefore, abolished with that code. It is true that Abraham gave a tenth, and this may prove that the custom then prevailed, but we do not need to argue about whether or not this was abolished with the Mosaic law . . . We are not treated as slaves, but as sons. We serve not through fear but through love. Our gifts are not extractions, but free-will offerings, cheerfully given. We give not a meager percentage of our income, but we give ourselves, soul and body. The limit of our service is not the limit of the law’s demands, but the limit of our ability. The very fact that we argue about tithing shows that we do not know the gospel or that our hearts are not in tune with its principles. If a man does not give and sacrifice for the cause of the Lord, he does not need an application of the law of tithing. He needs to be converted. When people first give themselves to the Lord, they will then give their money to support his cause according to the will of the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5).

“Those who contend against tithing in order to defend or justify parsimonious and covetous brethren in doing nothing worthy to be called giving are worse deluded than the man who preaches the law of tithing. The man who preaches the tithing as a law is guilty of error; but the man who preaches against it for the above purpose is guilty of the blood of his fellow men. They are all condemned along with murderers and drunkards” (Gospel Advocate, April 14, 1932).

In answer to “How Should a Christian Give?” Brother Batsell Baxter gave this answer: “`And ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price’ (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Christians are `stewards of the manifold grace of God’ (1 Pet. 4:10). ‘Ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s’ (1 Cor. 3:23). `Let a man so account us, as ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Here, moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful’ (1 Cor. 4:1-2). Does someone say that Paul is speaking only of himself here? Continuing the same trend of thought, he says in verse 16: `I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me.’

“How did New Testament Christians give? Concerning the plea of Agabus for the famine-endangered Christians at Jerusalem, `the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea’ (Acts 11:29). `He that giveth, let him do it with liberality’ (Rom. 12:8). Speaking about the collection for the poor saints in Judea; `Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store’ (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Concerning the same collection: `Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart’ (2 Cor. 9:7)” (Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1932)

We urge our readers to read the New Testament for instruction as to how to give. It contains the teachings of Christ. For by it we will be judged when the Lord comes again.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 603-604
September 20, 1979

By Raymond Harris

When I was a boy it was common for traveling circuses to come to town about every year. Some years might see two or three such shows come through. In the main they were much like the traveling carnivals – they were all pretty much the same. Most every circus had a respectable collection of wild animals, some trapeze acts, a freak show, some exotic dancers, and an abundance of clowns. And so there was the saying (especially if money was extra scarce), “You don’t need to go . . . if you’ve seen one circus, you’ve seen them all.”

As we consider the ever expanding “Soul Saving Workshop” craze, we’re convinced the old saying regarding the-circuses now applies to the workshops.–Yes, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all!

The “Workshop” seems to be the real “In” thing right now. No longer are the institutional brethren all that excited about “Big Day” at the orphans home. No longer do they beat the drums and stir the brethren so much with state-wide campaigns for Christ. Even the college lectureship has fallen to an “I can take it or leave it” status. Now everybody who’s anybody, is buzzing about the “Great Soul Saving Workshops”!

The International Bible College of Florence, A.1., claims to have spawned and originated the workshops among churches of Christ. Their workshops go all the way back to about 1972. I did not know about or attend the earliest workshops, but by 1974 they were truly comparable to a three ring circus. In those days the little school with the pretentious name “International Bible College” didn’t have any facilities in which to hold such a “spectacular.” So, about twice each year they would commander two or three local church buildings, advertise nation-wide and when the crowds gathered, the clowns would do their stuff. The workshops in Florence ARE now held in the facilities of LB.C.; but, they are wearing a little thin here. For some time now most of the attendance and attention at the Florence workshops comes from out of state.

But, of course, the whole thing was too novel, too secular, and too exciting to keep it bottled up here in Northwest Alabama. So now the show has taken to the road. You remember in the old days, when the circus played so tong in one town and the interest and attendance began to wane. there was only one thing to do – move on. Even though the circus had a home town to which they returned periodically, through the years their circuit of travels was ever expanding. And so with the workshops. They have now played Tulsa, Kosciusko, MS., Fresno, CA., St. Louis, Indianapolis and Evansville, In., and other places.

Again, much like the circus, at the workshops, the performers and the acts are pretty much the same time after time. Before the handbill is distributed you can be sure the workshop will be promoting the bus ministry. reward motivation, youth church, singles classes, the puppet ministry, Salvation Army type benevolent programs and the every expanding roll of women in the church.

Yes, if you’ve seen one workshop, you’ve seen them all. If you have seen one workshop, there is little point in wasting your time, gas and money to attend the next one. Like the circus of old, they bark and brag that every workshop will be the greatest ever! Yet, if you will save your programs and compare them, you will find that almost every workshop features many of the same speakers, about the same subjects are discussed and they are all staged with much the same hoopla. The performers may change the name of their acts from time to time, but in the final analysis, each time out they say about the same things.

Let me show you what I mean. In the chart on the preceding page, we list a few workshops and some speakers and subjects that have been presented at various times.

Some of the Cast
Fresno	Indianapolis	Evansville	St. Louis	Florence
Albert Hill	Phil Powers	Joe Beam	Phil Powers	Charles Coil
David Powers	Alan Bryan	Phil Powers	Stan Addis	Marvin Phillips
Wayne Monroe	Marvin Phillips	Pat Casey	Stanley Ship	Carl Wade
Carl Wade	John Clayton	Carl Wade	Laverne Wade	Ron Brotherton
Laverne Wade	Ira North	Laverne Wade	Carl Wade	Laverne Wade
Alan Bryan	G.P. Holt	Charles Coil	Joe Beam	John Waddey
Marvin Phillips	Joe Beam	David Mellor	Nick Young	Flavil Yeakley
Ron Brotherton	David Mellor	G.P. Holt	Marvin Phillips	Phil Powers
	Nick Young	Flavil Yeakley	G.P. Holt	Pat Casey
		Jack Exum	Chuck Lucas	Albert Hill
			John Waddey	Alan Bryan
			Elvis Huffard	David Power
				Stan Addis
				Jack Exum
Some Subjects Discussed
Fresno	Indianapolis	Evansville	St. Louis	Florence
Teaching with Puppets	Ladies Ought to Win Souls Too	Sex	Busing for Results	Bus Evangelism
. . . Help Revive a Dead Church	Dying Churches	Bus Breakdown	Planning a Children’s Bible Hour	Hope of the Gospel Through Benevolence
Woman’s Role in the Church	Bus Evangelism	. . . An Evangelistic Youth Camp	The Retreat . . .	Christian Women on the Mission Field
Solving Bus Evangelism Problems	Confessions of a Happy Bus Worker	. . . A Day School in a Small Congregation	Our Responsibility to Christian Education Song	Hope of the Gospel
How To Fill Buses Keep Workers & Pack Pews	Sex			. . . Teaching with Puppets
				Children’s Bible Hour

And finally, what can you elders expect when your young people and your preacher comes home from the circus – er -I mean the workshop? Well, they will be all excited and determined. They will insist, push and even demand that you elders buy buses, start a youth church, mortgage the building, build a family center, start a singles class and in general change the church into a church that resembles a cross between the Salvation Army, the Pentecost Church and the Baptist.

Truly, if you’ve seen one workshop, you’ve seen them all. And if your preacher and your youth are smitten by what they see and hear, within a year or two that little Christian Church out at the edge of town may more nearly resemble the Church of the New Testament, than the congregation where you now attend!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 602-603
September 20, 1979

By S. Leonard Tyler

If one is to be positive about his religious safety without selfish bigotry or self-justification, he must be established in the truth of God as revealed in the Bible. When one hears God’s word, believes its message, and obeys its commands, he can safely trust in its promises – be saved from past sins (Rom. 6:17-18). But what about the church? Is there any sure, positive way by which one can be absolutely confident in his faith? I believe that one can be sure, confident and secure in his faith regarding the church just as he can be regarding the forgiveness of his sins. And it is with this positive approach that one can distinguish the Lord’s church from a demonination. Let us ask:

What Is The Church of Christ

The Bible being God’s Divine standard of measurement by which man it be guided in all things, we must now go to it for our understanding of the church of Christ. What is the church of Christ? “Church of Christ” is a prepositional phrase of possession meaning “church belonging to Christ” or “Christ’s church.” The expression identifies Christ as the possessor of the church (I Pet. 2:9). “Church” is a called-out people. The Greek word ekklesia is a compound word: “Ekklesia, from ek, out of, klesis, a calling” (Vine’s New Testament Words, p. 83.)

The church is “the people belonging to Christ,” called out of the world by the gospel into a saved relationship and into fellowship with God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all saints (2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 1:13; Acts 19:1-5; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 John 1:3-7). These are Christ’s redeemed ones, purchased by His own blood (Acts 20:28), and possessed to serve and glorify God’s world without end (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:21-24; Eph. 3:10-11, 21).

Therefore, true, obedient believers in Christ are the church of Christ in both the universal and local sense of the term. (1) The universal church circumscribes all true, obedient believers in the world. (2) The local church circumscribes all true obedient believers choosing to meet, worship, and work together under Christ’s directions in any given locality. This is the way the word “church” is used in the New Testament when referring to Christians in the collectivity, unless it refers to-a group of local churches as in Romans 16:16 and Revelation 1:11.

The church is autonomous under Christ (Col. 1:18; 2:18-23). A plurality of elders in each local church superintend “the flock of God which is among you” (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-14; 1 Pet. 5:2-4), deacons serve (1 Tim. 3:8-13; Phil. 1:1), and all the saints work together with God (2 Cor. 6:1) under Christ’s headship (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15). This is God’s arrangement, organization, or entity in which Christians function in the aggregate (1 Tim. 3:15). Brother Guy N. Woods aptly expressed it: “The church, with its elders to oversee it, the deacons to serve, and the evangelist to proclaim the word is an independent entity and answerable only to Christ” (Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary on Bible School Lessons, 1946, p. 337). Thus the church of Christ is not a denomination nor any part of one. It is the Lord’s people or church, called by the Lord through the gospel, sustained, judged, and saved by Jesus Christ as His word teaches (1 Cor. 15:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Acts 17:30-31; John 12:48).

What Is A Denomination?

“A denomination is a group of persons adhering to a particular creed under a distinctive name, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians are separate Christian denominations” (Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedic College Dictionary, p. 1136).

“Denominate . . . made up of units of a designated kind . . . Denomination: (1) The act of denominating: specif., the process of embodying and fixing concepts and classes in language; naming . . . (2) A sect or school having united by a common faith and form of worship and discipline; as, the Baptist denomination” (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language).

Thus a denomination is characterized by its: (1) Name, (2) Creed, (3) Organization, (4) Worship, and (5) Work. The organization consists of a number of congregations of the “same class or kind” with a centralized headquarters binding them together. The ecclesiastical headquarters is the representative authorizing agency, approving, or disapproving, planning and supervising the whole society (within the bounds of their accepted constitution). Each segment or congregation of the denomination submits willingly but must submit to be accepted as a part of the denomination. A sect, faction, or division exists with more or less oral understanding. The more highly the society is developed, the more definite and positive is the creed, discipline, articles of faith or dogma and organization holding them together. However, these terms are used indiscriminately at times to emphasize peculiarities.

Is The Church A Denomination?

It is a sad commentary upon the Lord and His teaching when those claiming to be “men of faith” cannot distinguish the glorious church of our Blessed Lord from a denomination. In 1965, I was receiving the Winnetka Avenue Church of Christ bulletin, 7054 Winnetka Ave., Canoga Park, California 91306. Brother Roy E. Cogdill edited the bulletin at the time and wrote an excellent series of eleven articles under the title, “Denominationalizing The Church.” Brother Edward Fudge was working with the church that summer at 1212 West Six Avenue, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, while I was away in meetings. In Volume 3, Number 20, Brother Fudge circled denotninationalizing and penciled in the margin, “We are already a denomination according to Webster’s meaning of the word. Since the word is not found in the Bible, Webster’s definition should be sufficient.” Notice the “we,” clearly not a reference to some alien body, and the “already, “not just a trend or development pointing toward some possible danger in the future. But he said in A Journey Toward Jesus (1977) on page 33, “Until recently there was no such thing as a Christian Church denomination, though it was developing for a long time, but now there officially is, and those in it use the name `Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”‘ Why then did he say in the bulletin notation that the church of Christ is already, according to Webster’s meaning of “Denomination,” a denomination? We discussed this notation and several other subjects in a good way but with persistent differences. (A Journey Toward Jesus by Bruce Edwards and Edward Fudge is the best approach to preparing one for a full reception of denominational philosophy and concepts that I have ever read.) In short, certain self-styled “men of faith” regard the church in our day as a denomination in fact – a denomination lacking the honesty, openness, and integrity to openly admit or officially declare the fact.

The church could be properly denominated with other religious groups as the same “class and kind,” if all religious groups are considered. The church is in the category of religion. But that is like identifying God with idols as was done at Athens (Acts 17). Paul hastened to distinguish between the true and living God in contrast to their dead, false, idol gods. The gospel is considered in a like manner (Gal. 1:6-9). But Paul proclaims the gospel of Christ to be incomparable with a perverted or another gospel and denounced with an “accursed” any man or angel who taught the false doctrine. The gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17).

Thus the church of our Lord being the true body of obedient believers, designed in God’s eternal mind, established by Jesus Christ and directed by His word, is to reflect the manifold wisdom of God and give Him glory upon the earth (Eph. 3:10-11, 21; Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11). The church is the fulness of Christ in whom “all fulness dwells” (Col. 1:19), and “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). Thus to share in the blessings of God, one must be in Christ (Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:3), who is the fulness of God (John 5:23). Likewise, to enjoy the blessings of Christ one must be in the church – the church is the fulness of Christ (Eph. 1:23). Therefore, the Lord’s church stands as a Divine Establishment in contrast to human denominations. It was established by Divine appointment and is preserved by Divine Directions, laws.

Think of it from this standpoint. “A denomination is a religious organization larger than the local church and smaller than the universal church.” This is an old and limited definition, but expresses an identifying fact. No denomination with all her constituent societies claims to have all the saved in it. They maintain that there are saved people in all denominations. Thus, each denomination is smaller than the universal church – which includes all the saved in all the world. On the other hand, a denomination is composed of all the churches – congregations of the “same class and kind” – and. is not a single local church. This makes it larger than any local church. The New Testament use of the word “church” circumscribes all the saved in the world, the universal church, or else it is the saved choosing to meet, worship, and work together under Christ’s directions in a given location, the local church. So, according to their own contention, the denomination is not the church in any sense of the word as used in the New Testament. It is either too big or too small. It just does not fit God’s requirements for His church, (Observe Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith, Part One, “Roman Catholicism,” pp. 207, 208).

Signs of Changing

There are definite and characteristic attitudes and doctrines identifying the denominations. This is self-evident; if such did not exist, there could be no distinct, differing denominations. Thus any person leaning toward, in sympathy with, or fellowshipping those practicing such peculiar and characteristic doctrines is certainly turning in that direction. They become easy victims to the proselytizing influences and teachings. Their minds are unsettled, mixed-up, without firm convictions. When they reject the Bible as a true, understandable standard upon which to build, they are “tossed to and fro” with every wind and diverse doctrine.

Doctrines and Concepts Which Point Toward Denominationalism Reject the Bible as the Standard

(1) When man rejects the Bible as an unalterable standard of measurement in matters of religion, regardless of the reasoning, he is left without a positive standard of measurement. This, to me, is the basic reason for denominationalism. Who can repudiate it and be saved eternally? Understanding, believing, and accepting the New Testament (facts and commands as well as the promises) is imperative to reconcilation with God in Christ (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:19-23; 2 Cor. 5:18-21).

This very fact – the acceptance of the Bible as an unalterable standard and infallible guide – gave reason for the restoration movement. It was here that “the Campbells” yielded such a wonderful and weighty influence during the 19th century. Their logical and positive approach to the Bible as God’s complete and understandable will touched the hearts of thousands. Their systematic study of the Bible aided many in understanding God’s word. According to most religious leaders, the Bible could be understood only by the “spiritually” endowed, not by the common man. The Roman Catholic Church expressed this view thusly:

“(26) But is the meaning of the Holy Scripture not clear in itself, and easy to be understood by every one?

“No; for the Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book, ‘in which, ‘ as St. Peter says, speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, ‘are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction’ (2 Pet. 3:16). . .

“(27) Is it not, then, true that the Bible alone is the only Rule of Faith? Or, in other words: Is not every private individual to search the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, until hefinds out what he has to believe?

“No; for not the Bible alone, but the Bible and Tradition, both infallibly interpreted by the Church, are the right Rule of Faith. ” (A Full Cathechism of The Catholic Religion, Translated From The German of The Rev. Joseph DeHarbe, S.J., by the Rev. John Fander . . . Revised, Enlarged, and Edited by The Right Rev. P.N. Lynch, D.D., Bishop of Charleston, 1891, New York: and has the Imprimatur stamp, pp. 75, 76).

It also states plainly, “Application. In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of Holy Church; for when you believe what the Church teaches, you believe the Word of God” p. 77, ibid.). Thus the common man cannot read the Bible and understand it according to Catholic doctrine.

John Calvin propagated the same view in holding to the “Adamic sin” and the necessity of “enabling grace” to give one faith in order to be saved. Against this, Mr. Garrison tells of Sandeman who, back in the latter part of the 18th century, taught “that God had not only revealed his truth in terms intelligible to man and provided the means for salvation through Christ, but had also furnished in Scripture adequate evidence of the truth of his revelation, so that the natural man, just as he is, with all his sins, can weigh the evidence and accept the truth. That acceptance is faith. Saving faith, said Sandeman, is an act of man’s reason, and it differs from any other act of belief only in being belief of a saving fact. ” (An American Religious Movement by Winfred Ernest Garrison, 1945, p. 23).

The Campbell’s concept of the Bible as a real revelation from God, verbally given to be intelligently understood, opened up the way for a systematic study of the Bible. They found that the teachings of the Holy Scriptures could be ascertained not only through “express word” or (A) “Express Precept,” as they put it, but also by (B) “Approved Precedent” and (C) Necessary Inference. Any doctrine to be of God must be proved by a Scriptural passage or tests. Thus the motto: “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” This not only expressed a positive speaking but also a restricted speaking. It meant then and must mean now: to be of any value, their speaking (even knowledge) began where the Bible began, circumscribed everything within its pages and stopped where it stopped. When the totality of Bible knowledge is learned on any specific subject, one has “the faith” on that subject.

John Locke in 1689 pleaded for the Bible but suggested only that which was “declared, in express words, to be necessary to salvation.” And, according to Mr. Garrison, Mr. Repertius Meldenius stated that same principle when he said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (An American Religious Movement by Winfred Ernest Garrison, pp. 16, 17). This view left out too much the Bible taught – untaught. And in “non-essentials, liberty” filled the hearts of people and “in all things, charity” allowed the opinions, reasonings, doctrines and commandments of men to become the standard. Such attitudes will lead to the same consequence today.

The Campbells’ plea was essentially different. It was for all the Bible; the totality of Scriptural teaching ascertained was the totality of faith, the binding pattern, by which all were to live (Jude 3). Will not the honest, sincere “man of faith” diligently seek, believe, practice and teach this! It is sad to recall that in later years when Alexander Campbell weakened in this positive and logical understanding of the Bible, and the simplicity of God’s Divine arrangement, disaster followed. The results speak for themselves – the Christian Church with all her constituent societies stand as a monument. This should leave a message with us. Let us seek and accept all the Bible teaches, believe it, practice it, and teach it. Then and only then trust in God’s grace and mercy.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 599-601
September 20, 1979