Truth Magazine

By Charley Alexander, James Moore, J.D. Harris

As elders of the church of Christ in West Columbia, TX, we offer this article with some reluctance, not wishing to be the focal point of controversy among brethren. We try to oversee the work of the church here quietly, without fanfare. We are surprised to learn that our efforts to oversee the process of financially supporting preachers here and elsewhere has become a topic of discussion among some brethren. While ultimately we are accountable only to the Lord for our local work, when questions arise we are “ready always to give an answer . . . with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 5:4; 3:15).

In October 1993 we wrote all twenty-one preachers with whom we have a working relationship and asked them to answer some Bible questions on Bible issues relative to what they are preaching. Most of these men gave sound Bible answers, but two say we have written a human creed. This was purely a local effort to fulfill our duties as overseers (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). We initiated no effort to publicize our Bible questions, but as the news spread we received commendations, requests for copies of the questions, and other inquires. Somehow the story is growing and changing as it travels. Several versions have come back to us including the report that we wrote out a creed and asked preachers to sign it, and that we sent this creed to churches telling them what to believe. We want to set the record straight.

Bible Background to Our Question

The inspired Apostles teach us to give attention to specific issues and questions. Sometimes the problems and issues were localized and sometimes they were spreading from region to region (1-2 Cor.; 1-2 Pet.; Rev. 2-3).”The apostles’ doctrine” included general admonitions on godly living and specific teaching on current issues of the day. We are taught to give attention to the same principles and categories of truth (Acts 2:42; Phil. 4:9). By teaching this pattern of truth, the Apostles taught first-century Christians to distinguish between those who adhered to this standard and those who departed from it (Phil. 3:15-19; 4:9). The early saints were taught to pose specific questions on current issues and to test the answers against divine revelation (1 Cor. 12:3; 1 In. 4:1-6).

Both elders and preachers are especially admonished to “watch. ” We must watch for danger signs, watch to sound a warning where needed, and watch to do everything possible to see that the truth is taught at all times (Acts 20:28-32; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). One expedient way to fulfill this duty is to ask those with whom we are fellow laborers questions regarding their stand on current issues. This may be done face to face in formal meetings, in informal conversations, by phone, or by correspondence. It may be done by asking one question or several questions, covering one issue or several issues. It may be done one time or any number of times, as the need arises.

Recent Background to Our Questions

This matter of asking questions is not new to us or to brethren generally, although the exact format we used may be new to some brethren. We have asked preachers questions on many occasions for one reason or another. It was common for us to inquire what positions preachers were taking during the rise of institutionalism. When we inter-viewed one man by phone about the possibility of preaching here, we asked about his stand on the institutional issues. He said he could preach these matters either way and inquired which answers we preferred. We looked further.

In recent years as troubling issues have arisen and as some beloved and respected brethren have drifted, we have become more and more convinced of the importance of asking questions. Our experience with Don Givens shows the wisdom of asking questions, and repeating them after a period of time. We helped send him to Hawaii and then found out a few years later he was teaching error on divorce and remarriage. We had been reading his reports and appeals for extra help, but we would have been wise to have repeated some questions after awhile. What we said then still applies now:

We are sharing the following information for the sole purpose of urging brethren everywhere to be as careful and cautious as possible in supporting gospel preachers from the church treasury. The information we are sharing makes us painfully aware of how important it is to know what is being taught with the Lord’s money.

When brethren are asked to send and support a preacher somewhere, there should be no hesitation on the church’s part in asking or on the preacher’s part in declaring what will be taught (see our article, “A Plea for Care in Using the Lord’s Money,” Guardian of Truth, 7 May 1992, pp. 272-73).

We believe the same principle applies to all preachers with whom we have a working relationship. “There should be no hesitation on the church’s part in asking or on the preacher’s part in declaring what will be taught.”

Asking Direct Questions

Though our questions covered several topics, more dealt with marriage, divorce, and remarriage than with anything else. The questions were simple and direct, not trick questions. The preface to the questions and the eight questions on marriage appear below in order to illustrate our format:

What Saith The Scripture? (Romans 4:3)

The following questions are designed to clarify what you believe the Bible teaches on a number of matters. Our purpose is not to create a creed, because we recognize that the New Testament itself reveals the pattern of sound words, and we can neither add to it nor subtract from it. Neither do we consider this list final or exhaustive, because there may be other questions which we will want to discuss at some point. These are questions which are commonly discussed among brethren from time to time, and we do not believe you will be hesitant or embarrassed to “give an answer” as to your convictions on these questions (1 Pet. 3:15).

Although you will probably find that a simple YES or NO will suffice on most questions, feel free to add any comment. If you cannot answer YES or NO on one, please explain why. We will be glad to discuss further any question in person.

6. Do you teach that God’s marriage law requires one man for one woman for life, the only exception being that a mate who is morally pure may divorce his wife for fornication and marry a new mate?

7. Does God allow the innocent party to put away his mate if she commits fornication?

8. In such a case, does God allow the innocent party to marry another person?

9. In the same case, does God allow the guilty party to marry another person while the first mate still lives?

10. Does God have the same marriage law for both saints and sinners?

11. Do people who enter marriage contrary to God’s marriage law commit adultery as they continue sexual cohabitation in an unscriptural marriage?

12. If people enter a marriage contrary to God’s law, does repentance require them to get out of that unscriptural marriage?

13. If a believer is deserted by an unbeliever, where there has been no immorality, is the believer free to marry a new mate on the ground of desertion alone?

If there is a problem, we prefer to know it up front so we can resolve it scripturally, rather than waiting until damage has already been done. Our questions are designed to “red flag” subjects which we may need to discuss further with someone, but are in no sense designed to be final, a standard of truth, a basis of union, or authoritative in any other way. A cover letter stated we hoped to confirm that “every single man with whom this church has fellowship continues to walk in the `old paths’ of divine revelation.” Critics object this sounds like our questions are a summary of truth as the very basis of unity. Our true meaning seems clear in context but to avoid misunderstanding, if we use the letter again, we will say, “These questions are one of several methods we use to confirm and demonstrate that every single man with whom this church has financial fellowship continues to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). As elders we have selected some questions related to current problems among brethren.” The introduction to the questions already states that this list is not “final or exhaustive.”

We do not apologize for expecting and demanding that only the gospel of Christ and all of the gospel of Christ be taught in our local program of work and wherever we support men to preach (1 Cor. 2:2; Rom. 1:16; 15:19; Gal. 1:8-9). We are open to study and will discuss any subject with anyone at any time, but we are firm in our resolve not to support known error at any time! While false doctrine is creating compromise, turmoil, and division in many churches, we are diligently working to keep such dangers out of the church here and to avoid supporting men who spread such dangers elsewhere. In order to do that, we have the right to ask men we support what they preach on matters which trouble and subvert the souls of men (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:7). We were impartial in asking all the men with whom we expect to have financial fellowship. If we had asked only certain men (foreign, domestic, those not known by face, etc.), we could have been charged with partiality. To prevent that misunderstanding, we asked every man on our meeting and regular support schedules the same questions, including the son of the one of the elders.

Our Opposition to All Human Creeds

Since some brethren charge that the elders at West Columbia have formed a creed, we want to make it very clear that we are adamantly and unalterably opposed to all human creeds! The battle cry of the gospel is, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible” (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:2; 4:6; 14:37). The only authority in religion is the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). Anything more than the Bible as a standard of authority is too much, anything less is too little. Any creed, catechism, manual, rule of discipline, or other authoritative standard that claims to be the same as the Bible is unnecessary.

We decry any human document as a test for communion and fellowship, regardless of its origin. The Bible alone is the basis for unity with God and all faithful saints. We fully endorse every expression by brethren past and present in opposing human creeds. Gospel preachers have exalted the Bible and denounced human creeds throughout the years in the pulpit here, and such preaching is still being done. Our questions carry the heading “WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? (Rom. 4:3)” The preface begins by exalting the Bible as the only standard and also clearly states, “Our purpose is not to create a creed.” From the start, every question focuses on what “the Bible teaches.”

Evaluating Our Effort

Several methods may be used to learn where preachers stand including direct questions, third party information, reputation, tapes, or published materials. Whatever method we use, if we learn someone teaches error and decide not to work with him, we are subject to the charge of making a human creed as a bond of union and communion. If our effort is not put in writing, we will be charged with having an unwritten creed. Such charges have been made for years against faithful brethren by denominationalists, premillennialists, liberals, and men in the “new unity movement” like Carl Ketcherside. Such charges are unfounded but will be repeated anyway by some. We share the caution of sincere men who say questions must not become exact or exclusive codes for expressing the truth on any subject, nor limit the scope of the truth, lest they become creedal. The same is true of sermons and printed matter (bulletins, tracts, etc.).

We regret that one beloved brother refused to answer the questions and cancelled his meeting here. We offered to study and discuss the matter, and asked him to reconsider his cancellation, but he did not respond. Just as we have the right to use our best judgment in asking questions, anyone has the right to use his best judgment in accepting, rejecting, or canceling a meeting. Brethren may not be able to work together at times because of strong differences in judgment without charging each other with sin (Acts 15:36-41). If some cancel meetings rather than answer written questions, we hope it represents a mere difference of judgment and not a new creed which says there can be no fellowship with brethren who ask written questions.

One brother who disagrees with our effort said,

I appreciate your desire to stand for the truth and your efforts to never use the Lord’s money to support the preaching of any error.

Now you may be saying, “Should we not ask questions to find where one stands on certain issues?” You certainly may and should. And those asked should be ready to make a defense of the hope that is in them.

Another said,

At this very time the enemies of God are actively waging a battle against the people of God, and all that is right and decent, and winning it!

Many elders continue to support men who are teaching error on the above subjects. They also continue to support preachers who will say nothing against these teachers of false doctrine on these subjects.

We are trying our best to heed the warnings and meet theobjectives stated by these good men. We are open to constructive criticism and suggestions on how to do a better job.

To keep all of this in perspective, we should emphasize that most reactions to our effort have been very under-standing and supportive. Nineteen of the twenty-one men we wrote saw simple Bible questions rather than a creed. Here are a few of the comments made by experienced gospel preachers who answered the questions without any problem:

1. Bill Cavender (has held many meetings here): “Good letter and questions. No one ought to object to them. All ought to be willing to state what they think and believe on any matter.”

2. Ernest A. Finley (was once our local preacher): “Be assured that I was not at all offended by the questions that you asked nor by the issues you raised. Rather, let me commend you for having the courage and conviction to raise them. I just wish there were more churches and elderships that stand where I know you stand.”

3. Bill Reeves (has preached for 50 years): “Given the times in which we live, and the fact that many preachers take advantage of the pulpit, to promote false doctrine, I can certainly appreciate your effort, in part by means of this questionnaire, to ensure that the church is being fed only sound doctrine.”

4. Ray Votaw (has been supported in South Africa by this church for many years): “I think I know enough about problems in the churches over there to see where you’re coming from in desiring this information. Thank you again for your `carefulness’ in all these matters including your `care’ for us.”

(Comment on question 6 about divorce and remarriage:) “I even preached this before King Sobrosa in Swaziland. He had 112 `wives. ‘

5. Dan Huddleston (came out of liberalism in recent years): “Thank you for sending these out and only sup-porting sound preachers who preach sound doctrine… . You know it is unpopular in many circles today to take such a stand for the truth. God will reward you for your efforts to both extend and defend His kingdom.”

Our own evaluation is that asking direct questions has been very effective, helpful, and reassuring in our program of work. We hope to close the communication gap with the few who mistook our effort, and to clear the air of any false rumors. We remain open to suggestions for improving our work.

(As a matter of courtesy, we were permitted to read in advance “Determining Soundness” by brother Connie W. Adams. It states our own views about as well as they can be stated. The strong biblical convictions expressed in his article are shared by our local evangelist and the church here generally. He held us an excellent gospel meeting in 1986 and we anxiously look forward to his return in 1997. We commend his article and his preaching to one and all.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 5-7
June 16, 1994

By Paul J. Casebolt

The people who did not attend the wedding feast all had different excuses. Yet, they all had one thing in common  “And they all with one consent began to make excuse” (Lk. 14:18).

When viewed separately, each excuse may seem valid, especially by the one who made the excuse. But, when viewed together, all the excuses appear to be just that  excuses. I marvel that we cannot see the weakness of our excuses, when they are placed alongside others with similar or identical characteristics.

Some questions and answers concerning various doctrinal positions will show that those who take these positions all have one thing in common  an attempt at self-justification (Lk. 16:15).

Question: Why do some people say that there is no god, or if there ever were a God, that he is now dead?

Answer: Because if we admit that there is a God, then it is our duty to fear that God and keep his commandments (Eccl. 12:13,14).

Question: Why did Martin Luther deny the authenticity of the book of James, and reject it as being “spurious”?

Answer: Because James 2:14-26 (and especially v. 24), directly contradicted Luther’s theory that man is justified by “faith only.” And, if you reject a part of a chapter, what not reject it all? And if you reject a chapter, why not reject the whole book? We’ll see this attempt at consistency coming up again later. And a whole lot closer to home.

Question: Why do some religious groups says that the name “Christian” was given by the enemies of the church in mockery or derision, and not by the “mouth of the Lord”?

Answer: Because to admit that the name Christian was a fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 62:2; 65:15); that it was given under the direction and approval of inspired apostles (Acts 14:14; 11:25-26); that it was later approved by the apostle Paul (Acts 26:28); and that it was sanctioned by Peter (1 Pet. 4;16), is to concede that such sectarian names as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., do not honor Christ, have no salvation attached to them (Acts 4:11,12), and violate the teaching of the Bible with respect to glorying in men (1 Cor. 1:12; 4:6).

Question: Why do some brethren now deny the principles of the Restoration Period of the 19th century, or even deny that there is any such thing as a restoration of the church’s identity as it existed in the first century?

Answer: Because to admit that the true order of things can be (and has been) restored, is to admit that some brethren and churches are not in harmony with those restoration principles. But to deny the principle and possibility of restoration is to deny the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. 29-36), and that the seed of the kingdom is still capable of reproducing the kingdom of Christ at any given place and time (Lk. 8:11-15; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Question: Why do some deny that the local congregation should be fully organized with elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), or that there is such a thing as a mission, work, or public assemblies for the church?

Answer: Because to admit such things would condemn those who have rebelled against duly established order and authority, have replaced it with preacher-led or other Diotrephes-led movements, and are forsaking assembling of themselves with faithful saints.

Question: Why do some deny that an approved apostolic example constitutes sufficient authority for a practice?

Answer: Because to admit such would be to admit that such apostolic examples as sending directly to the preacher in evangelism (Phil. 4:14-16), and sending to needy saints without the use of human benevolent societies or sponsoring church arrangements are still binding on us today.

And the reason some reject the apostolic example of observing the Lord’s supper “upon the first day of the week” is simply a half-hearted effort to be consistent after rejecting apostolic examples described in the passages mentioned above. I say half-hearted, because some have not yet rejected the example of Acts 20:7, some have done so reluctantly and privately, while those who believe that you “could” take the Lord’s supper on some other day, still do it on the first day of the week.

Question: Why have some in the past denied that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are part of the New Testament?

Answer: Because they don’t believe that Matthew 19:9 should be applied to marriage/divorce/marriage situations in this dispensation of time. But, following the example of Martin Luther with respect to the Book of James, if you reject Matthew 19:9, you must reject the whole book of Matthew. And if you reject Matthew, you must be consistent and reject Mark, Luke, and John because they are similar in content to Matthew.

Question: Why do some deny that the alien sinner is accountable (or amenable) to the law of Christ?

Answer: In order to relax the laws of marriage/divorce/ remarriage toward those alien sinners who are involved in a manage relationship which cannot be justified by the law of Christ.

Question: Why are some brethren now demanding a “new hermeneutics” approach to the interpretation/application of the Scriptures?

Answer: Because the present and time-tested approach of direct command/approved apostolic example/necessary inference will not permit them to believe and do some of the things which are being advocated. And rather than make some of the same excuses listed above, or just throwaway the Bible entirely, they feel that they need to come up with some respectable approach that will justify what they have already decided they are going to do anyway.

Like the excuses for not attending the wedding feast, the above mentioned excuses for doing or not doing a thing are different, yet alike. When viewed separately, each may sound authentic to the one making the excuse, or to those around him.

Yet, when you look at that many excuses all at once, even those making the excuses will have to concede that “some” of them may not be valid, and certainly all of them cannot be, if we don’t like the company we are keeping, and do not want to be involved in “guilt by association,” then I would suggest that we stop trying to justify our-selves, our families, our friends, or some situation in a given congregation and act our doctrines and practices in harmony with the truth.

The Lord will not accept flimsy excuses for not attending the wedding feast and neither will we be blessed if we show up without a “wedding garment” (Matt. 22:11-14).

And if we can figure out what constitutes being espoused or married to Christ, and how to live a life of fidelity to him without committing spiritual fornication, we ought to be able to do the same with regard to marriage relationships here on this earth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 18-19
June 16, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

“No creed but Christ” is the message of the Bible from beginning to end. Christ, and Christ alone, is the Savior promised to all the world as the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:3). He is the great Prophet whom God would send as the culmination of all prophets before him to “speak . . . all that I shall command him” (Deut. 18:18-19). God promised to raise up his Son as “an ensign of the people,” around which all men must rally in order to receive the saving “knowledge of the Lord” (Isa. 11:9-10). There can be no creed but Christ because there is no savior but Christ, no king but Christ, no high priest but Christ, and no lawgiver but Christ.

Jesus Taught “No Creed But Christ”

Jesus taught his disciples “no creed but Christ.” Peter made that very confession when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ then promised to build his church upon the truth of that creed and promised to rule over this new “kingdom of heaven” by revealing the truth from heaven through his Apostles (Matt. 16:16-19). In the Great Commission, the resurrected Lord sent his Apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. That meant preaching the necessity of a comprehensive, total, obedient faith in Christ and his every word  “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” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Jesus required total commitment to this proposition, “No creed but Christ.” He taught that all the creeds, commandments, and churches of men must be “rooted up” so that the Word of God can reign supreme over the souls of men. When some of his own disciples complained that such preaching was offensive to people who embraced the creeds of men, Jesus said to ignore the criticisms of the offended and let them follow their blind teachers to destruction if they will not hear the truth (Matt. 15:8-14).

John’s account of the gospel is built around the theme “no creed but Christ,” because it is written “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). Jesus promised “everlasting life” to all who truly believe in the “only begotten Son of God,” but he made it clear that this true faith requires that men be “born of water and of the Spirit” in order to “enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5,16). Jesus taught, “I am the living bread,” and that men must eat of that bread by accepting all that he taught. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Some of his own disciples found this teaching offensive “and walked no more with him.” Jesus asked his Apostles whether they too would turn away, but Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou halt the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ” (Jn. 6:51, 63-69). “No creed but Christ” means that we recognize the words of Jesus Christ, and his teaching alone, to be spiritual and life-giving. When Christ is our creed, his every word is our creed!

Confessing “No Creed But Christ”

“No creed but Christ” requires an open, vocal confession of Jesus Christ and immersion in water “for the remission of sins.” When the Apostles proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, there was no variation in these requirements, but they were binding upon “every one of you” in every case of conversion (Acts 2:36-38). Preaching Christ in Samaria meant refuting the claims of a false teacher named Simon. Not only were many of his followers converted to “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,” but also “Simon himself believed . . . and … was baptized” (Acts 8:5-13). Later, on a lonely road, Philip preached Christ to an Ethiopian man who soon expressed his desire to be baptized. “And Philip said, If thou believed with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Upon this confession of Christ, Philip immersed the Ethiopian in water (Acts 8:26-40).

When Paul preached the gospel, he too taught that men must “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” and be “baptized into Jesus Christ” in order to be saved by the blood of Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; 6:3-4). “No creed but Christ” means “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9-11). In reality, the confession of this creed means that we will submit ourselves to the teaching of Christ on all matters, including every aspect of daily life (business relations, marriage and family life, speech, dress, recreation, etc.) and every aspect of the identity of his church (its name, doctrine, worship, work, organization, discipline, etc.).

The Rise of Human Creeds

The creed of early Christians was nothing more or less than faith in Jesus Christ and his word as absolute and final in all things. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles warned against the coming gradual departures from that creed as men would usurp the place of God as lawgiver in his kingdom (2 Thess. 2:3-4). Specific departures included doctrines of men “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Later, the “office of a bishop” was transformed from the work of several qualified men in each local church to a clerical position of power usurped by one man in each of the larger city churches. Local bishops in the Bible were required to be married men with experience in raising children, but the new bishop was forbidden to marry (1 Tim. 3:1-5).

During A.D. 100-300 the false doctrine of apostolic succession arose, claiming that “the bishop” stood in the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ. “The bishop” functioned as an autocrat or monarch in his domain, exercising powers not authorized by the New Testament. The rise of “the bishop” with its concept of apostolic succession was “the vehicle” for collecting and formulating the supposed oral traditions of the Apostles as the “rule of faith” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church in 8 Vols., II:525).

“The role of the bishop as a bond of unity in the church was reinforced by the development of a creed” (E. E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, 1964, p. 126). Under the leadership of its bishop, “each of the leading churches framed its creed” and later councils of bishops framed universal creeds as the living faith of the church in the living, oral tradition of the Apostles, which was considered consistent with the teaching of Scripture (Schaff, pp. 525-533, seep. 529). For instance, the Apostles’ Creed of A.D. 340 has twelve articles, each of which was thought to have come from the oral teaching of each of the twelve Apostles, each Apostle providing an article. There were several creeds by this same name, all claiming to be authoritative.

In an effort to forge a larger unity, Emperor Constantine called a council of the bishops to Nicaea in 325 and they wrote the Nicene Creed. In the continuing development of Catholicism, other creeds followed. Beginning in the 1500s the denominations which resulted from the Protestant Reformation wrote new creeds, but claimed they had secondary rather than equal authority with the Scriptures. The claim that human writings bear any such authority is the essence of the creedal spirit.

Human creeds embody human traditions as standards of authority in religion, such as the Decrees of the Council of Trent in Roman Catholicism, the Westminster Confession and Catechism in Presbyterianism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Episcopalianism, the Augsburg Confession of Lutheranism, the Articles of Religion of Methodism, and such like. As Moses Lard noted, “A creed is the organic law of the party which depends upon it for its existence,” which implies that the Word of God is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice (“Human Creeds as Tests of Truth Make Void the Word of God,” Lard’s Quarterly, 1863, I:60-84, see p. 76).

Restoring “No Creed But Christ”

“No creed but Christ” means that the faith and practice of the church of Christ is already found in the New Testament, which makes void any other standard of authority in religion. Human creeds are necessary to sustain the identity of human names, doctrines, and practices which cannot be identified in the New Testament. In the early 1800s, men weary of denominational error and strife began to forsake every human creed and to return to “no creed but Christ.”

Alexander Campbell agreed with a Presbyterian preacher who said that human creeds were necessary to the existence of denominations, but he denied that the New Testament authorizes human creeds or denominations.

The word of the apostles shall be the only creed, formula, and directory of faith, worship, and Christian practice, when the ancient order of things is restored. . . . The constitution and law of the primitive church shall be the constitution and law of the restored church (The Christian Baptist, 1827, II:216-225).

In a debate with N. L. Rice, Campbell affirmed, “Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical,” arguing, “The primitive Christians had one, and but one faith, written out for them by apostles and prophets: we have it in one volume, usually called the New Testament” (Campbell-Rice Debate, pp. 759-912, see p. 759). When Campbell was opposed for opposing denominational error and creeds, he responded,

I opposed not one item of the Christian religion…. I do oppose, and will, by the grace of God, oppose, not only almost, but altogether, everything received as the Christian religion, not found in the New Testament, to the utmost of my ability and opportunity, at the risk of everything (The Christian Baptist, I:98-100, see p. 99).

The restoration of New Testament Christianity requires a return to the plea, “No creed but Christ.”

I have preached “no creed but Christ” for over thirty years in opposition to Catholicism, denominationalism, and sectarianism of every kind, identifying the creeds and those who uphold them. Is that same kind of preaching needed today? Professed gospel preachers such as Bill Love in The Core Gospel and C. Leonard Allen in The Cruciform Church argue that such preaching obscures the cross of Christ. I have read articles advising against preaching on “The Sin of Denominationalism,” lest we offend people. One evangelist recently advised a young man who wants to preach not to identify false teachers and religions in sermons, and especially not to preach like Larry Hafley because he identifies the denominations along with their creeds and doctrines by name. Such preaching is said to be “outdated.” The timeless preaching of Jesus and his Apostles named false teachers, creeds, and sects (Matt. 15:1-14; 16:6-12; 2 Tim. 2:16-18).

The only time some preachers cry out against “creeds” is when they protest plain, pointed gospel preaching which exposes religious error because they regard such preaching as creedal, legalistic, Pharisaical, narrow-minded traditionalism. Olan Hicks says we need to “stop being creed makers,” in a context where he means we need to stop opposing the apostasy of instrumental music, church sup-port of human institutions, and his error on divorce and remarriage (News and Notes, January 1994, p. 3). Such are the plaintiff cries of error for toleration, for compromise, and for relief from exposure. Those who truly oppose the doctrines, commandments, and creeds of men will be unmoved by such cries.

Now and always, we must continue to preach with great plainness of speech, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible!”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 8-9
June 16, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

Part One: Bred in Infidelity

One would have to be totally ignorant of the Bible to deny that Jesus Christ is both the center and circumference of all that the Bible contains. There is not a single doctrine or nuance of biblical teaching that does not have Christ as its foundation. If we begin in Eden, the fall of Adam and Eve is tempered by the promise of the Seed of Woman. If one considers the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood, its meaning is found in Jesus as High Priest. Animal sacrifices, the Law, the promises to Abraham, etc., each finds its meaning as it relates to the person and work of the Messiah.

The same is true of the New Testament. Whether one studies baptism, the Lord’s supper, morality, the church or the second coming, each relates directly to Jesus for its meaning and relation to our lives. His perfect life, submissive death and resurrection to David’s throne provides the scarlet thread that explains God’s grace and human need in progressive revelation from Genesis to Revelation. Any who misses this is condemned to a life of ritual, empty ceremony and meaningless liturgy.

It is absolutely true that we must never divorce commands and commandment-keeping from the story of the cross. Blind submission to laws, even those of God, is Pharisaical and ritualistic. Thus, our preaching and our personal faith must ever avoid the sterility that comes from Christ-less conformity to rules.

However, having said that, we must also note that there are those who, under the guise of preaching more about the cross, are guilty of the very thing of which they charge others: divorcing Christ from his commandments! A concentrated attack on the “word of the cross” and “gospel” so as to exclude the doctrines of Christ is underway. While a blanket charge toward all should be avoided, it remains true that some are guilty of redefining Bible terms so as to exclude doctrine from the gospel. Others are guilty of poor scholarship and naive assumptions which parrot cynical attacks by those who would re-define commands out of the “gospel” or “word of the cross.” While seeking to avoid extremes which miss the fulness of truth, we must also avoid elements that would impose a compromise with error because of deliberate evisceration of Bible terms.

Much has been written through the years about those who would make a distinction between gospel and doctrine. Some want these terms to be mutually exclusive so that “fellowship” is never limited because of a difference about doctrine. If the term “word of the cross” is substituted for “gospel,” the same scheme appears. It is a new formula for the old “unity in diversity” that has been around for years and which has compromise and fellow-ship with error at its heart.

I say that much has been written about the gospel/ doctrine controversy, which is true. However, little has been written about the source of this error. It is time that we look at the parentage of this error to show that it has been bred in infidelity, nurtured by cynicism and spread by discontent.

Modernistic Infidelity Promotes This Error

Where did this idea come from that there is a distinction between the use of “gospel” and “doctrine”? It is certainly not scriptural. Gospel and doctrine are used interchange-ably in the Scriptures (1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; and many others). The “word of the cross” is not limited only to the facts of Golgotha, but includes the story of Pentecost, the epistles, and all things needed to bring men into a right relation with God (1 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 5:11; Phil. 3:18).

However, brethren are now making this unwarranted distinction and, from it, proposing a decreased emphasis on doctrinal preaching and an increased acceptance of error as though “doctrine is of lesser importance.” Again, where did this error arise?

However ancient it may be, modem references trace the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine to a Church of England theologian and pastor, Charles Harold (C. H.) Dodd. A prolific writer, Dodd authored over 50 books, pamphlets and lectures while Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. He became a tremendous influence through his printed works and, consequently, upon brethren who have researched his material. It should be pointed out that Dodd (1884-1973) did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. He accepted German form criticism with its attendant dependence on redactors, oral tradition and misplaced documents. “I assume the main results of source-criticism as they bear upon his part of the Gospel Record. Mark is the earliest Gospel. Matthew and Luke depend largely upon it as a source. They also depend upon a lost document, denominated `Q’…” (History And The Gospel, C. H. Dodd [London: Nesbit and Co., Ltd., 1935], p. 78).

Of inspiration, Dodd said: “The `inspiration’ of the prophets is essentially a power of insight into the situation as expressing a meaning which is God’s meaning for His people” (The Bible Today, C. H. Dodd [Cambridge University Press, New York; The Macmillan Co.], p. 105).

“It is nevertheless true that mankind is a `fallen’ race. The presence of evil in the human will, and of error in human thought, makes it inevitable that in the long stretches of human history the divine meaning should be more or less completely obscured” (The Authority of the Bible, C. H. Dodd [Harper Torchbook, Harper Brothers, New York, 1960], p. 10).

“The Bible, we have seen, records a development in men’s notions of God. . .” (Ibid., 248).

“The new thing that the prophets communicated we found to be something essentially something in themselves. Because they were the men they were, and reacted to their experiences in the way they did, they were open to certain aspects of God unopened by other men” (Ibid., 258).

“Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge and the Building of Babel are symbolic myths. The Last Judgment and the End of the World, if they are not in the strict sense myths, have a similar symbolic character” (The Bible Today, 112).

“It is impossible to think of Doomsday as a coming event in history. . . we are dealing with symbol” (ibid., 115).

Is it not strange that a man with such a warped view of Scripture could exert such an inordinately powerful influence upon the religious world in general and the church of Christ in particular? Yet it is from this perspective of modernistic infidelity that Dodd predicated his view of a gospel/doctrine distinction. Unable to escape the power of religion altogether, he sought to weaken the authority of the Scriptures by denying true inspiration and relegating Scripture to oral traditions of myths. And it is no less than the arrogance of worldly wisdom that suggested to Dodd that he could investigate the epistles, isolate these buried “oral traditions” and “original sayings of Jesus” from the “evolutionary doctrine” added later by Paul and others.

Dodd, and others, speak so boldly and confidently of having found the “original gospel” that one would think one could turn easily to it in the Bible. But one reads in vain for any identification of a “buried message,” or “oral tradition.” Is it out of reason to ask, “Where is it to be found?” How do we identify Jesus’ own words with certainty beyond the written text? Are these utterances written in red in the “red letter editions”? Must we read between the lines to find an early catechism that is not recorded in Scripture? Are they identified in any significant way by recognized men of inspiration? Or do we only have Dodd’s authority that he has located the original message?

Dodd has significantly admitted: “It is true that the kerygma as we have recovered it from the Pauline epistles is fragmentary. No complete statement of it is, in the nature of the case, avail-able. But we may restore it in outline somewhat after this fashion… .” (The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development, C. H. Dodd [Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., London, 1950], 17).

But even with this weak admission before us, we must nevertheless admit that he is the modern father of a heresy that has widespread popularity. Robert C. Worly, writing of Dodd’s position said: “The significant features of Dodd’s theory which have been described in their developmental sequence are:

“1. In the earliest church a distinct activity called preaching was practiced.

“2. Preaching had a particular content, the kerygma, which was the earliest missionary message of the church.

“3. Fragments of this earliest message are discernible in the written record, Scripture.

“4. Teaching is a second, distinct activity of the early church.

“5. The content of teaching is primarily ethical instruction and exhortation. Its form is derived from Jewish antecedents.

“6. The practice and content of teaching are the product of the evolutionary development of the earliest church as it awaited the second coming of Jesus” (Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church, Robert C. Worley, 22-23).

This “core gospel” or “kerygma” that Dodd advocated consisted of seven facts to be believed. They were:

The prophecies are fulfilled and the New Age is inaugurated by the Coming of Christ.

He was born of the seed of David.

He died according to the scriptures, to deliver us out of the present evil age.

He was buried.

He rose on the third day according to the scriptures.

He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and lord of the quick and dead.

He will come again as Judge and Saviour of men (The Apostolic Preaching And Its Development, p. 17).

Dodd further developed a distinction between gospel and doctrine by advocating a distinction between preaching and teaching. “The verb `to preach’ frequently has for its object `the Gospel.’ Indeed the connection of ideas is so close that kerysein by itself can be used as a virtual equivalent for evangelizes Thai, `to evangelize’, or `to preach the gospel.’ It would not be too much to say that wherever `preaching’ is spoken of, it always carries with it the implication of `good tidings’ proclaimed” (Ibid., 2).

The final step in this synthesis of error is that of application. Dodd, a Calvinist, made the natural step in connecting the gospel with preaching so as to produce faith (justification by faith alone). He saw doctrine as that which produced law by which a believer works for sanctification but which is not essential to salvation. Any student of Calvinism should be aware of the gospel doctrine, faith/law (works), justification/sanctification distinction which is the natural out-growth of the gospel/doctrine distinction.

This final step should also explain the antagonism that is expressed against doctrine by the New Unity Movement people and the New Hermeneutic people among churches of Christ. Though reluctant to accept Calvinism openly, they nevertheless flirt with it by advocating a gospel doctrine distinction that mitigates against doctrine, law or works. Faith is essential to salvation; doctrine is not! When brethren today decry the emphasis on doctrinal preaching and charge that not enough gospel is being preached, they are making the typical application of Calvinism. Baptists have, for years, taught “The Man, not the Plan.” Now it is being heard among churches of Christ. But it is couched in new terms and now we hear: “More gospel; less doctrine,” “More `word of the cross’ and less legalism,” or “more Golgotha and less Pentecost.” But it is all cut from the same cloth. To be sure, not all are aware of the source of this error, but it is past time to realize what is going on by some who are informed, well read, and who make this application because they have accepted the premise of Dodd.

Let us be sure to understand, therefore, that when brethren begin to advocate that the gospel is different from doctrine they are not teaching biblical ideas. Let us also understand that this concept is not limited to a debate about definitions of words, but that a major application of error is contemplated, with widespread changes in churches of Christ. Anyone who holds this unscriptural distinction is headed for fellowship with sectarians because doctrine, law and works become unimportant to fellowship with God or with the people of God. Finally, let us understand the source of this error. Though it may be bathed in an aura of scholarship and suffused with a sense of tolerance, it is as destructive as any evil Satan ever produced. It is the child of infidelity.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 13-14
June 16, 1994