31 25. Can We See The Bible Alike? If So, Why Are We So Sadly Divided?

25. Can We See The Bible Alike? If So, Why Are We So Sadly Divided?

Can We See The Bible Alike? If So, Why Are We So Sadly Divided?

INTRODUCTION

One of the most outstanding conditions is the divided state of the religious world. We have more divisions, more strife and confusion, over the subject of religion than any other question known to the writer. This is exceedingly sad in view of the fact that religion has to do with the salvation of the soul, and that there is nothing so important to us as this. One of the most prolific causes of infidelity and skepticism is the divided state of the religious world. Jesus anticipated the baneful effects of division when he said in his prayer: "That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me." (John 17:21.)

You find that many wink at the divided state of the religious world, and some even try to defend it, contending that it exists by the wise providence of God, that God has willed that we be so divided, that one way is as good as another—just so you are honest and sincere. We want to weigh present conditions and see if it can be right. IN THE BALANCE OF COMMON SENSE

We look at present conditions simply from the standpoint of common sense and see if even common sense, exercised, can indorse it.

Let us suppose a preacher comes to our community to conduct a revival and proceeds as follows: The first night he preaches that salvation is by faith only; but the second night he contends that it is not by faith only, but faith exercised in obedience to the gospel; the third night he preaches that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion is baptism; but the fourth night he contends that immersion only is baptism; the fifth night he says you should baptize your infants; but the sixth night he says you should not—that penitent believers are the only Scriptural subjects for baptism; the seventh night he preaches that if you are once in grace you are always in grace; but the eighth night he tells you just as earnestly that you can fall from grace, that we are warned not to fall, that some have fallen, and that we are told how to keep from falling; the ninth night he teaches that human creeds and disciplines are all right; but the tenth night he says we should take the Bible only as our guide in religion. I say, suppose a man should come to us and preach just as I have suggested, would he not be teaching doctrines that are daily taught in the name of Christ here and there throughout the world? Would you listen to a man so preach? You would not. And why? "oh," you would say, "this man preaches one thing tonight and contradicts himself the following night!" But if it is not right for one man to do this, how can it be right for a number of different men to so preach? Do you say it makes one man inconsistent? Exactly so. But what kind of God have you if he indorses all of these doctrines and has sent out preachers to preach them all?

I heard of a man who taught that God is in one church or one doctrine as much as another, and he began to join the different churches, and he preached their contradictory doctrines. Or, in other words, he undertook to practice his theory by preaching all the doctrines, and his friends got together a group of doctors and were thinking of trying him for lunacy and sending him to the asylum for the insane, and finally they decided that he was a harmless lunatic and did not do so. Just so God seems to an honest soul if you make that soul believe God is in all the doctrines taught. Do you not see that no honest soul could possibly defend the divided state of the religious world simply from the standpoint of common sense? IN THE BALANCE OF GOD’S TRUTH

God says in Psalms 133:1 : "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" If it is good to be united—and God says it is—it is bad to be divided.

Christ, in his prayer to his Father, as recorded in John 17:20-21, says: "Neither for these only [that is, the apostles] do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." Does Jesus mean what he says here? Does he earnestly desire that we be one, as he and the Father are one? Paul says: "But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:9.) How may we have his Spirit and not desire and pray for the same thing he desires and for which he prays?

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:10, gives us the following touching exhortation: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through 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 perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment." How can we wink at division with this statement before us? In Ephesians 4:3-6 we are commanded to give "diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," and the basis of this exhortation is that there is but one body (the church), one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God. You remember Paul asks the question in 1 Corinthians 1:13 : "Is Christ divided?" Let us here also ask the question: Is the Spirit divided? We are commanded "to keep the unity of the Spirit." This certainly means that the Spirit has unity. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 we are taught that "in one Spirit [that is, by the direction or teaching of one Spirit] were we all baptized into one body [the church]." Could you believe that the one Spirit would lead a husband into one church, the wife into another, the daughter into still another and a son into another, and these churches so divided that these members of the same family cannot eat the Lord’s Supper together? No, you cannot believe any such thing, if you know the Holy Spirit. In Php 3:16 we are commanded: "By that same rule let us walk." We do not have a multiplicity of rules by which to walk; there is but one. In John 10:16 Christ said, in speaking of the new sheepfold he was to establish: "They shall become one pock, one shepherd." Here he is speaking of the one body, the church, into which he calls both Jews and Gentiles. (Read Ephesians 2:13-16.)The one body is the church. (See Eph. l:22, 23. )

Finally, Proverbs 6:16-19 says: "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; yea, seven are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked purposes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." I have put this seventh hateful and abominable thing in Italics for emphasis. How can it be right to condemn all of the six "hateful" things first mentioned and wink at the seventh? We may never live to see the religious world united, but we can see the day when we know we are not among the number responsible for the divided state of the religious world, and we will soon show you how to keep free from such responsibility. CAN WE SEE IT ALIKE? The contention that we cannot see the Bible alike we will now put in the balance of God’s truth and see if it be true. "To the law and to the testimony!" is the slogan given us by Jehovah. (Isaiah 8:20 : "Prove all things" is the admonition of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. "Prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world," is the command of the Spirit through John. (1 John 4:1.)

All must either say that we can obey the command in 1 Corinthians 1:10 or that we cannot obey it. Are you ready to say we cannot? If so, you are accusing Christ of commanding us to do the impossible. If you say we can obey that command, down goes the contention that we cannot see the Bible alike, for that says: "Speak the same thing," "that there be no divisions among you," "perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

We must say that we can obey the command in Php 3:16 or that we cannot obey it. If you say we cannot, again you have accused our Lord of asking the impossible; but if you say we can, then you admit that we can be one by walking by the same rule, as we are here commanded.

There are many ways of misunderstanding the Bible, but there is but one way to understand it. If we understand it at all, we understand it alike, for there is but one way to understand it. But most certainly there are a multiplicity of ways of misunderstanding it. Let us heed the admonition, then: "Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." (Ephesians 5:17.) THE RULE BY WHICH TO WALK

Let us here study this same rule by which to walk. It is simple and it is very practical. We give it in three simple sentences.

Preach only what is revealed. This we should do, it matters not what subject we are handling. "The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29.) We have no right to preach or teach unrevealed subjects or unrevealed parts of subjects. Just stay within what is revealed is the command, or rule.

Preach all that is revealed. Paul, when he delivered his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus, could say: "Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:26-27.) It would be well to read the whole address—verses 17-35. The rule says preach only what is revealed on the subject we are teaching, and it also says preach it all. Be careful to add nothing to or make any subtractions from what is revealed. This has ever been God’s will to man. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it." (Deuteronomy 4:2; read also Revelation 22:18-19.)

Now, tell me how any two preachers could be divided—or a thousand preachers, as to that matter— if they speak on the same subject and each adheres to this rule, speaking only what is revealed on it, all that is revealed, and making no additions to it or subtractions from it. Do you now see how it is that we "speak the same thing," "have no divisions among" us, as commanded in 1 Corinthians 1:10 : This is exactly what is comprehended in Paul’s charge to Timothy: "1 charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word." (2 Timothy 4 : l, 2.) "Preach the word" certainly means to preach only the word—all of the word; to make no additions, for in doing this we would be preaching something else; and to make no subtractions, for in doing this we would not be preaching all of the word. And read the preceding chapter—2 Timothy 3:16-17—and you will find the ground for this charge The word was by inspiration given, and contains all the doctrine God wants taught and all the reproof and correction the human race needs, and will give us every good work in which God wants us to engage; or, to express it in the language used by Peter: "Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness." (2 Peter 1:3.)

WHY, THEN, ARE WE DIVIDED? The whole cause of division is to be found in preachers and churches exercising what they call the liberty to preach things not in the divine rule.

We are united on what is in the rule. Let us submit a few examples that what we say may be exemplified. (1) Has there ever been any division over the fact that God appeared unto Moses in a burning bush? (Exodus 3:1-4.) Ask any preacher if God so appeared to Moses and he will say: "Yes, this is what the Bible declares." Now ask him what kind of bush that was. Some have even tried to tell us, but they differ when they speak here, because it has not been revealed. (2) Has there ever been any division over the fact that Paul had a thorn in his flesh? (2 Corinthians 12:7.) Here we are all perfectly united, for this is in the rule—the divine revelation. But ask someone what this thorn was. How can we speak the same thing here? Some have said it was blindness, or bad eyes, and have made very good arguments for it. But who knows? All we know about that thorn in the flesh is that it was "a messenger of Satan to buffet" Paul that he should not be exalted overmuch. (3) Have we ever spoken other than the same thing so far as the fact that Nicodemus came to Christ by night is concerned? (John 3:1-2.) This fact is revealed. But let us start out now and try to speak the same thing as to why he came by night. I have heard some preachers say one thing and others another as to why Nicodemus came by night. But who knows? of course, churches have not been torn asunder over things that I have suggested, but I merely suggest these that you may appreciate the fact that we get along well so long as we stay in the rule—viz., preaching only what is revealed on each subject. But when we begin to talk about things not revealed on these same subjects, we are bound to differ. Here we should not speak at all. If it had been good for us to know the kind of bush, God would have told us; or if it had been good for us to have known what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was, more than what is said, or why Nicodemus came by night, we also would have been told this.

SOME DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES

Scriptural baptism. Are we divided here? Certainly not. Scriptural baptism is that baptism taught in the Scriptures. A thing could hardly be called "Scriptural" that the Scriptures say nothing about. Here the reader is asked to go back to Lesson XII and review the diagram there given. The Scriptures teach that baptism took place where there was much water, that there was a coming unto the water, a going down into the water, a burial, a resurrection, and a coming up out of the water. When a penitent believer does this, who says he has not been baptized? Here we are united, and this is in the rule. But our division comes over sprinkling a few drops of water on the head and calling it "baptism." Where is this called "baptism"? It is out of the rule entirely, and those who so teach are responsible for the confusion over what is called "the mode of baptism." The Scriptural subject of baptism. The Scriptures, as we learned in Lesson XII, speak of baptism being administered to both men and women, and only those men and women that believed and repented. We know this is a Scriptural subject, for it is taught in the Scriptures. But when you begin to baptize an infant who does not know his right hand from his left, division arises, and the Bible is as silent as the grave about such. We are united on the former, and it is in the Scriptures; but we are divided over the latter, and it is out of the Scriptures. Those who introduced it are responsible here for the division. The Scriptural name. I hardly think you could find a soul who would say it is wrong for us to wear the name of Christ, our spiritual Husband (Romans 7:4), or that we could ever find a better name to wear. Here we are united. But where is our division here? It is when you introduce human names, such as "Baptist," "Methodist," "Presbyterian," "Lutheran," "Congregationalist," "Episcopalian," etc. These are not in the Bible, and certainly we all know it. And just so we could take up every division that has ever arisen and show it was occasioned by the INTRODUCTION of something not in the rule.

We close this lesson by asking you to go with us to 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. Here are four groups in the same congregation, and three of them are wrong and only one right. One group was building on their preference for Paul, another on their preference for Peter, and still another on their preference for Apollos. These brethren were not divided over doctrine; they all did the same thing in becoming Christians, and they were taught the same things as to how to live the Christian life. Paul, Apollos, and Peter taught identically the same doctrine. We should note that a part of that congregation was clinging to Christ, saying: "We are of Christ." They were glorying, but they were glorying in Christ. The others were glorying in men. (See1 Corinthians 3:21-22.) In verses -7 of this third chapter they are declared to be carnal, walking as men of the flesh. And why? Just because they grouped themselves into parties, factions, and preferred to be Paulites, Cephasites, and Apollosites. Some, we should be thankful, were content to be just Christians for Christ. (Acts 11:26.)

Note the force of Paul’s rebuke: "Is Christ divided?" If Christ is divided, so may we be. Ask this question in the light of present conditions, and tell me how you can try to justify division. "Was Paul crucified for you?" We must recognize the man who was crucified for us as Lord and rally around him and not some man or set of men. "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" We should wear the name, work in the name, of the one into whose name we were baptized. (Colossians 3:17.) Though united in every article of faith and practice, if we divide ourselves into groups and adopt human names by which to be known, we have sinned. Let us ever be found "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," as we are commanded.