Why Denominations Exist (II)

By Dennis L. Shaver 

In our last article we discussed two attitudes (ignorance and pride) which we believe are responsible for the existence and perpetuation of denominations. We will conclude this study in this article by dealing with two more attitudes which contribute to denominations’ existing.

Denominations Exist Through Human Tradition

Tradition has been a downfall of man, in religion, throughout history. During the time of Jesus’ preaching he stated, “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do” (Mk. 7:13). In any denomination one can hear the cry of tradition, tradition. I have personally talked with many who use “it’s always been done that way” as authority for religious action. (I might also add I have heard this in churches of our Lord, and if it is not stopped it will create a human organization instead of a divine one.) I know, as we all do, that man is a creature of habit. If his habits are dictated by man or God, it makes no difference, he will follow them. Human tradition is dictated by humans, and it is a great cause of denominations. So many will accept a practice because “its always been done that way.” The apostle Paul wrote io the brethren in Colosse with this warning, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of !he world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). We need to preach this warning to all, for tradition is an easy way to be deceived. Many in denominations have become so used to a particular thing that they now believe that it is taught in the Bible. The apostle Paul, in writing to the Colossians said, “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste no; handle not; Which are all to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh” (Col. 2:2023). Those who are Christians are not subject to human tradition, but to Christ. Human tradition creates “church ordinances” and men look to the “church” for guidance in their lives. Every individual, who intends to please God must look only to Christ and his word, for this shall be the judge in that day (Jn. 12:48). The traditions of many churches were not instituted by our Lord, but by the vanity of man, and they will lead to the destruction of the soul if obeyed. To defeat denominations we must defeat tradition and search for truth.

Because of Satisfaction-Many individuals are satisfied with their religious life the way it is. They are not looking for, nor do they see a need to change their religious beliefs. I once talked to a member of a denomination who admitted “her church” was not right in many ways, but she felt that one day they would change what was wrong. She was completely satisfied where she was, even if she was wrong ! I realize people want and search for satisfaction. When they find some kind of satisfaction within a particular denomination they seek no further. Even a church of our Lord had such an attitude, the church in Laodicea. It was their opinion they had everything and there was no need for change. According to our Savior, this was not the case. No Christian should become complacent. Christianity is within itself a continual process of growth and searching for more truth. “Then Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him, if ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31,32). Christians continually seek God and His will (Matt. 6:33). They not only teach others, they listen to understand and gain understanding. If one becomes satisfied, he no longer listens, and when he no longer listens, he no longer learns. As long as men will be satisfied with something more or less than the perfect will of God there will be denominations. We need to raise doubts in the minds of those who follow men and replace those doubts with a surety, the word of God.

Yes, denominations exist, because people exist. We must reach as many as we can with the power of God (Rom. 1:16). We cannot permit ourselves to become one of them with unscriptural attitudes and organizations and promotions to “fill the building.” Our work must be reaching and teaching the pure and simple gospel of the Son of God. Let us show, by our teaching and our living, that Ignorance, Human Pride, Tradition and Self-Satisfaction, are not a part of the church of our Lord, and not the way to please our Father. Invite all to learn of God (Jn. 6:44,45) and put off the bondage of denominations.

Truth Magazine XX: 38, pp. 602-603
September 23, 1976

At Last . . . Now . . . an Open Confession: Dodd and Ketcherside: Kerygma and Didache

By Ron Halbrook

Ketcherside might well pay “special tribute” to C. H. Dodd (1884-1973), and we would do well to pay special attention to him, too. Ketcherside says there are “two different messages” in the New Testament, as explained above. (Paul apparently disclaims the second message, which they call “doctrine,” because he said he knew “nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified” and he forbad adding any additional messages! (see 1 Cor. 2-2 and Gal. 1:6-9.) Ketcherside, like Dodd, tries to label two distinct bodies of teaching by different terms, but both are teaching nonetheless. (1) Kerygma is the original teaching which Christ did about himself and which others did about him, consisting of facts and events in his life. Most of this original “gospel” is lost, according to Dodd, but we can dig through the New Testament in search of clues which allow us to recover the main outline of its content. (2) Didache is subsequent teaching done by the followers of Christ as they transformed, developed, and utilized his original teaching. This “teaching” grew out of an effort fo preserve and direct the body of believers. Dodd argued that this “doctrine” evolved when the disciples saw their expectation of Jesus’ immediate second coming was not fulfilled.

At any rate, Dodd and Ketcherside agree that preaching the gospel is one thing and teaching the doctrine is another. How foolish when we realize that “doctrine” simply means “teaching-a thing taught,” and that the gospel is teaching-a thing taught, therefore, doctrine. “Preaching was an inclusive activity, not restricted to the proclamation of a missionary messenger. Kerysso- needs a message to complete its meaning. This message was an inclusive message of what God had done toward a particular people, and what the response of the people should be to what God had done” (Robert C. Worley, Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church, p. 32). “The thing taught”- the doctrine – in the New Testament proclaims both what God has done and what we must do; there is one message, not two, and all of it is the Gospel.

Ketcherside’s position is an erosion of faith in the Bible as the Word of God, in favor of the Liberalism-ModernismHumanism of men like Schleiermacher in the last century and modified by men like Dodd and Richardson in this century. Dodd is supposed to represent a somewhat conservative reaction to the extreme rationalism and optimism of Liberalism in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Liberalism had rejected the Bible as an objective report of historical events and in addition rejected the reality of the events themselves which are reported in Scripture. Dodd maintained many of these critical premises but conceded the reality of at least some of the events reported in Scripture (without conceding that the Bible report of those events was objective and accurate on all counts). Dodd felt God made a somewhat objective revelation of Himself through certain events in history; while the Bible is an important report of those events, it is not the objective revelation of God and therefore not infallible or inerrant. Our problem, according to Dodd, is to work over the Biblical record. in search of the saving events – particularly the Kerygma – imbedded therein.

The writings of Dodd, especially The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, were influential in the form criticism movement as it sought a “primitive Kerygma” beneath the Biblical records. The New Testament is not the teaching of Christ but was written by later Christians who transformed and developed the original teaching about Christ to serve the growing corporate needs of the church. Yet, within the New Testament are found general summaries, outlines, and fragments of the primitive Kerygma. The “gospel” turns out to be seven events of history, as recounted in his Apostolic Preaching (p. 17):

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 quick and dead.

He will come again as Judge and Savior of Men.

Dodd claimed that this “gospel” saves men and not the didache or “doctrine.” In his History and the Gospel, he shows that the writings of Paul exhibit “the character of nomos [law] in the sense of commandments regulating the conduct and life as governed through the dictation of a legal authority” (Ibid., p. 50, cf. Worley, p. 20). While we should “not lightly dismiss any theological propositions” or “dogmatic beliefs” found in the Bible, we must realize that “in morals and religion no purely objective evidence is obtainable.” The Bible does not give “authoritative information, in the form of dogma, upon matters known only by special revelation,” but it does contain “the sincere utterance of men” which in turn can awaken and redirect the powers of sincere searching in other men (The Authority of the Bible, pp. 297-300, 295ff). In other words, the saving events of the “gospel” should and must be acknowledged, but the “doctrine”-though having the character of law-does not necessarily have to be obeyed strictly.

Dodd recognizes that the Bible “has been regarded as the supreme doctrinal authority in faith and morals, divine in origin and consequently infallible.” Also, if the Scriptures are verbally inspired, “they consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity” (ibid., pp. 8, 35). But, in the first place, critical studies have shown such views to be scientifically and historically untenable. Source-criticism (study of the “proximate” written sources from which the Gospels were written) and form-criticism (study of the “oral tradition lying behind the proximate written sources”) have shown that the four Gospels are “not in any case inerrant” because they differ “in matters of fact and in interpretation of fact.” “. . . .we have no reason to assume that the writers were supernaturally protected from the natural infirmities to which the human mind is liable” (The Gospels As History: A Reconsideration, pp. 8-9). Or, as he put it in another of his books (About the Gospels, p. 15), “there is a margin of uncertainty” in these records though they agree on certain facts.

Not True Just Because In The Bible

The old view required that all statements of Scripture on religion and every other subject be regarded as “exactly and literally true.” Thus, Paul’s epistles were seen as providing “a fixed scheme of theology.” But the second reason the old view of Scripture authority must be rejected is that men see that scheme differently. “Observation and reason” cannot always agree with Scripture. The Bible contains some “outworn morality” along with inaccuracies “in matters of science and history.” The Bible does not claim “infallible authority for all its parts” and “some of its greatest writers” admit expressing opinions or making mistakes. God speaks by means of Scripture, but “it is in some sense which is not incompatible with its human imperfection.” In the Fundamentalist position, there is “an end of intellectual adventure and discovery, to say nothing of moral responsibility.” When we discover what a Bible writer says, we must ask, “Is this what I am to believe about God? Is it true?” The answer cannot be, “Of course it is true, because it is in the Bible.” Certainly the epistles do not present “a static finality in religion.” In the New Testament, some scribes do attempt “to fix in a ‘form of sound words,’ the ‘faith once delivered to the saints,'” but this must be dismissed in favor of the faith which grows and develops (represented by the better New Testament writers). “If the Bible is indeed ‘the Word of God,’ it is so not as the ‘last word’ on all religious questions, but as the ‘seminal word’ out of which new apprehension of truth springs in the mind of man” (The Authority of the Bible, pp. 817, 35, 297-300).

The “gospel” is a story of fixed and certain events in history, but all “doctrinal” issues are open questions -NOT involving salvation, NOT involving fellowship. This is precisely the Denominational Theology which Ketcherside has imbibed! He might quibble with Dodd’s views of inspiration and revelation (though he has written some things which sound close to Dodd even there), BUT HE HAS ACCEPTED THE BASIC PREMISE OF MODERNISM-LIBERALISMECUMENICISM WITH REGARD TO “DOCTRINE.”

It will do no good to cry, “Alexander Campbell!”, who is not a religious authority in any case, because he advocated unity through Restoration of the Ancient Order rather than through Ecumenical Liberalism and Liberal Ecumenicity. Campbell tried to distinguish between “gospel” and “doctrine” (more on that shortly), but it did not lead him to the 20th century view of “unity” which has its roots in the premises and assumptions of Liberalism-Modernism-Humanism. Moving on its own premises-premises foreign equally to the New Testament and to the Campbells-Liberalism claimed that there is no doctrinal exactness in the New Testament, no pattern of organization and worship for the church, and that the Bible was never intended to provide a pattern for the church. Ketcherside constantly hammers these themes. These themes are rooted in “the rise of New Testament criticism” and so-called “modern scholarship”-thus the ultra-liberal Disciples of Christ hold “that ‘dogma’ in the primitive sense does not consist in theological opinions but in historic facts,” i.e Dodd’s kerygma (The Nature of the Unity We Seek, Issued by the Study Committee of the World Convention of Churches of Christ (Disciples), pp. 5,6,9). This Liberalism “has had a profound effect on unity efforts” (Howard Elmo Short, Christian Unity Is Our Business, p. 18). Though Ketcherside, Garrett, and their proteges often quote the Campbells, they are mostly interested in that nebulous something which Liberals always conjure up when looking to the past: “the spirit” of these men. Leroy Garrett does not hesitate to say that the concept of speaking where the Bible does and being silent where it is, is “impossible” to work-though “the spirit of the slogan” is commended. He says the approach to unity which calls for a “thus saith the Lord” for all we do in religion is clearly “wrong” (Restoration Review, 1969, pp, 26-30, 47).

Dodd’s view, the Liberal-Ecumenical view, of unity has become the foundation of Ketcherside, Garrett, and company. Dodd is a recognized pioneer of ecumenicity, with his “Letter Concerning Unavowed Motives in Ecumenical Discussions” (Ecumenical Review, Vol. II, No. 1, Autumn, 1949, pp. 52ff; cf. Dodd, et. al., More Than Doctrine ). Due largely to Dodd’s “insights” on non-theological factors in division, ‘the organized ecumenical movement appointed a special commission to study these factors. When the movement solved certain “issues,” new ones were raised. This suggested to Dodd that the issues were not the real problems but that unavowed motives were. (1) “Confessional or denominational loyalty” is such a motive, causing us to constantly search for “our ‘sacred traditions’ or our ‘historic principles,’ which we must on no account compromise.” It is unlikely that there are “principles of difference so fundamental that no accommodation can be found,” even between Protestants and Catholics. We must be more willing to say bluntly, “We have been mistaken in holding this view, and I have been mistaken in defending it. . . . We are very conscious of shortcomings in our denominational life, if you can give us counsel, let us go with you” (More Than Doctrine, pp. 8-9).

(2) Behind the “standards, ideals, habits, convictions, prejudices, which taken together make up a distinctive mentality,” lie unavowed “social and political motives.” These motives maintain religious divisions within nations (Anglican and Nonconformist in England) and between nations (Luthernism, Eastern Orthodoxy, American denominationalism, East Europeans behind the Iron Curtain). For instance, objections to the “episcopacy or the sacredotal conception of the ministry” are based “only to a slight degree . . . on distinctive religious convictions or traditions”; they are based largely on unconscious loyalties to a “way of life” which is “in part religious but in part social wind political” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

There is truth in these charges so far as man-made churches are concerned. Man-made churches are shaped and animated by human concepts wid human loyalties, just as are the realms of society, education, philosophy, economics, politics, etc, But the Bible reveals a church built by Divine Concepts and a Divine Pattern. “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10-11). “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9), Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), and His church is just as distinctive from the churches of men as he himself-Divine, THE SON OF GOD.—is distinctive from men. The church for which he died and of which he is head, is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim.. 3:15). This divine truth, “the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), is SO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from the doctrines of men that THERE CA BE NO ACCOMMODATION FOR COMPROMISE between them.

Churches of men may wrestle with the implications of social and political democracy in relation to their clerical systems, but God’s people reject outright all concepts of a sacerdotal priesthood because they are irreconcilably antagonistic to Christ and his teaching. (1) A clergy-laity distinction, (2) priestly mediators between God and man, for forgiveness of sin, (3) men standing between other men and God, whose special domain is to understand, interpret, and dispense God’s Word, and (4) the elevation, honor, and reverence of certain men, are all opposed to Christ and His commands for His people.

Yes, God’s people move on principles totally unknown or barely discernable in the churches of men. When those who claim to be God’s people as distinguished from human denominationalism, begin to approach religious problems-such as the problem of uni . t1v -the same way denominationalists do, then they have forsaken their claim and the Christ of Scripture. Ketcherside, Garrett, and their followers talk about “our” need of gaining “counsel” from “other denominations.” They tell us that division is more a “psychological and sociological” problem than “a matter of doctrinal differences” (Garrett, R.R., 1968, p. 34). These men are engulfed in the denominational view of the church. They are conducting their new unity movement on the same human concepts and human loyalties which are operative in all man-made denominations, in Modernism-Liberalism-Humanism, and in the realms of philosophy, politics, economics, and such like. They have exchanged the wisdom of God and the truth of God for human wisdom and human theories.

If they want to see the ultimate end of their course, let them take a hard look at men like Dodd, to whom they pay “special tribute.” Dodd’s concepts, like the whole thrust of Liberalism and Ecumenicism, leads to universalism-and a humanistic universalism at that! “As every human being lies under God’s judgment, so every human being is ultimately destined, in His mercy, to eternal life,” argued Dodd. He added, “This ‘universalism’ has never been generally accepted in the Church, though it has been held by some theologians of credit in antiquity and in modern times” (The Bible Today, pp. 117-118). Do not be fooled by the reference to “eternal life;” it is characteristic of neo-orthodoxy to engage in such double-talk with Biblical terms. The “restoration of all things” is “the ultimate state of mankind,” according to Dodd. This is symbolized by “the holy city, New Jerusalem,” a consummation “beyond all experience” as we have known it so far. “The whole human race” and “the entire created universe (are) to be ‘redeemed’ and ‘reconciled’ to its Creator. . . . This is the final meaning of the entire process in time” (Ibid., pp. 117-119). The ecumenical process is working with that ultimate goal in mind-to usher in a consummation of human experience in united nations, united peoples, a world made up of the New Humanity. The church is “a kind of preliminary model . . . of what the final state of mankind is to be in God’s design.” The church is “the one people of God, and the I earnest’ of the ultimate reconciliation of all mankind. At a level deeper than all our divisions the unity already exists” (Christ and the New Humanity, pp. 2-3). This is the ultimate end for which the kerygma is proclaimed. Ephesians 2:11-15 in its “theological” aspect teaches “that in the Christian view the ultimate hope of the unification of mankind rests upon the reality of the act of God in Christ” (Ibid., p. 13). One of the goals of “the ecumenical fellowship of the church” is “to explore” the depths of the Gospel in search of “conceptions . . . suitable for shaping a new community of mankind,” and thus to contribute to the solution of “our urgent problem of reconciliation between nations” (Ibid., p. 15-16).

Ketcherside, Garrett, and various cohorts will object that they are opposed to humanism, that they are simply trying to exalt Christ; they will object that we are unfairly waving the red flag of “Liberalism;” they will deny “guilt by association;” they will claim that they have not avowed the consequences set forth above. But the sad truth is: (1) They have been positively influenced by Liberalism, particularly by Neo-orthodoxy; (2) they have imbibed the premises of Ecumenicism: (3) they share the assumptions of the very Humanism which they decry, whether they have acknowledged their consequences or not. We do not charge that they believe in Humanism per se, but that what they believe and teach leads logically, consistently to Humanism-a humanistic universalism. Dodd deserves every bit of the “special tribute” these men can give. The reader can judge for himself as to the validity of our evaluation. At any rate, these are the reasons we have fought and shall fight so hard against the new grace-unity movement (which has the gospel-doctrine distinction as a keystone). These are the reasons we have urgently warned brethren about those in our midst who have swallowed Ketcherside’s error.

The Gospel-Doctrine Distinction: Shattered Keystone

An important keystone of Ketcherside’s teaching is the supposed distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine.” In fact, this distinction has been so stressed that when it is shattered “there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” He has repeatedly asserted that “gospel” and “doctrine” differ in content, that their dissemination requires separate offices, and that they are presented to two entirely different classes of people. This is made of prime importance in his teaching on Grace-Unity-Fellowship. God’s grace covers all who accept the “gospel” regardless of what they believe or practice in the separate realm of “doctrine.” Thus the widest “doctrinal” diversity is acceptable to God, but there is unity in diversity” because men uniformly accept one gospel.” Ketcherside is bold in affirming this distinction, but he is among those who understand “neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). Ketcherside thinks his position is impregnable in Scripture, but we shall root out, destroy, and thrown down his distinction by Scripture (Jer. 1:10).

In the first place, since Ketcherside is so impressed by Dodd’s scholarly support, we might notice that Dodd has been raked over the coals by other scholars. Dodd and others have tried to establish a distinction between gospel and doctrine on the bases that they differ in content (one being the recital of historic events, the other interpretations, deductions, and applications), in the location where spoken (one spoken in open fields, public forums, and other “missionary” locales, whereas the other spoken only where saints gathered-or earlier in the synagogues), in the activity involved (one being emotional ejaculation, the other intellectual instruction), or in the persons addressed (one strictly for the uninitiated, for sinners, the other only for those who have accepted the first message and desire fuither instruction). Dodd’s thesis has suffered at the hands of Robert H. Mounce (who said that “‘preaching’ as used by Mark and Luke is sufficiently broad to include teaching.'”), Krister Stendalil (argued that “gospel” might include exhortation and ethical instruction as well as event narrative), John J. Vincent (said, “The didache was (he gracious kerygma of God. The kerygma was that The didache described God.”), Floyd V. Filson (“The preacher had to teach as he preached; the two tasks could not be separated . . . “), Hermann Diem (“There can be no rigid line of demarcation between” gospel and doctrine.), Bo Reicke (Teaching is a form of preaching, each overlapping with the other in instruction, edification, and invitation.), Ragnar Asting (who attacked Dodd’s thesis of the evolutionary development of “doctrine” following on the heels of “gospel”), Hans Werner Bartsch (denied Dodd’s thesis that “doctrine” developed when Jesus failed to return), Henry J. Cadbury (denied necessity for Christ to fail to return in order for “doctrine” to be stated), Harold Riensenfeld (said the content of the two did not differ), H. G. Wood (argued that primitive belief was “an inseparable combination of kerygma and didache.”), John H. P. Reurnaim (calls “Paul’s Epistles . . . kerygma continuing his initial preaching . . .”), and Joachim Jeremias (who said didache is not simply an outer ring around keiygma).

Robert C. Worley’s Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church traces out the review of Dodd by the above men, then concludes in summary, “In the more recent comments on Dodd’s original ideas, there is less conviction that the content of preaching and the content of teaching are so distinctive that they can be separated into their own unique forms.” The “two major ideas” which have emerged are “that no fundamental distinctions can be made between the content of preaching and the content of teaching,” or “that differences can be made between types of content, but these are inseparable in their presentation. The materials are so woven together in their necessary relationships that it is mistaken and inaccurate to separate them” (see pp. 38-83). Worley comments on the effort of some to find the supposed distinction even in Judaism. After including Acts 15:21 (“For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues,”,) in his discussion, he concludes in summary,

“Neither preaching nor teaching denotes a distinct style or kind of activity, These words refer to the variety of activities that took place as the congregation was exhorted, instructed, and edified. It cannot be claimed on the basis of existing evidence that preaching was a more spiritual, emotional, or vigorous activity than teaching, or that preaching was a missionary activity while teaching was for the local congregation. These distinctions cannot be made on the basis of the existing evidence.”

It would be a mistake to pass off Worley and the others cited as “the expected defense made by conservatives and legalists,” because these men basically represent one generation of Liberals reviewing the work of another generation of Liberals. Obviously Ketcherside’s attempt to bolster his gospel-doctrine distinction by appeal to the accepted conclusions of sound Biblical scholarship, is a failure.

Truth Magazine XX: 38, pp. 598-602
September 23, 1976

Conversion: Baptism is a Burial

By Cecil Willis

In our last lesson we addressed ourselves toward a discussion of the Greek word baptidzo, from which our English word “baptize” is derived. It was seen from over one hundred different Greek scholars that this word could mean but one thing in substance, and that is a burial. Therefore we have called this lesson, “Baptism is a Burial.”

The First “Baptism”

It is our purpose in this lesson to notice the way in which the word “baptize” is consistently used in the Scriptures. It would be well for us to notice the first baptism of which the Bible speaks. Paul spoke of this baptism in 1 Cor. 10:1,2. In this passage it is clearly seen that baptism is a burial, and cannot be sprinkling or any other act. “For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Notice that Paul said that this event may be spoken of as a baptism. It should be noticed that Paul was not using this instance as New Testament baptism as commanded by Christ. This baptism was not to receive the remission of their sins, as is ours, but here it may be seen that the act of baptism is a burial. All surely remember the occasion of which Paul was speaking at this time, but let us very briefly rehearse the major events. The Israelites had gone into Egyptian captivity. God had promised to deliver them from this bondage inasmuch as He had heard their cries. Moses was chosen to be the leader in this deliverance. It finally was necessary for God to send the plagues upon Pharoah and the Egyptians before they would grant God’s people permission to leave, but finally when they were given the authority to leave, Pharoah pursued them with the army of Egypt. The Scripture says that God led them by day with a cloud and by night with a pillar of fire. With the Egyptian army bearing upon them, just as it appeared as though the Israelites were about to be driven into the sea, or be devoured by the swords of the Egyptians, Moses, the deliverer, stretched his hand out over the waters of the Red Sea, and they parted: “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and Jehovah caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left” (Ex. 14:21,22).

Paul said that these people were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. The cloud was above them, and as thev went through the sea, it is said that the water made a wall on each side of them. They were beneath the cloud and in the sea. They were covered by the cloud, with the sea forming a wall on each side of them. This shows that baptism must be overwhelming, a covering up, It would be interesting to hear one who says that baptism is sprinkling or even pouring, try to explain this passage, and show someone how it was that the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. It is conclusively seen that the baptism here is a burial.

John’s Baptism

Chronologically, the next significant baptism recorded, is that of John the Baptist, who preached in the wilderness of Judea, preparatory for the coming of the Lord. There were many that went out unto him, and that were baptized at his hands. Matthew says: “Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:5,6). Much of John’s baptizing was done in the Jordan River. While it is readily admitted that the fact that John baptized in the river is not conclusive and deductive proof that baptism is an immersion, yet it is plain that it was not likely sprinkling. If John had only sprinkled his converts, he could have carried a small container with him that only held a quart or so, and sprinkled or “baptized” thousands. But it is said that he baptized in”Anon, near to Salim, because there was much water there” (Jn. 3:23). Regardless of the act that John performed, it was one that required much water. Neither sprinkling, nor pouring require much water. One might sprinkle an individual with only three or four drops of water, or he might pour only a cup of water upon him, yet satisfy the meaning of the words sprinkle or pour. Yet, neither of these acts require much water. Whatever John did to the people, it required much water.

Were it not for the fact that baptism is a burial, or an immersion, John’s title would have no meaning. When you speak of John the Baptist, you are speaking of John the Immerser. Some years ago, a denomination made a translation of the Bible and each time they came to John the Baptist, rather than translating it John the Baptist, they translated it John the Immerser, which is a very accurate translation. They tried to recall all of these Bibles, though, for when they translated John’s title the Immerser, rather than the Baptist, they bad translated their name out of the Bible. John’s baptism was an immersion, or a burial.

Baptism of Suffering

In Matt. 20:20-28, Jesus spoke of another baptism, which is called the baptism of suffering. With His divine foresight, it was possible for Him to look ahead a few days to the terrible agonies and pains through which He was to go on the cross, and these sufferings, Jesus calls a baptism. It means that he was to be covered or overwhelmed in suffering. Baptism here bears the same connotation, that of a burial.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit and in Fire

John the Baptist said “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Matt. 3:11). In both these baptisms mentioned in this verse, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and also the baptism of the fire, baptism means the same thing. On the day of Pentecost when the apostles were, baptized with the Holy Spirit, they were overwhelmed, or engulfed with the Holy Spirit. At the last day, those that are rejected will be baptized with fire. They will be overwhelmed in fire.

Regardless of when or how the word is used, it still means the same thing. Baptism cannot mean anything other than immersion. In many instances in secular history, the word baptize occurs, and each time it means to sink or immerse. For example: a great battle might be spoken of, and it is said that so many ships were baptized. In other words, a certain number of ships were sunk. No matter how you use the word, it still means the same thing. It always means a burial.

The Baptism of Christ

In the third chapter of John’s gospel, we read the account of a discussion that Christ had with Nicodemus, the ruler of the Jews. Men have come to call this discourse “the discourse on the new birth,” Even though men have, not been in complete agreement as to what the Lord meant by some of the words he used, there has been virtually universal agreement on others. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). When Christ referred to the birth of the spirit, men have been somewhat in disagreement as to what he meant, but almost all admit that when he spoke of the birth of water, he meant baptism. Some who do not want to admit that baptism is a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God might differ with this, but all reputable scholars admit that Christ was speaking of baptism on this occasion, and referred to it as a “birth of water” necessary to one’s salvation.

When Christ spoke of the “birth of water,” He gave us a definition of the act of baptism. This expression, “birth of water,” rules out both the acts of sprinkling and pouring as being baptism, for they could not be spoken of as a birth. In some sense Jesus was saying that baptism resembles a natural birth. “Natural birth contemplates delivery, so when a man is born of water, he must be delivered from or come forth out of it. As he cannot be delivered from or come forth out of that in which he has never been, it follows that a man must be placed in water before he can be delivered from. or born of it. Hence, in order to be born of water, a man must be immersed in it that he may emerge from it. But what resemblance to a birth has sprinkling or pouring water upon any one? Can a man be born of a substance less than himself? Such a thing is impossible with everyone save him who practices sprinkling or pouring water as baptism. (Actually, it is impossible with them too, but they are not willing to admit it. No one can be, born of anything smaller than himself. That should be admitted by all.) How a grown man or woman may be born of a drop or a spoonful of water is a mystery which needs explanation” (Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pg. 322). So even here, Christ taught that only immersion can be baptism, for only immersion may be spoken of as a birth.

Let us notice another instance in which baptism is shown to be immersion. In speaking of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, Luke said, “And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more; for he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:36-39). Let us observe how this baptism took place. They came unto the water, which means nothing more than they arrived at a certain water. Then they commanded the chariot to stand still, got out of the chariot, and went down into the water. Philip baptized him, and tben they came up out of the water. Remember that the word “baptize” means to immerse, or Submerge, Now then, these questions? Did Philip and the Ethiopian go down into the water, and there Philip sprinkled a few drops of water on the nobleman? It is possible for those who sprinkle and pour for baptism, to speak of their baptism as this eunuch’s is spoken of? Is it possible for the administrator and the candidate to go down into and come up out of the water when one is sprinkled a few dfops of water on the nobleman? Is it for two people to go down into and come up out of a few drops of a jar full of water? The answer to all these questions is an unequivocal, “No!” We may look elsewhere in the New Testament and see exactly what Philip did to the eunuch when they went into the water.

“Buried . . . in Baptism”

Paul said, “having been buried with him in baptism, litrein ye .vere also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). What is baptism? It is a burial. Any act that may not be described as a burial is not baptism. Paul says: “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3,4). In both these passages Paul affirms that baptism is a burial. We were buried with Christ in baptism into death.

I have talked with men on different occasions who teach that sprinkling and pouring, as well as immersion may be baptism. Sometimes they will say that they do not know what the act of baptism is. I have asked them to let nie read to them two passages, Col. 2:12, and Rorn. 6:3,4, and then I will let them tell me what baptism is, in these passages it is said that baptism is a burial. Never have I had anyone tell me that sprinkling or pouring is a burial. Paul said baptism is a burial. Now, is sprinkling or pouring a burial? If not, then they are not baptism.

What would you think if you went out to the cemetery to witness the burial of a body, and instead of burying the body, a man were to walk up and sprinkle a handful of dirt on it? If you walked up to him, and asked hini why he did not bury the body, and he answered, “Oh, but I did bury it”, what would you say? The point I am trying to bring out is that sprinkling and pouring are not burials, but baptism is. Immersion is a burial, and immersion is the only act that is baptism.

Paul said in Romans 6 that when we obey the gospel, our actions are similar to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, He said that we have died to sin, are buried with Christ in baptism, and are raised to walk in newness of life. At the time that we are baptized, we are dead to the practice of sin, having repented, but are yet alive to the guilt of sin. We are baptized to have the guilt removed. We see, therefore, that only immersion is baptism, and that if you were sprinkled or had water poured on you, you were not baptized. We beseech you to die to sin by repenting, to be buried with Christ in baptism for the remission of sins, and then be raised to walk the life of the spirit, having quit the life of the flesh.

Truth Magazine XX: 38, pp. 595-596
September 23, 1976

Why Denominations Exist

By Dennis L. Shaver

Denominationalism is one of the greatest evils ever to face mankind. Through this device Satan offers false hope to an innumerable host of individuals. Have you ever wondered why such institutions came into existence and how they are perpetuated? Why does the cry for oneness of our Savior fall upon deaf ears? Why do so many accept the way of denominationalism? I am sure that these are questions continually in the mind of sincere Christians. Perhaps if we understood the reasons, or attitudes, behind denominationalism we could better defeat it. I would like to suggest the following reasons, or attitudes, behind denominationalism.

Denominations Exist Through Man’s Ignorance

Every individual has at least one area in which he is ignorant. Among the many things of which I am ignorant is electricity. When I do battle with electricity, I end up the loser. The times have been many when my ignorance concerning electricity gave me a “little tingle.” However, ignorance does not have to continue, unless I allow it. It can be easily corrected with knowledge.

Ignorance of God’s Word caused denominations to begin and it fans their flame today. Ignorance of the Lord’s will will cause man to devise his own ways of righteousness and to ignore the way of God. The apostle Paul said, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:1-3). When man is ignorant of God’s way of salvation and righteousness he seeks his own ways and fails to submit himself to Almighty God. This is what denominations do-they fail io submit themselves to God. I do not mean to say they do it purposely. Many times they fail to realize, as did the Jews, their wrongs. Jeremiah said that the way of man is not in himself. Those who would perpetuate denominations fail to realize this important fact, for they are trying to reach God through ignorance instead of submission.

There is a way to remedy this problem. Study. If we are to rightly divide the word of God we must study it, know it, and understand it (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Cor. 14:20; Jn. 8:31,32). As long as men continue in ignorance of the Bible, denominations will continue to stand and grow larger. We need to encourage men everywhere to study their Bibles. As the apostle Peter declared, “. . . to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of life” (Jn. 6:68).

Because of Man’s Pride-Solomon stated that pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before the fall. So it is with denominations. Man is a creature that places much pride in his own creations and would rather “go down with the ship” than admit error. According to history, both Alexander Hamilton and his son died in pistol duels over a matter they knew they were wrong about, yet because of pride neither would admit wrong. Many in denominations know they are wrong, but rather than admit it they will lose their soul to the devil.

Denominations look with pride upon their accomplishments, from social work to large buildings and youth organizations. In many instances denominations are nothing more than a social club. When men build human organizations, and use their own wisdom in such building, they point to this thing he has done with great pride. Denominations depend upon such pride as their life’s blood, rather than the blood of our Lord.

As long as man puts pride before obedience, denominations will exist and prosper. Men must be taught that submission and obedience will please God, not human pride. The works man can point to with pride are not the works of God which lead to righteousness. We cannot take credit for the works we perform, for they are ordained of God (Eph. 2:10). The works of a Christian are not of his own making, but they are of the direction of God. As the apostle Paul stated, “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me: yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).

Christians can be thankful they are members of the body of Christ, the church of Christ. However, we cannot look with pride to the church, for it is not of our own making. God purposed it before man ever existed, and without the help of man. Christ died before it could come into existence. The Spirit had to reveal the plan of God unto man before he could know the mind of God. Without the purpose of God, the sacrifice of Christ, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, man would still be without salvation, groping to find more than this life. Let us teach men to look to God and his divine organization, the church. Teach all men to submit themselves to the Lord of all, and obey with gratitude His will.

The defeat of ignorance and pride will do much in wiping away all denominations, no matter what name they wear. In the next article we will discuss two more attitudes of denominationalism.

Truth Magazine XX: 37, p. 588
September 16, 1976