Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

There are many different religious organizations in existence in our country this day. A multitude of differences separate and divide these religious groups. Yet they have one thing in common. They each have a creed. The English word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo,” which means “I believe.” Strictly speaking, a “creed” would only be what one believes. The dictionary defines “creed” as being “a brief, authoritative formula of religious belief.” The Church of Christ has a creed, but it is very unlike the creeds of denominationalism. Its creed, that which we believe, is the New Testament. It has no other creed. But almost without exception, religious organizations founded by men have a man-written creed.

During the time that I have been preaching I have continually run into this difficulty: most of the people in denominational churches are not even aware of the fact that their church has a man-made creed. And this creed is, as the dictionary said, “a brief, authoritative formula of religious belief.” It is considered to be authoritative in these different churches. Different denominations call their creeds by different names. Some will speak of a “Discipline,” some of their “Confession of Faith,” others will speak of their “Rule of Faith and Practice,” some have a “Manual.” But just about every denominational church that I have encountered has a man-made creed of some kind. If you are a member of a denominational church, let me suggest that you get hold of a copy of the creed of your church. I have copies of the “Creeds” of most of the more prominent churches. You will be surprised to find some of the things taught in your creed.

In order to be admitted to many denominational churches, one has first to confess allegiance to the creed. He has to promise to abide by the decrees of the creed-writing council. Remember, these creeds purport to be an authoritative statement of religious faith for that particular denomination. If you do not believe what is authoritatively stated in your creed book, the church to which the creed belongs is no proper place for you. But even more than that, if the church to which you belong has a man-made creed, you are not in the right church. The church of the Lord has a divinely written creed-book, the New Testament. Churches of Christ do not have man-made creeds.

Objections to Creeds

There are certain very weighty objections that are to be made against the practice of creed-making. These objections are applicable to any specific creed written by man. (1) First, let us point out that it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps (Jer. 10:23). Had man been able to write his own creed book, there would have been no need for God to reveal His revelation. Solomon gave us a very timely warning on this point when he said, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). Isaiah, the prophet, reiterated this same truth in this language: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. 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). The best that you can say about your creed is that it is written by the best men in your church. But observe the difference. Your creed is written by men; that which I believe, my creed, is written by God, through inspired writers. Regardless of how good men may be, they yet are unable to improve upon what God has already said to us. The apostle Paul pointed out the futility of trusting in men in 1 Cor. 1. “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe …. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:18-21,25). That which is often mere foolishness in the sight of man is great wisdom with God. And that which is often wisdom in the views of men is mere foolishness with God. A group of men whom the world deems to be wise may write a creed that “seems right unto a man,” but the ends thereof are the ways of death. The best you can say of these creeds is that they contain the combined wisdom of a group of fallible men. And this is not enough to guide you from earth to heaven.

(2) A second reason why men should not be engaged in the nefarious business of creed-writing is because it impeaches the wisdom of God. Why do men need to write a creed? Is it because God did not do a good enough job when he wrote the New Testament? Did He omit things that the creed-writing committee can prove should have been inserted into His revelation? Every time a meeting is held with the intention of writing a creed for a group professing to be followers of Christ, God is slurred. Was God not wise enough to give us an adequate revelation?

(3) And if one does not impeach the wisdom of God, but should still insist that a conclave of men needs to write a creed by which they shall be guided in their religious life if God’s wisdom is not impeached, His goodness must be. If God could give us an adequate revelation, and did not, why did He not? Was it because He was not good enough? Did He purposely clothe His revelation in such ambiguous language that it remained for the creed-makers to make plain for the first time what God meant?

(4) The practice of writing creeds censures the revelation of the Spirit. It says that the Bible is inadequate. There were no such creeds in the New Testament era. There were no “Church Manuals,” or “Disciplines,” or “Confessions of Faith” in the New Testament period. None of these creed-books is older than the denomination for which it speaks authoritatively. And none of these denominations can be traced back more than a very few hundred years. How did the New Testament Church get along without these creeds? The simple truth is that they got along quite well with the revelation of the Spirit, which is recorded in the New Testament. It contains all that you could ever want or need. Human creeds slander the Bible by insinuating that it is inadequate.

But if the New Testament makes anything plain, it is that it is all-sufficient. To say that the New Testament is all-sufficient is to say that it is equal to the end proposed. Now it is true that the New Testament does not tell one how to operate a man-made church, for it was never proposed for that purpose. It was intended to tell one how to enter, and live in the Lord’s church in such a way as to go to heaven when he dies. Paul said, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The Bible is complete, perfect. It does not need supplementation from any group of men. It is God’s revelation just as God gave it, and man had’better leave it like it is. Peter said, “seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). The Bible grants all things that pertain to life and godliness. My friends, if I know my heart like I think I do, that is all that I am interested in. The message in the Scriptures is adequate to save. What more does one need? What more should one want? James said, “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). If God’s word does what it says it does, then the creeds of men are not needed. If the Scriptures are adequate for our salvation, what more could a creed-writing committee give us? Yet nearly every denomination has undertaken to write its own creed.

(5) A fifth objection to the creeds of men is this: if they should contain more or less than the Bible, they are to be rejected, and if they contain only the Bible, they are unnecessary. If I were to ask a member of a denominational church which creed I should accept, I am sure he would tell me to accept the one that is nearest like the Bible. The Bible tells us “if any man shall add unto them (prophecies of this book), God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19). One must neither add to nor take from the words of the Bible. If a creed contains mote than the Bible, it contains too much, and is therefore to be rejected. But if a creed contains less than the Bible, it contains too little, and therefore must be rejected. But suppose a group of men were able to construct a creed that contains no more or no less than the Bible, what would be its additional value. It would be unnecessary. If it says only what the Bible says, why not accept the inspired word of God rather than the product of men? There is no reason that can be given that is sufficient to justify the efforts of the creed-makers.

Arguments Favoring Creeds

While there really has never been a valid reason given for the writing of creeds, there have been several attempts made to justify the writing of them. (1) Probably the most frequently stated reason for the writing of creeds is that they are plainer than the Bible. They can reduce to fewer statements the word of God. However, one can have much more difficulty understanding what the creeds say than understanding what the Bible says. And they are not as simple as these men would have us believe. For example once I saw a book advertisement concerning a ten-volume series of books by Herman Hoeksema that had just been completed on the Heidelberg Catechism, the Reformed Confession of 1563. To assert that the creeds written by men are plainer than the Bible inspired of God, is to cast reflection either upon the power or the goodness of God. The Bible claims that it is a book that can be understood by men. Either it is, or it makes a false claim. Jesus said, “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (Jn. 7:17).

(2) The second reason given for the writing of creeds is an absurdity. We are told that the creeds are necessary to unity. I wonder if the New Testament church never had any unity before the writing of the creeds. In fact, my friends, I know of nothing that has caused more division than the creeds and councils of men. If we can never achieve unity until creeds are written, the New Testament is defective. There are now, perhaps, a few hundred creeds and catechisms in existence, and yet we are a long way from having unity. Actually, every new creed gives birth to a new religious sect. This seems to be a pretty poor way to create unity. In John 17 we find a record of one of our Lord’s prayers. When praying for the disciples, He said, “Neither for these (apostles) only 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, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jno. 17:20,21). The unity of the disciples depends upon the words of the apostles, not upon the dictates of the creed-writers.

Conclusion

The church of Christ is of divine, not human origin. No man started it. Christ was its builder. It is not of recent origin. One has to go back to 33 A.D. to find its beginning. It was started on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Being divine in its beginning, it likewise has a divine charter. Its rule of faith and practice was not drawn up by a group of uninspired wise men. Rather, its guide-book, the Bible, was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. They spoke not from themselves, but spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21), not in words which man’s wisdom taught, but which the Spirit taught, combining spiritual thoughts with the spirit given words (1 Cor. 2:13). This is our only creed. And any deviation from it must be protested and halted. We must speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 867-870
December 4, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Missouri: “Is it scriptural to celebrate Christmas in any way? Do you think giving of gifts, sending cards, and a Christmas tree are contrary to scriptural authority? Would the above fall under the discussion of Romans 14? Would the observing of any of the customs above be forbidden by Galatians 4:10,11?”

REPLY:

Our inquirer readily recognizes that the birth of Christ is not to be especially honored on December 25, the day called “Christmas.” Although there is controversy among Christians relative to the queries presented, there is no saint known to me who sanctifies December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth. We shall dispense and dispose with that aspect since it is not germane to the issues we entertain in these questions.

Warnings Against Worldly Abuses

Christmas is more than a day. It is a season. It possesses a spirit, and not all of it is good. Frankly, much of it is evil. ” ‘Tis the season to be dolly,” the song says, but ’tis also the season for folly, for licentious, lascivious behavior. Drunkenness, revelings, banquetings, and excesses of all forms abound. Christians who will not join the drinking and unchaste words arid ways of an “office party,” will frequently indulge in gluttony which they label as “indigestion” or scale down to the relative propriety of “over eating.” “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them …. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:11, 15-18).

The First Three Questions

The first two questions essentially constitute one question. One may, as a citizen, celebrate many holidays. Yes, “holiday” comes from “holy day,” but that is not its general use. (Does “Holiday Inn” indicate “Holy Day Inn?”)

The giving of gifts is optional. One could make a sin of it by extravagant, debt-causing spending and giving. Again, Christians often are guilty in this regard. Their giving to the Lord shrinks while they play Santa Claus. Their abuses, though, do not negate the right for me to give gifts to friends and relatives. I do not give presents to honor the birth of Christ. The purpose of the gift determines its scripturalness. If I give a gift because gifts were given to Christ at his birth (Matt. 2:11), and if I say I am doing this in honor of Christ who was born “on Christmas Day,” I would be doing wrong (Matt. 28:20; Gal. 1:8, 9). But if I decide to give toys boys at a set time every year, that is my privilege.

Personally, we do not send cards during the Christmas holidays. Certain ones are not objectionable, but one must use judgment and discretion lest he grant spiritual credence to Christmas by the cards he sends. Some Christmas cards are so religiously oriented and tainted with the myths of Catholicism and Protestantism that my family could not and would not send them, even if we had such a practice. Such cards identify one with the false teachings and religious traditions of men (Eph. 5:11).

A Christmas tree does not necessarily reflect that one believes December 25th is Jesus’ birthday. A “manger scene” does perhaps, but having a Christmas tree, sending cards and giving gifts does not necessarily honor Christmas as a religious holy day. Atheists and infidels have trees in their homes, send cards and give gifts. Does any one assume from this that they have suddenly “got religion?” No, why? Because Christmas is not totally regarded as a religious day. If one takes the position that he cannot celebrate Christmas as a civil holiday, how can he agree to take the day off work? Is he honoring the birth of Jesus by not working on December 25th?

Some do not choose to give gifts, send cards, or have a tree in their home during Christmas holidays. That is their prerogative. Certain principles from Romans 14 are applicable. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). One must not condemn his brother, or his conscience. He must not cause his brother to stumble, to offend, to be made weak by his actions.

Some Oft Heard Objections

(1) “One cannot separate the civil from the religious atmosphere at Christmas.” I think I can and do. Unbelievers, on the other side of the spiritual spectrum, do also. They observe the day and its customs without religious significance, and I can do likewise. Again, if one cannot separate the civil from the religious, he is “religiously” observing the birth of Christ if he takes the day off work.

(2) “The world looks upon your tree, cards, and gifts as being emblematic of your belief in Christmas as the Lord’s birth.” Not all do, and those who do so make a false and unwarranted assumption. We have turkey and dressing every Thanksgiving. Someone may imagine from this that I believe Thanksgiving is a religious holy day. I cannot prevent all misconceptions of this nature. Remember the infidel. His neighbors know he has no faith in Christ, and a tree, cards, and gifts do not tell them he does have. The neighbors of a Christian know where he stands with regard to December 25th, and a tree, cards, and gifts do not destroy his teaching.

(3) “The very word `Christmas’ involves one in honor of pagan, heathen and Catholic superstitions.” Tuesday is the day of Tyr, Norse god of war. Wednesday comes from Woden, a Norse god. Thursday is the day of Thor, Norse god of war and brother of Tyr (Tuesday). Friday is the day of Freya, Norse goddess of marriage. Saturday is a derivative of Saturn. Should one cease to mention the names of the days of the week because of their origin? The same could be said for January, March, May, and June, for they are named after Roman gods and goddesses. Do these very words include one in honor of pagan gods?

Galatians 4:10, 11 Applicable?

“Ye observe days, months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10, 11). These texts, in principle, would be to the point if one revered Christmas as the birth of Christ. Paul is dealing with Judaizers who bind Jewish holy days as essential to faithfulness (Gal. 4:9). Gentiles, too, were being turned to the “bondage” of the law and to Jewish fables and festivals (Gal. 4:21). One could “observe” no day, month, time, or year and make it mandatory to holiness and acceptance before God. To do so would be to step beyond the bounds of Divine authority, to Christmas as walk without God. That is as true of it is of Easter and the Sabbath.

However, to say it applies to all observances of all days is to misapply the passage. Such a view would preclude and prohibit the notice of Memorial Day, Armistice Day, Groundhog Day, Thanksgiving, Lincoln’s birth, ad infinitum. One could not even acknowledge his own birthday if that view were taken! A parallel may simplify and clarify. Jesus said, “Call no man your father upon the earth” (Matt. 23:9). There is no religious or spiritual sense in which I may call a man “father.” From another standpoint, though, I can call a man “father” (Heb. 12:9; Matt. 10:37), even though Jesus said “Call no man your father.” Surely, all understand this.

Galatians 4:10, 11, is relevant if I seek to bind any unauthorized day as an essential to fidelity unto the Lord, but it is not pertinent concerning civil or social days.

Truth Magazine XIX: 55, pp. 866-867
December 4, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

There is an extremely useful and profitable book in my library by F. W. Farrar entitled Texts Explained. It was purchased from a Methodist College Library after it had been “discarded.” The book was printed in 1899. It is yellow and musty with age. This informative and valuable book has approximately 15 per cent of its 372 pages still stuck together. Evidently when the book was published, the pages were not properly trimmed, thus, as I peruse the book, it is necessary for me to perform a little surgical separation. Now, imagine what that means. Here is a book that is more than three quarters of a century old, yet it has been ignored and neglected. Why else would many of the pages still be uncut? I cannot conceive of such a good book receiving such a good letting alone. If the book was of no use, I would not bother to trim the edges, but it is an excellent book to study.

How many of us allow good Bible study helps to remain closed? The pages may as well be sealed so far as we are concerned. Better (or should I say worse?) still, would it make much difference if the pages on your copy of the Bible were uncut? Would it bother you, would it be a hindrance if perhaps 15 per cent of the pages of your personal Bible were like the book I described? Texts Explained has been abandoned for years, at least, the copy I have has been, and that is a shame. If your Bible has been neglected, that is a sin.

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, p. 861
November 27, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

Many of the brethren are contending today that it is scriptural and right for the churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent “organizations” to do the work of caring for the needy that God has charged the church to do. This proposition has been debated numerous times between brethren all over the country though its proponents have evidently decided that it is unscriptural to debate or that it is unwise, for they seem no longer willing to mount the polemic rostrum and try to defend their “benevolent societies.” They have tried numerous methods of defending them and none has seemed to work.

Unscriptural Arguments for the Benevolent Societies

They have asserted that such organizations as they have formed, viz., Ontario Children’s Home; Boles Home, Inc., Tipton Home; Tennessee Orphan’s Home; Southern Christian Home; Sunny Glen Home; etc., are necessary because the civil law requires such organization in order that the church may care for its needy. This has been proven untrue and they have had to desert it. It is obvious to anyone with any conception of truth and right, that the requirement of it by the law would not make it scriptural, but it was resorted to when they had no Bible passage with which to defend their position. No federal or state law in this country requires the church to form a human organization for any reason. It would be unconstitutional if it did and it would still be unscriptural even if it were constitutional.

Then they tried the contention that such benevolent organizations were merely for the purpose of giving legal protection to those who directed its affairs and had the oversight of its work in case they were sued or prosecuted by someone. When it was shown that such corporate organizations were not merely for the purpose of holding title to property but were formed and actually functioning as the controlling and directing agency in the work being done and that the directors were empowered by their very charter, which gave the organization existence, to control and direct its work and, hence, it was entirely removed from any supervision or control by any church, they had to surrender this contention.

They argued that it was “kingdom business”-the actual work of the church being done by the church, and that the organization was only a method employed by the church by which to do its work, such as the Bible classes on the Lord’s Day. It was shown in answer to this that an organization is not a method but that an organization employs or uses methods. It was further pointed out that if the church can charter a human institution to do its work of benevolence scripturally, and such an organization was merely the work of the church in the field of benevolence, like the Bible classes are the work of the church in the field of teaching, then the Bible classes could be incorporated under a Board of Directors just like the benevolent organization and that such a board could be scripturally authorized to carry on and direct the work of teaching. This obviously got them in trouble with the brethren who charge that the Bible classes are a separate organization from the church and delivered these institutional brethren into their hands so they had to abandon that contention.

Are Such Societies “Homes?”

In the evolution of their attempts to defend these human benevolent societies they eventually got around to the argument that such institutions are actually and only “homes” and that the “home” is a divine organization, separate from the church, and that its function cannot be a part of the work of the church and therefore elders cannot oversee such an institution or work. Therefore, it must be under a Board of Directors. They further argued that such Board of Directors were actually the parents, in fact, of the children cared for. But they have found this position just as indefensible as all of the others. In answer to this sophistry it has been clearly established that such an institution or organization is not a “home” in any Bible sense even though they may be known by such names.

The English word “home” comes from different words in the original language of the Bible but in all of their usages there are only four senses: a. a place of residence; b. figuratively the family living in such a place of residence; c. the family plus the household servants living in such a place of residence; and d. the estate of such a family.

It should be easily discerned that any kind of a “benevolent organization” is not a “home” in any of these senses. The organization is not a “place of residence.” The charters of every one of these institutions state that such organization is formed in order to “provide a home” or place of residence for orphan or destitute children. Surely in no sense is the organization or Board of Directors a “place” of any kind.

Furthermore, such an organization is in no sense a “family.” God, who ordained marriage and the family relationship, gave it form just like He did the church. That is, the husband and wife relationship, out of which grows the parent’ and child relationship. This “benevolent organization” does not even generally resemble such a relationship. Who ever heard of a family with a “Board of Directors” organized into the form of “President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer,” etc.?

When it was argued that under the law, the Board of Directors of such an organization are “en loco parentis” and that such constituted a parent and child relationship, it was pointed out that such is purely a fictitious relationship. This board does not live with the children. They do not even live in close proximity to them. They have no common place of residence. More than that, the board only infrequently visits the children. They do not themselves provide for the children of whom they are supposedly the “parents.” They beg others to provide for them. They do not teach, train, nor care for the children, but hire others to do so. They do not perform the function of “parents” in any sense actually, but are the “legal guardians” of these children and that is all. More than all that, by the very expression “en loco parentis” is meant not “parents” but “in the stead or place of parents.” Many, in fact, most of these children have living parents, who either have deserted them, refused to care for them, or in some other way have failed in their duty.

Conclusion

Such organizations are not churches of Christ in any sense. Neither are they “homes” in any sense. What are they? They are humanly designed, state authorized, statute controlled, benevolent societies run by a Board of Directors. They have the same status with reference to the work God has given the church to do as the missionary society. If churches can build and maintain such benevolent organizations, there is no rule or reason that would make it wrong for’ them to build such organizations to do their work of evangelism. The missionary society is just as scriptural, and for the same reasons that make the benevolent society scriptural. It is a package deal-swallow one and you cannot “gag” at the other!

Truth Magazine XIX: 54, pp. 860-861
November 27, 1975