CHAPTER XXXIX

DENOMINATIONALISM

Party Names Condemned. Are Denominations Branches of the Church of Christ? Nature of Union.

In the next place we would state that party names have a tendency to keep believers apart and cause divisions. Human names must go with human creeds. Christians can no more unite upon a human name than upon a human creed. The names of the ecclesiastical organizations condemn the bodies to which they are applied. Not one of them can be found in the New Testament. We read of the Church, the Churches of Christ, the Church of God, disciples of Christ, and Christians, but not of Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Methodist churches. Yet men will cling to such names and glory in them, as if they had all the authority of inspiration. Party names are condemned by inspiration. Paul thus reproves the Corinthians: "For whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?" a Here he not only condemns all divisions among Christians but declares that they have no right to follow men and I Cor. iii. 3.

a

wear human names. The names Calvinists, Wesleyans, Lutherans, and such like, should be discarded by every believer in the Christ. We are told that the Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. In what a position does this figure place those who accept some other name than Christian. Suppose a married lady would take some other name than that of her husband, would this not be dishonoring and rejecting him ? And is it not dishonoring the Lord for the Bridethe Church-the Lamb's Wife, to take a human name?

There are some who apologize for these different names. They illustrate the Church of Christ by a tree and call the different denominations branches. They include in these branches all orthodox or evangelical denominations. Now, it requires but little discernment to see that if all the orthodox churches are branches of the tree the tree has no trunk or body. If they are all branches of Christ's church, where is Christ's church. Such a tree is all branches and has no trunk. These churches are called branches of Christ's church, but there are no such branches mentioned by inspiration. Jesus Christ says not a word about these branch institutions. He says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches," speaking to His individual members, "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. . . . . If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered." a Not a "church" but a "man" is cast forth. Christ is the body, each individual Christian is a member of a John xv. 5, 6.

that body. These unauthorized denominations then are not branches of Christ's church. No one of these denominations is the Church of Christ because they only claim to be branches, and His Church has no branches of this kind. a

It may now be asserted that the Methodist faith, the Presbyterian faith, and the Episcopal faith are not necessary to save anybody. But this does not prove that none among these parties will be saved, for those who are saved are saved not by denominational faith but by faith in Christ. All parties admit that a man can be a Christian and not a Methodist, Presbyterian, or an Episcopalian. All admit that the first followers of Christ did not belong to any of these parties, and they were Christians. The object now should be to make men Christians, disciples of Christ, children of God, and nothing more.

In the fourth place we notice the nature of the union for which Christ prayed. He prayed that they might be one as He and His Father are one. How, then, is Christ and His Father one. Certainly not one identical being or person, for two believers are not one in this sense. But Paul tells us in what sense believers

are one. He says, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." In

a In using certain denominational names it is not the intention to specialize them, but for illustration.

bi Cor. i. 10.

Acts it is more clearly expressed: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul." Then those who believed in Christ should be one, not in regard to personal identity but one in mind, one in judgment, one in heart and soul. In this sense God and Christ are one. For believers are to be one even as they are one.

Again, it is objected, that believers may be visibly divided yet invisibly united. But an invisible union and an invisible church is something unknown to the Scriptures. The union the Savior prayed for was of the most intimate kind-such as existed between Himself and the Father. The first Christians were exhorted to live together in union. Paul said, "Let there be no divisions among you." He would not allow the Christians to be divided unless they could show that Christ was divided. Hence he says to the Corinthians, who called themselves after different men, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” He did not say, it is right so you are invisibly united. The first Christians, then, were visibly united. They were united in feelings, desires, aims, objects, interests, under one leader and governor, and such should be the union now among all believers.

Fifth. In the last place we notice the object of Christian union. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in a Acts iv. 32. b 1 Cor. i. 13.

us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." It cannot be too deeply impressed that the union is absolutely essential to the conversion of the world. It is plainly implied here, that if those who believed on Christ were one the world would believe. Nor is this any more plainly implied than that lack of union among believers causes unbelief. How vain, then, the thought that the existing parties of our times can ever succeed in converting the world when the structure of their own organizations weakens or destroys faith.

How comparatively futile are all missionary enterprises. How delusive the hope of saving the world when those who profess to serve the Lord are parted asunder. Can this be called an ungenerous charge when the Lord Jesus makes the faith of the world depend upon the unity of believers, and all admit that the world can not be saved without faith? The Lord implied that the world would not believe until his people were one. Hence He prayed that they might be one that the world might believe. Can Christians send missionaries to convince pagan nations? Can they print and circulate Bibles? Can they build up churches and preach with the zeal of the apostles in all the earth? Can they do all this, thinking to convert the world, while divisions are maintained? And if they do, what evidence have they that the object will ever be attained? It is true that some may be converted and saved under all these disadvantages, but what is this in comparison to the world believing? Why not, then, all labor for union? Why not