Our Basis for Unity
John 17:20-21
Introduction.
A few weeks ago, we answered a question in the Rutherford Weekly about denominations.
We taught that the Lord wants us to be united as He prayed for in John 17:20-21.
Our creeds and traditions, they divide us, so they should be rejected.
As in our class last week, we established that not all traditions are wrong, even if some are man-made.
But even if a benign man-made tradition divides us, perhaps it should be discarded.
Jesus said He came to bring a sword, but His sword only separates those who would do His will from those who won’t (Matt. 10:34ff).
So then we need a basis for unity.
Every club has a charter, every country a constitution.
The various denominations have their creeds and catechisms.
If we are to reject such things, what then holds us together?
What is our basis for unity?
Preview.
The Christian’s Creed.
The Holistic Hermeneutic.
The Absolute Authorization.
Body.
The Christian’s Creed.
Put plainly, the basis for Christian unity is God’s Word.
This is the only creed we need.
Some will object and say that creeds merely state beliefs in a concise, easy-to-read way while clarifying certain teachings.
That’s all well and good, but they can also be misleading.
There was a saying that became popular some years ago that’s very apropos: “If your creed contains more than the Bible, it contains too much. If it contains less than the Bible, it contains too little. If it contains only the Bible, it is unnecessary.”
The words of Jesus will be what judges us on the last day (John 12:48).
We recognize that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles who wrote the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).
So then the entire NT are the words of Jesus as relayed by the Holy Spirit and the Apostles.
The words in your creed will not judge me on the last day except where they quote Scripture.
We should put no man and no man’s words up on a pedestal save those of Scripture.
Only those who do His will can enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21), man-made creeds notwithstanding.
Only the Scriptures are God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
They are all we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I don’t need the Westminster Confession of Faith or anything of that nature to tell you what I believe.
This is the notion of Sola Scriptura, where the Scriptures alone serve as our sole authority as the Law of Christ.
But see almost every denomination claims to hold to Sola Scriptura.
Clearly we disagree on some fundamental things the Bible teaches.
This goes to our method of interpretation, or hermeneutics.
The Holistic Hermeneutic.
There are various hermeneutics out there, and they are not all created equal.
Prof. Dungan from Freed-Hardeman College counts nine different methods.
These range from, “It says what I feel like it should say,” to “It says what my denomination says it says,” to “It says what it literally says.”
All these are wrong—yes, even the literal one.
For example, Jesus said we should pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands if they cause us to sin—did He mean that literally, or was it an exaggeration showing the seriousness of sin?
We should take literally what was meant to be taken literally, while taking into consideration context, including genre, author, audience, and figures of speech.
We must also look at all of what Scripture has to say about something.
Unless you consider all of what Scripture has to say about salvation, for instance, you do not have the whole truth on the matter! (Psa. 119:160).
Prof. Dungan calls this the inductive method, where you take the specific instances and statements in Scripture and draw conclusions.
This style of interpretation is used in all manner of places, from the detective working a case, to the teacher tailoring her lesson for a specific student, to the manager who notices a higher quarterly returns altering an ad campaign.
For some reason, people use such logic all throughout their daily lives, but when it comes to Scripture, they refuse to apply it.
There are several reasons for this.
For many, they might have never thought about it before.
It never crossed their mind.
They do what they do and believe what they believe because they always have.
But such people are not growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18), and they are not examining themselves, either (2 Cor. 13:5).
It’s a tradition that they were born into and haven’t considered alternatives—they don’t look at things critically.
Some can be taught, but many are quite comfortable where they are—too complacent. And complacency is very dangerous.
Many believe that religion is more something you feel than you reason.
Isaiah invited his primary audience to reason together (Isa. 1:18).
He uses solid reasoning for his arguments, particularly against idols.
We see such reasoning throughout Scripture.
In Paul’s journeys, he reasoned with people on many occasions (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 24:25).
In fact, he insisted he spoke the words of “truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).
We, too, are to have an answer for anyone who asks the reason for our hope (1 Pet. 3:15).
What we feel isn’t enough—God’s people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge (Hos. 4:6), and having zeal is great, but not if it lacks knowledge (Rom. 10:2).
What we study should inform how we feel, not the other way around.
Emotions are fickle things and a poor guide—as you can ask anyone who has stayed in a relationship far longer than they should have.
Our faith needs to be built on something more sturdy—God’s Word.
This does not mean we will always agree on everything.
The Bible itself admits there are things that are doubtful (Rom. 14:1).
These are left to matters of opinion or things that are optional.
We must allow the Bible to tell us, however, what is optional and what is obligatory.
For instance, if we do not confess the name of Christ, is that really a big deal? Yes, because not confessing Him is the same as denying Him, and denying Christ before men means that He will deny us before the Father (Matt. 10:33).
You see, we must allow the Scriptures to determine such things.
On the other hand if you disagree with me on the chronology of the Judges, well, that’s a matter of opinion, isn’t it?
The Absolute Authorization.
One thing we must agree on is how the Bible authorizes.
If we do not agree on this, we will never agree on what Scriptures allow and forbid.
We tend to think of three ways in which the Bible authorizes.
I intend to have a whole sermon dedicated to these later on with plenty of examples—it is a subject worthy of its own sermon.
The three ways we have talked about before (abbr. CENI).
Command—some express this as a direct command.
This isn’t entirely accurate, either.
A better term would be the general term, statement—I hope you remembered some key things from English class.
For those of you still in school, that’s one reason why English and grammar is so important—to aid in biblical interpretation.
There are various types of statements that are applicable today.
You might recall from English class four different types of statements: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.
On the surface, imperative statements are the most obvious.
These are commands and if the Bible commands, then we should obey it, right?
That’s where our hermeneutic comes in.
Noah was told to build the ark and gather the animals (Gen. 6:14, 19), an imperative statement, though that’s not a command we are to obey.
We must determine what applies to us to determine what commands to obey.
This is true with the others as well, declarative and interrogative statements.
Declarative is simply a statement; interrogative is a question.
Really, the only difference between a declarative and an exclamatory is the emotion or urgency behind it, so it’s a matter of translator’s interpretation.
Dr. Thomas Warren identifies two other types of statement that are applicable: hortatory and conditional.
Hortatory statements express a wish or desire (e.g. Rom. 6:1-2).
Conditional statements are statements with an if/then aspect.
All these types of statements can be applicable to us today.
We will look at this in more detail later.
Example—some refer to this as an apostolic or an approve example.
Dr. Warren prefers the term “account of action” because he feels it to be more accurate.
In fact, they can be applicable to us to day, both in the OT and the NT.
We are told in 1 Cor. 10:11 to use such OT examples, or we might say counter-examples.
They were disobedient to the Lord, and we see through them what happens to those who are disobedient.
We see how they were tempted, and we can learn to avoid that temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).
Necessary inference—this may be the hardest to explain, but quite important.
One distinction: the Bible implies, we infer.
So a better word is teaching by implication.
This may seem odd to some—are we bound by things not explicitly stated, only implied?
Are we required to read between the lines, as some might put it?
Here’s an example: Are we to spread the gospel to others today? Yes! But where does it say that? Matt. 28:19-20. But in context that is a command to the Apostles, so why should it apply to us? Because they were told to teach all things that Jesus taught them, and He taught them to teach and make disciples. So by implication, we, too, are to spread that same gospel.
While often the least understood, authorization by implication is just as important, perhaps even more so.
Conclusion.
Interpreting the Scriptures is such an important thing for us to be able to do.
We teach it implicitly in the initial Bible studies we have with people.
That’s because we use a hermeneutic that is logical, that anyone can understand.
The particulars may be difficult to understand, but they are necessary to know when people try to attack this method of interpretation.
And they will attack it, if only to preserve their own way of looking at things.
But for all of us, we must learn how to properly interpret Scriptures when we study it on our own.
Christianity is a taught religion.
The reason is because of the inductive principle discussed earlier.
In order to draw the proper conclusion, one must have all the evidence as a detective trying to solve a case.
He might miss a key piece of evidence which would cause him to draw the wrong conclusion.
Someone just reading a passage may not have all the evidence, therefore may reach the wrong conclusion.
For instance, did where did Paul go after his conversion? If you just read Acts, you would say he stayed in Damascus then went to Jerusalem. But you might ask someone about that, and the knowledgeable person will turn you to Galatians 1:15-18, where Paul says he went to Arabia for a time before returning to Damascus, then he went to Jerusalem.
Now you have a more complete picture.
My point is, for certain things, we must study, we must dig, we might strive to find the right answers to the right questions.
Salvation is very similar if you want to understand it.
If you just read John 3:16, you might think only simple belief were necessary to be saved.
If you just read Romans 10:9-10, you might think belief and confessing Christ alone were necessary.
If you read Acts 2:38, you might think only repentance and baptism were necessary to have your sins forgiven.
But taking all these together, and many more passages, we find what we must do: believe, repent, confess, and be baptized.
We also find what it means to have true faith, to have a faith that works! (James 2:14ff).
Will you make that choice today and follow him?