Church of Christ Studies

A Summary and Review

This is an exceedingly fine Saturday-evening crowd, and to you who have seen fit to come, after the business cares of the week and the day, I want to acknowledge my very great appreciation of your presence and take courage because of the interest that you thereby manifest in what is being said and done here from time to time.

 

I have been giving the services during the evenings this week to the study of the New Testament church. I appreciate the fact that you have enjoyed and enter into, as I verily believe, the study as suggested; and I trust that we may be nearer, not only to the truth, but to one another in our conception of things Divine, than heretofore has been our status in life.

 

Because of a query that was put in the morning paper and it's being a practical question and right along the line of the discussions, I changed from what I had in mind, to try to make a summary talk to-night of the things gone before, and, in the talk, give direct and definite answer to the query submitted. I think of no text that might be more appropriate than Heb. 8: 1, wherein Paul said, "Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum;" and he proceeded to summarize various things that had been previously mentioned both by himself and others under inspiration.

 

I have said to you, ladies and gentlemen, that there are but two Divine institutions known to man. One of them is the home, and the other is that church about which so much is said in the New Testament Scriptures. it also is a family, in many respects based upon similarities and likenesses to the earthly family. God is the Father thereof. Jesus Christ is represented here on earth as the bridegroom, and all Christians everywhere constitute the bride. I would not be misunderstood, and I would love to get this matter clearly fixed in your mind that every man and every woman who has believed and obeyed the gospel is a member of God's family, God's church, by virtue of the fact of the new birth. Now, many of those, perhaps, thus born again have, in addition to and without the slightest authority on earth from Jehovah, become identified with other institutions, and in that act I verily believe they have gone farther than God ever intended. Now, the difference between that class of people and myself is this: I am trying to get them to leave off that for which there is no authority and just stay where they were the very minute they became God's children, feeling absolutely certain that as long as we are governed by the Bible, that is sufficient. Other matters have but a destructive influence by their divisive nature and their partisan spirit.

 

I do not claim, and have never so done, that those who have taken no stand with denominations are the only Christians upon the earth; but here is the contention: Having simply believed and obeyed the gospel, we propose to be Christians only. Now, there is a wonderful difference between saying that we claim to be Christians only and that we claim to be the only Christians. The Bible clearly predicts that the Lord's people, some of them, will be engaged in a state of confusion; and the Lord bids his people to come out of that state and just stand, if you please, as humble Christians only.

 

The confusion of the twentieth century is denominationalism. There is no doubt about that. There is no reason on earth to deny it, and it doesn't matter how sacred they are to us, we had just as well face the facts as they are. You need not tell me that when religious people are divided into two hundred different parties there is no confusion. This condition is the devil's greatest cudgel, with which he mauls and hammers away upon professed Christianity.

 

Now, what God desires, as I verily believe, is for us to leave off all else and be Christians only, without any handle to it, without a prefix, without a suffix. That is the platform on which I propose to stand as long as God lets me dwell upon the earth. I claim not to be a member of any religious organization under heaven except the New Testament church. I want to be just a member of the thing that Paul was. I want to stand exactly on the same footing with reference to religious bodies as did Peter, James, and John, and all the primitive disciples.

 

Now, of what religious body were these Christians members? What do you think about that? When Peter preached on Pentecost, for instance, and the people heard and believed, repented of their sins, and were baptized into the name of the Christ, the Lord added them to the church; and they were, therefore, members of it. Now, that is the one that I want to stand identified with; and if we will just think as to what they did that made them members, under the same God, under the same dispensation, I believe that if we will do the same that they did, God will add us to the church, and it will be the very same one as that to which they were added. Hold these thoughts in mind and meditate on them while other things are suggested a moment.

 

We have learned that the church as spoken of in the Bible does not refer to the material meetinghouse-that which is made by hand and composed of brick and of stone; but it is a spiritual building, made up of lively stones, every atone therein being filled with life and vitality and strength-that is to say, it is the building composed of men and women who have been born and adopted into God's family, and hence in that building God's Spirit dwells.

 

Now, we have found also that the church of the Bible is not a Jewish institution, for the reason already given; that Christ said to Nicodemus, a chief ruler of the Jews, who could boast of an ancestral line absolutely pure, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," which is but the equivalent of saying: "Unless you are born again, you cannot become a member of the church of the Most High."

 

The church of God is not a political institution; neither is it a denomination; absolutely, positively, and certainly it is not. There were no such things as denominations in our Savior's time. You can start back with the Christ and trace down the ages fifteen hundred years before the first denomination was ever born on the earth. Then, how can a thing that is so modern, a thing concerning which the Bible is silent and to which the slightest reference has not been made—How can that thing be the thing which the Lord has established and purchased with his blood? I have no disrespect for denominationalism. I am not prejudiced or biased against it, not a particle on earth, not a bit more than I am against the Democratic party or the Republican party; but I just simply want to suggest that the church of the Bible is not the Democratic party. That is not saying anything ugly about the Democrats; I hope none will become offended.

 

Now, in all candor, let me say, because truth demands it, history verifies it, and everybody knows it, though it is not popular to say it, that the church of the Bible is not a denomination; and I want to repeat what I have said from this platform: I don't believe there is a man in the city of Nashville who would dare affirm that the Bible authorizes religious denominations. I have too high a regard for the intelligence of your people to believe that any man is ready to march out and assume the laboring our in defense of the absolutely unprovable proposition that the Scriptures authorize denominationalism, and it would be the greatest blessing this world has ever seen if all denominationalism and parties unknown to the Bible could be obliterated and buried in the gulf of forgetfulness.

 

I have tried to talk to you this week about the establishment of the church, and have said that the church of the New Testament was established in the year 33, in the city of Jerusalem, by Christ Jesus. Friends, that ire so well established, however, that there is scarcely a scholar of note on earth who has written about the matter but that agrees to that declaration. Practically all the histories which I have had occasion to investigate and the great theological writers of different faiths and different orders come with one consensus of opinion, as expressed in the greatest dictionary of the Bible, when the author declares, after investigating from all sources, that Pentecost is the birthday of the church of the Bible.

 

Then I have also discussed in your hearing this fact : that there is one church mentioned in the Bible; there is but one, and that one stands out so prominent and so positive that there can be no doubt regarding it. You never read in all your life in the Bible of different sorts or kinds of churches. Now, I understand that you read of the church at Corinth, at Rome, at Thessalonica, at Philippi, at Galatia, etc.; but they were not different kinds of churches, only differing in locality and geographically. There is one church, and but one. But some one suggests to me frequently that the various denominations of our day are branch churches of the true vine. Well, now, if there be a branch, that evidences the fact that there is a trunk somewhere, because branches do not grow unless there is first of all a trunk. If the different denominations in America are the branches, the thing I am interested in is the trunk. Where is the main vine? And let's all get busy and not be satisfied with just abiding in a branch. God never said: "Abide in the branches." He said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches; abide in me." Honestly, friends, where are you located tonight? Are you a member of the trunk, or are you abiding in a branch? If so, I bid you come out of the branch and cling to the true vine, where God said "abide."

 

I have in a previous talk spoken of the work of the church, which is threefold.

 

First, it's the business of the church to develop its membership.

 

Second, it's the business and duty of the church to look after charitable matters round about us, to relieve those that are sorrowing, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to visit the sick.

 

Third, it's the work of the church of God, its chiefest and supremest work, to spread abroad the gospel, God's power to save, throughout the length and breadth of the land; and I would that I could stimulate every child of God and encourage him to go his limit and use his powers as best he can for telling the plain, simple story of the Christ, unmixed with all human theologies and philosophies, and let the people just see the Bible, and the Bible alone, as the matter really is.

​

Now, I come next to investigate the direct matter that was sought in the query—the history of the church. That question, as I recall, was this: "If the church of which Mr. Hardeman has been speaking was established in Jerusalem in the year 33 by Christ, who carried the church on down through the ages until Alexander Campbell picked it up in the nineteenth century?" Now, I think that is a fine question. I am really glad of an opportunity to get to speak to that point directly. The question probably implies more than was intended. The question admits that the church was in existence, the same one founded by Christ on Pentecost, and Campbell picked it up—the one founded on Pentecost. Well, that would be a glorious thing if thus he did. I do not think this is what the man really meant. He did not mean to admit by implication that this is it—that he got the original thing and picked it up and moved right along. But, friends, I have studied about that time and again and investigated to the very best of my ability; and I am ready to announce to you to-night that, so far as I am individually concerned, I have no special interest in the history from Pentecost on down the line, as far as merely the history itself is concerned. That is not vital, not germane to the identity, to the sameness, or to the oneness of the church as it may exist upon the earth tonight.

 

Now, I want to be perfectly clear and definite regarding all matters of that kind. Jesus said: "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell [or Hades] shall not prevail against it." What is it that the "gates," or the passageways, to the Hadean world shall not prevail against? There are many good people who think it refers to the church, and in that there is the Savior's pledge that through all subsequent time the gates or Hades shall not prevail against the church. I do not believe this is what our Lord had in mind, but it would be no special violation of the correctness of affairs even though he did. Christ was talking to the apostles in a private conversation regarding the establishment of the greatest institution the world has ever known when he made the declaration of this text. He said: "Peter, upon this rock, this great truth that you have acknowledged and confessed, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Against what? "Against my building it. I will build it. Though I am going to be crucified, though I pass through the gates that lead out of this into the Hadean world, the intermediate state, that will not hinder my purpose, upset my plan, or thwart my intention. I will burst the bars and come out of Hades, and I will build it."

 

If I owned a lot in the city of Nashville, I could truly say: "Upon this vacant lot I will build my house, and the authorities of Nashville shall not prevail against it." O, not against the house, but against my doing the thing promised.

 

But be that as it may, some think that that passage demands a perpetuation of the church on down the ages. Many fail to recognize a very vital principle. I submit to you this: There is not a fruit or a product upon the earth but that has come from seed somewhere back up the line. This is true both in the animal kingdom and likewise in the vegetable world. Some seeds might be covered up and buried for years and for generations, and then when brought to light under proper environment and congenial circumstances would spring forth and produce fruit.

 

I am not especially interested in where that seed has been, in what has been its condition, what it has been doing, or anything of the kind; but if I can be convinced that it is the same seed as was the original, then the problem is solved and the proposition is no longer one of doubt. I have read of seeds of wheat that have been buried for three thousand years down beneath the surface of the earth; and when brought out after thirty centuries looked down upon them, and exposed to the sunlight and to the gentle showers those seed have germinated, sprung up, and produced a crop of wheat. Now, I want to ask: Is that the same kind of wheat, identical, as was that raised three thousand years ago? To ask this is to answer it, for God said nine times over in Gen. 1 that everything should bring forth after its kind. Now, I am perfectly content, absolutely satisfied, that if those seeds of wheat spring up they will produce a crop of wheat which will be exactly like the crop produced three thousand years before. Now note: I do not care where that grain of wheat has been during these years; it doesn't matter what it has been doing. The question is: Is it the same wheat!

 

I suggested to you some evenings ago that sometimes a crop of red clover is buried under the surface of a field. Year after year may pass in which other crops may grow up; but if you will plow down beneath where you have ordinarily been plowing and turn back some six or eight inches toward the surface, the next spring there will come up a fine crop of red clover. How do you prove it is red clover? By proving where that seed has been all the time? That hasn't a thing in the world to do with it. Well, by trying to figure up what that seed was doing during all these years? 0, no; that is not it. You care nothing about where that seed has been nor what has been characteristic of it; but here is the crop, and by its own quality and characteristics and likenesses you identify that as a crop of clover beyond a shadow of a doubt. it does not make any difference, I repeat, as to where the seed has been in the years gone by.

 

At this time of the year the wheat has sprung up, there is that promise of a crop; but we want to destroy the possibility of there ever being any more wheat upon the earth. Now, let's go about it. Go out here and pick up every sprig of wheat that is in process of development. Just simply leave the fields bare, so that it would be impossible for a crow to get his dinner from it; and you make that universal, until every Living crop of wheat on earth is plucked up and destroyed, sprig by sprig; and then you get all of the seed that you can find on the face of the earth and wipe that out. Have you destroyed the possibility of a wheat crop exactly like that one? Hear it: If you let live one Bound grain of wheat anywhere on top side of God's green earth, you have not destroyed wheat as a vegetation Of the earth. Why? Because there is the identically same wheat locked up in that one seed; and for twenty-five, fifty, one hundred, or one thousand years down the line that one grain of wheat has only to be planted to produce a crop exactly like that one that you have sought to destroy. So there is but one​ possibility of getting rid of wheat, and that is to destroy every single blade of wheat, and then, in addition to that, go back and destroy every single grain of wheat to be found 'neath the broad expanse of heaven's vast domain. Then you will have accomplished the purpose intended.

 

Now, ladies and gentlemen, Jesus Christ said, while here upon the earth, that "the word of God is the seed of the kingdom." He ordained his executors that they should go over the face of the earth. What doing? Sowing. Sowing what? Sowing the seed of the kingdom. What was that? God's word. Who said that? Christ. (Luke 8: 11.) Well, what is the soil into which that was to be sown? It is the human heart. And as the apostles went over the face of the earth, they were cowing and planting into the soil the seed of the kingdom.

 

Now, in due course of time that seed sprang up, germinated, and brought forth fruit. For instance (Acts 18: 18), Paul, having preached the gospel down at Corinth, many of the Corinthians heard and believed. Here the first evidence of the crop having sprung up was that faith was characteristic of those to whom it was proclaimed. After that I And that these people, under the sowing of the seed, repented of their sins; not only so, but that they confessed their faith in Christ Jesus, our Lord. What else did they do? They were buried with him in baptism, and arose therefrom to walk in newness of life.

 

Let me ask: What did that make of them? The apostles planted the seed; the people warmed and nourished it; and the result was the fruit, called "Christians." That was the fruit that was made from the planting of the seed and from the development thereof. What else about that? They were nothing but Christians. So far as any living man knows, God's word was their only guide as it was being revealed day by day through his chosen representatives; and these Christians, the product of the Bowing of that seed, Finally began to meet together on the first day of the week, to break bread, to contribute of their means, and to worship the God of their being under Jesus Christ as their sale head, and they were thus called the "church of God."

​

Now, then, eighteen hundred years have passed, and you can trace the history of those people down through the first century and on down into the second century, until they become finally lost beneath the horizon of history. I admit to you to-night, as a matter of fact, that the story of the apostolic church seems to fade practically, if not altogether, out of view, at which time Romanism sprang up and overshadowed the gospel of the Son of God and the church of the first born; and for hundreds of years, designated in the world's history as the Dark Ages, the record of the church of God is unwritten upon the pages of profane history."

 

Suppose tonight that every child of God on earth did apostatize and for centuries there wasn't a Christian to be found. Then what? In the course of time Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, and other great men of their age undertook to find some sort of relief from religious confusion, and, if possible, to find such an organization as would be in all respects like that of the New Testament. Their intention was a good one. I have never questioned the motive nor the uprightness of their plans and purposes. But in their efforts at reformation they failed and left the world in a state of division, with denominations springing up and multiplying upon the face of the earth. A hundred years later came Stone, Purviance, Campbell, and others, who determined to cut loose from human creeds and human names and to restore the New Testament organization as it was in the days of the apostles. "The Bible, and the Bible alone," was their motto. Their main question was: Do we still have in this, the beginning of the nineteenth century, the same seed as the apostles planted back in the city of Jerusalem in the long ago? If so, they reasoned, we have the same soil, the human heart; and, according to God's immutable law, if the same seed be planted in the same soil, it will bring forth a fruit exactly like that at Pentecost, no matter where it has been all of these years. And if that principle be true, and true it is, then it is no longer a problem or question as to where the church was at the time Alexander Campbell was born upon the earth. Suppose there was none. Was the seed still here? If so, and it is planted, unmixed with human affairs, in the hearts of men, it will produce an identical crop with that in the years or generations gone by.

 

Let me try to illustrate it this way: Out on some lonely island live a people who never heard of God, nor the gospel, nor the church of Christ, but they are intelligent and can read and understand plain speech. In passing that island, somebody throws God's word over on the land, and the ship on which the man was sails on. Some of those people on the island find this book, and, after they find it, they begin to read it, study it, and investigate it; and at last they are convinced that God in heaven sent Jesus Christ, his Son, to this earth. Guided by the Bible still, they see the Christ select his representatives and teach them for something like three years. Then, according to the prophecies back in the first part of the Bible, he at last dies a felon's death and is buried in a borrowed tomb. After three days he bursts the bars and comes forth triumphant and gives a world-wide commission. He then bids his apostles to tarry at Jerusalem and wait for the promised Spirit, which should guide them into all truth. On Pentecost the Spirit came. Peter preached the good news of the gospel; the people heard it, believed it, and obeyed it; and they read, too, that the Lord added them to the church.

 

 

Now, then, one of them suggests: "Suppose we do that. We believe the gospel, we repent of our sins, and we obey God. On the first day of the week we will meet to celebrate the Lord's death, to study the Scriptures, to do just what the Bible makes obligatory upon us. Individually, we will call ourselves 'Christians;' Collectively, we are the church of Christ, the church of God." I ask you: Would not that, my friends to-night be as much a church of Christ as that one planted on the day of Pentecost?

 

So, then, in answer to the query from another point of view, allow me to say that Alexander Campbell didn't "pick up the church." it was not in existence in its organized form. What did Campbell do? Seek to organize something different from the Bible? O, no; not at all. Did he want to establish a church or a denomination and become the head of it? Just the very opposite. He and Stone and others believed from the great depths of their souls that denominationalism was of human origin, and they pleaded with all to take the Bible, and the Bible alone. They said: “Let us march out of denominationalism, cast off denominational ties, and become and be just what they were back in the days of inspiration." The Bible was their creed, Christ was their leader, the church of God was their home, and Christianity was their life work. Upon these principles they begged the world to unite. Such is what the world calls "Campbellism."

 

My friends, that was not establishing anything; but the effort was to restore that which had been buried under the rubbish, under denominationalism, in the generations that are gone by. They just simply plowed down beneath that which was covered up and turned up the seed of the kingdom; and when it was exposed to the sunlight and to proper surroundings, it brought forth and produced the fruit that has come down the ages from that day unto this.

 

Let us not worry, therefore, friends, over church succession; let us not be troubled about church history; but let us see if we have the same seed of the kingdom in 1923 as there was back on the day of Pentecost. If so, it will bring forth an identical crop and produce the same church.

 

I submit to you tonight, therefore, that when the seed of the gospel is sown, he who believes it should do nothing but what the Bible directs. I would love to speak so that it would be impressive unto every man who has believed and obeyed the gospel and then gone on and joined some human organization which is not mentioned in all of God's word. I would like to be the means of having you throw off your allegiance to all human organizations and plant your feet upon the solid rock, standing for the church that you read about in God's book, and none other. I would love to encourage you to discard all man-made things—church disciplines, human creeds, and such affairs—and, in discarding them, say: "Just the Bible, and that alone, is mine." I would love to encourage you to lay aside any human name, I care not how dear it may be, and just simply wear the name of Christ.

​

At Corinth the church of God became divided as brethren. Look at the sad picture presented. They had their special preachers. They were not divided over the society question; they were not divided over the question of baptism. They were divided over a question with reference to preachers—a very small thing. One of them said, "I am of Paul;" another said, "I am of Cephas;" and another one said, "I am of Apollos." Paraphrasing that to its modern term, this is what occurred down at Corinth: One set said, "We are Paulites;" another said, "We are of Peter, we are Cephasites;" and the other one said, "We are not either one, we are Apollosites." And Paul said: "Brethren, therein you are fleshly, not spiritual. You are as babes, having to be fact with milk, not able to endure strong meat. For whereas there is division among you, you are carnal, and not spiritual." Now, hear it and answer it in the light of high heaven: If it was wrong to be a Paulite, don't you think it would be wrong to be a Campbellite? If it was wrong for the Corinthians to wear the name of Peter, what apology can you have for wearing the name of Martin Luther? If it was wrong to wear the name of Apollos, then what is the argument, what is the defense, for wearing any other human name? Now, everybody knows that Paul condemned that. Condemned what? Their wearing human names, although they were the names of apostles. Note Paul's argument: "Was Paul crucified for you?" No. Then why wear his name? "Were you baptized in the name of Peter?" No. Then, why do you want to be a Cephasite? Why not honor the Christ, who died for us and into whose name we are baptized?

 

Now, allow me to say this: I think a greater man than Alexander Campbell has never lived outside of inspiration, and the history of the man and that which he has done for the religious element of America put him in a class almost by himself. When the great infidel, Robert Dale Owen, of New Lanark, Scotland, came to this country, unfurled the black banner of infidelity, and defied all the religions of the land, denominational preachers, creed-bound, were astonished and confused. Mr. Owen's challenge swept over this land from Cincinnati to New Orleans; and when the great, learned doctors of divinity heard it, they stood trembling, and, like a lamb dumb before its shearers, they opened not their mouths. While the cause of the Bible was suffering by the attacks of Mr. Owen, there was a call that went across the mountain into Bethany, W. Va., and a young man, Alexander Campbell, said: "I will go to the rescue of our Bible. its flag shall not trail in the dust." A debate with the enemy was arranged, and in the city of Cincinnati Campbell upheld the truth of God's word, fought its battles, and came out with banners flying and colors floating in the breezes. Thus he confirmed and demonstrated the reality of the religion of the Lord. From that hour unto this day no infidel has made a similar challenge in all this land. Alexander Campbell was a great man, indeed, and I appreciate and honor his memory; but was he crucified for me? No, sir. Then why wear his name? That is Paul's argument. Was I baptized in the name of Campbell? No. Then, why honor him by wearing his name? Friends, this is not Hardeman's argument; this is Paul's argument, and you have got to meet it at the eternal judgment bar of God.

 

I want to ask of every man that loves the truth and wants to stand on the basis where all the world can stand to come to-night for the avowed purpose of confessing your faith in the Lord, of rendering further obedience to him by being buried into the name of the sacred three, and rise simply as a Christian to walk in newness of life. Such a platform is big enough, broad enough, and wide enough for the entire world. Whenever you hear anybody asking about this being narrow, say to them that it is the very opposite. Denominationalism, with its narrowing name, with its limited creed, and with its limited hope, is the thing that is little and narrow. But the church of God is for the ransomed and the redeemed of all the earth, and together let us stand under his name, subscribe to heaven's creed, and, with our hand in the palm of Christ, walk down the aisles of time as a solid phalanx, defying all the powers of the Hadean world, until at last we shall stack arms on the glad plains of a never-ending eternity, lay aside our battle-scarred armor, hang our swords upon the jasper walls of that eternal city, and then with palms of victory and with crowns of glory join in the hymning of his praises while eternity rolls its endless ages on.

 

If there be any in this company who will accept that call to-night, I beg you to respond while together we stand and sing.

​