Chapter III: More Points of Agreement

But while we are in this agreeing business, let us take it even further. In this country there is a large religious community known as the Baptist Church. This group includes many fine people. Many of them are honest, intelligent, cultured, refined, and good citizens. They have taken their denominational title from their emphasis upon immersion as being the only scriptural baptism, in contrast to those who accept something else. I agree with the Baptists that immersion is baptism and that nothing short of immersion will meet the definition of baptism found in Romans 6:4 or Colossians 2:12. I agree with them that the Greek word “baptidzo” is properly translated by the word “immerse.” But I can agree with them upon this great truth without belonging to the Baptist denomination. I can fully accept the very truth from which the Baptist Church has taken its name and still be just a Christian.

The Methodist Church is one of the largest in this country. I have more kinspeople in that denomination than in any other. For all of their good points I give them due respect and credit. Because of their insistence upon method and system in their religious work, they were nicknamed Methodists many years ago. This name was later accepted by them as their denominational title. I agree with the Methodists that system and method are important. I endeavor to be systematic and orderly in every phase of my work and activity. I believe that the Lord’s work should be carried on orderly. “Let everything be done in decency and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). We should use order, then. We should use the Bible order. But one can certainly do this without belonging to the Methodist Church.

Why should one exalt the name of this one aspect of Christian activity to the point of adopting it as a religious title? One can be methodical without being a Methodist. Just as one can be systematic without being a Systematist. One can be just a plain Christian and practice everything the Bible teaches in reference to order and system.

When I was attending the Union Theological Seminary, one of my professors told me that the New Testament churches were “congregational presbyterian.” He explained his statement by saying that each congregation was independent of all other congregations and that each was overseen by a group of men known as elders or presbyters. I agree with him exactly. According to his explanation his statement was entirely correct. But I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church. One can believe all the Bible teaches upon the presbytery and practice the same without belonging to the Presbyterian denomination. Why should this characteristic of church government or organization be exalted by using it as a religious or denominational title? One can be just a Christian and still believe and practice what the Bible teaches in reference to the presbytery. One does not have to be a member of the Presbyterian Church to obey God concerning the presbytery.

One can believe in the universality of the Gospel without being a Catholic or Universalist. One can believe in the second coming of Christ without belonging to the Adventist denomination. One can teach and practice holy living without belonging to the Holiness Church. If one had to join the Baptist Church because he believed in baptism and the Methodist Church because he believed in method and the Presbyterian Church because he believed in the presbytery of the local congregation (1 Tim. 4:14) and so on down the list, what would he be when he had finished? One can agree with the denominations on the very truth from which they have taken their names, insofar as they have taken their names from truth, without belonging to any of them.