CAN WE UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE ALIKE?
It is our lot to dwell in a world that is tragically and
pathetically divided religiously. Those who profess to be followers of
Christ are separated into hundreds of differing religious bodies. These
groups teach various conflicting and contradicting doctrines. Many,
want to blame the Bible for the division. We are told this state of
confusion exists because we cannot understand the Bible alike. In our
discussion today, we ask you to study with us to see whether we can
understand the Bible alike.
The Bible emphatically and plainly teaches that we can
understand it. Read carefully the following scriptures with me:
"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" (John
7:17).
"Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed on him, If
ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31, 32).
"How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery ; as I
wrote afore in few words, whereby, WHEN YE READ, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3:3,4). The word
"mystery" as appearing in these verses means something previously not
revealed, but has now been made known.
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this
grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of
Christ; And to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery
which for ages hath been hid in God" (Ephesians 3:8, 9).
"And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which
are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15).
One can easily see that these passages teach that we can
understand the Bible. If one cannot understand the Bible, then Bible
study is nothing more that a pious waste of time. And may I stress, my
listening audience, that if we understand the Bible at all, we will
understand it alike. We may misunderstand the Bible differently, but we
do not understand the Bible differently. If one said two plus two equal
four; another said two plus two equal five; and another two plus two
equal six, none of us would say, "Well, let's just be charitable, and
say all are right." Yet, this is what often is done on religious
subjects. The truth of the matter is that one of these persons
understands the equation, and the other two misunderstand the equation
differently. No one in our listening audience misunderstands this
illustration. And it makes no difference how innocent and honest a
child may, if he puts two plus two equals five on his test paper, he is
marked as wrong.
Further, let us observe that if the Bible cannot be understood
alike, it must be because God willingly did not have it written so
that we can understand it alike. The Bible teaches that God is the
Almighty God (Revelation 4:8). Therefore, He could have given us a Book
that we can understand. It is also taught in the Bible that we will be
judged according to the teachings found in the Scriptures. Hear our
Lord, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one
that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in
the last day" (John 12:48). Revelation 20:12, states, "And I saw the
dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life;
and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the
books, according to their works." Now, did God intentionally give us
an ambiguous and incomprehensible Revelation, and then promise to send
us to hell for not doing what it says? I have a little problem
believing that you believe that He did.
Not only can we understand the Bible alike, but my friends in
this audience, we DO understand what the Bible teaches alike. We are in
agreement on what is plainly taught in the Bible. Our points of
differences are over what is not found in the Bible. In Genesis 3: 1-6,
God told Adam and Eve that they could eat of the "fruit" of every tree
in the garden, save one. The religious world has had considerable
discussion about what kind of "fruit" this was. Some have written
lengthy articles attempting to prove this "fruit" was an apple. We agree
on what the Bible says: It says "FRUIT." We might disagree on what it
does not state. It does not say what kind of "fruit" it was, other that
declaring that it was of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
In Exodus 3:1-5, the Bible relates that God appeared to Moses in
a "bush" that burned with fire, but was not consumed. Men have differed
on what kind of "bush" this was. But the Bible does not tell us the
name of the "bush." So our difference here is not over what is found in
the Bible, but over what is not found in the Scriptures.
In John 3:1-5, we read that Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night."
The Bible does not record the reason why he came "by night." I have
never met a person, who believed the Bible, that misunderstood what the
Bible says here. All agree that Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night."
But, I have met those who differed on WHY Nicodemus came "by night."
Some say he was too busy to come by day. Others say that he went by
night because he wished to talk with Jesus privately, Yet, others claim
that Nicode mus was a coward, and did not want others to know that he
was interested in the teachings of Jesus. I do not know why he came "by
night." The point I am making is that we understand what the Bible
teaches, and that we understand it alike, identically. Our differences
are over what the Bible does not say, instead of over what It does say.
Now, it is true that these examples are not the big problems
that now divide the religious world. But, the teaching of the Bible on
crucial issues is just as clear as these examples we have used. Let us
take up some of the real problems of our time and examine whether or
not we can understand the Bible alike.
Let us look first at the ACT OF BAPTISM. By the "act" of
baptism, I mean what action is performed upon a person when he or she is
baptized. The religious world is sadly divided on this point. Years of
discussion has not united us yet on this subject. Here, too, we are
divided over subjects on which the Bible says nothing, rather than over
what it does say. We are in exact agreement upon the express statements
of the Scriptures. The religious world thinks differently on what
constitutes baptism. Some say sprinkling is baptism; some say pouring
water on one constitutes baptism; others say that only immersion in
water is baptism.
What does the word" baptism" itself mean? Many do not realize
that "baptism" is not originally an English word. The English language
consists of words from many different languages. "Baptism" was taken
from the Greek language, and made into an English word. The New
Testament was originally written in Greek. Some make the mistake of
looking into an English dictionary to learn the definition of a Greek
word like "baptidzo," the word from which our Anglicized "baptism" is
taken. In Greek dictionaries we learn that "baptidzo" means to "plunge,
overwhelm, submerge, immerse, dip."
Yet, if one did not consult a Greek dictionary, he could find
the act or action of baptism described in the New Testament. Of Philip
and the eunuch, the Bible says, "And as they went on the way, they came
unto a certain water; and they both went down into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of
the water.....(Acts 8:36-38).
Here baptism is defined by the context. By the events of the
moment. In baptism, one comes "unto water," goes "down into the water,"
is baptized, and then "comes up out of the water." One really needs
help to misunderstand this example. All agree that immersion in water
constitutes baptism. I have never talked to anyone who says that baptism
done by immersion is wrong.
Also the Bible describes baptism as a burial in water. In Romans
6:3,4, we find, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? we were BURIED therefore
with him through baptism into death." And, again, in Colossians 2:12,
"having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised
with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the
dead."
Is sprinkling a burial? Is to pour water over a person to bury
him in water? I have never known anyone who would so affirm. But,
immersion is a burial in water. Did you ever know anyone, anywhere,
anytime who would deny that if one had been immersed that he had been
scripturally baptized? The world is in agreement that immersion
constitutes baptism. We are not divided over immersion. We are divided
over sprinkling and/or pouring. Now find in the Bible where sprinkling
or pouring is authorized as Bible baptism. These are not found in
connection with baptism. Our division on the act or action of baptism is
over things about which the Bible says nothing.
Let us look at the subject of baptism. The religious world is
also divided over who should be baptized. Some say infants should be
baptized. Others say that only persons capable of being taught, who
believe, repent and confess their faith are proper subject of baptism.
Listen to the what the Bible says just here: "Go ye therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them.." (Matthew 28:19). "Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:15,16). "And Peter
said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.." (Acts 2:38). "And
the eunuch said, Behold, here is water, what doth hinder me to be
baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God" (Acts 8:36, 37).
From these passages we see that only those who can be taught the
gospel, who believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son, and are willing to
repent of their sins are fit subjects to be baptized. All will agree
that it is right to baptize a person who meets these qualifications.
The question is not about this sort of person. The question is about
infants. Can an infant be taught the gospel of Christ? Can he believe
divine testimony? Can he repent of his sins? If not, the infant is not a
Biblical subject of baptism. We are all agreed that the person who
meets the above mentioned Biblical requisites can be baptized. We
understand these Bible instructions alike. Now, what does the Bible say
about baptizing infants? Try finding one verse in the Bible that
mentions baptizing infants. You see, once again, we are not divided over
what the Bible says; but we are divided over what the Bible does not
say.
The church one reads about in the Bible was called by
several different terms. It is called the "church of the Lord" (Acts
20:28), "my church" (with Christ speaking) (Matthew 16:18), "the church
of God" (1 Corinthians 1:2); the "churches of Christ " (Romans 16:16).
Did you ever hear anyone state that it would be wrong to apply any of
these terms to the church? Of course not. We all agree that a name
applied to the church in the Bible may likewise be applied to the church
now. But, now we read of many names of churches not found in the Bible
at all, and over these we differ. Try finding the names of some of these
churches in your Bible. You will see that again we are divided over
things not found in the Bible. We understand alike and agree upon those
things the Bible authorizes.
Another point of difference among religious people is over what
kind of music we should use in our worship services today. Some say that
we should have only vocal music. Others say that we may have both vocal
and mechanical instrumental music . Can we understand the Bible alike on
this point? Well, let us see what the Bible declares on this subject:
"Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord." (Ephesians
5:19). "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom
teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God" (Colossians 3:16).
These and several other passages of Scripture authorize us to
sing in worship of God. Does anyone deny that it is right to sing in
worship? If so, I have not heard of such a person. Do we understand the
Bible alike? Certainly we do. The Bible says, "sing," and we all agree
that this is right. Then, is our division over singing? Not at all!
What causes the division then? Mechanical instrumental music is the
dividing point. Some think it is right, some think it is wrong. What
does the Bible teach about its use in worship in the New Testament
church today? Does the Bible authorize their use? If so, where is the
passage? Our division is caused, not by misunderstanding what the Bible
teaches, but by something not found in the New Testament at all.
My friend, when you study the Bible, expect to understand it.
God says that it is written that when you read "you may understand"
(Ephesians 3:4). Remember, also, that if you and I understand the Bible
at all, we will understand it alike. We may misunderstand it
differently, but we do not understand it differently. I trust I have
succeeded in showing you that we can and do see what the Bible teaches
alike on these vital points that divide the religious world. Abide by
what is authorized in the Bible, and we will stand united in Christ. To
do this we must "all speak the same things" (1 Corinthians 1:10). Peter
states, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter
4:11). Paul says, "Study to show thyself approved unto God" (2 Timothy
2:15).
Return to Index
Home