A few centuries ago, some began to notice the dis-unity of denominationalism and the confusion that it caused; they realized that this situation was not the way God desired it to be. Some suggested restoration—that Christians ought to forsake the division that had taken centuries to develop and simply try to abide by what the Scriptures taught. If what was written in the New Testament could be respected again the way it was in the first century, surely God would be pleased. Truth in religion needed to be restored.
Accompanying this idea were two concepts necessary to bring it about—truth and unity. First, what did the Scriptures actually teach? Human traditions that had developed over the centuries would have to fall by the wayside in order for the truth to shine forth. Also, separate, conflicting religious groups would need to become a thing of the past as everyone sought to be united in Christ. Jesus Himself had warned that division would be a discouragement to those who might otherwise have believed in Him (John 17:20-21).
And so the process began with the best of motives, and it still continues, but it has enjoyed only limited success. In fact, more division exists today than when many first decided it was time for Christians to unite together. What went wrong? The concise answer is that Satan is still deceiving people. As optimistic as we all might desire to be, unity based on truth will never happen again in this world. Does this seem like a bold claim? Not even a little fear of successful contradiction exists. The longer explanation for disharmony among believers is that probably most were under the impression that, once the truth was known, everyone would be interested in abiding by it.
And doesn’t that seem reasonable? If you, as an individual, are concerned about truth, wouldn’t you assume that everyone else is, also? Did not Solomon command, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Pr. 23: 23)? Didn’t Jesus say that we could know the truth and that the truth would make us free (John 8:31-32)? In fact, won’t all who fail to have “a love of the truth” be destroyed (2 Thess. 2:10)? Yes! So, naturally one would assume that all are vitally interested in pursuing the truth.
The truth is, however, that such an assumption is faulty. It might be true if all people were sincere and genuinely wanted to seek God. Ironically, the fact that men love darkness more than the light is also true of some professing to be Christians—although it sounds contradictory (John 3:19-21). People have various reasons for becoming Christians—not all of them are noble. Why did Judas accept the call to be an apostle? Was he just curious? Or was he hoping all along to profit materially? We don’t know if he was sincere at first but later lost his enthusiasm—or what. We only know the tragic results.
Likewise, did Ananias and Sapphira always have a problem with wanting to be exalted? Or did they become envious and succumb to temptation later? How about Simon the sorcerer, who suffered from the same problem? Only God knows the answer to the motivations of each of these, but it certainly could be the case that they never had honorable motives.
It is obvious that some not being interested in truth goes all the way back to the first family. Although Eve carelessly disregarded truth in the first temptation, it was Cain who rejected it as a way of life. He did not care about offering God what He had asked for—a blood offering. Instead, he gave God what was significant to himself, which was rejected. Then he got angry with his brother for doing what God said. This remains a pattern of persecution today. People still become angry with those who are abiding by what God revealed in the Scriptures. Just point out that some aspect of worship is not authorized by the Bible and see how fast some can become irate.
Balaam proved to be more interested in money than the Word of the Lord, which he faithfully spoke. He knew better than to alter God’s prophecies by cursing Israel, but he found a way to get Israel cursed. Upon his advice, the Moabite women enticed the Israelite men, and God destroyed more than 20,000 of them. Balaam earned his reward, all right, although he did not live long enough to enjoy it.
Would anyone argue that Jezebel was interested in the truth—ever? How about the people of Jeremiah’s day who rejected message after message that was inspired of God? Well, surely, these are extreme examples. Not everyone is like them. No, but many do not care what the Bible says; they will ignore it whenever they choose to do so. On Pentecost, Peter preached a compelling sermon, and three thousand obeyed the gospel and were baptized, but how many of those present did not? When Paul reasoned with the philosophers on Mars Hill, how many responded positively? When Paul preached to the zealous Jews in Jerusalem, how many did not try to kill him?
It is abundantly clear that the majority of people neither know nor care about truth (Matt. 7:13-14). We are wrong to assume that they do. But even among those who become Christians, Jude found it necessary to exhort them to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Some would not stand for it, and some would depart from it. We are wrong to assume that all Christians are interested in the truth, also. In an ideal world (where sin did not dominate), our assumptions about others would be correct. But the reality is that on earth not everyone is nearly as excited about truth as we are.
Only two types of unity are possible: 1) unity based on truth; 2) unity that ignores truth. Jesus earnestly prayed for His disciples to be one, but prior to that He prayed for God to sanctify them through His truth, adding that His Word is truth (John 17:17). A mathematical illustration can make the point. If all the students of an elementary class know that 2 + 2 = 4, the whole class has unity which is based on the truth. In fact, if one student, on a quiz, were to write down that 2 + 2 = 3, it would be marked wrong, and the whole class would agree (including the careless tot whose answer was incorrect) because they all know the truth. The other kind of unity is that when a child writes down that 2 + 2 = 5, the teacher says that, if that was a meaningful answer to him, it should be accepted because everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. This kind of unity just ignores the facts.
Is it possible for people to have spiritual unity, for example, when some of them believe that human beings have free will, but others believe that God predestines everyone’s “choices”? No, because these two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other. One of them is true, and the other is false. The only way to achieve unity between adherents of both positions would be to ignore truth. And what kind of unity is that? It is based on a blasé, indifferent attitude.
Consider baptism. Some say that baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation—that we are saved by “faith only.” Others argue that baptism is part of God’s plan of salvation. Both cannot be true. Two conflicting statements in which identical meanings are being used for the main concepts cannot both be right at the same time. The number 3, for example, refers to precisely three items. It cannot refer to four such items without contradicting the definition of 3. Baptism cannot both be required for salvation and not be required for salvation at one and the same time. Those who believe baptism is irrelevant with respect to salvation cannot fellowship those who teach it is a requirement, and vice versa. To attempt fellowship in this instance would be to try to achieve it—not on the basis of truth—but by ignoring truth. Surely one of the two philosophies is true, since they are diametrically opposed, but the two perspectives cannot both be correct.
So at this juncture, the two concepts of truth and unity come into conflict. As those who are interested in fellowshipping all who profess to be Christians, we would like to embrace those of the “faith only” camp, but truth forbids us from doing so. The Bible does not teach “faith only.” Repentance (Luke 13:3) and baptism are also required (Acts 2:38). As for baptism having nothing to do with salvation, is it possible that some have never read 1 Peter 3:21? “There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism (the antitype) now saves us. How dare anyone say baptism cannot save?
Some vainly attempt to argue that this is Holy Spirit baptism. First, baptism in the Holy Spirit was a promise—not a command. Second, that water was involved in it is obvious by the fact that Peter felt compelled to explain that sin (spiritual transgression) was not removed by a physical washing. No one would need to issue this explanation because there would never be any confusion unless water was involved. The church is sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Since baptism in water saves us, how can Christian fellowship be extended to those who deny this very fundamental point?
Do we want unity among all those who claim to follow Christ? Yes! Can we have unity with those who contradict the Scriptures? No. Although truth and unity are both desirable, holding to the former will cause us to prohibit the latter. This division cannot be considered a weakness on our part. God desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus, however, said clearly that the majority of people are going to be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Why? God wants all people on earth to fellowship Him, but many will not follow the path of truth that leads to Him. They behave like Cain or Jezebel, or Simon the sorcerer. They choose to walk in darkness instead of light. The fact that many of these think that God will save them anyway does not alter the truth that they shall be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 21:8). God desires all to be saved, but He will not fellowship or have unity with those who prefer darkness.
Another example concerns those who have been taught that sprinkling and pouring constitute baptism. Is there some evidence that, when the New Testament uses the word baptism, it refers to sprinkling water or pouring water on someone? No. The very word itself means “to dip” or “to plunge.” John immersed people for the remission of their sins. He didn’t sprinkle or pour water upon them. Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). Baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-5).
Suppose someone, therefore, who has been sprinkled comes to us and claims to be a Christian; can we have unity? How can he be accepted as a Christian when he has never been baptized (immersed) for the forgiveness of his sins? He thinks he is saved, and we would like to have unity with him, but we cannot because sins are not cleansed by sprinkling or pouring water on someone. Baptizing in the way described in the Scriptures is the only way a person can have his sins removed. God never authorized any other way for it to be done. If people were saved through sprinkling, they would be saved by error and a disregard of the truth, which can never happen.
The Scriptures teach that truth and unity (which we all want) are connected. Unity can only exist if we all regard truth—or we all ignore it. The first option is Biblical; the second is Satanic. The devil is happy when people disregard truth. Jesus came to set people free from sin, which is achieved only through obedience to the truth. No substitute for truth can avail.