Truth Magazine

First we were treated to a dose of “values clarification” which, like all such deceitful terms, really means just the opposite: “values confusion,“ or “values substitution. ”They have succeeded in making many believe that they have clarified something, when in reality their devotees are now confused over what is of value and what is not. The proponents of so-called “values clarification” have succeeded in great part in getting their values substituted for the values which our founding fathers used to form this nation. The only thing that the ungodly have clarified is their determination to destroy the values of others.

Now, we are being treated to a different medicine of “smooth and fair speech,” and, like the previous one, it also is deceitful. (What can you expect from those who are servants of the Father of lies? — John 8:44) The American Psychological Association has come out with an article, in defense of consensual sex between adults and children, in which we are told that we should use “value-free” terms. We are told that we should abandon such terms as “child abuse,” “molestation,” and “victims,” in our discussion of pedophilia, when the cases are about consensual sex, and should discuss the issue with “value-free” terms!

First the purveyors of ungodliness confused and substituted values, and now they are trying to abolish them altogether! In other words, we should not speak of any sin as being sinful! Anything that man wants to do should be spoken of in euphemistic lingo! How convenient!

The Nor th American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) says: “Sex does not pose the danger to minors claimed by police, prosecutors and prudes crusading against man/boy love.” (Note how deceitfully the statement switches from “sex” to “love”! No one is crusading against a man loving a boy, but against a man having sex with a boy. However, isn’t “love” a value?) As to values, is not the above quote a statement of the value (to the pedophile) of consensual man/boy sex? (He considers it of great value!) When the pedophile calls others “crusading prudes,” is he using a “value-free” term? The ungodly want everyone else to use “value-free” terms, but they are exempt from their own law; they refer to us as “crusading prudes.” Couldn’t they find a term, with which to refer to us, without using one that puts a bad value on us? They can have their values, but others cannot!

Don’t let euphemistic terms deceive you! Fornication is still fornication, even though the self-styled intellectuals call it “consensual sex.” Why not call murder “specialized elimination,” or stealing, “personalized acquisition and appropriation”? (After all, the bank robber simply has an “alternate lifestyle” in directing his economics!) Would these “value-free” terms make these sins acceptable? Would cow manure smell better if we called it “bovine excreta”? Whom do they think they are kidding with their call for “value-free” terms? Well, they are kidding untold numbers of people, those who are not thinking for themselves! That’s why the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul wrote Romans 16:18.

When I was a young preacher, an old-timer told me: “Of what the false teacher accuses you, he himself is guilty.” How true, how true! The “value-free” advocate will try to press his values on you! He will criticize you for “criticizing,” judge you for “judging,” won’t tolerate your “intolerance,” will put you down for not recognizing everyone’s “self-esteem,” and is absolutely sure that there are “no absolutes.” Just remember this, all you crusading prudes!

By Connie W. Adams

When Jesus warned the apostles to “take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” they reasoned that he said this “because we have taken no bread” (Matt. 16:6-7). He quickly reminded them of the miracles of feeding the five thousand and then the four thousand and how much was taken up in each case. He said their problem was one of “little faith” (v. 8). They could not get past the physical to the spiritual. “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (vv. 11, 12).

The sect of the Pharisees began in an effort to preserve pure Judaism and to protect it from the compromising influences of Hellenism. These Hasidim could foresee everything that was typically Jewish being swallowed up by the influences of the Greeks. Over time they built a scaffold around the law to be sure it was protected. But in time they could not distinguish between their scaffold and the law itself. Their inventions became the “doctrines and commandments of men” which Jesus condemned. They had considerable influence. The synagogue activities were under their control. Since these doubled as schools, their influence on rising generations was great. That was their leaven — their influence.

The Sadducees were more liberal in their approach. They sought means of compromising with the Greeks during the inter-testament period. Consequently, those who ruled Palestine from the time of Alexander the Great through the Syrian and Egyptian periods (the Seleucids and Ptolemies) looked to the Sadducees as a local link in ruling the people. The function of the high priest fell under the control of the Sadducees. He became a sort of liaison between the ruling power and the Jewish subjects. Doctrinally they were weak. They denied the existence of angels and spirits and rejected any expectation of a resurrection from the dead. They were the modernists of the day. Their “leaven” was deadly.

The Pharisees bound where God did not bind and the Sadducees loosed where God did not loose. Both errors are to be avoided. There was no ground for compromise with either doctrine. It would not have done for the disciples to have written papers opposing the doctrine of either the Pharisees or the Sadducees and then go arm in arm with them while they sowed their seeds of error.

The Leaven of False Teaching

We have a remarkable thing in the land (and in other lands). There are those who preach and write that they do not agree with those who are teaching that it is scriptural for people to divorce and remarry without the exception which Jesus stated in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Some are saying that the alien is not subject to the law of Christ and that baptism sanctifies the marriages of those divorced and remarried when fornication was not the cause for the divorce. Then there are those who say Jesus was simply explaining the Mosaic law and setting the record straight. Some say adultery is not sexual at all but is the breaking of the covenant of marriage. These and other erroneous views have caused trouble in congregations, and have generated false hope for those living in open violation of the will of God. Now, if you disagree with all this hodgepodge of error, why do you link arms and work with those who are teaching such things? Why are you so defensive about them? Why are those who not only oppose the doctrine but will not extend the right hand of fellowship to those who teach it the greatest enemies of all? Beware of the leaven — the doctrine.

In the Philippines there are some teaching the doctrine of the one eternal covenant that no law was nailed to the cross, only sin was so nailed. There are some there (both Americans and Filipinos) who say they reject the doctrine but they go arm in arm with those who are teaching it and have declared war on those of us who openly oppose the teaching and who admonish brethren not to “bid Godspeed” to those who bring such error.

When men who speculate that there are eons of time in the days of creation in Genesis 1, or eons between the days of creation, are called on to teach young people or to lecture before invited brethren, it is time for someone to warn of the leaven of theistic evolution or its close cousin. The forum given to men who hold and teach such views offers credibility to them and places any of us who raise questions about it under a cloud of suspicion. Some have turned around what the Lord said. They must think he said, “Beware of those who oppose the leaven.” No, he said “Beware of the leaven” and he defined that as “the doctrine” of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Leaven permeates whatever it touches. When it is applied to false doctrine the warning is clear. We must not be contaminated by erroneous teaching from either end of the spectrum.

Error is not as good as truth. It never has been. It works like an infectious disease to destroy all in its wake. When it is brought by men of charm, education, sophistication, skill and experience, the danger of the leaven is all the more serious.

I wish those who have found room in Romans 14 for fellowship with all sorts of false teaching (and teachers) would come to terms with the issue of the “leaven” of these views. Beware the leaven!

By Mike Willis

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject (Tit. 3:10, KJV).

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him (Tit. 3:10, NIV).

After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions (Tit. 3:10, NRSV).

Titus 3:10 contains Paul’s instructions to the preacher Titus about the dangers that a factious man poses to a local church. We will do well to study this passage in detail and pay careful attention to its instructions.

The word “heretic” is used in English to describe “one who holds heretical opinions; one who holds to a doctrine or opinion contrary to that which is generally accepted or established.” In theology it means “one who holds to a doctrine or opinion that is contrary to the fundamental doctrine or creed of one’s church” (Webster).

What does the word “heretic” mean in Titus 3:10. The NIV translates the word hairetikos as “a divisive person” and the NRSV as “anyone who causes division. “Whether or not the idea of “false doctrine” is a part of the context of Titus 3:10, we are well aware that the Scriptures condemn an on-going fellowship with those who teach doctrines contrary to God’s divinely revealed will (see 2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17-18; etc.). Also, we are aware that the word hairesis is used in Galatians 5:20 in a context that clearly describes the divisive conduct of the person rather than his false teaching. Perhaps, we will not misuse the text in this article to concentrate on the aspects of divisiveness in the context of Titus 3:10 in this study of factionalism. (For a consideration of the aspect of teaching false doctrine that can be included in the definition of the word, see my article entitled “Hairesis and Hairetikos,” Truth Magazine XIX:4 [November 28, 1974].)

J.J. Van Oosterzee wrote, “In regard to the question frequently mooted, whether, by the heretics spoken of in the New Testament, we are to understand men who swerve from sound doctrine, and wrest the truth; or rather those who, by ecclesiastical dissensions, destroy the unity of the body of Christ, and thus do violence to love, the answer is simply this: This whole distinction rests upon an arbitrary antithesis between truth and love, faith and life. In swerving from the purity of the Apostolic teaching, the heretics became also schismatics. And the schismatics, so far as they aimed to be such, and to establish a separate church, must inevitably adopt peculiar doctrines, and thereby come more and more into collision with the teachings of the Apostles” (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Titus 22). Oosterzee may be correct in his statement that the discussion about whether the word heretic describes one who clings to a false doctrine or one who is schismatic may be a mistaken antithesis.

William Hendriksen wrote, “Accordingly, a factious person is here a person who without justification creates division. In the light of the context it is probable that the rendering ‘a heretic’ is not far off. At any rate, the word is moving in that direction. The factious person of whom the apostle is thinking has accepted the sinister philosophy of the Cretan errorists who specialized in foolish inquiries and law-skirmishes (see on verse 9). As has become clear, their error touched both doctrine and life, as is usually the case. It is true, of course, that the term as here used need not be restricted to a particular type of fanatic. Every factious person stands condemned here” (New Testament Commentary: I-II Timothy, Titus 395).

Having looked at these comments, let us make some observations about the text in its context.

Needless Contentions

The context of Titus 3:10 describes a group who became caught up in disagreements regarding foolish questions, genealogies, and contentions. What are these disagreements? Certainly they are not the kinds of things under discussion by the Judaizers who were preaching that salvation was conditioned upon circumcision and observing the law of Moses, for Paul warned churches that these doctrines were destructive to the faith and worked like leaven to eat the heart out of salvation by grace through faith (see Romans and Galatians). They are not like the Gnostic controversy that denied the humanity of Christ and taught that sin did not interfere with one’s relationship to God (see 1-3 John). These are questions about matters that did not attack the content of the faith.

They are described as “foolish questions.” The word “foolish” is from moras which is used in this context to mean “imprudent, without forethought or wisdom. . . . empty, useless, 2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii.9” (Thayer 420). The word “question” is from zetesis which means “a subject of questioning or debate, matter of controversy” (Thayer

272). The questions were “empty” and “useless” controversies, or as we might say today, “making mountains out of molehills.” Sometimes churches get in the most heated kinds of controversies over matters that have no appreciable difference in application, challenge no Bible doctrine, or otherwise make a “hill of beans” worth of difference. Nevertheless, brethren can press their opinions about such matters until brotherly love is destroyed and alienation sets in.

The second word to describe what these brethren were to avoid was “genealogies.” The word genealogia means “a genealogy, a record of descent or lineage. ”Thayer also recognizes that the word is used in the plural “of the orders of aeons, according to the doctrine of the Gnostics” (Thayer 112). The phrase calls to mind 1 Timothy 1:4 — “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” The context seems to favor a syncretistic Jewish/Gnostic movement. Buchsel said, “it is probable that the expression denotes the biblical history enriched by interpretations and additions” (TDNT I:664). Such speculations were not only foolish, but also those over which brethren disagreed and divided.

The third word to describe the factional controversies of Titus 3:10 is “contentions.” The word eris means “contention, strife, wrangling” ( Thayer 249). He adds also “strivings about the law” or “quarrels about the law” (NIV, NRSV ). The word “striving” is from mache, “a fight, combat. . . of persons at variance, disputations, etc., strife, contention” (Thayer 394). “About the law” is from nomikos, “pertaining to (the) law” (Thayer 427). Arguments with reference to the law sometime drive wedges between loving brethren, rather than promoting unity, fellowship, godly living, and harmony. Such discussions are unhealthy and divisive.

From this studies, we see that Titus 3:10 is not limited in application to a person who is teaching false doctrine, but can also apply to a factious person who creates schism and division in a local church over matters of no real consequence. Any man who creates division in the local church is a threat to that church, even if he believes the truth! His schismatic and divisive conduct is as destructive to the church as any false doctrine is. Satan uses factional brethren as effectively as he uses false teachers to plague churches with friction, heartache, and upheaval. Such brethren “sanctify” their divisiveness under the banner of “standing for the truth.” They disrupt or destroy one church after another. When one group wises up to their ways and calls them to account, they pack their bags and move to another church charging that the church where they had been worshiping has gone “liberal.” The scene is repeated every two or three years. Lying in their wake is their bitter fruits — one disrupted or divided church after another!

Disciplining the Factional Brother

Paul’s instructions for how the church is to handle the factional brother is this: “After the first and second ad- monition, reject” (Tit. 3:10). The NIV says, “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him” (Tit. 3:10).

Anyone who pays attention to what has occurred among brethren can testify that all over this country local churches have been subjected to divisive, factional brethren. Yet, how many times can you name when those factional brethren were handled according to the pattern Paul commanded? The usual pattern is that enough brethren express their discontentment with their conduct that they move away to another church. The church that receives them, listens to their pathetic story and sometimes receives them without investigation or by a one-sided investigation (that is, by asking only those who agreed with the factious brother in the church which he left). On other occasions, the receiving church calls the elders from the church from which they left and those elders, fearing that accurate information and timely warnings may somehow constitute slander or gossip, say little about the trouble the factional brethren have caused. The consequence is that two or three years down the road, the second church has the same problem with those brethren as did the first church.

How much better would the situation be if the first church had followed Paul’s instructions! Give the factional brother a first and second admonition, and then if he does not repent, “reject” him or “have nothing to do with him.” Such a man should be marked. Then any church that received him would know of the problems he had caused at the previous church. If they received him in spite of the discipline, at least they would be responsible for their own problems inasmuch as they received one who was the subject of church discipline.

Brethren, the problem of factionalism cannot be solved by ignoring it. Just like every other area of Bible.

An Internet site is taking a poll to determine the best song of the century. John Lennon’s song “Imagine” is winning. It is winning over Louie Armstrong’s “What A Wonderful World.” Imagine that.

At the Atlanta Olympics of 1996, Lennon’s song was the center piece of the closing ceremonies. It was sung by Stevie Wonder and broadcast around the world during prime time and was watched by over one billion people.

On October 9, 1990, Yoko Ono spoke before the United Nations and a recording of “Imagine” was broadcast to 130 countries over 1000 radio stations to over one billion people. The Armed Forces network beamed it to 80 more countries.

While one may admire Lennon’s ability, right –thinking people must disdain his atheistic communism. Tom Brokaw (of NBC) told us Lennon began his rebellion against authority when he was ten years old. The peace he longed for will never come through the philosophy he advocated in his song.

 “Imagine There’s No Heaven, It’s easy if you try.” Lennon wanted us to believe Jesus was lying by promising us heaven. This would mean Jesus was not the son of God. Jesus taught us to live morally and              righteously that we might spend eternity in the place he has gone to prepare and where he now reigns (John 14:1-3). Lennon never advocated morality.

“No Hell Below Us, Above Us Only Sky.” As an act of friendship, Jesus warned us against hell. “And I say unto you my friends, . . . fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Luke 12:4, 5; Matt. 10:28). Warning people about hell is an act of friendship. Not many believe in hell because it hampers their lifestyle. Lennon taught and practiced self-indulgence. Jesus taught self- denial and called us to a higher and nobler life of faith in Jehovah God who holds the future. If Jesus was right about hell then Lennon was no friend to man.

“Imagine All The People, Living for today.” Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism (4A Society) said, “Happiness here and now should be the motive of our conduct.” Neither Smith nor Lennon believed in a hereafter — no heaven or hell. Just do what makes you happy now. Live for today. For over two decades a large segment of society has been doing that. And when we look at the AIDS plague, other epidemics of VD, the abortions, unwanted and unloved children, drug addicts, suicides, school shootings, etc., we are caused to ask, “Are we having fun yet?”

“Imagine. . . No religion too.” Eliminating Jesus and his teaching about heaven and hell does not eliminate religion. It exchanges one religion for another. From a religion of self-denial to a religion of self-indulgence. Lennon’s religion of self-indulgence makes self into a god. The worship of self is the most corrupt religion a man can have.

“Imagine All The People, living life in peace.” If you can imagine this from a life of self-indulgence you have too big an imagination. Lennon admitted advocating drug use (self-indulgence) in some of his songs. The drug culture has brought us anything but peace. We have seen its blight on America’s most precious natural resource — her youth. Drugs are involved in the majority of crimes. They have ruined the physical and mental health of many. Some have turned to crime and prostitution. Some have turned away from life to suicide. Lennon suffered the consequences of his own philosophy. One of his fans, who was a drug user, shot and killed the rock star. And if there is no God, who can say he did wrong? If there is no God then anything goes, and eventually everything will.

Christians deplore both the crime and the philosophy that led to Lennon’s death (no God, self-indulgence).

“Imagine No Possessions . . . People sharing all the world.” Christians of the first century shared their possessions by choice, out of love, as Jesus taught (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32; John 13:34, 35). Communism tried to force people to work according to their ability and receive according to their needs (no choice, without love). The work ethic was destroyed and many now live in poverty. It would help if the multi-millionaires like Lennon and many other advocates of this philosophy would lead the way instead of pointing the direction. Lennon, Jane Fonda, etc. retain their millions while making token contributions to liberal causes now and then. Communist leaders lived lives of luxury while the people starved. They want everyone else to give up their possessions but they haven’t shown us how it’s done.

“You May Say I’m A Dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” Yes, because what Lennon dreamed (communism) became a nightmare that didn’t work. Atheistic communism is not the answer to man’s plight. The reason we could never have the peace of which Lennon (and Lenin) dreamed is because he eliminated the Prince of Peace who gave us the highest moral principles known to man. Any attempt to bring about peace (such as the United Nations, ecumenical movement, communism) that eliminates the Prince of Peace is bound to failure. Lennon never knew the real Jesus and his high moral principles, such as the golden rule, which when applied, will bring about peace. Because of that, he wanted to eliminate all religion. Early on, it was Lennon who claimed the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. The fact that the cooperation of the U.N., all the radio and TV stations and 210 countries could be brought together to hear Lennon’s song should tell us that there are many who are still dreaming Lennon’s dream. Lennon never gave a fair examination to the evidence. Perhaps it would be appropriate to close with the words to the song that appears to be coming in second, made popular by Louie Armstrong.

I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you,
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue and clouds of white,
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people goin’ by.
I see friends shakin’ hands, sayin’“How do you do!”
They’re really sayin’“I love you.”

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow.
They’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

Yes I think to myself, What A Wonderful World
( Words and music by George David Weiss and Bob Thiele

I don’t need to tell you which song I voted for Almost.