Truth Magazine

By Tim Haile

Does it really matter how we worship God? Some say no, but what does the Bible say? “God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). This verse tells us that worship is pre- scribed. That is, God has told us both what to do and how to do it. We must do what (“in truth”) God says to do, in the way (“in spirit”) that he said to do it! Men are not at liberty to just make up their own form of worship. In the area of religious service, God is not pleased with human ingenuity (Prov. 3:5-6; Jer. 10:23); he is pleased with human obedience (1 Sam. 15:22-23).

When it comes to our worship to God, we must cultivate a genuine desire to please God, and discipline ourselves to put God’s desires ahead of our own.

Almighty God Is the Object Of Our Praise

It is sinful when a person fails to properly honor God as his Creator. This sin preceded many others in a great list enumerated in Romans chapter one (Rom. 1:21, 25). For the most part, the Gentile peoples had abandoned and rejected the very God who had created and sustained them (Acts 14:17; 17:24-28). These sinners fabricated gods (idols) that would approve of their own sinful attitudes and actions. These idols were “dumb” (1 Cor. 12:2). They were incapable of even communicating with their misguided servants, much less doing anything for them. Isaiah 44:9-20 provides an excellent expose on the folly of idolatry. This type of outright idolatry is rare in our day, but is it possible that some people fail to give God the glory that he rightly deserves? I am afraid so.

People who do not appreciate the value of the object of their worship are not inclined to exercise great care in their worship. Those who know the Bible understand that God alone is worthy to receive our honor (John 4:24). When John fell down to worship an angel, the angel told him, “Do not! I am your fellow slave, and of your brothers who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God” (Rev. 19:10). When the crowds at Lystra attempted to worship Paul and Barnabas, Paul told them, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are human beings like you in every way . . .” (Acts 14:15). True worship is rendered, not to men and angels, but to the living God who made all things. We worship the God who loved us (John 3:16), the God who died for us (Acts 20:28; John

15:13), and the God who teaches us (1 Cor. 2:13). This God is ever present, all-powerful, and all wise. True worshipers are strongly motivated to “give glory” to their God by “continually offering up the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of their lips, confessing His name” (Luke 17:18; Heb. 13:15).

Does It Matter How We Approach God In Our Worship?

It is certainly possible for a person to worship God unscripturally. That is, either his attitude or his actions are wrong when he attempts to per- form his worship. Several examples could be cited. Cain’s “works were evil” in the worship that he offered unto God (1 John 3:12; Gen. 4:3). God killed Nadab and Abihu because they “offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not” (Lev. 10:1-2). Their actions constituted a corruption in worship. The same was true of the people in Malachi’s day. The people had “robbed God of tithes and offerings” (Mal. 3:8). He said they offered polluted bread and sick animals in their sacrifices to God, and that even their Governor would not be happy with that type of sacrifice (Mal. 1:8). What type of sacrifice do we offer when we approach God? Are there any signs that may suggest that our attitude or actions are wrong? Let us consider a couple of areas that may help us conduct a proper examination of ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5).

How We Behave During Worship

Worship is serious business, but I have attended places where the worship assembly was more like a community action meeting than a worship service. Rather than listen, concentrate, and participate, people would talk during prayers and singing. With some churches, members are so careless with their trash that the seats and floor of the auditorium will look like many movie theaters following worship services. Do some people forget that “all things are laid bare and exposed to the eyes of him with whom we must reckon” (Heb. 4:13)? God watches us in our worship assemblies. After punishing Aaron’s sons for their religious negligence, God told Aaron, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh to me” (Lev. 10:3). This strong statement indicates that God does indeed care how we approach him in our worship.

How We Dress for Worship

Have you ever participated in a worship service in which the man who made the comments for the Lord’s supper, admonishing us to remember the sacrificial death of our divine Savior, was himself wearing a Goofy T-shirt? Please don’t get excited or upset. We are not suggesting any type of worship dress code, but we are suggesting that those who come “nigh unto God” to honor him, should understand the relative importance of such an occasion, and they should dress for that occasion. When Christians wear the same slouchy clothes to worship services that they might wear to a ball game or to a family outing, they say that their attitude towards the one event, differs in no way from the other!

Please consider the following principles from the Old and New Testaments. We do not appeal to these passages in an effort to establish a standard or dress code, but these examples do set forth basic principles about putting God first in all that we do, including what we wear in worship.

How would you dress if you were going for an interview with the Governor (Mal. 1:8)? Isn’t one much greater than the Governor with us when we gather for worship (Matt. 18:20)?

The Levitical priests were not to wear common clothes when ad- ministering their duties (Exod. 28). Christians are a “kingdom of priests before God” (Rev. 1:6).

The church is the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). Do you generally wear the same kind of clothes to a ball game that you would wear to a wed- ding? What do you wear to church services?

The Lord’s supper is a memorial supper designed by God for Christians to commemorate the death of Jesus on the cross (1 Cor. 11:23-29). Funerals are memorial services for the purpose of remembering and honoring the dead. How do you generally dress when attending a funeral service?

Should we be careful about what we wear to worship services? At the very least we can say that one should not have an apathetic, lackadaisical attitude about what he wears as he presumes to approach the God of heaven and earth, to worship him.

When We Arrive at Worship

Is it appropriate for people to consistently show up late for worship services? We know that it is sinful to forsake the assembly (Heb. 10:25), but is there anything wrong with partially missing the assembly? In order to have an assembly people must have agreed upon certain assembly terms. Of necessity, there must be a certain time and a certain place. These two factors are essential. These terms are accepted by persons who follow the approved apostolic example of joining a local church for the purpose of corporate work, study, and worship (Acts 9:26; 11:26). Let us understand that such local church assemblies are God’s way for his people to fulfill these duties (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 14:26; Acts 2:42). Willful negligence in failing to respect the meeting times and place of the local church constitutes disobedience to God.

Let us not think of church services in the same way we do a movie. It may be somewhat annoying to some people, but arriving at the movie a little late is not a sin. Willfully and consistently arriving at church services late reflects disinterest and apathy. It certainly shows that we have failed to “seek first the kingdom of God” as Matthew 6:33 teaches. It also suggests that we do not “love the Lord   . . . with all of our heart, soul, and mind” (Matt. 22:37). We have allowed something else to take God’s place.

For the Christian, worship to God is both a privilege and a responsibility. It provides us with a means of both thanking and praising the sovereign God of the universe. Let us therefore “come boldly unto the throne of grace” and serve God with diligence and zeal. Let us never be characterized by laziness and carelessness, for it is this attitude that will cause God to “vomit us out of His mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Neither let us be characterized by the rebellious spirit of Jeroboam that would allow us to set up our own golden calves of corrupt worship (1 Kings 12:28). Let us strive to be true worshipers, worshiping God in “spirit and in truth.”

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.