Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In his second article of his series on “The Word Abused . . . ,” Leroy Garrett studied Rom. 16:17-18. The passage reads as follows:

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them: For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

This is not the first time that Garrett has written on these verses; he treated the passage in an article entitled “How Men Use The Bible To Justify Their Divisions” in an earlier issue of Restoration Review.(1) Too, Carl Ketcherside(2) and Hoy Ledbetter(3) have both written on the subject. Therefore, we are able to check to see how much or how little diversity in doctrinal belief exists among the “unity-in-diversity” brethren.

First of all, let me relate Garrett’s treatment of Rom. 16:17-18 in Restoration Review. Garrett began with a lengthy discussion that sought to show that some divisions are right. Citing examples of justifiable division from Galileo, Reformation leaders, leaders of the American Revolution, etc., he said,

“But this verse, when superficially applied, is made to mean that division is per se wrong. Nobody can really believe that . . . . Not every division is right, but division is a justifiable principle.”(4)

The statement of this principle is exactly the opposite of what Garrett wrote in Thoughts on Unity. Contrast the statement above with what is cited below:

“I. The most serious abuse of this passage is the view that it is all right to cause dissensions and divisions so long as it is done in keeping with `the doctrine which you have been taught.’ There are those who cause divisions over false doctrine or their own opinions or over things that do not matter, and this is wrong. But if one causes division by standing for the truth, this is all right. So they make the passage read this way. ‘Mark them which cause divisions and offences that are contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.’ In other words the division is warranted if it is caused by standing for the truth, each one of course deciding just what determines truth ….

“I cannot believe that Paul is saying that division and dissension are all right if they are the result of being loyal to doctrine. The man who says, ‘I’ll wreck this church for the sake of truth,’ cannot look to Romans 16:17 for his defense. This is a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘contrary to the doctrine which you have learned:

“Paul is simply saying that the spirit that causes divisions and dissension is contrary to the teaching that I have been giving you. He does not mean that some division is caused by error and some by truth, and that division is all right if it is necessary to preserve truth.”(5)

Obviously, the editor of Restoration Review “superficially applied” this passage for a number of years and even charged that any brethren who disagreed with him was guilty of “abusing the scriptures.” What has caused the recent change by the editor of Restoration Review? Noting that he sanctioned the massive walkout of brethren in Dallas one is lead to believe that Garrett now believes it is right for the “free” brethren of the unity cult to create division. In reference to that walkout, he said,

“And exodus can be a glorious thing to folk who have been held down .and fenced up by partyism, and there is no indication that our partyism is any better than the next church’s.”(6)

Whatever might be the explanation of the change, the above quotations demonstrate that Garrett has changed his position about divisions in general.

Proceeding to the latest article, Garrett charged that Rom. 16:18 was written to correct a behavioral problem instead of a doctrinal one (as if deviation from the doctrine of Christ was not a behavioral problem) and that the primary problem was an evil heart rather than wrong doctrine.(7) He then asserted that to “mark” an individual had no reference to disfellowship.(8) Then, he identified the phrase “contrary to the teaching you learned” as follows:

“The phrase ‘contrary to the teaching you received’ almost certainly refers to the teaching on unity In spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14.”(9)

(One wonders why Garrett did not use this verse to persuade those who walked out at Dallas that they were creating divisions “contrary to the teaching you learned”-namely, unity in spite of differences.) Having said that, Garrett concluded:

“There is no way that this passage can be applied to sincere, well-meaning, unity-loving brothers who happen to hold to ideas different from what we believe the scriptures to teach. To apply this to those who support Herald of Truth, divide into classes for study, use a plurality of cups, employ a resident pastor, use a piano or organ, interpret a prophecy in terms of a premillennial reign, or do their missionary and educational work through societies is to abuse the scriptures. In fact the one who so twists the scriptures as to impose this kind of oppression upon his brothers is more guilty of the sin involved than the one he is applying it to, and if anyone needs to be Marked! it is he.(10)

Compare Ketcherside and Ledbetter To Garrets

The “unity-in-diversity” brethren preach that we must have unity-in-diversity but practice unity-in-doctrine. The doctrine which each of them must believe is that doctrinal conformity is not essential to unity. Nevertheless, on the key passages dealing with fellowship on doctrinal matters, these brethren somehow manage to have doctrinal agreement. Ketcherside agreed that the “teaching you learned” in Rom. 16:18 was the doctrine that God’s family should not be divided.(11) He also believes that the “marking” and “avoiding” do not refer to congregational action.(12) Hoy Ledbetter accepted at least one of the major points of the position held by Garrett. He said that the “marking” and “avoiding” of Rom. 16:17-18 is not excommunication.(13) So, you can see that the “unity-in diversity” brethren exhibit no little amount of doctrinal conformity.

Exegesis

Whatever the situation was in Rome, Paul advised the brethren to guard themselves against men who caused “dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned.” ” Dissensions” (dichostasia) “denotes a state of things in which men are divided, in which feuds flourish, and in which unity is destroyed. Dichostasia bears its picture on its face; it literally means ‘a standing apart,’ that is, a state in which all community, all fellowship, and all togetherness are gone.”(14) “Hindrances” (skandalon) is an interesting word; skandalon is properly “the movable stick or tricker (‘trigger’) of a trap, trap-stick; a trap, snare; any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall.”(15)

The ministry of the disciples of Christ was divisive in nature; Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Mt. 10:34-36). Paul added, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may become evident among you” (1 Cor. 11:19-20). With reference to the word skandalon, one needs to notice that it is applied with reference to the Christ on some occasions. With reference to the Jews, Paul said, “They stumbled over the stumbling-stone, just as it is written, ‘Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock- of offense (skandalon), and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Rom. 9:23-33). (See also 1 Pet. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11.) “In N.T. skandalon is always used metaphorically, and ordinarily of anything that arouses prejudice, or becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way. Sometimes the hindrance is in itself good, and those stumbled by it are the wicked.”(16) Where the gospel, correctly presented, produces divisions, as it always will, the divisions are right. We are not responsible for the legitimate effects of the truth.

Inasmuch as the teaching of truth and Jesus Himself can be the source of division, the phrase “contrary to the teaching which you have learned” (para ten didachen hen humeis emathete) becomes all important. Commentators cannot be sure which teaching Paul is referring to in this passage. Ketcherside and Garrett say that the teaching referred to is “almost certainly . . . the teaching on unity in spite of differences which he had just laid before them in the letter, especially Rom. 14.”(17) Most commentators are not so certain as are Garrett and Ketcherside. Actually, most commentators which I have read say that the divisive men mentioned here are Judaizers who tried to bind the Mosaical law on Christians and, therefore, make the “teaching which you learned” the teaching concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship and the proper usage of the Mosaical law (which items are among the major thrusts of the letter), as the following quotations demonstrate:

“Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses, and who set up a claim for greater purity and orthodoxy than those possessed who received the Gentile converts as brethren.”(18)

“The warning is against a class of persons whose mischievous activity he had had experience of elsewhere, and attempts by some of whom to disturb the peace of the Roman Church he may possibly have heard of. They may have been Judaists, or others who taught views contrary to the received faith, and so caused divisions and offences ‘in the church.”(19)

“What precisely was the mischief, who precisely were the dangerous teachers, spoken of here so abruptly and so urgently by St. Paul? It is easier to ask the question than to answer it. Some expositors have sought a solution in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, and have found in an extreme school of theoretical ‘liberty’ these men of ‘pious language and specious pleas. But to us this seems impossible. . . In our view, the case was one of embryo Gnosticism.”(20)

. . the most natural way to understand the reference to those who create dissensions and difficulties is as pointing to the Judaizers.”(21)

Additional comments from others could be cited but these are sufficient to demonstrate that no one can be certain as to precisely which teaching was being distorted. Therefore, the best explanation appears to me to be one which makes a general application of the passage: whoever causes a division over any teaching not revealed in the scriptures is to be marked and avoided!

Even if the contentions of Ketcherside and Garrett were correct and the reference to Rom. 14 is the teaching which Paul had in mind, the case for those who divided the church over instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church would not be improved. The very best that could be said for the promoters of instrumental music, benevolent institutions, and the sponsoring church is that (they divided the church over an expediency! We were forced either to conform or to get out! According to 1 Tim. 4:1-3, any person who so binds his opinions is “fallen away from the faith.” On the other hand, it must be admitted, if the scriptures allow each of the above items and we have forbidden their usage, we are “fallen away from the faith” for binding our opinions. That is why the whole issue must be drawn at the following point: “Is the (any innovation) ‘contrary to the teaching which you have learned’ from the apostles?” If the innovation is not allowed by the scriptures, then the ones promoting it fall under the censure of this verse. If it is allowed, then the ones dividing the church by prohibiting it fall under the censure of this verse. Whichever of us is not teaching the doctrine of Christ is the one to be marked and avoided!

Garrett says that he cannot understand how this passage ever came to be applied to unity loving brethren who happened to disagree doctrinally; I shall try to tell him. Once upon a time, the Lord’s body was one, big, happy family. Then, brethren began to bring mechanical instruments of music into worship and missionary societies into church budgets; since they could not find scriptures to justify these practices, the church divided. Having partially overcome the effects of one division, the Lord’s people began to rebuild the Temple of Zion. Then, one day, some more brethren began to try to get churches to put the college in the budget. When they saw that this would’ fail, they resorted to orphan homes in the church budget as a strategical ploy to prepare the churches for colleges in the budget. The sponsoring church concept was pushed as well. The effect was that brethren were forced dither to accept these innovations or to get out. Since they could not give biblical authority for them, the Lord’s church divided. Because brethren could not give scripture for what they were doing, they were causing “dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you have learned.” Therefore, Rom. 16:17 was applied to them. Now is that not easy to understand? So long as brethren are guilty of causing divisions contrary to the gospel, Rom. 16:17 can and must be applied to them.

Mark and Avoid

Another important aspect of any discussion of this verse is a discussion of what is meant by “marking” and “avoiding.” As noted earlier, Garrett does not believe that the idea conveyed in this verse pertains to excommunication; he said,

“The word for ‘mark them’ has no reference to disfellowship, excommunication, or even stigmatization. He is not calling for labels or brands, nor even for discourtesy. The idea is that they are to watch out or keep an eye on such people. They are to be on their guard and not be deceived by their cunning.”(22)

Apparently Garrett understands the Bible to mention various kinds of excommunication; these people were to be “marked” and “avoided” but, he said, this is not “excommunication.” Hoy Ledbetter maintained a similar distinction when he said,

“The avoidance enjoined in Rom. 16 is not excommunication, but the sort of turning away (ekklino: ‘bend away from’) that precludes support or encouragement of the corrupting and divisive practices and doctrines the deviationists brought . . . Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum. There is a form of avoidance short of excommunication which we must employ in some situations.”(23)

These brethren allude to a belief in various levels of fellowship concerning which they need to be more specific. Do you brethren adopt the minor, major and anathema levels of excommunication posited by the Roman Catholic Church?(24) If not, please let us know exactly what you believe about levels of disfellowshipping. Of course, we will want you to document those levels of excommunication with scriptural references!

The passage before us commands Christians to “mark” those “causing divisions contrary to the doctrine which you have learned.” Skopeo is defined as follows: “look (out) for, notice, keep one’s eyes on . . .”(25) and “to look at, observe, contemplate . . . to mark . . . to fix one’s eyes upon, direct one’s attention to, anyone.”(26) “The word skopein signifies to observe attentively and diligently, as they do who are placed in a watch-tower to observe the motions of their enemies.”(27) Although skobeb does not carry the idea of withdrawal of fellowship, ekklinti does. Ekklino is defined as follows: “to turn away from, keep aloof from, one’s society; to shun one.”(28) Here are some comments from others about the verse:

“It is worthy of notice, that the apostle desires the faithful to mark them who cause divisions, not for the purpose of disputing with them, and far less for the purpose of apprehending them with fines, imprisonment, torture, and death; but that they might avoid their . company, lest by conversing familarly with such, they might have been infected with their errors and vices.”(29)

“. . . turn away from them; i.e. shun them; have nothing to do with them.”(30)

“Avoid, go out of their way, or eschew them.”(31)

“This turning away amounted to a withdrawal of fellowship; and the withdrawal was to continue, so long as those withdrawn from, continued to produce divisions. It was a separation of true brethren from false; and without a reformation it was final.”(32)

In the article on “Excommunication” in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, Rom. 16:17 was cited to support the practice. The plain statement of this verse is that Christians must avoid those who are causing divisions contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. If that is not commanding a withdrawal of fellowship, I cannot understand the meaning of words. A withdrawal of fellowship is ceasing to have anything to do with a person-avoiding him. The unity cult must either reveal their multi-leveled system of withdrawal of fellowship and give it biblical documentation or admit that this is an allusion to the principle of withdrawing fellowship, a principle discussed more fully in other New Testament passages. Which route will you brethren take?

Heart Sin?

Garrett also charged that Rom. 16:17 dealt primarily with a behavioral problem rather than a doctrinal problem. He said,

“It is clear enough that he is dealing with a behavioral problem more than a doctrinal one . . . . It was their evil heart more than their wrong doctrine that concerned the apostle. Their behavior was causing division, for they sought to form cliques and parties around themselves through flattering and deceitful talk. The key description is that they were insincere. They were deceivers and impostors.

Remember that Garrett has already committed himself to the belief that Rom. 16:17 does not command excommunication. He now admits that the men under discussion here are insincere, false teachers. If admittedly false teachers who are insincere men more interested in self than in Christ are not to be disfellowshipped, just who is to be disfellowshipped?

Too, what difference does it make whether the man was sincere or insincere? If one could prove that the pope of Rome was sincere, would he be under obligation to fellowship him? If one could prove that a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness was sincere, would we be under obligation to fellowship him? If I proved that a Baptist, “faith-only,” preacher was sincere, should I therefore fellowship him? If I could prove that a Jew was sincere, should we therefore fellowship him? If not, then why does the issue of sincerity even enter the picture when discussing benevolent institutions, sponsoring churches, missionary societies, and mechanical instruments of music in worship? Any man, .sincere or insincere, who divides the church of our Lord Jesus Christ “contrary to the teaching” of the apostles must be avoided.

I have no intention of judging the heart of a man (or men) who died over 1900 years ago. This verse does not demand that I know a man’s heart; it demands that I know whether or not he has violated the Scriptures! Those who say that one should withdraw from the insincere but not from the sincere are in the unenviable position of passing judgment on men’s hearts.

Conclusion

Let me remind you why a discussion of Rom. 16:17 is so important. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside are methodically trying to discharge every shot we fire at false teachers. Garrett and Ketcherside do not believe that mechanical instruments of music in worship, missionary societies, benevolent institutions, and sponsoring churches are sinful. Garrett believes that there are Christians in all denominations. Therefore, they are seeking to unite the Christian Churches, liberal churches of Christ, and us by getting all parties to quit calling “sinful” what the others are practicing. The kind of peace they are calling for is one like our government signed in Viet Nam-we quit fighting but they continue their innovations. Since I cannot sit back quietly and allow them to discharge our weapons, I am responding methodically to these articles by Garrett. If Garrett succeeds in accomplishing his goals, the ship of Zion will have no anchor to hold it to the word of God. It will be lose on an uncharted sea without a compass to give it direction.

Endnotes

1. The article is quoted in Thoughts on Unity, Stanley Paregien, editor (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1970), pp. 104-119.

2. Carl Ketcherside, “Contrary To The Doctrine,” The Twisted Scriptures: Mission Messenger, 1965 (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 19(15), pp. 33-40.

3. Hoy Ledbetter, “Christian Discipline (2),” Integrity, V, No. 11 (May, 1974), pp. 162-167.

4. Leroy Garrett, “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (February, 1975), p. 23.

5. Leroy Garrett, Thoughts on Unity, op. cit., pp. 106-107.

6. Leroy Garrett, “A Massive Walkout in Dallas,” Restoration Review, Vol. XVI, No. 10 (December, 1974), p. 385.

7. Ibid., XVII, No. 2 (February, 1975), p. 24.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 25.

10. Ibid.

11. Carl Ketcherside, op. cit., p, 35.

12. Ibid., pp. 36, 37.

13. Hoy Ledbetter, op. cit., p. 163.

14. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 56-57.

15. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), p. 577.

16. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1966), Vol. III, p. 129.

17. Leroy Garrett, op. cit., XVII, No. 2, p. 25.

18. Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), p. 336.

19. J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary: Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 456.

20. Handley C. G. Moule, The Expositor’s Bible: Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943), Vol. V, p. 622.

21. John Knox, The Interpreter’s Bible: Romans (New York: Abingdon, Cokesbury Press, 1954), p. 662.

22. Leroy Garrett, op. cit,, XVII, No. 2, pp. 24-25.

23. Hoy Ledbetter, op, cit., pp. 164, 167.

24. John McClintock and James Strong, “Excommunication,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper and Bros. Publishers, 1891), Vol. III, p. 388.

25. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 764.

26. Thayer, op. cit., p. 579.

27. James Macknight, Macknight on the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), Vol. I, pp. 504-505.

28. Thayer, op. cit., p. 196.

29. Macknight, op. cit., p. 505.

30. Barmby, op. cit., p. 456.

31. Wm. S. Plumer, Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (New York: Anson B. F. Randolph and Company, 1870), p. 641.

32. Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1875), p. 463.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 600-603
August 7, 1975

By 0. C. Birdwell

Several months back two articles by this writer were published in which the Holy Spirit was discussed (See Truth Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 43 and 44). One article dealt with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the house of Cornelius; and other discussed the Holy Spirit as a pledge. If you have access to this material, please go back and read the latter article in connection with what is to be said here. Should you not have the article maybe enough of the material will be repeated for you to understand what is being discussed.

In the article, “The Holy Spirit as a Pledge,” Ephesians 1:13, 14 was shown as referring to the receiving of the word by the Gentiles and their being “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, unto the praise of his glory.” The Holy Spirit was presented as being poured out (Acts 10:44, 45) as a surety or pledge that the Gentiles have also been made a heritage and are heirs of God. The coming of the Holy Spirit, then, upon the Jews (Acts 2) and upon the Gentiles (Acts 10) would be the “earnest,” pledge, or assurance of the salvation of both.

“Earnest”

Since the above mentioned article was published a great deal of favorable comment has been received. Along with this comment some questions have been asked that should be answered and discussed in order to clear up some possible misunderstanding on the subject. Most of the questions center around the word “earnest” or phrases “earnest of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:14), “earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22), and “earnest of the Spirit” .(2 Cor. 5:5). According to Young’s Concordance these three places record the only use of the word “earnest” in the New Testament. Receiving the “earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:22) seems to be difficult for some to harmonize with the conclusion of the previous article that the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles (at the house of Cornelius) as an earnest (surety, pledge) of our inheritance and that Paul is not talking about a personal indwelling of the body as commonly believed. So the question, “Do you believe in the earnest of the Spirit in the heart?”

As discussed already, one must understand what the word “earnest” means and also along with this know the meaning of the word “heart.” We have shown that “earnest” means “surety,” or “pledge.” Also, Peter said that God “bare them witness giving them (the Gentiles) the Holy Spirit even as he did unto us (the Jews)” (Acts 15:8). Hence, the word “earnest” must stand for the assurance or witness made by God in sending the Holy Spirit. The word, also, means “down payment” or “partial payment.” But if this meaning is stressed one might conclude, and, I believe, falsely so, that the Holy Spirit is given to personally indwell each individual as a down payment on his inheritance, the rest of which is to be ultimately delivered. One might reason that such an indwelling would be the only possible way the Holy Spirit could be an assurance of our salvation in any way that would be meaningful to us. Such is not the case and a little thought will reveal this. According to the “personal indwelling as an earnest” position, the Spirit is not felt; he does not speak to man; nor does he guide apart from the written word. The only way one could know of the indwelling would be by the written promise. We are right back, therefore, to the testimony of Scripture. There could be no more personal assurance in this position than in the one affirmed above that the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles is the pledge of our inheritance.

“in our hearts”

But we still have not seen what is involved in receiving the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. If we properly understand “earnest” as used here to mean assurance, pledge, or witness, our problem is pretty well resolved if we understand the nature of the Bible heart. Many sermons have been preached showing the Bible heart to be the intellect, will, or emotion of man. We have shown that the word “heart” as used in the New Testament does not ordinarily refer to the fleshly lobe. But all of a sudden someone comes along and infers that “heart” in 2 Cor. 1:22 means the fleshly heart, and more than that it is made to stand for the entire physical body. The “heart” here is the same as the one “pricked” in Acts 2:37. It is the intellect or mind of man. The Holy Spirit came as a witness or pledge of our redemption. We hold this in our intellect or heart. It is held through witness and testimony. This is in complete harmony with what Paul said in 2 Cor. 1:22.

Ordinary or Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit?

Another question that has been asked is as follows: “Was the earnest that which is usually referred to as the `ordinary gift of the Spirit,’ or the ‘miraculous gifts of the Spirit’?”

To answer this question it will be needful to restate some of the material already presented. If the usual meaning of “ordinary gift” and “miraculous gifts” be understood, my answer would be “neither.” The coming of the Holy Spirit, or the outpouring of the Spirit from the Father, is in itself, the earnest or assurance of our inheritance (both Jew and Gentile). As shown above, “earnest” means pledge, assurance, or witness (see Vine’s Expository Dictionary). Paul said, “ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:13, 14). The “Ye” are the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit’s coming is the pledge, assurance, or witness. He came on the Gentiles as a witness of their inheritance in keeping with the promise of God (see Acts 15:8).

Let us now turn our attention to another matter that needs to be clear if we are to properly understand this subject. It seems that some material has been used on this subject that has not been made as clear in its meaning as it should have been. The idea of some seems to be that the “miraculous gifts” are made up of Christ’s having the Spirit without measure, the apostles and Cornelius receiving the “baptismal measure,” and the disciples receiving a “measure by the laying on of the apostles’ hands.” Then, the “ordinary gift” is described as the coming of the Holy Spirit into our body to personally indwell in what is called a “non-miraculous” fashion. It is supposed by some that the latter is the meaning of “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

“Measure” of the Spirit

It needs to be understood that when the word “measure” is used to describe the Holy Spirit, the word would have to apply to the extent of the work done by the power of the Spirit and not to the Spirit Himself. The disciple who had only the gift of prophecy by the Spirit had no less of the Holy Spirit in what he did than did the apostles: He simply was not enabled by the Holy Spirit to do anything else. And it was not because he had just received a fragment of the Spirit. It would take the fullness of the Holy Spirit for one to exercise any one of the gifts. So the idea that the Spirit is fragmented and the apostles received one measure by baptism, and the disciples received another measure by the laying on of the apostles’ hands will not stand serious investigation. This is clear in 1 Cor. 12:4 where Paul said, “Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.” Here the gifts are different but there is no indication that one had the Holy Spirit to a lesser degree, or that the Spirit was possessed in a fragmented or small measure. Consider also the twelve at Ephesus who had received only John’s baptism. After their baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus, the account says, “When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 19:6). These people did not receive a “measure” of the Spirit but rather the Spirit came on them! They obviously were limited in what they could do and this is the only way in which the word “measure” could be intelligently used.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 598-599
August 14, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

One should always be objective, fair, and tolerant. That is understood and needs no further statement or argument. However, there are calls for fairness and tolerance which are ploys for time and pleas for sympathy. This is true in combat and controversy. “Don’t . be so hard; be more fair and tolerant” is the cry that false teachers wail and whimper in order to bide time and bleed pity: This is especially true in the contentions of the day. The pious, plaintive pleading emanates, not from the opponent of error, but from its exponents and proponents. The tendency of humble and compassionate men is to go the second mile, but one’s mercies must not displace meekness with weakness and allow falsity to usurp the throne, of truth.

Brethren who have had to bear the brunt of the battle against the new versions of Calvinism and the perversions of grace and fellowship have had to endure the rebukes of those who desire a mellow rather than a militant course. But the only language error understands is the offensive kind. You cannot tickle it; you must tackle it. Tackles raise bruises and throw people in the dirt, while tickles cause folks to laugh and slap backs. A tackle is not as enjoyable as a tickle, but no football player ever tickled his opponent and stopped him from scoring. Tackling is the least desirable means, but it has one advantage that tickling does not have-it works.

Paul was well schooled in hand to hand in-fighting. He labeled Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, Demas and tolerated them not, “no, not for an hour.” Then he turned and urged Timothy to do likewise. That sounds like he was saying, “Fight my kind of fight,” and he was! “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering” (2 Tim. 4:2). To certain ones, being fair and tolerant means ceasing to reprove, rebuke and exhort. That is not the definition by the faithful. So, we shall tackle hard and fair, but we will allow no one to run toward the wrong goal line.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, p. 598
August 7, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Thus far in our discussion of faith we have approached the subject from an objective viewpoint. For the most part, we have been talking solely about the reasons supporting the .Christian’s faith being what it is. We have approached the subject from an apologetical standpoint, that of giving reasons for the faith that is in us. In this lesson we turn the study from an objective to a subjective viewpoint. We want to notice the necessity of the evidence affecting this faith in the heart and mind of every individual. The evidences we have presented for our faith is sufficient to justify one’s believing the propositions about which we have been writing, and these propositions remain just as true whether or not you and I ever believe them. For us to receive the efficacy in them, there must be reproduced in the heart of every person this faith that evidence so well supports.

Faith In God’s Revelation

One can see the imperativeness of faith readily if he will consider the fact that the life of every person must be one of contact with God. It is futile for one to try to live his life without God. But the necessity of having faith is pointed out by the fact that the only way that we can know about God is by faith. It is a necessary connection between man and God. For example, I know that God exists only by my faith that is supported by evidence. Together we have reasoned to the conclusion that the only way that man can know about God is by His revealing Himself to man. Another conclusion is that God did reveal Himself to man and that the Bible is an accurate account of this revelation. These conclusions of former lessons are our premises of the present one. In other words, the only connection that we have with God is through the Bible. God is not coming down to the earth and revealing Himself as He did in days gone by. The only way that we can learn of God is through His Son, Jesus. Christ said, “‘All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father: neither doth any know the Father, save *the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27). What Christ affirms is that our knowledge of God comes through His Revelation. Our acceptance of this knowledge is dependent upon our faith in Christ and the accuracy of His Revelation. Further it is said: “God, having of old times spoken unto the Fathers in the prophets by divers portions land in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son” (Heb. 1:1, 2). God has revealed Himself “through his Son. Thus, one can see that faith is indispensable to man’s knowledge of God since God has only revealed Himself through his Son. Our knowledge of God is proportionate to our faith in His Son and in His accurate presentation of the truth about God.

Faith and the Forgiveness of Sins

A second reason why faith is so necessary is because throughout Scripture it is .necessary for the forgiveness of past sins. The absolute necessity of faith is emphasized from the beginning to the end of the Bible. It is indispensable to man’s salvation. A refusal to accept faith as a condition of salvation is but a refusal to accept the Bible. The fact of the necessity of faith is the one fact upon which practically every man is agreed. I know of but few people who would teach that a man could be saved from his past sins without faith. This is a fact almost universally accepted.

In this article, we are making a distinction between salvation from past sins and salvation in the world to come. In other words, not all who have obeyed the gospel are going to be saved eternally. After one receives the forgiveness of sins of the past, then his future salvation or his eternal salvation is conditioned upon his faithful life until his death. Jesus says: “Be thou faithful until death, and I will give thee the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). Suppose at one time those addressed were faithful, but were not faithful until their death. What would happen to them? If Jesus meant that whether you are faithful or not you shall receive the crown of life, then his statement had no meaning.

The passages on the necessity of faith are numerous. Nearly the last remark our Lord made while he was on earth was on this very point. In this statement he placed a premium on belief, and a curse upon unbelief. Hear Him now: “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” If you believe, you shall be saved; if you disbelieve, condemnation will be yours. Note some other passages re-emphasizing the point. “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins, for except that ye believe that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24)., “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him’` (Heb. 11:6). Twice the necessity of faith is affirmed in this passage: (1) “But without faith it is impossible to please Him;” (2) “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.”

In Acts 16, we read of a man asking what must he do to be saved, and Paul told him to “Believe on the Lord Jesus, thou and thy house, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:32. Again in Acts 15:9, “And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.”

It is not our purpose to discuss the subject of salvation by faith only, but since these passages that we have just cited are prominent passages among a group of like-passages cited by denominationalists as proving the doctrine of justification by faith only, we want to make just one or two observations concerning them. Just what do the passages say? This is a fundamental principle in Bible study. One should argue from what the passages say rather than from what they do not say. Just what is said in the passages under investigation? It is affirmed by these and many other similar -passages that faith is essential to one’s salvation. That is all that is affirmed. It says simply that faith is necessary to one’s salvation. If one can point out a passage that says that this is all that is essential, I would be glad to hear from him and to discuss the issue with him. And yet this is exactly the way that many denominational preachers use these passages. They use them to prove salvation by faith only. The Bible does not teach it and they cannot prove it. They dare not even try. Faith is necessary to receive forgiveness from past sins. I believe this with all of my heart.

In the third place, faith is necessary to guide our lives in our walk from the cradle to the grave. There must be a guiding principle in our lives, a principle by which every action and decision must be measured. That principle is our faith in God and his teaching. Paul says, “We walk by faith, and not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). To walk by faith is to live by faith, therefore Paul said, “I have been crucified with Christ: and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me; and that life which, I now live in the flesh I .live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). By our faith we are able to enjoy as present realities things that were it not for faith would be non-entities to us. Thus, faith is a motivating factor in our lives that prompts us to walk a life of faith looking ever toward the things that are unseen. Paul describes these things like this: “For our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:17, 18).

We are further instructed to walk according to the spirit, “That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit” (Rom. 8:4). It is further stated: “But I say, walk by the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16).. There are but two walks that one might pursue: (1) the life of the flesh; (2) the life of the Spirit. Each of these walks has a consequence which is plainly described by Paul: “For the mind of. the flesh is death; but the mind of the spirit is life and peace.” Rom. 8:6. In Galatians 5, we find what the fruit of the Spirit is: “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:22, 23). A fruit of the Spirit is faithfulness. Paul had just said: “For we through the spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness” (Gal. 5:5). Paul describes our stay here as a waiting. This waiting is not an inactive, passive waiting, but it is a life, a walk of waiting. We are to be doing something while we are waiting, but in this waiting, Paul says it is done by faith and through the Spirit. Here, inseparably, we have connected the life of the Spirit and the life of faith. Our life here has to be of the flesh or of the Spirit, and since the life of the flesh ends in death, then we must walk the life of the Spirit. This life of the Spirit is described as a walking by faith, so they are one and the same. It simply is a walking with faith in the teaching of the Spirit and a fulfillment of those teachings of the Spirit in our lives.

Thus it is that faith is an essential prerequisite to our walking the, life of the Spirit. In Hebrews the eleventh chapter, in what is often called the honor roll of the Bible, we find the great men of old walking according to faith. Hear Paul as he says: “By faith Abel offered unto God . . . By faith Enoch was. translated . . . . By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house . . . . By faith Abraham obeyed to go out, unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance .. . By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she was past age . . . . By faith Abraham offered up Isaac . . . By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter . . . . By faith he (Moses) forsook Egypt . . . .” These passages show the walk of faith. So faith is essential to our walking the life of the Spirit. So since faith is a part of our life; our walk here, we say it is necessary.

Eternal Salvation Depends on Faith

The final reason; that we are suggesting, why faith is essential is that our salvation in the world to come is dependent upon our faith here and our keeping of that faith. Peter says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5). Peter says that this inheritance in heaven is,reserved for those who are kept by faith. So faith is necessary to my receiving my place in heaven. Paul says, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept ‘the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me in that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:7, 8). Because Paul had kept the faith the crown was to be given to him. Paul further said, “for I know him whom I; have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1:12). Paul argues from the premise that the soul which has been committed unto Jesus Christ,’ will be guarded in that day. Faith is going to be so important in that day. Then we will find Christ applying those commandments that He gave while yet on the earth, as he judges our souls. Notice again: “If so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven: where of I Paul was made a minister” (Col. 1:23). Paul says our hope of eternal life is dependent upon our not being’ moved away from the hope of the gospel, and in our continuing in the faith. Jesus says “Be thou faithful unto death, and ye shall receive the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

Conclusion

Thus we see that faith is necessary to an understanding of God’s will and our coming into a living relationship with Him; faith is necessary to our salvation from past sins; faith is necessary to our walking according to the teachings of the Spirit; and finally faith is necessary to our entering into heaven, so we can well say “he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Won’t you submit yourself to Christ, believe in Him and obey his commandments and then walk according to them until death, rather than continue in rebellion again Him until you stand before Him in judgment only to be rejected and denied? On that day, one will truly recognize the necessity of faith.

Truth Magazine XIX: 38, pp. 595-597
August 7, 1975