Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

(Or, How To Write Thirty-eight Times In Digressive Papers Without Being Cut Off)

Doubtless it is one of the great philosophic challenges of this age to find out how a gospel preacher can write thirty-eight (yes, 38!) times for digressive papers without being cut off. Well, hold your breath, dear reader, because the deepest secrets of wisdom will be unveiled in this article. The answer will no longer have to wait on the assured (always-coming-but-never-quite-there) results of philosophic theorizers and theoretic philosophers. An axiom of teaching is that demonstrations are extremely effective. In answering the great question before us at this ecumenical hour, we shall present a demonstration case.

What a shame that the secrets of wisdom have eluded those brethren who have given their all to resist digression in the last twenty-five years. How often they found their efforts blocked by closed-door policies in so many pulpits and publications. Though deprived of the deep insights about to be revealed, these valiant souls persisted in a militant, aggressive, and plainspoken stand for truth and against error. They fought centralization in church organization and a host of social-gospel practices. They fought and they fought hard. They doubtless made errors in judgment along the way, but they also kept great principles of divine truth before them all the way through. But when all is said and done, this fact remains: there was something about the way they conducted the fight that caused the doors to be shut on every one of these soldiers without exception. A few kept a foot or a finger in the door a little longer than some others. But in the end, the doors were shut to them, one and all.

The case we are about to witness makes evident why the doors were shut, and reveals (are you still holding your breath?) how brethren could have written in digressive papers without being cut off. Fearing the reader cannot wait until the end of this article, we shall reveal the key at the beginning. The remainder of the article will then demonstrate an actual case of the use of that key.

The long lost key is: When writing in a paper which defends a particular innovation, do not apply the great principles of divine truth in direct opposition to that particular innovation. Watch closely and do not miss the point, brethren. It is permissible to attack other innovations not defended by the paper in which a writer desires to write. The key is do not deal specifically with the particular innovation defended by that particular paper. In the past, brethren who have resisted and tried to roll back the tide of digression, have consistently violated this rule. In other words, they have persisted in directly applying divine truth in opposition to the innovations accepted and defended by the listening audience. In fact, they generally called a failure to make such application “compromise.” But in this Aquarian (pronounced “Aesopian”) Age, we can be sure that what used to be compromise is no longer compromise. Like a lot of other things, compromise “just ain’t what it used to be” since the horse-and-buggy days turned into the jet age.

But enough said with tongue in cheek. Let’s turn to some cold, hard facts. What follows is a list of articles written by Brother Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama. We shall not attempt to review these articles. The mere appearance of these articles in digressive papers over an extended period of time is shame enough in itself for those who believe today that compromise is exactly what it used to be just as truth is! Most of those reading this article have no access to back issues of Firm Foundation and Christian Standard. The Foundation defends centralized arrangements for the work of churches as well as social-gospel practices; the Standard defends all that and more, including instrumental music in worship. The Standard is published by members of the Christian Church denomination (as distinguished from the most radical group which tolerates Modernism and other forms of unbelief-the Disciples of Christ). Since most readers do not have access to these papers, the publication of this list of articles should serve several purposes: (1) show how compromise works, (2) help explain why a battle has raged over “new” concepts on grace, unity, and fellowship; (3) aid confused brethren in understanding that Fudge is not a poor, country bumkin unfairly pushed into the limelight for youthful mistakes, but is in fact an accomplished writer in major digressive journals. Fudge is a leading force, a significant symbol, a powerful influence in this battle,, especially to the young. This list of Ed’s writings should help some older men see how Fudge has come to be so prominently projected into modern problems over, grace, unity, fellowship, and alleged compromise.

More readers of this article are more familiar with Firm Foundation than with Christian Standard. First v16i will list issues of the Foundation in which Ed Fudge’s writings have appeared; some brief summaries of these articles and some comments thereon will be included.

Vol. 84, No. 20 (May 16, 1967), p. 322, “Lest We Forget.” Redeemed people should have a transforming influence in society, but the church should not be given over to social concerns. No application is made to, social-gospel practices defended by Firm Foundation. Any conservative, “evangelical” paper could comfortably print this piece.

Vol. 84, No. 36 (Sept. 5, 1967), p. 568, “Faith, or Merely Opinion.” “It is ours to refute” or put “into practice” the view that church centralization and social gospel practices are “matters of ‘opinion’ “-matters upon which we cannot expect nor require “unity of opinion.” Ed defends the view that such matters can be practiced as a “freedom” subject to the limitation that they not be. “impose(d) . . . on others.” This article had first appeared in Christian Standard (Sept. 5, 1967); editor Lemmons was so impressed that he reproduced it. Editor Charles Holt was also impressed, so reproduced it in Sentinel of Truth (Sept., 1967). Holt recommended this article as the final solution to problems of division, in a lengthy editorial entitled ” ‘Personal’ From The Editor: Faith, or Merely Opinion?” which lambasted “Anti or Conservative Churches of Christ.”

Vol. 84, No. 45 (Nov. 7, 1967), p. 716, “Emphasis: Christ.” Here we are told that we need more emphasis on “the timeless Christ” rather than on “a first-century church” or “a twentieth-century one . . . .”

Vol. 84, No. 50 (Dec. 12, 1967), p. 806, “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts.” True believers are already one in Christ, therefore neither doctrinal compromise nor “unity of understanding” are necessary for the “Christian unity” discussed in John 17, 1 Cor. 11:10, 2 John 9, and Eph. 4. The Bible has some role in unity, but actually we are united in Christ, not upon the Bible.

Vol. 85, No. 4 (Jan. 23, 1968), p. 53, “Christian Unity: Ephesians 4:1-6.” Here Ed presents the denominational view that the seven one’s of Eph. 4 are not a “platform for unity” but are “unities already possessed by the Ephesians . . . . On the basis of what they already share in the Spirit, he is now urging them to put aside grievances …. This passage then has no direct relation to doctrinal unity, but deals with a unity described in verse 2.” So we are united “in the Spirit” while disunited doctrinally!

Vol. 85, No. 5 (Jan. 30, 1968), p. 67, “Counterfeit Cross-Bearing. ” In the New Testament, “good works and the abstinence from bad ones are not in order to earn salvation and grace, but because of God’s gift in Christ . . . .” We all agree obedience cannot earn God’s grace (Lk. 17:10), but Ed says here what every Baptist book on my book shelf says about obedience: it is the fruit of grace rather than an indispensable condition of grace. We “work” because we are saved; not in order to be saved.

Vol. 85, No. 10 (Mar. 5, 1968), p. 151, 153, “Christian Unity: 1 Cor. 1:10ff.” This passage admonishes unity of purpose and aim, not “doctrinal unity.” Issues do not cause division, but only “a party spirit (factiousness),” because in Christ “Christians can differ” doctrinally “without tearing the body into shreds.”

Vol. 85, No. 20 (May 14, 1968), p. 311, “Christian Unity: 2 John 9.” The passage cannot be applied to “differences or arguments between saints on how best to please the Christ in whom they all believe.” Thus the passage has nothing to do with issues like centralization, social-gospel practices, or instrumental music. The Christian Standard was as glad to print this good bit of news in November as Firm Foundation was in May!

Vol. 85, No. 28 (July 9, 1968), p. 441, ” ‘Doctrine’ and ‘Morals.’ “

Vol. 86, No. 8 (Feb. 25, 1969), p. 120, “Government and God.”

Vol. 86, No. 14 (Apr. 8, 1969), p. 214, 218, “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God.”

Ed says brethren “sometimes lean” toward “the notion that one can be saved by his own accomplishments or learning . . . .” “We can love all brethren in Christ as beloved saints who also need God’s grace. We can leave off all name-calling (‘anti,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘digressive,’ etc.) and party spirit.” What interesting reading for Firm Foundation subscribers: in spite of their innovations, they stand. in God’s grace, are not to be described as “digressive,” and anyone who so identifies them manifests a “party spirit.”

Vol. 86, No. 29 (July 22, 1969), p. 454, “Spending the Day with Jesus.” This warns against “speaking of peacemakers as ‘soft.’ “

Vol. 86, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 1969), p. 485, “Under Divine Orders.” When Ed warned against “inventing schemes and pushing projects because we thought our job was to get results,” he had a perfect opportunity to make applications direly needed in the Foundation. As he leaves it, it can be “all things to all men.”

Vol. 86, No. 44 (Nov. 4, 1969), p. 697, “Undenominational Christianity.” “We often hear the question raised as to whether there are Christians in all the denominations . . . . As to whether there are Christians in this place, or that, it should be enough to cite these words of inspiration”: 2 Tim. 2:19 (i.e., the Lord knows). This is a nice middle-of-the-road position, but in this case the Lord not only knows but also has revealed that all the saved are in the body of Christ. If all the saved are in the church of Christ, then none are in human denominations. It should be enough to cite Eph. 1:3 and Gal. 5:20: all Christians are “in this place,” in Christ, in his body: none are in “that,” in sects, in man-made bodies teaching the doctrines of men.

Vol. 86, No. 50 (Dec. 16, 1969), p. 787, “The Church As the New Creation.” Ed says nothing about the absolute necessity of the church conforming to the New Testament standard, but says God’s people “are the New Testament church-not through their own attainment to God’s standard, but through Christ’s attainment, accompanied by the greatest Swap-Out in eternal history.” Ed constantly confuses man’s part in salvation with God’s, as though each excludes the other; he sounds like a .Baptist preacher half the time, talking about since God did His part in salvation’s story, therefore man does not have to do such-and-such a thing to be saved.

Vol. 87, No. 10 (Mar. 10, 1970), p. 149, “Is Moodley Better Than Naicker ” Denominational names, “and we might as well include progressive, anti, liberal, conservative, etc.,” are all “party labels” which should not be used. Some of these words correctly describe attitudes toward Bible authority, as Ed can find by consulting a dictionary; so used, they are proper, descriptive terms. One’s basic attitude toward Bible authority shapes his outlook toward a host of modern innovations and determines whether he will accept or reject them. Church historians will record this fact. We are not guilty of party-ism when we observe and describe this division in basic attitude.

Vol. 87, No. 27 July 7, 1970, p. 419, “Jesus and `Old Glory’. “

Vol. 87, No. 49 (Dec. 8, 1970), p. 776, “Don’t Be Embarrassed to Believe!”

Vol. 88, No. 14 (Apr. 6, 1971), p. 217, “People Are Listening But Who’s Talking?” “Modern religious thinkers, ” including some ecumenicists, are thinking and “we ought to be ready to move into the conversations at whatever level the Lord gives an opening, in the interest of New Testament truth. To speak is not to compromise nor is it endorsement to listen.” Yes, brethren will agree; but here is the question a lot of us are asking that Ed is not answering, “What is it to speak, and to fail to speak the very thing the audience needs most to hear???” Such “conversations” are both “compromise” and “endorsement,” even if unwitting.

Vol. 88, No. 24 (June 15, 1971), p. 374, 379, “A Case Against Instrumental Music in Christian Worship.” “Ed sent this article to editor E. V. Hayden of the Christian Standard,” but he “chose not to print it . . . .” Ed has always felt the instrument is better left off; this piece presents his reasons. So nothing Ed has written in “opposition” to instrumental music ever appears in the Standard, though it might in Firm Foundation or Gospel Guardian. And, nothing he has written in “opposition” to centralization, institutionalism, or social-gospel-ism appears in the Foundation, though it might in the Guardian. He has established this pattern over an entire decade. This is accomodation and compromise-chameleon-like, his writings blend in perfectly with the different-colored background of each paper he has written for!

Vol. 89, No. 9 (Feb. 29, 1972), p. 134, “Four Kinds of Unity.” There are: oneness of relationship (Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4); allegiance (1 Cor. 1:10, no application to “doctrinal differences”); attitude and ambition (Phil. 2:14, not unity of thought, only mutual concern); understanding (Eph. 4:13-16, unity of understanding not “commanded” because it is only the “ultimate goal” of “spiritual maturity”).

Vol. 89, No. 22 (May 30, 1972), p. 340, “God Will Be God. “

Vol. 89, No. 23 (June 6, 1972), p. 364-365, “God Will Be God” (concluded).

Vol. 89, No. 23 (June 6, 1972), p. 359, “God Will Be Judge. ” These three issues contain Ed’s reinterpretation of Lev. 10; like a lot of other passages that have come under Ed’s scrutiny, Lev. 10 does not mean what it used to mean. Here is the heart of the Fudge (Garrett-Ketcherside) position on the passage, “Nadab and Abihu sin in the course of their worship and are smitten dead by God on the spot. The younger two, Eleasar and Ithamar, sin in the course of their worship, and are forgiven and spared.” Why the difference? The latter “involved a false piety, not a flagrant pride.” When the “motives” are right in false worship, God forgives. Apparently, if Nadab and Abihu had acted with pure “motives” (and Fudge does not offer to prove they did not), they might have been spared in their sinful worship.

Vol. 90, No. 11 (Mar. 13, 1973), p. 166, “THEOS in John 1:1.”

Vol. 90, No. 39 ,(Sept. 25, 1973), p. 612, “Human Institutions: A Reminder.” Publishing houses, papers, etc. are not indispensible to the Lord’s cause, so should be used wisely. Surely (?) Fudge would agree that institutionalism through church support of “human institutions” is an abuse of such institutions (as well as of the church); if so, he never breaths a word of it to the Foundation audience.

Vol. 90,’ No. 51 (Dec. 10, 1973), p. 803, “Church Politics. “

Vol. 91, No. 4 (Jan. 22, 1974), p. 51, “Our Divine Representative.” Included is the doctrine of the perfect obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to Christians.

Vol. 91, No. 26 (June 25, 1974), p. 408, “How To Be God’s Friend. “

One can get the tenor of Fudge’s journalistic compromise from the material above’ so we will list without summary or comment his writings in the Christian Standard.

Sept. 12, 1964, p. 8, “Conformed or Transformed?”

Oct. 23, 1965, p. 8, “The Enemy Demands Surrender.” Apr. 1, 1967, p. 3, “That They All May Be One.”

July 8, 1967, p. 5, “Faith, or Merely Opinion?”

May 18, 1968, p. 6, “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts.”

Oct. 5, 1968, p. 9, “The Lord’s Supper. “

Oct. 19, 1968, p. 9, “New Testament Doctrine and Morals. “

Nov. 30, 1968, p. 5, “Christian Unity: 2 John 9.”

July 7, 1974, p. 9, “Checkpoints of Our Religion. “

Since Brother Fudge offers so much prophetic insight for the re-interpretation of so many passages (Lev. 10, Gal. 1:8-9, Eph. 4:1-6; 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3, etc.), perhaps he should be compared to a Biblical prophet. How about a new version of Nathan? Suppose Nathan had told his parable in such a way as to avoid the very application his listener needed most to hear? Suppose David had used a court policy allowing the prophets to enter with him into “dialogpe” and “conversations,” but forbidding specific application of specific lessons that would convict David of guilt. Suppose Nathan had preached his prophetic parable for an entire decade in David’s court, in keeping with such a policy or had written in the Mosaic Standard or the Sinaitic Foundation or the Temple Guardian, in keeping with such accomodation. Perhaps the Herald of Truth could make a new film staring Edward Fudge entitled “Nathan Revisited” or “Nathan Without The Thou-Art-The-Man.” That is exactly the role Brother Fudge has filled for a decade: Nathan without the “thou-art-the-man!”

In all seriousness, the tragedy of such a Nathan would have been a David never convicted of his guilt. Such a Nathan would not have been faithful to God even if his every parable was true-and in Ed’s case, there has been plenty of false teaching in addition to journalistic compromise.

Brethren, let us “eschew evil,” including the evil of journalistic compromise. Let a picture of the tragedy of such compromise be burned into our hearts: the tragedy of lost souls!

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, pp. 219-222
February 13, 1975

By Larry R. Houchen

It seems that the majority of people enjoy growing and maintaining yards which are virtually free from weeds. A neat looking yard is one to be proud of and one which enhances the house setting. However, there always seems to be one in the neighborhood who allows just weeds to dominate his yard, creating an “eye-sore” for the whop neighborhood. The fellow who lives just across the cul-de-sac from us is just such a person. The way he shows little concern in regard to his yard is parallel to the way some brethren regard their erring brethren.

This neighbor of ours moved into, his brand new house almost two years ago. A tractor with a rototiller rig had leveled his property and had made it suitable for planting. Within weeks his yard was one mass of weeds. A few weeks later he cut off low-hanging limbs and piled them in the back of his yard. Every few weeks the neighbor would have his boy cut the weeds with the mower. After a year and one-half of mowing around the pile of limbs, the weeds in the midst of the pile had grown quite high. Finally, much to our relief, last April our neighbor had the limbs hauled away. He then rented a tractor with a rototiller and prepared his ground for planting. (Although he left the weeds that were growing along the curb and other places which. required manually pulling out the weeds, it was a step in the right direction). Our neighbor planted his grass seed. At last, it seemed as if a long awaited improvement had come! Finally our neighbor mowed his weeds down the other day.

Erring brethren are weeds which need to be properly taken care of. It amazed me that the apparent attitude of our neighbor was that the grass would smother out the weeds. Do you suppose erring brethren will be smothered out by ignoring them?

Yes, our neighbor mowed his weeds down, but the weeds are still there and spreading. His futile attempt to eliminate his weeds reminded me of a father who slapped his son’s hand and admonished him to be a good boy when the boy had deliberately set fire to the couch. Some brethren make a yearly (or sometimes not so frequent) pilgrimage to an erring brother’s house to plead with the brother to repent. In between times, or mowings, the “weed” continues to spread its bad seed. Do you suppose removing the “weed” in God’s way might help?

Brethren put much emphasis on baptism, and this they should, since baptism is a command of God which is often neglected. But brethren, let us “rightly divide the word of truth” and emphasize other matters which are neglected. (See Matt. 18:15-17; Rom. 16:17, 18; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 13:1, 2; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, p. 218
February 13, 1975

By Mike Willis

Some time ago, I decided to write on the subject of fellowship in relation to some of the events recorded in 1 Corinthians. I wrote these articles at that time, although I published only the one on 1 Cor. 1:10 (“Unity in Diversity or Unity in Doctrine,” Truth Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 17, pp: 261-263). Having. covered 1 Cor. 1:10, I would like to begin this article with 1 Cor. 5.

1 Corinthians 5

Of all the passages on the subject of fellowship, this passage would, by all means, be the one most popular and least contested. The reason for this is its lack of ambiguity and the prominence which it has in the epistle. Moral laxity is specifically named as a reason for a breach of fellowship with an individual. When Paul enumerates what ‘is included in his list of sins serious enough to break fellowship with an individual, he includes covetousness, idolatry, swindling, reviling, and drunkenness, as well as fornication. Other. sins could have as easily been included in this list, such as those recorded in 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. -5:19-20 and Rom. 1:28-32.

The breaking of fellowship included the removal of the evil party from the midst of the congregation (5:2, 13) and the breaking of all social ties which existed with the individual (5:9-11). The withdrawal should be done in the presence of the entire congregation (5:4,5). The motives should be (1) to save the sinner’s soul (5:5) and (i) to purge out the evil influence from the congregation (5,~6,7). This passage describes many facts about withdrawing fellowship which are not elsewhere given. The reasons for and manner of withdrawing fellowship which are given in this chapter should be followed in all cases of withdrawing fellowship.

Since the current apostasy (the unity-in-diversity group) admits what has been stated regarding this chapter (i.e., the unity sect admits that immorality is a legitimate reason for breaking fellowship), the greater portion of this discussion will not be given to this passage. So, let us move on.

1 Corinthians 14:38

This passage, I believe, must be included in any discussion of fellowship as covered in 1 Corinthians. However, one must first determine what does the passage say, which is not easy since (1) the Greek text contains a variant reading and (2) the translation of the passage is not absolutely clear, before he can draw any conclusions from it. The difficulty in the Greek text centers on a variant reading. One must determine which of these two words is the true reading:

agnoeito: third person, singular, present, imperative, active of agnoeo.

agnoeitai: third person, singular, present, indicative, passive of agnoeo.

The sense of the passage is significantly altered by the change of the verb from transitive to intransitive. The difference in meaning will be discussed later. It is not a simple job to interpret manuscript evidence; one Cannot just add up the number of manuscripts supporting each reading, for obviously a third century reading should carry more weight than a fourteenth century reading. Though the evidence is -practically balanced, that the scales lean in favor of agnoeitai is apparent from the fact that this is the reading adopted by the Greek textual critics of the Bible societies, by Westcott and Hort and by D. Eberhard Nestle.

The Definition

The basic meaning of agnoeo is “to be ignorant, not to know.” In this section, I have tried to quote what the lexicons said specifically about this verse.

Arndt and Gingrich: “Practically not to recognize, disregard ei tis agnoei, agnoeitai if anyone disregards (it), he is disregarded (by God) 1 Cor. 14:38 (v. 1. agnoeito let him remain ignorant)” (p. 11).

Thayer: “in the pass. agnoeitai `he is not known’, i.e. acc. to the context `he is disregarded,’ 1 Cor. Xiv. 38” (p. 8).

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: “In 1 C. 14:38 (ei tis agnoei, i.e. `does not understand’; agnoeitai, namely, of God), we are to take the word in the OT sense in which knowledge means election and ignorance rejection, unless the true reading is agnoeito, which would signify that he should .remain without understanding” (Vol. I, p. 116).

Translations

Here are the major translations of this verse. Notice that the later translations (after 1901) all favor the agnoeitai reading:

KJV: “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”

RV: “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”

ASV: “But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.” Margin: “But if any man knoweth not, he is not known.”

RSV: “If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

NASB: “But if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

TEV: “But if he does not pay attention to this, pay no attention to him.”

Goodspeed: “If anyone pays no attention to it, pay no attention to him.”

Twentieth Century: “Any one who disregards it may be disregarded.”

Douay: “But if any know not, he shall not be known.”

Bruce (expanded paraphrase): “But if anyone disregards the Lord’s commandment, why should anyone regard him?”

At this point, one is able to see that this verse cannot be understood without carefully considering its context; indeed, no verse should be studied outside its context. So, let us consider the context, for a better understanding of this passage.

The Context

Chapter 14 of this book is designed to regulate the use of spiritual gifts in the apostolic age. Disorder and confusion reigned at Corinth; Paul’s letter was designed to rectify the situation. Here were his commandments to that church:

1. Let everything be done in the assembly with the goal of edification in mind (14:15,26).

2. No more than three can prophesy or speak in tongues in any given assembly. If a person is going to speak in tongues, an interpreter must be present to make known to the congregation what has been taught. Otherwise, the tongue-speaker must keep quiet (14:27-29).

3. Let everyone speak in turn (14:29-33).

4. The women must keep silent (14:34).

After giving these commandments, Paul said, “If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandments. But if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

A subtle play on words occurs throughout these verses. The “let him recognize” of 14:37 and “does not recognize” and “is not recognized” of 14:38 are all derivatives of “to know” in one form or another. Paul’s commandment is this: If an individual does not recognize the authority of Christ as involved in the commandments concerning order in the assembly, do not recognize him as from God.

To acknowledge that one is a false prophet would involve the rejection of him. To allow a false prophet to walk freely among the saints brought down the condemnation of Christ as recorded in Rev. 3:14-16. Thus, involved in “not recognizing” a man as a prophet would be the removal of any ties a person had with the false teacher. Some commentators imply that the one who “does not recognize” the person refusing to acknowledge the authority of Christ is God or Jesus. The practical result would be the same whether the one not recognizing God’s authority is not recognized by Christ or by the Corinthian church. Certainly Christ’s church should not recognize anyone whom Christ will not recognize!

Just in case we have erred in our selection of the two readings, let us investigate the difference in meaning which results if one selects agnoeito instead of agnoeitai. If agnoeito is the true reading, then Paul is saying to the Corinthians that they should quit trying to teach the one who cannot be taught. Whether he should be fellowshipped or not would be unresolved if only this verse were considered, although other verses would prove that such a person is factious and should be purged from the flock. But, other verses would have to be considered to determine that.

However, if agnoeitai is the correct reading, as the context and manuscript evidence seems to imply, the meaning is that given by the RSV, NASB, TEV, Goodspeed, Twentieth Century New Testament, and Bruce’s Expanded Paraphrase. That meaning is this: If a man does not recognize the authority of the apostolic office as. represented by what Paul had taught, the church was not to recognize that man. Notice the implications of this:

(1) The Lordship of Christ is involved in such a remote thing as the number of prophets and tongue speakers allowed to speak in any assembly and the order to be maintained in the assembly. The one who does not recognize the pattern of authority in this area is not to be recognized. (This is exactly the same point as is made in Jas. 2:10-12. The man who refuses to submit to the Lord’s authority in any aspect is not to be recognized because he is a violator of the law.)

(2) Fellowship cannot be extended to the person who refuses to recognize the authority of God’s word. “But if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” The application of this truth would extend to any area in which one refuses to submit to the authority of God’s word-whether it be with reference to the work or the worship of the church or anything else concerning which God has spoken! Fellowship is, then, contingent upon doctrinal conformity. No unity could be had in the assembly at Corinth until all submitted to this authority. Anyone who refused to submit to the authority of Christ as delegated to His apostles was not to be recognized by the church.

I Corinthians 15:33-34

Not one in ten preachers would normally refer to this passage when preaching on fellowship, although once the context is realized, one can easily see that it does discuss the subject of fellowship. The entire fifteenth chapter of the book discusses the subject of the resurrection. After restating the basic facts of the gospel and citing the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (15:1-11), Paul then named the apostasy which he was refuting: “How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12′). From that point, Paul showed the logical consequence of denying the resurrection of the dead-that Jesus was not raised (15:14-19). Afterwards, he showed the order of the resurrection and God’s plan for the reign of Jesus which, Paul said, would terminate at the resurrection of the saints (15:20-28). To further press his point, Paul asked the Corinthians what would be the use of enduring persecution if the dead are not raised. Obviously, if there is no resurrection, we should “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (15:30-32).

In the midst of this context, Paul said, “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’ Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God” (15:33-34). Here are some statements from very qualified commentators as to the meaning of this passage:

“So Paul insists that the Corinthians must not associate with those who say that there is no resurrection. To associate with such is inevitably to risk an infection which can pollute life” (William Barclay, The Letters To The Corinthians,,p. 174).

“The sentiment of the passage is, that the intercourse of evil-minded men, or that close friendship and conversation of those who hold erroneous opinions, or who are impure in their lives, tend to corrupt the morals, the heart, the sentiments of others. The particular thing to which Paul here applies it is the subject of the resurrection. Such intercourse would tend to corrupt the simplicity of their faith, and pervert their views of the truth of the gospel, and thus corrupt their lives” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, p. 308).

“The persons whose company the apostles desired the Corinthians to shun, were those who reasoned against the immortality of the soul and the future state” (MacKnight on the Epistles, p. 270).

The comments of other commentators could be added but from these one can see that Paul is saying to have no fellowship with the man who speaks not the truth on the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Just as fellowship can and must be broken when immorality occurs, so also fellowship must be broken when false doctrines are taught-even if those false doctrines affect something so “insignificant” in our sight as the matters of 1 Cor. 14. Fellowship is contingent upon doctrinal agreement!

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, pp. 216-218
February 13, 1975

By William V. Beesley

It has often and rightly been observed that when one leaves the shelter of complete Bible authority, there is no stopping place short of complete apostasy. Paul said, “But evil men and imposters shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Even principles that were once firmly established fall by the wayside.

In trying to show that the church (congregationally) has an obligation in general benevolence (e.g., to nonsaints), a preacher pushing three-score years reasoned: (1) The church is the fullness of the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); (2) While on earth Jesus healed an unsaved person, the child of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30); (3) Therefore, the church, in following the example of Christ must feed and cloth non-saints.

He objected, with great vigor, when I, following his line of thought, reasoned: (1) The church is the fullness of the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23); (2) While on earth Jesus worked miracles (Mark 7:24-30; John 20:30); (3) Therefore, we must have miracles in the church today. His reaction was expected since we already knew his feelings about the heresy of Pat Boone and company.

Before going to sleep that night (actually the next morning), it hit me. His argument was, in principle, nothing but the old “What about the thief on the cross?” argument of our denominational friends. The time is coming when “churches of Christ” (so-called) will “shake in Baptists (accept as a Christian without baptism in order to the remission of sins), yes, and Methodists, too.” Then they will ask in word as well as in principle, “What about the thief on the cross?” Brethren, that old thief ain’t entirely dead yet!

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, p. 215
February 13, 1975