Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

There has been controversy stirred up by a few brethren over the interpretation and application of 2 Jno. 9. The thinking goes’ that contextually John can only be referring to the doctrine concerning Christ, i.e., that Jesus is not a gnostic phantom, or a spiritual Superman, untouched by temptation, but indeed was humanity and deity at he same time. In the context, of course Christ’s deity and mutual humanity is what is under consideration, but must we deduce that this is all that John had in mind when he referred to the “doctrine (teaching) of Christ?” Do we disservice to the text to claim that what John meant was the “doctrine from Christ” as well as the “doctrine about Christ?@

Normally, this controversy would be of little importance, except for the fact that those who would limit 2 Jno. 9 do it in an effort to avoid the import of the succeeding verses: ‘”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (teaching), receive him not into your house,. neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This passage in 2 John puts limits on our fellowship and sharing with those who do not abide in the “doctrine of’, Christ.” Therefore it becomes of great importance to those who would bring in all manner of leaven to our “passover feast” (I Cor. 5:5-8) that the scope of the doctrine of Christ be limited to “one fact.”

It is interesting that the majority of the scholars who have written commentaries dismiss this misuse of 2 Jno. 9, and use “the doctrine of Christ” in a broad sense to include everything Christ taught. Even the Anglican commentator and translator William Barclay, ecumenical advocate par excellence, does not permit his personal feelings to color his interpretation and commentary on 2 Jno. 9. “Verse nine is an interesting and significant verse. We have translated the first phrase of it everyone who goes too far. The Greek word is proagon. The verb means to go on ahead, or to go out in advance. The false teachers claimed that they were progressives, that they were the advanced thinkers, that they were the men of the open and adventurous mind. John himself was one of the adventurous thinkers in the New Testament. But he insists that however far a man may advance, he must abide in the teaching of Jesus Christ, or he loses touch with God… He is saying that Jesus Christ must be the touchstone of all thinking, and that which is out of touch with Jesus can never be right. John would say, ‘Think but let your thinking be led by Jesus Christ. . .’ Christianity is not a nebulous, undefined, uncontrolled Theosophy: it is anchored forever to the historical figure of Christ.” No wonder our “progressive thinkers” must destroy the import of 2 Jno. 9: It so adequately and completely condemns them.

But, truth seldom is supported by one scripture alone. Truth complements itself in different ways. So it is with the “doctrine of Christ.” One reason 2 Jno. 9 is rejected as a text which puts responsibility upon man to know all the doctrine from Christ, is because the “New Unity Movement” denies man’s ability to know truth. Put another way, these “new lights” claim that man’s intellect is limited and since each man has differing degrees of ability to comprehend, we ought not to require that all men “Speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement” (1 Cor. 1:10). Why stigmatize a brother as a sinner who does not look upon the church and its function in the same way we do? Why withdraw from a brother who insists on using an organ to worship God? Why cut off the false teacher? As Brother Edward Fudge put it, “We dare not therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference… it is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect” (Christian Standard; July 8, 1967).

Now if we understand this correctly, according to the “doctrine of Christ” we may withdraw from a brother if he denies the humanity of Jesus, but not if the brother corrupts the teachings from Jesus. Why is it that we are considerate of the “imbecility of intellect” of the man who cannot “comprehend” worship in spirit and in truth, but we cannot appreciate the “imbecility” of one who can only view Christ as impeccable? One kind of attitude we reject, but not the other.

What is basically wrong with this use of 2 Jno. 9 is that the basic assumptions just are not true. Man is capable of knowing truth – all truth – all the truth that is revealed – all the truth that is necessary to save one’s soul. Every aspect of John’s writing deals with man’s intellectual capacity to know God’s will and understand it.

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith T know Him,’ and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whosoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: Hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him (Jesus) ought himself also so to walk, even as he (Jesus) walked” (1 Jno. 2:3-6). The man who claims a relationship to Christ to whom Jesus is mere “Exegesis,” “Contextual Criticism,” and “Christological Theology” is a liar, and there is no truth to his claim of oneness with Christ. A man who dwells in the good favor of God is one who keeps the words of Jesus. Which words? “Howbeit when he the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. . .he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jno. 16:13; 4:26).

“But,” one may say, “That was to the Apostles. We cannot have that all-encompassing knowledge.” Yet John reminds us that in matters of faith (Rom. 10:17) the humblest Christian need have no feeling of inferiority to the most learned scholars. The essentials of faith are in the possession of every man, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1 Jno. 2:20). The man who does the good revealed in the word of God, and follows the pattern given by God for all things has a confidence and an assurance that the “grace-alone” folks cannot touch. “And hereby (in doing the truth) we know that we are of the truth: and shall assure our hearts before him” (1 Jno. 3:19). The man who follows God’s revelation as revealed by the Apostles need not fear deception or any false prophet. “We (the inspired apostles) are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us; He that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error@ (1 Jno. 4: 1.6). The things which God has given us. once read; digested, and put into our life give us a full assurance of heaven. “These things have been written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye might believe on the name of the Son of God” (Jno. 5:13).

To speak of Christ in 2 Jno. 9 and attempt to divorce what Jesus taught from who Jesus is, is legalism and scholasticism gone to seed. Jesus tried to get hard-hearted Jews to realize that accepting his person was not the same as accepting his message. The Jews that ate the free meals would have crowned him king, but Jesus cried out, `Yam the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. .. verily, verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (Jno. 6:35-58). This drove away many who had no faith in Jesus or his way of doing things. Jesus made it plain that the “doctrines of Christ” was not something intellectually understood, but something which was spiritually eaten, digested, and used. Jesus is teaching for those who love him. “It is the spirit that makes alive; the flesh profiteth nothing: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jno. 6.63).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 8-9
October 3, 1974

By John McCort

The tendency of people to form cliques and elite confederations is universal in its scope and has spanned the ages since the beginning of the world. The . church has not escaped this universally cancerous flaw in the characters of men.

Spiritual conceit is a major cause of strife and alienation in the Lord’s church. Some have the idea that they are on a superior spiritual level. They feel that they are tuned in on a special spiritual wave-length and somehow they are more mature spiritually than anyone else. This elite group feels that they must develop special insights that the “common” brethren do not have. While they bask on their theological pedestals in the radiant sunlight of their singularly “special insights,” they take potshots at the “ignorant brethren.” This form of conceit forces them to reject orthodox scriptural modes of worship and develop, some unorthodox doctrinal views so as to render them singularly peculiar. Any scriptural; however “unorthodox,” method of worship and doctrinal point of view is acceptable. Unorthodox methods of worship become intolerable when they are employed to set apart a group who are trying to form a spiritually elite clique whose initiation requirements consist of developing unorthodox insights which cannot be grasped by the brotherhood in general. College students especially need to be warned of the danger of becoming wise in their own conceits and of being overcome by youthful impetuosity and brashness.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 8
October 3, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Of course, we are concerned only with the religious implications of this question. We know that it is our lot to live in a generation that finds the masses sadly divided in religious matters. It seems that many people are ready to take this state of religious division all too lightly. We seem to forget that religious division is the very antithesis of Christ’s prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father, “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (John 17:20, 21). Later we find the apostle Paul commanding one of the first century churches like this. “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We readily can see the Lord’s attitude toward religious division. He hates it. Yet men are ready to dismiss this sad state of religious affairs with a casual, “well, we all have a right to our own belief.” So I want us to attempt to answer the question, “Does every person have a right to his own belief.?”

Religious Liberty

First, let us answer this question by saying, “Yes, in one sense every person does have a right to his own belief.” By that answer, I simply mean that legally, according to our constitution, every person does have a right to believe what he will religiously. And so long as I have my present attitude, I will be no party to restricting any person or party’s right of religious liberty. We ought to be thankful that our country does not try to compel us to be any particular thing religiously. One can enjoy this same freedom as an atheist if he chooses to be one. In the preamble to the constitution our forefathers stated that one of their purposes in founding this country was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In the Bill of Rights we are guaranteed religious freedom. Article I says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The religion of Christ cannot be based on coercion, and no true disciple of His will ever try to found it upon such. So does one have a right to his own belief? Legally, and constitutionally he does have. In the eye of man he is granted this privilege.

But the thing with which we are concerned at the moment, is this: “Does one have the right to believe what he wants to, and to do as he chooses, before God?” Man tells us one can believe as he will, and join the church of his choice and yet have God’s approval. Has God no right to decide what man is to believe, and has God no choice as to what church I should become a member of?

Men seem to think it matters little whether one believes the truth or a lie. Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Error cannot be substituted for truth in God’s plan for man’s redemption. It takes truth to save men’s souls. Paul says there are some who love not the truth, and for this cause God sends them a strong delusion that they might believe a lie that they might be condemned (2 Thess. 2:10-12). It is true that God will not compel a man to obey His commands, but it is likewise true that God will punish a man for not obeying His command while in the body when he reaches the world to come. With God there is a difference between the truth and a lie. With man, truth and error in religion, seem of equal importance, or perhaps we should say, equal unimportance.

Does a man have a right to his own belief in mathematics? Suppose I owed you five dollars, and when I came to repay the five dollars, it was my very firm conviction that two and two make five. Would the fact that I am conscientious in this belief satisfy you? Does a druggist have a right to his own belief when it comes to filling a prescription? Is it all right for him to substitute an ingredient of his own choosing for that prescribed by the doctor? Does the citizen of a kingdom have a right to obey or disobey a decree of the king? You see, it is only in a religious realm that we maintain that a man has a right to believe what he will. Let us turn to our Bibles to see if God approves a man believing and doing what he will. If so, then we should be content to let one go on doing as he chooses. If not, we should become more concerned with turning men from the ways of error to the ways of God.

Example of Cain

Cain did not have a right to his own belief. Back in the Old Testament we have the account of God’s dealings with two brothers. God commanded that the two sons of Adam offer a sacrifice. One did as God commanded; the other did not. “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect” (Gen. 4:2-5). Now let us notice what happened. These two brothers offered sacrifices. With one of them God was well pleased; the other’s sacrifice God rejected. Why? Was it because God had a particular dislike for Cain’? I think not, for Paul on several occasions declares that “God is no respecter of persons.” What made the difference? Paul says God was pleased with Abel’s offering because it was offered “by faith.” He says, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead. yet speaketh” (Heb. 11:4). Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable because it was offered “by faith.” Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted because it was obviously not offered “by faith.” But does this mean that Cain did not offer what man would consider a good sacrifice, or that he was insincere in his offering? Not at all. Well, what was wrong? He did not offer the sacrifice “by faith.” What does one do when he does something “by faith”? Paul says “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). When one does something “by faith,” he does so because the word of God commanded him to do so. These passages indicate that God had told these brothers what kind of sacrifice to offer. There would have been no fairness to these brothers, Cain would have been done an injustice, if God had not told them what kind of sacrifice to offer, and yet have rejected the sacrifice that Cain brought. So the difference between what Cain did, and what Abel did was that Abel obeyed the Lord, and Cain did not. Cain presumed that some other kind of sacrifice would do as well as the kind that God had commanded. But the lesson that we want to learn at the moment is that in the matter of worshiping God, Cain did not have a right to his own belief. Had his sacrifice been offered “by faith,” as was Abel’s, certainly it would have likewise been accepted. Cain had the right to do what God commanded, but Cain did not have the right to change what God had said.

Example of Naaman

Naaman did not have a right to his own belief. Naaman, you will remember, was captain of the host of the king of Syria, a great and honorable man, but the Bible says he was a leper. There was a prophet of God who could tell Naaman what to do to be healed of his leprosy. “And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee,, and thou shalt be clean. But Naaman was wroth, and went away and said, Behold` I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of Jehovah his God, and wave his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great things, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash and be clean? Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God, and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean” (2 Kgs. 5:10-14). Naaman did not like the way the prophet of God treated him in telling him what to do to be healed. He had thought that since he was a great man, certainly the prophet would do some great thing in telling him how to be cured. But the prophet did not even so much as go out to the chariot of Naaman. Rather, Elisha sent a servant out to command him to dip in the Jordan. And when Elisha commanded Naaman to dip in the Jordan river seven times, the Bible says Naaman “was wroth.” He became angry. Why? He thought, “the very idea of me, a great man of Syria, having to dip seven times in that dirty little Israelitish Jordan river to be healed.” As soon as he heard what the prophet commanded him to do, it was then that he decided not to do it. He did not like the commandment of God through the prophet. He decided he would rather do his dipping in the rivers of Syria. But, Naaman did not have a right to his own belief. He thought the rivers of Syria would do just as well, but nothing will do so well as what God has commanded. But when he did precisely as God had instructed, Naaman was made clean from his leprosy.

The Lesson Today

You do not have a right to your own belief. All of us have a right to share in the “one faith” we find mentioned in the Bible. Very often we hear someone say, “Well, you have a right to your belief and I have a right to mine.” They mean by that you can believe what you want to believe, whether it is in the Bible or not. But Paul says, in Eph. 4:5, that there is Aone faith.” I cannot harmonize Paul’s statement that there is but one faith with that of my contemporaries when they tell me you can have your faith and I can have mine. Remember, we have emphasized that our nation rightly has given us the privilege of believing what we want to. In fact, it grants us the right to believe nothing if we so desire. But before God, you do not have a right to your belief. You do have a right to share the “one faith.” This faith, Jude says was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). But it just so happens that God is sovereign. He alone has the right to decree what man shall do in religious matters. It therefore becomes the solemn duty of the citizens in the kingdom of God to acquiesce to what the King has said.

The Lord Jesus has given us certain commandments to obey that are as repulsive to some people as Elisha’s command to Naaman was to him. In fact, many have turned away in the same frame of mind as did Naaman. He was wroth. Many have been angered by the simple commands of Christ. Jesus said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” But today millions throughout the world obstinately refuse to do His will. They cannot see what being baptized has to do with being saved, and they say we have a right to our own belief, and if we do not want to be baptized, we will not. Baptism is not a commandment from man. It is God’s command. If you are going to be cleaned of your sins, you are going to have to obey all of God’s commands, just as Naaman had to, to be cured of his leprosy. Indeed, in religious matters and before God, you do not have a right to your own belief. But you do have the right to share in the “one faith,” with no civil government forbidding.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 3-5
October 3, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION: From Kentucky: “Was the jailer in Philippi asking for physical or spiritual salvation?”

REPLY: The Context: Acts 16:9-40

Paul met with success in Philippi. He also faced great opposition and persecution. “We. . . suffered. . . and were shamefully entreated at Philippi” (1 Thess. 2:2). Public attention was called to the efforts of Paul and his company. This came about as a result of the spirit which Paul cast out of “a certain damsel.” The uproar which followed was broadcast throughout the city as Acts 16:19-24 necessarily implies. (See words like, “trouble our city” and “the multitude.”) The jailer was not unaware of the work of Paul. He knew who Paul was. Even the possessed damsel knew and had cried for “many days,” “saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.” The jailer, therefore, could not have been ignorant of the nature of Paul’s work. Though he assuredly did not know the truth, he knew Paul and Silas were preachers of God and of some kind of spiritual salvation.

The jailer was commanded “to keep them safely.” The men who “do exceedingly trouble our city,” are not to escape! The jailer, “having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” At midnight, the jailer was aroused and awakened from his sleep by “a great earthquake.” “Seeing the prison doors open, he drew. out his sword and would have killed himself, supposing te prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Physical Salvation?

If we eliminate physical salvation, we shall establish spiritual salvation. Physical salvation cannot be what the jailer was requesting.

First, the reason for killing himself was already past. The prisoners had not escaped. When Paul cried, “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here,” that removed the threat to his physical life. It was the jailer’s life for the escaped prisoners, but none of them had fled. “Knowing that death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape, he was about to act upon the Roman code of honor, which required a man to die

by his own hand if necessary to escape that of an enemy or an executioner. It is not likely that he rushed to this desperate resort without some outcries which indicated his purpose, and which were caught by the quick ear of Paul, whose loud voice snatched him back, in the very nick of time, from the brink of eternity:

“As soon as the jailer could collect his senses he remembered that the speaker who had called to him had been preaching salvation in the name of the God of Israel, and he instantly perceived that the earthquake, the opening of the doors, and the unlocking of the fetters were connected with him, and were the work of his God. Seizing this thought, and glancing into the black eternity from which he had just been rescued, his own salvation, rather than the security of his prisoners, at once absorbed his thoughts. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the apostles into the dungeon, he cared nothing for them, or for the salvation which he knew they had been preaching; for then he was in the midst of life and health, and all went well with him; but at midnight, when he had been within an inch of death, a change as sudden as the earthquake passes over him, and he falls trembling at the feet of his prisoners.” (J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary On Acts Of Apostles, Pp. 101, 102.)

Second, the answer given by Paul and Silas is absurd if physical deliverance is the object of the jailer’s inquiry. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” What does believing on Christ have to do with his physical life in this situation? Why include his family, his “house?” They were in no physical danger. “But,” someone objects, “Paul and Silas misunderstood the question,” How do you know? The jailer did not correct them. Are you better able to tell what the jailer was asking than Paul and Silas were?

What is to be gained by the unfounded assumption and assertion that the jailer was asking about physical salvation? We conclude that the jailer was asking a question parallel to that ask by those in Acts 2:37. The jailer wanted to know what to do to be saved from his sins, from the wrath of God which is to come upon the ungodly. This is clearly shown by the context of Acts 16.

(Now, will someone ask if the Jews on Pentecost were asking for work, for employment, when they implored, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:47, p. 2
October 3, 1974