Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

There are those who maintain that the expression “doctrine of Christ” in 2 John 9 does not mean Christ’s doctrine. They affirm that it means doctrine about Christ. They say that from the standpoint of grammar, the expression could mean either Christ’s doctrine or doctrine about Christ, but contend that the context proves that when John used the expression he meant doctrine about Christ.

It is my conviction, however, that the context does not support their conclusion., I believe that the context indicates that when John used the expression “doctrine of Christ,” he meant Christ’s teaching. It is Christ’s teaching that John stressed from the beginning of the letter.

Note the emphasis placed on truth (Christ’s teaching) in verses 1-2. Then in verse 4 John expressed his joy that the elect lady’s children were “walking in truth” (abiding in Christ’s teaching). Again in verse 6 John stressed the importance of walking after His commandments. Thus, the point that was uppermost in John’s mind when he penned this letter was walking in truth (abiding in Christ’s teaching).

Those who maintain that the expression “doctrine of Christ” in verse 9 means doctrine about Christ point to verse 7. They observe that according to verse 7 the particular error John had in mind was that of the deceivers who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. This error John mentioned in verse 7 was erroneous teaching about Christ; thus, it is concluded that John must have meant doctrine about Christ in verse 9, referring only to the one specific error named in verse 7.

It is true that the error that was a particular threat when John wrote was the error mentioned in verse 7. However, the teaching of this particular error was but one specific instance of not abiding in truth. The general principle of abiding in Christ’s teaching is that which John stressed throughout the letter, and verse 7 simply mentions one particular violation of that principle.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 13
June 20, 1974

By Denny A. Diehl

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first in a series of five articles to he carried on instrumental music in worship. These articles were written by five young men, all of whom were students at Florida College last year. The next article in this series is scheduled to appear in the July 11th issue, since next week’s issue will he a special issue prepared by request, and there will be no July 4th issue.)

It will be my purpose in writing this paper to clearly demonstrate. our need to listen to the silence of the Scriptures in our worship to God today, i.e., that we should adhere to the words given to us through the Scriptures and cast out anything not found to be in accordance with God’s word. In regard to instrumental music, it will not be my purpose to show that the use of the musical instrument in worship to God is not to be found in the New Testament Scriptures, but that should it be the case that it is not found therein, that it would be sinful and against God’s will to use it in worship to Him.

Jehovah said to Moses, “I will raise up a prophet from among your countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him” (Deut 18:18,19). God said that, He was going to send His prophets to His people to speak to the people God’s words, all of them. This prophecy is quoted in Acts 3:22,23 as having its ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah. The Christ was sent from God not to do His own will, but to do the will of God the Father. All the words which Jesus spoke were given to Him by God, for He spoke not on His own accord, but only what the Father had showed Him. “And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3-23). So, if we do not hearken to this Prophet, Christ, we shall be cast out of the realm of God’s people. We are to give heed to all His words.

Not only did Peter claim that Jesus was the Prophet to whom we should give heed, but God the Father also made this, very clear when on the mount of the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in a glorified state. When Peter saw this he said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah” (Matt 17:4). God heard this statement made by Peter and stopped things short. God told them, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I as well pleased; hear Him!” (Matt 17:5). This statement should be very plain as to the meaning of what just took place. Moses was God’s lawgiver and Elijah was representative of God’s prophets.’They were the ones whom the people were to look to for direction of God’s desires, but now that God has sent His Son, we are no longer to listen to the Law and the Prophets, but we are to listen to Jesus for our direction in how to please God and to do His will. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews sums it up nicely when he says, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken, to us in Ris Son” (Heb 1: 1,2). So, if we are looking for our source of authority in religion today, it does not come by the Old Testament (Moses and the prophets) but by Jesus Christ; whatever He says we are to do. Jesus Himself claimed that,”all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18).

Jesus, having received all authority from the Father, had the right to commission men to carry out His divine mission of making known unto the people the will of God, which Christ was sent to the earth to do. This is seen in the book of Matthew when Jesus told the apostles, “whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). The apostles had right and obligation to bind or loose all things that had been already bound or loosed in heaven. This they were to do through the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, after leaving the earth, sent the Holy Spirit who taught the apostles all things and brought back to their remembrance”everything that Jesus had told them (Jn. 14:26). So the apostles were to be the representatives of Christ here on earth, with the Holy Spirit to guide them in everything that they taught, and even gave them the words in which to teach the truth 0 Cor. 2:13). If a person is to reject the teaching of the apostles, he rejects Christ, and if he rejects Christ, then he rejects God (Lk. 10:16). Suffice it to say that we have for our authority in religion today the writings of the New Testament.

Let us go back to Deuteronomy 18:18,19. God said that He would raise up a prophet like Moses to guide the people, because God would put His words in the prophets mouth, and the prophet would speak all those words to the people. God had commissioned Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt. God, through Moses, gave to Israel His law for them to keep. Moses was careful to tell the people that they were to keep the law of God. He explains this explicitly by telling them, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you”(Deut. 4:2). And again, “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32). The principle involved here is that God entrusted His will to the Israelites who were to keep His will; but the only way they could keep His will would be to do exactly as He said. Now if they were to take away from His word, they would not be doing enough, or if they added to His word, they would be doing too much, and, therefore, would not be doing His will, but man’s will, since Moses spoke all of God’s words to the people. This principle was true then and will always be true as long as it is God’s word under consideration.

In like manner, in the New Testament dispensation, we have Christ speaking to us all the words of God. Since we have all of God’s words, then we are not deficient in any way of having what God would have us to know. Let us hear the New Testament on this matter. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). We have Christ’s promise that His words shall endure forever. If that is the case, then today we have everything that God ever intended for us to have. We have all the words of God in the Scriptures. Paul states that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Through the Scriptures, we have everything, all things, that we need for every good work. If that is the case, then there is not any good work as pertains to religion that is not found in the Scriptures. The same principle holds true in the New. Testament as it did in the Old Testament; that is, if we are going to do God’s will, we can not add to it, nor take away from the words which He has spoken to us.

From I Pet. 4:11, we see the idea behind the authority of the silence of the Scriptures, as it says “Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God.” Since we have all of God’s words, then the only way a person should speak religiously is according to the New Testament. Anything spoken religiously that is not in the New Testament would not be according to “the utterances of God,” hence, we see that we need to be silent where the New Testament is silent. This is one of the biggest problems in religion today. People do not give heed to the silence that God has placed in the Scriptures. Let us develo”p this argument more fully.

In the book of Hebrews we find the writer telling of Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but not being a priest according to the Old Testament standard. Why couldn’t Jesus be a priest under the old law? Because the old law stated that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi, even though the law had not said that a priest could not come from the tribe of Judah. “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:14). Moses had not spoken concerning this, therefore, a person from a tribe other than Levi could not officiate at the altar. Moses was silent on the subject, therefore, it was not sanctioned.

Let us examine an Old Testament example to see if they were restrained to that which was spoken in the Old Testament. “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Lev. 10: 1). God had given the source from whence the fire was to come, Lev. 16:12, but He had not condemned any other source of fire. Was God pleased with these- two men who took it upon themselves to offer to God something that He had not commanded? Not in the least! “And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord” (Lev. 10:2). Why did God require the lives of Nadab and Abihu? They were worshiping the true and living God; by all evidence in the Scriptures, they were worshiping sincerely; they were burning incense unto the Lord as the Lord God had commanded them; so why was God displeased with these two men? It was because they had not used the fire that God had commanded them. They took it upon themselves to get fire from some other source which the Lord had said nothing about. They had disobeyed God by offering something that He had not commanded them, even a little thing like the fire for which to burn incense.

Even though God had not expressly forbade, any other source of fire, Nadab and Abihu sinned and God required their lives for it. We will find the reason for God’s action farther down in the same chapter in verse 10, “and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean.” Nadab and Abihu had substituted the profane for the holy and the unclean for the clean; they had substituted that which was not, commanded for that which was commanded; in short and simple words, they had not respected the silence of God’s Scriptures.

It will do us well to keep this example fresh in our minds when we get the urge to introduce or substitute anything into the worship service of our Lord God, for “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction” (I Cor. 10:11). For us to introduce or substitute into the church of our Lord any such thing that has not been commanded by God to worship Him, would he for us to parallel our actions with Nadab and Abihu. But let us hear what the New Testament has to say on the subject of worship to God.

Throughout the ministry of Jesus, He repeatedly exposed the efforts of the Pharisees and the scribes to make the people walk in line with their own commandments and traditions instead of God’s commandments. “And He said to them, ‘Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honors Me with their lips but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Mk. 7:6,7). By teaching the precepts of men, they had made void their worship unto God. They were not adhering to the silence of the Scriptures. Where the Scriptures were silent, the Pharisees and scribes had not felt restrained in putting in their own wants and desires. Jesus said that this deemed their worship vain.

It is quite evident from the next passage that not everyone who believes himself to be a Christian shall inherit sonship with Jesus Christ and enter heaven in the last day. “Not every one who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father, who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles.= And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness=@ (Matt. 7:21-23). People who want to follow Christ should guard against self-deception. Sometimes there are those who want something in religion so bad that they overlook what the Bible has to say on a subject. They believe that it has to be right because it makes them feel good or because they want it so much. How could this be wrong? Jesus tells us of disciples who were working in His name, but when it came time for judgment day, Jesus had to say to them that He never knew them and that they were to depart from His presence. Why? Because they were workers of lawlessness! The Greek word translated ‘lawlessness’ is anomia. Thayer renders the meaning of this word as, “l. the condition of one without law, either because ignorant of it, or because violating it. 2. contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness.” So the reason they were not given admission into heaven was because they acted without law, they were not letting themselves be regulated by the law. Jesus has given us His law in the Scriptures. If we refuse to let ourselves be limited by this law, then we are the very same people whom Jesus said were going to be cast out of the kingdom of heaven. “Since this is true, many who claim to be his servants and doing wonders in his name will be driven from the presence of God for doing what they imagine good service to him. We can not be too cautious in doing his commandments and in rejecting from his service everything not commanded by him.2

We shall cite one more author of the Holy Writ and then draw a conclusion from the sources herein presented. In his second epistle, John exhorts his readers to walk in truth. To walk in truth would be to walk according to that which is in the gospel of truth, nothing added and nothing lacking. This can be done because we have all the words that God has chosen to give us. We should not add to nor take away from the word (Deut. 4:2), so that we may walk according to truth. The apostle John gave strict warning to those who would not limit themselves to the words given to us by God. “Any one who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). To walk, according to truth would grant us fellowship with both the Father and the Son, but he that “goes ahead” (RSV), “runs too far ahead” (NEB), or “goes beyond” (REV) that which was given us does not abide in the teaching (the words given to us by God), and therefore, does not have fellowship with God. From this Scripture, it is evident that we must give heed to the silence of the Scriptures to be pleasing to God; for if we do not, we do not have God.

In this paper, I have tried to show that we must regard the Scriptures as completely authoritative in everything we do in the name of Jesus. To be pleasing to God, we must observe His commandments and obey them; but we must be careful to cast out, reject, everything that is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures when we are trying to adhere to God’s commands. It is my sincere desire that “whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God … so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Pet. 4: 11). Dear brethren, allow God to be glorified and not man; allow the Scriptures to speak and man be silent. Moses E. Lard has well stated his view of anyone who would consent in any way to not limit himself to the doctrine of Christ, in that, “as a people we have from the first and continually to the present proclaimed that the New Testament and that alone is our only full and perfect rule of faith and practice. We have declared a thousand times and more that whatever it (the Bible) does not teach we must not hold, and whatever it does not sanction we must not practice. He who ignores or repudiates these principles … has by this become an apostate from our ranks; and the sooner he … goes out from amongst us the better, yes, verily, the better for us.”3

Footnotes

1. Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., (n.d.) ) 48.

2. H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), 183.

3. Moses E. Lard, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing,” Lard’s Quarterly (Rosemead: The Old Paths Book Club, 1952),1,330-331.

Bibliography

Bales, James D. Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship. Searcy: James D. Bales, 1973.

Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1936.

Girardeau, John L. Instrumental Music in Public Worship of the Church. Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson, Printers, 1888.

Lard, Moses E. “‘Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing.” Lard’s Quarterly, I, Rosemead: The Old Paths Book Club, 1952.

Lewis, John T. The Voice, of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1932.

Roberts, J. W. The Letters of John. Austin: R. B. Sweet Co., Inc., 1968.

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., (n.d.).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, pp. 11-13
June 20, 1974

By Harry E. Ozment

Definition

One of the most widely believed, yet destructive, religious doctrines is Calvinism’s “Impossibility of Apostasy.” The Presbyterian Confession of Faith states: “They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” In other words, this theory teaches that a child of God cannot so sin as to fall from the grace of God and be lost in eternity. Sometimes referred to as “once in grace, always in grace” or “once saved, always saved,” this doctrine was formulated as a result of Calvinism’s “Predestination.” If God elected certain individuals to be saved, His will cannot be overturned or upset by any man (not even the elected); hence, these people must be saved and can do nothing to change the situation.

On the other hand, to affirm the possibility of apostasy is not to say we mistrust God, for God’s promise of salvation to His children is conditional. If a person fails to reach heaven, he failed to meet the conditions of God’s grace-and God

cannot bear responsibility for the failure. In such a case, God did not fail to fulfill His promise; rather, man failed to fulfill his responsibility.

Errors of the Doctrine

“Impossibility of Apostasy” is a Biblically destructive doctrine because it:

1. Denies plain Bible statements. The New Testament is replete with scriptures attesting to the possibility of apostasy. In 1 Cor. 10: 12, Paul said, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” In verses 1-11, Paul had been using the history of apostatizing Israel to warn the Christians not to do likewise. This Corinthian letter was addressed to “the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” (I Cor. 1:2) Calvinism denies that these Corinthians would not and could not “fall@-yet Paul warns them, to take precautions against falling! Calvinism would make Paul as foolish as I would be if I were to say, “Don’t drive a car, lest ye become seasick.”

The same apostle Paul said, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.” (I Tim. 4: 1) One cannot depart from any place, unless he was once there. To affirm that some departed from the faith necessarily implies they were once in the faith. Calvinism, however, denies the possibility of apostasy. Will they deny the formation and existence of the apostate Roman Catholic Church? If so, they will be denying the voices of Bible prophecy and secular history.

Notice the powerful words of Paul in Gal. 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” The inspired writer is not here issuing a warning-he is stating an existing condition, using the present tense “ye are fallen . . . .” Did not Paul (and the Spirit Who guided him) know whereof he spoke? To answer negatively, as the Calvinist must do, is to deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

The inspired words of Heb. 6:4-6 deal a death blow to Calvinism. The subjects under discussion are Christians, for they are described as those who: (a) “were once enlightened”,- (b) “have tasted of the heavenly gift”,(c) “were made Partakers of the Holy Ghost` (d) “have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of ;he world to come.” Two questions are in order for the person who denies this is speaking of Christians: Which of the above is not a description of a Christian; and, what must be added to the above to qualify it as a description of a child of God? Certainly, these are Christians and the principle taught regarding these Christians is: “For it is impossible … if they Shallfiall away, to renew them again unto repentance.” All the squirming and theorizing the Calvinist might do will not let him escape the force of this passage.

Peter throws Calvinism into a ridiculous light in 2 Pet. 2:20-21: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” Calvinists argue that a person who has escaped “the pollutions of the world” and “known the way of righteousness” cannot fall from the grace of God. Peter, however, states that it is possible for such a person to be “again entangled” and “turn from the holy commandment” and he describes the tragedy of such a condition. Who are we ‘to believe-Peter or Calvinism?

2. Denies Bible illustrations of apostasy. In examining New Testament examples of apostasy, two ideas stand out: (a) The certainty with which the scripture describes the .1brmer saved state of the apostate. Many times, when directed to an example of apostasy, the Calvinist will deny that the apostate was ever really saved. (b) The certainty with which the scripture describes the completely fallen state of the apostate. The Calvinist will sometimes deny that the apostate has really fallen from the grace of God. No amount of hedging and quibbling by Calvinists, however, can destroy the effect of these Bible illustrations of apostasy:

(a) Parable of the vine and branches. Jesus said, “I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” (Jn. 15:1-2) Notice that the branch is first saved: “. . . branch in me. “Every “branch” in Christ possesses salvation: “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Eph. 1:7) When the branch does not fulfill God’s condition for salvation, God “taketh away” that branch-it is lost because it is fallen from Christ and no longer in Him. The branches “taken away” are “cast into the fire, and they are burned.” (Jn. 15:6) This is a clear case of salvation-apostasy-damnation!

(b) Simon the sorcerer. We read of this controversial figure in Acts 8. Calvinists often deny that this man was saved. But notice Acts 8:13: “Then Simon himself believed also.” “Also” is an adverb meaning “likewise” – (Webster). Simon’s obedience was being compared to the obedience of the Samaritans in v. 12. Whatever the Samaritans did, Simon did “like wise. ” Whatever the Samaritans were (saved or lost), Simon was Alikewise.” If Simon was never saved, neither were the Samaritans. If the Samaritans were saved, so was Simon. Notice again Acts 8:13., “He continued with Philip.” Simon’s obedience was genuine, for he had enough interest and zeal to “continue with Philip.” Simon, however, fell from the grace of God through envying the miraculous gifts of inspired men. There is no denying his fallen state, for Peter said unto him: “Thy money perish with thee . . . .” (v. 20), “thy heart is not right in the sight of God . . . .” (v. 21), “repent therefore of this thy wickedness . . . .” (v. 22), “thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (v. 23). Surely, Calvinism cannot muddy the clear water of these scriptures.

3. Denies possibility of a sinning Christian. Calvinism readily affirms that sin will cause a person to be lost-yet readily denies that a Christian can be lost. The only alternative left to Calvinism, therefore, is to affirm that a Christian cannot sin. John, however, would allow no Christian to affirm this, for he, says of Christians: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (I Jn. 1:8; cf. v. 10) Can a Christian sin? To ask it is but to answer it! What explanation does Calvinism have for those scriptures which command Christians to abstain from acts of ungodliness? Are the commands useless and senseless? In an effort to escape this difficulty, Calvinists will sometimes reply, “But this is the old fleshly body of the Christian that sins. The heart, or the true part of the Christian, does not sin.” This dodge will not hold water, for Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,’ false witness, blasphemies.” (Matt. 15: 19; cf. Jas. 4:5) The heart is the motor for the body’s action; therefore, both body and heart must bear responsibility for the sins of the person (whether a Christian or not).

4. Denies blots in book of life. John said, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” (Rev. 22:19; cf. Rev. 3:5) Would Calvinism have us believe that God would blot the name of an eternally saved person from the book of life? This conclusion would follow if Calvinism is true. The simple truth is that God puts the names of the saved on the book of life. When they sin so as to fall from His grace, their names are then blotted from that book.

5. Denies necessity for godly life. This is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy ‘of Calvinistic doctrine. Theoretically, the doctrine would have us believe that a Christian could commit all manner of evil without falling from divine grace and being in danger of hell. I thank God that my denominational friends and neighbors do not really believe this false doctrine: If they put into practice what their false doctrine theoretically teaches, no one could live in such a wicked world. In denying the necessity of godly living, this doctrine also:

(a) Discourages study of God’s word. Paul said, “Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we, should let them slip.” (Heb. 2:1) Why heed and study, if we cannot slip?

(b) Discourages work for restorations. James said, “Brethren, if any of you do err I from the truth, and one convert him;. let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death.” (Jas. 5:19-20; cf. Gal. 6:1) Why work for the restoration of a brother’s soul if it is impossible for him to err and fall?

(c) Discourages confession of sins. John said, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I Jn. 1:9; cf. 2 Jno. 9-11) Why pray for the forgiveness of sins if the stain of those sins will not cause us to be separated from God finally and eternally in hell?

(d) Discourages brotherly consideration. Paul said, “But judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Rom. 14:13; cf. Rom.14:15; 15:1-3; 1 Cor. 13:4-5; Gal. 6:1-2; Phil. 2:14) Why take care how we live before our brethren if our manner of life cannot in any way cause one in Christ to stumble and fall from grace?

(e) Discourages patient endurance. Jesus said, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.” (Rev. 3:5, cf. Acts 11:23; 14:21-22,. Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Cor. 15:1-2, 58; 16:13; Gal. 5: 1; 6:9; Eph. 6.13, 18; Phil. 1:27; 4: 1; Col. 1:22, 23; 2:7; 1 Thess. 3:8; 5:21; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:13; 2 Tim. 1:12, 13; 13,14; Tit. 1-9; Heb. 2:1; 3:5-6; 4:14; 6:11-12, 15; 10:23, 35-36; 12:1-15; Jas. 1: 12; 5: 1-11; 2 Pet. 3:17; Rev. 2:7, 10-11, 17, 25-28; 3:11-12, 21; 21:7-8). Why should we try to overcome trials and temptations if yielding to these things will not in any way lose for us our salvation?

Calvinism is very closely akin to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans’ basic philosophy was that the salvation of the Christian was secure, and therefore, the Christian was above any moral law of God. Jesus wrote: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” (Rev. 2:6) Every follower of Christ should likewise hate the tenets of Calvinism and oppose them. with all his might. May the words of Peter serve as the guideline for our lives: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” (2 Pet. 1:10)

(End of Series)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, pp. 9-10
June 20, 1974

By James W Adams

“That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away” (Eccl. 3:15). This verse of Scripture impresses upon us the fact that there is nothing absolutely new; nothing that exists in isolation. Human events constitute a chain; the present is linked to the past and the future is linked to the present. The Preacher (Solomon) particularly wishes for men to recognize this as being inseparably connected with God’s providential rulership of men and events. My use of this fact which he calls to our attention will be to demonstrate that present error in religion is rarely, if ever, new. It finds its roots in the past and its harvest of chaos in the future. Particularly is this true of the errors of Brother W. Carl Ketcherside relative to “fellowship and unity” among Christians.

In an article in Truth Magazine some months past, I stated that I could see little, if any, difference between Ketcherside’s theory concerning “fellowship and unity” and the old time-honored and time-worn denominational concept of “the invisible church.” In this article, I shall explore this fact in greater depth.

“The Invisible Church!’

Just what is “the invisible church” theory? Simply stated, it is this: (1) There are saved and unsaved people in all formally constituted religious bodies called, “Churches;” (2) the body of Christ-the universal (catholic) church of Christ-is essentially one and is made up of all truly redeemed persons (sincere, pious believers) in all Churches regardless of creed, organization, or practice; (3) these people, being in fellowship with Christ and quickened by the indwelling Spirit, are in fellowship with one another, hence they are united in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4) and, in such union, are an acceptable answer to the prayer of Jesus for the unity of His disciples (John 17:20, 21); (4) the membership of this body, being known only to God (2 Tim. 2:19), constitutes it an “invisible” body; (5) the unity and fellowship thus enjoyed is tangibly expressed in the recognition of the fact that there are saved persons in all Churches, in the manifestation of a spirit of love and concern for such persons, and in cooperation with them in all areas of mutual agreement and interest. The above are not direct quotations, but rather, are a summary of the theory in my own words. To corroborate my summary, attention is called to some direct quotations from scholars, past and present.

Let us note first a lengthy quotation from Marcus Dods, an eminently pious and scholarly theologian of the Scotch Presbyterian denomination (1834-1909):

“The world looks on and laughs while it sees the church divided against itself and wrangling over petty differences while it ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness, and ignorance. And yet schism is thought no sin; and that which the Reformers shuddered at and shrank from, that secession which they feared to make even from a Church so corrupt as that of Rome then was, every petty ecclesiastic now presumes to initiate.

Now that the Church is broken into pieces, perhaps the first step towards a restoration of true unity is to recognise that there may be real union without unity of external organization. In other words, it is quite possible that Churches which have individually a separate corporate existence-say the Presbyterian, Independent, and Episcopalian Churches–may be one in the New Testament sense. The human race is one; but this unity admits of numberless varieties and diversities in appearance, in colour, in language, and of endless subordinate divisions into races, tribes, and nations. So the Church may be truly one, one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the unity of the Spirit and the bond ofpeace, though there continue to be various divisions and sects … so far as man can forsee, there is no possibility, not to say prospect, of the. Church of Christ becoming one vast visible organization. Oneness in that sense is prevented by the very same obstacles that hinder States and governments on earthfirom being merged into one great kingdom. But as amidst all diversities of government and customs it is the duty of States to remember and maintain their common brother*ood and abstain from tyranny, oppression, and war, so it is the duty of Churches, however separate in creed or form of government, to maintain and exhibit their unity. If the sects of the Church willfrankly and cordially recognise one another as parts of the same whole, if they will exhibit their relationship by combining in good works, by an interchange of ecclesiastical civilities, by aiding one another when aid is needed, this is, I conceive, real union. Certainly Churches which see it to be their duty to maintain a separate existence ought to be equally car~bful to maintain real unity with all other Churches.

AAgain, it is to be borne in mind that there may be real union without unity in creed. As Churches may be truly one though, for the sake of convenience or of some conscientious scruple, they maintain a separate existence, so the unity required in the New Testament is not uniformity of belief in respect to all articles offaith.

“But the question remains, What truths are to be made terms of communion? Is schism or secession ever justifiable on the ground that error is taught in the Church?

“This is a question most difficult to answer. The Church of Christ is formed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto salvation. He is in communion with all who trust in Him, whether their knowledge be great or small; and we cannot refuse to communicate with those with whom He is in communion. And it may very reasonably be questioned whether any part of the Church has a right to identify herself with a creed which past experience proves that the whole Church will never adopt, and which therefore necessarily makes her schismatic and sectarian. As manifestoes or didactic summaries of truth, confessions of faith may be very useful. Systematic knowledge is at all times desirable; ‘and as a backbone to which all the knowledge we acquire may be attached a catechism! or confession of faith is part of the necessary equipment of a Church. But no doctrinal error which does not subvert personal faith in Christ should be allowed to separate Churches. Theology must not be made more than Christianity. We cannot pay too much attention to doctrine or too earnestly contend for the faith; we cannot too anxiously seek to have and to disseminate clear views of truth: but if we make our clear views a reason for quarreling with other Christians and a bar to our fellowship with them, we forget that Christ is more than doctrine and charity better than knowledge.

A . . .It is monstrous that those who are vitally united to bound up with Methodism or Lutheranism or the Nor-one Person and quickened by one Spirit should in no way recognize their unity. ” (EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE; COMMENTARY ON FIRST CORINTHIANS; pp. 37-42.)

No one who has read after Brother Ketcherside with an unbiased mind and honest heart can fail to recognize the striking parallel between the concepts of Dods and the concepts of Ketcherside relative to unity and fellowship. The only significant difference I see is that Dods is more logical and consistent. Dods makes consistent application of the logical consequences of his point of view whereas Ketcherside makes application of his theory only to a certain point. He will not commit himself unequivocally beyond the point of an immersed believer in recognizing a state of fellowship and the practice of unity. He will recognize only such persons (i.e. immersed believers) as being Christians–in communion with Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit. Mr. Dods uniformly recognizes as Christians all who believe in and trust Christ for salvation, whether immersed or not.

However, fairness demands that I note the fact of a troubled spirit on Ketcherside’s part with reference to the “pious unimmersed.” He constantly refers to such persons as his “brethren in prospect” and avers that “he loves them”as though this were the issue. It is my candid judgement, based on what I conceive to be adequate evidence, that, in his heart, Ketcherside has already accepted the pious unimmersed but hesitates openly to avow it. Why he hesitates, I cannot know certainly. It is a reasonable assumption that he may realize that those he seeks to influence are not yet ready to go this far, although some under his influence have done so, hence for him so to avow would prejudice the success of his efforts. His “five rules of subversion” treated by me in a previous article would suggest that he is capable of such. Our revolutionary age has bred a strange species of ethics (much of it borrowed from Communism) even in religion. However, I do not charge Ketcherside in this regard; I only ask, Why?

That Ketcherside is not alone in advocating revolutionary ethics to achieve unity, is well known to all who have kept abreast of the ecumenical movement. A striking example of this are suggestions made by Dr. Martin E. Marty, at that time associate editor of the Christian Century and associate professor of history at the University.of Chicago. In his book, Church Unity and Church Mission (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), he says:

“At present there is little prospect that a large number Of seminarians, young ministers, collegians, and youthful members of congregations will become directly involved in ecumenical organizations. Their role will be less in the formation of such organizations at their centers than in the reformation of such by the way people act and think where they themselves live and work. Many of these, if they daily and in every way choose to ‘break the rules and violate the disciplines and disdain the orthodoxies of their own families, will find themselves ‘between communities,’ not at home in any embodiment of the Church.

“Such persons will find that their histories will be largely bound up with Methodism or Lutheranism or the Northeastern District or with First Baptist Church. We have been suggesting consistently that none of these institutions in isolation has a sufficiently deserving history to summon the best energies of Christians. What can be done? Negatively, to borrow Peter Berger’s phrase, they can engage in ‘sociological Machiavellianism’ -which, I am afraid, is the counsel of this chapter.

“Berger facetiously describes the tactic as one in which a person ‘acquires scruples and keeps on cheating.’ ‘Only he who understands the rules is in a position to cheat.’ . . .

“In a series of magazine articles written in 1960 I advocated something like Berger’s vision. Deliberately choosing dramatic terms to emphasize a point that could be lost in subtlety otherwise, I spoke of living in denominations and being faithful to their disciplines. But meanwhile, there must be ‘subversion,’ ‘infiltration,’ ‘encirclement= and other tactics which work toward the ultimate death and transfiguration of these forms. These tactics were subjected to some criticism: is there not in them a denial of Christian truth and discipline and a betrayal of ethics in an open-faced advocacy of this sort? This question is legitimate among those who equate the accidents of their denominational history with the whole of the Christian tradition. To those who make a distinction, the tactic appears in a different light entirely. ” (CHURCH UNITY AND CHURCH MISSION, pp. 124-1261.)

One would suppose, having read Ketcherside and reading the above, that Ketcherside has so steeped himself in the propoganda of sectarian ecumenists, as it were by a process of osmosis, to have been infused both with their theology and their ethics. Such is simply the old doctrine of “the end justifying the means” in a new theological dress.

Fundamental to all of this reasoning is the concept of the “true church of Christ” consisting of the truly pious in all existing forms of so-called Christendom. Animated by such a concept, I any corporate body or form (now or ever existing) with its particular creed, organization, and practice must be conceived of as less than the church of God, hence is expendable in the search for fellowship and unity regardless of the ethics involved in the accomplishment of its demise.

This is why Brother Ketcherside suggests that young men imbued with his (Ketchersides’s) concepts not change religious parties but work subversively within those parties.

Further to establish our contention concerning Ketchersideism and “the invisible church theory,” let us note another quotation from a modern theological scholarone very popular both with Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett; namely, John R. W Stott. Mr. Stott is the Rector of All Souls Church, London, and serves as Chaplain to Her Majesty, the Queen of England. He is the author of numerous books and articles and is generally accepted as a representative scholar of our time. Mr. Stott says:

“At last the Christ came. Jesus of Nazareth announced the arrival,of the long-awaited kingdom. . . God’s people would no longer be a race apart, but a society whose members were drawn from every nation, kindred, and tongue. Go … the risen Lord commanded His followers, ‘and make disciples of all nations . . . ‘(Mt. 28:19). The sum total of these disciples He called ‘my church’ (Mt. 16.-18).

“So God’s pledge to Abraham, repeated several times to him and renewed to his sons, is being fulfilled in the growth of the world-wide Church today. ‘If you are Christ’s,’ wrote St. Paul, ‘then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise’ (Gal. 3.-29).

“One of the most striking pictures which the apostle uses to, convey the unity of believers in Christ is that of the human body. The Church, he says, is the body, of Christ. Every Christian is a member or organ of the body, while, Christ Himself is the Head, controlling the body’s activities. Not every organ has the same function, but each is necessary for the maximum health and usefulness of the body. Moreover, the whole body is animated by a common life. This is the Holy Spirit. It is His presence which makes the. body one. The Church owes its coherent unity to Him. ‘There is one body and one Spirit, emphasizes St. Paul (Eph. 4:4). Even the outward, organizational divisions of the Church do not destroy its inward and spiritual unity which, is indissoluble. This is ‘the unity of the Spirit’or ‘the fellowship of the Spirit’ (Eph. 4:3; Phil. 2:1 and 2 Cor. 13.14). It is our common share in Him which makes us deeply and permanently one. (For a striking parallel to this reasoning, see the unpublished manuscript of Edward Fudge’s thesis for his Master’s Degree from Abilene Christian College, Abilene Christian College Library, Abilene, Texas. I have read it! JWA)

“This spiritual unity, created by the One Spirit, has sometimes been termed ‘the invisible Church’. Its membership is unseen. It is the community of all true believers, or, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, ‘the blessed company of all faithful people’ Every real Christian belongs to it, whatever his racial, social or ecclesiastical background. If he belongs to Christ, then he belongs to this church.” BASIC CHRISTIANITY, pp. 106, 107)

Much of What Mr. Stott says is true and not at all objectionable if by “Church” were meant only the saved relationship and by “organizational divisions of the Church” were meant simply congregations of like faith and order. Unfortunately, as the reader can see, Mr. Stott meant more than this. His view and that of Brother Ketcherside are almost identical except for the fact that Mr. Stott would not, as does Ketcherside, limit Christians to the category of baptized believers, or to put it more accurately in nontransliterated. terminology, immersed believers. Mr. Stott, like Dr. Dods, is more logical and consistent than Ketcherside in accepting the total consequences of his concepts in practical application.

Conclusion

Dr. Martin E. Marty’s thesis in his book, Church Unity and Church Mission, is that there is sufficient unity for “Church Mission.” It is his contention that the unity which exists in Christ among the truly pious in all existing forms of the so-called “Church” is sufficient for tangible, concrete, unified action in areas of common interest and agreement among the divided sects of Christendom. This unified action, he calls, “Mission.” He suggests that “Mission” can be a reality without a corporate organization if all competition is decried and desisted from and if all will “support and accept each other in carrying on together their mission of serving and saving through word and work in the world” (Op. Cit. p. 27).

Brother Ketcherside believes immersed believers are in fellowship with Christ, hence in fellowship with one another.

He insists that despite membership in different corporate institutions, such believers should recognize one another as brethren, And despite differences in matters relating to work, worship, and belief should work together in all matters of mutual interest and agreement. I repeat, the only difference between Brother Ketcherside and “the invisible church@ theorists is that of degree and not of kind.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 6-8
June 20, 1974