Truth Magazine

By Keith M. Greer

Over the past five years I have listened to, read about and observed a growing problem among brethren. In many of the papers and periodicals published by brethren, we seem to be in a “death struggle” over a serious Bible teaching concerning the proper exegesis of Romans 14.

But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! (Gal. 5:15).

Can one be so blind, as to not see the “ever widening gap” that is occurring between us over this issue of fellow-ship? Over the past few years I have read and studied both sides of these issues. I have preached on these matters personally in many places across the country. Also, I have discussed my understanding of these issues with elders, preachers, and many members of the church. Allow me to offer some personal observations for your consideration.

All of this began, as I see it, in recent times over an article in Christianity Magazine where brother Ed Harrell defended brother Homer Hailey, as he called it, “an unheroic assault on a 85-year-old warrior” (Nov.1988, 6). I listened to a discussion with Mike Willis and Ed Harrell at Tampa Florida (I believe at the 1990 Lectures), where the study centered around Homer Hailey  not his teaching on the Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage issue! Homer Hailey is not the issue  never has been  the false teaching being done is the issue. Brother Harrell followed up this article with a series of sixteen articles on the “Bounds of Christian Unity.” I have read and reread these articles.

Over the next few years other articles have been written in other papers addressing these issues. I have personally discussed my concerns with brother Dee Bowman by phone and letters. I talked briefly with Ed Harrell at the Lectures. Numerous discussions have been held with Mike Willis, Cecil Willis, Ron Halbrook, Larry Hafley, Harry Osborne, Tom Roberts, Joe Price, and countless other preachers.

Recently I attended Hebron Lane, in Louisville, Kentucky to hear Connie Adams discuss the subject of Romans 14, so I have gotten many different viewpoints. Of course I have done a personal study of Romans 14 and Bible fellow-ship.

Articles such as brother Paul Earnhart, “Watch Them Dogs” (July 1996, Christianity Magazine); Connie Adams, “Watch Which Dogs?”(Guardian of Truth, February 6, 1997); Larry Hafley, “Nice Doggy”(which I reviewed on the Internet). I recently read an excellent set of articles by Thomas O’Neal (Walking In Truth, Volume 21, #3). Count-less other articles have also been written, but I think you see my point.

Being a “younger” gospel preacher (years of experience about ten) than most of these men, I’ve done what I thought was best  listened, studied, read, and observed. Now I feel the need to speak out to offer my humble opinion, for what it is worth, to my brethren on both sides of these is-sues (Romans 14 and Fellowship).

What has happened to honest, open, loving discussions over issues which divide us? Why have we not learned from the events of the past? Bitter attitudes, open ill will, and prejudging another’s motives will only lead to the devil gaining ground! We be brethren! What does God’s word clearly teach concerning our relationship as brethren? Please read these passages: John 13:34, 35; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:15, 16; 4:19-21; 5:1.

By my personal observation, not much love has been shown on either side! Let us get away from personal at-tacks, distrust, and an attack of judging another untrustworthy! What did the apostles, elders, and brethren do in Acts 15 when a difference arose in the early church? They met to discuss the matter. Why? For the sake of the church and the love they had for the souls of their brethren.

Lest one misjudge my motives, I believe these issues are serious and are placing souls in “harm’s way.” Doors are being opened that my grandchildren may never be able to shut! We have a wonderful opportunity to cut off Satan “at the pass.” Will we do it? Time will surely tell. This bickering and jockeying for position is allowing Satan to gain ground and will cost the Lord’s church precious souls; both those we could be teaching and those already Christians by the means of discouragement!

What do I suggest? Open, honest, meaningful, and forthright discussions over our differences! My door is opened to do whatever I can to help bring about these discussions. Editors of Christianity Magazine and the Guardian of Truth, and others who have been drawn into this controversy, need to sit down face to face, heart to heart. Let us open Bibles and open our hearts to “rightly divide the word of God”!

Who will make the first move? Put aside personal differences, personal reservations, statements and events of the past, personal feelings and look at the larger picture  precious souls and the growth of the Lord’s church. Take these discussions out of the papers, off the Internet, and bring them to the table! My dear brethren, have we forgotten we were all bought by the same blood?

As a fellow preacher of the gospel, I am quite discouraged at the actions of many of my preaching peers on both sides of the issue. This petty and childish behavior needs to come to an end and we need to act like men who are concerned about one another’s spiritual condition and the countless others who are watching our actions.

Who is right and who is wrong? God’s word will give us the answer. The important thing now is to let us again come together as those of “like precious faith.” Will it be easy? Probably not. Yet, please consider the alternative. How can honest, open, discussions between brethren make it worse than it already is?

I am sending this article to Mike Willis of the Guardian of Truth and Dee Bowman of Christianity Magazine. It will be their personal decision to print my article.

In closing, I want to pray to God that all may see the seriousness of this subject (and any subject on which we are divided), and how we have handled it thus far. All I am is one gospel preacher who loves the Lord’s church and my brethren. In much prayer and hope I will watch and listen. Is anyone listening?

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate the good article that brother Greer submitted to both me and Christianity Magazine appealing for us to sit down together and discuss our differences. Whereas I would disagree with his assessment that the focus of the discussion between brother Harrell and me was on Homer Hailey rather than the issue [brother Harrell was the only one to allude to brother Hailey, as I recall; my speech is available in the February 7, 1991 is-sue of Guardian of Truth]. For the sake of our readers and brother Greer, I wish to inform brethren that I have been part of four efforts to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the editors of Christianity Magazine, two of which I personally initiated. In every case, they have refused to meet with us, giving as their reason that they do not trust us. The men whom they considered unworthy of trust were Connie W Adams, Ron Halbrook, Tom Roberts, and me. I cannot specifically recall whether or not other names were included in the list to meet on each separate occasion, although some efforts included additional names. I remain disappointed that such a meeting has not occurred, but the reason such a meeting has not already taken place is not because efforts have not been made.)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 21-22
December 4, 1997

By Joe R. Price

Charles Swindoll wants to expose what he calls “grace killers.” He says the “grace killer” acts in ways which destroy grace. According to Swindoll, if you want to be a grace killer, do this:

… leave no room for any gray areas. Everything is either black or white, right or wrong. And as a result, the leader maintains strict control over the followers. Fellowship is based on whether there is full agreement. Herein lies the tragedy. This self-righteous, rigid standard becomes more important than relationships with individuals. We first check out where people stand on the issues, and then we determine whether we will spend much time with them. The bottom line is this: We want to be right (as we see it, of course) more than we want to love our neighbor as ourselves. At that point our personal preferences eclipse any evidence of love. I am of the firm conviction that where grace exists, so must various areas of gray (The Grace Awakening, Charles R. Swindoll, 52-53).

This excerpt should especially concern us because some brethren are duplicating this argument as they attempt to convince us that unity in doctrinal diversity is not only al-lowed, but endorsed by God. Brethren are being convinced that when it comes to so-called “less clear, more difficult” passages and doctrines in the New Testament, we should content ourselves with saying “this is what I believe to be the truth” rather than boldly proclaiming from God’s word, “this is the truth” (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 4:2). Compare this with the bold preaching of the gospel of Christ in New Testament times: Acts 4:13, 29, 31; 9:29; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; Ephesians 6:19-20; Philippians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:2. Which of these approaches to gospel preaching is bold, and which is not (cf. 2 Tim. 1:7-10)?

Some despise their brethren for boldly preaching God’s word on “difficult” doctrinal subjects. They make statements like: “Who are you to think that you have arrived at the final, definitive truth on this subject?” “Do you have 100% perfect knowledge?” Boldness is disparaged while uncertainty is exalted (whether intentionally or not). This should not be so! “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Tit. 2:15). We must appeal to the authority of Christ, revealed in the New Testament, as the basis for our boldness of faith and its confident proclamation.

Brethren who appeal to and apply 2 John 9-11 to difficult doctrinal subjects (such as marriage, divorce and remarriage) are accused of being intolerant, church-splitters, and grace killers. Such accusations can and must be answered from God’s word.

“Everything is Either Black or White,

Right or Wrong”

Please tell us dear brother, you who would allow gray areas in the revelation of the gospel of grace, wherein is the “gray” area? Romans 14 teaches liberty in the area of personally indifferent matters before God  matters which are morally neutral in God’s sight (Rom. 14:3-5, 14, 18, 20, 22; cf. 1 Cor. 8:8). Therefore, we are not to dispute over these sorts of doubtful things, but receive one another (14:1, 13; 15:7). A close study of Romans 14:1-15:7 teaches us not to use this passage to justify ongoing fellowship with doctrinal error or moral sins. 2 John 9-11 establishes that fact, and it is not in conflict with Romans 14. So please tell us, what is the “black and white” of the gospel, and what are the “gray areas of divine revelation?” This is the language of Ashdod  the vernacular of modern-day Calvinism.

“Fellowship is Based on Whether There is

Full Agreement”

We are taught to agree with the apostles of Christ to have fellowship with God (read 1 John 1:1-4; 4:1-6). Men may agree and still not have God (if their agreement is error which goes beyond the doctrine of Christ). Such do “not have God” (2 John 9). You see, kind brother, we must agree with Christ first, before agreement between ourselves means anything. Fellowship with brethren is based upon each other being in fellowship with God (1 John 1:9).

By appealing to 2 John 9 and the “doctrine of Christ” as our absolute guide for fellowship with God and brethren, we are being accused of demanding perfect knowledge. Such is a misleading and inaccurate charge. God expects every Christian to mature and abound in our knowledge and discernment (Phil. 1:9-10). The babe in Christ, who is indeed in fellowship with God, is far from possessing a mature knowledge (1 Pet. 2:1-3). But notice please, that the babe in Christ can and must put away sin to have fellowship with God and to grow to maturity (1 Pet. 2:1-2). Every Christian is expected to grow in knowledge, thus helping us on to maturity (Eph. 4:11-16; Heb. 5:11-6:3). It continues to be true that “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Dear brother, if you disagree with the above teaching, be so kind as to tell us on which teachings of Christ we may disagree with the Bible and still have fellowship with Christ? Calvinism is raising its ugly head among us.

“This Self-righteous, Rigid Standard Becomes More

Important Than Relationships With Individuals”

The standard which is most important to the Christian is the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17). As noted above, relationships with men may exist which do not have God’s approval (2 John 10-11; Eph. 5:8-11). God’s standard of truth is set in place for our protection against sin and to afford us the proper relationships with men and women of like faith. Appealing only to the doctrine of Christ to approve our fellowship is not “self-righteous,” it is safe (cf. Phil. 3:1; 2 Pet. 1:12-15). The Calvinist does not like absolute, abiding truth (Matt. 7:21-23; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). Do you?

“We First Check Out Where People

Stand on the Issues …”

Are we not under divine command to do exactly that? “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11; cf. 1 Cor. 1:11-13; 3 John 4, 11).

“… Where Grace Exists, So Must

Various Areas of Gray”

The Calvinist (i.e., Charles Swindoll) believes that grace allows us to tolerate doctrinal differences (Ibid. 231-233). And, so do some brethren. Therefore, when we appeal to absolute truth as the pattern we must apply and follow in our teachings and our lives, these brethren object. But they cannot have it both ways. If there is an absolute standard of truth, it is consistent with grace (Acts 20:24, 32; Tit. 2:11-14). If grace says “be tolerant with doctrinal differences,” then there cannot be an absolute standard of truth.

Which will it be, brethren? The Calvinist has already told us his position. He denies doctrinal absolutes. To him, if we call for doctrinal absolutes we are “grace killers.” Will you follow his steps, or the footsteps of our Savior (1 John 2:5-6; Gal. 1:10)?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 22-24
December 4, 1997

By Mark Mayberry

False teachers and false teachings abound! Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets” (Matt. 7:15-20). Paul cautioned the Ephesian elders to be on guard against the same (Acts 20:28-31). Peter warned of those who secretly bring in destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1-2). John said, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1-3).

Their Conduct

False teachers add to and subtract from the word of God. This is in direct opposition to the will of God (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). A classic example of this fallacy can be found in the Matthew 15, where the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of transgressing the tradition of the elders. Yet, these religious leaders were themselves at fault. In binding the washing of hands, they had added to the word of God. In teaching that men could neglect their responsibility to their aged parents, they were subtracting from God’s word (Matt. 15:1-9).

False teachers also pervert the word of God (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The Greek word used in this context is strebloo. It is translated “wrest” (KJV, ASV), “twist” (NKJ), “distort” (NAS, NIV). Strong says it means “to wrench, i.e., (specifically) to torture (by the rack), but only figuratively, to pervert.” Thayer says it means (1) to twist, to turn awry; (2) to torture, to put to the rack; (3) metaphorically, to pervert, used of one who wrests or tortures language in a false sense.” In ancient times, when a person was subjected to torture, he was placed on a rack and stretched until his bones popped out of joint. In like manner, false teachers stretch the truth until it is “out of joint.” Many do not handle the word of God rightly. Instead, they twist it to their own ends. They make a torturous interpretation and application of the text to justify their pre-conceived notions.

Their Causation

What motivates false teachers? In 2 Peter 2, the apostle Peter says they are driven by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Let us note that Peter is de-scribing a “worst case scenario.” Not all false teachers are overtly driven by all three motives. In a given situation, they may be dominated by the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life, or some combination of the three. In the worst cases, false teachers are motivated by an unhealthy addiction to them all.

Let us also realize that the true motivation of false teachers may not be easy to detect. Jesus said they come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). Paul said they rise up from among the leader-ship of the church (Acts 20:28-31). Deceitful workers can disguise themselves as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Some false teachers are motivated by the lust of the flesh. They walk in “the lust of uncleanness” (2 Pet. 2:10). They count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime (2 Pet. 2:13). They have eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin (2 Pet. 2:14). They entice others through lasciviousness, sensuality, and lewdness (2 Pet. 2:18). Modern application is easy to come by: Think of the TV evangelists who have fallen into disgrace in recent years.

Some false teachers are motivated by the lust of the eyes. They are covetous (2 Pet. 2:3). Like Balaam, they love the wages of unrighteousness (2 Pet. 2:15). What is the modem application? There are many preachers who sacrifice truth on the altar of popularity, power, position, and prosperity.

Some false teachers are motivated by the pride of life. They are presumptuous, self-willed and arrogant. They are not afraid to revile angelic majesties (2 Pet. 2:10-12). What is the modem application? Many preachers are blinded by their own learning and wisdom. Higher education leads them down the pathways of doubt and disbelief. The Bible affirms that not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble are called (1 Cor. 1:20-26). Truth that is clearly visible to babes is often hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25).

Their Curse

To reject the divine pattern is to invite divine rejection. Consider the tragic example of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2), King Saul (1 Sam. 15:23), and Solomon (1 Chron. 28:6-9). We cannot change God’s word to suit our preferences. The gospel is God’s will for man. It contains all that we are to believe and practice. To reject the divine pattern is to court everlasting destruction. The curse of false teachers is clear: They worship in vain (Matt. 15:8-9). They stand accursed (Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 22:18-19). They have not God (2 John 9).

Conclusion

The cure for false teachers and false teaching is simple: We must first recognize that God’s word is perfect. The word “perfect” describes something that is “lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind; being without defect or blemish; completely suited for a particular purpose or situation.” It was through the preaching of the gospel that the apostle Paul sought to present every man “perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). James de-scribed the Holy Scriptures as “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25).

Since God’s word is perfect, we must acknowledge our obligation to obey it. Joshua was commanded to do according to all that is written in the Book of the Law (Josh. 1:7-8). When Jesus set forth the great commission, he ordered the apostles to make disciples of all nations. After submitting to baptism, converts were taught to observe all the commandments of the Lord (Matt. 28:18-20). Finally, this principle of full obedience is also seen in Paul’s admonition: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord” (Col. 3:17).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 18-19
December 4, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

If we do not have a pattern for worship in the New Covenant, how do we know when or how to worship? According to this gentleman the example of those disciples in Troas is not a pattern for us (they were not even a church), nor could they have had a pattern for observing the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week because “they didn’t have the 27 books of the NT!”

It is always good to try to determine where a road is leading before you travel it. Some are impressed with any-thing “new” and which seems to give them more “freedom.” From my correspondence with three of the advocates of this theory, I want to offer these suggestions of why the theory is dangerous.

First, its application to the divorce-remarriage issue. Jim Puterbaugh teaches that what God commanded in Deuteronomy 24 is God’s universal marriage law and has been in effect since creation. (He denies that there is a connection between the “one covenant, no change in the law” theory and his position on divorce and remarriage  because he had come to his position on divorce before he learned the theory on one covenant.) It does not take a Solomon to see that if God’s moral law cannot change, and it was moral under the law of Moses for a woman who had been given a bill of divorcement to marry another, the same is moral today. This is what he believes and teaches. He believes it is a sin to “put away,” but not to “give a bill of divorce.” He said, “Yes, we’re still under Deuteronomy 24, because it’s moral law . . . Morals don’t change. What is moral at any given time is moral at all times.” During an ex-change with him, one of his disciples said, “when I understood Jim’s teaching, what a relief it was!” When the disciples of Christ heard his teaching, they said  Horrors! if there is only one reason for divorce and remarriage “it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:9, 10).

If any divorced person can remarry, regardless of the reason for the divorce, Jesus’ statement “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” cannot be true. When asked about polygamy and concubines, Jim likened these to slavery, and said they “do not precisely violate moral law as God revealed it,” but disappeared when Christianity came.

If you are willing to accept these consequences, or even like them, the “one covenant/no change in the law” doctrine will appeal to you, but there are also other consequences that you need to consider.

Second, if the old law was not taken away at the cross and the new law given for us, we have problems with how to worship. In response to my article on the law, in which I said “whatever applies to the law applies to the prophets” (Matt. 5:17-19), one replied, “We agree. The law is binding, and so are the prophets.” When I asked him about instrumental music in worship, he said: “This is ceremonial and not valid for covenantors of today, in the sense you use the term `worship.”‘ The Old Covenant says that instruments were used “in the house of the Lord . . . for thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets” (2 Chron. 29:25). These brethren say that “the law and the prophets” did not cease when they were fulfilled, but are unwilling, thus far, to accept what the prophets said in the law! In response to my question about Sabbath observance, one respondent, who claims to believe in “one covenant” said that the Sabbath was part of the first covenant, but we should not keep it! (They say that the Sabbath was typical of the rest we enjoy in Christ, but that does not solve their problem! The first covenant taught seventh day observance and those under it had to keep the Sabbath holy. If we are under the same covenant, we must do the same, or be violators of God’s law.) I asked him if he observes the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, and if so why? He said, “Yes, I do observe the LS on the first day of the week because of 1 Cor. 11:23,24, and the time element is in verse 26. A close examination of Acts 20:7 will show that this `first day of the week’ gathering was not a gathering for collective worship, for the simple fact that no church had been established in Troas at that moment in time (cf. Acts 16:6-10).” He also said, “We are to observe the Lord’s supper `as often as’ and for Christians during the weeks after Pentecost of Acts 2, this might have been daily.”

If we do not have a pattern for worship in the New Covenant, how do we know when or how to worship? According to this gentleman the example of those disciples in Troas is not a pat-tern for us (they were not even a church), nor could they have had a pattern for observing the Lord’s sup-per on the first day of the week because “they didn’t have the 27 books of the NT!” We certainly can-not determine the day or frequency from the precept in 1 Corinthians 11:26, because it gives neither! Our brother said: “None of my theology is derived from necessary inference, no, not even the frequency of my par-taking of the LS.” I suggest that the only way he can apply any Bible teaching (pattern) to himself is by necessary inference! Not one verse was written directly to him. How does he know any of it applies?

Third, there is a rejection of the New Testament as a pattern for anything. Our brother said the church “did not have the 27 books of the NT. Thus, no patterned theology! They did have `the Lord’ and positive authentic traditions about Him as he amplified the moral and ethical teachings of God’s law given in OT times principally (by no means exclusively) to Israel.” In an-other letter he asserted, “Our relationship is with a Person, not a system. And that’s what’s wrong with patternism.” He said that he had received many responses from brethren who appreciate his defense of “freedom” because “Covenant theology leads to life, while legalism only brings forth not righteousness but death.” This is the identical argument made by “new hermeneutics” advocates in Nashville in December 1988. It is the use of the Bible to try to prove that we should not use the Bible as a pattern, and will result in abandoning New Testament Christianity. James Bales wrote: “One of the signs of error and confusion which can lead into modern-ism or other types of error, is the charge of `legalism’ when someone insists on teaching people to do what Jesus commanded. . . . These confused individuals, however, do not abandon law. They firmly believe and may even fiercely proclaim, `Thou shalt not be a legalist. It is wrong to be a Pharisee! … One is not being a legalist in maintaining that we are in some sense under law to Christ. There are commandments which we are to keep (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 9:21; Heb. 8:10)” (Modernism :Trojan Horse in the Church 112).

It is not my purpose in this article to defend precept, example, and necessary inference as God’s way of teaching (which is what my brother and others mean by “legalism” and “patternism”), but brethren need to realize that this new theory is simply a rejection of the New Testament as a pattern  not only for divorce and re-marriage but for everything! Brethren have asked how anyone can read “these are two covenants” (Gal. 4:24), and conclude that there is “one covenant in five phases”? It does seem incredible, but when brethren are enamored with denominational scholarship, sometimes they are influenced without even realizing it. This “covenant theology” is not new. If you are interested in further research, I would suggest beginning with What the Bible Says About God the Redeemer by Jack Cottrell. The chapters on the “Righteousness” and “Holiness” of God present arguments for this theology and respond to them. (Jack Cottrell is a fairly conservative professor in the Christian Church.) I will conclude this with a quotation from pages 269, 270 of this book.

The sinful heart is hostile to-ward law; but even many Christians, as the result of a misunderstanding of the relation between law and grace, are quite indifferent toward law (i.e., God’s commands as they apply today) and do not consider it to be binding upon them. They disdain the so-called “letter of the law” and embrace a false freedom in which the only “imperative” is a nebulous subjectivity euphemistically known as “love.” Such an approach may begin as an honest misunderstanding, but it is always secretly fed by the heart’s sinful tendency toward lawlessness. What must be understood is this: since God’s law is the outward expression of his own holy nature, any rebellion against law is also a rebellion against God personally.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 10-11
December 4, 1997