HOW MANY FALSE TEACHERS CAN YOU FELLOWSHIP BEFORE YOU SIN?

Whoever heard of such a question and why would someone even consider asking it? Even those who have a limited knowledge of the Bible can answer this question without giving much thought to it. And yet, some among us will give the right answer, but will not practice it themselves. Forty years ago practically every member of the Lord’s Church would have been able to quickly give the correct answer supplying book, chapter and verse for their reasoning. Forty years ago, the Lord’s Church was stronger than it is today. Forty years ago elderships were stronger than they are today. Forty years ago gospel preachers were stronger than they are today. My how the “winds of change” have swept through the Church over this period of time and continue to sweep through her. Never has this writer known so many who once stood for the truth now finding it not expedient to do so. Long time friends, co-workers in the Lord, families and congregations have been torn asunder over this very question in the last few years. The fellowship issue among us is not in the process of dividing the church; it has already divided it! Solomon warned that “he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov.6:19), was something that God hates. What started with false teaching and practice by the Brown Trail Church of Christ has divided the precious bride of Christ and continues to divide her. If one has not heard of Dave Miller preaching false doctrine on “Reevaluation and Reaffirmation of Elders” and the Elders at Brown Trail agreeing to put it into practice, the question should be asked, why not? The evidence is not contrived or made up, but undeniable. And yet, many refuse to believe what happened at Brown Trail really happened or they make excuses why they had to do it. Sounds like Saul telling Samuel that he had to force himself to offer sacrifices to God (1 Sam.13:12). It does not matter why someone preached false doctrine and why false doctrine was practiced, the only thing that matters is that they repent and if they do not fellowship must be withdrawn until they do (Rom.16:17; 2 John 10-11). Many who have believed and practiced this in the past (Memphis School of Preaching, Gospel Broadcasting Network, Apologetics Press to name just a few) have decided to continue to fellowship Dave Miller in spite of the facts and in spite of what the scriptures teach. Consequently, the title of this article seems correct after all.

Back to the question before us, how many false teachers can we continue to fellowship before it becomes sin? One brother jokingly stated not more than four or five, what with the way some brethren define fellowship. But, what does the Bible teach? The Bible teaches that if we extend fellowship to even one false teacher we sin. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph.5: 11). For years the faithful churches of Christ have had no fellowship with the denominations or other false religions of the world, a.k.a., unfruitful works of darkness, because of their false teaching and false practices. However, the scriptural rules seem not to apply when it comes to brethren, especially when the brother is a fellow gospel preacher who has taught false doctrine. Paul did not write “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, unless, they are your bosom buddies or they are involved in a work you believe to be good.” Paul said “no fellowship.” If Christians pick and choose what they would like to obey and what they do not want to obey they are no better than the denominations for that is exactly what they do. Paul’s inspired ruling on this subject applies to all.

One might as well ask how much darkness can one continue to live in and still have fellowship with God? John writes “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). John continues writing, “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). As Christians, for our fellowship with the Father and the Son to continue we must continue to walk or live faithful to His word (1 John 1:7). Remembering, that in God is no darkness at all, how much darkness can be in us and we remain in fellowship with God? None. This does not mean one is sinlessly perfect, but one has the ability to ask God for forgiveness when one sins “and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth (keeps on cleansing) us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Verse six of this text explains, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” Therefore, if one will fellowship even one person who is a false teacher, whether it is Billy Graham, Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, or Dave Miller, they sin. The truth is not in them and consequently that individual forfeits fellowship with God. As one brother stated, “This is not rocket science.” This is not hard to understand, just hard for some to obey.

How many false teachers can we fellowship and still be in fellowship with God? The Bible teaches not one. However, some brethren still do not get it. Some continue to fellowship Dave Miller because of his work at Apologetics Press. Although, it has been documented that AP will go anywhere to hold its program, even if a congregation is known to be rank liberal, a.k.a., “unfruitful works of darkness.” Some will continue to fellowship Dave Miller because he has written books and articles that taught the truth. Rubel Shelly used to teach the truth on liberalism at one time, does that mean faithful brethren should extend fellowship to him? When this writer attended the Memphis School of Preaching, the instructors brought Rubel’s name up time and again explaining how far he had drifted from the truth and why fellowship had to be withdrawn from him and rightly so. Yet, the same instructors now extend fellowship to Dave Miller; a known false teacher, and this writer cannot see a difference between Rubel Shelly and Dave Miller. Does MSOP see a difference between these two men that many do not or does MSOP just see things differently than they used to? The scriptures are still plain, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17-18).

How many programs can we continue to fellowship that fellowship false teachers and still be in fellowship with God? When a program like Apologetics Press or the Gospel Broadcasting Network uses a false teacher (Dave Miller) is it right to continue to support them? Many who give an affirmative to this question at one time said no. Now, they evidently believe it is wrong to cancel out a good work for this reason. The problem with that reasoning is that when a program uses a false teacher it is no longer the good work it used to be. When has it ever been right to do wrong or when is doing wrong considered to be right? And why do some brethren who refuse to see this refuse to accept what John taught recorded in 2 John 9-11? For those who have forgotten, John wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Programs, works, even congregations who use false teachers are guilty of their false deeds. Whoever the individual is, whether he has taught the truth in the past, a fellow gospel preacher or a bosom buddy must not have fellowship extended to him. Therefore, when a program or work partakes in the false teachers evil deeds they can no longer be supported by faithful brethren.

Many are praying that those who have created this division among us repent before it is everlastingly too late. However, if they will not, the faithful must continue to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3).

Tim Cozad

THEN PEACEABLE

Purity of doctrine and practice on the part of the church is absolutely essential and must be sought after by everyone who loves the Lord. We are charged to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3, ASV). A pure faith may be enjoined only by constant vigilance against every suggestion and semblance of error.

James wrote, “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable” (James 3:17). To teach that this passage discusses the doctrine of the church is an incorrect exegesis. James’ teaching here applies to the peace in the heart of the individual and was designed to emphasize that peace cannot reign until purity controls the heart.

However, the principle is an eternal one. Peace cannot exist in the church until purity has been obtained. It is the obligation of the church to first attain purity in doctrine and teaching. In the absence of such there can be no peace among brethren.

False teachers constitute a threat to the peace and security of the saints today just as they did nearly two thousand years ago, and they must be resisted and refuted. When Jude wrote his short epistle the welfare of those to whom he wrote was being threatened. Therefore, his purpose was to stir up his readers to resist immediately all false teachers. He sought to impel them to reject the teachers and to repudiate their teaching. They were to defend with all their might the faith which had been delivered to them. To have followed Jude’s instruction would have no doubt caused a stir in the church. But to have failed do so would have been in direct disobedience to God and would have allowed error to have had free course. Which would have been better—to disturb the “peace” of the church and obey God or to keep things “peaceful” and disobey God thus allowing the false teachers to spread their doctrine?

Which is better today? Is there any difference? Is it better to disturb the “peace” of the church, obey God and refute the false teacher and doctrine, or is it better to keep the “peace” and thereby disobey God and allow the false teacher and his doctrine to subvert the church?

We believe Christians have no choice in this matter. If we are to be New Testament Christians then we must obey the commands it contains. We are “sick and tired” of hearing brethren cry for peace at the expense of sound doctrine. Paul said, “I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phi. 1:16) Are we ready to defend the faith as he was? Paul also said we should:

Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.

If, at the expense of peace among one another, we fail to follow this divine command, then we have forfeited our right to be called New Testament Christians!

Division is evil. Jesus prayed for unity among Christians. (John 17:20-21) Paul condemned the division at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10) and commanded them to “speak the same thing” and “be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But regardless of the evils of division the banner of truth must wave. And when brethren haul down the flag of truth and place in its stead the flag of peace, they are warming by the devil’s fire.

Division is sad. It involves the loss of precious souls. But as sad and as evil as division is, I would rather stand with tears in my eyes and see the church divide than to see it go into apostasy. Doctrine is that important. Purity is that demanding.

William S. Cline

WHAT IS THE “STANCE” OF THE CONGREGATION?

That is a good question, and one especially appropriate in our day. It has been shown, time and time again, that a person baptized can grow and develop into a knowledgeable, working, and faithful child of God due, to a great extent, to the congregation wherein he has his membership. The opposite has been shown also. In fact, it is seen in the movement that some members must make, through job transfer, etc. Leave one sound and faithful congregation, and then place membership with and serve with a congregation known for “what it will tolerate,” and that child of God will change also. The individual will accept and blend in with the congregation. It depends on the congregation’s “stance.”

Be sure, a congregation will have a name, a reputation, based on its work and its “stance.” Rome was known for having a faith spoken of throughout the world (Romans 1:8). Thessalonica was known for its sounding out the word into far distant areas (1 Thessalonians 1:8). The churches of Macedonia were known for their liberal giving (2 Corinthians 8:1-5). Sardis, once having a good name, and with some of that still lingering in the minds of men, nevertheless was told by the Lord that “thou are dead” (Revelation 3:1). We recall hearing of one person saying, “This congregation is known for its love and that congregation is known for its doctrine!” That, brethren, is tragedy? Love and doctrine are combined within the system of the Lord. Jesus combined them in his statement in John 14:15.

What, by the way, wherever this is received, is the “stance” of the congregation where you are? Is the doctrine of God sounded forth powerfully and plainly, and without modification, addition, subtraction or dilution? Is the congregation a “disciplinary” one, in that sin is rebuked, and the wayward and disobedient are seen to with dispatch? Are the Bible classes known for their emphasis on the word of God, or are the classes given to playtime and waste-time? Have the elders led the congregation in taking a stand against worldliness, sectarianism and every other form of error that will weaken and finally kill the church? Is the emphasis of the congregation’s work that of preaching and teaching rather than entertainment and social work? Are those in the congregation content to abide in God’s will, rather than always having a desire for something new and appealing that they can borrow from sectarianism? Are those who stand up to preach and teach grounded in the faith, with no disposition to traipse off into liberalism, anti-ism, Crossroadism or any other “ism”? Oh yes, a congregation has a “stance”―a name―a reputation.         

Preachers can help it be known for what it is, good or bad. Elders can do the same. So can Bible class teachers. So can the members. What is entered into the eternal record books, under our names, will be those things we did/failed to do while members of the congregations where we lived. We will partake of, support, condone, and further whatever “stance” the congregation has taken. Now, the question again: How is it where you are? Are you ready to face God concerning it?

Bill Jackson

WHO IS RADICAL?

Some time ago a friend of mine (though we differ religiously) in conversation about the Bible, said to me: “You take the radical view.” Sometimes the word radical is given a meaning that is uncomplimentary, that the radical one is an extremist, goes to excesses, is immoderate, his judgment is poor, he is eccentric, unduly narrow, etc. That my friend meant none of these things, I’m sure. But let us note a definition of radical: “Proceeding from the root; original; fundamental; reaching to the center of the ultimate source; thoroughgoing.” A radical change is “one that is so thoroughgoing it effects the fundamental character of the thing involved.” In view of these definitions, if the position occupied by the church of Christ affects the character of error, then you might say we “take the radical view,” but as pertaining to the character of truth, no, for we believe in standing squarely on the truth of God’s word, and in the following paragraphs the reader can see why.

SOME EVERYDAY “RADICALS”

1. The Doctor. When the doctor diagnoses our case and prescribes a course for us to follow in order to avoid disease and death, do we look upon him as “radical,” unduly narrow, in insisting upon our following his instructions to the letter? Suppose he shows us that to vary from the prescribed course means death?

2. Medical Examiners. When the medical authorities set up medical standards are they radical? Is the law radical in upholding the standards? Suppose the doctor gives you a prescription; you take it to the pharmacist for filling and he tells you it makes no difference how it is filled; it won’t hurt you if you are honest. What if six different druggists say it makes no difference what ingredients they put into the medicine? What would you say? If the law demands that all prescriptions be filled exactly as they are written by all druggists, is the law radical? Are you radical, eccentric, unduly narrow when you insist the druggist fill the prescription exactly as the doctor has written it?

3. The Merchant. When you go to buy a pound of beans and the grocer gives you six-teen ounces for a pound, is he radical if he re-fuses to give you twenty ounces? If you purchase a piece of goods, and the merchant insists that the correct measure is thirty-six inches to the yard, do you consider him radical if he won't make a yard forty-six inches?

4. The Farmer. Suppose you were to insist that the farmer could raise a good crop of corn in zero weather, in the bleak winter time, would he be radical in saying it is impossible in view of the laws of nature? Suppose you insisted he could raise a crop of crimson clover from alfalfa seed, and he said it could not be done, would you consider him radical? Is he radical if he in-sists there is no variation from the laws of nature, but that every seed brings forth after its own kind?

IS GOD RADICAL?

1. Was God Radical in Old Testament Times? In Genesis 4 we read about Cain’s substituting in his worship to God. Was God radical in rejecting Cain’s worship because he did it not as God had commanded? Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire in burning incense in worship to God. Nowhere had God said “Thou shalt not get fire from another source,” but he had told them where to get fire for this purpose. Was God radical for consuming them when they did not do exactly as God commanded?

When God smote Uzzah for putting his hand on the ark when God’s law was contrary to this, was He radical? Was not Uzzah honest? his heart right? did he intend only good? Yes, but he violated a positive command and suffered for it (2 Sam. 6:6-7).

In 1 Samuel 15 we read that because Saul did not utterly destroy the Amalekites and all that pertained to them, God dethroned him. Was God radical in punishing Saul for saving alive a few cattle and the king of Amalek?

When the young prophet of Judah kept God’s law implicitly, until he listened to the lying lips of the old prophet of Bethel, and being deceived by his lie disobeyed God, was God radical when he allowed the lion to take the young man’s life in punishment for his disobedience (1 Kings 13)?

2. Is Christ Radical in His New Testament Law? The foregoing examples serve as warnings to us. Note a few things in the law of Christ. The promise of salvation is not to those who merely with their lips, or in their minds, call upon Christ, but those who do his will: “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Mat. 7:21). The Holy Spirit teaches in Revelation 22:14 that those who obey God are the ones who will enter heaven. Paul teaches in Hebrews 5:9 that Christ is the author of salvation to those who obey him.

Christ forbids any changes in His word. This has been God's law always. Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids addition or subtraction. Deuteronomy 5:32 forbad the Jews to turn either to the right or to the left, but to keep God’s commands. In Mark 7:1-7 Christ condemned the traditions and doctrines of the Pharisees. If we may make changes, have any doctrines and organizations we want, why did Christ forbid and condemn them in his day?

In 2 John 9-11 we are told that those who transgress, go beyond, what God has commanded have not God or Christ, therefore lost. In view of the fact that those who take liberties with the word of God are lost, tough they may think otherwise, we have only one motive in op-posing denominations and their error―to save the souls of people in them. Friends, when you wear a name in religion, have a doctrine God does not authorize, you are lost according to John. Revelation 22:18-19 forbids addition or subtraction. Those who do so are lost. No de-nomination can exist without addition or subtraction, hence the Bible says all who partake of them are lost. Do not find fault with me for pointing this out to you; appreciate it and turn to the truth before it is too late.

If we may vary from God’s word, why did God warn us about the doctrines of men (Col. 2:8; Eph. 4:14)? Paul says to preach a different doctrine from what he preached makes one accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). No denomination can exist without preaching a different gospel from what Paul preached. If all religious bodies were to preach and practice what the apostles taught in the New Testament, there would be an immediate removal of denominationalism and unity among us would prevail.

What is the standard? Christ said we would be judged by His word (John 12:47-50). Seeing that we shall be judged by the law of Christ, and that he forbids any variation from His will, we should live as close to His word as we possibly can, for those who will not hear (obey) Christ will he destroyed (Acts 3:22-23).          

ARE WE RADICAL?

Are we radical, or do we take the radical view, when we object to substitution in worship to God? God would not accept the substitutions of Cain, Nadab and Abihu. Why do people think He will accept them now any more than then? Do we take the radical view when we insist upon strict and complete obedience, lest we be rejected like King Saul? Are we radical when we insist upon pure seed instead of adulterated gospel? Luke 8:11 says the seed is the word of God. If one plants wheat seed, will it bring forth anything but wheat? If we want to raise a crop of corn, would we plant cotton seed and expect to grow corn? Neither can we plant the seeds of denomination-al doctrines and expect to raise Christians. It won't work; your commonsense will tell you that. The only way to raise Christians, and be pleasing to God, is to plant nothing but the seed of the kingdom, the unadulterated word of God.

Are we radical in insisting upon strict compliance with God’s word? Note Proverbs 30:6: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Suppose a man has cancer of the liver and thinks he is all right? Does that make it so? Like-wise in religion: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro. 14:12).

Roy J. Hearn

Gospel and Doctrine

For some the Gospel of the New Testament is completely different from the doctrine of the New Testament. Because of this supposed difference some have concluded such things as: fellowship is to be based on Gospel but not doctrine; the Gospel is for non-Christians and doctrine is for Christians; preachers are to preach the Gospel, and therefore a preacher cannot be hired by a congregation of the church for him to preach in that place regularly; a preacher is to preach the Gospel and “leave everyone else alone” by staying away from doctrines upon which men differ; withdrawing fellowship should not be done because of doctrinal differences, etc. We have all seen these ideas advocated and practiced. Because of the importance of understanding these terms, I want to briefly consider the legitimacy of this distinction.

Gospel

First, the facts and foundation of the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:1-2). These facts must be believed in order for a person to be saved. Without believing that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, man will remain lost because he will die in his sins (John 8:24). But the Gospel is not just those facts. In describing the second coming of Christ (when He comes to judge all humanity), Paul indicated that those who “obey not the gospel” will be lost (II Thessalonians 1:9). The Gospel facts cannot be obeyed, but the commands of the Gospel must be obeyed. The commands to be obeyed in the Gospel are revealed in Romans 6:3-6, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life…Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” The process of a believer repenting of sins (Acts 17:30) and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins portrays the death and burial of Christ. When that person rises from the watery grave of baptism, the resurrection of Christ is portrayed in symbol. Rising to walk in newness of life indicates continued faithful obedience. The Gospel includes facts, but the Gospel is also something which must be obeyed by man in order to be saved!

Doctrine

Secondly, doctrine simply means teaching and is sometimes s translated. We read of the early Christians continuing steadfastly in the “apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The apostles’ doctrine would be a reference to what the apostles taught. The apostles were given their message by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13).        

During the first century that message (the apostles’ doctrine) was spoken orally; now the New Testament is that same message (the apostles’ doctrine) in written form (Ephesians 3:3-5). Christians today must continue in the apostles’ doctrine. We must teach what they taught. What they taught had to do with the obligations of Christians and non-Christians. The apostles’ doctrine is not just about the responsibilities of Christians in remaining faithful, but also about non-Christians and their obligations in order to be saved. The apostles’ doctrine is the entirety of the New Testament. The New Testament speaks of “sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Sound (healthy) doctrine is the New Testament without alterations of any kind.

Gospel and Doctrine

Thirdly, in the New Testament the Gospel is not only directed toward non-Christians and in the New Testament Doctrine is not exclusively for Christians. The Gospel is preached to Christians according to Romans 1:15-16; the Gospel in Mark 16:15-16 is to be taught to non-Christians. The Christian must obey the Gospel or be lost (II Thessalonians 1:8-9); so must non-Christians. In the New Testament Doctrine is directed toward Christians (Titus 1:9) and Doctrine is directed toward non-Christians (Acts 5:25; 13:12). The non-Christian will be lost without obeying the Doctrine (Romans 6:16-17); the Christian who rejects the Doctrine will also be lost (II John 9-11; Titus 1:9-11). Christians will be saved by the Doctrine (II Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly there is no difference in the New Testament between the Gospel of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ! No legitimate distinction can be made. Both terms refer to the same body of teaching. This same body of information is also called the Faith, the Truth, the Way, the Law of Christ, the Word.

It Does Matter

There is only one Gospel that saves (Galatians 1:6-9; Romans 1:16); it is the same as the Doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11). Deviations from that Doctrine (the Gospel) break our fellowship with God. We must not fellowship those who are not in fellowship with God. It does matter what we teach and practice on doctrinal matters! The message of Jesus, the apostles’ doctrine, must be taught to others in its purity (II Timothy 2:2). We will all ultimately give an account to God of our lives based on the standard of the Gospel, the Word (John 12:48). The doctrine that we believe and practice must be the Doctrine of Christ, the Gospel of Christ!

Lester Kamp

Gospel and Doctrine

For some the Gospel of the New Testament is completely different from the doctrine of the New Testament. Because of this supposed difference some have concluded such things as: fellowship is to be based on Gospel but not doctrine; the Gospel is for non-Christians and doctrine is for Christians; preachers are to preach the Gospel, and therefore a preacher cannot be hired by a congregation of the church for him to preach in that place regularly; a preacher is to preach the Gospel and “leave everyone else alone” by staying away from doctrines upon which men differ; withdrawing fellowship should not be done because of doctrinal differences, etc. We have all seen these ideas advocated and practiced. Because of the importance of understanding these terms, I want to briefly consider the legitimacy of this distinction.

Gospel

First, the facts and foundation of the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:1-2). These facts must be believed in order for a person to be saved. Without believing that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, man will remain lost because he will die in his sins (John 8:24). But the Gospel is not just those facts. In describing the second coming of Christ (when He comes to judge all humanity), Paul indicated that those who “obey not the gospel” will be lost (II Thessalonians 1:9). The Gospel facts cannot be obeyed, but the commands of the Gospel must be obeyed. The commands to be obeyed in the Gospel are revealed in Romans 6:3-6, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life…Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” The process of a believer repenting of sins (Acts 17:30) and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins portrays the death and burial of Christ. When that person rises from the watery grave of baptism, the resurrection of Christ is portrayed in symbol. Rising to walk in newness of life indicates continued faithful obedience. The Gospel includes facts, but the Gospel is also something which must be obeyed by man in order to be saved!

Doctrine

Secondly, doctrine simply means teaching and is sometimes s translated. We read of the early Christians continuing steadfastly in the “apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The apostles’ doctrine would be a reference to what the apostles taught. The apostles were given their message by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). During the first century that message (the apostles’ doctrine) was spoken orally; now the New Testament is that same message (the apostles’ doctrine) in written form (Ephesians 3:3-5). Christians today must continue in the apostles’ doctrine. We must teach what they taught. What they taught had to do with the obligations of Christians and non-Christians. The apostles’ doctrine is not just about the responsibilities of Christians in remaining faithful, but also about non-Christians and their obligations in order to be saved. The apostles’ doctrine is the entirety of the New Testament. The New Testament speaks of “sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Sound (healthy) doctrine is the New Testament without alterations of any kind.

Gospel and Doctrine

Thirdly, in the New Testament the Gospel is not only directed toward non-Christians and in the New Testament Doctrine is not exclusively for Christians. The Gospel is preached to Christians according to Romans 1:15-16; the Gospel in Mark 16:15-16 is to be taught to non-Christians. The Christian must obey the Gospel or be lost (II Thessalonians 1:8-9); so must non-Christians. In the New Testament Doctrine is directed toward Christians (Titus 1:9) and Doctrine is directed toward non-Christians (Acts 5:25; 13:12). The non-Christian will be lost without obeying the Doctrine (Romans 6:16-17); the Christian who rejects the Doctrine will also be lost (II John 9-11; Titus 1:9-11). Christians will be saved by the Doctrine (II Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly there is no difference in the New Testament between the Gospel of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ! No legitimate distinction can be made. Both terms refer to the same body of teaching. This same body of information is also called the Faith, the Truth, the Way, the Law of Christ, the Word.

 It Does Matter

There is only one Gospel that saves (Galatians 1:6-9; Romans 1:16); it is the same as the Doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11). Deviations from that Doctrine (the Gospel) break our fellowship with God. We must not fellowship those who are not in fellowship with God. It does matter what we teach and practice on doctrinal matters! The message of Jesus, the apostles’ doctrine, must be taught to others in its purity (II Timothy 2:2). We will all ultimately give an account to God of our lives based on the standard of the Gospel, the Word (John 12:48). The doctrine that we believe and practice must be the Doctrine of Christ, the Gospel of Christ!

Lester Kamp

“CONTEND EARNESTLY…”

Jude instructed men to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). There are many men now living—quite a number of whom are members of the Lord’s true church—who hold that it is simply not Christ-like to contend for the faith. But this passage corrects that erroneous claim. To “contend earnestly for the faith” is to strive in combat, to engage in a fight, and such like, and, since earnestly carries the idea of intensification, it is clear that Jude 3 teaches that men are to fight with great intensity for the Truth and against error.

Obviously, this does not mean that Christ wants men to engage in petty quarrels. He does not wish that men should wrangle for the sake of strife. Such activity must grow out of a heart that is filled with selfishness, haughtiness, and pride. But one can be humble, loving, kind, and deeply concerned for the cause of Christ and for the souls of men while fighting desperately for the Truth of the Gospel. Jesus did. Peter did. Paul did. And so did many other faithful men during New Testament days. And so have many men who have lived in our day.

Of course, there are many people who have a perverted sense of love and kindness and a distorted sense of what it means to be Christ-like. Such people are severely critical of those who spend most of their lives in doing what the Holy Spirit, through Jude, enjoins men to do. But faithful men must not allow themselves to be intimidated into becoming unfaithful no matter how unpleasant the criticism of liberal, modernistic thinkers may become.

Rather, one must remember not only such persons as Jesus, Peter, and Paul, but also men such as Stephen, who disputed with the Jews and put them to rout by his arguments which proved that what he was preaching was really true (Acts 6:9–10; 7:51–60). Stephen spoke very strongly and argued cogently. Yet, it seems hardly likely that any mere man loved his audience more than did he. Even as men were stoning his life’s blood from him, Stephen prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60). This writer challenges any man to show greater love.

In spite of the pseudo-optimistic attitude of many people, there are teachers of false doctrine in this world and there are doctrines being taught which will cause those who believe and obey them to be lost (2 The. 1:7–9). There are preachers and elders…in the Lord’s church who teach error on fundamental doctrines— doctrines about which one must be right in order to be saved. Such men must be opposed, and those outside of the church who teach error must also be opposed.

It is a grievous error to suppose that by merely pretending that there are no false teachers and there are no false doctrines, God’s pleasure will rest upon us if we do nothing about false doctrines and false teachers.

Many Christians, it seems, adopt a “holier-than-thou” attitude simply on the ground that they—in contrast to some others—never engage in any kind of controversy.

Brother B.C. Goodpasture once told me about a preacher who said to him, referring to the pulpit work with a certain congregation, “as long as I am in this pulpit, nothing controversial will ever be preached.” There are a number of things wrong with this statement. In the first place, no one can preach the whole counsel of God without preaching that which is controversial, at least with some persons. In the second place, such sentiment is directly opposed to the sentiment (and actions) enjoined upon men in Jude 3!

Since no one can defend the faith without presenting sound arguments, then it is obvious that Jude 3 demands that men both recognize and honor the Law of Rationality.

Thomas B. Warren