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

“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

The Appropriateness of Warnings

When compared with his letters to the Corinthians, the Galatians, or to Timothy and Titus, Paul’s letter to the Philippians is couched in very mild terms. The Philippian Church was apparently free of such major problems as those he addressed in the aforementioned epistles. Paul was thus able to devote more of his letter to Philippi to commendation and instruction, rather than to correction. However, there is one explosion of forceful terminology in Philippians – a stringent, explicit warning:“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision” (3:2). My purpose is not to provide an exposition of this verse nor identify those to whom it originally applied. Rather, I want to emphasize the fact that, even in an otherwise mildly-worded letter of encouragement, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to caution those brethren.Warnings about spiritual dangers posed by false teachers and their doctrines are appropriate or the Bible would not be so full of them, as every Bible student knows it is. Please consider the following thoughts concerning some of the “whys” and “hows” of these necessary warnings:

There is a need to issue such warnings as a preventive measure. Preventive medicine is the best kind and usually the least painful. While no righteous person rejoices in the news of a brother, a school, or an entire congregation that has abandoned the Truth, it is better to be warned of such than to be led astray by them through ignorance and/or innocence. Appropriate and timely warnings of men gone astray and of what they are teaching (whether within or without) are a necessary preventive measure brethren can be fortified. By sounding forth warnings of the errors being circulated we can fortify many brethren and prepare them to withstand the errors. This is what Paul did in his three-fold “beware” of the foregoing passage.

Warnings are also needed to cure problems that have already developed from false teaching. Paul did not get the warnings about the evil workers to the Galatians in time to prevent grievous problems from occurring. However, he did not hesitate to sound forth the warnings of the follies and consequences of succumbing to the false teachers although they had done their dirty work. Problems caused by false doctrines can never be cured by ignoring them. The sources of the heresies, as well as the errors themselves, must be exposed by due warnings concerning them if any of those ensnared by them are to be rescued.

When warnings are given they must be in such terms that those who hear may recognize and identify the source of the danger. Otherwise, the warnings are of little worth. Paul used great plainness in the warnings of our text, identifying the “dogs” and the “evil workers” as the Judaizing teachers. He was even more specific when he warned Timothy to shun Hymenaeus and Philetus because their doctrine (that the resurrection was already past) was erroneous and cancerous and had already corrupted some (II Timothy 2:16-18). We are commanded to mark those who cause division through false doctrine so as to identify them, and warn others of them (Romans 16:17). We should always take great care not to slander or falsely accuse others, nor should anyone want to defame another person or institution unnecessarily for any reason. However, when souls are at stake we are derelict in our duty if we do not sound the warnings plainly, including calling the names of men, institutions, or congregations where necessary. May all of our warnings be issued from a broken heart full of love for the sinner, but even more for the Lord, His Word, and His people. 

There is the need to hear and act upon the warnings. We live in a strange time in church history when even the elect have come under the influence of so much human philosophy that they do not want to hear the warnings upon which the salvation of their very souls depends. Because of such shallow and perverted thinking, many brethren are critical of preachers, churches, or publications that are “issue-oriented,” as they are wont to say. Some members of the church are hypersensitive to any exposure or identity of a false teacher or his doctrine, regardless of how destructive he or it may be. Others will come right out and tell you that they do not want to hear about any “problems” in the church, as if ignorance of them would cause them to disappear. Ira Y. Rice, Jr., is right: “You just cannot warn some brethren!”

The Scriptures frequently admonish us to hear reliable spiritual warnings so as to act upon them and thereby avoid many dangers. The Lord wrote seven letters to as many churches, issuing many warnings designed to save their souls (Revelation 2-3). At the conclusion of each letter He urged, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches” (Revelation 2:7, et al.). Clearly, He not only intended for them to hear, but to heed and act upon the warnings He issued. Some preachers take pride in not keeping up with “the issues,” as if to do so were somehow an unspiritual or vain activity. Too few elderships in my acquaintance are careful to stay abreast of the many winds of false doctrine that are blowing ever more strongly and of the men that are blowing them. Preachers and elders who are wise will stay informed themselves and will keep their respective congregations informed. Not all will listen with appreciation, but all need to hear the warnings anyway. Paul wrote the warnings in Philippians (and in many other) because he knew brethren needed to hear them for their own spiritual safety.

Dub McClish