Truth Magazine

By Dudley Ross Spears

A Few More Thoughts

I just finished reading Ron Halbrook’s book, The Doctrine of Christ and Unity of the Saints. I really enjoyed the book, especially the documentation and valuable information it has. I recommend it to everyone. The greatest portion is devoted to an exposition of the expression, “the doctrine of Christ.” I thought he gave some excellent answers to the suppositions, conjectures and objections of those who are asserting that this expression is limited to the teaching about Christ and His Deity – that it was not intended to limit fellowship among those who may differ on particular things Jesus taught.

There are some who have criticized the book as hard to read, too scholarly and too many footnotes, which, say they, detract from the reading. Perhaps that is true, but my interest in the subject matter of the book made it easy to read and useful in learning. It has provoked me to do some more thinking on the subject, and I hope it will not be intrusive for me to submit a few of those thoughts to you in this article.

The word “doctrine” comes from two Greek words in the New Testament which have the same root meaning. That root meaning always has to do with the acts of teaching or the subject taught. The word “doctrine” is the equivalent of “teaching” and some translations use “teaching” where you find “doctrine” in the King James Version. The word seldom appears in the Old Testament. It is found in Deut. 32:2; Job 11:4; Prov. 4:2; Isa. 28:9; Isa. 29:24 and Jer. 10:8. I do not believe the Septuagint uses the Greek word that is used in the New Testament for “doctrine.” Even if that be true, there is something important to notice from the uses of the word in the Old Testament. “Doctrine,” like instruction, or the “message,” must always lend itself to learning, understanding and mental acumen. The reference to Isa. 28:9 is, “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?” Doctrine is inseparably tied to imparting information, giving knowledge, the learning process, etc.

But what of the doctrine that is said to be “of Christ”? 2 John 9 says, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (ASV). Does it, as Halbrook has clearly shown, embrace all that Jesus taught and commissioned to be taught in His name? Or, is it limited to the teaching about Jesus and His Deity? Was it written to confine Christians to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles or was it written to offset certain first and second century heresies about the Deity of Christ? The evidence is in favor of the former and not the latter. This passage sets the basis of fellowship with God and all who are in the fellowship of the saved. It sets a confining limit to what we teach and practice with the fearful warning that those who go beyond and disregard what is in the teaching lose their fellowship with God and the saved.

The Halbrook book has a considerable amount of space devoted to the use of the genitive case in the Greek text. ,I do not claim to be a Greek grammarian, but there is an important idea that should be considered by those who study this question. A.T. Robertson, one of the most respected grammarians known, said that one could not determine if the genitive case was subjective or objective by the grammar. He affirmed that it must be determined by context alone. “The Subjective genitive. It can be distinguished from the objective use only by the context. Sometimes the matter is not clear. This genitive is the common possessive genitive looked at from another angle. In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. The subjective genitive can indeed be applied to the merely possessive genitive noted above” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 499).

Robertson cited a few examples of his statement. He said, “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1) is an example of the subjective genitive. This means that the “doctrines of demons” has reference to the subject matter taught by demons or doctrines that demons representatively expounded through their ministers. One could not successfully argue that the expression, “doctrines of demons,” meant several doctrines all having to do with the nature and personality of demons. In H.A.W. Meyer’s fine commentary there is a quotation from a scholar named Heydenreich as saying, “doctrines regarding demons, a characteristic of Essene-gnostic heretics who spoke so much of the higher world of spirits or aeons.” Then Meyer adds, “The demons are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to the truth.”

Those who argue that the “doctrine of Christ” is limited teaching concerning Christ and His Deity must affirm that the genitive case here in 2 John 9 is objective and not subjective. Thus, Christ is the object of the doctrine, and not the source of it. But is there anything in the context which would force anyone to that conclusion? Or, is there objection to the statement of Robertson that context is the only way to determine the difference in subjective and objective genitive? If not, then it is really one giant assumption to say it is objective genitive, thus merely a teaching that has Christ as the object and not the source.

There is a passage of Scripture that is almost identical to 2 John 9, particularly the phrase, “doctrine of Christ.” It is as follows:

4. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

5. And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John as their attendant.

6. And when they had gone through the whole island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus;

7. Who was with the proconsul, Serguis Paulus, a man of understanding. The same called unto him Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God.

8. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith.

9. But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him,

10. and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

11. And now, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

12. Then the proconsul when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.’

The reader should notice that I have emphasized a few phrases in this passage. They are “the word of God,” “the faith,” and the “right ways of the Lord.” All of them mean exactly what is meant in verse 12, “the teaching of the Lord.” It is parallel to 2 John 9. Notice:

The Doctrine (teaching) of Christ – 2 John 9

The Doctrine (teaching) of the Lord – Acts 13:12

Summing up Acts 13, “the faith” is the same as “the teaching of the Lord.” That means all that is included in the system of faith. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Faith is produced by apostolic preaching and we walk by faith in following the teaching Jesus and the apostles did (2 Cor. 5:7). If it means a teaching done by the Lord and His apostles in Acts 13:12, that is precisely what it means in 2 John 9. Back to the grammar – they are both examples (from context) of the subjective genitive.

There is another place where a similar expression is found. Jesus wrote to the church at Pergamos of those who held the “doctrine (teaching) of the Nicolaitans” and “the teaching of Balaam.” Surely we will not say that the “teaching of Balaam” was a detailed examination of the personality, character and habits of this man Balaam – indeed subject matter is here under consideration again. The subject matter related to Balaam and the philosophy of the Nicolaitans.

Some of the commentators throw interesting light on the expression, “Teaching of Balaam” and “Teaching of the Nicolaitans.” Henry Swete wrote, “a party in the church at Pergamum which taught as Balaam had done ., . . Balaam made it his aim to teach Balak how to beguile Israel into the double sin of idolatry and fornication. The reference is to Num. xxxi. 16, where the sin of Peor is traced to Balaam’s suggestion” (The Apocalypse of St. John, page 36-37). Concerning the Nicolaitans he said, “that they were the spiritual descendents of the libertines who perverted the Pauline doctrine and against whom St. Paul strongly protests. In the next century these views were embraced by certain Gnostic teachers” (Ibid.), S.T. Bloomfield says, “. . . such doctrines as, like Balaam’s suggestion to Balak, breed iniquity among the people of God, by turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, which is in I Pet. ii, 10-15, and Jude 4, called the way or sinful course of Balaam.” These two scholars considered the teaching in both cases as subjective and not objective.

The doctrine of Christ is the sum total of all His teaching and it is given to us in the New Testament. When we act without any sanction or approval from Christ and His apostles, we “go beyond the doctrine of Christ” and lose our fellowship with God. God drew that line around the doctrine and prescribed the area within the doctrine as the ground on which fellowship with Him is established and held. Sometimes we must recognize that line and have no association with those who are not careful enough in what they teach and practice to stay within the boundary lines of the “doctrine of Christ.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 774-775
December 6, 1979

By Mike Willis

The book of Acts records Paul’s journey to Jerusalem during which he brought funds gathered in Galatia, Achaia and Macedonia to relieve the poor among the saints (1 Cor. I6:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:26). When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren told him of the sentiment among the Christians against Paul because, they were told, he taught Jews to forsake the law of Moses and not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21). To offset this prejudice against the apostle, the brethren recommended that Paul participate in a purification vow with several other Jewish Christians.

On the seventh day of the purification ceremonies, some Jews from Asia recognized Paul and created a tumult against him charging that he had defiled the holy place by bringing a Gentile into the Temple. This was a lie based on pure assumption; the Asian Jews had seen Trophimus, a Gentile companion of Paul, with him in the city and had assumed that he had taken him into the Temple. However, they proceeded to take him outside the Temple to stone him to death.

Claudius Lysias, the Roman chief captain of the Tower of Antonio (a fortress in the Temple area), rushed down to break up the scene. He saved Paul from being stoned to death. The next day, Paul was tried before the Sanhedrin. During the trial, Paul said, “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question” (Acts 23:6). This confession of belief in the resurrection caused a division between the Sadducees and Pharisees on the council; the uproar became so great that Claudius Lysias had Paul taken back into the prison for safe-keeping.

The next day, the Jews plotted the murder of Paul. Claudius Lysias learned of the plot and had Paul transferred to Caesarea there Felix, the procurator of Judea (the same position which Pontius Pilate had held some years before) lived. Five days later the Jews went to Caesarea to place charges against Paul. Paul successfully defended himself. Nevertheless, Felix left him in jail for an extended period of time for no just reason.

During the course of Paul’s imprisonment, Felix called for the apostle to hear from him concerning the faith in Christ (Acts 24:24). Paul reasoned with him of righteousness, temperance and the judgement to come. Felix trembled. Nevertheless, he said, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:25).

Who Was This Felix?

Fortunately, we can learn more about Felix from secular sources. The secular historians add to our information about Felix. Felix was the household slave of Antonia, Claudius Caesar’s mother; he was granted his freedom by Claudius and took Antonius as his forename.

Claudius made a policy of employing such court servants in his administration. Felix was even the brother of the Minister of the Treasury, Pallas, and the husband of a Roman princess descended from Antony and Cleopatra; he therefore had the ear of the central government and a place in higher diplomatic circles (Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era, p. 206).

As a ruler, Felix left somewhat to be desired. Disorders in Palestine mushroomed under his administration. His leadership antagonized Jewish leaders and was, to some degree, responsible for the organizing of the Sicarii (Jewish assassins who were political zealots). “His countryman Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) describes him as using `the powers of a king with the disposition of a slave’ and says (Ann. xii. 54) `he deemed that he might perpetrate any ill deeds with impunity”‘ (G.P. Gould, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, James Hastings, editor, Vol. I, p. 405). (Note: because of these historical comments, compare Tertullus’ hypocritical remarks about Felix’ rule in Acts 23:2-5.)

Felix, you will recall, had married a Roman princess who was the descendent of Antony and Cleopatra. Yet, when we meet him in Acts 24:24, he is married to Drusilla. When Felix arrived in Caesarea, he was able to conclude another favorable marriage, this time with the beautiful Jewish princess Drusilla (Acts 24:24). Agrippa II allowed his sister to marry the Roman without the usual requirement of circumcision, a sign that he considered the match very advantageous. All this established friendly relationships between the Romans and the Jews in the first two years of Felix’ procuratorship.

Nevertheless, this marriage was one quite contrary to the, law of God. Drusilla had been previously married to Azizus, king of Emesa. Shortly afterward, she was induced to desert her husband by Felix, who employed a Gyprian sorcerer, Simon by name, to carry out his purpose.

Hence, when Paul stepped in the presence of Felix and Drusilla, he stood before two sinners who were living together in a marriage relationship which was displeasing to God. He was able to address two people who had obviously lived a life of hedonism, doing whatever pleased them.

Paul’s Sermon

What would Paul preach to Felix and Drusilla? There are a number of evangelists who would have preached about the love of God, the beauty of two people from such diverse backgrounds living together with love, how that Jews, Romans and Christians all worshiped the same God, or some other innocuous sermon similar to that. However, the scriptures related that Paul reasoned with Felix and Drusilla about “righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come.”

1. Righteousness. The word dikaiosune can refer to “that divine arrangement. by which God leads men to a state acceptable to him” or “integrity, virtue, purity of life, uprightness, correctness in thinking, feeling, and acting” (Thayer, p. 149). No doubt, Thayer is correct in applying this second definition to Acts 24:25 (based on its close relationship to “self-control”). Hence, Paul addressed Felix and Drusilla about the need for moral purity.

Other comments in the Pauline epistles reflect the kind of teaching which Paul did with reference to moral issues. Study some of Paul’s writings about morality:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

No doubt, the teaching which Paul did on this occasion was somewhat similar to this. The demand of God for purity of life does not exclude the rich and politically somewhat of this world. The lives of Felix and Drusilla, who were openly living in an adulterous relationship, were’ sinful before God and Paul did not hesitate to preach about God’s demand for purity in life to such people as this.

2. Temperance. The word “temperance” has gone through such an evolution in the English language that a better word can be used to translate egkrateias. “Temperance” became so associated with the Women’s Temperance Union that it is practically synonymous with “abstinence from alcohol.” Originally, the word meant “self-restraint in conduct, expression, indulgence of the appetites, etc.” Egkrateia means “self-control . . . the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, especially his sensual appetites” (Thayer, pp. 166-167). The English word “self-control” in today’s usage more neatly reproduces the meaning of the original Greek word.

Paul was, therefore, teaching Felix and Drusilla that God requires man to control his passions. This is a lesson needed as much today as at any time in man’s history. Our society has been teaching us, through song and direct doctrinal philosophy, that “if it feels good, do it.” The philosophy of hedonism is that man should practice whatever gives him pleasure. The doctrine of self-control runs counter to that. It teaches that the law of God imposes some restrictions upon man’s conduct which must be recognized and obeyed. Specifically, Felix and Drusilla must control their passions of a sexual nature (i.e., they must break off their adulterous relationship) and any other passion which was causing them to act contrary to God’s revealed law.

3. The Judgment To Come. After revealing that God’s law demands moral purity, Paul confronted Felix and Drusilla with the fact that there is a judgment day coming. Paul preached that “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust” (Acts 24:15). He preached,

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10).

In speaking of the righteous judgment of God, Paul revealed that God

will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:6-11).

“The judgment day is coming,” Paul told Felix. In explaining the nature of the judgment of God, Paul certainly must have mentioned heaven and hell, the respective eternal abodes of the righteous and the wicked.

Felix’s Reaction

The first reaction of Felix was recorded by Luke when he wrote, “Felix trembled.” The discussion about the judgment day, the eternal separation of the righteous and the wicked, scared Felix. Felix was thoroughly convicted of his sin. He knew what his present relationship with god was and it caused him to tremble. However, being scared is not the same as being saved.

The second reaction of Felix was this statement to Paul: “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.” Felix postponed obeying the gospel. His was not the reaction of a man who was patiently counting the cost of following Jesus. Rather, his was the reaction of a man who makes his decision to say “no” to Jesus by saying “sometime later.” The fact of the matter is that Felix was not willing to practice the self-control necessary to live a righteous life to be pleasing to God. This is seen by two separate points from Luke’s narrative: (1) Though Felix knew somewhat about Christianity (Acts 24:22), enough to know the prejudice of Judaism against Christianity, he nevertheless refused to grant Paul his freedom by declaring him innocent of the charges placed against him. Rather, he said that he would wait until Lysias came to Caesarea so that he could hear more about the matter. Although it only took the Jewish accusers of Paul five days to come to Caesarea to place their charges against Paul, Lysias could not be brought from Jerusalem to Caesarea for a more thorough examination of Paul in two full years! Hence, Felix did not want to act contrary to Jewish desires in granting Paul his freedom; instead, when he left office, he left Paul in prison as a favor to the Jews (Acts 24:27).

(2) Felix was a man willing to take and anxious to receive a bribe. Luke stated, “He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him” (Acts 24:26). Remembering the statement that Paul had made about bringing alms to his nation (Acts 24:17), Felix supposed that Paul had access to money and made it apparent that he wanted to be bribed in order to give Paul his freedom. Hence, Paul’s sermon about righteousness and self-control left no permanent impact upon Felix. His statement, “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee,” was not the statement of a man wishing to obey the gospel at some later time in life; it was the statement of one wishing to get rid of the preacher) or the time being.

Conclusion

Felix is one of several cases of non-conversion recorded in the Bible. I should hope that each of us can profit from a study of his mistakes. Dear friend, if you have been thinking about becoming a Christian, do not postpone your obedience to the gospel. There will never be a “convenient season” for any sinners; Satan never did make it easy for a man to renounce his sins and obey the Lord. Rather, the web of sin will just become more and more wrapped around you. Consequently, resolve in your heart to break away from sin this day and begin to serve the Savior.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 771-773
December 6, 1979

By Carol R. Lumpkin

The “new Life” begins with a “birth,” a birth in water and in the Spirit. Jesus, while speaking to Nicodemus, said; “Verily, verily, i say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). Peter adds, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (Pet. 1:23).

The power which produces this new life is the gospel of Jesus Christ. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). There is no promise of this new life separate and apart from the gospel (God’s word).

Jesus said, while talking to his disciples, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). Jesus also said; “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath-sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:44-45).

. Paul adds some additional light on the subject when he said, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:13-14).

In our journey from sin to righteousness, it is essential for us to hear the gospel preached, or to be self-taught; that we might understand and believe in Jesus. When faith, which cometh by hearing (Rom. 10:17), is produced in our hearts, then we have the right to move ahead toward being saved. Faith which does not involve one in further obedience is a dead faith (Jas. 2:17-18). Hear what our Lord said; “But as many as received him, to them gave he power (the right, privilege – crl) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name” (Jn. 1:12). So Jesus teaches that the believer has the right to become a son of God. A point of concern should be that the believer is not a son of God the moment that he becomes a believer.

When Peter had preached to the Jews ..on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), the Jews asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). There is no evidence that the Jews were at that moment saved, even though they were believers. As believers they were blessed with the opportunity to become sons of God. Peter wasted no time in telling them what to do to be saved. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

The “new life” was realized ,by the Jews when they.. had obeyed what Peter told them to do. This “new life” was realized when they had been baptized. “‘Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: arid the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41).

When the sinner obeys the gospel plan of salvation he becomes a new creature in Christ. When this has been done he has been born of the water and of the Spirit. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Those who begin this “new life” and continue unto the end of life will receive the crown of life, eternal life (Rev. 2:10), enjoy all spiritual blessings while they live (Eph. 1:3); and take up their cross and follow after Jesus so long as they live (Matt. 16:24).

Those who begin this “new life” and then turn back in sin should be aware of what Peter said. “But if after they have escaped the pollutions of this 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, then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandments delivered unto them” (2 Pet. 2:20-21).

Those who know not God and who do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ need to consider carefully the words of Paul. “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

In view of what God’s word teaches on this “new life,” and what is going to happen to those who do not have it: does it not seem the wise thing to do to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ? It will reward us in this life and even more so in the life to come.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, p. 770
December 6, 1979

By Lynn Trapp

Recently, I received an announcement from a church here in the Denver area concerning a rummage sale they were having. Their advertisement mentioned some items that the church for which I preach was needing and was looking for, so I decided to go take a look-see. As it turned out, this was the Wheat Ridge Heights “Church of Christ.” Among the things they were selling were some old issues of Leroy Garrett’s Restoration Review. Naturally my interest, at that point, was stirred, so a discussion ensued between myself and the preacher, Dr. C.W. Zenor.

Zenor wanted to know what “wing” of the church of Christ I was associated with. I informed him that I was not in any “wing” of the church. (It is fascinating to me that Garrett and Ketcherside are always objecting to the numerous groups in the “restoration movement” and, yet, they are the only ones I ever hear speak of the church as having “wings” or “branches.”) At this point, I referred to seeing the Restoration Review copies and wanted to know if he agreed with Garrett’s concept. At that, Dr. Zenor made a statement which suggested the title for this article. He said, “We would consider Leroy Garrett to be considerably to the right of us.”

Now, anyone who is aware of the degree of liberalism into which Leroy Garrett has fallen will be just as shocked as I was to find someone in the “Church of Christ” who considers Garrett to be more conservative than themselves. Yet, that is what Zenor said. Of course, I was not one to leave the matter there. I had to know how that could be, so I asked Zenor specifically what he had in mind. What he said in reply to that is even more amazing than his previous statement. In describing the difference between himself and Garrett, Zenor said, “Leroy Garrett believes in the literal inspiration of the Bible, the literal virgin birth, and the literal resurrection.” What significance he may put on the word “literal,” I do not know. I do not understand how there could be a figurative virgin birth, but those are Zenor’s exact words.

Now, is Garrett to be exonerated because the “classical liberals” in “the church” consider him to be a conservative. By no means. When brethren are taught over and over again that doctrinal differences do not affect one’s fellowship with God and should not affect one’s fellowship with false teachers, what argument can be used to refuse a man like C. W. Zenor the right to preach for them. It is liberalism in its earliest forms, the rejection of the need for Bible authority in all that we do, which leads one to be permissive of fellowship and unity and that in turn leads one into the extreme of liberalism taught by men such as Zenor. Brethren, when you are hearing the sweet speeches of a man enticing you to find a way to fellowship the liberals remember that C.W. Zenor and others of like persuasion are down the road somewhere beckoning you to deny the basic principles upon which the gospel is founded.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 47, p. 765
November 29, 1979