Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:12). However, the authors of the creeds of men either know nothing of this passage or care nothing for it as their writings testify. This verse plainly says one can fall. Human theology has made such an effort to make man’s salvation wholly God’s action that no allowance is made for any action on man’s part to the saving of his soul. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints stems from this religious concept. They allow that God saved man from his sins without any doing on man’s part and that God will keep him saved without any doing as a child of God. The old Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted by the Baptist Association in Philadelphia, September 25, 1742, says, “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and, in that condition, they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”

So, the justified in Christ Jesus can never fall from the state of justification! The creed admits that they have sins but declares such will not interfere with the salvation of their souls. It seems to me if these sins do not affect the soul, the ones committed earlier would not affect it either. If forgiveness of sins is essential for salvation, then how is it possible for the child of God to live with sins on his soul without falling from the state of justification? Paul wrote to the Galatian Christians telling those who were making an effort to go back to the law of Moses for a way of life “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The grace of God revealed through Christ was of no benefit to them in such an effort. Those addressed were “all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Yes, they were children of God in Christ Jesus, but they had fallen from grace.

It is obvious that both the New Testament and the Confession of Faith cannot be right. They both are not teaching the truth. No person can be right before God and accept both. The two documents are diametrically opposed. The New Testament is right. It came from. God and is dedicated with the blood of Christ. The creed is a lie. Reject it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, p. 780
December 6, 1979

By Ronald D. Howes

Circulating among some of my brethren is a booklet entitled Except For Fornication.(1) Having run into it three times in the last year, I feel compelled to respond. To his credit, Brother Hale has produced a well written, readable and believable document defending the thesis that the guilty party of Matthew 19 has a scriptural right to remarry. However, his book has one serious flaw, his thesis is wrong. This alone would be enough cause of a review that his book is enjoying some circulation among conservative brethren (Brother Hale is of the liberal camp) makes its review in this journal all the more desirable.

We will not take Brother Hale to task for every argument he makes. We shall attempt, however, to handle his material consecutively for ease of comparison and review by the reader. We will use endnotes.

Introduction

In setting up the proposition for his book, Brother Hale indulges in some literary shotgunning while setting the tone of his approach and revealing his motives for authoring the book.

We have a great number of devout people who are divorced and remarried, but who at best enjoy a second rate citizenship in the kingdom . . . . some would not be received at all but for fear of causing trouble in the church . . . . the men may be called upon to serve at the Lord’s table . . . but may not be allowed to teach a class, or preach, or serve in any official capacity . . . . We will not take strong enough action . . . they never feel secure . . . ours is mostly an irritation attack . . . . Is it just wrong? Or is it going to Hell wrong?(2)

Yes brother, it is “going to Hell wrong.” The fact that some brethren equivocate on it, or extend half-fellowship to adulterers is not justification for a loosening up of our attitude toward sin; it is rather a commentary on what your doctrine has done to our concept of sin. The argument that “some brethren do it,” or “some brethren don’t do it,” is not a sound basis for determining right and wrong. As you well know, “some brethren” do and believe just about anything they want to.

On page 7, our author makes a classical argument on this problem. There is according to him . . .

No Clear Answer

Let us be honest. Can you go to the Bible and put your finger on an exact verse of scripture that offers such a clear answer as `remain unmarried’ or ‘be reconciled’? . . . You say repentance involves . . . We are talking about clear and direct statements, not what you may reason and conclude.(3)

A favorite tactic of many trying to avoid a clear implication of scripture is just to say: “Well, because God didn’t come out and say ‘thou shalt not’ we can’t demand it of brethren. I am surprised at my conservative brethren passing this tract – even though they may agree with the thesis. Let me jog your conscience – What about a necessary inference? Brother Hale and his tribe have largely discarded this form of establishing Bible authority, but we have not. When you endorse and hand out a tract like we are reviewing, you are in danger of telling other people that you do not believe what we know you do.

Being in receipt of a legitimate passage of scripture which says “Whosoever marries her who is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), we are prepared to defend the premise that .we do have a clear answer. We do know what the sin is. We do know how to handle the sinner. 1 Cor. 5 commands us to “deliver such a one to Satan.”

Posing A Question

From page 12 through 19 of his tract, Lewis Hale engages in a meandering commentary of Matthew 19 in defense of the proposition, “The guilty party may remarry.”

Specific arguments will be dealt with under subsequent headings. We do wish to pose a dilemma to those of Brother Hale’s tribe in this question. Did Jesus seek to relax or restrict the divorce law under the new covenant? Brother Hale says,

Moses suffered a man to put away his wife upon finding any uncleanness.(4)

The intent of Jesus teaching here seems quite clear. Moses law was too lax; Jesus’ new law would be much stricter, and be in conformity with the original design of a one man one woman for life relationship. “But from the beginning it was not so!”

Brother Hale’s entire line of argumentation is contrary to the basic direction of Jesus’ express commands. Lewis Hale would have us believe that both the innocent and guilty party to the divorce of Matthew 19 can remarry without sin. This he teaches in spite of the teaching of Christ that marriage is a life-time contract. Hale “out-laxes” even Moses.

Everyone who has occupied the marriage counselor’s chair while trying to convert the alien knows that this is where nip come to tuck. A couple divorces for “irreconcilable differences.”- Then both go out and remarry. Brother Hale’s theological sun-glasses see two guilty parties ala Matthew 5:32. Since the act of adultery has been committed, the first marriage is now dissolved and the guilty parties are free to remarry. In practical terms Brother Hales position can deny remarriage to no one, no matter what the reason for the divorce.

Jesus said, “From the beginning it has not been so.” Brother Hale’s argumentation circumvents the entire purpose and thrust of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says no, Hale says yes. Who are you going to believe?

I sympathize with the frustration of those who preach the gospel to an adulterous generation and watch couple after couple “go away sorrowful.” So many say, “I’ve finally found the right woman, and you’re asking me to leave her.” Another almost 2000 years ago “went away sorrowful” over something he could not give up for Christ. We do not seek to make the gospel acceptable to men; we seek to make men acceptable to God! Let the chips fall where they may! In getting down to brass tacks, Brother Hale uses them to nail his theological thumbs to the wall as we see in . . .

A Difficult Scripture(5)

Between pages 19 and 26 of Except For Fornication, Brother Hale takes us on a shopping spree in the theological bargain basement, and assembles no less than 9 scholars to bolster his position. We hear from the likes of Henry Alford, A. Lukyn Williams, A.T. Robertson, J.W. McGarvey, H. Leo Boles, W.M. Foley, R.C.H. Lenski, B.W. Johnson, and last but not least John Murray.

Reading this chapter, I was immediately struck with the similarity of this chapter to Documents On Instrumental Music(6) by Tom Burgess of the conservative Christian Church. Burgess quotes a ton of scholars, almost all of whom flatly disagree with his position that psallo necessitates the use of instrumental accompaniment. The careful reader is left shaking his head. Why quote them if they disagree with you?

In our list Foley, Boles, McGarvey, Johnson, Robertson, Alford, and Williams all disagree with Hale and say the guilty party cannot remarry. If we are to believe that the weight of scholarship proves or disproves a position, then Brother Hale lost by his own count of 8 to 1 in this test vote.

The title of this section of the book is

A Difficult Scripture(7)

To his best efforts we must say that apparently it is a difficult scripture only to Brother Lewis Hale and any he may have confused. Eight of his authorities disagree with him, which evidently struck him after quoting them and too late to revise that part of the book for the printer (pure speculation on my part – rdh) for he spends the next 9 pages of this document explaining away their statements. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the book. The odds are 8 to 1 that Brother Hale is wrong.

John Murray is raised as a scholar in defense of Brother Hale’s position. I invite the reader to purchase Divorce(8) by John Murray, a singular tone of 121 pages put out by the Presbyterians. Mr. Murray is professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister in Philadelphia. His book is all the more remarkable for its lack of similarity to Brother Hale’s attempt.

Those accustomed to reading some of the excellent Presbyterian or Reformed commentaries such as those by Hendriksen will be surprised at Murray. Murry’s entire effort is devoid of any recognized scholarly support (other than his own) for the conclusion that he draws (i.e., the guilty party may remarry when approved by the church). May we surmise that Murray declines to call upon scholarly support for his conclusion because it is non-existent? We may.

Perhaps Brother Hale should have read Murray’s book, and not just his article in Baker’s Theological Dictionary.(9) Murray is in the unenviable position of calling upon himself for scholarly support for his conclusions. Hale calls upon Murray and both fall into the ditch. selah

Recommended Reading

1. Except For Fornication, Roy Deaver, a review in Spiritual Sword, Vol. 6, number 2, pp. 14-26, Jan. 1975.
2. Divorce and Remarriage, J.D. Thomas, B.R. Press (Abilene, 1977).
3. Divorce and Remarriage, Gene Frost, series in Gospel Anchor (Louisville, Jan.-Feb. 1979).

Endnotes:

1. Except For Fornication, Lewis G. Hale (Oklahoma City, 1974), Hale Publications.

2. Ibid, p. 4.

3. Ibid, p. 8.

4. Ibid, p. 17.

5. Ibid, p. 19.

6. Documents on Instrumental Music, Tom Burgess (Portland, 1967).

7. Op. Cit., Lewis G. Hale, p. 19.

8. Divorce, John Murray (Philadelphia, 1972), Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.

9. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Everett F. Harrison editor (Grand Rapids, 1972), pp. 169, 170.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 778-779
December 6, 1979

By Bob Tuten

The Dawning of Instruments In Worship

It appears from available evidence that the church in Midway, Kentucky was the first to use instrumental music in its worship.

The introduction of the instrument owed its inception to the deplorable singing the congregation did. This singing had degenerated into screeching and bawling that would, as Pinkerton said, “scare even the rats from worship.” At first it was suggested that a meeting be held on Saturday night to practice the songs. Shortly afterwards, someone brought in a melodeon to be used in getting the right pitch. Before long, one of the sisters was accompanying the singing with her playing on the melodeon. The group observed that the effect of the use of the melodeon was good on the singing, and so it was decided to try to use the instrument in the Lord’s Day worship. Thompson Parrish, son of James Ware Parrish, one of the founders of the Midway Female Orphan School, played the instrument at the worship.

The presence of the instrument caused considerable friction. The most effective opposition came from Adam Hibler, one of the elders. Late one night Hibler pushed one of his colored slaves by the name of Reuben through a window. Reuben passed the melodeon through, and Hibler took it home with him. But another instrument was afterwards brought in, and continued in use by the church.(1)

By 1860 then, instruments were being used by at least one, and perhaps more churches claiming to follow the N.T. pattern. The use of the instrument at Midway gained widespread attention when L.L. Pinkerton, then preaching at Midway, expressed his views which favored its use. Pinkerton spoke out in answer to Ben Franklin’s article listing permissible conditions of the use of instruments. Both articles appeared in the American Christian Review as follows. Franklin said there might be occasions where the instrument would be permissible such as:

1. Where a church never had or has lost the Spirit of Christ.

2. If a church has a preacher who never had, or has lost the Spirit of Christ, who has become a dry, prosing and lifeless speaker, so as to be entirely incapable of commanding and interesting an audience, it is thought that instrumental music would draw out and interest the people . . . .

3. If a church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusement and secular entertainment, and abandoning all idea of religion and worship, instrumental music would be a very pleasant and agreeable part of such entertainment.(2)

Pinkerton replied:

So far as known to me, or, I presume, to you, I am the only “preacher” in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it. The calls for your opinion, it is probable, came from these regions.(3)

Pinkerton, himself, did not suggest the use of the instrument at Midway, although the persons responsible undoubtedly knew his opinion and that he would not oppose its introduction even before it was brought in. Of the melodeon used at Midway, A.T. DeGroot said: “. . .The instrument in question has recently been found by Edgar C. Riley, Business Director of the Kentucky Female Orphan School, at Midway, where it is now preserved. A brief account of the discovery of the historic melodeon, given to this writer by Mr. Riley, is worthy of recording here.

Historic Melodeon Found

`In the home of the Nugent sisters at the Crossroads on Shadylane between Versailles and Midway, Kentucky, was found recently the first musical instrument used by the Christian church in the world . . . . Dr. L.L. Pinkerton, one of the founders of Kentucky Female Orphan School, was the pastor of the little church at Midway. He introduced a melodeon into the worship service. “(4)

The introduction of the instrument at Midway served to pave the way for many other churches throughout the nation who followed suit. During the disasterous War between the States (1861-1865) the controversy over the instrument diminished as the war demanded the attention of the brotherhood for consideration of more important matters. The musical instrument controversy was not destined to remain quiet for very long, however.

In the larger city congregations the introduction of the instrument generally was accompanied with considerable anxiety in the brotherhood. In 1867 the church in St. Louis purchased a new building from the Episcopalians. The building was located on the corner of Seventeenth and Olive Streets. In the deal was a three thousand dollar organ. The question of what to do with the organ immediately arose. A staunch group, led by Dr. Hiram Christopher, brother-in-law of J.W. McGarvey, opposed the instrument, and so, it was not immediately brought into the worship. For two years the agitation continued. At this time the church had one elder, A. Johnson, who favored the organ. A meeting was held the first of the year, 1869, to vote on.the matter. Seventy-eight voted for it, and ten voted against it, but the elder recommended putting off using it until after the spring semi-annual of the American Christian Missionary Society which was scheduled to be held in St. Louis in May, that year. A popular vote was later taken which showed that one hundred and four favored using the instrument and twenty-four opposed it. The opposition, although in the minority, was determined enough that for two years the instrument was rarely used. A gathering storm indicated division was on the way. Late in 1870, Robert Graham, Isaac Errett, Alexander Proctor, I.N. Rogers went to St. Louis to quiet the trouble. A compromise was reached whereby the instrument, for the sake of peace, was kept out. This lasted only a few years when the advocates of the organ took control, and those who opposed it were forced to leave and establish another congregation.(5)

About the same time a similar situation occured in Akron, Ohio, involving the well-known Ben Franklin. Franklin had been invited to hold a meeting for the congregation in Akron which had on occasions used the instrument but never”-in Franklin’s presence. On this occasion, however, the instrument was used to the surprise of Franklin. He was naturally faced with the problem of what to do, being opposed to it as he was. In the following quotation he tells of his thoughts during those few moments:

We have not been more tried in a long time. While this was going off, we reflected and turned the matter in every way possible. What was to be done? We never felt more unhappy. Are brethren determined, we involuntarily thought, to deteriorate the worship into music, and compel us to endorse it? If we refuse to preach, it may, we further thought create a lasting trouble, and some may blame us for it. We decided to preach, and did so, but with a heavy heart, in view of the worship having been thus degenerated before our face.(6)

He further said:

We have no prejudice against an organ, melodean, piano, violin, or Jews’ harp, but we do not intend to worship with any of these, or even tacitly to endorse the use of them, or any one of them in worship . . . . We intend no man shall quote us, while we are living nor when we are gone, as endorsing or in any way giving countenance to the evil complained of. If brethren will introduce the instrument into worship, they shall themselves be held responsible. We shall not be. We, therefore, desire brethren not to invite us to hold a meeting for them, if they intend to play on an instrument in their worship. We know positively that it is sale to keep it out.(7)

In January, 1869 a congregation moved into a new building at Chicago, Illinois and placed an organ in it over the protest of the minister, D.P. Henderson. In the summer of 1870 an instrument was placed in the church at Memphis, Tennessee. The Christian Chapel of Cincinnati underwent a change. Eight thousand dollars was spent for an organ. By this time it was evident that instrumental music was, to those who protested, the little leaven that leaveneth the whole lump. J.W. McGarvey, a leading scholar of his day, had this to say concerning its growing popularity:

This question of instrumental music is becoming a serious one. There are many who favor it, and who will listen to no argument against it. By the cry of progress and conformity, it is making its way over the heads and hearts of many of our best brethren and sisters.(8)

One year later (1869) McGarvey wrote an article in the Apostolic Times describing the growing situation.

We are moving; we are progressing; at least some among us are advancing. Whether you think the movement forward or backward depends very much upon the way you are going yourself. Once we had no men among us who were known to tolerate instrumental music in worship. After that there arose some who contended that whether we use it or not is a mere matter of expedience. More recently, a few churches have actually used it, and their preachers have approved, but have not often ventured publicly to defend it.(9)

Endnotes:

1. West, op. cit., Vol. l., p. 312.

2. Ben Franklin, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” American Christian Review, Vol. III., No. 5 (January 31, 1860), p. 19.

3. L.L. Pinkerton, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” American Christian Review, Vol. III, No. 9 (February 28, 1860), p. 34.

4. A.T. DeGroot, The Grounds of Division Among the Disciples of Christ, pp. 117-118.

5. West, op. cit., Vol. II, p, 81.

6. Ben Franklin, “Notes by the Way,” American Christian Review, Vol. XI, No. 20 (May 19, 1868), p. 156.

7. Ibid.

8. J.W. McGarvey, “Bro. Hayden on Expediency and Progress,” Millennial Harbinger, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4 (April, 1868), p. 216.

9. J. W. McGarvey “A Little Farther Along,” Apostolic Times, Vol. L, No. 2 (April 22, 1869), p. 13.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 48, pp. 776-777
December 6, 1979

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