Appeal to Edward Fudge (V): Grace: Imputed Obedience?

By Ron Halbrook

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For the Preface to this series of articles, please see the Introductory article in the Sept. 20th issue of Truth Magazine.)

POINT 7. Last, we consider our brother’s concept of grace. He is teaching that the work of Christ, in addition to the blood sacrifice, was to obey perfectly for us. Christ is “a representative law-keeper, who justifies others by his obedience.” “Because of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they never do achieve perfect obedience themselves.” Once we are in Christ, the obedience of Christ is imputed to us rather than sin being imputed to us. “There is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinners and that sphere is ‘in Christ.’ ” This is “the righteousness which is by faith” referred to “in Romans 4:6-8” (quotes from G.G., Vol. 21, No. 44). (He wants us to emphasize that he believes imputed obedience is conditioned on true faith.)

REVIEW: Attitudes, principles, and concepts have consequences. Does our brother not see what follows from his premise of imputed obedience? The result is: even if we do violate the silence of God, practice unlawful opinions, and add to God’s Word, even if these are actual sins, God will not impute these to us especially in cases of misguided or false piety (as distinguished from flagrant pride). He will rather impute the obedience of Christ to us who are in him. In this fashion, God’s grace accepts brethren who use instruments, socialize the church’s mission, and centralize. Since God accepts them, so should we.

The foundation is faulty; thus, the conclusion, which results, is unfounded. The Old Law does not cast any shadows concerning our need of one to keep the Law perfectly for us–which obedience would be imputed to us. The Law is replete with shadows concerning our need of a perfect sacrifice a blood sacrifice for removal of sin, upon faith. “The law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.” The Old Law could not save because man did not perfectly obey. (Man’s paramount problem was not that he might break the law without knowing it and thus be lost, though the law recognizes a man might break the law and learn of it later. The supreme problem was that once a man broke the law when tempted to choose the wrong. the law couldn’t grant final and complete forgiveness. Heb. 10:4.)

What solution did God intend: one to obey for us or one to die for us? “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing . . . might come . . . through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:11-14). Which is foreshadowed: one to obey for us or one to die for us? See Heb. 10:1-14.

If the work of Christ was not as “a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience,” what is the meaning of his perfect obedience? Our brother says, “Because Of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they never do achieve perfect obedience.” If that is not it, what is the meaning of Christ’s obedience? In the first place, his death could not be accepted on our behalf if be owed life for his own sins.

Also, notice Heb. 2, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that bad the power of death, that is, the devil. . . . Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” Christ “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:14-16). The perfect life was lived to make him perfect in sympathy and understanding of our struggle with sin.

And, again, we emphasize the perfect life provided a perfect sacrifice. The perfect priest, “without sin,” did not offer a life-long obedience to be counted in place of our disobedience; he culminated a life of obedience in a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and thus saves us. “Through death” he saves us. See Heb. 5:8-9; 9:28; 10: 12. Yes, his obedience is full of meaning for us.

The idea that God imputes the obedience of Christ to us leads our brother to say, “But there is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinners and that sphere is ‘in Christ.’ ” So, as long as we’re in Christ, God keeps imputing his obedience to us and so does not impute sin to us. (Again, Ed says this is conditioned on true, continuing faith.) This is a misconstrued allusion to Rom. 4, especially vv. 4-8. God does not impute past sins to those justified by faith. Such is the meaning of Ps. 32, from which Paul quotes, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” “The Lord imputeth not iniquity,” not in the sense that sin is not imputed in the first place, but in the sense that imputed sin was “forgiven” to one who “acknowledged” and confessed his sin unto God (Ps. 32:1-5). Sin, once forgiven, is not imputed or remembered any longer. So it is in Heb. 8:12, “Their sins . . . will I remember no more.

In the Old system of sacrifice, “there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.” In the New, God doesn’t remember the post sins for which we have sought forgiveness (compare Heb. 8:12 and 10: 3). If we sin again, we may go on in hardness; “there remaineth no more sacrifice” (Heb. 10 – 26). Or, “we may confess our sins , ” “he is faithful and just to forgive” (1 Jn. 1). We could not confess that which is not imputed to us in the first place. “If we walk in the light” and “if we confess our sins,” the blood of Christ cleanses us. Nowhere is it taught that our sins are not imputed because his obedience is imputed to us.

We emphasize again, the Law did not foreshadow (1) one to perfectly obey for us, so (2) his obedience could be imputed to us, and (3) so our present sins would not be imputed to us. The people were never taught to look on the thousands of lambs as perfectly obedient ones, foreshadowing One who would perfectly obey for us-nor are the other two points just mentioned foreshadowed. The lamb without blemish did emphasize that Christ would be a sinless sacrifice. Every man broke the Law and then stood under the sentence of death (Gal. 3:11-12; Heb. 2:15). They saw in the rivers of blood that sin requires death, and yet that animal blood is insufficient (Heb. 9-10). But the shadows, the sacrifices they offered, served to bring them unto “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” through one perfect sacrifice (Jn. 1, Gal. 3, Heb. 10).

Dear brother, we appeal in love: clarify please.

Appeal In Love

CONCLUSION: Our brother Edward Fudge is loved of many, including his brother Ron Halbrook, who is extending this appeal to him. Love, patience, and a desire to help each other on the way to heaven must characterize us all.

We have tried to present this study in proper balance and perspective. For instance, I recognize temperament may differ according to individual make-up; our concern here is not with temperament, which may vary, but with teaching, which must conform to the divine standard. My own precautions and delays in presenting this material bear witness to my love of Ed. My conviction that Ed needs a specific occasion to clarify some specific matters has finally moved me to write. I cannot desire to hurt him, if I were to do so. Neither do I “throw the baby out with the bathwater; ” I rejoice in every talent Ed has, in his every effort for truth, and in every success of worthy endeavor that is his.

Believing basic principles are crying for attention, I cannot withhold these lines any longer. This appeal is written in love. Ed’s response, reaffirmation, rebuttal, or explanation will be received in love. Even should he deem it best to ignore this appeal, I shall love him still. I believe Ed and Ron are united in believing we must and can strive for the balance of attitude and truth required in 1 Cor. 16:13-14. “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” May God help us both to do exactly that.

(Series Concluded)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 50, pp. 3-5
October 25, 1973

Volume XVII Completed

By Cecil Willis

With this issue, seventeen years of publishing Truth Magazine have been completed. Well over eleven of these years, it has been my privilege to serve as Editor. This issue also completes four years of publication on a weekly basis.

The editorial chair, I have found, to be a hot seat. An editor is criticized if he does, and criticized if he does not; it seems to make little difference what the issue is. I have ducked many of the rocks thrown in my direction, and gotten plastered by some of the others. Many of the very critical letters have been very helpful to me. Though some would never believe it, I have profited by the criticisms made. Some of them validly have been made. Experience has taught me where some of the editorial pitfalls are, and I shall hereafter try to avoid falling into them. I have no delusions about my editorial infallibility from this point onward. Surely other editorial mistakes will be made, but I shall try to make fewer of them, and not to repeat ones previously made.

Next week a new phase in the history of Truth Magazine will begin. Some changes are going to be made in the size and make-up of the paper. Some will approve the changes, and others will think we made a backward step. We have sought to publish a paper for brethren that has some “punch” in it. It has been our deliberate intention to make Truth Magazine a literary forum where issues that need discussion among brethren may be discussed. Truth Magazine has never been a paper designed for non-christians, or for babes in Christ, though we have sought to maintain a moderate balance in the content of the paper.

While Truth Magazine is undergoing some changes, its Editor also will be undergoing some. I have resigned my work as regular preacher for the Westside church in Marion, Indiana. My experience with these brethren has been entirely pleasant, from my point of view. It will be my intention to continue to work and worship with the Westside church. My friend, Brother Norman Midgette, is moving from the South Marion church to Westside to serve as local evangelist, effective January 1, 1974. It is our hope that some definite improvements can be made in the work of the Westside church in Marion, and certainly I intend to lend every effort that I can toward the accomplishment of this objective.

It will be my intention to devote about half of my time in 1974 to writing, both for Truth Magazine and hopefully in some other media also. We hope to be able to expand our publishing effort in order to make it possible for competent brethren to leave for succeeding generations a legacy of worthwhile religious articles, books, and booklets. Considerable of my time will therefore be devoted to trying to help to prepare for publication articles and books written by others. It has been the hope of those of us connected with the Cogdill Foundation that we can perpetuate the capability to publish needed religious books, tracts, journals, class materials, etc.

The remainder of my time will be spent in preaching wherever the opportunity presents itself. Though I have enjoyed my work with Truth Magazine, I (and a couple of other brethren) primarily look upon myself as a gospel preacher. During two years of my preaching life, I was not engaged in full-time work with a congregation. During those two years I preached more sermons than during any other two years of my life. I certainly do not intend to be less involved in the work of preaching and teaching. During recent years I have tried to do too many different things, with the result that I did not do anything as well as I would like to try to do it. With this altered arrangement, it will be my hope that Truth Magazine can be made into a better and more profitable journal. For several years, I have held about twenty meetings a year. The Lord Willing, I shall continue to hold about that many yearly.

As we close this volume, it is essential that a considerable portion of this final issue be devoted to the publication of an author and title index. Though an index is worthless to those who do not preserve their weekly issues of the paper, it is invaluable to those who keep permanent files, and hundreds of our readers do so. Beginning next week, a larger Truth Magazine will begin coming to your home. We hope to pack it full of good things, which will build you up in the most holy Faith.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 50, p. 2
October 25, 1973

And Man Created God in His Own Image

By Floyd Chappelear

Human philosophers of every stripe have argued that God is not real but that He is a creation of mere man. A product of man’s imagination. It is argued that primitive man had a “need” for some supernatural force and therefore “created” the idea of a controlling spirit which somehow governed the unexplainable events of nature. This new concept, it is said, tranquilized man’s fears and thus led some to say, “religion is the opium of the masses.” Believers have long denied that man predated Deity and insist, as the facts themselves indicate, that Deity existed prior to man’s entrance into history. Nevertheless, we shall in the course of this article insist that the nonbeliever is in a measure correct in his assertion that men have created god.

By way of removing all doubts, we state emphatically that we believe in the existence of God and that the evidence supports that contention. The very orderliness of the Heavens “declare the glory of God and the firmaments His handiwork” (Psa. 19:1). It is truly the fool who says “there is no God” or that “God is dead” (Psa. 14:1). At the same time we insist that man has created god and/or gods to satisfy his own whims and to alleviate his own fears. Let us examine the evidence.

What Man Has Done With God

In His benevolence, God has never left man to his own devices. Man is incapable of ordering his life without Divine guidance (Jer. 10:25). Even in the Garden, the Lord prepared the way of Adam and gave him instruction. Needless to say, as Adam did, all men do. Adam “did away with” God. For a moment, in the life of the first man, God was dead; God did not exist. And so it has been from that day to this – man has rejected the Creator.

Stephen insisted that the conduct of the Jews of his day was typical of them as a people. They, and their fathers before them, “resisted the Holy Spirit” and dismissed the prophets who had been sent by the Righteous Judge to warn them of their wicked ways (Acts 7:51-53). Jesus told the Jews that the Father had been denied and that their “father was the Devil” (Jno. 8:42-47). The Paternity of the Holy One had been displaced by the paternalism of the wicked one. Upon their realization of their hypocrisy and their rejection of God, they were forced to either repent or destroy this, the “Son of God.” They chose the latter course (Acts 2:36). The pattern of history had been repeated.

Having put away God, mankind was left with a void. The philosopher says a “need” existed for a deity. Thus, understandably, man began to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator who had formed him (Rom. 1:25). In his zeal, or perhaps in his competitiveness with others, he began to fashion a replacement god for every situation that might arise. Paul referred to the Athenians’ “very religious” nature and called attention to their prolific deities (Acts 17:22-23). Men had “progressed” to the point where their idols were everything, in spite of the fact that they were nothing at all (1 Cor. 8:5-7).

Why did the primitive feel that they had to supplant Jehovah when they already had Him? Because with the knowledge of the true God, man stood condemned. Men do not well receive the rebuke or the chastening of others.

Having denied the Lord of Heaven, men replaced Him with gods that pleased their carnal nature and gave themselves to licentious worship (1 Pet. 4:3-5). The evidence suggests that even the Jews gave themselves to phallic worship and embraced with fervor the debaucheries of the Gentile world. “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Prov. 16:2). The gods of the people approved of the people. Or, to phrase it more accurately, the people approved of their gods. Thus, when men seek to remake God, and form gods of their own, they always fashion a concept, which pleases them and one, which panders to their appetites.

Modern Man and the Creation of Gods

Modern man is not immune to the practice of the ancients. As our forefathers did, so do we. As they rejected the truth of the Word, so do mortals today. As they fashioned comfortable views of the Eternal One, so does the twentieth century man.

The “Jesus freaks” have developed an image of the “horn of salvation” which the Lord raised up, not at all in harmony with the revelation of scripture. “Christ was a casual wanderer who did not concern himself with the amenities of life such as working and washing.” The scripture says that Christ labored with his bands to provide the necessities of life (Mark 6:3). Some suggest that Christ did not condemn sin but rather condoned it. These call forth the example of the woman taken in adultery as proof (John 8:1-11). It matters little that Jesus told her to “sin no more.” Such is lost among those who have preconceived notions and who insist that Jesus is to agree with them.

Others suggest that the Lord was not interested in the form our worship takes. Do they so soon forget that the money changers were driven from the temple with scourges (Matt. 21:13)? Some say that the “long hairs” of today resemble the Savior who most assuredly bad long hair. Not so. By revelation it was said that “long hair is a shame to a man” (1 Cor. 11:14). The Prince of Peace knew that.

Sectarian Concepts of God

Sectarians regularly state that the church of God is an unnecessary institution and that one can be saved out of it. Do they really believe that Jesus shed His blood for that which is unneeded (Acts 20:28)? The truth of the matter is that sectarians have rewritten the gospel to conform to their already held notion concerning what God will or will not do. What they need to do now is to adopt the lustful practices of the heathen worshippers, and they will be in every respect like their barbaric ancestors.

The Practice in the Church

Even the community of the saved is not free from the practice of the ancients. There are those who for the sake of popularity are restructuring the facts of the gospel to conform to their concepts of what Jesus should be. It is said that Christ was a “radical” who went around “having special influence among the young people.” It is further stated that He is not concerned with the “letter” but rather with the “spirit” of our service. Such heathenism in the church should disgust but not shock anyone.

Modernism is as old as man. As for the character of Jesus, let us examine the facts. Is it radicalism to call for repentance (Luke 13:3)? Was it disrespect for authority, which led the son of David to insist that men keep the commandments of God (Matt. 7:21)? And other than the instance of Jesus speaking to the very little ones (Matt. 18:1-4), where does it say He had any special influence among young people? He warned of those who would subvert the souls of others and it is obvious that such is most easily done among the young whose “senses are (not) exercised to discern good from evil” (2 Tim. 2:14; Heb. 5:14). Thus, the heathens among us find youthful minds to be fertile fields for their nefarious plantings.

Some have said that the church is not an organized entity but rather a loose coalition of the children of God. Does it matter that God in His infinite wisdom organized and ordered it according to the dictates of His desires (Eph. 4:11,12)? It seems that it does not. Such is par for the course for those whose task in life is to fashion for themselves a Jesus who approves of their works of iniquity.

Conclusion

It would behoove every informed child of God to recognize that the spirit of compromise which has invaded the church is not just a little liberalism gone to seed but that it is the ancient heathenism revived and restored to respectability. The revealed Godhead is sufficient for all who love it. The faithful will not rend the fabric of Deity and try to force it to cover the distorted shape of a restructured Jesus. Rather, they will obediently and humbly transform themselves into such as who respect the will of the Most High (Rom. 12:1, 2). It should be our fervent hope that all who professes to believe will also willingly submit themselves to His care who died for us. In so doing, unity will result, souls will be saved, and none will run off preaching “a different gospel, which is not another except some would trouble you and pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-9).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 49, pp. 11-12
October 18, 1973

Appeal to Edward Fudge (IV): “The Same Gospel”?

By Ron Halbrook

POINT 5: Our brother’s statement in the Aug. 3, 1972, Guardian is confusing, bewildering, and capable of leading souls into error. If anything ever needed clarifying, this does. Referring to an “Elder” S. N. McCann, our brother wrote, “The author worshipped with people known as German Baptist Brethren. He preached the gospel, the same gospel we hold forth today.” We are not anxious to charge our brother with anything; but we are anxious to learn what in all the world is meant by such a statement from the pen of one devoted to New Testament Christianity. Our brother having put such a statement in print, we plead with him to clarify in print whether he maintains the old gospel-doctrine distinction (or some modified form of it) and whether he really believes it is possible to embrace sectarianism and still preach, “the same gospel we hold forth today.”

REVIEW: Gospel-Doctrine Fallacy? Our brother and many readers are aware that some have taught that men receive saving grace through faith when they are baptized-this being “the gospel.” Then, men study the Bible and reach the conclusions which shape their practices-this being the realm of “doctrine.” The doctrine is not the gospel and the gospel is not the doctrine.

For instance, Carl Ketcherside says, “Not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 86; No. 2, p. 20). Within this realm of doctrine, men may embrace and teach premillennialism, use of instruments in worship, sectarian names, social gospel practices, centralization of churches, etc. This does not disturb fellowship with God and so should not disturb fellowship among brethren who accept and brethren who reject such things-unless one group charges sin because of innovation or the other group forces the innovation on brethren. Those following this view deny they are compromisers, because by their definition of “gospel” they have not compromised “the gospel.”

On the basis of this alleged distinction, “Elder” McCann preached “the gospel.” He understood that grace is received through faith as it moves one to baptism. Whatever he believed or taught about sectarian names and practices would not violate this “gospel.” If this distinction is behind our brother’s statement, then doubtless he had the same fallacy in mind in Vol. 21, No. 45 (p. 712); there he referred to 14 the gospel” which declares “God’s grace” and the “doctrine” which strengthens in faith and hope. At times, our brother seems to recognize that the term “doctrine” may refer to the “gospel,” but in such cases he seems to limit the meaning of both terms to that part of the gospel which involves primary obedience (Vol. 2 1, No. 44). Apparently-we purposely -use a word of doubt till he clears it up-our brother thinks the word “gospel” always refers to matters of primary obedience as distinguished from “the epistles” which are “another sort of apostolic teaching” (Ibid.).

The Bible does not teach either the strict “gospel-doctrine” distinction of Ketcherside, nor does it consistently limit the word “gospel” to matters of primary obedience. The Bible speaks of the Lord’s will (Matt. 7), his covenant (Heb.), the gospel (Acts, Gal.), the truth Jn. 8), the faith (Gal., Jude), and the doctrine or teaching (Matt. 7, Acts 2, Rom. 6, 2 Jn. 9, 1, 2 Tim.). Each word has a distinct emphasis (as gospel emphasizes good news and doctrine, a thing taught); yet, all refer to the same scheme of redemption, the same resulting body of material, and the same inspired revelation. Since the gospel is taught, it is doctrine. Since the teaching is good and wonderful in its source, nature, and meaning, it is gospel. There is no more difference between gospel and doctrine than between gospel and truth, the truth and the faith, His covenant and teaching, His will and the faith, etc., etc. The word “doctrine” is definitely used in reference to primary obedience (Acts 13:5-12). When a Christian violates the teaching of “the epistles,” he definitely violates “the gospel” (Gal. 2: 11-14).

We can show the all-sufficiency of scripture by showing (1) Matt.- Jn. emphasizes faith in Christ, (2) Acts emphasizes conversion, and (3) the epistles” emphasize how to grow daily and set the church in order. But, there is no strict division here, and thus no Bible term to indicate an absolute distinction. Each of the three divisions teaches something needed for daily growth and setting churches in order, teaching conversion, and building faith in Christ. No one division is written only for the world as distinguished from another written only for benefit of Christians. Luke and Acts are written from one Christian to another. Every Christian needs repeated study in Matt.-Jn.; this “strengthens him in faith and hope.” Writing to saints, Peter recounted some primary points of the gospel, stirred up the brethren, and told them they would always need such study (2 Pet. 1, 3).

1 Cor. 15 with 1, 2 Thess. link Christ’s resurrection to our glorification; though first written to saints, this material can be very powerful in converting the lost. If a lost man claims allegiance to the Old Law, what is better than Gal., Rom., and Heb. to convert him. Eph. I will help a man confused on predestination, and I Pet. 3 on baptism. To show allegiance to the Pope isn’t allegiance to Christ, Acts 14:23, Phil. 1: 1, 1 Pet. 5:2, and Eph. 1: 22-23 will help. 1 Cor. I and Gal. 5 show joining a denomination can’t please God, can’t be true conversion.

If it were objected that one must correctly enter God’s family, and then needs time to grow in understanding further instruction, we agree. But limiting the meaning of the word “gospel” is not the way to make that point, as the Bible does not so limit the word. Furthermore, those who practice things without a thus-saith-the Lord, or assert the liberty to go beyond the written things, or interpret divine silence as license, are not growing in God’s family, they are going out of it. They are not growing toward Christ, whether the liberalism they promote concerns baptism, worship, or organization; they are going onward and outward from Christ Un. 10: 4-5; Eph. 1: 22-23; 1 Cor. 4-6; 2 Jn. 9). They need to be told so in love; if they persist without repentance and reformation, they sever fellowship with God and brethren. They are wrapped in a blanket of false security if told they have not violated “the gospel” since it is a very limited term.

If our brother has grown into an understanding of “gospel” that is overlooked in this review, may we respectfully request that he assert and clarify for our benefit.

(* This is a correction instead of Ed’s response; it was made possible by my reading the July, 1973, issue of Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger. I wrote the above paragraphs with the understanding that C. K. thought the term doctrine never refers to “the gospel” and that the term gospel does not include all the Lord’s doctrine. Since I knew E. F. did sometimes allow the term doctrine to refer to “the gospel,” I thought he had somewhat modified C. K.’s view. Instead, I have learned today, -Aug. 23, 1973, that Ketcherside and Fudge hold identical views on this matter. I have been misunderstanding Ketcherside, but Ed has not! Here is what they both believe, from pg. 106 of the M.M. of July, “While all gospel may be correctly classified as doctrine, all doctrine cannot be correctly classified as gospel.” That is exactly how Ed uses the terms in the G.G.s referred to above–exactly!)

Preach Gospel, Embrace Sectarianism? As earlier noted, McCann understood faith and baptism. Notice further, be supported sectarianism and led others to embrace a sectarian name; but, our brother says, “he preached the same gospel we hold forth today.” If so, the following is also true. He could have accepted instruments and incense in worship, centralization in organization, and socialization in the mission of the church, but “he preached the same gospel.” Whether he kept the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, whether he wore religious titles or not, regardless of anything else that falls in the doctrine department, “he preached the same gospel.”

Can we be members of sectarian bodies today and “preach the same gospel?” (* His answer was, “What about our sectarian use of the name Church of Christ?”) The truth is that sectarians do not preach the gospel, regardless of what they say on baptism. They may preach part of the faith, covenant, will, gospel, truth, doctrine, but they are not preaching it. If they were, they would be just what the Ethiopian of Acts 8 or the Philippian of Acts 16 was a Christian only without a thought of sectarian names. It still takes sectarian seed to produce a sectarian name. It still takes gospel seed to make a Christian only,

While on the subject, our brother might clarify this. Are sectarian names in the realm of lawful expedients or of unlawful opinions? Faith, or merely opinion? If opinion, which kind? In what realm did brother Paul place the very beginnings of sectarianism (1 Cor. 1, 3; Gal. 5)?

Pride Vs. Weakness?

POINT 6. Our brother published in the Firm Foundation (Vol. 89, No. 22, 23) some studies on Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10). Along with some fine points, he presented a distinction, which is not borne out by scripture. Nadab and Abibu were punished because of irreverent pride, but their brothers sinned later in the chapter and weren’t punished because their sin was simply born of human weakness. Concerning Eleazar and Ithamar, we have this explanation, “But their sin grew out of human weakness, not out of haughty will. It involved a false piety, not a flagrant pride.” Thus, those who sinned by pride in worship were not forgiven, but punished; those who sinned by human weakness were forgiven.

REVIEW: Apply this concept to our times. If one worships with the instrument that believes it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, and he does it out of pride, he won’t be forgiven in the end, but punished. He is really the only one directly rebuked by Lev. 10. One who thinks the instrument is his liberty, who thinks silence is license, who worships with it because of its beautiful and pious tones, will be forgiven. He might multiply such pious vanities, take a pious sectarian name, and steep himself in the pious traditions of the fathers, but all will be forgiven.

If the Bible teaches such, Lev. 10 is not the place. Moses was angry at first in the case of Eleazar and Ithamar. After hearing the explanation, “he was content” (v. 20). If Moses was content, then God’s law wasn’t broken in the first place. Where was Moses ever content with a bonafide case of sin-regardless of excuses and explanations. Christ did not sin by healing on the Sabbath; it seemed to some that he did, but they were put to silence by his explanation. On Lev. 10: 12-20, Pulpit Commentary says, “It was true that the letter of the Law bad been broken, but there was a sufficient cause for it (see Hos. 6:6; Matt. 12:7).” An inspired man like Moses could determine whether an apparent violation was actually allowable in God’s sight or not. (This is wholly unlike the “situation ethics” idea of turning every man loose to set aside any and every law of God which blocks some desire he is determined to fulfill.)

In Matt. 12, Christ does not argue that David and the priests actually sinned in what they did, though misguided men might think so. David and the priests are placed by Christ exactly where Moses saw Eleazar and Ithamar to be: among “the guiltless” (Matt. 12:5). In each case, through Moses and Christ, we see no law was broken in God’s sight. If law had been broken through misguided piety or pious misunderstanding, a sin offering would have been in order (Lev. 4).

Furthermore, there is no consistent application of the supposed distinction in the rest of the Old Testament. For instance, when David piously moved the ark on a cart and Uzzah piously tried to stabilize it, Uzzah died and David didn’t (2 Sam. 6).

The Lev. 10 argument hinges on separating “human weakness” (in the form of false or misguided piety) from “pride.” Actually, pride is a human weakness to which we all are subject, just as we’re subject to other human weaknesses. See 1 Jn. 2:15-17 for the distinction the Lord does not make in this matter. King Hezekiah showed off his treasures to Babyon’s messengers; he fell victim to the weakness of pride, but lived to repent (Isa. 39).

Has our esteemed brother made a distinction God doesnt make? Or, can be clarify?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 49, pp. 8-10
October 18, 1973