Truth Magazine

By O. C. Birdwell, Jr.

This article will deal, as forthrightly as possible, with the question, “Do the scriptures allow an on-going fellowship with those who teach or practice unscriptural divorce and remarriage?” It seems that another fitting question would be, “Do the scriptures allow an on-going fellowship with those who persist in any sinful practice, or with those who teach that it is acceptable to do so?” To answer the later question is to answer the first. Please consider what the apostle John had to say which seems to be right on target with our subject.

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works (2 John 9-11). 

The “teaching of Christ” is not just that which is taught about the person of Christ. It includes the teaching from Christ, or the teaching that Christ did.  Wayne Jackson correctly wrote, “It is ludicrous to argue that one may be disfellowshipped if he repudiates the doctrine about Christ, but he cannot be touched if he merely perverts the doctrine that is from the Lord” (Friendly Review 19).

In a similar vein, the apostle Paul wrote the following: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned; and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17). The word “doctrine” often means “teaching.” The teaching under consideration was that which they had received from Christ through the Holy Spirit and inspired men such as the apostles John and Paul. It includes teaching on our present subject and every other subject about which Christ spoke personally or through the Holy Spirit. Note that Paul said “mark” those causing the divisions “contrary to the doctrine.” When a thing is marked, it is identified. When a teacher is marked, he is identified. What he teaches that is false should be specified. It would be improper to accuse one  of being a false teacher and not say what it is that he teaches that is false. If a person teaches one thing  contrary to the teaching of Christ, he is a false teacher on that point. It could be, however, that teaching is false only in the eyes of the beholder, and not false because it is unscriptural. For this reason the teaching needs to be specified. Then, let all take the Scriptures and judge if it is or is not false, based on what the Scriptures say.

In view of what the apostles John and Paul have written, I stand amazed that brethren will try to justify fellowship with one who causes “divisions and occasions of stumblings” by teaching contrary to the doctrine of Christ on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. To justify such, some will say, “We are all false teachers.” Or, they will say, “I am a false teacher.” When this is said, I ask for specifics. What is it that you teach contrary to the teaching of Christ? One may have done wrong things that were repented of and corrected. One may have said ugly and rude things that he confessed and corrected. One may have taught false doctrine, but learned the truth and changed. One, however, who says “I am a false teacher,” not only is condemned by Scripture, but stands self-condemned. 

Death and fornication are the only reasons given in New Testament scripture for remarriage (Rom. 6:3; Matt. 19:9). Many who believe this and would not regard a marriage contrary to this to be scriptural will try to justify one who teaches differently. They often affirm that acceptance of brethren with judgment differences on the subject is equal to accepting one who teaches contrary to the doctrine of Christ on the subject. Judgment differences do exist. Should the word “adultery” be in the divorce decree? When does the actual putting away take place? What about the woman in a society where it is legal for a man to say to his wife “I divorce you,” and then may, the next day, or soon after, marry another? There may be other judgment areas which are clearly within the doctrine of Christ which affirms remarriage only after death or one put away for fornication. 

Some seem to think that the practictioner is worse than the teacher. Generally, however, we regard the drug pusher more harshly than the drug user. The promoter and seller gets a greater sentence than the user. Why would one living in adultery be judged more harshly than the one who teaches that it is acceptable before God for him to do so? Paul said, “Know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (l Cor. 5:6). This was spoken relative to fornication among them and the “puffed up” attitude they had about the sin. It seems that those who are “puffed up” or teach so as to circumvent clear-cut teaching by Christ and thereby cause people to endanger their souls are dangerous leaven. An older college professor sat on a discipline committee to judge a young student who had made a mistake. The professor was uncompromising as he affirmed “He must leave; the other students must be considered first.” This may have been the proper position. Yet, I have more compassion and sympathy for a young student who makes a mistake and wants to correct it, than for one of us older gospel preachers who persists in teaching false positions on divorce and remarriage that will damn the souls of men and women. There is no excuse for one to defend a friend, or anyone else, who teaches that which is, admittedly, contrary to what the New Testament teaches. 

The articles in this issue of Truth Magazine deal with some of the material in a book, Who Is My Brother?, written by F. Lagard Smith. Smith proposes a comprehensive five-fold fellowship: Universal Fellowship, Faith Fellowship, “In Christ” Fellowship, Conscience Fellowship, and Congregational Fellowship. His publisher says, “Never before in the history of the restoration movement has so dramatic a change occurred in so short a time with such little opposition.” For several years LaGard worshiped six months out of the year with a group that  used instrumental music and apparently practiced other innovations. LaGard, in his book, strongly condemns those who would oppose the false teaching that Homer Hailey has done on the divorce and remarriage subject. He does not want strong biblical teaching done on this subject. He thinks that will keep churches from growing. I know this to be so because of a personal experience and discussion with him.  

Several years ago the church where I preached invited a young preacher to present a weekend series of sermons on the home. LaGard Smith was present for the last sermon and heard the visiting preacher talk about the sin of adultery in an unscriptural marriage and the solution to the problem. After the service we went to a member’s house for refreshments. On the way there, LaGard severely, and, I thought, rudely, criticized the preacher. He said, “No wonder small churches do not grow, with such preaching as this.” The young preacher took the criticism more calmly than did I. My response was, “If churches are small and do not grow because of our teaching what the Lord said on divorce and remarriage, or any other Bible subject, let them stay small.” There is no good reason to build large numbers with unconverted worldly people who have come in because of a lack of teaching of what the Bible says. If people are not going to repent they cannot be Christians.

In view of LaGard’s “Comprehensive Five-fold Fellowship” position, it is not surprising that he would worship with a denominational church half of the time. His fellowship position may explain how he can work for and promote Pepperdine University and Lipscomb University. He might even speak to a non-institutional church and say, “I am still opposed to institutionalism.” Keep in mind, however, that when he says he is opposed to something, he may not mean that he thinks it displeases God and will cause one to be lost eternally. From reading his writing and hearing him talk, I do not conclude that he believes many sincere people will be lost, regardless of their religious position or what they teach. Especially is this so if they happen to be both sincere and scholarly!

Brethren who have commended Who Is My Brother? need to restudy their position. Consider the book in the light of the author’s practice. If he teaches what he practices and a congregation accepts his teaching, then, the congregation will have no distinctive identity, but will accept any teaching and anyone who is sincere in his religious practice and teaching. Everyone will be fellowshipped one way or another. My friend, if you find this kind of fellowship in New Testament Scripture, please let me know. Until then, I will continue to teach that there should not be an on-going fellowship with one living in adultery; with one who teaches that living in adultery is acceptable; and with LaGard Smith, as long as he persists in his unscriptural teaching and position on fellowship.

P. O. Box 858, Athens, Alabama 35612, oc@truthmagazine.com

By Steve Klein

Changing Times

A few months ago, a preacher from “a church of Christ” in our area had a Baptist preacher as a guest on his radio program. Throughout the broadcast, the former cheerfully referred to the latter as a “brother.” As I listened I thought to myself, “Doesn’t he know any better than that?” “How can he call someone a brother in Christ who has not been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins?” There would have been a time when nearly every true Christian listening would have been asking the same questions. But the times they are a changing. 

A generation ago, perhaps only Carl Ketcherside and his fringe of followers would have argued that Baptists and other evangelicals who were not baptized for the correct reason were nonetheless brethren in Christ.1 Then, such a claim would have been firmly rejected by every sound Christian, and even by the vast majority of those who were not so sound. Now, many are apparently questioning truths they once held dear regarding scriptural baptism and fellowship. They are wondering if it is possible that an individual who thinks he has been saved by faith alone, and has only been baptized because it is commanded, could in fact be saved? They are wondering if baptism which was not performed “for the remission of sins,” could still be effective. And ultimately, they are wondering if fellowship should not be extended to believers who have been baptized for the wrong reason.

F. Lagard Smith, in his recent book Who Is My Brother? is currently leading the way in paving this broad path of fellowship. He writes that “despite their misunderstandings of baptism’s purpose — believers who are immersed in order to obey the command to be baptized might nevertheless be regarded in God’s eyes as saved believers” (128). 

A generation ago, any book containing such a statement would have been greeted with cries for correction and demands for debate from virtually every corner of the brotherhood. Now, more than a few are touting it as “a good book” and “a breath of fresh air.” Its author styles himself a “conservative” and is received as such by congregations which view themselves as sound. Times have changed indeed.

What about Acts 19:1-7?

Times may change, but the Scriptures do not. In Acts 19:1-7, the Scriptures teach that baptism for the wrong purpose does not save. In that text, twelve men who had been baptized “into John’s baptism” were told by the apostle Paul that “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (19:4). Upon hearing this, these twelve men “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5). Obviously, a baptism which is not “in the name of Christ for the remission of sins,” will not save.

LaGard Smith does not agree with this assessment. He asserts that the case of the twelve men in Acts 19 is not applicable to the case of the modern day believer who is baptized for the wrong reason. He says, “Unlike these men (in Acts 19, sk), whose faith in God had been claimed through John rather than through Jesus, today’s Baptists, for example, are fully convinced about the necessity of being baptized in the name of Jesus” (127). “The men from Ephesus,” he asserts, “had to be re-baptized, not merely because of misunderstanding about timing and purpose, but because their baptism was not based upon the redemptive blood of Jesus. For those who are baptized in the name of Christ, however, the issue surely must be different” (129).

If LaGard’s reasoning on Acts 19 were correct, he would have the beginnings of a case for fellowshipping every baptized believer, regardless of the reason for their baptism. However, he would still have much to prove. For instance, even if the timing and purpose of baptism were not the issue in Acts 19, how does he know that these issues are not of consequence to God? Examples can be given from both Old and New Testaments demonstrating that God often considers the reason someone is complying with his will before he accepts them. God has rejected prayers, fasts, and sacrifices because they were not done for the right reason (Matt. 6:5; Isa. 58:4). To prove that God would not also reject baptism done for the wrong reason would truly be a very tough brief to argue.

But the reality is that LaGard is just wrong in his reasoning on Acts 19. He doesn’t even have the beginnings of a case. The basis of his reasoning is that the twelve men re-baptized in Acts 19 claimed their “faith in God … through John rather than through Jesus.” This is patently false. The context of Acts 19 would indicate that these twelve men had probably been taught by Apollos, a man who had been “instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). According to the text, the only thing Apollos did not teach accurately was baptism. He knew “the way of the Lord.” Please notice that the phrase “the way” is used seven other times in Acts, and in every other instance it has obvious reference to those who claimed their “faith in God” through Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:26; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22). 

The twelve men in Acts 19 are also called “disciples,” and although John the Baptist had disciples (cf. Matt. 9:14), every single one of the other thirty-one times Luke uses the term “disciple(s)” in Acts, he plainly refers to disciples of Christ, not John. A disciple is a learner or follower. These men were disciples of Jesus. They followed Jesus’ teaching to the extent they had correctly learned it, but they had not been taught accurately concerning the purpose and effects of baptism. But suppose this is not right; suppose these men knew nothing directly of Christ and his teachings and that they only knew what John had said and done. They would still have known that Jesus was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”! That’s what John taught (John 1:29)! They would have had faith in the redemptive power of Christ’s blood! But they had not been baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of their sins. They needed to be re-baptized for exactly the same reason people today who have not been baptized for the remission of sins today need to be — in order to be saved!

Can Baptism for the Wrong Reason Be “In the Name of Jesus”?

Read again the quotes from pages 127 and 129 of Who is My Brother? In essence LaGard is saying that those in Acts 19 had not yet been baptized “in the name of Jesus” but “today’s Baptist for example,” has been baptized “in the name of Jesus.” This is a glaring error. LaGard is claiming that any person who believes in Jesus, and has been baptized based on that belief, has been baptized “in the name of Christ” or “in the name of Jesus” — it doesn’t matter whether that person knows the meaning and purpose of baptism. According to LaGard’s reasoning, a person can be baptized not for the remission of sins (Acts 2:28), not to get into Christ (Gal. 3:27), not to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16) and still have been baptized “in the name of Jesus.” As incredible as it seems, F. LaGard Smith simply does not know what it means to do something “in the name of Jesus”! 

Jesus makes it abundantly clear in Matthew 7:22-23 that just because people claim to have done something in the Lord’s name, does not mean they have. Many claimed to prophesy in Jesus name whom he never even knew! To do something in Jesus name is to do something he has empowered, permitted, authorized, or asked us to do. 

To do something in the name of Jesus also involves doing it for the reason and purpose that he has assigned.  If we do not do what he has asked for the reason he has asked, he doesn’t accept it. How do we know this is true? Consider other things we are to do “in Jesus name.” If someone gives you a “cup of cold water” in his name, “because you belong to Christ . . . he will by no means lose his reward” (Mark 9:41). But if someone does that same charitable deed “before men, to be seen by them” he will receive “no reward” from the Father in heaven (Matt. 6:1). The reason the charitable deed is done is what determines if it is done in Jesus’ name or not. 

Similarly, when a church withdraws fellowship from a sinful member “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” they do it “that his spirit may be saved in the day of judgment” (1 Cor. 5:4-5; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). If a church withdraws from someone because it is following the lead of a bully (like Diotrophes) who wants to control everything (3 John 9-10), that church has not practiced withdrawal “in the name of Jesus,” no matter what it may claim. 

To pray “in the name of Jesus” (Eph. 5:20) “is not merely to add to one’s prayers a meaningless formula, but it is to ask something from God as Christ’s representatives on earth, in his mission and stead, in his spirit and with His aim.”2 If I pray selfishly or not according to the will of God, I am not praying in Jesus name, even if I believe in Jesus and say “in Jesus’ name, Amen” at the end of my prayer (cf. Jas. 4:3; 1 John 5:14). 

Yes, baptism in the name of Jesus requires that the one baptized “believes” on Jesus Christ (Acts 19:5; 8:37), but it also requires that the one baptized do so “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), and to “put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). No one who has failed to be baptized for these reasons can possibly be in fellowship “in Christ” with anyone who has.

Endnotes

1.    Though some may not realize it, this was Ketcherside’s position. In answer to the question “Do you think one must know at the time of baptism that it is for the remission of sins in order for it to be valid?” He wrote, “I do not. When one believes that Jesus is the Christ and God’s Son and is immersed because of that faith it is for the remission of sins, whether he knows it or not” (Mission Messenger, XXVI:12).

2.    G.F. Hawthorne, “Name,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 3. 483; 1988).

16239 Log Cabin Rd., Athens, Alabama 35611

By Connie W. Adams

Peter spoke of the certainty of what he and other apostles reported. He said they were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” and then referred to the events at the transfiguration scene to which he was a witness. He contrasted that to “cunningly devised fables.” But there was another line of evidence which declared the surety of what was reported and that was the “word of prophecy.” There is no stronger evidence for the truthfulness of the gospel than prophecy and fulfillment. The source of their message was not their own “private interpretations” but “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:16-21).

In describing this powerful evidence, Peter said prophecy was “a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (v. 19).

What Was a Prophet?

Often, in the Old Testament, God spoke of these men as “my servants the prophets” (Jer. 7:25). But how did they serve? The prophet was a mouth through which God spoke to the people. The Lord told Moses that Aaron “shall be to thee instead of a mouth” (Exod. 4:16). He would speak for Moses. Later God said, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exod. 7:1). The message in his mouth was the word given to him by inspiration. He was “moved” by the Holy Spirit. His message was two-fold. He served as a preacher of righteousness to his own generation often calling upon the people to repent. In the course of doing that, he also looked to future times and foretold events far in advance of their occurrence. There was no natural explanation for this. They were “moved” or driven, or borne along by the Holy Spirit. Human or natural origins cannot account for the predictive element in prophesy.

What Was the Dark Place?

Prophesy was divine light shining in a dark place. What was that? The Patriarchal Age has been described as the starlight age in which promises were made to patriarchs concerning a coming Savior. The Mosaic dispensation has been called the moonlight age because God raised up prophets who foretold events connected with the coming Messiah. The Gospel dispensation has been called the Sunlight age ushered in by the “day star” and signaling the dawning of the day of salvation (Mal. 4:2).

The Old Testament history was a dark place in the sense that God’s divine plan of redemption was not fully disclosed. It is described as a    “mystery.”  Paul wrote, “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3-5). That “mystery” included God’s plan to save the Gentile as well as the Jew through the gospel. That was the “fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:9). This plan included the church which was in God’s eternal purpose (vv. 10-12).

Before the fulness of this mystery was made known, prophecy was a light shining in this dark place. It pointed to future blessings and the full revelation of the mystery. As God shined the light of divine truth into the hearts of the apostles (2 Cor. 4:6), putting his treasure in these earthen vessels, even so it was the light of divine truth which shone in the hearts of his servants the prophets. 

The Dawning of the Day

If the Old Testament period was a mystery, surely the coming of Christ and the beginning of the gospel age was the dawning of the “day.” Jesus described himself to John as “the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied of Christ when he said “whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:78-79). Jesus himself declared plainly: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”(John 8:12). The mystery is revealed. The darkness is dispelled. The day has dawned, the day of which the prophets spoke.

Perverting the Prophets

It is a perversion of the prophets to look beyond the gospel age for the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies. This is the blunder of the dispensationalists and pre- millennialists. They are anachronistic  — they assign the wrong dates to events.

In Acts 13, Paul preached in Antioch of Pisidia. He had much to say about fulfillment of the prophets. In verses 22-23, he said God had sent Christ of the seed of David “which shall fulfill all my will.” Christ was sent “according to his promise.” John the Baptist “fulfilled his course” (v. 25) and pointed to the Christ of promise and prophecy. The Jewish rulers ignored their own prophets and fulfilled them in condemning Christ (v. 27). In the trials before Pilate they “fulfilled all that was written of him. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again” (vv. 32-33). The “sure mercies of David” are ours in him (v. 34).

Yet, the prophetic perverters continue to ignore these fulfillments and postpone all of that to an imagined age after the gospel age has ended. Peter nailed it down in Acts 3:24-26 when he said “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” What could be plainer? The day star has arisen and the day has dawned — the day which the prophets said should come. 

Our Unique Position

Peter wrote, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:9-12). The salvation of souls through Jesus Christ which was preached by those guided by the Holy Spirit was that to which the prophets pointed. The prophets themselves did not understand when it would be nor how it would be developed but they faithfully delivered the message which God put in their hearts and on their tongues. We walk in the sunlight of divine revelation of which the prophets inquired and searched and even angels pondered. Paul said that by the church was the “manifold wisdom of God” shown unto “principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10).

The Source of the Light in a Dark Place

The sceptic has never been able to deal with fulfilled prophesy. How could men foretell events hundreds of years in advance giving minute details of the coming Messiah and his kingdom? Were they lucky at guessing? Clairvoyant? No, the details of Psalms 22 or Isaiah 53 cannot be explained apart from Peter’s claim that “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” The source of that light shining in a dark place was the mind of God. There is no escape from this conclusion.

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109

By Bobby Graham

When the Spirit prompted Paul to write 1 Corinthians chapter 13, he was not doing so that the letter might be a bit longer or that people might have more to argue about. He further did not write for the edification of all except preachers. If it is true of love in one person, then it must be true of all: “Love does not rejoice in iniquity” (1 Cor. 13:6).

As is usually the case in the study of God’s Word, it is not the understanding of it that most challenges us, but the practice of its teaching. We accordingly give attention to both the meaning and the application of this principle.

Its Meaning

Love is the chief consideration in this principle in that it constitutes the central focus of the entire passage. After setting forth the necessity of love in verses one through three, the apostle then described the behavior of love in the next few verses. In both negative and positive ways he made it clear how love will cause us to act. In doing so he demonstrated the principle of 1 John 3:18 that love needs to be acted upon, not just talked about. One who does not conduct himself as these verses describe does not really love, in spite of all his claims to the contrary.

Love is that genuine regard for another’s good, which causes one to act with that one in mind. This kind of “active good will” for another will forbid one to exult to delight in the unrighteousness of another. This amounts to saying that one cannot act for another’s good and also rejoice in influences that bring his downfall. The one claiming to love another while acting to the contrary, or holding attitudes leading to his spiritual demise or preventing efforts to strengthen that one, is obviously not speaking the truth. There is a large discrepancy between his claim and his conduct.

The complete thrust of this passage is conduct toward others. The definition of love demonstrates such to be the case, for it stresses conduct toward others. The examples cited in the early verses dealing with the necessity of love further indicate such a thrust. The attributes of love in the section on its behavior also show that the reader should understand the matter this way. In other words, it is a sin for one to delight in another’s iniquity because of the divine requirement that he love that person, whether he be friend, enemy, neighbor, or brother in the Lord.

Its Application

The understanding of the principle involved immediately suggests that each one carefully guard his communications concerning others. In both hearing and speaking there is abundant need to be careful not to exult in the sins of others.

In hearing about another’s sinful conduct, whether in the form of confirmed reports or vicious rumor, the hearer must exercise special care. If the report is known to be true, even then it should be heard only when the information is needed by the listener to carry out the demands of love. When the true report is needed, it is still wrong for one to hear it with delight, because love does not rejoice in iniquity. The real test comes in answer to this question: Do you rejoice in someone else’s sin? If you do, then you do not love that person.

Likewise in telling of another’s unrighteous conduct, even that which is known to be true ought never to be told when one enjoys telling it, for he rejoices in that one’s sin. It should be obvious to all readers that the real problem in all of these matters lies back of the communication. It is the attitude of not loving another, as seen in the delight experienced on the occasion of his sin, error, downfall, or disadvantage, that ought to prevent one from sleeping at night.  If a loving Father would do nothing to hinder that one in sin from repenting and returning to God, then how can one claiming to be his child do otherwise?

Preachers and brethren who write for the papers need to consider these matters. The vicious rumors, vitriolic reports, sarcastic statements, envious doubts, backhand scheming, and other diabolical devices, whether heard or spoken or acted out, ought never to be named among saints professing godliness. 

Love for others demands dealing with their wrongs, in whatever form they exist (2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Tim. 5:20; Eph. 4:15). Love for others (both the offender and those endangered by his wrong) sometimes would dictate the wisdom of naming the persons in the wrong. The principle here being emphasized, however, would forbid that one who enjoys telling of the sins or errors allow others to deal with the matters.

It is difficult to understand how one who has been loved so lavishly by God, who is love, could fail to love others thus loved by the Father in heaven. “We love because He first loved us.” One who loves in this fashion will not find it possible to rejoice in the iniquity of another.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@juno.com