Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

Fellowship is a problem for God’s people and it is one of those problems that, by its very nature, never goes away. You can look back in the history of the church here in America and observe that issues that at one time were “on the front burner,” were fought and at least for a time, relegated to a position of less importance. But as surely as the sun rises in the morning, new issues were bound to be created and so the problem of who and what to fellowship has always been and always will be a problem. In my lifetime I have seen premillennialism, both old and new “Ketchersideism,” institutionalism and social gospelism rear their ugly heads to trouble the church. Needless to say, in each situation, long and difficult battles had to be fought. Individuals had to search the Scriptures to determine the truth about each issue, and local churches had the problem of deciding who was worthy of fellowship.

The problem of divorce and remarriage has always been somewhat of a difficulty for the Lord’s church, but only in recent years has it grown to the place where it is one of major proportions. It has often been said that anything, of a moral nature, that troubles the nation will eventually trouble the church and our generation has seen respect for marriage and the home drop to the lowest level this nation has ever known. And so, there is not a church of God in the land that does not face the problem of fellowship in regard to those divorced and remarried.

However, this article does not deal with whether or not to fellowship those living in adultery as the result of unscriptural divorces and remarriages. This article assumes that each local church knows the truth about these matters and refuses fellowship to those unworthy. The problem we address is the inconsistency of denying fellowship to those unscripturally divorced and remarried, and then upholding the hands of those who, at least in principle, have been responsible for the unscriptural relationships these people find themselves in. We suggest some passages and some examples that may address the problem.

In 1 John 1:3, John points out that the apostles’ fellowship with God and Jesus was based upon what they had “seen, heard and declared.” In addition, his reader’s fellowship with them (the apostles) had to be on the same basis. Fellowship with God and Christ, the teachers and the taught, was all determined from the same teaching. You can’t imagine anyone being out of fellowship with those who followed the apostles, and in fellowship with the apostles at the same time! There are preachers today who are teaching that the guilty party of Matthew 19:9 is free to remarry along with the innocent party. Others affirm aliens are not amenable to the authority of Christ, and so the restrictions of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 do not apply to them. A few are saying that fornication occurs at the time of the divorce, and so all that is required to marry again without sin is to repent of the sin of divorcing, In addition to these, a number of other attempts to evade the force of Matthew 19:9 are being propagated, but these illustrate what this article is all about. Some churches will not accept folks in fellowship who attempt to justify their present marriages on such teaching, but those same churches will turn around and have fellowship with the preachers responsible for those people taking such a stand!

While we have our Bibles open to 1 John 1, look at verses 6 and 7. In these verses the basis of fellowship is clearly stated. “If we walk in the light. . . ” The question before us is whether or not a preacher is walking in the light when he teaches error – error so dangerous that souls are jeopardized? Exodus 7 is the account of Israel’s battle with Amalek and his people. As the battle progressed, Aaron and Hur went to the top of a hill, and as long as Moses held his hands in the air, Israel prevailed. But Moses got tired and so in order for Israel to continue winning, Aaron and Hur held Moses’ hands in the air. Do you think for one minute that Aaron and Hur would have been justified in holding up Moses’ hands if by so doing it would have resulted in Israel’s defeat? Can we uphold the hands of a preacher if by so doing we assist him in taking souls to hell?

Now look at 2 John 9-11. It is clearly stated that anyone who goes onward and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, has forfeited the fellowship of God. Then the Holy Spirit had John to instruct us as to our attitude toward those caught up in such error by saying that we could not do anything that would leave the impression that we are bidding the false teacher God speed. In fact, if we do (v. 11), we become a partaker of his evil deeds. All of those who have divorced and remarried contrary to the teaching of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are addressed in verse 9, and all who uphold those responsible for bringing in these false doctrines are addressed in verses 10 and 11.

In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul told Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” Was Paul telling Timothy to go slow in bidding a man God speed lest he become a partaker of other men’s sins? Regardless of what “lay hands on” meant, Timothy was certainly warned in no uncertain terms that he dare not be “a partaker of other men’s sins.” The question before us is, do we violate the prohibitions of 1 Timothy 5:22 when we endorse (have fellowship with) those who teach the unscripturally divorced and remarried that they are right before God? I am convinced that most of us have “emotional problems.” Too often, when we face the application of truth, our emotions get in the way. Our love for a member of the family, a friend of long-standing, or whoever, clouds our thinking and affects our decisions. It is not always easy to say and mean, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth; command and I will obey.”

Ephesians 5:8-11 is a passage that deals directly with the problems before us. “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk as children of light. . . proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Does false teaching fall in the category of “unfruitful works of darkness”? If teaching an unscripturally divorced and remarried individual that helshe can remain in that relationship and stay in fellowship with God is a “work of darkness, ” then surely havingfellowship with that teacher would be condemned. Now go back and read verse 9: “For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.” If I teach truth I am bearing the fruit of the Spirit. If I teach error it had to come from some source other than the Holy Spirit!

In Acts 18 and 19, a situation developed that may shed some light on the problem under discussion in this article. Apollos, a preacher who was mighty in the Scriptures and eloquent in his delivery, came to Ephesus and taught false doctrine. His error was fundamental – he was teaching that when people were baptized they looked forward to the sacrifice that would cleanse them from sin. When Paul arrived in Ephesus he found twelve men who had been baptized believing the false doctrine taught by Apollos. Now in this whole affair, two fundamental corrections took place. The first involved getting the preacher straightened out. Acquila and Priscilla took care of this. They “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Paul remedied the second problem by teaching those twelve men that scriptural baptism was “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Now it is interesting that both parties involved in error made corrections. The preacher “cleaned up his act,” and those misled by this false teaching corrected their lives by obeying the truth taught by Paul. Let’s ask a couple of questions. Do you think the church in Ephesus would have extended fellowship to those twelve men if they had not obeyed the truth Paul taught them? And then, do you think Paul and his friends would have continued to give Apollos the right hand of fellowship if he had persisted in teaching John’s baptism? If your answer to the first question is “no,” how could you answer “yes” to the second question?

In the beginning of this article I named a number of problems that have plagued spiritual Zion over the years. I would never be guilty of minimizing those problems and the terrible havoc that was wrought by them. But the divorce and remarriage issue is one that strikes at the heart of homes of people world-wide, and it has to do with the morality of God’s people. May God help us to pause, take a step back, look at what we are doing to the kingdom of Christ and the souls of eternity-bound mortals, and then determine to hew the line regardless of what it may cost.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 7-8
January 2, 1992

By Weldon E. Warnock

Who is responsible for the division that exists among us over divorce and remarriage? Have some of us been too intolerant concerning divergent views? Is the issue so obscure that we can never know for sure the truth of the matter, and because of uncertainty, we must forever moderate our position on divorce and remarriage?

Let me say candidly and frankly that what God reveals about divorce and remarriage is just as plain and clear as what he says about any other theme relevant to our behavior. Jehovah doesn’t camouflage his will for us in vague nomenclature. We can, and must understand his eternal truth (Psa. 119:104,130; Jn. 8:32; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). One doesn’t need a Philadelphia lawyer to understand this passage. He might need someone to help him misunderstand it, particularly a preacher who has a new theory to articulate.

Brother H. Leo Boles wrote back in 1933, “The words of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, condemn remarriage of a divorced one, and condemn it in terms which admit of no misunderstanding (emphasis mine, wew). The Savior mentions one, and only one, cause for putting away one party to the marriage union. ” Read Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16,28,39 and see what God says about marriage, divorce and remarriage. We learn: (1) Those who have never been married may marry. (2) Those whose former companion is dead may marry. (3) Those who have put away their companion for fornication may marry. (4) Those who have a living former companion who was not put away for fornication may not marry. (5) Those who marry anyone who has a former companion (still living) who was not put away for fornication may not lawfully marry. (6) Those who were put away for sexual infidelity may not marry.

Who Is Responsible?

The cause of division and conflict among us is not what Jesus and his apostles taught, but rather what they didn’t teach. This is always the case. Those who teach, both privately and publicly, the following unscriptural positions on divorce and remarriage are the ones responsible for dividing brethren and breaching fellowship:

1. Only the church is under the New Covenant and Matthew 19:9 is addressed only to Christians. This would exclude conditions of salvation for everybody because repentance and baptism, conditions of salvation, are part of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38). Hence, this position infers universal damnation. Too, Jesus said, “whosoever,” not just the church.

2. Every marriage, including polygamy, is acceptable with God. Our Lord said in Matthew 19:5, “a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife” (not wives). Marriage is monogamous and for life (Matt. 19:5-6; Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).

3. Alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ. The great commission is universal (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47), therefore, aliens are under the gospel of Christ. Those who reject Jesus and his word will be judged by his word (Jn. 12:48).

4. One may continue in whatever marital state he is in after baptism. Not only does this allow one to live in adultery, but such reasoning would also logically permit a person to continue an incestuous, homosexual or polygamous marriage, and, you can throw in drunkenness, idolatry, thievery, denominationalism, to name a few. Are you ready for all of this?

5. The guilty party, in a case of marital infidelity, is as free to marry as the innocent party. Matthew 19:9 needs to be read more closely (and believed). Jesus said the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits (keeps on committing) adultery. This is what Jesus said about the guilty party. On the other hand, if he puts her away for fornication, then he is the innocent party and may remarry. Simple, isn’t it?

Years Past

Go back 50 to 100 years and we find a general consensus on divorce and remarriage. The preachers spoke by and large with one voice. Divorce was taught to be wrong, except for the cause of adultery. Preachers consistently contended that only fornication constituted grounds for divorce.

In the 1930s P.W. Stonestreet argued in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate “that the Bible teaches the privilege of divorce and remarriage under certain conditions is quite generally conceded.” He concluded his series by advocating that only two things can break the marriage bond – death and fornication, and in both cases remarriage is permissible, but where there was separation for other causes, which is sometimes granted, remarriage is not allowed.

H. Leo Boles wrote in the Gospel Advocate, 1933, “All Bible students know that God recognizes but one cause for absolute divorce (divorce recognized by God as well as the state). This is adultery or fornication.” The preceding statements under the sub-heading, “Years Past,” are based on the excellent article, “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in Church History, ” by Steve Wolfgang (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 4, 1990). Brother Wolfgang concludes the article with this observation, to which I concur:

My own “footnote” would be to say that it seems clear to me that some present-day views, advocated by some increasingly vocal brethren who seem bent on justifying almost every kind second (or later) marriage regardless of cause, would have been greeted with abhorrence by the vast majority of the brethren quoted here (those years ago, wew).

Again, we ask: Who is contributing to the conflict over the divorce and remarriage issue? The answer is apparent when we contrast the positions espoused today with the view of the vast majority of brethren in years gone by, as well as a great number today, I believe. Brethren stood together then in unanimity of mind pertaining to divorce and remarriage. We can too, if we hold fast to what Jesus said on the subject.

Bob Waldron aptly stated, “In the marriage, divorce, and remarriage controversy, it would be nice if we could avoid division, and I fervently hope that widespread division does not occur. Nevertheless, the prevalence of divorce, and the increase among those who hold positions on marriage and divorce which clearly contradict plain Bible teaching will force the controversy upon us” (Is It Lawjul? A Comprehensive Study of Divorce, p. 440).

Why Unity in Diversity is Not the Answer

Some are proposing that all of us accept one another, regardless of one’s position on divorce and remarriage, so that a cleavage can be avoided. “After all, this issue is not clear, so we need to have a broad tolerance for each other,” we are told. We have heard that before. It is known as “unity in diversity,” which is one of the most cunning, subtle, slipperly, double-tongued, nefarious doctrines to “come down the pike.” It is a doctrine of compromise with error. The consequences are far-reaching:

1. It weakens our confidence in the Scriptures. We are told that what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage is somewhat hazy and, therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure what the truth is. Hence, let’s not allow our differences on this issue to break fellowship. If we cannot know what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage, then perhaps we cannot know what the Bible teaches on the Lord’s supper, the kind of music in worship, whether there are to be elders and deacons, women preachers and a host of other things, even including baptism. Brethren, we can know for certain (Lk. 1:4; Jn. 7:17; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:3; 1 Jn. 1:3-5; 2:21).

2. It gives respectability to false doctrines. Regardless of how you dress up error, such as upholding an adulterous relationship, it is still error. Paul wrote, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). We should never lend dignity to perversions of truth.

3. It encourages many young preachers and immature members to compromise biblical truth. Observe the areas of the country where tolerance is strongly promoted toward dissimilar views on divorce and remarriage and you will find a loose attitude manifested in regard to the various positions. No one is right or wrong. Truth becomes subjective. You get the impression that a position on the critical issue of divorce and remarriage is no more serious than a preference for the model of car you drive. Friend, we don’t choose a position from Matthew 19:9; it is the position.

4. It instills a false sense of security. Men and women remain in sin while at the same time being approved and applauded by men. The word of God is not preached, and those living in sin are told they are in good standing before God. They are to realize that they don’t have the Father and the Son if they fail to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9).

5. It fosters brethren to be men-pleasers. Those that are pleased in reference to divorce and remarriage may be children who are remarried, or a marriage partner, the elders or those in the congregation. Everybody is accommodated and the need for distinguishing the things that differ (Phil. 1:9) is eliminated. “Harmony” and “peace” are enjoyed by all. Everything runs smoothly. Yet, but iniquity goes unchallenged! Men are pleased but the angels of heaven weep. Consider the fearless apostle Paul when he said, “for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:1).

In closing, we need to heed the advice J.W. MeGarvey gave to J.P. Sewell in 1902: “You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. . . . It won’t work.” (McGarvey was referring to the innovations of the Christian Church, wew.)

May the Lord help us to be faithful and loyal to him in all things regardless of the sacrifice we must make. Let’s teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 11-12
January 2, 1992

By H.E. Phillips

What we think, say and do bears consequences upon our own lives and impose an influence upon the lives of many other people in time, and will finally determine our destiny in eternity. It is fearful thought to ponder the effects of our teaching at the judgment. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). The authority of Christ is the only standard of right and wrong.

The effect of divorce and remarriage upon this age and upon the church is frightening. Those false teachers who try to justify it and promote it among brethren are making havoc of the church, and they are holding the gospel in unrighteousness. Defending false teachers on any subject bears serious consequences.

A false teacher is one who teaches that which is not in harmony with Divine Truth. The truth of the gospel is not inherent in any of us; it has to be learned, and the only source of truth is the word of God (Jn. 17:17).

I have never known one to admit he was a false teacher, no matter what he taught. In fact, he not only denies it, but he charges me with being a false teacher when I point out his error.

A false teacher may be one with highest degrees from the best known colleges and universities, or a veteran of many years of preaching and teaching, or even a near relative or a best friend. Anyone, without regard for age, experience, scholarship, wealth, relationship, friendship, religious fervor, who does not teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is a false teacher.

There are at least four reasons why one would defend a false teacher on divorce and remarriage:

1. He does not know what the truth is.

2. He believes and shares the views of the false teacher.

3. He loves and reveres the false teacher more than the truth.

4. He is proud and obstinate, and he will not admit error.

Some of the effects of defending false teachers on divorce and remarriage are:

A. He forfeits his fellowship with God. The word “fellowship” is applied to all of the collective activity of Christians in the body of Christ, authorized by Christ. It is used in reference to benevolence, to preaching the gospel, in praise and worship to God, and in the finance of the work of the church.

There can be no fellowship with light and darkness. Paul said: “. . . for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? . . . Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

One who preaches false doctrine on any subject, including divorce and remarriage, has no fellowship with God. He who defends a false teacher on any subject, including divorce and remarriage, has no fellowship with God. If that is not what the inspired apostle taught in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, I have no idea what the passage teaches.

We may claim fellowship one with another, but we can not have fellowship with God in anything that is not in harmony with the gospel. Fellowship with God depends upon abiding in the teaching of Christ.

B. He adversely affects his own ability to serve God. The effect upon one who defends false teachers on divorce and remarriage is very serious even if he does not recognize it. It greatly impairs his influence and ability to teach the truth on other subjects. Here are some of the effects upon him:

1. He is perceived as endorsing a doctrine that encourages fornication and adultery among young people both in and out of the church. He is defending and supporting those who boldly advocate such sins under the guise of teaching the gospel of Christ.

2. He reduces his ability and influence to convince and convict sinners of their sins. When one defends a teacher who advocates that divorced people for any cause may marry others who have been divorced and remarried, he is rendered ineffective in persuading other immoral sinners to repent and turn to God. We expect the guilty to deny this, nonetheless, it is true.

3. He reduces his ability to deal honestly with his own heart and conscience. The more one studies the word of God with an honest heart, the more truth he will learn. The more truth he learns, the more difficult it is to keep an honest heart and continue to defend the false teachers on divorce and remarriage. With the difficulty of maintaining an honest heart comes the conflict of conscience. Here will be the test of the person.

4. He becomes hostile and bitter toward those who oppose him. He begins to handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2), as also he does with statements of friends and brethren. Pride and arrogance dominate his thinking and he goes further from the truth in his reaction to those who challenge him for his defense of false teachers.

C. He becomes partaker with the sin of the false teacher. The apostle John tells us that we are not to receive those who transgress or go beyond the doctrine of Christ. Any point of teaching, practice or thinking that takes liberty with God’s word to ignore any part of it, and go beyond it, is following the false doctrine of which John speaks in 2 John 9,10.

If it is a sin to teach and practice anything contrary to the word of God, and it is, it is a sin for one to endorse and defend the false teachers. That is what 2 John 11 teaches.

D. He promotes the practice of sin. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1,2). False teachers on divorce and remarriage appeal to those who are guilty and are looking for justification, or to those who want to enter an adulterous marriage, who have little or no knowledge of what Christ taught on the subject. Millions transgress the law of Christ every day because they are ignorant of the truth (Eph. 4:18; Acts 17:23; 2 Cor. 4:3,4). False teachers on divorce and remarriage exploit this ignorance of truth to spread their corrupt teaching. All who defend these false teachers are also guilty of promoting sin.

A sinner is one who transgresses the law of Christ. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This law is the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9-10.

E. He holds the gospel in unrighteousness. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un.-odliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). Those who teach false doctrines and those who defend the false teachers “hold down, restrain” the spread of the gospel by their unrighteousness. False teachers on divorce and remarriage encourage adultery and fornication by teaching a doctrine that promotes adulterous marriages.

The word of God teaches us to oppose false teachers and avoid them (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:14). We not only are to avoid the involvement in sin, but we are also to oppose openly the practice of sin. We must have “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Paul withstood Peter to the face because he had sinned (Gal. 2:11-14).

F. He disturbs the unity of the Spirit. “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:3-6).

Unity is of God, divisions are of men (1 Cor. 15:33). When one keeps the doctrine of Christ, he is in fellowship with God and with all who walk by the same rule. False doctrines create strife and divisions which cause souls to be lost in eternity.

The word of God is powerful (Heb. 4:12). It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6;17). It is the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 1:25; 2:12); the law of the Spirit of life; the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). It is all-sufficient to perfect a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). It provides all things that pertain to life and godliness (1 Pet. 1:3). We must study it and rightly divide it (2 Tim. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 9-10
January 2, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

It has become fashionable of late to suggest that a person cannot be called a false teacher or a position labeled as false doctrine unless it can be determined that the teacher is insincere or dishonest. Virtually any position known to man regarding any biblical matter can be covered by this logic and, once accepted, becomes unassailable without the ability to read hearts and judge motives. The ultimate end of such folly is that of compromise and open-ended fellowship unless hypocrisy and dishonesty can be proven. The word of God itself is not clear enough, we are told, to be the determinant factor and fellowship becomes a matter of subjective (as opposed to objective) reasoning.

As one writer said, “You may have noticed that I have said little about false doctrine. There is a reason for that: ‘false doctrine’ is an unscriptural term!” (“Refutation By Ridicule,” R. Andrew Parker, Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 31, 1991).

Someone else has asserted: “I do not regard (name deleted) as a false teacher . . . because I am persuaded by his conduct and his arguments that he honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject” (“Divorce and Fellowship,” Ed Harrell, written speech at FC Open Forum, Feb. 1991).

Since my earliest years of preaching, I have had sectarian preachers attempt to justify their false teachings on the basis of an honest and sincere heart and the lack of clarity of the gospel message. It is most disconcerting to hear this from respected brethren.

The apostle Peter stated an opposite view rather clearly: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul also warned: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). And again: “. . . and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. . . ” (1 Tim. 1:10). “Contrary doctrine” is prohibited, though the teacher even be an angel: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).

Our proposition is before us, fairly stated, and the answer is no less manifest.

False Doctrine

Brethren, it is patently false that there is no such thing today as false doctrine or false teachers. Yes, it is true that pseudos refers to “a lie, conscious and intentional falsehood,” (see Thayer, et al). But it should be understood that not every brother who teaches “contrary doctrine” does so with conscious intent. Some surely do. However it is also true that one who deceives others may himself be deceived (2 Tim. 3:13), teaching error unintentionally. Is the “destructive heresy” any less evil because it is believed by the one who teaches it? Was Paul any less a blasphemer because he was honest (Acts 23:1)? Thayer also says that pseusma is “a falsehood, a lie; spec. the perfidy by which a man by sinning breaks faith with God.” Shall we be so naive as to suppose that no man ever broke faith with God through sin that was unintentional? Did David and Uzzah (2 Sam. 6) “break faith” with God by intentionally bringing the Ark of God home on a cart or was it an oversight? David understood that God punished them “because we did not seek Him according to the ordinance,” (1 Chron. 15:13), not for conscious intent to do wickedly. Thus we see that an act takes its nature (good or evil, moral or immoral, lie or truth) from its relation to God’s revelation and not from the attitude of the heart. Good intent and honesty cannot make false doctrine true!

Was the “man of God,” the prophet from Judah (1 Kings 13), any less dead (having been slain by a lion at the word of God) because he believed the voice of a lying prophet? He was deceived, having followed a “blind guide” (Matt. 15:14). Here is the clear example of one who is called a “man of God” breaking faith with God and paying the price because he believed a lie. Could this happen today? We are hearing it taught that one cannot break faith with God unless one is dishonest. But this does not fit the pattern of “sound words.”

Is False Doctrine Known Subjectively?

I know that Jesus can read hearts. Likewise, the apostles and inspired men and women could “discern spirits” (1 Cor. 12:10). But none this side of the miraculous age can judge whether a teacher is false by reading his heart. Brethren, the position that we can only know a man to be a false teacher when we adjudge him to be dishonest or insincere is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. This position throws the knowledge of truth vs. error into the realm of subjectivity, removing it from the objective standard: the word of God. It is an impossible situation, removing any credible assessment of right or wrong. The Baptists make this argument about their preacher who teaches that baptism is “because of” remission of sins. They say he “honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject,” therefore he must be right. We say they are wrong because the teaching violates the word of God — regardless of how honest the teacher may be. Now, our brethren are saying that one who teaches adulterous marriages to be acceptable is to be received into fellowship because “he honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject.” Is this not a double standard? Why is a Baptist wrong even though he has a sincere heart and our brother right because he has a sincere heart? Do only members of the church of Christ have honest hearts?

Another part of this fallacious argument that must be considered is that because there are so many different positions on the disputed subject, no one can be sure of where the truth actually lies; the word of God is just not clear on the subject. But again, clear to whom? And on which subjects?

Our Baptist friend, once again, teaches “salvation by faith alone” and makes six or seven arguments to prove that baptism is “because of” remission of sins. He insists that the Bible does not clearly teach what we insist that it does. We reply that one hundred faulty arguments do not change truth. “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Now our brother argues that marriage, divorce and remarriage is such a complex situation, having six or seven different positions that no one can be sure of what truth really is, therefore we must allow our brother to teach his destructive view. Truthfully, these arguments to encourage fellowship on the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue are more dangerous, if possible, than the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue itself. Adulterous marriages, as sinful as they are, do not question the clarity of God’s revelation nor demand that we read hearts nor deny that other types of false teachers exist. I respectfully urge those who advocate continued fellowship with those who teach admittedly “unsound” and “contrary” doctrines to be extremely careful lest your arguments to open a door to these brethren make it impossible to close the door to any error.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 16-17
January 2, 1992