Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The subject of the fellowship of the saints has become a matter of serious discussion in the last several decades. The ecumenical movement in denominationalism, the unity-in-diversity movement (based on the gospel/doctrine distinction) practiced by the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals, and the unity movement of Ketcherside/Garrett among our own brethren have influenced several gospel preachers among us to teach loose principles of unity. In the last two decades several among us have been hopelessly lost to the gospel of Christ because they have adopted these loose views of fellowship which allow doctrinal and moral disagreements (matters of “the faith,” Jude 3) to be matters on which we can have unity-in-diversity.

That doctrine has reared its head again among us. Some have made application of the same principle on the issue of divorce and remarriage. The consequences of this unity-in-diversity plea are serious. If unity-in-diversity can be practiced on one matter of “the faith,” it can be practiced on all matters of “the faith.” In defending unity-in-diversity, some are teaching that we should determine the bounds of Christian fellowship on these bases: (a) the clarity of the Scripture; (b) the honesty of the individual; (c) the gravity of the issue; (d) community standards of decency. Let us examine whether or not these principles will meet the demands of Scripture.

The Clarity of Scripture

The test for determining whether or not a particular matter is made a test of fellowship is said to be the clarity with which a matter is presented in the Scriptures. If the matter of “the faith” taught in the Scripture is clear, it should be made a test of fellowship. This approach has these weaknesses:

1. Who shall determine the degree of clarity with which a matter is presented? Unless we can agree on the degree of clarity with which a matter is presented, the test is worthless! Should we begin listing the matters on which biblical scholars are disagreed, we might conclude that nothing is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. Hence, this test is weak because there is no appointed standard to use in judging which matters are clearly revealed and which are not. It reduces the subject of fellowship to every man’s subjective judgment.

2. Some matters which are clearly revealed are specifically forbidden to be made tests of fellowship (Rom. 14:1-15:7). Whether or not to eat meats and whether or not to set aside a specific day as holy were matters which were expressly forbidden to be made tests of fellowship. The teaching about the subject is clear, but these matters cannot be made tests of fellowship.

3. This approach makes man a “Judge” of God’s law (Jas. 4:11). For man to sit in judgment of God to state which matters he clearly revealed betrays a subtle arrogance which borders on blasphemy. Who shall charge God with lack of clarity in revealing any part of his will for our salvation? We believe the Bible is inspired of God and fitted to man’s needs exactly as it came from his hand. Who am I to charge that God did not clearly reveal his will to man?

Honesty

Another test that has been used to determine the bounds of Christian fellowship is to pass judgment on a man’s honesty. While one sometimes has sufficient evidence to determine whether or not a man is honest, he certainly cannot extend the “right hands of fellowship” to every good, honest and sincere man (Gal. 2:9). The Lord has not given man the ability to judge the integrity of another man’s heart. Paul wrote, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11) Though we admit that dishonesty is sinful and can become one reason for breaking fellowship, being honest is not sufficient grounds to bring one into or to maintain fellowship. To make the criterion for determining the bounds of fellowship to be a man’s assessment of another man’s integrity makes determining the bounds of fellowship impossible for the simple reason that no one can judge another man’s heart. If I must extend fellowship to a man who sincerely believes that Jesus is not come in the flesh, the teachings of 1 John 4:3 are flawed. There John wrote, “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. ” Those who do not confess Christ are not of God, regardless of whether or not they are honest. The Gnostics, even the good, honest and sincere ones, could not be fellowshipped.

Consider the logical consequences of using this criterion for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship. A Christian would be compelled to extend fellowship to those who distort the mission of the church by involving the church in recreation, the worship of the church by introducing instrumental music, the organization of the church by the sponsoring church arrangement, and any other apostasy, unless he could verify the teacher and/or his disciple was dishonest. And why stop at the boundary of the “restoration movement”? He also would be logically compelled to accept those good, honest and sincere Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics on the same grounds and for the same reason.

Gravity of the Issue

Another test for the bounds of Christian fellowship is the gravity of the issue. How serious is the matter? This test is weak for many of the same reasons already cited.

1. Who determines what issues are of serious gravity? Unless we have some criteria for determining what issues are of grave importance and what issues are trivial, or unless we appoint some man or group of men to pass that judgment for us, the test is worthless. Every man becomes his own law; every individual decides for himself what is of serious consequences and what is not.

2. This test makes man a judge of the Law of God (Jas. 4:11). The Christian is required to sit in judgment of God’s law to determine which matters are serious violations and which are not. The result of this approach will be a division of the Bible’s commands into two groups – “gospel” and “doctrine, ” although the specific names applied to the two groups might be different. Man is unqualified to pass judgment on which violations of God’s laws are serious offences and which are not. Man’s assessment is limited, since man is unable to see the end from the beginning. How many could assess where the first step of apostasy might lead as sin develops?

3. This test leads to venial and mortal categories of sin. Some transgressions of the law of God will be judged as trivial and unimportant while others will be judged to be serious, making one in danger of eternal damnation. This will result in mortal/venial categories of sin, regardless of the names by which they are called.

Community Standards of Decency

Based on a misuse of 1 Corinthians 5, some have suggested that moral aberrations which break the fellowship of the saints should be limited to those areas which are condemned by the community. Notice what the passage teaches:

It is reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife (5:1).

From this passage we learn these truths: (a) There was a kind of “fornication” which would not have shocked the Gentiles. Nevertheless, this kind of fornication was also equally condemned and barred one from entrance into heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-20; Gal. 5:19-21). The local church could not fellowship these fornicators which the Gentile world would have accepted (1 Cor. 5:9-13). (b) The Gentile community would not have been shocked had this man taken his neighbor’s, fellow Christian’s, or some stranger’s wife. Nevertheless, this sin would have been in violation of the will of Christ (Matt. 19:9). This passage is not teaching that only those matters of immorality disapproved by the community can become matters of withdrawal of fellowship. If this should be done, the following results would occur:

1. The world’s standard would become the standard for the church. Rather than the church transforming the society in which its members lived (Rom. 12:1-2), the church would sink to the level of the pagan society around it.

2. The standard would vary from community to community and time to time. In Corinth in the first century, the world would have approved both women and men becoming temple prostitutes. In San Francisco, CA in the late twentieth century, the community (which elected a homosexual as its mayor) approves of homosexual behavior. In Las Vegas, NV, the community approves gambling in all its forms. Hence, if the community standards are followed, the standard of right and wrong will vary from region to region and time and time. Far from teaching that the community determines the standards of right and wrong, Paul commanded the church to withdraw itself from every fornicator, idolater, railer, drunkard, covetous person, and extortioner (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Many of these sins the pagan world tolerated as acceptable conduct. But Paul warned, “Be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2).

Weaknesses of the Subjective Approach to the Bounds of Christian Fellowship

As we assess the subjective bases for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship, we begin to see some of their common weaknesses.

1. These tests take our focus off the word of God and concentrate ourfocus on the believers. The test that emphasizes that we determine fellowship based on a man’s honesty and sincerity focuses our judgment on his heart. I may not be able to determine whether or not a man is honest, but I can determine whether or not his conduct is sinful by going to the world of God to discern good and evil.

2. These tests take ourfocus off the action andjudge the heart. Instead of looking at the man’s actions and comparing them to the teachings of the word of God, we are advised to look at the man’s heart. We do not look to see whether or not the man is keeping the commandments (1 Jn. 2:3-5), for we are told that important moral and doctrinal differences can be tolerated; instead, we judge whether or not he is honest and sincere.

3. These tests make man a judge of the Lord’s law. Instead of simply obeying the Law and calling on others to do the same, this approach to fellowship encourages and demands that man pass judgment on (a) which parts are clear; (b) which parts are of serious gravity.

Appealing to an Objective Standard

Fellowship is not to be extended at the subjective whim of every man’s personal judgment. If that were the case, there could be no right and wrong in the realm of fellowship The condemnation of Diotrephes’ refusing to fellowship those received by God demonstrates that there is an objective standard of fellowship. All other standards of fellowship are sinful (3 Jn. 9).

The book of 1 John provides guidance in finding the bounds of fellowship, teaching that these following tests should be applied: (a) Is the individual keeping the commandments? “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 Jn. 2:3-5). The man persisting in the practice or preaching of sinful conduct cannot be received into the fellowship of the saints (Rev. 2:14,20).

(b) Does he confess the truth? “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (1 Jn. 2:22-23). “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). This verse teaches us to try the spirits by asking them to confess what they believe. We are following the instructions of the Holy Spirit when we ask, “Do you believe using instrumental music in worship is sinful?” “Do you believe that the church can send contributions to human institutions, such as orphan homes, missionary societies, colleges, etc.?” “Do you believe that Matthew 19:9 applied to all men?” “Do you believe that Matthew 19:9 gives the guilty party in a divorce for fornication the right to remarriage?” By hearing what is confessed, we can know whether or not fellowship should be extended.

(c) Does he heed the word of God? “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (I Jn. 4:6). Recognizing that a man may be in sin because of ignorance, we can learn whether or not to extend the right hands of fellowship by seeing his reaction to the teaching of the word of God. The man of God listens to and obeys the teachings of the word of God. When a man of God is taught the word, he will bring his life into compliance with it; he will study patiently with you. We can determine the bounds of Christian fellowship by watching the reaction to the teachings of the word of God.

An Objection: Faith or Opinion

Objection 1: “The position on fellowship which you are espousing requires that men distinguish between matters of faith and matters of indifference. Does not this require that men become judges of the law?” No! This requires that men be students of the law to determine where the objective standard of God’s word places the particular matter – in the category of sin or category of indifference (authorized liberty). For example, I study the word of God to see if adultery is categorized as a sin or as a matter of indifference. When I see that it is called a sin and that it keeps one from heaven, I recognize that those who persist in the violation of that commandment cannot be fellowshipped (Gal. 5:19-21). I have no right to pass judgment on this law to say: “Is this clearly revealed?” “Is the matter grave?” “Is it a violation of community standards?” When I learn that God has spoken, my obligations are settled!

Objection 2: “We differ on the subject of divorce and remarriage; therefore, we should not make this matter a test of fellowship.” Men differ about nearly every subject, ranging from whether or not God exists to the action and purpose of water baptism. The fact that men differ about any and every subject does not prove that there is no absolute standard in that area.

When we acknowledge that we differ, we should commit ourselves to study with one another to arrive at the common truth of the Scriptures. We cannot escape the fact that men have reached different conclusions about many different Bible subjects, including some which relate to sin. These differences should have the effect of driving us back to the word of God to study the one divine standard of right and wrong.

Unfortunately we are living in an age during which men fear controversy and view it as unhealthy. We need to be reminded of these positive contributions from controversy: (a) We are purged by the input from one another. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). (b) The discussion of differences constantly drives men back to the word of God to see whether or not their practice is authorized in God’s word. This creates a trust in and reliance on the word of God which is healthy. (c) The discussion of differences reminds me of my own human imperfections, creating in me a humility and driving me to seek the counsel of my wise brethren. Far from being a scourge in life, healthy discussions of the Bible are one of God’s gifts to men to keep us walking in the light.

What Is the Role of Honesty in Fellowship?

Someone might sincerely ask, “If honesty is not the criterion for determining the limits of fellowship, what role does it play?” Honesty is only one test to be applied. Should I have indisuptable proof that a man is dishonest, that would show the man to be a sinner in the same manner as having reliable proof that he was guilty of adultery. Fellowship should be broken with the dishonest man for the same reason that it is broken with the adulterer – he is guilty of sin and refuses to repent.

To assume that a man’s sins do not bring him into condemnation so long as he is good, honest and sincere, and therefore should not break the fellowship of the saints, is contrary to the teaching of God’s word. The good, honest and sincere can still be lost because of their sins (Matt. 15:13-14). Their teaching still can influence others to commit sin and be lost (Matt. 15:14). Since the sins of the honest break their fellowship with God, they also will lead to a break in the fellowship of the saints. For that same reason, honesty is not an adequate test for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship.

Conclusion

The approach to learning the bounds of Christian fellowship based on (a) honesty, (b) clarity of the law, (c) gravity of the issue, and (d) community standards, is subjective. There are no objective criteria which can be brought to limit the application of these principles. If these principles are consistently followed, they will logically lead to universalism, notwithstanding the good intentions of those proposing these criteria for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, pp. 322, 342-343
June 6, 1991

By Weldon E. Warnock

Brother Hailey suggests this “universal law is the expression of God’s own character and will” (p. 35), and is “revealed in its fulness (Col. 2: 10) by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant under Christ” (p. 35). In fact, he wrote, “All the universal law . . . is included in the law of Christ” (pp. 46,49). On page 58 he stated that “Matthew 19 extends only so far as those principles are a part of God’s universal moral law.”

Now then, if the New Testament contains all of God’s moral law, why don’t we go to the New Testament on the divorce and remarriage problem to find out what the law is? If Matthew 19 “extends only so far as those principles are a part of God’s universal law,” what principle in Matthew 19 is not a part of God’s “universal moral law”?

If “all the universal law is included in the law of Christ,” then everything about the universal law on divorce and remarriage is revealed in Matthew 19 and related passages. If it is not revealed, then the “universal moral law” is not totally disclosed in the New Testament. Hence, we must “grope around in the dark” to try to find it and, when we find it, we don’t know that we got it because “the way of man is not in himself” (Jer. 10:23).

The consequences of brother Hailey’s position allows more grace to the unregenerated worldling than it does a sinful child of God. The child of the devil is favored by God over his own child. For instance, a Lutheran, fifty years old, has been divorced and remarried three times without fornication being involved in any divorce. He learns the truth and wants to be baptized. His marital status is known and he is told that he may remain married because he divorced and remarried while he was an alien.

However, a teenager, seventeen years old, obeys the gospel, and one year later he marries. The young man, after six months six months, divorces his wife for incompatibility, and marries another. After a couple of years, he comes to his senses and wants to be restored to fellowship with the Lord and the church. He is told that he will have to divorce his wife because he has no lawful right to her. The irony of it is that the Lutheran may keep his wife, but the young Christian has to abandon his. Hence, there becomes two moral standards – one for the alien and another for the Christian.

Olan Hicks, who endorses brother Hailey’s position, with the exception that it is not broad enough, recognized this inconsistency when he wrote:

An element of confusion keeps coming up in the discussion of God’s remedy for sinful divorce and remarriage. Many who accept the fact that grace blots out the past and provides a totally new start when one obeys the Gospel, then turn around and ask, “But is it different if one is already a Christian at the time this sin occurs?”

Homer Hailey’s new book The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God, also discusses the question only in reference to alien sinners who obey the Gospel. He does a good job proving that the cleansing blood of Jesus is adequate to remove this sin and the person has a completely new start. But the very same arguments that prove that also prove precisely the same thing for the sinning Christian who returns to God in real repentance.

Jerry Bassett’s new book takes a similar approach, affirming positively the cleansing and new start for the penitent alien, but of the penitent Christian who committed this sin he says he is not sure but feels we should leave his judgment to the Lord. When the question is pressed, as it is bound to be, I do not believe that either brother Hailey or brother Bassett will refuse to recognize that their proof is as applicable to the Christian who commits this sin and then repents as it is to the alien who commits it and then repents.

The idea that a sinning “alien” somehow has a different relationship to the law he violates than a sinning Christian has to the law he violates is simply an illogical miscue. – Gospel Enterprises, Feb., 1991

If brother Hicks is right (I believe he is, but he is “dead wrong” about -race blotting out unlawful spouses, legitimizing an adulterous relationship) that an alien and a Christian have the same relationship to moral law, then there was no need for brother Hailey to try to establish a universal moral law, apart from the gospel, to which all alien sinners are amenable. All, aliens and Christians, are under the same moral law, which, as brother Hailey noted, is fully revealed in the gospel.

Brother Hailey devotes two chapters to law. In these two chapters he endeavors to show: (1) There was a universal moral law that condemned the Gentiles. (2) The universal moral law is still in effect for (Jew and Gentile) unregenerated people, and (3) Aliens are not under the law of Christ. Let’s notice each one of these points in the order given.

1. There was a universal moral law that condemned the Gentiles. We concur that the Gentiles in the Old Testament era from Adam to Christ were under law, and therefore accountable to God. Through transgressing law the Gentiles were under God’s wrath. Brother Hailey introduced Romans 1:18-32 to prove his affirmation that the Gentiles were under the wrath of God (pp. 27-28).

On page 31 he injects Isaiah 24:1-5 and comments that all classes of earth’s people are under Jehovah’s judgment because they have “violated the laws and statutes of the everlasting covenant of His universal law (v. 5). ” On page 32 he says “that of which Isaiah and Micah wrote is being fulfilled,” and he also states that the judgment of God in Romans, chapters 1-3 was foretold by Isaiah, chapters 24-27.

However, in his commentary on Isaiah 24:5, he declares under Appendix A, p. 531, “Certainly the reference is not to the Mosaic covenant given to Israel at Horeb, for the heathen nations were never under it (Deut. 5:1-3); nor is the reference to the new covenant of Christ, for it lay far in the future.” If Isaiah 24:5 cannot be the new covenant because it was too far into the future, how can the same passage in his book on divorce and remarriage be a foretelling of God’s judgment in Romans 1-3 and a fulfillment of Isaiah and Micah in the Messianic age? John Calvin, as quoted by Edward Young, restricted the reference in Isaiah 24:5 to the covenant of grace made with the fathers (Isaiah, Vol. 2, p. 158).

H.C. Leopold commented on Isaiah 24:5: “There was a ‘covenant of ancient times’ (this is a more serviceable and accurate translation than ‘everlasting covenant’) that had been set up between God and men. One may refer to Gen. 9:9, 12f. as a formalized expression of the terms on which God deals with men since the times of the great flood. One may also adduce at this point Rom. 2:14ff. as a reference to the natural law written on man’s heart and functioning even where there has been no specific revelation as was granted to Israel” (Exposition of Isaiah, Vol. 1, pp. 378-379).

We wholeheartedly agree with Leopold that the law for the Gentiles was functional when there was no specific revelation given them as was granted to Israel, but now they have specific revelation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47; Jn. 12:48). Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-15 that the Gentiles had a law unto themselves and those who adhered to it showed (by conduct) the work of the law written in their hearts. This was not innate or inherent law, but that which was handed down by tradition and which they had embraced from the Jews by their association with them. God also spoke to them at times through prophets (cf. Jonah). That which was written in their hearts was no more instinctive than is the new covenant written on our hearts (Jer. 31:33 also cf. Prov. 3:3; 7:3). The Gentiles did not have a codifici law like the Jews (hence, are spoken of “as without law”), but they did by nature (habits and practices had become their nature) the things contained in the law of Moses (Rom. 2:14). This was before the gospel of Christ. They are now accountable to the law of Christ.

Brother Hailey presents Romans 5:12-21 to try to establish the origin of the universal moral law, particularly v. 20. Paul said, “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.” The word “entered” means, “along side of, in addition to.” Brother Hailey makes “along side of” mean, “Law came in with, along side of, the trespass of Adam” (p. 35). But this is conjecture! Scholarship is divided on this point with several believing the law of Moses is meant. Galatians 3:19 states the law of Moses was added which perhaps gives some insight into Romans 5:20.

The word “added” in Galatians 3:19 is an addition to the promise given to Abraham (I believe), although brother Hailey says it was an addition to the moral law since Galatians 3:15 states that when a covenant is confirmed no man addeth thereto (p. 45). He reasons that the law of Moses could not have been added to the promise because the promise was confirmed, hence nothing can be added to it (v. 15). But W.E. Vine states, “there is no contradiction of what is said in verse 15, where the word is epidiatasso . . . for there the latter word conveys the idea of supplementing an agreement already made; here in ver. 19 the meaning is not that something had been added to the promise with a view to complete it, which the Apostle denies, but that something had been given in addition to the promise, as in Rom. 5:20, ‘The law came in besides'” (Vol. 1, p. 29).

In not sinning “after the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (Rom. 5:14), brother Hailey concludes that Adam’s sin was “in violation of positive law . . . whereas, the sin of those who followed him was the violation of God’s universal moral law” (p. 34). True, Adam violated positive law (formally laid down, prescribed), but so did those who followed him. Brother Hailey assumes this position. It could be that they did not sin after the likeness of Adam’s transgression from Adam to Moses because there was no physical death penalty connected with any law as in the case of Adam. This is a most difficult passage, the interpretation of which will always be debated.

There is no argument with brother Hailey about the Gentiles having law from Adam to Christ, and if we should concede that all unregenerated people remain under such law, apart from the gospel, would not the moral law, according to brother Hailey, condemn covenant-breaking, fornication, adultery, and all other sins of a moral nature? What advantage does brother Hailey have by advocating a universal moral law for the alien that he says is “fully revealed” in the law of Christ? I fail to see any! We now proceed to the next point:

2. The universal law is still in effect. “How do we know that the moral law exists now and will continue operative until the end of time? . . . . Beginning with 1 Corinthians 15:50, the apostle sums up his argument in which he says, ‘P death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law’ (vv. 55-56) What law is the power of sin to those at the end of time? It is not the Mosaic law, for no one, Jew or Gentile, would be under it because it has been taken out of the way (Heb. 10:9,10). It is not the law of Christ, for that makes us free and alive (Rom. 8:1-3). This leaves only the universal moral law of Rom. 5:12,13,20, which was introduced with Adam and under which the world lives; it continues until the resurrection at the end of time” (p. 37).

Assuming that “law” in v. 56 is the moral law, does it sanction the loose and permissive divorces that are so prevalent today where men and women swap mates like trading cars? The word “law” has the definite article “the” before it – ho nomos, and brother Hailey puts a lot of emphasis on the definite article, or lack of it, when he discusses “Law” and “the Law” in chapter three. No definite article, he reasons, generally means the universal moral law, while the definite article identifies the law as the law of Moses. Why does not this rule apply in 1 Corinthians 15:56?

Law, any law of God, produces sin when transgressed (1 Jn. 3:4) and sin brings about death. This is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15:56. The law of Christ when violated, produces the same result as did Moses’ law, or the law of the Gentiles, sin and death. An erring brother is dead (Jas. 5:20) and Paul said of certain widows, “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Tim. 5:6). The false teachers who denied the Lord who bought them seemed to be quite dead as described by Peter (2 Pet. 2:1-22). How did they get that way? Whose law did these erring children of God transgress? The church at Sardis was dead (Rev. 3:1). How? Obviously, they violated the law of Christ.

Indeed, the law of Christ is the law of the Spirit and life (Rom. 8:2), but to be carnally-minded is death, not being subject or obedient to the gospel of Christ (Rom. 8:6-7). 1 Corinthians 15:56 says “the law” causes sin – any law of God in effect, but in our case, it would be the law of Christ whenever it is transgressed.

We are not now under a law system where salvation, theoretically, is by works (perfect law keeping). Paul wrote, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4). Charles Hodge observed, “To be slain to the law, means to be freed from the law by death. . . . Death, indeed, not our own, but ours vicariously, as we were crucified in Christ, who died on the cross in our behalf, and in our stead. It is therefore added, by the body of Christ, i.e. , by his body slain” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 216). Commenting on the same verse, Hodge states, “from whose curse Christ has redeemed not only the Jews only, but also the Gentiles, Galatians 3:13-14” (p. 217).

In Galatians 4:5 we read that Jesus came “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” There is no the before law in the Greek. Jesus came to redeem (buy off) those under law, whether the Jews under Moses’ law or the Gentiles who had a law unto themselves.

James MacKnight asserts on Galatians 4:5: “That the apostle had the Gentiles here in view, as well the Jews, is evident from ver. 8 where the Gentiles are addressed in particular. The law from which all are bought off, was not the law of Moses alone, but the law of nature as a rule of justification . . . . From all these different laws and religious institutions, Christ hath bought off, that is, delivered mankind by his death, that he might place them under the gracious gospel dispensation, and thereby bestow on them all the privileges of the sons of God” (Apostolical Epistles, p. 297).

3. Aliens are not under the law of Christ. “The alien, not being under Christ’s covenant, is not judged by its laws, but is judged by the universal moral law under which he lives” (p. 25). Of course, brother Hailey makes an exception for the terms of pardon – faith, repentance, confession and baptism, He wrote, “This is not to say that the world of the unregenerate is under ‘the law of faith’ or the gospel (except to obey its terms of pardon)” (p. 29). This exception has to be made or else no alien sinner could ever become a Christian since he is not, allegedly, under the law of Christ.

This provision for the alien is arbitrarily made in order to make the theory, that aliens are not amenable to the law of Christ, work. But why stop at the terms of pardon? Why not also include marriage and divorce? “Oh, we can’t do that; it would be going too far.” What this boils down to is fallible men deciding what portion of the gospel applies to the world and what portion does not. I am not ready to accept the dissecting and dividing of the gospel and parcel it out in bits and pieces, with this part to the alien and that part to the Christian.

Aliens Accountable to the Law of Christ

Let us notice in bringing this section to a close that alien sinners are accountable to the law of Christ for the following reasons:

(1) Gospel is applicable to all. It is to be preached to all nations and every creature. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations. . . ” (Matt. 28:19; cf . Lk. 24:47). “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). Paul said that those who obey not the gospel will be condemned (2 Thess. 1:7-9; cf. 1 Pet. 4:17).

(2) All are to hear Jesus. Peter, quoting from Deuteronomy 18:18-19, said, “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you” (Acts 3:22).

(3) All in this dispensation will be judged by the law of Christ. Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). There is nothing in this verse about the so-called universal moral law being the standard of judgment, but rather the words of Jesus. Those who lived before Christ will be judged by the law to which they were amenable.

(4) The mission of the Holy Spirit proves that all men are subject to Christ’s law. Jesus said when the Spirit comes, “he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father . . . . Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged” (Jn. 16:811). The Spirit was to convict the world of its infidelity toward the deity of Jesus Christ, of its rejection of the righteousness of Jesus and of its condemnation by being aligned with the prince of this world. These verses are robbed of all intelligent meaning if the world is not accountable to the gospel of Christ. The so-called universal moral law could not accomplish a single one of this trio of tasks.

(5) All are to repent of their sins. Paul said to the Athenians, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). When Paul said, “repent,” was not that a law of Christ? How could they have obeyed it if they were not subject to it?

(6) Aliens are sinners because they violate the moral law of God revealed in the gospel. The Corinthians had been guilty of sin because of their committing fornication, idolatry, homosexuality, theft, covetousness, drunkenness, revilement and extortion (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Also Cf. Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Pet. 4:3-4. To those who deny the Corinthians were sinners by transgressing the law of Christ, would you allow me to follow you through the exception loophole for the terms of pardon? If not, why not?

Men may submit themselves to any number of law systems, whether Jewish or pagan, but they are accountable to only one, viz., the law of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Jews and Gentiles considered themselves under their respective laws but in reality all were accountable to Christ and his law.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 304-307
May 16, 1991

By Lewis Willis

I would rather suspect that more fervent prayer has been offered to God in the last 6-8 months, than at any similar time in recent memory. The young men and women of our military were engaged in war, and we had no way of knowing how long it would last or how costly it would be in terms of lives lost. It was a frightening time and people across this nation were praying. I can’t recall how long it has been since brethren, in their public prayers, so consistently mentioned a matter, in leading the church to the Throne of Grace in prayer. I do not know the lessons we will learn from this war, but we certainly should have learned that prayer works (Jas. 5:16).

It is also worthy of note that the people of Iraq were praying to their god at the same time we were praying to Jehovah. They expected their god to deliver them, as we were asking Jehovah to deliver us. In assessing the utter defeat of Iraq, I was reminded of that occasion in Israel when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel. Sacrifices were prepared and Baal’s prophets asked Baal to show that he was a god. Nothing happened. Elijah asked Jehovah to demonstrate that he was God “that this people may know that thou art the Lord God.” God sent down fire and consumed Elijah’s sacrifice. On that occasion, when a false god entered a contest with Jehovah, the false god lost. The people cried, “The Lord, he is the God” (1 Kgs. 18:19-39). One wonders, since another contest has occurred between Jehovah and a false god, if people have had their faith in Jehovah strengthened. God has taught his people throughout history to have no other gods (Exod. 20:3). Do you suppose the people of the world will ever learn?

This is not a time, however, for God’s people to cease praying. We should as fervently pray for peace to exist in that troubled area of the world, as we prayed for an end to the war. It appears that efforts are under way to seek a resolution to those problems. God’s people will ask him to help in that solution. We must remember that God rules in the affairs of the nations (1 Chron. 29:12; 2 Chron. 20:6; Dan. 4:17,25,32; 5:21; Jn. 19:11). If he answers our prayers for peace, perhaps this world could begin to dismantle the war machines that have been built. What a relief that would be!

One of the mistakes we frequently make in exercising the privilege of prayer is that we only pray when things are bad. If God answers those prayers regarding bad things that are happening to us, why would he not answer our prayers regarding that which is good? We must learn the lesson to pray regarding good things as well. Life has to be better when God responds to his people, regarding both the good and bad in life.

A strong spirit of Patriotism exists in our nation today. People are praising our nation for the good in it, not just for its war fighting ability. We have seen the flag waved proudly again and that inspires a good feeling. Not only has the national mood improved, but we are beginning to see additional benefits from the spirit of the American people. We are told that our nation’s economy is in a recession. I heard Paul Harvey, the news commentator, say last week that the latest polls indicate that consumer confidence has turned around and people are getting on with their lives, now that the war is over. People are buying or building homes, traveling, purchasing large ticket items, etc., and these are the things that bring the economy out of recession. It is easy to bad-mouth the government, but, that sours everybody’s attitude about the government and everything else. It is refreshing to hear people say good things about our great country. And those words are helping. For the Christian, he is aware that God appoints that he honor and submit to his government (1 Pet. 2:13-17). It is a delight to see people of the world doing what faithful Christians do all the time.

Prayer helps. We saw a short war, with few allied casualties. Let us pray that we will now see great peace, not only in the Middle East, but in all the world. Let us pray that a good spirit will prevail regarding our country and its leadership. Let us pray that our domestic problems might be handled as successfully as the war was handled. As Christians, let us pray for the church, that its work will be fruitful. Let us pray that the lost will respond to the Gospel. Let us pray for our parents, that they will raise their children as God teaches. Let us pray for our young people, that they will make wise choices in their lives. Christians pray (Lk. 18:1; Rom. 8:26; Phil. 4:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:1-2,8). Not only do Christians pray, they pray in confidence, knowing that God answers the prayers that are offered “according to his will” (1 Jn. 5:14-15). “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16).

If we are not getting our prayers answered, there are two possible problems. (1) Perhaps we are not asking them “according to his will.” Or, (2) Something in our lives is hindering our prayers. Peter spoke of husbands conducting themselves as they should, “that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). The lesson is, as we take our needs to God in heaven through our prayers, we must be living soberly, righteously and godly every day (Tit. 2:11-12). When our lives are right, we will pray earnestly, knowing that prayer works!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, p. 298
May 16, 1991

By Paul K. Williams

Drums beat their monotonous single-beat rhythm announcing another ceremony of the sangomas (one of the Zulu words for “witch doctor”). Onlookers, both curious and devout, gather as the sangomas begin their ritual dance. Dressed in skins, feathers and beads they go through various gyrations, calling on the ancestors and working themselves into a state where they can commune with the spirits.

Someone gets married. Very important in the ceremony is the sangoma, sprinkling water mixed with chicken blood and invoking the blessings of the ancestors. The father of the bride gives a cow to his daughter which will be the cow of her ancestors. Whenever she wishes to commune with the ancestors of her family she can talk with the cow. It will not be killed or mistreated. It is a holy cow.

One of the huts of the family is dedicated to the ancestors. In the back is a small area filled with ashes. This is a special place for communing with the ancestors.

A young man has been rejected by a girl. He goes to the sangoma for help. She (or he) first drinks a concoction that makes her vomit. Then she sits on the ground and throws a handful of bones, stones and coins. After studying the way the bones have fallen she tells the young man his troubles. Finally she gives him a love potion guaranteed to cause the girl to love him.

A person has died – young or old, it makes no difference. The family of the dead one goes to the witch doctor and inquires why that person died. After throwing the bones the sangoma finds that a close neighbor “witched” the person and caused his death.

Thunder is greatly feared, so the witch doctor is called. He sprinkles his medicine all around the dwellings, protecting the inhabitants.

Two young wives in the kraal (cluster of dwellings which include the father, his wives, their sons, their wives and children) have failed to become pregnant. The inyanga (another kind of witch doctor) cuts all the adults with a razor blade, making shallow slits on their foreheads, chests and backs and then rubbing medicine into the cuts.

A funeral is held. All relatives and friends are present because if any one is not there, he is suspected of having caused the death. Among other rituals, a special concoction must be drunk by the relatives.

A teenaged girl was being treated for glaucoma at the hospital in Durban. Her mother took her away from that treatment and sent her to stay with a sangoma who promised a cure. The girl is now blind and a Christian. The mother continues to put hope in sangomas and I have driven long distances twice in order to bring her back from witch doctors.

A soccer team employs a witch doctor to give them medicine which will make them win. Soldiers believe that the witch doctor can make them invincible even to bullets.

The Universal Religion of Africa

Ancestor worship is the almost universal religion of Africa. Though Islam has conquered north Africa and Christianity (as the world sees it) has conquered the rest, through it all is the power of ancestor worship. It is common knowledge that the African preachers of the leading denominations consult witch doctors. The most popular denominations openly combine Christianity with ancestor worship, much as Roman Catholicism combined idolatry and Christianity in centuries past.

It makes no difference whether a person is educated or not. At a Zulu College of Education when someone stole a TV set the students seriously considered calling a witch doctor to determine who did it. (That threat worked, for the TV was returned one night.)

Their Concept of God

Africans believe in a supreme God, whom the Zulus call UNkulunkulu; however they do not understand him. To them he is far away. He sends thunder on people for unknown reasons and sometimes does bad things. It is impossible for living people to communicate with him but when a person dies his spirit goes to that land where UNkulunkulu lives. That spirit then can have some influence with him and can have influence on the lives of people living on the earth. The ancestors stand in relationship to UNkulunkulu in much the same way as the Catholic saints stand in relationship to Jehovah.

A Religion of Fear

Ancestor worship (sometimes called “animism”) is a religion of fear. The believers are always in fear of angering the ancestors. When anything goes wrong the sangoma is consulted. Invariably the diagnosis is that the worshiper has angered the ancestors and that a feast must be held. A feast is expensive because everyone must be allowed to come and eat. A cow or a goat is killed by the witch doctor in a traditional way, much beer is made, and great pots of stiff corn meal porridge are prepared. All relatives and friends and neighbors attend and many get drunk. Of course, the witch doctor gets a nice fee for his services plus the best piece of meat.

Older people are greatly honored because they will soon become ancestors. It is to your advantage if the old person dies liking you. Then he or she will be willing to help you from the spirit world.

But the ancestors are not very bright. If you move house, you must first tell the ancestors and spill beer in the right places so they will not lose track of you. If you displease the ancestors, it may be that they will kill someone else. Recently a young Christian married with out having her parents at the wedding. She was informed by her mother-in-law that the ancestors are angry with her and that they will kill someone in the family. The Christian replied, “The ancestors must be very stupid to kill someone else when I am the one who made them angry!” The mother-in-law replied quite complacently that that was true.

It is a backward-looking religion. The standards of the ancestors are the all-important things. This retards progress because progress is not according to the traditions. I think this is one very big reason why Africans failed to progress in scientific knowledge the way the Europeans and Asians did. As with the ancestor-worshiping American Indians, not even the wheel was known until the Europeans arrived.

The more I see of this religion the more I hate it. It breeds hate, suspicion and fear. There is nothing ennobling about it. The worshipers are truly slaves.

The Bible is uncompromising in its condemnation of ancestor worship and all the ceremonies that go with it. I have been surprised to see how often this false religion is condemned in the Bible. Some passages which we have typed out and duplicated for use in teaching on this subject are: Deuteronomy 20:2-6; Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 22:8-9; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-15; and Isaiah 8:19-20. There are many other passages which show that the dead have nothing to do with the living.

In standing uncompromisingly against ancestor worship the Lord’s church is unique and this causes Christians to be persecuted by their families. Almost every African Christian can tell stories about such persecution. A number of young people here have been driven from home because they stopped worshiping the ancestors. Their courage and devotion to the Lord is an inspiration.

In thinking of the influential religions of the world, do not underestimate the religion of Africa – the worship of ancestors.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 300-301
May 16, 1991