Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Why do we believe? What is the basis of Christian faith? This is the most fundamental issue I can think of. The Bible says, “Without faith it, is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him ” (Heb. 11:6). Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 5:7 says “we walk by faith” and Hebrews 10:38 says “the just shall live by faith. ” Obviously, it is crucial that we have a proper concept of Christian faith.

Just what is meant, by “faith”? One of the definitions given for “faith” in the Random House Dictionary is “‘confidence or trust in a person or thing.”(1) The same basic definition also applies in the original language. The Greek word pistis, translated “faith,” occurs 244 times in the New Testament. Arndt and Gingrich say the word describes that “trust” and “confidence” we have that is directed toward God and Christ, their revelations, teachings, promises, their power and readiness to aid.(2) It is defined by W.E. Vine as “primarily, firm persuasion, a conviction based upon bearing, and is used in the N.T. always of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual.”(3) Thayer defines “faith” as .”conviction of the truth of anything, belief . . . in the N.T. of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervor born of faith and conjoined with it . . . a. when it relates to God, pistis is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ.”(4)

Consider the inspired description of faith that is found in Hebrews 11:1. The King James Version renders this passage, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. “There are a number of different translations of this passage, but perhaps the most accurate is from the American Standard Version: “Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.”

Faith is the confidence or assurance of things hoped for. The Greek word translated “substance” (KJV) or “assurance” (ASV, NASV) refers literally to “something that stands under,” such as the foundation, or substructure of a building.(5) What about the, original word rendered “evidence” (KJV) or “conviction” (ASV, NASVP This term would commonly be used in a court of law. “It refers to an argument of disproof or refutation; it is used of cross-examining someone with a view to establishing evidence. It refers also to the basis on which a person is convicted.”(6) In what sense is faith the conviction of unseen realities? “The thought would seem to be that as, for example, the eyes prove certain acts in the visible world, so faith enables one to Act with a view of facts in the higher, invisible realm. . . Faith is the full assurance and inner conviction that gives men the power to stake their lives on unseen realities.”(7)

Thus faith is the very foundation of Christianity. It is the bedrock of a life of obedience. If faith is absent, spirituality cannot exist, and hope is doomed to crumble. Faith is the fundamental principle of the religion of Christ. Yet, a great many people who consider themselves Christians don’t really understand what faith is, or at least how it comes. What is the source of faith? – There are three distinct approaches to this issue, and each affects our basic concept of religion. Two of these ideas are without any scriptural foundation, and yet their acceptance is widespread. Our faith must be firmly grounded. If our foundation is faulty, it’s unlikely that the structure we build on it will be strong.

A. Is Faith Based On An Emotional Experience?

Many teach that you must have some kind of experience in order to believe. Our Pentecostal friends affirm that faith is based on some kind of physical sensation or feeling, an emotional experience, something that you see or hear. They look for a vision; they listen for a still small voice’ some even claim to have seen Jesus. These experiences constitute the basis of their faith.

Yet when we examine the description of faith, we find that “faith is assurance of things hoped for, and a conviction of things not seen.” The concept that you must have an emotional experience in order to believe is a denial of the basic nature of Christian faith. That’s not faith at all: it is knowledge or experience. If you see Jesus, you have knowledge instead of faith. One day faith will become sight and hope will be realized (1 Cor. 13:13), but for now, “we walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

Consider the man who is a charismatic assembly where emotions run high and everybody is praying, singing, chanting and “speaking in tongues.” This man wants to be saved. He’s been told that if he doesn’t have an experience, he will be lost. Getting down on his knees in prayer, he works himself up to a fever pitch. What eventually happens? He sees. The man has an experience that is very real to him. Did God do it? I think not. The highly emotional’setting led to his experience. This demonstrates the extraordinary power of suggestion, not the power of God.

In such cases, the rational process that God has ordained for the production of faith is no longer effective. New Testament faith was based on a careful consideration of the evidence. For example, the disciples at Berea were praised because “they received the word with great eagerness examining the Scriptures to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11, NASV). However, you don’t reason with a person who has “seen.” You can talk to him all day long and not get anywhere. Quoting passages to refute his erroneous stance doesn’t faze him. His faith will not be affected by any sort of contrary evidence, no matter how strong. He believes that faith is based on some emotional experience. He’s had that, therefore the reasons don’t matter. He is intransigent and closed-minded. He is going to believe, regardless! This is not Bible faith: this is blind faith!

Ai the heart of the issue is a misconception concerning the nature of faith and how it is attained. The thing to do is to go back and study the New Testament and see how the early Christians came to believe.

B. Is Religion Based On A “Leap of Faith”?

Some of the more liberal denominations say that faith has no rational basis. They reject the inspiration of the Scriptures, the doctrine of miracles, the Genesis account of creation, the deity of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, etc. However, they still claim to believe in God. Some think that logic and reason can be found in one corner, and Christianity stands in another. If a person believes, he does so in spite of the evidence, with no rational basis for his conviction. Supposedly, the stronger your faith is in something that is irrational, the better Christian you are. Despite the fact that this is a commonly accepted view, it has nothing to do with biblical faith.

The facts do not mean much to this individual because he did not arrive at faith on the basis of the evidence. He was taught that in order to believe, he must ignore the evidence. He feels virtuous in believing the unbelievable. You come with facts to alter his position and he has no problem at all in disregarding them. He thinks that is what faith is all about.

H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), the famous American writer, editor and critic, said, “Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”(8) This is not an adequate definition for New Testament faith, but it accurately describes the “faith” of those who have lost faith. This kind of faith could be defined as “willful belief.” It involves making a decision to believe without compelling reasons for doing so. The reasons for believing often have nothing to do with the logic of the matter; it may be comforting, socially advantageous, or simply easier to accept some position than to think and reason. The person who is a member of some political party simply because his family has always been a member of the party demonstrates this kind of faith. The person who is a member of the church simply because his family was “Church of Christ” demonstrates this kind of faith.

The dictionary definition of prejudice comes very close to this concept. To be prejudiced is to accept a conclusion without the evidence, or before you hear the evidence. Intellectual dishonesty is holding to a position in spite of contradictory evidence. I don’t believe that we walk by prejudice as children of God. Unfortunately it is a pretty good description of the conviction of some people.

C. Is Faith Based on Weighing the Evidence?

As we look to the NT, we clearly see the biblical concept of faith. John states, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30,31). Paul also wrote, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

For faith to be of any value, it must be based on evidence. This, in fact, is the nature of biblical faith. It is rational and reasonable. In considering an issue, we should give a fair-minded and objective evaluation of all sides. After a forthright assessment, we should go with whichever side has the most evidence. This attitude reflects a love for truth. It demonstrates a respect for the facts above whatever prejudices we may hold.

This kind of faith could be described as “an hypothesis based upon evidence.” Here there is evidence. There may not be enough evidence to prove the matter beyond any shadow of a doubt. However, the evidence is still powerful and compelling. For the sake of illustration, this is how we believe that there was a man named Napoleon. Look at the testimony of historians. View the paintings by those who saw him. Consider his impact upon history. When the evidence is weighed, we conclude that it is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve. It would be foolish not to believe in Napoleon because the evidence is overwhelming!

What about our view of man’s origin? First, we must recognize that neither evolution nor creation can be scientifically proven. The scientific method is based on observation, testing and repeatability, and neither of these philosophies can be so examined. Evolution and creationism are both theories, or more specifically hypotheses, since neither can be reproduced in a laboratory. An hypothesis is “a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probably in the light of established facts.”(9) Since neither explanation can be proven, both are accepted by faith. However, the important question is this: which hypothesis fits the facts better with fewer secondary assumptions? A rational and unbiased examination of all the evidence (biblical, scientific and moral) points to Divine Creation as the best explanation of man’s origin.

God has not left himself without witness! New Testament faith has a rational foundation. It is based upon the testimony of the creation (Psa. 19:1; Rom. 1:20; Acts 14:17), upon the unity and consistency of the Bible, upon the purity of its ethics, upon its relevance to human needs, upon the historical trustworthiness of the Bible, upon the scientific accuracy of the Bible, upon the evidence of fulfilled prophecy (2 Pet. 1:19), upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, upon the signs and wonders that confirmed the word (Heb. 2:3-4), upon the eye-witness testimony of the apostles (Acts 2:32).(10)

Belief in the existence of God cannot be absolutely proved. No man has seen God. He cannot be put in the test-tube and examined. Yet, the evidence is compelling! An open minded consideration of the issue can lead to only one conclusion. Faith! It is demanded by the evidence. It is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve.

Conclusion

What kind of problems do we see in the body of Christ today? Do you know Christians who sit around and do nothing? Who will not teach? Who are weak and feeble? Who are not right with God and you can’t do anything about it? Who don’t have the courage to stand for the Lord? A lack of faith, or at least a misconception of its basic nature, is at the root of those problems.

We need to apply what the inspired writer was talking about in Hebrews 5:12. He said, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not ofstrong meat. ” This normally brings to mind repentance and baptism, but the first “first principle” is faith. We need to go back and build our faith in the right way. We need to know what we believe and why. We need to be able to give a defense of our faith. If we would do this, we would be amazed at the changes in the church of Christ. We would see a situation much more like New Testament times where disciples went everywhere preaching the Word. Such persons will strive to be right with God. They will stand in time of trial, even in the face of death. However, the key is to have a love for the truth, to examine the evidence with honesty and integrity, to have a respect for the facts, and to be willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.

Endnotes

1. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed. Unabridged, s.v., “Faith.”

2. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “pistis.”

3. W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, s.v. “Faith.”

4. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “Pistis, ” #4102.

5. Neil Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 204.

6. Lightfoot, p. 206.

7. Lightfoot, p. 206.

8. James Randi, The Faith Healers (New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 6.

9. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed. Unabridged, s.v., “Hypothesis.”

10. For more information on this subject, see Homer Hailey’s Internal Evidences of Christianity.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 332-333, 339
June 1, 1989

By David Halter

In our small, rural congregation we all take turns cleaning the church building. My turn came to clean the building and I began the task of vacuuming the auditorium. I had just begun to clean one pew and noticed an extremely large amount of dirt on the floor. It seems that some members had not cleaned their feet very well before coming into the auditorium. As I observed the dirt I began to become angry at whoever had done this! I thought that they were very thoughtless in failing to clean off their shoes.

I made up my mind right then and there to preach to the brethren about it. I was ready to let them have it! I couldn’t wait until Sunday so I could give both barrels to them! But just then, I thought, “What if there were no dirt to vacuum, no trash to pick up, no chalkboard to wipe?”

After some thought, I decided to go ahead and preach, but the lesson I now had decided to preach was quite different from the one I first thought of. As I continued cleaning the building several thoughts came to my mind and I wanted to share them with you.

Dirt on the Porch and in the Foyer

This is evidence that people are coming to church (Heb. 10:25). Some people don’t think to wipe their feet, they do not intentionally dirty up the porch and foyer. After all, they could have kept their dirt at home or they could have taken it to the beach, mall, movies or fishing. Thanks for bringing your dirty feet to church!

Dirt on the Seats and Floor

This is evidence that folks are sitting and listening to the teacher or preacher (Acts 20:7-9). It is also evidence they were studying the lesson during Bible class or at least were present (2 Tim. 2:15). After all, they could have stayed at home and watched TV, played a game of ball or visited friends! Thanks for bringing your dirt to church!

Dirt in the Classrooms

This is evidence that parents were bringing their children to church (Matt. 18:1-6). Jesus gave the answer that he did in response to the question by his disciples: “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” I think I know who, don’t you? After all, they could have let their children sleep late, or spend the night with friends! Thanks for bringing your children to church!

Dust on the Chalkboards

This is evidence that faithful brethren were fulfilling the God given role of teaching (2 Tim. 2:2). I thought, at least we had those who were willing, able and ready to do this great work (Heb. 5:12)! After all, they could have said to let someone else do it because they did not have the time or talent. Thanks for dusting up the chalkboards!

Conclusion

Boy! How I had changed my mind! I thought, what an honor and privilege to clean the building! How thankful I should be that brethren were so thoughtful of the Lord’s day worship services. After all, what would a church building be like without at least a little dirt?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 340
June 1, 1989

By Frank Jamerson

The little book of Obadiah is the most “minor” of the Minor Prophets, but it contains two major lessons that are never outdated. Those lessons which we wish to discuss are the hatred expressed in indifference and the sin of pride.

The Edomites were relatives of Israel, being descendants of Esau. The struggle began in the womb of Rebekah (Gen. 25:2426) and continued even to the confrontation between Jesus and the Herods who were Idumeans. Herod the Great (whose father and mother were Idumeans) tried to kill Jesus at birth (Matt. 2), and Herod Antipas (the son of Herod the Great and Malthrace, who was a Samaritan) had John beheaded and tried Jesus, after he was sent from Pilate (Lk. 23:7-12).

This history may seem insignificant, but it relates to the issue of whether God’s marriage law applies to those not under the covenant. John said to Herod Antipas, who had the wife of his half-brother Philip, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matt. 14:4). Other passages also show that God’s marriage law applies to aliens. Paul told the Corinthians that they were to withdraw from brethren who were fornicators, but not “from the fornicators of the world.” (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Again, he wrote “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God’s marriage law was given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24) and it has applied to all their descendants. The Gentiles who “had not the law” (Rom. 2:14) committed fornication (Rom. 1:29), which includes every form of sexual immorality, including “adultery” (1Cor. 5:2) and “homosexuality” (Jude 7).

Though this is an important lesson, it is not the main lesson we wish to discuss in this article. Notice that Edom claimed to be neutral toward Israel, but God said: “In the day that you stood on the other side – In the day that strangers carried captive his forces, when foreigners entered the gates and cast lots for Jerusalem – even you were as one of them” (Obad. 11). Their indifference was not really indifference, for they “gazed” and “rejoiced” in the day of Judah’s destruction, and even entered the gate to collect spoils (vv. 12,13). Their hatred for their distant brethren was professed in indifference but practiced by active participation when the opportunity arose. Have you ever noticed how often men today who claim that they will “have nothing to do with that person” are not really indifferent, or neutral, when the opportunity arises to do damage?

Another lesson Obadiah taught Edom was the danger of pride. They thought that they were impregnable because of their physical surroundings, but God said: “The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who dwell in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; you who say in your heart, who will bring me down to the ground? Though you exalt yourself as high as the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down, says the Lord” (vv. 3,4).

Whether it is “face pride” (how we look), race pride (racial prejudice) or “grace pride” (feeling we are better than others because of our knowledge of truth), it is all wrong, and God would say to us: “I will bring you down!” Jesus said concerning the publican who was humble in his attitude, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk. 18:14). Peter wrote: “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6).

God has a way of humbling the proud. Have you ever noticed how often single people who know so much about how children should be raised become silent after they have children, or how often those who say “that will never happen to me,” end up “eating crow”? A haughty, unforgiving, self-righteous spirit is the very opposite of the spirit of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees were “too good” to associate with sinners, and even condemned Jesus for doing so, but Jesus had more sympathy for the sinners than the proud Pharisees had for Jesus! If we are not careful, we can show more of the Pharisaical spirit than the spirit of Christ. “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18).

Let us remember the fact that hatred may be shown in a professed indifference, and that pride is deceptive. We must humble ourselves as little children and be committed to doing right and standing for it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 325
June 1, 1989

By Mike Willis

Reproduced on the opposite page is an article by Roy H. Lanier, Jr. entitled “The ‘Para-Church’: Is It God’s?” The article is a well-written article, emphasizing the need for the church not to become a fund-raising organization for human institutions. The article appeared in the March 1989 issue of the Gospel Advocate.

I met brother Lanier for the first time at the Nashville meeting in December 1988. He is a likeable brother and, so far as I know, an honorable man and gentleman. He has treated me with kindness in every association we have had. He understands that brethren can differ without having personal animosity, so I am confident that these comments will be understood to be those from a concerned brother, not full of enmity and malice.

Brother Lanier is a part of the new “anti’s,” those conservative liberals who are disgusted at the liberalism they are witnessing among their brethren. He is more nearly identified with the Spiritual Sword brethren than with any other identifiable group among the liberals.

Nevertheless, brother Lanier was among the liberals when the issues divided brethren twenty to thirty years ago. He was more nearly identified with the old Firm Foundation liberals (who believed that orphan homes had to be under elderships to be scriptural; those under a board of directors were unscriptural) than with their Gospel Advocate cousins (who believed that homes under elderships were sinful; they had to be under a board of directors). He was part of that generation who wanted church supported orphan homes (only if they were organized under elderships) and small fellowship halls. He did not accept church support of colleges, medical missions, day care centers’, schools, camps, nor gyms.

Although the Gospel Advocate published brother Lanier’s article, they are not within a million miles of conceding that he is right in arguing “that today’s generation of churches has carelessly crossed some vital boundaries” of truth by making donations to “extra-organisms” (orphanages, schools, medical units, etc.). By publishing this article the Advocate seems to be throwing him a sop to keep him contented and working with them, instead of breaking fellowship with them. Remember that Editor Kearley teaches, in contrast to Lanier, that churches “may assist with child care centers, Christian schools, Christian camps, and other expedient means,” i.e. what Lanier calls “extra-organisms” (Gospel Advocate [November 1988], p. 5).

Brother Lanier might write strongly against the church making contributions to human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, medical missions, missionary societies, etc.), but do not be deceived. It is doubtful that brother Lanier will ever say that those who practice such things are guilty of sin, separated from God, and should not be fellowshipped.

In the paper which he submitted for the Nashville meeting, brother Lanier argued the same position which is reproduced in the article on the opposite page. After distinguishing the differences between those brethren who believe orphan homes should be under a board of directors and those who say they should be under elders, he wrote,

This is not the position of this paper (i.e., that orphan homes can be under a board of directors, mw), but neither is it a position that requires a break in fellowship. Such arguments are so technical and so dependent upon human reasoning, conclusions, and inferences, that it behooves Christians not to divide the Body of Christ over such conclusions.

Can you imagine David Lipscomb writing a “para-church” article regarding the missionary society in the following words?

This is not the position of this paper (i.e. that missionary societies can be under a board of directors, mw), but neither is it a position that requires a break in fellowship. Such arguments are so technical and so dependent upon human reasoning, conclusions, and inferences, that it behooves Christians not to divide the Body of Christ over such conclusions.

Neither would brother Lanier have written these words regarding the missionary societies of the Christian Church!

I cannot understand brother Lanier putting church support of human institutions (benevolent societies) in the category of sin and then calling on brethren not to allow to sin to break their fellowship one with another. If this isl matter of sin, it falls into the category of 2 John 9-11 and not in the category of Romans 14. If it falls into the category of Romans 14, it is judgment and not sin.

Brother Lanier Can See Clearly

Brother Lanier does not have trouble seeing that one cannot tolerate the practice of sin or those who teach false doctrine when the issue is instrumental music. The Independent Christian Church brethren, such as Don DeWelt, do not insist that churches of Christ start using instruments of music in order for fellowship to exist. They do not insist that we cease believing that using instruments of music in worship is sinful. They are content that we continue practicing what we practice and preaching what we believe, so long as we extend the right hands of fellowship to those in the Christian Church who use instruments of music in worship. Brother Lanier can see that will not work on the issue of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Why can’t he see that this will not work on the subject of church support of human institutions?

More of the Same

Brother Lanier is not the only person affected with this mistaken view. There are those among us who believe the same as he does, but on different issues. They will acknowledge that what a brother is teaching is false doctrine and then continue to call on him for prayer, invite him for lectureships, and treat him as a faithful brother. Such an approach amounts to a policy of accommodation and compromise with false doctrine. This is not the Bible approach to digression and apostasy over matter such as church support of “extra-organisms,” the social gospel agenda, instrumental music in worship, premillennialism, or divorce and remarriage.

Can you image the apostle Paul doing the same with some Judaizing brother in the first century? Can you picture him

saying, “I do not agree with what brother Judaizer has written on justification, but he has such a thorough understanding of the Old Testament history and law that we are going to – invite him for our annual lectureship at Antioch this spring”? Can you image him introducing Hymenaeus saying, “Brethren, I want you to know that I disagree with what brother Hymenaeus has written on the resurrection, for he says that the resurrection has passed already, but we have invited him to preach on love to us here at Ephesus”? Here is what he did write:

This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare: holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:18-20).

But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

These words are from the pen of the same apostle who wrote Romans 14. Romans 14 does not apply to matters which fall into a category of sin rather than judgment. Romans 14 is limited to things that are “clean” (Rom. 14:14),,areas in which God receives the man (Rom. 14:3). Until one can show that God receives a man practicing sin, defending it as righteous conduct and encouraging others to join him in participating in it, he should not apply Romans 14 to that matter.

How to Treat False Teachers

The Scriptures tell us how to treat false teachers. Here are some of its demands:

1. They should be marked and avoided. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

2. They should not be associated with. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).

3. They should be cast out of the church. In the allegory of Hagar and Sarah, Paul cited the example of Abraham’s casting out Ishmael to exhort that the Judaizers be cast out of the church (Gal. 4:21-30). This was necessary because “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9).

4. They should be rebuked. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather rebuke them” (Eph. 5:11). Paul told Titus to “rebuke sharply” the Cretian false prophets (Tit. 1:13). (Some seem more interested in rebuking those who rebuke false teachers than in rebuking a false teacher.)

5. Deliver them to Satan. Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20).

6. Do not eat with them or bid them God speed. “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . . If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11).

7. Stop their mouths. “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:10-11).

8. Reject them. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Tit. 3:10).

Conclusion

The Lord rebuked the church at Thyatira for following the course which brother Lanier is following regarding church support of human institutions. The Lord wrote:

Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not (Rev. 2:20-21).

The Lord gave Jezebel a time to repent before making war against her. When she refused to repent, he came against her in judgment (2:22-23). The church at Thyatira sinned in tolerating Jezebel and her false teaching.

I recognize that a period of study, as we presently are in on the divorce and remarriage issue, will be necessary on any issue which confronts the Lord’s people. The breaking of fellowship is not the first step to be taken when a walk toward apostasy begins, but the last. Some of us might think that step should be taken at a different time than others, and each must give the other room to exercise his best judgment. However, the Scriptures are clear that false doctrine and false teachers cannot be tolerated among the saints. He who tolerates false doctrine and extends fellowship to false teachers does so in violation of the word of God.

Furthermore, experience has shown us that toleration of false doctrine and false teaching will not work. Men such as brother Lanier have held their position on church support of human institutions for many years. They have continued to invite those who disagreed with them to meetings and recognized them as faithful brethren, making no distinction between those who believe and practice one thing and those who believe and practice another. Remember J.W. McGarvey’s lamentable and pitiful parallel position regarding the instrument. Brother McGarvey opposed the instrument and condemned it as sin; yet he continued to invite those who disagreed to meetings, recognized them as faithful brethren, making no distinction between those who believed and practiced one thing and those who believed and practiced another. Likewise, brother Lanier continues to tolerate church support of human institutions while they have continued to expand. The Laniers have not stopped the spread of institutionalism among their number, despite their occasional “para-church” articles, just as McGarvey did not top instrumental music despite his occasional articles ag dst instruments of music in worship. The position of calling a practice sin but fellowshipping those who practice the sin did not work. It never will work. I hope we do not have to learn this lesson again from experience on the divorce and remarriage issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 322, 341-342
June 1, 1989