Mark And Avoid!

Jimmie B. Hill


"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

It has been said that the idea of "branding" a brother (or a group of brethren) is not in the word translated "mark" in this verse. This is true concerning the single word of the text. However, the context of Romans 16:17 demands the act of taking note of false teachers so that we might be able to avoid them and to warn others of them. This text demands that those who teach things contrary to the doctrine of the Lord be branded or exposed in some way for what they are. Still, some say, "Well, that is unkind, unloving, and un-Christ-like." But, is it? Jesus said, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." He also said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Did not Jesus love them? Was Christ unkind? Yet, he did expose the Pharisees and the Sadducees and warn others of them.

Brethren, false doctrines do not flourish without false teachers. Therefore, those that propagate and promote divisive doctrines must be dealt with. Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said we are to "mark...and avoid" them. Therefore, there must be a constant vigilance in everyone who follows Christ to observe, look toward, take aim at, take heed to, mark, the false teacher (Rom. 16:17; Jude 3). But instead, there are those who claim loyalty and allegiance to Christ, all the while sympathizing with false teachers and/or those who promote them. This verse demands we practice discrimination in preachers and preaching and teachers and teaching.

Is it the mark of spiritual maturity and superiority not to observe the things which are taught by the brethren? If the false teacher is ignored, will he just go away? Will the problems he causes cease to exist? Brother Dub McClish stated it this way: "Like the fool who places his hand over the gas gauge in his car thinking the gas will last indefinitely if he doesn't see it register "empty", so is the brother who prides himself in not knowing or taking note of who is teaching or practicing this or that, thinking it will go away if it is ignored. A generation of ignoring instead of taking note has shown the predictable evil fruits of disobeying divine instruction." Patience? Yes! Tolerance? For a time. But just how long do we sit idly by and allow false teachers and their promoters to bring dishonor to our God and his precious, soul-saving Word?

To "mark" simply means to observe very carefully and point out false teachers to others that they may not be beguiled. One who causes division is one who disrupts the unity of the body of Christ. One who causes offences is one who causes an occasion of stumbling to one along the spiritual pathway of life. Both are wrong and "contrary to the doctrine which you have learned."

To avoid means "to keep no company with." Thayer defines it as to "keep aloof from one's society; to shun one." Christians should keep no company with false teachers but should shun them as they would the Devil.

Brethren, if we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). His commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3) but are life everlasting (John 12:50). If we truly love him, we will obey his command to "mark" and "avoid" them. Brethren, let us all pray for resolve, repentance, and a revival of spirit. May God's will be done in all things!

_________________________________
3987 Vandever Road
Crossville, TN 38555
“Seek The Old Paths,” Vol. 7, No. 10

The Liberals Will Never Win

Charles Blair


Our loyalty, first of all, must be to God.
Then that loyalty can be extended to God's people who walk in the light of God's Word.


It is discouraging to read of whole congregations which have moved away from the foundation of truth. Men who at one time were known for being faithful to the Lord are casting their lots with those who have departed from the faith. In the face of the ever growing information about departures, it is hard for Christians to not become discouraged. It would "appear" that the liberals are gaining more and more ground every week that passes.

In the face of such departures, it is important for us to remind ourselves that the liberal and his cause will never win. He may enjoy his popularity and succeed at deceiving God's people. However, his tenure is limited by God. One can make a study of the history of mankind beginning in Genesis all the way through Revelation and there are periods when sin and iniquity run rampant in the hearts of individuals. The same history also reveals there is always a remnant which chooses God's way.

Satan seduced a world in Noah's day, but he could not get Noah and his family. Eight precious souls were saved by their obedience to God (1 Peter 3:20-21) -- eight souls who determined they would not live unrighteous lives. Which will it be for us? We can either be a part of the movement AWAY from God or be a part of the remnant that HOLDS onto God's revealed Word. Such a precious choice still rests with the individual. We can be like those of the Bible and make a choice for ourselves and for our families (Joshua 24:15).

Why must we be seduced by all the power games which immature Christians try to play out? Do we not possess enough common sense to know that we cannot merge with denominational concepts without losing what we are as the people of God? Neither can we continue to support those whose ideas are no longer true and faithful to the Word. I have attended youth forums and such-like where the idea was to "shock" the audience with some statement or action. That may very well work on young and impressionable minds, but it will not stand among mature Christians.

Our loyalty, first of all, must be to God. Then that loyalty can be extended to God's people who walk in the light of God's Word (1 John 1:7). Loyalty cannot be extended to those who leave the faith or those who help the ones who have left the faith. Why should I be loyal to one who rejects the Biblical idea of grace? I should not speak on lectureships with him, nor try to pretend I am doing God a service by appearing with him. I owe no man on this earth who has left God's Word as the standard, my loyalty.

The liberal does not understand loyalty. He will spend his time attacking the body of Christ with his words. He will appeal to those from whom he can extract money or sympathy. You see, the problem is, you can just shock people so much and then you have nothing left. How very sad that men leave the truth thinking it will make them popular. Popularity, like glory, is fleeting. The liberal cannot win because he does not have on the inside what is necessary to make the journey home to heaven. Get on the winning side while there is still time.


2842 Shelby St.
Indianapolis, IN 46203
“Seek The Old Paths,” Vol. 8, No. 6

The title of the following article “sounds real good,” but is it really a workable solution? Both “love” and “truth” are found in the scriptures separately, but to my knowledge, the Holy Scripture does not indicate that “love and truth” is the way to unity. And there’s probably a good reason for it—it is not achievable by our human nature, no matter how we try.

It might be interesting to note if the author is or is attempting to be in the neutral zone in stating that by “love and truth,” we can accept all positions—no matter how opposing and contradictory they may be. Perhaps, “love and truth” is better than the trademark of the change agents that it is all about “love” for one another or that it is all about “relationships.”

The Scripture clearly teaches: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (I Cor. 1:10)

The Scripture also clearly teaches: “MARK” and “AVOID” them that “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Romans 16:17).

So, what is your opinion regarding the article from “The Christian Chronicle”?

______________________________

EDITORIAL

Love and truth the way to unity

By Bailey McBride
The Christian Chronicle
June 16, 2004

Being one in Christ becomes difficult as various camps draw lines in churches of Christ

Tensions within the churches of Christ are higher than in the past two decades. Those who think of themselves as progressive or liberal seem determined to hasten change. Those who think of themselves as traditional or conservative seem defensive and ready to fight for their positions. The tensions stirred by these attitudes compound the problems of isolation and fragmentation.

In one camp, people are attempting to adjust to the ecumenical and postmodern views that all religions and philosophies are guiding to the same destination. Leaders within this group are advocating that the only essential element of truth is the sonship and lordship of Jesus Christ. And many younger church members are open to studying and following views such as Islam and Eastern religions. Most in this camp, however, believe that faith in Jesus will eventually draw people back to the core teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Some in this group work with no thought or concern for the other camp, an indifference that contradicts Scriptural principles for dealing with other Christians.

The other camp would draw much narrower boundaries for the Kingdom, some excluding all but those who are baptized biblically, worship as the church did in the early decades of the last century, and have no association with others who are seeking Christ. These believers are devoted to the Word. Fearful of change and “change-agents,” they stress doctrinal points that create the distinctiveness of the “Church of Christ” of the mid-twentieth century. This camp seems always watching the other camp to identify and then expose its failures and transgressions.

The tensions have developed around many issues that have been around for centuries, but some are uniquely related to the Restoration views of the church. The principal questions on the table for debate seem to deal with the following matters:


• Authority and inerrancy of Scripture
  
  
• Translations of the Bible
  
  
• Biblical interpretation that discounts many teachings/practices as reflections of first-century culture
  
  
• Music: a cappella singing led by praise teams, with the use of instrumental music for special occasions
  
  
• Confusing traditional practices and divine authority
  
  
• Shifting from elder-led to ministerial staff-led churches
  
  
• View that what one believes is unimportant — only one’s sincerity
  
  
• Urban churches vs. rural/small town churches;
  
  
• Attitudes about connections with those not in “Churches of Christ”
  
  
• The name “Church of Christ” and its history.
  
  
These questions pose serious obstacles to perfect unity, but as people with a rich heritage of logical thinking and analysis we should have the necessary tools to work out our differences. As people devoted to Biblical authority and truth we are accustomed to searching for truth with open Bible and minds. Where we are often challenged is in our understanding of love’s important work in binding people with differences into a united family. “Love must be sincere. ... Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.” Romans 12:9-10.

With a passion for both truth and love, we must love the church enough to be one in Christ.

_________________________________________

Ronald Gilbert It is a serious thing to teach false doctrine. When we sing the words of this song we also teach false doctrine. Perhaps it is time to consider closely our singing. Even though some songs may encourage us to hum while others sing we cannot do so and please God. We cannot teach premillennialism in our songs and stand guiltless before God. Worship is a serious matter. It is time for elders and preachers and all members to get serious and follow God's Word. "God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24)

Singing human compositions is a defacto false doctrine: it created one of the first apostasies and first divisions in the church.

After looking at the latest issue of S.T.O.P. I got excited when I looked at Ronald Gilbert's article but my ardor soon cooled. Until we get the ACT OF SINGING corrected conservative churches of Christ must bear the full burden of the collapse into the heresy that CHURCH IS ONLY ABOUT WORSHIP and SINGING is a legal act of worship which you must perform. Both external singing and external melody or instruments is more akin to sorcery or witchcraft than worship in the PLACE of the human spirit.

While many of our songs teach heresy, it is a Biblical and historical fact that none of the song books and none of the songs prevent churches from directly violating the example of Jesus, the direct commands of Paul and all of church history for hundreds of years.

From Ephraim the Syrian and Aphrahat the Persian Sage and other resources. Churches did not apostasize from the command to use the INSPIRED TEXT or the Psalms for centuries. However, group singing as a ACT OF WORSHIP began in about the year 373.

To Ephraim pertains the high and unique distinction of having originated-or at least given its living impulse to-a new departure in sacred literature; and that, not for his own country merely, but for Christendom.


From him came, if not the first idea, at all events the first successful example,
of making song an essential constituent of public worship,
and an exponent of theological teaching;
and from him it spread and prevailed through
the Eastern Churches, and affected even those of the West.


To the Hymns, on which chiefly his fame rests, the Syriac ritual in all its forms owes much of its strength and richness; and to them is largely due the place which Hymnody holds throughout the Church everywhere.

Paul doesn't even dip his pen when he goes from Romans "chapter 14" to chapter 15. This chapter informs the readers that the PLEASURING which Jesus never did and Paul outlaws is arousing the emotions or pleasure centers: even the body language intends to LIFT UP the audience. A related word speaks of SINGING in the pagan sense of the word. A closely related word is HERESY which means that someone intends to use arousal singing to lift the people up to CARRY THEM AWAY for his own purposes.

We have not LOST all of that literature about SINGING as a ritual in church: it never existed because they didn't SING in the synagogue but SPOKE using the same word Paul commanded when he said SPEAK to one another using the inspired text.

Next, discerning readers will see that as instruments and loud rejoicing as the ALARM was outlawed for the assembly (Qahal, church in the wilderness) because that was the WAR CHANT. Psalm 41 prophesied that Judas would use it against Jesus.

As a remedy for the singing of THRESKIA (religion of the pagans) Paul wrote another "singing" passage as he often does without using the word singing. His remedy is:

Don't use arousal singing to pleasure
Speak to one another (Eph 5; Col 3) with ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH
They were to use THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN or SCRIPTURE.
They would TEACH and ADMONISH one another
They would glorify God and not the modern song writer
They would keep the unity which the "musical sectarians" in Rome would destroy
if you permitted them to dispute or dialog about "personal preferences."

Paul's solution is to DIALOG the revealed Word of God and then no one can get divisive that THEIR doubts are even considered.

We don't have a dictionary of first century words. We know about PSALLO only from its use in literature. It means to make a noise by pulling WITH THE FINGERS and suddenly letting to to LEAVE A MARK. This speaks of the BOW and the father was Apollo or Abbadon or Apollyon. He shot forth real arrows to grind up a literal heart, he shot forth hymns and he shot forth LOVE ARROWS.

All of the literature from which we get PLUCKING (only) record older males plucking the harp stings to groom a young boy for pedastery--homosexuality with a young boy. Its only "musical" connection is that people often spoke of plucking the HEART STRINGS and SHOOTING FORTH songs.

That's why paul put the SINGING as arousal and MELODY in the PLACE of the human heart which is the only PLACE God looks for our worship: He does not judge by what He SEES or HEARS and is not worshipped in houses build by human hands or the works of human hands.

Is anyone ready to hear the UNIVERSAL truth that arousal singing creates the "spiritual anxiety created by religious rituals" Jesus died to remove as the LADED BURDEN of the clergy ? No.

Is anyone ready to grasp that arousal singing is lumped with sorcery and creating panic in the spirit and has NO connection with the SPIRIT? No.

Is anyone ready to grasp that singing as an ACT of worship took almost 400 years to intrude its way into the church. Jesus died to build an ekklesia which means synagogue which means "school of the Bible." That was the clear understanding of the Campbells in the American Restoration Movement which rapidly apostasized from the Presbyterian restoration of the BIBLICAL TEXT in Calvin's RESTORATION MOVEMENT hundreds of years earlier.

Is anyone ready to give up instruments? No.

Ronald has made a first step but he will not be able to GO ALL THE WAY.

wow donnie. I was not sure anyone was legalistic enough to pick on old Bailey. I know Bailey, havent seen him in years, but i know him. Kindest, most sincere man you ever want to meet, and you go and pick on him. Unbelievable.

You know him?

no, im younger than Bailey. And Bailey is no change agent, either. upstanding elder at a conservative coc.
BTW, i think old paul was a legalist, mysogonist (sic), and a homophobe!
I think he basically started his own church. Also, the coC could be called the church of paul.

Basically what the NT is, PAUL!

Does being wrong about an issue in and of itself make a person a false teacher’? Is every such person rightly labeled a false teacher?

Read and compare Acts 18:24-28 and 2 Peter 2:1-3. The term “false teacher” is not used regarding Apollos even though he was in error regarding some of his teaching.

On the other hand, the term is used regarding those of whom Peter was speaking. Both are examples of people who were wrong in their teaching. What’s the difference between the two?

James W

James W...In looking at Apollos we find this man from Alexandria "an eloquent or learned man. Bold, Fervent, Mighty in the Jewish Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. He taught accuretly the things of Jesus.

Yet, this preacher, Apollos, lacked the Holy Spirit. He lacked the forgiveness of sins. He lacked the baptism of Jesus as did the twelve at Ephesus in Acts 19.

Interesting that Apollos did not become angry when confronted by Aquila and Priscilla. He listened to further instruction. He, no doubt was rebaptized ("knowing only the baptism of John"). He than could preach the whole truth. Sent with a letter of recommendation from the church in Ephesus to the church at Corinth. We see him again in the church in Achaia.

Peter, I believe is speaking to disciples who were returning to thir old way of life "denying the Lord." Note verse 21 of chapter 2:
"For if after they have escaped the polutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therin, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."
Jack Mann

James, I am glad you brought that up. The term "false teacher" is used WAY too liberally on this site and in conservative C of C circles. A false teacher is someone who denies the divinity of Christ. It is NOT someone who says it is OK to worship with instruments since THERE IS NO PROHIBITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!

To call someone a false teacher is to accuse them of not being a Christian, not loving God, and denying His son. It is not a term to be thrown out flippantly. If you accuse someone of that (even if you don't do it to their face, as no one on this site ever does), you better be SURE, and you better hope beyond hope that they are, because it is VERY SERIOUS.

I am surprised at the hypocrisy of people on this site that claim to love the Bible so much, but will violate it by making damning accusations against their brothers just because they disagree. (Read: NOT "got it wrong"; disagree- there's a difference).

Sublett spews lies in every post he makes, but I think he still loves God and believes in the diety of Christ. I might even call him a few things, but I wouldn't call him a false teacher. Reign it in my crazy conservative brothers.

Thank you Jack and Amazed. As I understand it, since both Apollos and those of whom Peter spoke taught things that were false, the term “false teacher” apparently refers to their character and not solely to their teaching.

Accordingly, a man who is truly dedicated to knowing the Lord is not deemed as false even though some of his teachings may be in error. The term seems to be reserved for those who willingly rebel against truth and strive to lead others astray.

If we’re truly going to speak as the Bible speaks, perhaps we should be more careful in our use of this term. In other words, we ought not be so quick to judge the hearts and motives of those with whom we disagree.

James

James W....Interesting web that we weeve. No doubt, 90 percent who read this board have been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Since we received the "promise" of this gift, why the different understanding of the same Word? Is God the Author of confussion?

Would this come under the heading of "Sanctification?" To me, sanctification means transformation of the mind by the "law of association." Transformation of the mind is not "instant" as taught by the Charasmatics, but is a gradual process, by association, as taught by Paul.

Paul would say,"Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. But we all, with unvailed face beholding as in a glass, the glory (or character) of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:17,18). Here we have transformation of the mind by associating. "Fulfil you my joy, that you be likeminded, having the same love, being one accord, of ONE MIND.
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves, Look not ever man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this MIND BE IN YOU, WHICH WAS ALSO IN CHRIST." We need to read Paul's words about "unity" in Philippians 2. Words like "mercy" "compassion" and "comfort" come from the pen of the inspired Apostle.

What image do we display? Are our minds controlled from "glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord" "the Spirit that gives life?"
Is there "Liberty in Christ Jesus" or not? "If any man among you seems to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain."....Christian, this is the acid test.
Jack Mann