|
 Thank you, thank you, brother Owen, for your presentation. I do appreciate the opportunity for us to be
together and to study, to whatever degree we may agree or disagree. It is helpful and I do appreciate it.
I might mention that reference was made to 2 Peter 2 and the long list of character flaws that are given
there. I just want to make the observation that we would not know that additional information from the simple use
of the term "false prophet" and "false teacher." We know that information only because Peter
moved on and began to describe some particular men that he had in view. We all agree that those men would not have
to have all those characteristics; that is to say, a man today could be a false teacher without having all those
particular characteristics.
I would understand the reference "false teacher" and "false prophet" as I explained it earlier, not only from the definition of the terms themselves
but also remembering that in chapter 1, verses 16 to 21, as well as back in verse 3, Peter has emphasized that
there is a divine standard of truth, that it is a matter of divine revelation, and that it is called "a more
sure word of prophecy." He affirms that it was revealed by the Holy Spirit and then, but, in distinction from that, chapter 2, verse 1 begins with the adversative term
"but." "But there were false prophets" and
"there shall be false teachers."
So, these are men that depart from that divine standard of teaching in ways that involve people in sin
and cause their souls to be lost. That is the matter that he is discussing. He is not
discussing the point which you have touched on, and I touched on, that we may differ in some areas that do not
involve that kind of violation of divine revelation. So, I will just have to say that the context will tell us
what might be the character, if that is discussed, and it is
not even always discussed.
Also, you pointed out that there are decisions that will be made about judgments by both individuals and
churches and I agree to that. I realize, in fact, that there are two equally important dangers. One is, if I am
binding judgments, this has the potential to lead in the direction of a Daniel Sommer (1850-1940) kind of problem.
Even though he recovered himself before he died, he did a lot of damage by binding matters of judgment. I realize
that I need to be very circumspect, very careful, very cautious because there is always that potential. The same
was true when the discussion about institutionalism began, that that issue was raised. It was said that you brethren
are just binding your judgments, and those that made that charge simply made a point that needed to be reviewed.
I think they were wrong objectively, biblically, when they made that charge and obviously, in this case, I think
you are wrong to say that is our problem today, but it is not wrong for you to ask me to think about that. I do
need to think about it.
The other side of the coin is this: If in the name of judgments we are going
past the realm of Scripture, then there are grave dangers in that direction, as well.
Congregations and individuals will make decisions, as you said, about any number of matters of judgments
where we differ on how we interpret a verse or a lot of other things. The point has been made that no congregation
could exist if everybody has to think alike on every point at every level. One of the things I would like to point
out is not only I agree with that, and recognize it, but also in Matthew 5:19, Jesus makes the point that it is
those who teach men to sin who are the serious problem – not
those who are at different levels of maturity, who are just recently baptized, and who are learning other things
that enter into their growth pattern. Matthew 5:19 says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so…."
To teach the position that brother Jim Puterbaugh teaches that no matter why you are divorced, you can
marry again, or brother Homer Hailey’s position, and others that we could mention, as I understand it, they are
teaching men to sin. It is not just a matter that we differ
in levels of growth, or we differ in some judgment calls we make, and so on. No, this is involved with a doctrinal departure that causes men to sin. I do not believe that we need
to interview every prospective member of the local congregation to know what his growth level is and all of that.
I have never thought in that direction in any sense or any degree.
Also, the point is made that we all allow certain kinds of doctrinal differences. I do not believe that
all of what you are calling doctrinal differences are doctrinal differences. 2 John 9-11
speaks of "the doctrine of Christ" meaning the things that he either requires or prohibits. In other words, we are not to violate those things; if we transgress those things, we have not God.
It is not a doctrinal difference if you and I differ on a verse regarding baptism, perhaps Romans 6:3 and 4, as
to how you use that and relate that to baptism. That is not a doctrinal difference in the biblical sense of having
a doctrinal difference. We are both preaching baptism. We are both preaching what Jesus requires.
In that connection, you pointed out, and I also introduced the point, that brethren who agree doctrinally
on divorce and remarriage may have some differences in how they understand the process as it will occur, and who
must initiate what, and all of that. Brother Pickup made me aware a couple of years ago that it is being widely
reported that Mike Willis and I differ in doctrine on this. As I left home to come, I sent my manuscript to two
people for proofreading purposes by computer. After their proofreading it, not only they helped get the corrections
done, but also I received this statement from Mike Willis: "This is to affirm that I have read brother Halbrook’s
material. I agreed with him that our differences on how to treat one whose mate is guilty of fornication following
a divorce which he tried to avoid is a difference of judgment in the realm of application of the one law of divorce
and remarriage and not the teaching of another law." Harry Osborne made in essence the same statement. Those
are the two who proofread it for me.
I only mention that to say I have never had any different understanding of that than I do right now. It
was news to me when Harry Pickup brought this up that it was being reported there was a doctrinal difference. We
do not differ on what the law is. I believe you could transfer that point from the issue of divorce to the issue
of the nature of God, even some aspect of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or any Bible doctrine. On such matters, we
will differ in some areas of how we explain a different text, or how we explain some process, or how we explain
the nature of God, but I do not believe that means we all have doctrinal differences.
With regard to brother Hailey, you mentioned there may be differences of judgment and you asked who decides
which difficult points on marriage and divorce we could tolerate and still have fellowship. I am sympathetic to
our need to discuss that, but I believe we have something altogether different with reference to brother Hailey – and it is not just brother Hailey, of course, but his case just represents
the problem we have. With reference to brother Hailey, and brother Puterbaugh, and others
we could mention, we all already agree that what they teach is flagrant doctrinal error.
We all already agree to that. So, our problem today is not in the realm of some judgments we make, in working through
things with people with whom we have doctrinal unity. We do not have that doctrinal unity with Hailey and that
is where our problem has been.
Again I say that, yes, we all make judgments on whom we fellowship and under what circumstances, but the
problem or the issue before us today is what principles will we follow in making those
judgments. I freely grant the widest possible freedom in the judgments of how we go about
all the points of application that you have to go through. But the point is, what are
the principles that are going to guide us in dealing with, for instance, the type of
doctrine brother Hailey, brother Puterbaugh, and others have taught. Does that kind of doctrine come under Romans
14, so that we are going to use different judgments working through a discussion in that sense? Or, do they come
under 2 John 9-11, so that our judgments are simply in the area of when and how we carry out the process of the
application of the fellowship issue. I do not have that kind of judgment to make with somebody with whom I have
already agreed doctrinally. It is a different kind of judgment call. But the point is, what
kind of principles are we following?
We may have some follow-up discussion on this, but in your speech at Temple Terrace in 1993 (I have listened
to the tape and it has been transcribed), you said you were addressing who was a false teacher and the fellowship
question in the context of the current controversy on marriage, divorce and remarriage. I understood you to say
today that you made the statement you were not discussing fellowship in the context of divorce and remarriage.
I cannot explain that contradiction but the tape and the transcription will show very differently.
You mentioned that you would not fellowship those who are involved with instrumental music and institutionalism
because those issues involve group action and I would suggest that it even goes deeper than that. It involves violations
of this doctrine of Christ, that which is required or that which is prohibited, as set forth in 2 John 9-11. Here,
again, when and how the process of some of those lines are drawn also involves a judgment, many judgment calls,
and I grant all of that. And I do not say someone has to designate a false teacher the moment I do. But the point
is, what guiding principles are we working with?
Are we working with the principle that this violates something Christ revealed? Or, are we dealing with
an area like Romans 14 where it is a personal conscience issue? Are we into the details of how to carry out a process,
but we all agree what the process is?
I see statements that you and others have made, and the practices involved, as going much further than
just the process among those who already agree what the doctrine is. I quoted from the sermon in North Carolina
where you specifically addressed fellowship in regard to brother Hailey (during a question-and-answer period).
You said you differ with him on marriage and divorce but you differ with those of us who have argued we could not
fellowship people holding his position. So again I say, to me, that suggests there is a
difference in principle here more than a difference in making judgments of how to carry
out a process where we agree what our principles are.
So, yes, each of us will have to step back and look at these issues in the following sense: Are we potentially
having a Daniel Sommer kind of thing where we are judging each other over matters that are purely matters of judgment
and process? Or, is it the kind of thing that has happened through the years with instrumental music and other
controversies that a new apostasy is developing and that we are in the stage of either recognizing or not recognizing
that to be our danger?
I want to go back to 1 John, chapter 4 again because I got mixed signals and certainly you may feel that
you could clarify it. You made statements that a man was not a false teacher solely because of his doctrine, as
I understood it at some points in your lesson, but that there must be a character issue. Then, at another time
I understood you to say that maybe there is not a character issue. In 1 John 4 again in verses 1 to 3, when he
says that we have got to try to examine the spirits in regard to the particular issue before them, I understand
this to be purely a doctrinal test: "Hereby know ye the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." But what about
his motives, his intentions, his character? He does not take that up. Those are matters of concern, I certainly,
certainly agree but that is not the way you make this decision. "And every spirit that confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."
Then, in verse 6, it seems to me that he is laying down the fact that that kind of approach applies wherever
man violates the apostolic word. It is not limited to this one issue, in other words. In the rest of this book,
if I understand primarily the other issue John is fighting, it is whether it is possible to fellowship God while
you continue to sin. And how do we settle that issue? Well, again, by the doctrinal test given in 1 John 4, verse 6: "We (that is, the apostles) are of God: He that knoweth God heareth
us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." So,
it has to be decided on a doctrinal basis.
|
