|
 I would like to begin by saying that brother Roberts did not disappoint me at all. I knew that he would
be plain, forthright, "hard headed," direct, using words with great force and clarity. I appreciated
that.
In the beginning I would also like to state some things with which we are in agreement. I believe I have
noted three or four. I wholeheartedly agree that there is as great a need for more sound preaching – doctrinal
preaching as anytime in my life. I also agree with the opposite, that there is an insufficient amount of sound
preaching. There is evidence that a lot of preaching being done is "positive," without contrasting it
with error. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
I have not only tried to correct these insufficiencies in my own preaching, as best I can, but these are
some of the reasons I have for conducting a "school," primarily for younger preachers.
I further agree that there is a mounting toleration among us for weakness both in doctrinal preaching
and questionable practices – including such things as lasciviousness, social drinking and even differences of "the
faith." I do not disagree with that one bit, at all.
I would like to say that I will address only those matters in which I have been personally addressed.
Others who have been addressed I will leave to them. I feel no obligation to try to defend what someone else has
said or done; either those present or not.
In reference to my "Akron sermon," from which brother Roberts quoted me on Romans 14. That chapter
plainly teaches that brethren can differ on (some) matters of "faith and doctrine" and still maintain
fellowship with each other. I say that, first, because I believe "faith" in verses twenty-two and twenty-three
is a matter of individual, personal "faith," or individual scruple. My personal judgement is that most
likely the word "faith" in verse one is not "the faith," the system revealed; though I grant
that it may be.
I think it is not correct Greek grammar to say every time the definite article is used that necessarily
means a particular thing, the particular "faith." But that is a matter of judgement, which is not a part
of my subject.
Secondly, because of how I interpret "doctrine." I believe that "doctrine" is whatever
is taught in scripture. The neat little package that we make, saying that there are times that "teaching"
is "doctrine" and at other times it is something else is a fine distinction which I do not understand
the New Testament to make. Now when adjectives are added to "doctrine," to make it more significant,
as our brother has done, I have no problem with that. I understand that the correlation of "headship"
to Christ is of greater value, and is likely to be of greater importance, than how we ought to be longsuffering
and patient with each other. I understand that my faith and hope are based upon facts and propositions. I very
clearly understand that.
That is what I have said about Romans 14, and am willing to stand upon it. However, I am willing to be
corrected upon my interpretation of Romans 14.
But if I am wrong on Romans 14, that does not equate me with saying that I believe we can have practice
in sinful things, or even things which are in error. In that very sermon from which brother Tom quoted I gave a
disclaimer three times of some things I would not put in the chapter. I do not know of a single instance in which
that connection has been made regarding that sermon, except the lesson brother Robert’s gave this morning. He certainly
did not do that at other times when I have heard him. And I don’t know of anyone else who has done it.
One of the reasons I have used the word "jingoism," as I did in a lesson at Lexington, Kentucky,
was to contrast two extremes: liberalism and sectarianism. I was trying to find a word that was a little softer
or easier than some others.
I understand the word "jingoism" to mean patriotism carried to an extreme, overabundance. When
I have heard brethren preach on these subjects – on the opposite side – I am left with an impression different
from the men criticizing them, including myself.
For example, when in the lesson this morning a quotation was given to prove that some are saying that
we can have fellowship in sinful things. I don’t teach that and I do not know of anybody who does teach that. I
do not believe that we can participate in – jointly participate – things which are sinful or things which are erroneous.
Now, I admit that there are instances in the Bible in which there are different manners used in trying to teach
brethren who are teaching sinful things. Jude, for example, in discussing scoffers who were teaching that one could
walk in his ungodly lusts. But I do not understand him to be saying that one could participate in those sinful
things, or with them in their sin as if you endorsed that while you were trying to correct them. I count it to
be "jingoism" when someone says, "you are trying to fellowship sinful things." I don’t believe
that. Now I may be doing it, but I am trying to disclaim it as hard as I possibly can.
Now another thing: this phrase "unity in diversity" is a "jingoistic" phrase. That
word is incorrect. "Jingoistic" is not the correct adjective here. It is a phrase with a strong presupposition
of error. It is like saying the people of Acts 2 and 4 were communists. They were not communists, but they did
have all things common.
The denominational use of this phrase has a presupposition of error. There was the "Ketcherside"
view of "unity in diversity" which was wrong. There is the "new hermeneutic" use of "unity
in diversity" which is wrong.
Brethren who are strong for applying this phrase against us practice "unity in diversity" themselves.
They manufacture some distinctions – I use the word "manufacture" without wanting it to be a sectarian
word which would be offensive – but I don’t exactly at this moment know another word to use – they do exactly the
same things. When a man teaches his view of a proposition – marriage and divorce, which I mentioned earlier – claiming
it to be "faith," you maintain it is not "faith." That’s what brother Halbrook does concerning
his view. He doesn’t teach that matter as his own personal scruple but as something that comes out of the Bible.
Now there are men who can tolerate what he teaches because of circumstances from the Bible. That’s exactly what
I believe we all do.
I don’t believe brother Owen is right on everything. If you wanted to know some "bad things"
about him I could give you some from the time I was working with him – things which are worse than what you fellows
have come up with!!
That is not true of course, and probably out of character regarding the dignity of this occasion. But
what my statement is, or my thought is, at this juncture, – that is precisely what other men are doing. But with
your definition of your terms you have already built a hedge around your view so that you do not appear to be inconsistent.
What I am questioning is your argument, not your conclusion. A man may be wrong on a passage and right
on an issue. Merely because he wrongly interprets a passage does not mean that he is wrong on the issue. We had
that during the "institutional fight."
Let me quickly get to another thing. The statement was made that we need to be longsuffering with brethren
in sin, etc. The bible teaches that in Ephesians 4. Also, that’s stated exactly in Jude 22. "Mercy" is
to be shown to "those in doubt." I take it that what they were "in doubt" about was the error
introduced in verse 17 – concerning the "scoffers." If I understood, brother Roberts does not think that
is a matter of "the faith." Now if he didn’t say that, I would be glad to be corrected on that. But that’s
exactly the point to the chapter. He is warning about men who were doing things which are a violation of "the
faith." Now another term is equated on the other side: but you can’t have on-going fellowship.
Well, what is toleration with patience if it is not ongoing? Oh, you say, well, it can’t be on-going beyond
a certain extent. I recognize that. But who decides that? That is where wisdom and judgement come in. Each congregation
decides that for itself. Someone who is not a part of the joint participation is not in a position to make that
judgement.
Then I believe there is a mixture ("confusion," for clarity inserted by author) of terms. Fellowship
is used as a "relationship" and as "joint participation." We all agree. I don’t find any disagreement
with the interpretation of the definitions. But I believe brother Roberts mixes those terms when he talks about
"brotherhood relationship" and the "joint participation" of a congregation, saying we have
things we are obligated to do in the fellowship; those terms are used indiscriminately.
Now, I understand that we are to pray for the brethren. I understand that the Gentiles sent funds – concrete
fellowship, the funds – over to the Jewish brethren. I follow that. But when you are discussing what is to be done
in "joint participation," there is no universal fellowship – because there is no "joint participation"
there.
Does anyone in this room think that if a man – whom you had never seen, sung or prayed with, with whom
you had never had "joint participation" with in a congregation – began to teach the "A.D. 70 doctrine"
that you can’t get up and talk against the doctrine or identify the man teaching it? Is there anyone; I’ve never
known any – well, I wouldn’t say that. I don’t know anyone here under criticism here who would say that.
But when you get down to saying about what we do with each other, you ask, "will I receive a man
into my home, or ‘give him greeting,’ whom I believe to be in doctrinal error?" Yes, I’ve done that; so have
you. You do that. I may do it for purposes of correction.
Well, you ask, "do you have in mind a real old and scholarly brother, a couple of such men? Certainly
you don’t think that such are so immature that their judgement…" Certainly I do. One of the finest men that
I know took a long time to understand and come to the view of "limited benevolence."
How long may I maintain the mode of just looking at a person "in doubt" before he needs to be
"snatched out of the fire"? That’s a dramatic thing. You are not trying to have patience or longsuffering
then. You are doing something about that. It seems to me that there is an immediate need when a fellow is "in
the fire." There, we must jerk him out or just leave him to burn up. I don’t believe it is necessary to do
that. I don’t think we have a right to decide in congregational situations when such must be done.
The third thing which I believe that Jude emphasizes is whenever you decide to "show mercy"
to a person with filthy garments it should be done "with fear." Jude says that you are imperiling your
own salvation. Who makes that decision? I make it regarding my own fellowship.
Now I could be wrong. I don’t object to being warned, "Harry, you are not preaching like you once
preached – you are not nailing things down – you are "playing with the people." It’s possible that I
might be doing that – I may be in my dotage. I recognize that the tendency of old men is to become softer and softer.
I don’t want to do that. But at the same time, and on the other hand, I’m not going to do what I do not believe
God has authorized me to do.
How much time do I have, Dan? Thank you. I wish you all well – I do. I am for personal confrontation –
it doesn’t have to be confrontational. I mean that I am for this kind of thing, 100%. Thank you very kindly.
|
