Sound Teaching: Podcasts, Sermons & Articles by Stan CoxFeature editor’s note: We reprint the following article from brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (no relation to this writer) because of its relevancy to mission work. Issues over which brethren divided 50 years ago are still before us as those among us doing mission work encounter brethren supported and/or sent by churches involved in the very things about which brother Wallace writes. Also, some of the same dangers of which he warns with regards to premillennial brethren of the past are applicable to brethren who have drifted into errors of our day.
The Issues Before Us
by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
¿Qué tan seguro es que la Biblia de ahora contiene exactamente lo mismo que los escritos originales? No tenemos los documentos originales escritos por Moisés, Pablo, o Lucas, y demás (llamados autógrafos). En cambio, sólo tenemos copias de los originales, que son tan fieles como los originales. Pero, ¿cómo podemos saber que el texto original de la Biblia ha sido preservado fielmente?
It has been suggested by some that it is a violation of the context to apply the principles of 2 John 9-11 to modern issues since the context of John’s epistles was to combat gnosticism. Thus, the “doctrine of Christ” had to do with the “doctrine about Christ” and not the “doctrine which Christ taught.” Many have concluded that this limited application of 2 John 9-11 does not preclude fellowship with those who introduce unauthorized practices in our time since they cannot be classed as “gnostic.” Distinction is made between “gospel and doctrine,” “grace and law,” “the cross and the church” in such a way as to restrict salvation to belief in this limited “gospel” while denying that any “doctrine” can condemn. Consequently, there is a broadening of fellowship with many that extends to those accepting the “humanity and deity of Christ,” even though they are guilty of practicing denominational error.
Are we limited in our use of scripture to a very narrow application that has to do only with the immediate context, or does God expect us to apply the principles of context to situations not directly addressed in the text? Certainly, there should never be a violation of context. A passage must never be lifted from its setting and used to prove something that is contradictory or foreign to the principle expressed by inspiration. But God’s word is so constructed so as to be able to fore-know all error and to teach against it in principle, if not specifically. For example, though pornography on the internet did not exist when the New Testament was written, the principle of pornography being sinful is expressed in such a manner that we can know pornography is wrong because the context of Galatians 5 condemns every expression of it. Would it be a violation of context to apply Galatians 5:19ff to internet sins?
Those who do not believe in Jesus will sometimes claim that there is no historical evidence that He ever existed. This is a most amazing claim, which is very easily proven false, and yet it is often taught in high school classrooms and on college campuses as though it were a matter of fact. It is true that there is no credible record of His actual teachings, and no reliable history of His life, apart from the New Testament. However, it is also true that Jesus is mentioned by name by non-Christian writers in the first century. Furthermore, there are abundant references to His disciples in the writings of ancient secular historians. That Jesus existed is a matter of undeniable fact.
Martin Luther translated the Bible into the common language of his country in the early 1500′s. This act, coupled with his stance against certain practices of the Catholic Church, was genuinely courageous. That fact, however, doesn’t negate the false teaching he advocated. Luther compounded his error by presumptuously adding the word alone to the phrase “justified by faith” in his German translation of Romans.* His intent was to bolster his teaching that faith only was required for salvation. It speaks volumes that Luther was not satisfied with the Scriptures as they were written but felt the need to tamper with them. This same problem exists today in our English Bibles. A number are paraphrases rather than actual translations. As such they are men’s commentaries of the Scriptures which are being pawned off as Bibles to a largely unsuspecting public. Several religious groups have their own Bibles which change some of the original texts to teach their peculiar doctrines. Care needs to be taken even when selecting actual translations since the doctrinal biases or religious skepticism of some translators have crept into their work.
Angels seem to be everywhere now; in television shows, toy stores, craft malls, and in porcelain figurines. These pretty winged creatures, male and female, are the latest craze. This makes it even harder to teach our children what angels really are, but does it really matter if we tell them that angels do not have wings? Do we need to be that particular?
I believe we do because by teaching our children exactly what the Bible reveals about angels, we are laying a pattern for scriptural accuracy and authority in their minds. We are teaching an attitude toward the scripture; an attitude that we must speak accurately of holy things, as the oracles of God, and that we must respect what God has said in scripture.
The state of Texas (where I live) is only one of many which run a lottery. The proliferation of these games of chance brings to the forefront questions concerning the morality of gambling. Is gambling a sin? This article will attempt to answer honestly that question by an appeal to scripture. However, before the Bible is discussed in this regard, might I make a few salient points about lotteries in particular?
To be “bound” is to be restricted or tied up. Herod physically “bound” John and put him in prison (Matthew 14:3). Figuratively, Paul was “bound in the spirit”, in the sense that apprehension of the unknown had him tied up (Acts 20:22). By contrast, to be “loosed” is to be set free from that which restricts us. The disciples were to “loose” the ass which had been tied up (Mark 11:2,4). In raising Jesus from the dead, God “loosed the pains of death”, for He was not to be “holden of it” (Acts 2:24).
The Scriptures speak of husbands and wives being “bound” and “loosed”. By whom or what is a husband and wife bound? How long are they bound? If two people are not married any longer, are they no longer bound? Can one mate be “loosed” while the other mate “bound”?
There are few families today that have not been touched by divorce. As society continuously degrades into worldliness and rebellion towards God, there is a reciprocal effect upon God’s people. Many of the current issues concerning this doctrine have risen due to complex situations in the lives of all people. There was not as much controversy in times past, because the problem was not so prevalent. If you will examine an almanac, you will notice that divorce rates started to skyrocket in the sixties and have only recently slowed down it’s pace. Much of the reason for the current slowing in the divorce rate is the current trend among couples to live together without benefit of marriage.
Most Christians have come across these doctrines and have studied the Bible to determine what the scriptures actually teach. How do we know what is right and wrong regarding these issues? Can we allow anyone to teach any doctrine they want, regardless of the effect it will have on others?
In recent years, more and more brethren (mostly well-known “gospel” preachers) have taken up the position that adultery is a non-sexual covenant breaking. This is a theory that many Christians have never entertained, and, at one time, they would have laughed at a person for even mentioning such. However, it is catching on as more and more people find themselves in a second or third marriage. Let us first notice what the Word of God says about adultery, then compare it to what men are saying about adultery.
Now, what does that convey to you? Do you get the idea that the woman was found in the “gate of the city” filing divorce papers on her husband, or filing for a second marriage license, or taking vows to contract a second marriage? Rather, doesn’t the term “taken in adultery” describe the fact that the woman was found having sexual relations with a man?
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness….Therefore ‘Come out from among them and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and You shall be my sons and daughters’ saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
Please notice in particular that part of this scripture which raises the question, “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?” and “What communion has light with darkness?”
Does this scripture teach that we must not have fellowship with all unrighteousness or may we have fellowship with some unrighteousness?
Does this scripture teach that we must not have communion with all darkness or that we may have communion with some darkness?
Is it right to pick and choose which unrighteousness and which darkness we may retain in our fellowship?
Harry Osborne tells the story of being asked by a young man in Lithuania, I believe, concerning what the Bible says on the subject of second marriages. Harry did what any sound gospel preacher would do in that situation — he turned to the passages that tell us what the Lord says on that subject, and simply read what they say. The young man politely listened to what Harry read and seemed satisfied with the simple truth. Harry, anticipating, as most of us would, some question about the matter, if not some controversy, asked if the man understood the answer to his question. The man responded affirmatively. Harry was persistent, believing surely that the man would raise some objection to the Lord’s simple teaching. Instead, the young man became a bit perturbed at Harry for the interaction. The fact is, the man understood what the Lord said, on his first hearing of it.
Editors Note: Watchman Magazine is running the following series of articles in the July, August, September and October issues of the Magazine. If you have not yet read Part One of the study, which appeared in the July issue, please do so. Combined, these four articles represent a very thorough study of the subject. Enjoy!
Doctrine, Grace and Salvation
Some brethren disagree over whether doctrine affects salvation and whether we should warn others of false doctrine.
Galatians 1:6-9 affirms that we are removed from the grace of Christ when we accept teaching which is different from what the apostles of Christ preached and what was received from them in the first century. This being the case, how much of the apostolic doctrine can one differ with and remain in the grace of Christ: 1%? 5%? 30%? 50%? 80%? 90%? Must a person be in error on every point of doctrine before God’s grace is forfeited in his life? The Holy Spirit teaches us that doctrinal error causes one to fall from grace (Gal. 5:4). Therefore, doctrinal error is sin against God. The hypothesizing, speculating, conjecturing and rationalizing of men will not alter this God-given truth (1 Tim. 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 1:13-14).
