|
 I would like to express my appreciation to all you brethren for being here, not only to Jim and Wayne
for their behind-the-scenes participation in letter writing and things of that nature, but all of you for your
own sacrifices. It’s a pleasure to be with you and I endorse heartily what brother Pickup said with regard to these
times. We need more open doors, more talking rather than less, and I lend myself to that sort of thing while there
are others more capable of doing that than I.
I’ll try to address a number of things that brother Pickup said. I doubt if I get to all of those as I
feel he did not address all that I said; in fifteen minutes you cannot.
There have been statements made by others in conversations about the fact that injuries have been made
to all of us with regard to reputations and things charged. That’s a two way street. I understand that. It is not
my desire to injure anyone and I try to be as honest and represent as clearly as I can what people say and not
misrepresent someone. But this issue is not an artificial issue, it’s not an imagined, contrived thing that some
brethren just sort of cooked up out of a political fervor or because of some sectarian spirit. A clear defense
has been made that would include brother Hailey in fellowship in his error. While I recognize that what I would
address a good bit is what brother Pickup said, at the same time the charge of misrepresentation has been made
and I want to address that as well in this rebuttal because I used a quotation by brother Owen that he feels is
a misrepresentation. I’m against misrepresentation because it’s sinful. If I do so, I do so unwillingly and in
this case, I do not think it is a misrepresentation. What was referred to was the sermon in Temple Terrace. He
stated that he was teaching the same sermon he’s preached for 30 years on fellowship and that it’s misrepresentation
to say that it was a sermon about fellowship with divorce and remarriage. But it was very clearly stated to be
"in the context of a series of lessons on divorce and remarriage." At the same time, a tract by brother
Earl Kimbrough was handed out and highly commended by brother Owen and the tract took the position that brethren
should not divide over the divorce issue because of historical things. It is stated that honest and studious brethren
have differed over the question of remarriage of divorced Christians for many years without it becoming a fellowship
issue until the present time. Brother Owen said that he endorsed the tract, "I heartily endorse the material
that Kimbrough has in this paper." When you take the overall view of the entire sermon, there is no misrepresentation.
I do not believe that’s been so.
I believe that the issue with Romans 14 is at the heart of this and brother Pickup said that he did not
know anyone teaching fellowship with sinful matters. That’s what this is all about and quotes have been stated
clearly showing that’s the case. This is not a contrived issue. There are those who say the weak brother thought
the strong brother "sinned" but that the strong brother was to be "received." As that statement
is made (and other statements have made it even more clearly than that), it certainly teaches that that’s the case.
So the controversy continues with regard to some people insisting that "sinful matters" are covered by
Romans 14. We used to play "hot potato" and nobody wants to take the hot potato. Someone, somewhere is
teaching that sinful matters belong in Romans 14. If all this company does not do that, we need to get with those
who are teaching that because it is being taught. This is not a contrived issue. Brother Harrell has taught that
he can have fellowship with brother Hailey in his teaching about adulterous marriages. That is a misuse of Romans
14. That is an issue that we need to understand is being taught and regarding those who attack us so clearly, I
ask you why has there not been a public repudiation, a public teaching against that doctrine as clearly as you’ve
spoken against us and what we’re trying to do? So there are matters that raise questions about Romans 14.
Some insist that Romans 14 does not apply to matters of indifference to God, but applies to moral and
doctrinal things and I’ll talk about that in just a moment. A lot has been said about judgments. It’d be foolish
of me not to recognize that some judgments apply in a lot of areas. But the doctrine of Christ does not allow judgments.
Let me explain what I’m saying. The doctrine of Christ does not allow judgments – either we obey or we do not obey
the doctrine of Christ. The expression "litmus test" has been used. Brother Pickup used the word "case
law." When you use the word "case law" and apply that to the music question or the Lord’s Supper
or institutionalism, the doctrine of Christ is clear. The doctrine of Christ is clear on the matter of the Lord’s
Supper. Now call that "case law" if you want to, call that a "litmus test" if you want. The
doctrine of Christ is understandable, the doctrine of Christ is teachable. For example, baptism for the remission
of sins can be called a "litmus test" by our denominational friends. It could be called a matter of "case
law." They do it. Institutional brethren talk about our view with regard to institutions as matters of "case
law." Books have been written about that. Now with regard to baptism, brother Wally Adams, while living in
North Carolina at one time, had a brother who believed that running water ought to be used for baptism. That was
his matter of judgment on that. Brother Adams solved that by opening the faucet on the baptistry and opening the
drain and so they had running water. Well, that’s a matter of judgment, of course – but not whether or not baptism
is for remission of sins – that’s case law, that’s litmus, that’s the doctrine of Christ. The same thing would
be true about these adulterous marriages. We teach the doctrine of Christ. Call it a litmus test, a case law if
you want to, but we teach the doctrine of Christ that one man, one woman for life with one exception is the doctrine
of Christ (Matthew 5, Matthew 19 and other passages).
Now in areas of judgment, not in matters of the doctrine of Christ but in peripheral issues, matters of
judgment exist. For example, must the divorce decree include the word adultery? That’s not a part of the case law.
That’s not a part of the doctrine of Christ. When somebody tries to bind that, they’re binding judgments, not binding
the matter of the doctrine of Christ. Who has the fastest car and gets to the courthouse the quickest? That’s not
a matter of case law, litmus test, the doctrine of Christ. That’s not a matter of what the Bible teaches with regard
to one man, one woman for life with one exception. When does the actual putting away take place? That’s a matter
of judgment. Some are going to say the putting away takes place at the writing of divorcement, some are going to
say it takes place when the woman mentally says "I divorce you because you are an adulterer and I’m going
to get a divorce decree and give it to you." Those things are not the litmus case. Those are not case law.
The doctrine of Christ clearly teaches, and we agree in this room, on what is true about divorce-remarriage. I
think the expressions of "case law" and "litmus test," that sort of thing, is prejudicial.
I think we ought to refer to the "doctrine of Christ." We can agree on the doctrine of Christ and recognize
that in the doctrine of Christ, we must agree on what the teaching is. We agree that there are areas about divorce
where we do not divide in matters of judgment. We understand that. You brethren practice that, we practice that.
Now some look at brother Halbrook and says, well, it’s a matter of "the faith" with him. The difference
with him and Mike Willis is not a matter of the faith, it’s a matter of judgment. You mislabeled him on that, brother
Pickup, when you were talking about that. He does not hold that view as a matter of the faith, it’s a matter of
judgment with him. We understand that sometimes brethren may differ with us on a matter of judgment with regard
to the divorce question, with regard to baptism, with regard to the Lord’s Supper, with regard to music, and not
divide over what the doctrine of Christ is.
With regard to the inconsistency again. Why bring that up again and again unless you’re trying to make
a point. We evidently are both inconsistent in some areas as you see it, but what does inconsistency prove? If
we say that we’re inconsistent on some point, are we saying that because I’m inconsistent, then, that gives us
a right to do something that’s unscriptural. I don’t think anybody would subscribe to that. I don’t believe our
study ought to be a search for inconsistencies. We’re trying to understand what the Bible actually teaches.
Brother Pickup talked about a switching of terms. I believe that’s taking place. I believe his use of
"doctrine" is unclear. I believe that’s led to some of the problems. He furthered this in rebuttal when
he defined "doctrine" as matters of authorized liberty. I believe that’s what he said. I wrote it down
somewhere that in your speech at Akron that the matters were matters of personal faith or scruple. I agree with
that in the sense that within the doctrine of Christ, there are things commanded and things forbidden and things
allowed. This is not fine tuning. This is a recognition of what the Bible teaches. There are things commanded,
there are things forbidden, and there are things allowed. When you take 2 John 9, that use of doctrine, and put
that in Romans 14, it’s a misapplication because you’ve used a broad sense. This is not a ploy, brother Pickup.
We’re actually trying to understand what the Bible teaches. You’re going to get a chart a little bit later in which
I talk about fallacy of redefining terms. We have a text and the text is abused, redefined, or terms switched sometimes
and a license to sin is created. For example, in the institutional battle, the word "home" was used in
a good sense in Titus 2, verse 5, but then the word "home" was redefined to mean a "board,"
an "institutional board," and then the institution became the license to sin. We saw that with regard
to "faith" in Jude 3. Jude 3 talks about "the faith" once for all delivered but Romans 14:23
uses faith in a different sense – not things commanded, not things forbidden, but things allowed, authorized liberty.
And thus you would put error in "the faith" to misuse and switch that term. The word "wine"
is an example of that in Proverbs 23. It’s condemned in that passage but in Romans 14, if you put wine in there,
like you used it in Proverbs 23, it would permit social drinking. You see, that’s switching terms. Now the same
thing is true with doctrine. Doctrine is used in 2 John 9-11 but it’s wrong to allow that use of doctrine in Romans
14. It’s wrong to use it there. That’s not fine tuning, that’s not a ploy. That’s simply recognizing that the scriptures
use different dimensions of doctrine. It uses doctrine in the sense of things forbidden. It uses doctrine in the
sense of things commanded and it uses doctrine in the sense of things that are allowed. What’s used in Romans 14
is that scripture where things are allowed, not commanded or forbidden. When you brethren indiscriminately use
the word doctrine to mean that Romans 14 allows doctrinal and moral differences, you see, you’re confusing people’s
minds. You’ve confused mine. I’m working to try to understand. When you said a moment ago that you thought that
the word doctrine referred to personal scruples, it’s the first time I’ve understood that, brother Pickup. That’s
a contribution to understanding. But when other brethren continue to use "doctrine" and mean by that
the things forbidden and put that in Romans 14, that’s what I’m opposing. That’s not a ploy and there’s a very
real issue here that needs to be discussed. Again, it is not a contrived issue that numerous brethren are taking
the word doctrine as used in 2 John 9 and putting that in Romans 14 as brother Harrell has done, teaching that
"considerable moral and doctrinal differences" are allowed in Romans 14. That’s wrong. My understanding
is that this view opens a door into which we don’t want to go. We may not go there. But our young people are going
there. It may be too late already. It’s already been picked up. There are too many people on the internet right
now that are talking about social drinking because brethren are saying doctrinal and moral issues belong in Romans
14. Another generation has already started out that door. I can’t emphasize that too much and when I raise my voice
against this sort of thing, it is not because I hate anybody or am angry with anybody. That doesn’t even enter
into it. I have seen a door opened, brethren, by the language that you’re using that is going to permit another
generation to walk through a door and say what Ketcherside has. Likewise what the unity in diversity crowd has
in times past with regard to the fact that we can use moral and doctrinal sins in our fellowship and not divide
over these things. That’s going to corrupt local congregations. That’s going to corrupt our young people and that’s
what my opposition has been to this all the way through. There are a number of charts that are here. One of them
talks about the faith in the sense that in the faith is that which is bound by God and I’m using that in the sense
of things commanded, the things forbidden. Inside the faith, there is personal faith. That’s not a ploy. That’s
not playing words. (When you’re having fun, time goes so quickly.)
|
