Principles of Heresy (Part Eight)

By now, we should certainly be getting an idea of what Liberalism is, but since the matters discussed in the Axe on the Root series by Ira Rice are so foundational, a little more ground remains to be covered. The book, Voices of Concern, published by Carl Ketcherside in 1966, served to inform readers not only about what some thought was wrong within the churches of Christ but it presented a hodgepodge of various elements of Liberalism.

Another individual who wrote a chapter for it was J.P. Sanders, a summa cum laude graduate from Abilene Christian College in 1940, who also studied at Vanderbilt and Yale. Rubel Shelly and others used this same argument (decades later) that Sanders either invented or copied from an earlier liberal. In mocking the concept of restoration (trying to practice what was taught in the New Testament), he asked which early church we should restore\Of, or no—“that of the Corinthians, or of one of the epistles” (3:59-60)?

Rice wondered how one gets “as far as graduate studies at Yale and still come up with such nonsense!” (3:60). Shelly later amplified Sanders’ thought by saying, “Do we want to be like Corinth in their immaturity, having a man living with his father’s wife, and brethren going to law one against another?” Of course, in the epistles we find things that need to be corrected. Paul told them not to fellowship immorality. He told them what they needed to hear—the meaning of love.

The answer is so obvious that Sanders and Shelly look ridiculous. No one ever said that we wanted to restore bad attitudes and actions—but rather the truth that was taught to clear those matters up. Any Christian (even one who is barely dry) should be able to see through such a lame attempt to criticize restoration.

It may not be that all of the writers in Voices of Concern took issue with inspiration, but Fox (see the article dated July 19, 2020) and Sanders did. Consider the words of the latter.

The Scriptures were obviously not written to be complete descriptions of anything, or blueprints. Paul, for instance, wrote letters as they were needed and addressed himself to the specific problems before him. He did not self-consciously write Scriptures…” (3:60, emph. GWS).

Rice immediately debunked this false doctrine by asking him to explain 1 Corinthians 14:37, where Paul advised the brethren there to acknowledge that the things he wrote to them were “the commandments of the Lord” (3:60). To claim that Paul did not know he was writing Scriptures is about as bold a contradiction to the Word of God as someone can devise. Apparently, Sanders is the one who doesn’t know; why would anyone choose to be instructed by this person?

More?

But Sanders had not finished with his foolish speculations. He goes on to say that “time and experience have convinced us that there is no pattern that is convincing to all right-thinking people” (3:66). No pattern to follow in the New Testament? Really? One thing we can suggest that Brother Rice could not, since it had not yet been written, is that all should read Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern (published in 1991). A more thorough treatment of this subject is unimaginable. Sanders adds that

it is impossible for any coherent pattern to be found. Thus, far from being a basis for unity today, patternism or restoration may become a sure and certain barrier to unity, and has, as a matter of fact, resulted in more divisions. Any pattern we propose becomes divisive, marking those who reject it as “non-church,” and those who accept it as “the church,” that is, a sect (3:66).

First, the question ought to be asked of this Yale graduate: “Was God, therefore wrong to tell Moses concerning the tabernacle, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain’ (Heb. 8:5)?” If he answers yes, it would be difficult to visualize how anyone could possibly be more conceited. If he replies in the negative, then the follow-up question would be, “Since Moses needed to follow the pattern for the earthly tabernacle, why are we not equally constrained to follow the pattern for that which is the real instead of the shadow—the church?”

Second, we agree that restoration is a barrier to unity because it emphasizes the truth. So did Solomon (Pr. 23:23). So did Jesus (John 8:31-32; 17:17). Following the truth eliminates the possibility for error. The problem is that many (like Sanders) do not care about truth. The wilderness was strewn with the bodies of Israelites who did not care about truth. For those, then, whom truth does not qualify as a priority, restoration will always be a barrier. However, the pattern stands in the way of no one who loves the truth (2 Thess. 2:10).

Third, if we insist upon knowing and following the truth, the pattern given to us by God, we do not become a sect. By Sanders’ logic, the church as defined in the New Testament cannot exist. Rice asks, concerning the paragraph quoted, “If this isn’t universalism with a vengeance, then I think I never saw it” (3:67). How can it not be Universalism, for the minute truth enters the room, we have a division? Truth says, for example, that the purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, which makes it necessary for salvation. Immediately, many who have been taught otherwise are offended. How many others take issue with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God?

In other words, no one can assert any truth that will not alienate others, resulting in division, which means that if we want unity, we must believe in nothing. Therefore, we must all become universalists. We hold to no doctrine; therefore, we can all be united, and everyone is saved. But Jesus said that the majority of people would be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Oops. Universalism clearly contradicts the Lord, and the closer one draws near to it, the farther away he departs from God’s standard. Close adherence to the pattern will cause division, but unity is not the only aim; unity based on truth is.

One more liberal tactic can be seen in the inevitable charge that those following a pattern are “legalists.” What does that make those who don’t care about the standards God gave us? Hmm. Sanders also writes:

“Legalism sees sin as a violation of the written code. The code may or may not have relevance to man’s need; it may simply be arbitrary requirements revealed by God…” (3:61).

Well! Let’s look at these statements. Sin is a violation of a written code—like the Ten Commandments, which were written by the finger of God? So, which of them has no relevance? Is forbidding idolatry no longer valid? No. Anything we place in our affections before God can qualify as an idol. Is adultery now acceptable—if we refer to it as “an affair”? Is it less painful to those who have been wronged? Has stealing become permissible? Are there no perjury penalties any more for false witnesses?

But we have been considering the old covenant. What in the New Testament no longer has any relevance? We cannot make Sanders’ case for him. Let him or some of his ilk set forth what is obsolete in the New Testament; then we will explain why the teaching remains relevant. Yes, pray tell us what those “arbitrary requirements” are that God gave us. Is baptism one of them? Moral purity? The instructions for the church and worship? The apostle whom Jesus loved wrote that “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV). As Brother Rice asked, “Was John, therefore, a legalist?” (3:61).

One wonders why liberals despise obedience. The writer of Genesis, Moses, lists the instructions that God gave Noah concerning the specifications of the ark. Did he resist what God said to do? No. “Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22). Legalist! To make matters worse, Moses repeats it in Genesis 7:5. Does Moses pen these words to shame Noah? No, it is obvious that he is commending him for his legalism—I mean, his obedience. God frequently commends the obedient and condemns the disobedient, but liberals want it to be the opposite. In their topsy-turvy world, they condemn the obedient as Legalists and commend those who ignore God’s commandments as imaginative, free-thinking, unafraid of taking a chance, bold, and other complimentary encomia. They are chasing the wind.

Cornering Truth

The final heresy for consideration involves truth. In 1968, Leslie Eugene Fooks (allegedly, a Christian) wrote a book which he titled, Fellowship of Believers. Among other false doctrines, Fooks wrote: “It is time for us to recognize that our church or denomination does not have a ‘corner on the market’ of truth” (78). How ironic that he would use the image of a market, when Solomon wrote: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it…” (Pr. 23:23).

If his concept of the Lord’s church is that we are a denomination, he is certainly deficient with respect to the truth. He did not arrive at such a concept by reading about the kingdom from the description of it in Daniel 2:44. Nor did his misconception come from the great epistle of the Ephesians, in which Paul describes several facets of the body of Christ. No one could possibly obtain the idea of denominationalism from that glorious book. Our Lord Jesus Christ nourishes and cherishes the church (Eph. 5:29)—not some sect.

The church does not originate truth; it recognizes and upholds it. Paul wrote to Timothy that “the house of God” is “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The church supports the truth taught in the New Testament. Denominations not only disrupt unity by their very existence; they don’t support the truth in a number of areas.

Have we cornered truth? Was it trying to run away from us that we had to catch it and hogtie it? The Bible was written to reveal truth (“You shall know the truth”); Paul communicated it so that brethren could understand it (Eph. 3:4). Truth is neither hidden nor elusive to eyes sincerely open to it. The attitude that we cannot know it or acknowledge it alike is sectarian.

Fooks also says that “we do not in any way attempt to determine what is the truth for someone else.” No, we don’t determine it, but the Bible declares it. If someone rejects the truth, and we do not offer fellowship to him, we did not determine what he should believe. The Bible taught the doctrine, and we simply uphold what the Scriptures teach. The New Testament, for example, teaches throughout that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. When someone concludes, “I don’t need to be baptized, we do not react by saying, “We have a corner on truth, and we say you are not a Christian.” Instead, our perspective is, “The Bible plainly teaches that your sins are washed away when you are baptized (Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 2:38; 22:16). As long as you reject this truth, we cannot consider you a child of God and call you, “Brother.” We’re not making up the truth; we do, however, abide by what God has revealed.

The Axe on the Root series has much more information than the few errors we have reviewed. A Christian would profit from reading all three volumes. The history of those who have departed from the faith is sad to observe, but the warnings are, and always will be, necessary for brethren to be aware of, lest they be taken captive by pseudo-intellectuals.