Tell it True.

LAYING BARE THE EVIL  (quoted in Berean Call)

"Some one, then, must undertake the ungracious task of probing and laying bare the evils of the age; for men must not be allowed to congratulate themselves that all is well. If others will not, he will.

If others shrink from the obloquy of such a work, he will not.... He loves his fellow-men too well. They may upbraid him; they may call him a misanthropist, or a prophet of evil; they may ascribe his warnings to the worst of motives, such as pride, or arrogance, or self-esteem, or malice, or envy; but he will give no heed to these unjust insinuations.

He will prefer being thus misunderstood and maligned, to allowing men to precipitate themselves upon a ruin which they see not. Rather than that they should perish, he will allow his own good name to be spoken against. He will risk every thing, even the hatred of brethren, rather than withhold the warning. If they give no heed to it, he has, at least, saved his own soul. If they do, he has saved both his own soul and theirs.”

-- Horatius Bonar (Scottish pastor, 1808-1889)

The only comment we need to make is to quote Matthew 5: 11-12,  Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you, falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven...

 My heavenly bank balance has rocketed lately. Keep it up dear brethren. There's more to come. I do not relish it but I am told nobody will talk to me for fear of being "blogged". I didn't realise ALL my brethren have something to hide. But I can assure them I hadn't noticed. I am too busy to talking to my fellow believers. 

- Waymarks

The Judge Not Philosophy.

The Judge Not Philosophy; Tolerance for Error; a Positive Emphasis

JUNE 19, 2013 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

[The material below is an extract from today’s bulletin by David Cloud. The whole can be read at his website. What is written here reveals equally well why the Brethren Movement is corrupt and almost totally apostate. – Ron Smith]

Another thing that has brought the evangelical movement to its present apostasy is the judge not philosophy. When New Evangelicalism was founded after World War II, its leaders rejected the “negative” approach of the old “fundamentalism.” They wanted a more positive, less critical Christianity. 

This, though, is a plain rejection of the Bible’s command to reprove and rebuke sin and error. It is a rejection of the example of the apostles and prophets who plainly exercised this ministry. John the Baptist got his head cut off for reproving the illicit marriage of a political leader of his day. The Lord Jesus Christ condemned the Pharisees in the severest terms (Matthew 23). The apostle Paul continually identified and condemned sin and heretics, as did Peter, James, and John. 

When this type of judgment is left off, the devil is free to operate and sin and error spreads apace. 

At the National Pastor’s Conference in San Diego in 2009 we interviewed Leighton Ford, Billy Graham’s brother-in-law. I said to him that the conference represented the state of evangelicalism today and asked him if he is satisfied with where the movement has come in the past fifty years. I reminded him that there are loud voices within evangelicalism that are questioning such cardinal doctrines as the very gospel itself, substitutionary atonement, and eternal fiery hell. This was a good opportunity for him to reply, “I am very sad that we have come to this place. Those who teach error should be condemned and not praised. Brian McLaren, for example, is destroying people’s faith with his heresies, and William Young is preaching a false god.” Leighton Ford did not say any of that, of course. Instead, he replied, “I will not criticize others” and then brusquely cut us off when we tried to follow-up on that.

It might sound very pious not to criticize one’s fellow Christians, but it is plain disobedience to God’s Word, which commands us to mark them which teach contrary to apostolic doctrine and to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Romans 16:17; Jude 3). 

The “I will not criticize others” philosophy is the foundational principle that has destroyed evangelicalism. Those who believe the Bible and refuse to lift up the voice against error are traitors to Jesus Christ. They enable error to grow and prosper. They are the “useful idiots” of heretics and compromisers.

When error is not clearly identified and reproved, even the preaching of the truth can become an accommodation to error. When Billy Graham has preached in Roman Catholic Churches, for example, he has preached the gospel in a vague way but has refused to identify Romanism as false and has refused to plainly contrast Rome’s gospel with the Bible’s. As a result, his Catholic hearers typically believe that he is saying basically the same thing as their priests and go away confirmed in their error. That is indefensible.

We witnessed this same thing at the National Pastor’s Conference. Bill Hybels preached a message to that mixed multitude on “listening to God’s whispers.” He urged the crowd to take heed to what God tells them to do. What he said was not false and he made some good points, even giving a biblical-sounding testimony of salvation, but by pretending that his listeners were saved people who were sound in the faith and by not clearly identifying and reproving the heresies that were present, Hybels aided and abetted the devil and his lies. He encouraged Brian McLaren, for instance, to listen to the whispers that are telling him to redefine the cardinal doctrines of the faith and William Young to listen to the whispers that are telling him to redefine God.

Rejection of Biblical Separation

Hand in hand with the judge-not philosophy is a rejection of biblical separation. Harold Ockenga, who claimed to have coined the term “new evangelicalism” in 1948, said, “We reject separatism.” (For documentation of this see our free eBook “New Evangelism: Its History, Characteristics, and Fruit.”) 

To reject separatism is to reject the command of God and to remove the wall of protection that God has given to shelter us from the winds of error and the wiles of the devil. No wonder the evangelical movement is filled with doctrinal confusion. The Word of God warns, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). Evangelicals have long been deceived on this matter.

In this light it is frightful that there is a growing rejection of separatism among fundamental Baptists. There is a changing mood, a growing dislike for “judgmentalism.” There is growing sympathy toward evangelicals, whether it is Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, David Jeremiah, Kay Arthur, John Maxwell, Philip Yancey, Max Lucado, Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, John Piper, or a slew of others.

There is a growing non-critical relationship between the members of independent Baptist churches and syndicated Christian radio programs and bookstores such as Family Christian Bookstore and Lifeway Christian Stores, which are filled to overflowing with the New Evangelical philosophy. There is a growing tendency to build bridges to evangelicalism by using contemporary praise music. There is growing tendency of fundamentalist leaders to recommend the writings of evangelicals in their blogs. (See www.wayoflife.org/index_files/review_of_chappells_church_still_works.html )

(For more about this see the articles “Dangers in Christian Bookstores” and “Dangers on Christian Radio”  and “The Foreign Spirit of Contemporary Worship Music” at www.wayofllife.org.)

Mr D Gilliland and Divorce

An appraisal of the ministry of D Gilliland,  covering the subject of divorce, given at Ebenezer Gospel Hall, Bangor, 1994, the transcript being recently passed to Waymarks, and being republished here to show that Mr Gilliland’s views are in line with those once held by A McShane. They are also similar to the views of R Revie, recently published.

My comments are added as footnotes to the transcript given below.

5:31-32.     Divorce.

Divorce was introduced to control an abuse.[1] Separation was never in God's plan for man, but when men in their wickedness put away their wives God brought in a control for the safeguarding of those being abused.[i] It’s vital to see this point. It was regulated in the Old Testament to protect the interests of the women, who often did not have any means of support for their survival, when separated from their husbands. They needed the support of their husbands to survive physically in the ancient world. Women were often just told to leave. Abraham did that to Hagar in Genesis 21, giving her only bread and a bottle of water, and she and Ishmael world have died in the wilderness if God had not intervened. That is what divorce used to be like![ii]

Then God said to Moses that there must be no more of that,[iii] and if a man was going to divorce his wife he must write her out a bill of divorcement, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. So, he would take time to write it out and think about what he was doing, put it into her hand as she left, and it would protect her interests - she would

be able to show it if she sought another relationship. The Lord added to that by mentioning one thing which must never happen: once a man divorced his wife he could never take her back again.[iv] If she went and married another man and he died, she must not even then go back to her first husband. We today hear men saying that someone has been divorced and he should go back to his first wife. But that is absolutely wrong, being the very opposite of what the Bible says. It is a very simple point which many people who teach on the subject do not seem to regard.

The "Betrothal" view, and the meaning of "fornication".  Some Bible teachers say that because the exclusion clause, "saving for the cause of fornication", is not included in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16-:18 and is only mentioned in Matthew 5:32, that Matthew being the Jewish Gospel is referring to the Jewish state of betrothal. To answer that, and continue to examine this matter, we have to be very careful as to what we say.

Divorce is always reckoned to be sinful in the Bible. It would never take place, in the New Testament, unless a dreadful sin had been committed. Some say that the sin referred to, "fornication" (Greek "porneia") only has to do with unmarried people who are betrothed or engaged to be married.[v] That is the main argument of those who take the other view on divorce. But that simply will not do! Whilst there still are some difficulties  with the view we are expressing here, it is definitely wrong to say that betrothal is involved in this passage.

The Lord Jesus was commenting on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which deals with a man and his wife. There is absolutely nothing in that chapter that deals with betrothed or engaged people. So the Lord had no reason to bring the idea of betrothal into His answer here. If we bring it in we are introducing something that was neither in the original Old Testament passage, nor in these comments by the Lord Jesus about it.[vi]

Others introduce another difficulty. They ask If the Lord meant "adultery" why did He not say so? That has often been said. Why did he not say "If a woman commits adultery she should be divorced"? Why did He use "fornication" as the exception? He has just spoken of adultery in the previous verses and speaks of it again in v 32 so why did He not use it here? The simple answer is that the Lord did not mean "adultery". He meant far more than "adultery"! If He had said "adultery" that would mean that only in cases where, say, a wife had become involved with another man in adultery, could divorce take place. But this word "fornication' is far broader than "adultery", and it can refer to all kinds of immorality,[vii] including a sinful relationship between men, as in Genesis 19, etc. So, if any such sins occur, divorce is permissible. Considerations such as compassion may come into the situation, but if, say, a man decides to divorce his wife under those strict circumstances only, he does not contravene the words of the Lord Jesus either here or in Matthew 19:3-12.

The argument that "fornication" means carnal sin between unmarried people is wrong.[viii] In Matthew 19 when the Lord used the term, the disciples said "If that is the case it would be better not to get married".

Note that they did not say "It would be better not to get engaged". They knew that He was talking about married people, not betrothed people. All the special pleading we hear on this point is totally invalid. The use of the term "fornication" in 1 Corinthians 5:1 proves that what we are teaching as to its meaning is right. When Paul said "such fornication" he was referring to adultery and incest. And in Jude v 7 the term is used to describe Sodomy.[ix]

We must also be very clear that this is not the same as the "easy divorce" situation available in the world today.

Does this mean, then, that Christians can divorce? Divorce should never be contemplated or have to be mentioned amongst Christians! If divorce takes place, it only occurs after fornication is committed, and Christians should never be committing fornication, hence Christians should never be talking about getting divorced. The Lord never thought that the subjects of His kingdom would stoop to commit that sin, and hence they should never have to think about two Christians getting divorced. So, by the grace of God, divorce should not be found in any Christian's life. When God instituted marriage he joined man and wife together for life, and any departure from that is contrary to the rule of the King in His kingdom.

As to cases where divorce has happened in the lives of people before they were saved we should first of all observe that such is definitely not being considered in this passage. It is, however, becoming an increasingly common thing today. We cannot and should not expect unsaved people to live according to Christian standards. The Lord saves people as they are, and there are certain situations in which grace reaches people which cannot be changed. Some things can be changed; and if they can be changed they should be changed. But remember what was pointed out earlier. If a couple have been divorced and then get saved it is speaking against what the Bible states by saying that such should go back to their first partners. God said it is an abomination to go back like that.[x] If God saves people with irreparable things like that in their lives we cannot hold them to ransom because of them.[xi]

---

---

[i] There is no evidence of the husband’s abuse given in Deut. 24. The uncleanness (ervah) discovered by the man reveals that his wife had at some time committed adultery. Ervah is often translated as “uncover the nakedness of” and is a term implying adultery. See  Lev. 20: 11-21. Etc. The death penalty (Lev. 22: 22) required the man and the woman to be caught in the act.

This is enough to cause the total collapse of Mr. Gililland’s debate.

[ii] Sarai was acting against God in giving Hagar to be Abram’s wife. It was an illegitimate union. There could be no legal divorce. The casting away (garash), in Gen. 21: 10., though sometimes translated “divorced” was not used and could not be used in any legal sense, even if the law permitting divorce had been on operation. Sarai used the word as it had first been used in Gen, 3: 24, where God drove out the man from Eden.

[iii] God said no such thing. The Lord said “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” Moses had allowed it.

[iv] Gilliland makes a false statement and puts his words on the lips of the Lord Jesus. It is only when the divorced woman marries another man, that she cannot return to her husband under any circumstance.

[v]A careful examination of the Greek word porneia in the New Testament reveals it to mean consistently, unlawful sexual intercourse. The exception is Rev. 14: 8, where it is spiritual fornication (unlawful intercourse).

The verb is porneuo  and the noun is pornē (a whore).

[vi] Gilliland is determined to bind all to the Mosaic Law. We have already shown that fornication is outside of marriage. By denying this Gilliland maintains a supposed loophole whereby married persons today may freely divorce. Note however that only the men may divorce.

[vii] All kinds of immorality are grounds for divorce? Immorality is the abandonment of moral principles. The man may detect but one aberration and he can divorce his wife. The wife has no reciprocal opportunity. We see that Gilliland will throw the door wide open for divorce.

[viii] This statement has been shown to be false.

[ix] The man in 1 Cor. 5 is not described as married, and the woman was not his blood-mother. Paul’s use of the word fornication suggests there was no legal marriage between his father and his step mother. Jude 7 tells us they fornicated, AND went after strange flesh which was something different.

[x] Another plain lie. Gilliland charges God with evil communications. His words are blasphemous. Persons living in an adulterous relationship, at conversion will need to cease from their sin.  

[xi] Gilliland ends with emotive words. He implies that some people cannot discontinue sinning when they are saved. I know of none who are being held to ransom.