What Bearing does Romans 16:17 have?

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Romans 16:17

In the previous article’s thread a question was posed by Christian concerning Romans 16:17. Instead of answering within the thread, I thought it would work better to introduce it in a new article.

Romans 16:17, I believe, is the touchstone for this issue of, “careful, limited forms of fellowship” between those who call themselves or are identified as Fundamentalists and those who are viewed as Conservative Evangelicals (or anyone else for that matter, Fundamentalists or Evangelical). And at the heart of this touchstone is the phrase, “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” Robert Haldane, in his commentary on Romans states, “The force of the passage lies in this sentence” (“contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned”). The teaching of Scripture which we have learned forms the basis by which all other teaching is to be judged. To this end, W. H. Griffith Thomas writes, “It is well for us to have some such simple powerful means of putting to a test the things we hear from time to time. Are they in accordance with the truth which we have learned and received? If they are, let us accept them; if they are not, let us beware of them.”

It really is as easy as Griffith Thomas states. We don’t need an elaborate schematic of, if yes, then this…; or if no, then this…. Does the teaching of the man or institution in question agree with the teaching that I have been taught? If so, I accept it, we’re agreed, we fellowship, etc. If not, I “mark” (skopeo- to look at, observe, to have the eyes open to) and “avoid” (ekklino-to turn aside, deviate, to turn away from) them. Paul does not break down “the doctrine” into different levels of importance so that we can then do a system of “twenty questions” in order to see if we can somehow cooperate at some level or not.

The men within Conservative Evangelicalism teach doctrine that is contrary to what I have been taught. The word “divisions,” dichostasia, refers to dissensions, parties, factions; and “offenses,” skandolon, refers to a trap or impediment, a stumbling block placed in the way to cause someone to fall. When this contrary teaching enters churches, “divisions and offenses” form and tear at the unity of that particular body of Christ.  These things ought not so to be! I am called upon by God Almighty in Scripture to “mark” and “avoid” these men. To do otherwise is to go against God’s own mandate and thereby be in disobedience. I am not perfect, nor are any of the readers who may happen by, but we are all called upon to walk in obedience to the Word the God.

This is more than just the camel's nose

Well, the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent story is finding reality within Fundamentalism. It was announced recently that Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary would feature Mark Dever as their keynote speaker, along with Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and several of the seminary’s faculty members, at their Advancing the Church Conference next February.

One must wonder how we are “advancing” the church when we start down the road of compromise. Particularly two of the, so-called, Fundamentalist seminary presidents involved in this conference (Kevin Bauder of CBTS and Dave Doran of DBTS) have, in various ways over the past year or so, made efforts to prepare us for this coming together of Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. Central Seminary’s Ethos statement on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism states, “we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.” I guess we can now see what that statement means in practice.

I would recommend that you visit Lou Martuneac’s blog, In Defense of the Gospel, at  http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/ for more detail on what these men have been doing.

Dave Doran in 1995 wrote an excellent article for Frontline magazine titled, “In Defense of Militancy.” Sadly, he has moved away from that militancy he so well articulated. He closes that article with these five paragraphs,

I have never had a conversation with a militant Fundamentalist who denies that some of us have sinned in doing what we believe is right. We have sometimes taken the right stand with the wrong spirit (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5), or we have taken a stand on some issue too hastily or without solid Biblical support. These problems do not invalidate the cause of Fundamentalism or of being militant about separation.

Unfortunately, those who reject our position are quick to paint caricatures of our movement. The liberals did it; the New Evangelicals followed their example; and every defector from militant Fundamentalism has used the same tactic to “prove” his position while rejecting militant separatism (cf. the writings of Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and John MacArthur).

The tag of belligerence is no new one. Militant Fundamentalism has borne it many times before. The very nature of the combat, the very essence of being aggressive in a cause, means that some will one to be too zealous or belligerent. For those being tempted toward a Fundamentalism that softens its image and tones itself down, the words of George Marsden should serve as a wake-up call.

The neo-evangelicals were thus still torn internally over variations of the same issues that were dividing them from separatist fundamentalists. Their one impulse was to insist that the exact positions won in the fundamentalist stand against modernism were too important ever to abandon. At the same time, they clearly wished to purge themselves of all the unessential traits acquired during the fundamentalist era, especially the spirit of belligerence. To put their dilemma in a question, To what extent was their movement a reform of fundamentalism and to what extent was it a break with it? The “new evangelicals” had no easy rules by which to settle these issues (Reforming Fundamentalism [Eerdmans, 1987], p. 171).

It seems to me that those who are wanting to rid contemporary Fundamentalism of its alleged belligerence should proceed with great caution. The last group of people to take that path found it to be a winding road that ends up in a theological and moral wasteland.

Conspicuously missing within the articulations of those so-called Fundamentalist who wish some form of cooperation with Conservative Evangelical is Scripture. No one has weighed in on what the Bible says.

Look at Romans 16:17 for instance. Here we read, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Some would have us narrow the term, “the doctrine” down to mean just the Gospel. With this verse coming at the end of such a letter, it is most negligent to suggest that after all the Apostle Paul has expounded upon that now at the end he would reduce it down to mean simply the Gospel. No, he is referring to the whole body of teaching we have received, and when we come across someone who has something different we are to note that man and avoid him.

Every Conservative Evangelical at some point within “doctrine” is contrary to what I have learned. I have no choice but to obey my Heavenly Father and have nothing to do with them. It doesn’t matter what “good” they may be doing on various fronts. That is not the issue. Doctrine is the issue and Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals are at odds. Those who seek to redefine our terms and rewrite our history in order to make this “careful, limited fellowship” possible are doing so to their own demise.

A softening on separation always leads towards apostasy.

Esteeming others better than ourselves

There have been some who would cast aspersions upon the men pictured here on the left. For various reasons these men are not held in esteem by some who claim to be Fundamentalists today. One must ponder where these critics would be if these men had not come before them. A legitimate and forceful argument could be made that they would not be in their current positions if it were not for the ministry of these and many other men who have fought for the Fundamentals of the Faith.

Were these men perfect? Of course not, and if they could speak, I daresay to a man they would echo that assessment. Nor are we perfect. Did these men have idiosyncrasies, sure they did, and SO DO YOU! Too many seemingly wish to micro-manage Fundamentalists, both past and present.

Two passages of Scripture come  to mind to this preacher, Philippians 2:3 and I Thessalonians 5:12, 13. In Philippians we read, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." Then in I Thessalonians 5:12, 13, "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves." I understand that today these men do not in any physical, literal sense, "labor among us and are over us," however, their ministries, while they have passed from the scene, do continue in another sense. We would do well to honor and remember these men for the work they did for the cause of Christ within Fundamentalism. I had the honor of meeting only one of these men but their ministries have affected me for the better over the past 36 years of my Christian life.

We who serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ today stand on the foundation that these and many other men laid for us. We would do well to remember and honor them and their labors.

Commenting

Eph 4:29 “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.”


Commenting guidelines, everyone has them and this site is no different. The Apostle Paul had much to say to the church at Ephesus concerning speech. The above quoted verse is for starters. I remind those who would post comments to be in keeping with the demands of our God upon our lives as we interact with one another. I also realize that there are many other verses which are applicable to our interacting, so do not misconstrue that I have limited our applicable verses to only one for determining how we conduct ourselves here.

Because this is my site, I am the final authority as to what will be considered an acceptable post. To take from a radio talk show host, I am the benevolent dictator here. For some that may rankle your feathers, to which I am sorry it does but that does not alter the fact that I am responsible ultimately for what is posted here. While discussions may be heated at times, we must remember that we will all stand before God one day and give an account of ourselves. A very sobering thought to consider as we interact with one another.

Just what is "parsings of a preacher?"

Just what is “parsings of a preacher?” In order to answer that question we must find out what is meant by “parsings” and “preacher.”


When I speak of “preacher” I am referring to my occupation. I am a minister of the Gospel. To be more specific, I am an independent, fundamental, Baptist preacher. In some other articles I may bring clarity to what is meant by “independent,” “fundamental,” and “Baptist.” For the present discussion, my focus is on “preacher.” In all of this we must have a starting point or reference in order to base our understanding upon. For that reference we turn to the Bible, God’s Holy Word. As we do we soon note that our word, “preacher” is used only four times in the New Testament, which is where we will focus our attention further. In the original language of Greek the word translated as “preacher” is the word kerusso. In the secular Greek setting, the word referred to the herald of a king. He was one who did not just represented the king but he also proclaimed the king’s word. As such, he stood in place of the king. To abuse the herald or ignore his words was the same as to abuse the king or ignore the king.

This concept carries over into the Bible’s use of the word. For the “preacher” is not at liberty to give his own thoughts about a matter. The preacher is the herald on earth of the Great King of kings and Lord of lords, the Lord Jesus Christ. The preacher is Christ’s representative, proclaiming Christ’s words. Truly it is to be heard in the pulpits of church, “thus saith the Lord!” and not, “this is what I think.”

Next, we move to the word “parsings.” This word comes from the word, parse. The word is primarily used by grammarians. It means to separate a sentence into its parts and explaining the form and function of each part. Now, I am by no means a grammarian, so we will not be taking apart sentences and identifying the subject, verbs, indirect objects, and the like. Instead, I desire to “parse” Scriptures passages, issues confronting believers, movements influencing believers. These kinds of things I will endeavor to examineand explain for our mutual benefit and understanding.

Hello...Cyberspace?

Well, has anyone heard me? Probably not. Like the oldtime radio announcer on a low powered am station which barely covered his city who said at the start of his career, "hello world," it is rather doubtful that this blog will have a large audience.

I have been internet conversant for some 15+ years, but only blogging conversant for say, 5 of those years. So I am a relative newcomer and a novice. Time, I trust, will be kind to me as I get up to speed in the blogosphere.

As my site title states, the parsings of a preacher, I will be looking at the Scriptures as the basis for my postings. You are welcome to come along and join in. I have no particular agenda as to when or how often I will post. Time restraints, due to being a preacher, and what perks my interest will dictate my frequency.