|
|
||
|
|
|||
I am sure this isn’t the first time that a study by this name has been given, and this is certainly not a new topic we’re discussing, but I have noticed that within Adventism, and certainly among those with whom we often discuss Scripture online, there is a real gap in understanding common terms such as “faith” and “righteousness.”
The title, of course, comes from a verse in the Book of Jude, where we read, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
Last week, during our informal discussion, we had a little examination of Amos 3:3, which reads, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”
We’ve seen this verse used quite a lot by people who are disputing doctrinal viewpoints, arguing for a particular interpretation of Scripture, or defending a prophetic understanding. In more severe cases, independent ministries and self-sent messengers will quote this verse as the reason why they reject fellowship with different groups, or why they withdrew from the mainstream Churches. “Because we don’t agree on this or that doctrinal position,” they say, “we can’t fellowship together.”
There are legitimate reasons for leaving a Church. There are valid reasons for disfellowshipping unconverted members of a congregation, and rejecting applicants for baptism. These are outlined in Scripture, and all involve the state of the spirit. If a Church is united with a civil power, becoming a persecutor of Bible-believing Christians, it has become an agent of the Beast. If an individual is not converted, having not accepted Christ as their Savior from all known sin, then they are not ready for a commitment, a covenant, more solemn than any earthly marriage. But what we do not find, anywhere in Scripture, is an example of a separation based on disagreement of beliefs.
Think about that. The apostles disagreed among themselves. A couple of weeks ago, we looked at Paul and Barnabas disagreeing sharply about the character of another believer, to the point that they altered their travel plans and took separate journeys. But Paul did not go off and start his own Church, neither did Barnabas begin his own ministry. They were bonded together with ties thicker than that of biological brothers, and although they parted ways for a time, they remained in the Body of Christ.
In an article I wrote many years ago called “The Five Towers,” I showed that there were only five times in history that Yahweh called His people out of a previously faithful body into a new movement, and the reasons were always the same. So, what has changed? What is different between the first century of Christianity, in which there was only one Church with no conception of multiple denominations, and today, when there’s probably nobody on earth who could list all the variations of the religion claiming to be Christ’s?
The obvious answer is that it is the work of Satan. The Scriptures list “variance” in Galatians 5:21 as one of the “works of the flesh.” Inspired by the Enemy of souls, men have let emotions overcome their reason. They have allowed anger, frustration, pain, perhaps even hatred, to overcome their sanctified thoughts, and they have departed from the Church to draw men after themselves. You may recall that in our last study, we spoke about the “chain of witnesses” that Yahweh has designed for the control of proper human behavior. Our feelings are the least reliable indicator of what we should do. They should be under the control of our thoughts, and our thoughts are to be under the control of the Word of Yahweh.
Unfortunately few, even among those who claim to be Christ’s, understand and submit to this orderly process. Paul speaks about these people who, under the guise of religious sentiment, are ruled by their emotions. He says, “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30)
These groups that formed were never acknowledged by the disciples as being legitimate “branches” of the Church family. They did not say, “Oh, they have a different view of doctrines than we do, so we just teach different things on the way to the same destination.” Paul calls the differences that led to the splits “perverse things.” But I want to be clear that in quoting this verse, I am not contradicting what I said earlier about no history of splitting apart due to doctrinal disagreements.
That is not what Paul is talking about in Acts 20. He isn’t describing legitimate differences in teachings that led to sincere, conscientious men drawing away to form their own groups. Again, such a thing would be unheard of in the early Church. Instead, these are deceivers, led by their carnal passions, deliberately attempting to make a name for themselves, and perhaps some tithe money as well, by teaching falsehoods, and by trying to divert attention away from Yahshua’s true people. It is worth repeating that there has never been a legitimate separation from Christ’s body due to disagreement over doctrines. The separation has always been because of “perverse things,” because of works of the flesh, because of Satan’s work on human minds.
When asked why they separated, many of these independent ministries that have formed their own groups and movements will justify it with Amos 3: “We could not walk with them, because we did not agree.”
Amos 3:3 is not, at all, saying that there cannot be fellowship between people who aren’t in agreement on every point of doctrine, even major points of doctrine. We have examples from the Scriptures. We have examples from early Adventism, about disagreements regarding the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and so on. We have records of the early SDA Church working with other groups such as the Seventh Day Baptists, because they kept the commandments of Yahweh, and promoted the faith of Yahshua, inasmuch as it was understood at the time. These were the important matters, and the record that we have speaks to a balanced position between holding up the standard of faith, and freedom of conscience for believers.
To this day, we are learning more light about where the true “middle of the road” is regarding this and other matters; but what we know for sure is that disagreement is not a reason to break fellowship. “Can two walk together,” Amos asks, “unless they agree on a meeting point, a direction, or a destination?” This is the real meaning of that verse as translated properly into English. It is not exclusionary; it is not about shutting people out because they don’t see things the way you do, or being subject to a conscience that is so sensitive it cannot abide seeing variation in the words and behavior of others. That is not a conscience being properly led by the Holy Spirit. Remember that Yahshua and His disciples encountered other groups teaching and doing works in His name, but not saying the same things or traveling with them. In response to their concerns regarding one such individual He said, “Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.” (Mark 9:39, 40)
But this isn’t about Ecumenism either. We are our brother’s keepers. If I see a brother or sister doing or saying something that I consider to be dangerous, I will give them a warning, supported by Scripture and sanctifying principles. If they reject my suggestions, I may take a witness, and if that does not bring about a peaceful resolution, it may go to the Church. At that point, spirits are manifest. A rebellious spirit is a sign of un-conversion, and if there is no repentance for an obvious sin, that individual may be separated from the congregation. I want you to see the subtlety here: the issue, the reason for that disfellowship, was not the disagreement itself. Doctrines and beliefs will reveal spirits; they will assist us in testing the spirits, but they are not, themselves, the test.
Let me give an example to illustrate the difference. Suppose one brother says, “Christ came forth in eternity, and therefore had a beginning,” and another says, “Christ came forth in eternity, and therefore has no beginning.” Interestingly enough, you can find Adventist writings that support both of these views. My own conclusion is that we as created beings are not equipped to understand the concept of “in eternity,” and so the distinction is meaningless to our faith. Christ Himself said that He “came forth” from the Father, which indicates a point of origin; however, if we use the example of Adam and Eve, Eve “came forth” from Adam, but was always a part of him, and we need go no further than that as a Church.
But again, we are dealing with two brethren here who have not considered the matter in this light, and so there is a disagreement between them. They both believe that their understanding of the Father and Son is critical to sanctification, and so they discuss the matter. When they make no headway, they call a couple of witnesses, but can come no closer to resolving the matter. Eventually, it becomes a Church-wide discussion, with some saying there should be an “official position” on it, and others saying that this lies within the realm of individual understanding.
As the conversation wears on a bit, one of the original two stands up and says, “This Church is half-full of apostates! If the Holy Spirit was really leading this movement, you’d all agree with me and see things my way,” and then he storms out of the building. Well, such a person should probably be removed from Church membership. He has manifest an un-Christ-like spirit. The other original disputer sees that the Church is not going to come to an agreement and, while he would certainly like everyone to agree with him, acknowledges that there is no easy way to prove his viewpoint to be the right one, and submits to the idea that this is a question that will be answered (if at all) in the Kingdom after sin has been permanently discarded from the universe. He feels a sense of peace at this acceptance, and the matter is concluded.
One of these brethren had a disagreement that revealed a spirit of disunity. He may even have been the one that was theologically correct, but by departing in anger he revealed an unconverted heart. The other was permitted by Yahweh to go through the experience to learn more about one-ness within the Church. He could “walk together” with the brethren, even those with whom he did not agree on this doctrine, because they agreed on a direction, and on a destination. He accepts Amos 3:3 as it was intended, and remains in unity.
But shouldn’t he have kept on arguing until he was either proven right, or proven wrong? After all, here comes that verse from Jude again: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
Even if Amos doesn’t mean what most people think it means, this verse is pretty clear, isn’t it? We are to “earnestly contend” for the faith. That phrase is actually a single word in New Testament Greek, and it only appears in that one verse. Its root is the word from which we get “agony,” describing a strenuous and painful struggle. When we “agonize” over a decision, it is because we are taking great care to make the right choice, knowing that the consequences will be significant. So, isn’t Jude telling us that we should strive, we should fight hard, to make sure that we are defending the beliefs we think are correct?
The way we would answer that question depends on how we define “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Here’s something that many Christians probably don’t think about: Do you know, Paul never read the Book of Revelation? In fact, none of the people we read about in the Bible, preaching the Gospel, healing the sick, or raising the dead, ever knew of such a book (except for John himself, who wrote it). We tend to think of the Bible as this unit of divine knowledge, and in a sense it is, having all come from the same Divine Mind. But it was delivered over time, across cultures, through different languages, in different generations, and so what the “Scriptures” meant to different people would often vary.
Some people reject those who claim to be prophetic authors in the last days, like Ellen White, because they say, “The faith was once delivered to the saints, so you can’t add anything new to our understanding of Christianity. The faith can’t change. There won’t be any new doctrines, just better understanding of the old doctrines we already have.”
Well, some of the Biblical books weren’t even written when Jude made that statement, so obviously, when he speaks of the “faith” being once delivered, he isn’t talking about doctrine or scriptural knowledge. The Book of Revelation ends with these words, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, Yahweh shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev 22:18, 19)
Some people have said that this means that nothing will be added to the Bible, in terms of newly inspired writings, or increasing light. John, of course, meant nothing of the sort, only that the record of his prophecy – that specific Scripture – was not to be altered in any way.
Again, we need to be careful; this doesn’t mean we can elevate the writings of latter-day prophets to the level of the accepted Biblical Canon. There are ditches all around here. Some people do not take the Scriptures seriously enough, while others think that every verse applies to their specific situation, even when Paul is not shy to say, in some places, “What I am writing to you is not something God showed me, but my own opinion.” Yahweh uses all these things, all these writings, to tell the world about Himself, but He did not direct every misspelling, every bad deed recorded, or every understanding of His inspiration.
Jude says that the faith was once delivered unto the saints. This is true. What is also true is that not every doctrine we currently accept as Biblical had been delivered to Church at that point. What this means is very simple. It is proper, and healthy, to separate the faith from the doctrines; they are not the same thing.
This is the key principle of what I want to say today, a single sentence: “Doctrine changes, but faith does not.”
What we are to contend for, what we are to earnestly strive to teach properly, what saves souls and converts sinners into saints, is the eternal, unchanging faith. And what is that faith? A lot of this can be very complicated; as I said, there are ditches of misunderstanding all around, but the faith, the faith is actually very simple. If I have faith in someone, what does that mean? It means that I believe they will do what they say, and I will believe that they speak the truth. That’s it. That is ALL it is.
When we have faith in Yahweh and Yahshua, we do not need any complicated theological explanations. Theology can be useful. Doctrines demonstrate the faith, and help us to teach it… but the faith itself is simple enough for any child to understand. Faith in Yahweh means believing that His words are true, and that He will do what He says He will do. Surely, anyone can understand that. So when we read His Word, we are strengthening our faith – not that our faith is getting “better,” because faith is either present or absent, and as little faith as that of a mustard seed is enough to move mountains – but we are learning more about what Yahweh said, and more about what He promised to do, so that we may perfectly trust (as we have always trusted) in this greater set of things that we now know. The faith we receive from our Father is perfect from the beginning, but we increase it (not improve it) by learning more about Him in whom we trust.
The Faith of Yahshua… that is the saving faith. That is the belief that Yahshua had, a total trust that His Father spoke the truth, and that His Father would always do what He said He would do, answering His prayers, even raising Him from the dead. The Faith of Yahshua is that trust – that certainty – that withstands any temptation, and that overcomes any obstacle. In the Son’s mind, there was no doubt that the Father had sent Him into the world to redeem mankind; because of that, because He did not allow the slightest possibility of doubt, He overcame the world. In just that way, He invites us to have His faith, His understanding of the Father’s trustworthiness and, as children, we believe just what the Father says.
He says, “I will keep you from falling into sin.” Children don’t need a lot of explanation to know what that means. They know what it means, and they don’t over-think it; but those who have broken away from the Body, drawing disciples after themselves, they have ruined this simple idea for many. Now we need to deal with teachings about salvation-in-sin, and spiritual salvation that leaves the flesh unaffected, and complex interplays of predestination and free will… It is better to just take Christ at His Word, to “go, and sin no more.” We can study these things; we should understand them, but from the perspective of one who has already chosen to “do always those things that please [the Father].” (John 8:29)
This is what we contend for. This is what we are willing to die for, the belief that our Father will always speak the truth, and will always do as He has promised, and will always keep us faithful to His Word.
Now, what He speaks the truth about, for some people that can sometimes be difficult to understand. But that is why we have the Church, with its apostles, and prophets, and teachers. Each is individually free to learn all he can of the Father and Son, but we are also blessed with a family to help us to grow together. And this is necessary, because while faith never changes, doctrine may.
I don’t want to give the impression that doctrines change all the time, or that we can’t trust the teachings of the Church on any given topic. No, these things are inspired by our Father, and are designed to perfect us for the everlasting life ahead of us. But there are certainly things that have changed over time. If you were in the days of the Old Testament, and you said, “You know, I’d rather be baptized than circumcised…” well, I would certainly understand the preference, but you would be rejecting the will of Yah for men in that time. Similarly, if you were to say, today, “I am going to go and sacrifice an animal for my sins,” you can certainly find Scriptural support for that idea, but you would be rejecting the will of Yah for this generation, in which we accept Yahshua’s death as the only sacrifice for sin we ever need.
Doctrines and practices change. In fact, there are three things that cause doctrine to change, none of which affect faith, the faith once delivered unto the saints.
1) The first thing that causes doctrines to change is a change in Covenant. When Yah makes a new agreement with mankind, the conditions of the agreement may change. In the examples I gave above, with regard to circumcision, baptism, and sacrifices, these are all examples of practices appropriate to the Old Covenant, but not the new. At the death of Christ, a new agreement was made between Yahweh and mankind… that acceptance of His Son meant an end to the Law for righteousness, an end to the sacrificial system, an end to the separation of Israel as a biological nation from the gentiles.
These were all very large aspects of what has been called the “Jewish Economy,” and yet every principle of faith remains unchanged between the covenants. Yahshua has always been the means by which mankind is blessed with righteousness, because Yahweh has promised from the beginning to give us His Son as a sacrifice. We no longer kill animals for that purpose, but when the Old Testament saints did so, they did so in anticipation of Christ’s death to which we now look backward. Circumcision was a sign of entry into the Old Covenant; baptism is a sign of entry into the New one. The purpose has not changed, even though the method certainly has.
2) The second thing that causes a change in doctrines is the principle of conditional prophecy. We have spoken about this in other studies, so I won’t go into great detail here, but we know the teaching from the prophet Jeremiah: “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” (Jer 18:7, 8) The next two verses point out that the reverse is also true. Here we see Yahweh apparently not doing something that He has promised. The expected result of His warning changes. It goes from punishment to repentance. The things that people do as a result of that change reveal whether they understand the faith beneath it or not.
For example, Jonah the prophet predicted that the City of Nineveh in Babylon would fall in forty days. The people repented of their idolatry, and so the punishment did not occur… and Jonah was not taken by surprise at this. He knew the conditional nature of his warning, even though he was not permitted to declare that to the Babylonians. Unfortunately, while the Ninevites repented of the particular evils against which Jonah preached, they did not fully turn to Yahweh, and they were destroyed later for similar sins.
When it comes to conditional prophecy, and I had a recent discussion on Facebook with an individual who didn’t quite understand the principle correctly, Yahweh’s words are always fulfilled in one manner or another… but those who respond to His words are permitted to alter His fulfillment, and the manner in which they come to pass.
Those who repent of evil and turn to Yah see their curses turned into blessings. Those who take His word lightly, and reject His warnings, they will be taken by surprise when their expectations are not met in the way that they anticipated. In all these cases, the faith does not change, nor do the principles that directly point to that faith. Those who act in accordance with Yah’s will are blessed, regardless of the covenant, regardless of the prophecies they have been given, and regardless of the understanding they have of His words.
3) The third and final way in which doctrines change is through increasing light. As we learn more about the character of Christ, and the nature of the Father, our words, actions, and beliefs are adjusted. It is not that the covenant has changed. It is not that any prophecy or expectation is fulfilled in a different way, it’s just growth.
For example, we read this in the Book of Acts, concerning the replacement of Judas among the apostles, “And they prayed, and said, ‘Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.’ And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:24-26)
Knowing what we know now, I can’t imagine any Church using this method to appoint a new elder. We would pray, we would examine, and we would vote. We know, more so now than before, that the Holy Spirit of Yah speaks through His people, not generally through chance events. Of course, Yahweh is also the God of providence, so we can’t dispute the practice too forcefully, but increasing light has drawn us closer to the ideal, to the best way of doing things for both ourselves and the witness we give to the world.
But again, in all these changes, whether overt or subtle, the purpose of Yah’s people has not changed. The Spirit that He places within us, to replace the sinful with the divine, that has not changed. The trust we have in our Father and our Savior, that has not changed… with childlike trust, we say, “We know that You will do what You have promised.” It is the promises that we cling to, that is what we earnestly contend to share with others. That is what we defend against corruption and the deceptions of Satan. It can be a thin line, sometimes, between an aspect of faith and a critical teaching. It requires wisdom from above to know when to try to correct others on Scriptural matters, and when to focus on the quality of their faith. We must speak as the Sprit leads us, trusting that Yah is permitting them to see what we do for their own sakes.
And so I say again, doctrines may change, but faith does not. Doctrines may be altered due to a change in covenant, the conditional nature or prophecy, or increased understanding of the truth that comes to us with new light. Because of that, disputes over teachings and beliefs do not generally win souls, unless those teachings and beliefs specifically touch on the Commandments of Yahweh and the Faith of Yahshua. So then, let each of us, as we continue to influence those in our various spheres, pray for enlightenment regarding what we ought to say and do, and let us trust, let us have the Faith of Yahshua, that we will be given the right words to say, always, to bless those around us toward repentance from sin, acceptance of Yahshua, and preparation for glory.
David.