In the previous article we answered the question of “why” regarding the A.D. 70 Doctrine. Why would anyone entertain such a doctrine, and why is the doctrine pushed to the division of churches?
A second question is commonly asked — the question of “How?” The A.D. 70 Doctrine seems to be, on its face, an absurd theory. How could any student of the Bible possibly entertain a doctrine that asserts the resurrection is past, and the end of the world has already occurred? It seems only necessary to clearly state the position to reject it. And yet, many have completely embraced the doctrine, and are convinced of its merit.
To answer the question of “How”, we refer by way of illustration to a recent scientific “discovery” making the rounds on the internet. It is referred to as “darksucker theory”, and entire discourses on the theory can be referenced by entering the term into any internet search engine. Here is a quote from one such document:
The most common hoax [perpetrated by the power companies] promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted light; in actuality, these ‘light’ bulbs actually absorb dark which is then transported back to the power generation stations via wires. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new scientific name is for the device is darksucker. (1)
Now, on the surface, this theory seems absurd, but it begins to make sense as it is fleshed out. You just have to begin to think of light and dark in a different way. Consider some of the demonstrations of dark sucker theory, supplied by those who promote it:
· Take for example, the darksuckers in the room where you are. There is much less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere, demonstrating their limited range.
· A candle is a primitive darksucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it.
· There are also portable darksuckers called flashlights. The bulbs in these devices cannot handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit called a battery.
· Dark has great mass, and so it is very heavy… [for example] the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of a lake, making it appear ‘lighter’ near the surface. (2)
Discerning readers, (hopefully that is everyone), will have come to the conclusion that darksucker theory is simply a joke. No one seriously advocates the idea that light bulbs really suck dark. It does, however, illustrate an important principle. It is possible to take a clearly established truth, turn it on its head, redefine terms by looking at it “in a different way”, and by doing so give it at least a surface plausibility. These tactics lead the credulous into believing a lie.
One illustrative example is the belief that the earth is at the physical center of the universe, and that the sun revolves around it rather than the other way around. The theory is called Geocentric Cosmology, and there are some who advocate it today, based upon a misunderstanding of the Bible. A book titled Geocentricity, by Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD., was published on the subject in 1992, and you can visit an internet site called The Geocentric Bible to read about the theory. One short quote from the front page of that site is instructive: “There is no proof for or against either theory (geocentricity — sun going around a stationary earth; or heliocentrism — earth spinning and going around the sun). All tests, including the stationary satellite, can be explained just as easily from the geocentric viewpoint.” (3) In effect, it just depends upon the way you look at it!
A far more destructive doctrine that has permeated all of the denominations, (and infiltrated the church in some places), is Calvinism. It too arises from a peculiar viewpoint, John Calvin’s beliefs concerning the Sovereignty of God. His view of sovereignty precludes man’s involvement in his own redemption. As such, doctrines such as inherited depravity, irresistible grace, and limited atonement are invented out of whole cloth to fit into Calvin’s view of God. But if you look at the Bible through a Calvinist’s eyes, it is superficially plausible.
The A.D. 70 Doctrine is like this. If you begin to look at the Bible in a different way, all of a sudden it all makes sense! That is the claim of the Preterist, and that is the tact he takes in introducing his doctrine to the naïve.
A Different Paradigm
The term paradigm is often used by A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates. The term has several meanings, but a primary definition used by scientists refers to any particular metaview that dominates a group of scientific disciplines. In this sense, the theory of evolution is a paradigm that influences modern biology, geology, anthropology, and even psychology and sociology. In science, paradigms have changed as scientific knowledge increases. In time, the theory of evolution may very well be rejected, even by secular scientists, and a new paradigm adopted.
As time has passed, the term has entered popular language. The meaning has been adjusted slightly. Note the following definition:
A philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind (4)
A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates talk about their paradigm, the framework they employ in interpreting passages regarding the end times. They freely admit that it is “new,” but claim that it is valid and transforming. Consider the rather astounding claims of Tim King concerning his father Max:
Just as the Scientific Revolution brought about a shift in the way we understand astronomy and the planets, so the field of fulfilled prophecy has begun to revolutionize the way we understand how history revolves around Jesus. Instead of seeing Jesus as someday bringing world history to its end, fulfilled prophecy sees Christ as opening an unending Age of New Creation. In Jesus, redemptive history, or the story of Israel, is brought to fulfillment. In the Last Adam all things are fulfilled and, as the Second Man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), a new way has been opened. Universal history now unfolds as people of faith enter God’s presence and likewise become a transforming presence in relation to nature and society.
All these lofty thoughts as to how The Spirit of Prophecy opened a new paradigm in biblical theology are hindsight. Personally, the worst part is that at the age of twelve, all you know about such matters is that your father can’t be right because the whole world disagrees with him – but he can’t be wrong because he’s your dad, the pillar of your life. (5)
Lofty thoughts and claims indeed. King is unrepentant in lauding his father as a visionary. To think that until 1971, in Tim King’s view, people were ignorant of the paradigm that would literally unfold “Universal history.”
What takes place when people begin to embrace A.D. 70 Doctrine is called a paradigm shift. Consider a final definition:
Paradigm Shift — A radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing. (6)
Those who embrace the shift in paradigm see the Bible in a completely different way. It changes not only their view of the end times, but impacts all aspects of theology and faith. This is clear from the following quote, made by one who was, in his words, “converted” to Preterism:
“We read and study the Bible, and as a result we experience a paradigm shift which reveals to us a new insight into the Scriptures while creating new mysteries to be explored and discovered. This was one of the results of my “conversion” to Preterism. As a result of understanding fulfilled prophecy, I now find myself reassessing other areas of my faith in light of what happened in AD 70.” (7)
In pointing out the “How” — how does someone believe this — please consider that a new way of looking at the Bible is not necessarily wrong. In fact, the Restoration Movement is based on an idea that was, at the time, rather novel. “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.” Ultimately this slogan is as old as God’s word, as we respect the authority of God’s will for man. But, it was certainly new to the bickering sectarians of Thomas Campbell’s day.
The question is whether the new paradigm embraced by A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates is valid. We began our refutation of it in the previous chapter, and continue it here.
Misconceptions Leading to this False Paradigm
In the previous chapter we dealt with the false concept of time entertained by proponents of the A.D. 70 Doctrine. Their contention that the language of the New Testament demands an end to the world in that generation can not be successfully defended from scripture. This insistence upon measuring time as man rather than as God (cf. 2 Peter 3:8) certainly influences their interpretation of passages.
A second false concept is tied in with this view of end time statements. A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates believe that the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 is the second coming of Christ referred to in scripture. Consider this quote from King’s book:
There is no time period between the fall of Judaism and the second coming of Christ. They are essentially the same event – at any rate they are inexorably linked. (8)
This contention, when carefully examined, is found to be without scriptural foundation. The destruction of the temple was predicted by Jesus to His disciples in a conversation recorded by Matthew (chapter 24), Mark (chapter 13) and Luke (chapter 21). The three accounts are very similar, though the account given by Matthew is most often used by those contending the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ refer to the same event.
The context begins with the disciples showing Jesus the grandeur of the temple. Herod’s temple was an impressive edifice, and the disciples were no doubt impressed with “how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations” (Luke 21:5). Imagine their shock when Jesus proclaimed, “…not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2).
Their response was completely natural. “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (24:3). The remainder of the context is taken up in Jesus’ answer to their questions.
The Destruction of Jerusalem
The first thing to note regarding the Destruction of Jerusalem is that the event would be preceded by unmistakable signs. These signs would give warning to the elect, so that they might flee the city, “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (24:16). Put simply, the signs would occur in two stages. Verses 4-14 give a description of false Christs, wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes that are referred to as “the beginning of sorrows.” Concerning these signs, Jesus said, “See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet” (vs. 6).
These initial signs would be followed by what Jesus called the “abomination of desolation”, a reference to the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel (cf. Daniel 9). The identification of the “abomination of desolation” has been a matter of intense speculation among Bible students. Various theories have been promoted. Daniel King mentioned one, “Some have surmised that this is a reference to the Zealots installing in the final days of the sanctuary the imbecile Phannias, an unrighteous man, who thus ‘usurped a position that was not his.’” (9) We may have difficulty determining what it was, but as Daniel King continues, “I am sure they had less difficulty understanding what this meant than do we.” (10)
Whatever the “abomination of desolation” was, it signaled that the destruction of the temple was to shortly come to pass. The disciple was to “flee to the mountains.” He was not to take time to “take anything out of his house” or if in the field to “go back and get his clothes.” (vss. 17-18). It is important to recognize that while the disciples would not know the day or hour when Jesus would visit Jerusalem in judgment, they would have the signs, and could predict the time of that horrific event as it drew near, and escape. It was Jesus’ purpose in this discourse to give sufficient information that they might save themselves from death when the siege and destruction commenced. He said, “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near — at the doors” (vs. 33). Further, the Lord indicated that this destruction would be visited upon Jerusalem within the lifespan of those living. “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (vs. 34).
It is important to point out the figurative language used by the Lord in his prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Premillennialists deny the language is figurative, and claim that the events of Matthew 24 speak of the second coming. They claim that the events described in the text, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the starts will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken” (vs. 29), have not literally happened, and so the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.
In contrast, the proponent of the A.D. 70 Doctrine contends that not only is the language concerning this judgment of Christ over Jerusalem figurative, but that every time language is used regarding judgment, it must be understood to be figurative rather than literal. This claim fails to take into consideration the concept of context. As D.R. Dungan related in his respected work on the science of Bible interpretation:
“Many seem disposed to regard themselves as at liberty to make anything out of the Bible which their theology may demand or their whims require. And if, at any time, they find a passage that will not harmonize with that view, then the next thing is to find one or more words in the text used elsewhere in a figurative sense, and then demand that such be the Biblical dictionary on the meaning of that word, and hence that it must be the meaning in that place.” (11)
It is clear from the context that the language of Jesus in Matthew 24 is figurative. It contains hyperbole commonly associated with Hebrew prophecy. Daniel King presents a concise case for Old Testament similarities to Jesus’ words:
… a brief series of parallels from the Old Testament. The stars becoming dark, the moon not giving its light, etc. (v. 29), is paralleled in the picture of the fall of Babylon (Isa. 13:10), the fall of Idumea (Isa. 34:4, 5), and the judgment against Egypt in Ezekiel 32:7-8. The “sign of the Son of Man,” the coming, etc., have parallels in the day of judgment on Egypt and Ethiopia (“a day of clouds”) in Ezekiel 30:3-4; in Ezekiel 19:1 Jehovah rides on a swift cloud to bring judgment on Egypt. The picture of His “coming” is consistent with other quotations from Jesus which do not necessitate an actual physical return but instead a “presence” in some event or happening (cf. Matt. 16:28; 26:64). This “coming” cannot be the second coming, for Luke 21:27 and Mark 13:26 refer it to the fall of Jerusalem. See also Isaiah 19:1 and Zephaniah 2:7. The “Gathering of the Elect” (v. 31) is a figurative picture of the Christians fleeing the city. Comparison may be made with Zechariah 2:6ff.; Hosea 1:11, etc. (12)
Jesus did not literally come to earth when Jerusalem was destroyed. He came in judgment upon Jerusalem. The language of Matthew 24, and the destruction of Jerusalem as seen in the context, contains figurative language. The fact that the language of Matthew 24 is figurative does not mean that any time a reference is given to an end time event, it is to be taken figuratively. The student must consider the context before making that determination.
Now, in contrast to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was portended by signs that could be used to predict the event, there is a reference in the immediate context of Jesus’ discourse of a final judgment (and coming) of Christ that would be devoid of such signs. In other words, while the A.D. 70 Doctrine proselyte believes Jesus teaches in Matthew 24 that the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ are the same event — the actual discourse, covering chapters 24 and 25 makes a clear distinction between the two. They are not, in the words of Max King, “essentially the same event.”
Jesus’ teaching in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins illustrates the point (cf. Matthew 25:1-13). When reading that parable, keep in mind the attitude of the scoffers who said, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of ‘creation’” (2 Peter 3:4). The foolish virgins ran out of oil as the bridegroom delayed his coming. They were unprepared, and when they left to buy more oil, “the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut” (25:10). The application Jesus made at the end of the parable is clear, “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.”
That this parable references the final coming of Jesus is made clear in the context, as Jesus describes the judgment scene in verses 31-46.
Literal Language Regarding the End Times
While the language of Matthew 24 is figurative, much of the writing concerning the final coming of our Lord is shown by context to be quite literal. For example, the apostle Paul speaks in literal terms when referring to the resurrection of the dead. In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle refuted the contention some were making that “there is no resurrection of the dead” (vs. 12). The centerpiece of his argument was Christ’s resurrection. There is no denying that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected from the dead. He walked among the disciples for weeks following his resurrection, and bodily ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9). Paul’s argument has no merit if the two things — Christ’s resurrection and the resurrection of the dead — are not parallel in their nature.
It is important to make a distinction here between a literal resurrection, and a fleshly resurrection. Max King is constantly confusing and intermingling such terms, and thus obfuscates the truth. Paul is clear. The body we will have when we are literally resurrected at Christ’s coming is different from the one we have now. “It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (vs. 43-44). Paul is not affirming that the resurrection is figurative, he is affirming an individual and personal resurrection, and a change in the body we will have. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (vs. 51).
The second and final advent of Jesus Christ is likewise revealed to be a literal coming. When the messengers of God appeared to the disciples at Jesus’ ascension they affirmed, “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). When Jesus left this earth, He literally rose up into the sky. God’s messengers state that when He comes again, it will be “in like manner.”
The destruction of the world is prophesied in literal terms by the apostle Peter. Again, context clearly reveals this to be true. In 2 Peter 3, Peter compared the final destruction of the world with that first destruction of the world by water. He affirmed that in the days of Noah, “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” In the very next verse, as a continuation of his thought, Peter wrote, “But the heavens and earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vss. 6-7). The literal earth, in the first world judgment, was literally flooded with literal water. The literal earth that now exists will be preserved until the final day of judgment, where God has decreed it will be destroyed with literal fire. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (vs. 10). Respecting context, if the water was literal, the ultimate destruction prophesied in verse 10 must be construed as literal as well.
Deficiencies in the A.D. 70 Doctrine
Up to this point we have dealt with some of the fundamental tenants of the A.D. 70 Doctrine, and showed them to be without scriptural foundation. False doctrines invariably conflict with truth. This doctrine is no different. Those who teach it are put into the uncomfortable position of having to explain away or rationalize their opposition to other truths contained in Gods word.
For example, Jesus taught that in the resurrection there will be neither death nor marriage. The Sadducees of Jesus’ time denied the resurrection. In Luke 20 they presented a hypothetical scenario regarding 7 brothers who all had the same woman as a wife. In an attempt to show what they perceived to be the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection, they asked Jesus, “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife” (vs. 33). Consider Jesus’ answer carefully, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (vs. 34-36).
Max King clearly contends that as Christians, we have attained “that age, and the resurrection from the dead.” Notice the following from his pen:
The New Testament saints preached, wrote, suffered, and died in the last days, but this is not true of us today. We are now in that world which was to come. We are in the eternal kingdom of Christ, and instead of being in last days we are in eternal days – a world without end (Eph. 3:21). (13)
If Max King is right, there should be no more marriage or death. We should be equal with the angels. This is demonstrably not so — (for example, this author has been married for over 27 years as of this writing). He has also officiated at many funerals in the 30 years he has been preaching the gospel.
King makes a rather pathetic attempt to explain this passage within the construct of his paradigm. He contends that Jesus is referring to the spiritual nature of the kingdom, making the same point Paul does in Romans 14:17, “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The context precludes such an interpretation. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day believed in a literal resurrection from the dead. It is this doctrine the Sadducees objected to, and sought to refute by their scenario. Jesus answered their contention. King’s interpretation would make that answer incomprehensible to the Sadducees. Further, while the kingdom of God most certainly is a spiritual kingdom, those of us in it still marry, and still die.
Jesus was not the only one who shared the Pharisee’s view of a literal resurrection. Paul believed it as well. In his defense before Felix he said, “I have hope in God, which they [the Pharisees] also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates claim that the passages concerning the resurrection reference a figurative raising of the kingdom rather than an individual, literal resurrection. In this they have an opponent in Paul.
There is another point that can be derived from Paul’s conversation with Felix. In Acts 24:24-25, Luke reveals that Felix listened to Paul “concerning the faith in Christ. Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, ‘Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.’” Remember, Max King’s contention is that the judgment to come concerned the end of the Jewish world. But, Felix was a Roman governor. He not only would have no reason to be afraid when considering the destruction of Jerusalem, he would actively encourage the intentions of Rome. King’s doctrine does not fit into the reality of the New Testament narrative. Felix was afraid because he realized the judgment to come would have a bearing upon the eternal destiny of his soul!
One final observation from scripture indicates an inconsistency in the practice of A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul explained the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (vs. 26). While Paul clearly states that the proclamation was to continue until the Lord’s second coming, those who believe this peculiar doctrine for some reason continue their observance to the present. If they are right, there is no reason nor authority to persist in the practice. And yet, we know of no instances among Christians who have been caught up in this error where this act of worship has been discarded. We wonder, why not?
Other similar arguments could be raised to point out the invalid nature of the Preterist paradigm. These are sufficient to make the point. It is indeed a new way of looking at scripture, but in this case newer is most certainly not better.
Conclusion
We have positively established the truth revealed in God’s word regarding the end times. The Bible clearly teaches a literal second advent of Jesus that will bring about a resurrection of both the just and unjust dead, a final judgment and a dissolution of the physical universe.
We have introduced the Realized Eschatology error with special emphasis upon the peculiar tenants of Max R. King. It is his book The Spirit of Prophecy, written in 1971, and his followers who have caused the greatest distress to the Lord’s church. We have pointed out the motivation behind those who advocate the error, and the dangers associated with a toleration of that teaching.
Finally, we have identified the prominent tenants of the doctrine, and supplied a concise refutation of them. In this we have made no effort to be overly technical, or comprehensive. Such an undertaking is beyond the scope of this little book.
However, we are confident that in these pages we have supplied sufficient material to identify the specious nature of the A.D. 70 Doctrine. It is our prayer that the reader will be able to correctly understand the danger of the doctrine, and to avoid the shipwreck of their faith (cf. 1 Timothy 1:19). The reader is encouraged to take advantage of the Chapter Endnotes, to closely examine the source material, and to further study the many excellent materials referenced in this book. Contained with them is a clear refutation of the A.D. 70 Doctrine.
Max King and his ilk are no better than Hymenaeus and Alexander. Be on guard, and avoid their leaven.
Chapter Endnotes
- Dark Conspiracy Involving Electrical Power Companies Surfaces
http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/dark1.html - Ibidem
- The Geocentric Bible
http://www.geocentricbible.com/ - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/ - The Transmillennial® View, Tim King
http://www.presence.tv/cms/transmillennial_view.php - Answers.com (Paradigm Shift)
http://www.answers.com/topic/paradigm-shift - Who is Afraid of Postmodernism?
Virgil Vaduva, Planet Preterist—Prophecy Fulfilled in A.D. 70
http://planetpreterist.com/news-5208.html - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Pages 137-138 - Perversions of Matthew 24 (2), Dan King
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume27/GOT027175.html - Ibidem
- Hermeneutics, D.R. Dungan
Page 217 - Perversions of Matthew 24 (2), Dan King
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume27/GOT027175.html - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Pages 137-138
Addendum
Early in our Introduction to Realized Eschatology (chapter 2) we noted that those who believe the doctrine enthusiastically promote it. When the doctrine is initially introduced into a congregation, it is typically portrayed as a belief that should not be a point of contention or lead to a test of fellowship. We repeat here a direct quote from one who promotes the doctrine, as he claimed that the doctrine had nothing to do with “…your salvation, your worship of God, or the work of the church. Therefore in the spirit of Romans 14 we can agree to disagree.” (1)
We first note the specious nature of the contention that only those doctrines impacting your salvation, your worship of God and the work of the church are worthy of a test of fellowship. There is no such differentiation of doctrines to be found in scripture. They are to be found solely in the arbitrary imaginations of men’s minds. Further, the context of Romans 14 deals with matters of no consequence to God. Surely those who advocate so vociferously their contentions regarding the end time do not consider their doctrine of no consequence to the Almighty? And if so, why would they be so insistent to be heard, even to the division of congregations, if it matters not a whit to God? The contention is invalid, because the doctrine of God concerning the end times is a significant part of the Christian’s faith.
Is it necessary to be accurate regarding the question, “Is the resurrection already past?” It certainly was in the first century. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:16-18, “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.” Paul warned Timothy to shun the error then, and it is no less important today. As the resurrection is yet future, to say that it is past is to introduce the same cancer among God’s people as that which overthrew the faith of some in Paul’s day.
The Bible clearly reveals the response we are to have toward those who advocate doctrinal error. The principles would certainly apply toward those who teach the A.D. 70 Doctrine. While we should be patient in teaching any man who is wrong doctrinally, are not to “yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue…” (Galatians 2:5).
We are to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Elders are admonished to “convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). We are to realize that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9), and heed the apostle’s admonition to “all speak the same thing” (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Ultimately our acceptance by God and right of fellowship with one another is dependent in part upon remaining doctrinally pure. As John wrote, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11).
Whatever affinity we may have for any man, if he promotes error he must be rejected. Our responsibility is to protect the flock against error, and to refuse the errorist. To do any less would be a dereliction of duty before the Almighty.
Chapter Endnotes
- Sing to Me of Heaven (A Study of Fulfilled Prophecy)
Keith Roland, page 3
