- Be sure to visit HEAVEN DECLARES.
Non-doctrinal Fellowship
©2010 Earl Jackson All Rights Reserved
2Co 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This article came about when my interest was piqued by a search term I found on my website. Someone had searched the term “non-doctrinal fellowship”. I began to wonder, is this person searching this term because they want to have a non-doctrinal fellowship with someone who holds to heretical views? Or are they asking the question, because they want to know whether or not the role of Christian love obliviates the necessity to identify heresy and heretics, and to have nothing to do with them. Then the popular phrase came to mind which says, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," a phrase plastered mindlessly above church doors and websites all across America. Did God give us “non-essentials” in His word? Things that we can simply choose to ignore and downplay for the sake of the sacred “unity” cow? And if so, who is the authorized agent who is capable and qualified to isolate and identify which portions of the Bible are “non-essential”? Isn’t that exactly the role of the Pope? To tell his followers what is true and essential, and what is really not important at all? Isn’t he, after all, the interpreter of the Scriptures, the vice-regent of Christ Himself? The sole arbiter of the truth? So, do we Protestant Evangelicals have such a Pope ourselves? who can point out the essentials from the non-essentials?
Then the last part of the dictum began to catch my attention and channel my thoughts into the whole controversy, “In all things, charity”. Surely this is the only thing in the phrase that is true. We as God’s children, are possessors of the great commandment: “to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves”. Charity (love) ought to permeate everything that we do, everything that we are. So then how does this relate to this question of non-doctrinal unity, or non-doctrinal fellowship?
Wow, I said, this is a really interesting and important question…a real eye-popper. Should we, or shouldn’t we, have non-doctrinal fellowship? Are we supposed to be participators in the old, but really not so old, ecumenical movement? Should we sit down at the table with anyone, and everyone, who merely names the name of Christ?, and shouldn’t we do so, out of common courtesy, and Christian decency? To be truly loving, must be the same thing as being ecumenical? To be narrow minded, bigoted, exclusionist and separatistic , must certainly be wrong in the light of the all-pervasive love which we are supposed to have and exemplify? How do we deal with these things?
Let us begin by looking at a couple of other passages besides our text of 2Cor. 6:14-18. Consider first the following:
2Jn 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Here John is obviously laying down some sort of a restriction limiting fellowship to persons who share the same “doctrine”. The word is διδαχή (did ache). It means teachings or instructions, in this case particularly instructions or doctrines received through an apostle. It has applications to anyone who does not endorse sound doctrine, or anyone who departs from the orthodox faith, which is considered to be true, because it is wholly derived from God‘s word and through His Spirit. “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). So John clearly insists upon doctrinal agreement as the basis for fellowship. Compromise makes the compromiser “partaker of his evil deeds” referring to the heretic. If you tell them “God speed”, or “God bless you brother”, you are just as much of a heretic as them, sharing in their evil deeds.
This is similar to Paul’s word in Ephesians.
Eph 5:6-7,11 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them… And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. “
False doctrine would certainly qualify as “vain words”. God told the people not to hearken to the words of the “false prophets” in Jer. 23:14-16, because their words caused the people to become “vain”. Vain has the connotation of “emptiness, being void of understanding”. Deceivers with vain words are to be “reproved”, and we are to not “be partakers with them”. It is clearly said, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”. That’s what vain and empty deceivers bring with them…unfruitful works of darkness. God does not say, don’t worry about their “vain words“, because they are “non-essentials”! He seems to indicate that that is exactly what you should do, and when you here the “vain words” of false doctrine, you are to flee.
This agrees completely with Paul’s method of proving or testing teachers and preachers, to see if they should be fellowshipped with. Look at his plain words in Galatians.
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
That’s pretty explicit. How can Paul express his thoughts along these lines any clearer than this? Even if an angel from heaven is preaching a different gospel…LET HIM BE ACCURSED! He may have all the appearances of holiness, orthodoxy, purity and everything else. Perhaps he is high on the pinnacle of public opinion, having great popularity, and a tremendous bevy of devoted followers…IF HE IS PREACHING ANOTHER GOSPEL…LET HIM BE ACCURSED! Where is the room in this for compromising over “Non-essentials”? Frankly I don’t see any. Do you? It looks pretty cut and dry to me. Fellowship only with those who preach the true gospel, and all others are to be “ACCURSED”. That is a very strong word in the Greek. It is the same word as in the powerful pronouncement of church discipline in 1Cor. 16:22 “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” The accursing is banishment from the people of God and the light of truth. It is where all people who do not love Christ should be, they should be banished from the people of truth, because they are in reality haters of the truth. It does not appear that there is any “non-essentials” here.
We should also consider this in relation to the Biblical doctrine of the laying on of hands. Laying on of hands was a sign of fellowship, approval and blessing. Paul made a statement to Timothy which merits our thoughts.
1Ti 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
This goes hand in hand with what we have just seen, and that is the notion that fellowship with heretics, false preachers and the doctrinally unsound, constitutes a form of vicarious participation in their sins, evil deeds and accursedness. This of course is symbolic, but it is a powerful concept just the same. If I bless a heretic, I might as well join with him. So Paul here says, that if we are not careful who we lay hands on, we might be partakers of their sins, and might fall into impurity. These words to Timothy are actually a warning not to enter into fellowship with any, too quickly, or ill-advisedly. Be careful Timothy, you don’t want to endorse someone too quickly, because you might be endorsing a heretic. I am reminded of a recent occasion when John Piper, a respected and beloved Baptist pastor, sent a mixed message by inviting Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God Conferences. By inviting him, he sort of sent a message that he approved of his “purpose driven departure from the gospel”. I don’t think Piper intended to send that message, but he did anyway. Too bad, because neither Piper, nor any of his followers, have anything to gain from Rick Warren. Piper was out of character when he did such a thing. Warren is a heretic, plain and simple. He sends mixed messages constantly, and skillfully tailors them to his audience. He spoke for four hours at a conference for Rabbi’s, and did not mention Jesus Christ even once. That’s a great witness for the truth, isn’t it? When Piper invited Warren, he in fact, lowered his standards, and laid his hands where they never should have been laid.
Now we should re-read our text.
2Co 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This passage should forever settle our minds as to the question being asked. “What Fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness”? Is there any room for fellowship between righteousness, and unrighteousness, between light and darkness, between Christ and the Devil, between believers and infidels, between the true God and idols? There can be no fellowship, where there is drastic doctrinal contrasts. Truth and error cannot co-mingle, or co-exist. So God’s directions for his people is unmistakable…“Come out from among them, and be ye separate…touch not the unclean thing”. This is a command, and an important command which is repeated elsewhere in Scripture as well.
Is there such a thing as “Non-doctrinal Fellowship“? I don’t think so. Compromise is always equated with participation in the sins of the heretics. Fellowship without doctrine is itself a serious heresy, because it is disobedience to the Lord’s command to come out and be separate.
Peter Masters, who was a recent pastor at Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle in London exposed the dangers of not being separate in his booklet “Stand for the Truth”. He gives four things that inevitably happen when we compromise the truth, pretend that there are non-essentials, and fail to remove ourselves from heresy and heretics. Here’s what Dr Masters said:
“... When professing evangelicals (especially leaders) disobey the command of God to maintain a distinctive testimony, unassociated with false teachers, they participate in the evil deeds of the latter in at least four different ways:
(1) Non-separators deal a terrible blow to the exclusive nature of the message of the Gospel. When evangelicals are seen to accommodate the viewpoint of non-evangelicals and to accept their claims to spiritual life, the clear teaching of the Word is undermined. The line between Truth and error becomes blurred, and also the distinction between saved and unsaved. Believers who look on are liable to stop thinking of 'conversion' in precise, evangelical terms.
(2) Non-separators help the devil to achieve one of his main objectives — to cause such confusion that the world no longer sees a distinctive, biblical Christian community standing clearly apart from Catholic and liberal error. Non-separating evangelicals communicate to the world the idea that all so-called Christian churches are the same. Nothing is more crippling to the true testimony of evangelicalism. In the nineteenth century even unsaved people knew the Protestant arguments against Catholic dogma. But today (through compromise) evangelicals have long since surrendered any distinctive place in the general knowledge of the public.
(3) Non-separators lower the guard of the people of God, exposing them to infiltration by false believers and false doctrine. Once the people follow the example of their non-separating ministers, learning to tolerate and accept 'other views', then the way is prepared for a major doctrinal collapse. Non-evangelicals could never penetrate evangelical churches without 'inside help'. They need a 'pass' into the household of God, which only an evangelical 'collaborator' can give them, as he extends to them credibility, recognition and opportunity
(4) Non-separators encourage false teachers in their infidelity and sin, and so strengthen in their work. The rise of theological liberalism in the denominations, and its take-over of them, was funded almost entirely by evangelicals. When these opponents of the Gospel first infiltrated colleges and publishing institutes, non-separating evangelicals continued to pay the bills and support them. Almost all the present-day liberal theological colleges and churches in the historic denominations were originally built by the blood, sweat and toil of evangelicals. Then, a subsequent generation of non-separating evangelicals gave them away! This continues today in denominations where evangelicals give their money to support hoe and overseas missions mainly staffed and run by non-evangelicals. Non only do non-separating evangelicals support false teachers at a practical level, but they also seal them in their spiritual delusion by failing to challenge them about their lost spiritual condition” (pg.16-18).
Actions have consequences, and spiritual actions carry some of the gravest consequences, especially if they are taken in disregard to what God has plainly said. When ministers of the gospel, try to ecumenicalize, try to have tea and crumpets with heretics, try to establish non-essentials in order to open up dialogs with doctrinal pollution, they are tossing aside the authority of the Bible, and they are becoming participants in evil (2Jn.11).
There are two words from the Old testament that I would like to close with. The first concerns the clothing worn by the priests in the Temple.
Ezek. 44:16-17 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.
It is a simple but beautiful picture of non-compromise, and non-fellowship with false doctrine. “They shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them.” They are engaged in holy service to God. They wear the white robes of purity, holiness and truth, and wool is inappropriate for their service. God said they shall wear the white linen which He specified, and not wear the cheap and inferior white robes of wool. There is no room for compromise. There is nobody who had the right to say: “oh, it really doesn’t matter, as long as the robes are white, in non-essentials unity”. No, God said the priests were to be separated unto Him, as He specified... period, settled, no room for compromise!
The last passage is taken from Amos, one of the most radical and powerful prophets of the Old Testament. He asks a question, which was based upon a simple Jewish understanding of marriage. Husband and wife must get along with each other. They must share the same values and beliefs. Even so, God’s people, who are His bride, must get along with him, and share the beliefs he has told them about. Agreement is a key principle for fellowship. The saying should be: “In everything, truth; in everything, agreement with the truth; in everything, love”. If we said that, we would be expressing the truth, and stating God’s wisdom, which should adorn every church and every website. Take down the banners of compromise, wishy-washiness, and willingness to pollute the sanctuary. Rip it down. Pull it down. Tug at it. Destroy it…that evil slogan "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," In it’s place hang up the words of Amos, for those words express the spirit of doctrinal fellowship. “In everything, truth; In everything, agreement; In everything, love”
Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
©2010 Earl Jackson All Rights Reserved
2Co 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This article came about when my interest was piqued by a search term I found on my website. Someone had searched the term “non-doctrinal fellowship”. I began to wonder, is this person searching this term because they want to have a non-doctrinal fellowship with someone who holds to heretical views? Or are they asking the question, because they want to know whether or not the role of Christian love obliviates the necessity to identify heresy and heretics, and to have nothing to do with them. Then the popular phrase came to mind which says, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," a phrase plastered mindlessly above church doors and websites all across America. Did God give us “non-essentials” in His word? Things that we can simply choose to ignore and downplay for the sake of the sacred “unity” cow? And if so, who is the authorized agent who is capable and qualified to isolate and identify which portions of the Bible are “non-essential”? Isn’t that exactly the role of the Pope? To tell his followers what is true and essential, and what is really not important at all? Isn’t he, after all, the interpreter of the Scriptures, the vice-regent of Christ Himself? The sole arbiter of the truth? So, do we Protestant Evangelicals have such a Pope ourselves? who can point out the essentials from the non-essentials?
Then the last part of the dictum began to catch my attention and channel my thoughts into the whole controversy, “In all things, charity”. Surely this is the only thing in the phrase that is true. We as God’s children, are possessors of the great commandment: “to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves”. Charity (love) ought to permeate everything that we do, everything that we are. So then how does this relate to this question of non-doctrinal unity, or non-doctrinal fellowship?
Wow, I said, this is a really interesting and important question…a real eye-popper. Should we, or shouldn’t we, have non-doctrinal fellowship? Are we supposed to be participators in the old, but really not so old, ecumenical movement? Should we sit down at the table with anyone, and everyone, who merely names the name of Christ?, and shouldn’t we do so, out of common courtesy, and Christian decency? To be truly loving, must be the same thing as being ecumenical? To be narrow minded, bigoted, exclusionist and separatistic , must certainly be wrong in the light of the all-pervasive love which we are supposed to have and exemplify? How do we deal with these things?
Let us begin by looking at a couple of other passages besides our text of 2Cor. 6:14-18. Consider first the following:
2Jn 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Here John is obviously laying down some sort of a restriction limiting fellowship to persons who share the same “doctrine”. The word is διδαχή (did ache). It means teachings or instructions, in this case particularly instructions or doctrines received through an apostle. It has applications to anyone who does not endorse sound doctrine, or anyone who departs from the orthodox faith, which is considered to be true, because it is wholly derived from God‘s word and through His Spirit. “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). So John clearly insists upon doctrinal agreement as the basis for fellowship. Compromise makes the compromiser “partaker of his evil deeds” referring to the heretic. If you tell them “God speed”, or “God bless you brother”, you are just as much of a heretic as them, sharing in their evil deeds.
This is similar to Paul’s word in Ephesians.
Eph 5:6-7,11 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them… And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. “
False doctrine would certainly qualify as “vain words”. God told the people not to hearken to the words of the “false prophets” in Jer. 23:14-16, because their words caused the people to become “vain”. Vain has the connotation of “emptiness, being void of understanding”. Deceivers with vain words are to be “reproved”, and we are to not “be partakers with them”. It is clearly said, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”. That’s what vain and empty deceivers bring with them…unfruitful works of darkness. God does not say, don’t worry about their “vain words“, because they are “non-essentials”! He seems to indicate that that is exactly what you should do, and when you here the “vain words” of false doctrine, you are to flee.
This agrees completely with Paul’s method of proving or testing teachers and preachers, to see if they should be fellowshipped with. Look at his plain words in Galatians.
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
That’s pretty explicit. How can Paul express his thoughts along these lines any clearer than this? Even if an angel from heaven is preaching a different gospel…LET HIM BE ACCURSED! He may have all the appearances of holiness, orthodoxy, purity and everything else. Perhaps he is high on the pinnacle of public opinion, having great popularity, and a tremendous bevy of devoted followers…IF HE IS PREACHING ANOTHER GOSPEL…LET HIM BE ACCURSED! Where is the room in this for compromising over “Non-essentials”? Frankly I don’t see any. Do you? It looks pretty cut and dry to me. Fellowship only with those who preach the true gospel, and all others are to be “ACCURSED”. That is a very strong word in the Greek. It is the same word as in the powerful pronouncement of church discipline in 1Cor. 16:22 “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” The accursing is banishment from the people of God and the light of truth. It is where all people who do not love Christ should be, they should be banished from the people of truth, because they are in reality haters of the truth. It does not appear that there is any “non-essentials” here.
We should also consider this in relation to the Biblical doctrine of the laying on of hands. Laying on of hands was a sign of fellowship, approval and blessing. Paul made a statement to Timothy which merits our thoughts.
1Ti 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
This goes hand in hand with what we have just seen, and that is the notion that fellowship with heretics, false preachers and the doctrinally unsound, constitutes a form of vicarious participation in their sins, evil deeds and accursedness. This of course is symbolic, but it is a powerful concept just the same. If I bless a heretic, I might as well join with him. So Paul here says, that if we are not careful who we lay hands on, we might be partakers of their sins, and might fall into impurity. These words to Timothy are actually a warning not to enter into fellowship with any, too quickly, or ill-advisedly. Be careful Timothy, you don’t want to endorse someone too quickly, because you might be endorsing a heretic. I am reminded of a recent occasion when John Piper, a respected and beloved Baptist pastor, sent a mixed message by inviting Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God Conferences. By inviting him, he sort of sent a message that he approved of his “purpose driven departure from the gospel”. I don’t think Piper intended to send that message, but he did anyway. Too bad, because neither Piper, nor any of his followers, have anything to gain from Rick Warren. Piper was out of character when he did such a thing. Warren is a heretic, plain and simple. He sends mixed messages constantly, and skillfully tailors them to his audience. He spoke for four hours at a conference for Rabbi’s, and did not mention Jesus Christ even once. That’s a great witness for the truth, isn’t it? When Piper invited Warren, he in fact, lowered his standards, and laid his hands where they never should have been laid.
Now we should re-read our text.
2Co 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
This passage should forever settle our minds as to the question being asked. “What Fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness”? Is there any room for fellowship between righteousness, and unrighteousness, between light and darkness, between Christ and the Devil, between believers and infidels, between the true God and idols? There can be no fellowship, where there is drastic doctrinal contrasts. Truth and error cannot co-mingle, or co-exist. So God’s directions for his people is unmistakable…“Come out from among them, and be ye separate…touch not the unclean thing”. This is a command, and an important command which is repeated elsewhere in Scripture as well.
Is there such a thing as “Non-doctrinal Fellowship“? I don’t think so. Compromise is always equated with participation in the sins of the heretics. Fellowship without doctrine is itself a serious heresy, because it is disobedience to the Lord’s command to come out and be separate.
Peter Masters, who was a recent pastor at Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle in London exposed the dangers of not being separate in his booklet “Stand for the Truth”. He gives four things that inevitably happen when we compromise the truth, pretend that there are non-essentials, and fail to remove ourselves from heresy and heretics. Here’s what Dr Masters said:
“... When professing evangelicals (especially leaders) disobey the command of God to maintain a distinctive testimony, unassociated with false teachers, they participate in the evil deeds of the latter in at least four different ways:
(1) Non-separators deal a terrible blow to the exclusive nature of the message of the Gospel. When evangelicals are seen to accommodate the viewpoint of non-evangelicals and to accept their claims to spiritual life, the clear teaching of the Word is undermined. The line between Truth and error becomes blurred, and also the distinction between saved and unsaved. Believers who look on are liable to stop thinking of 'conversion' in precise, evangelical terms.
(2) Non-separators help the devil to achieve one of his main objectives — to cause such confusion that the world no longer sees a distinctive, biblical Christian community standing clearly apart from Catholic and liberal error. Non-separating evangelicals communicate to the world the idea that all so-called Christian churches are the same. Nothing is more crippling to the true testimony of evangelicalism. In the nineteenth century even unsaved people knew the Protestant arguments against Catholic dogma. But today (through compromise) evangelicals have long since surrendered any distinctive place in the general knowledge of the public.
(3) Non-separators lower the guard of the people of God, exposing them to infiltration by false believers and false doctrine. Once the people follow the example of their non-separating ministers, learning to tolerate and accept 'other views', then the way is prepared for a major doctrinal collapse. Non-evangelicals could never penetrate evangelical churches without 'inside help'. They need a 'pass' into the household of God, which only an evangelical 'collaborator' can give them, as he extends to them credibility, recognition and opportunity
(4) Non-separators encourage false teachers in their infidelity and sin, and so strengthen in their work. The rise of theological liberalism in the denominations, and its take-over of them, was funded almost entirely by evangelicals. When these opponents of the Gospel first infiltrated colleges and publishing institutes, non-separating evangelicals continued to pay the bills and support them. Almost all the present-day liberal theological colleges and churches in the historic denominations were originally built by the blood, sweat and toil of evangelicals. Then, a subsequent generation of non-separating evangelicals gave them away! This continues today in denominations where evangelicals give their money to support hoe and overseas missions mainly staffed and run by non-evangelicals. Non only do non-separating evangelicals support false teachers at a practical level, but they also seal them in their spiritual delusion by failing to challenge them about their lost spiritual condition” (pg.16-18).
Actions have consequences, and spiritual actions carry some of the gravest consequences, especially if they are taken in disregard to what God has plainly said. When ministers of the gospel, try to ecumenicalize, try to have tea and crumpets with heretics, try to establish non-essentials in order to open up dialogs with doctrinal pollution, they are tossing aside the authority of the Bible, and they are becoming participants in evil (2Jn.11).
There are two words from the Old testament that I would like to close with. The first concerns the clothing worn by the priests in the Temple.
Ezek. 44:16-17 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.
It is a simple but beautiful picture of non-compromise, and non-fellowship with false doctrine. “They shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them.” They are engaged in holy service to God. They wear the white robes of purity, holiness and truth, and wool is inappropriate for their service. God said they shall wear the white linen which He specified, and not wear the cheap and inferior white robes of wool. There is no room for compromise. There is nobody who had the right to say: “oh, it really doesn’t matter, as long as the robes are white, in non-essentials unity”. No, God said the priests were to be separated unto Him, as He specified... period, settled, no room for compromise!
The last passage is taken from Amos, one of the most radical and powerful prophets of the Old Testament. He asks a question, which was based upon a simple Jewish understanding of marriage. Husband and wife must get along with each other. They must share the same values and beliefs. Even so, God’s people, who are His bride, must get along with him, and share the beliefs he has told them about. Agreement is a key principle for fellowship. The saying should be: “In everything, truth; in everything, agreement with the truth; in everything, love”. If we said that, we would be expressing the truth, and stating God’s wisdom, which should adorn every church and every website. Take down the banners of compromise, wishy-washiness, and willingness to pollute the sanctuary. Rip it down. Pull it down. Tug at it. Destroy it…that evil slogan "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity," In it’s place hang up the words of Amos, for those words express the spirit of doctrinal fellowship. “In everything, truth; In everything, agreement; In everything, love”
Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
