Mark them which cause divisions...

[Nell]

I'm back.

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

Terry wrote about this verse on another thread. I've been thinking about it for a long time, and have some questions about its meaning and application. Hopefully some of you can comment on the verse.

1. "Mark them". How? How do you mark someone you determine to be guilty?
2. "Divisions". Define "divisions". Divided from what? Divided from whom?
3. "Offenses". What offenses? What specifically are considered "offenses" in this context? Sinful behavior?
4. "Contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned". What doctrine? What specific doctrine/s have you learned?
5. "Avoid them". Mark them and avoid them.

This verse is addressed to the brethren, so that's all of us. Right? It seems to me that this verse is open to interpretation on so many levels, that us brethren need to be really careful before "marking" and "avoiding" someone, based on this one verse.

If you suspect someone you know is being divisive, and committing other "contrary offences", what is your responsibility to this person?

Communication? At a bare minimum, are you responsible to communicate with them? If so, to what extent are you responsible? What would scripturally bring an end to communication?

Specifics? Are you responsible for defining YOUR standard for divisive behavior and offering proof of how this person has deviated?

Contrary doctrine? Contrary to what specific doctrine? If you take action against someone just because they are contrary to what you learned, do you have a responsibility to prove that what YOU "learned" is scriptural, and that YOU are not the one who is deviant?

Does this verse stand alone for disciplining a brother or sister, or are you responsible to encompass all relevant scripture, (Matthew 18 for example) rather than merely act based on one verse and your learned doctrines?

Is it possible that the "mark-er" become more divisive than the "mark-ee" by misapplying this verse?

What do you think?

Nell

[Cal]

Like a lot of verses this one can be made to mean what one wants it to mean. And so the LRC cooked up a meaning that reflected their controlling nature.

But taking the verse at face value it is pretty simple. All it is saying is to be aware of people who cause trouble and to steer clear of them. That's all.

It doesn't say anything about quarantining or excommunicating or scarlet letters or anything like that. It's not addressed to the elders to give them authority to deal with someone. It's not even a formal doctrine. It's simply sensible advice on dealing with trouble makers. Avoid them.

People who try to make it more than that reveal themselves as control freaks.

[OBW]

This is one of those topics that is begging for misunderstanding and misuse. I note that on the surface it almost says "divide from those that are divisive." It doesn't really say that, but we so often treat it as if it does.

I note that the idea of being harshly divisive over doctrine is somewhat of a dying thing (with a lot of breath left in it). But I'm not sure that simply ignoring the differences is the answer either. And there is a tendency to either divide and build walls or tear them down and become so soft on everything that you don't really know what you think.

It has been noted that outside of some of the really big errors of the first centuries, prior to the marriage of church and state there was discussion of everything. There was no "this is it and we are not listening to you" approach to disagreement. The discussion could go on for years without the kind of effect that being able to simply quash the other and declare them heretic in the name of the state had. I enjoy a podcast that is put out by an organization that has quite variety in its upper echelons. A recent series was on why certain ones believed that the "charismatic" gifts are still in action and others do not. No acrimony in it. No need to drive the other side off. They work well together. On weekends they are part of their own assemblies that are consistent in belief with their positions. But they do not consider the others to be in "serious error." Just differ on certain points of "peripherals."

When I read Paul's words, I sense something more intentionally divisive in positions than simply disagreeing. More like trying to create a following or "party" that is simply at odds with the others in a way that is disruptive to the normal function of the assembly as a whole. This is something more than just disagreement on doctrines. It is more like the joke about the guy who makes it to heaven and is being given a tour by "St. Peter." They come to a wall and the guy asks "what's on the other side?" The answer is "Shhh! The (certain denomination) is behind it and they think they are the only ones here."

Now I think that Paul was mostly talking about someone speaking contrary to sound teaching within a group. He was not talking about a nuance of teaching in one place that is different from another place. Or a minor disagreement about unimportant things. Like who is or is not the "minister of the age." But he might have been talking about the guy who was trying to set himself up as MOTA. Division always follows those kinds of things.

[Nell]

Just to say you're "divisive" isn't enough. What is your standard?

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
2. He was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life on earth 33 1/2 years.
3. He gave Himself up to die on the cross for redeemption of our sins.
4. He died, was buried and rose again on the third day.
5. He ascended to the Heavens and now sits on the right hand of the Father, and one day He will return, as He said, to take His people to be where He is.
6. There is one God--Jehovah and the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, word by word.

This is my standard. Shouldn't the standard for "division" be the same as the standard for being a Christian, that is, the faith once given? If you don't believe these items above, you're not a Christian, and therefore your need is salvation, not "oneness".

Or, what is the standard which you MUST believe and practice, if not, you are divisive.

If you don't play "follow the leader", does that make you divisive? Depends on who is the leader...doesn't it?

Nell

This list is off the top of my head, and maybe there's more. Maybe that's where we should start...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like a lot of verses this one can be made to mean what one wants it to mean. And so the LRC cooked up a meaning that reflected their controlling nature.

This (and verse 18) is one of those verses that just jumps out of the text. (Nell really should consider these two verses together, if possible.)

Paul was just moving right along, concluding his long epistle, and greeting so many saints, and then "pop" he must have thought of some serious dangers, those who could move in to spoil such a fair sight in the family of God. I think these verses are very similar to Acts 20.30, in that Paul viewed the greatest danger to the flock of God would be from those members already influential in the flock of God.

Previously Paul was very specific mentioning names and specifics concerning the saints, but now becomes abstract and general concerning the identity of his warning. Many times I have looked at this verse, and like Nell, I left with more questions than answers. How do we identify these guys, and exactly what action should we take? For many years, I basically trusted "the brothers" to know the answers here, until I learned how these verses can be so abused for one's own gains.

Today I have to apply these verses to many LC leaders. Have not LC leaders drawn men to themselves? Have not LC leaders deceived the hearts of the simple by smooth and flattering speech? Have not LC leaders made divisions and causes of stumbling? Have not LC leaders served their own ministry appetites, and not as slaves of our Lord?

At the heart of Paul's warnings was an exhortation to have a watchful eye, not just on potential troublemakers, but also to watch their effect on the saints. Are we not exhorted to know them by their fruit, since identifying their motives can be so difficult? How does their "speech" affect the love the saints have one to another? Are the saints desiring to love one another or to critique one another? Isn't that is the precursor of division? Does that ministry cause ones to stumble, or does it encourage the weak to stand up? Since we all could stumble, how are these ones treated? Are we brought to serve Christ our Lord, or are we just capital to build some man's empire? Is their speech plain and simple, without pretense, or is it full of suspicions and hidden messages? Do these ministers, like Paul, have warm appreciation towards all the others, or does the minister only inform us of everyone else's faults and shortcomings?

[Paul Cox]

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

I think "the doctrine which ye have learned" has to be defined. I don't think Paul is talking about petty little things like types of music, who's my favorite minister, did you go to the 7 feasts, etc. In John's epistles he talks about "the doctrine of Christ". These are core beliefs of the common faith related to the Person and work of Christ. If some are influencing others in a church away from these foundational essential beliefs they should be avoided because in fact they are not part of the church anymore if they have abandoned these core beliefs.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

This is one of the more profound things written on this forum in quite some time. I have had some of the same thoughts recently.

While Paul did take time to discuss some things like what kind of body we would have at the resurrection, he mainly talked about how they were to live and behave. It was the various churches' lack of obedience and righteousness in certain areas that got the pen flowing in the first place.

It does not appear that Paul ever wrote to talk about the nature of God. He often did mention much about that nature as part of his reason for why his audience should behave in a more "Christian" manner. He never told them anything of mental doctrines except as a cause for righteous living.

Even the mention of things like "I speak concerning Christ and the church" has been turned on its head. Note that the whole discussion about the relationship between husband and wife is not some esoteric thing that would flow out of getting the "spiritual" stuff right. Instead, he was busy telling them that when husband loves and cherishes he wife (his side of submit) as the wife honors and obeys the husband (her side of submit) then the truth of Christ and the church is realized.

Getting the practice of how to do the Lord's table right is irrelevant. As is whether there is just the Holy Spirit or is instead "the sevenfold intensified life-giving Spirit."

The only real difference between the writings of Jams and Paul is that James just said it straight out and gave no room to misread. Paul actually said the same things, but he also gave us a lot of reasons. Unfortunately, many make the reasons into the main thing and turn the main thing into an after-thought.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

Hi Paul,

I agree with you and OBW about holiness. Thankful wrote in this post about holiness. #66

In particular: "Lee taught us that God's foremost, all-consuming concern, with respect to His house and to the bride of Christ, was a testimony of “oneness.” This is the premise upon which he built his case that God needed a “practical expression” of oneness on the ground of locality.

After looking into the Bible for myself to see what it reveals to be of greatest importance to God, I have come to believe that Lee’s premise was false.

In the Bible, I cannot find that “oneness” is what is most important to God with respect to His people and His habitation. Rather, I find that His emphasis is on their holiness, in both Old and New Testaments. There is no possibility of any thing called oneness, without holiness. The Father is holy. Jesus is holy. They were perfectly one in that holiness. Christ died for us that we would also be made holy. As we are made holy by the blood of the Lamb and by the washing of the water in the Word, we are truly one with God and Christ and with one another."

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

It would seem to be easier to point the finger and cry "Divisive!" when the doctrine you have learned is "oneness".

I was once "prayed at" by a sister who said over and over "Oh Lord, the oneness". My divisive action? I chose not to sing with the other sisters in the car on the way to work; instead I chose to read something. I'm sure you've got your own stories--straight out of the pages of "Oneness for Dummies".

I don't mean to minimize the "oneness" spoken of in the Bible. I just don't think what's being practiced today is even remotely related to biblical "oneness". This is demonstrated every time "oneness" is used as a weapon against a brother or sister. Can you even "practice" being "one"?

Holiness is another matter. It woud be hard for me to point my finger at anyone and accuse them of not being holy. Who among us is holy? The words come to mind "filthy rags". Of course, these refer to righteousness, but "filthy rags" covers a lot of ground.

Nell

[Paul Cox]

Hi Nell,

You reminded me of something. Not long after I made my exodus from following after Witness Lee's Ministry I had occasion to attend the funeral of a departed Local Church brother. The leading brother who gave the eulogy went on and on about how this brother had been "for the baaaaaaaaaady." Every time he made that statement about the brother's absoluteness for the baaaady he would look in my direction.
I've also had other experiences similar to yours in the car with the sisters. It's a coerced "oneness" in the Living Stream Church. And if you don't go along, there are bodies (individual saints) hanging along the wall to remind you of what happens when you don't go along with the "oneness." I speak of saints like John Ingalls and others.

P.C.

[Cal]

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

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

I would say that we view and interpret everything from a "modern" perspective in which it is a mental exercise. We believe in factoids about God/Christ. We argue about words and what our mind thinks is correct. We don't look at actions and life and expect that the very living of a Christian should be appealing and noteworthy to everyone. We think that being weird, reclusive, offensive, and opinionated is the sign of a true Christian. We consider that whether to use the term "person" only for God, or for each of the Three, or for the whole thing is important.

The context of the church when Paul and others were writing was an extension of the Jewish religion as established by covenant with God in the OT. That religion cared less about your thoughts and more about your actions. You had to believe in God. But you didn't really believe if you didn't obey.

Note that the things that instigated so much of Paul's writings were the bad actions of the church(es) to which he wrote. Cutting each other off over favorite teachers (a MOTA?), giving priority to persons based on worldly position, not acting in love in all things, having chaotic meetings, condemning others who were only following their conscience, and acting cavalierly with your "freedom in Christ," etc. It was their actions, not their mental thought that were taken to task.

Somehow, having a better lexicon does not appear on Paul's list of "dos and don'ts." And if he had managed to live 2,000 years, he would have been writing a letter to the churches in the United States, making specific mention of certain ones who were teaching that their fellow brothers were part of the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters. To mark such ones and separate from them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

In this case, "mark" and "avoid" seems extreme. Not being tenderhearted shouldn't "mark" you and cause the saints to "shun" you.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

In this case, "mark" and "avoid" seems extreme. Not being tenderhearted shouldn't "mark" you and cause the saints to "shun" you.

I agree. I think in context he is addressing those with influence in the church who have adopted a school of philosophy contrary to the core of the Christian faith e.g. hedonism and mixed it together with some Christian things to make it palatable for innocents to swallow.

It's not just that they are practicing their philosophy quietly in their home but rather are teaching it to others and leading them astray.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

What do you think?

I was reading on afaithfulword.org last night and saw Romans 16:17 as a reference regarding quarantines. By itself Romans 16:17 appears to be vague as to what divisions are. Being so vague anyone such as the contributors at DCP or anywhere else can interpret what divisions are. It could be something trivial as a difference of opinions. Here on this forum there are difference of opinions posting back and forth. However as I was reading scripture last night if your standing on divisions in Romans 16:17 is a stand-alone verse, take heed!
The following verse in Romans 16:18 narrows the scope regarding Romans 16:17;
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I was reading on afaithfulword.org last night and saw Romans 16:17 as a reference regarding quarantines. By itself Romans 16:17 appears to be vague as to what divisions are. Being so vague anyone such as the contributors at DCP or anywhere else can interpret what divisions are. It could be something trivial as a difference of opinions. Here on this forum there are difference of opinions posting back and forth. However as I was reading scripture last night if your standing on divisions in Romans 16:17 is a stand-alone verse, take heed!
The following verse in Romans 16:18 narrows the scope regarding Romans 16:17;
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

"To cause divisions" is be responsible for something being divided into parts. It cannot be equated with asking questions, being troubled by sin, etc.

This verse that you have quoted adds to the definition. To be a slave of their own appetites suggests they are motivated by greed. In today's court you have to convince a jury of means, motive and opportunity to convince a jury of guilt.

Some of those who are accused of "causing a division" had no means so the accusation is ridiculous. This brother or sister was not the lead elder with the ability to separate this locality from others.

Most had no motive. There is no profit or greed motive. Unlike LSM or the Blendeds the ones accused of "causing a division" are not in any way linked to receiving money from their actions.

Opportunity is generally the only variable even remotely applicable. Some brother heard this brother say something. Perhaps an elder is accused of saying something in an elders meeting or a church meeting. Perhaps a brother is accused of spreading poison to saints invited to their home for fellowship. But what is "real" opportunity to "cause" a "division". Surely it should be a conference, or a publishing house, books, etc. Meeting with a few saints for lunch is outrageously lame.

[ZNPaaneah]

Rom
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

1. The actions must be "contrary to the doctrines that you learned". PL's actions were contrary to the doctrine, questioning those actions are not. Accusing the sister's of a "sister's rebellion" as a smokescreen to cover your own illicit actions is contrary to the doctrine we have received. Attempting to get a monopoly on the word of God is contrary to the doctrine we have received.

2. Cause division is equal to establishing the Local Church as a division. Creating a doctrine based on the ground of oneness to be the basis for a division is to cause a division.

3. Cause offenses -- PL, TL, WL, Daystar, Sister's rebellion, JI, etc. The ones who "cause offenses" refer to LSM and the Blendeds.

4. Serve their own appetite -- refers to LSM and any full timers who are supported by the Saints. Not all full timers cause offenses, but full timers who cause offenses and divisions are serving their own appetite.

5. "By good words and fair speeches" refer to those who give conferences, video conferences and publish books. If a person doesn't do any of these things they may be "negative" but they don't have the means to "cause division".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Rom
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Let's take this forum as a example. I come here to express personal viewpoints and the topics I engage in I would avoid doing when visiting a local church where my parents meet with or when visiting congregation where former-local church attendees may meet.

The Lord's Table is for remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ and His death's significance on the Lord's Day. It is divisive, offensive, and inappropriate to use the Lord's Table as a platform to ridicule other Christian assemblies, individual members of the Body, or speak somthing that could cause one to stumble. We are all gifts to the Body. Plus you never know who could be visiting that particular Lord's Day morning.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Let's take this forum as a example. Many of us here express personal viewpoints and engage in certain dialogue we would avoid doing in a communion setting.

The Lord's Table is for remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ and His death's significance on the Lord's Day. It is divisive, offensive, and inappropriate to use the Lord's Table as a platform to ridicule other Christian assemblies, individual members of the Body, or speak somthing that could cause one to stumble. We are all gifts to the Body. Plus you never know who could be visiting that particular Lord's Day morning.

The term "many of us" is far too vague. If I have said something offensive let me know.

I disagree about the "communion setting". If I met with a congregation that was involved in something that I felt was blatantly sinful I would probably be most provoked in a "communion setting".

This forum is involved in a very difficult process. Most everyone who comes to this forum knows something is/was rotten. We are also, for the most part, clear on what and what does not constitute sin.

The issue is the cause. When and where did the error come in? With WN, with WL, from day 1, from the 80s, etc. We are also grappling with why we were deceived. What should we have done differently? We are seeking the Lord's wisdom. We want to know if our time in the LRC was a waste or part of the Lord's leading.

These are tough questions that are very important and people's egos can get hurt. That is why many who visit prefer to sit on the sidelines and watch. But this is all about becoming practiced in the word of righteousness.

Because there is blood and vomit is not an indication that you are not in a hospital, on the contrary that is what you expect to see.