Positional Truth

by Doodson, A. T. | Category: General | Sept 1961

There are two ways of considering the matter of positional truth. We can commence with the idea, "There is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us, that it ill becomes the best of us to speak about the rest of us." Following this idea are very many people who can see some semblance of truth in all sects, and such would seek the maximum amount of common ground and rest on that, even though it may be realized that it is not the whole ground. Some assert that the Church is in ruins and therefore it is not possible to act according to the whole truth in the way that was possible in the early days. This mode of thought elevates the condoning of imperfection into a virtue.

The other way of considering the matter is to try to ascertain what was possible and what was practised in the early days and to consider that as, at least, the ideal for believers throughout the dispensation. If others are judged to fall short of the ideal, or even of the approach to the ideal, which has been found possible in this generation, then the question will arise as to how far they can be accorded recognition as participants in the matters of churches of God, house of God, and kingdom of God.

Which mode was followed by the Lord, the first or the second? Men, prone to follow the first line of thought, would have said that surely the Pharisees and the scribes were men within the pale, for they reverenced the word of God and their religious duties were fulfilled, at least outwardly, by attendance in the Temple and the synagogue. But the Lord condemns them very severely.

Which mode of thought was followed by Paul? By early training he could have found much to admire in the strict teaching of the Pharisees, and in the wisdom of the Greeks, and some might have thought that if the teaching of Christ was wedded to the teaching of the Law, then a really excellent system would have resulted. We know, however, how Paul dealt with this kind of thought.

It seems to me that there are some who judge matters from the first standpoint. He sees excellent things in many bodies of people and would like to see them welded, but this mode of thought will never bring any finality.

We ought therefore to follow the second mode of regarding the matter. There was undoubtedly a positive teaching which involved separation from others who did not accept that teaching or who only accepted a part of it. Paul condemned men who wanted to bring in the Law, and others who denied the resurrection, and he laid extremely great emphasis on sound doctrine with its very wide range as stated in the Epistle to Titus, for example.

Let us consider what the reactions of the apostles would have been if any believers numbered with the assembly in Jerusalem had begun to have their own ideas about church position and activities. Clearly they would have been interviewed, and an attempt would have been made to get them to conform to the teaching and practice of the apostles. If they had refused to do that, then only one thing was possible. No man could be in the kingdom of God who refused allegiance to the rules of the kingdom. Those believers would have ceased to be recognized as in the church of God and the kingdom of God. Unless we are prepared to face this fact that there were undoubtedly erratic believers who sought their own ways and departed from such men as Paul we cannot make any progress. The moment we recognize that response to the doctrine involves response to rule and government, and that defiance of the doctrine and the rules of the kingdom involve an outside place, that moment will be the start of progress.

The history of the Brethren movement shows that their early conceptions had to be modified. At first they held that it was sufficient to have a union of believers upon the ground of the common salvation, resulting in " congregations of faithful men, ordered by the Spirit of God." This is explicitly stated in an article in " The Christian Witness," volume 1, 1834, issued in Plymouth. The writer of that article was dealing with Separation from apostasy not Schism." The division which took place in those early days was not because one section were believers and another section were not believers, but upon some doctrinal issue. The truths formulated through the apostles called for men to adhere to them, and not merely to rest on a common salvation. World movements today could only take place on a common salvation, and the ignoring of the apostles' teaching would be fatal; history and common-sense both point to this conclusion.

Any positional truth must involve uniformity of teaching and practice. There were not two forms of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, there could not be two forms of priestly service with marked discrepancies. The Lord never had two houses: two kingdoms of God, which had different laws, were never in existence at any one time. Any body of people who refused to accept any part of the apostle's teaching must be judged, not by the amount of good things that may characterize them but by the falling short of the divine standard. I am presuming that we have acknowledged that there is in the Scriptures such a divine standard for our guidance. If, therefore, a body of people has been led to seek this standard and have come to some degree of approach to it, then it is not to be expected that they can have fellowship with others who have not arrived at that position. There cannot be any argument against this. The question will arise as to the standard. Take the R.C. Church; that church believes that it has the standard, and therefore it consistently refuses to admit the thought of other churches being acknowledged unless they admit the R.C. version. In this attitude they are undoubtedly right if their doctrine is right. But others believe that it is not right. I have used the example to show that when we feel that we have come to an understanding of the Truth of God then we must not admit the possibility of fellowship with those who would water down that truth. Hence the answer to the question regarding the Fellowship of 1 Corinthians 1.9 is that any body of people who are convinced as before God that they have been called and have come to an understanding of the apostle's teaching and practice would be seriously in error if they did not uphold the position into which they have been called, into the Fellowship. If this automatically shuts out others who have not reached that position it is not on account of self-righteousness or conceit but of regard for the Truth which must not be compromized.

We have not said that the Lord is completely indifferent to what may be held and done by people who call Him Lord, even though they may be astray in many ways from the Truth. God hears the cry of all, but He does so in a special way towards those who serve in truth and in the fear of God (Psalm 145.18, 19 is helpful here). He made provision for the poor among the children of Israel as to their offerings, yet the Old Testament closes with reproofs to those who would offer polluted bread on the altar, and thought it no wrong to offer the blind, the lame and the sick; see Malachi 1. There is undoubtedly much that is offered to God which the Lord can probably only receive with a sad heart, in that men should grudge a fuller response to His will and way.

Doodson, A. T. | Sept 1961
General