BIBLICAL SEPARATION

"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

Scripture lesson - 1 Kings 13. Cursed is that carnal complacency that causes those who name the Name of Christ to become indifferent and ultimately insensitive to the issue of apostasy! "A wonderful (an astounding, an amazing) and horrible thing," says Jeremiah, "is committed in the land (literally, practised in the land); the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jeremiah 5:30-31) Upon this text we have been speaking for the past five weeks. In our message last Lord's Day, in connection with the Scripture lesson, we read from I Kings 13:1-10. In Chapter 12 Jeroboam had instituted idolatry in Israel. No sooner had he begun this wicked practice than God Almighty sent a servant - a faithful prophet, a faithful preacher of the Word - into the place of apostasy, to Bethel, to expose the sin and to denounce and condemn it.

The man of God from Judah preached a faithful message, didn't he? When the king invited him to go home with him and have a little fellowship, what did the man of God from Judah do? Did he accept the invitation? No, my friend, he refused it. He turned it down. He rejected the royal offer of hospitality, and he did so upon the authority of the Word of God. Look at I Kings 13:8-9, "And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: for so was it charged me by the Word of the Lord, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest." He was to go up to Bethel, into the place of apostasy; he was to proclaim his message, pronouncing judgment upon Jeroboam's idolatry, and then he was to get back into Judah as fast as he could. He was to fellowship with no one in the place of apostasy, being careful to avoid any and all forms of entanglement.

We begin our Scripture lesson with verse 11. "Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel. . ." As we observed last Lord's Day morning, this old prophet had no business dwelling in Bethel after Jeroboam instituted his idolatry. According to II Chronicles 11:13-17, the priests and the Levites and all who had a heart for God left Israel; they left their coasts, their suburbs and possessions and went down into Judah. They left the place of apostasy and identified themselves with the worship of the true and living God at Jerusalem. "Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon, and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. . ." Now, my friend, Bethel was right over the border line. It would not have taken the young prophet long to get back to Judah, and he would never have been entrapped; he never would have been ensnared, if he had not taken time out to relax under an oak tree.

Listen to me, beloved! In that warfare in which we are engaged as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ there is no let up; there is no time for relaxation. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12) This was the first step in his downfall. The old prophet found him sitting under an oak, and he said unto him: "Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee" - what are the next three words in your Bible? ". . .in this place." In this place! In this place! It is upon these words that the emphasis is to be placed. He had said the same thing to the king, hadn't he? There is no harm in eating bread and drinking water under normal circumstances, but in the place of apostasy he was not to allow himself to enter into fellowship with anyone. Now we can understand very clearly that when he resisted the temptation placed before him by the invitation of the king, he did the right thing. The Word of God says, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers"(II Corinthians 6:14); "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11) He did the right thing when he refused the invitation of the king.

Look now to verse 17. And I raise the question as we read these verses, would it be permitted to this man who had proclaimed so faithful a message, who had so fearlessly exposed the sin of Jeroboam and had pronounced the judgment of God upon it - would it be permitted to him to entertain or engage in, to become involved in fellowship with a fellow preacher, with another believer, in the place of apostasy? The answer is no - absolutely NO! "For it was said unto me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there" - there, there! Anywhere else he might have eaten bread and drunk water, but not there in the place of apostasy. " . . .nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest." He was to avoid every possibility of entanglement. Upon hearing this, the old prophet had something to say. "He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art;"- don't get on your high horse now; don't be so uppity up; I'm a preacher just like you! ". . .and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water." My, it is impressive, isn't it, when someone can tell you that they have had an angelic revelation - mighty impressive! And some dear folk are just plain impressionable and gullible. Question: Is the word of an angel of superior authority over the Word of God? The answer to that question we all know - NEVER!

In Galatians 1:8, the apostle Paul, writing under the pen of inspiration, says: ". . .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." Literally, let him be anathema! Oh, my friend, the Word of God is of paramount authority, and the Word of God doesn't change. This man of God from Judah knew the will of God through the Word of God. He ought to have conducted himself in implicit obedience thereto - even if all the angels from "heaven" had said otherwise. He had preached a faithful message; he had resisted the first temptation set before him by the king, but now he is about to succumb to a subtle snare of Satan. He is about to enter into fellowship with an old preacher in the place of apostasy, in direct disobedience to the Word and will of God. Some of these older preachers have become stumbling-blocks to younger preachers in this generation in which we live. By staying in churches and denominations that are apostate, they encourage their younger brethren to disobey the Lord likewise. Please notice in verse 30, as he conducted the funeral for the man of God from Judah who had disobeyed the Lord and had paid the price, the old prophet cried, "Alas, my brother!" It would seem that at the last he was somewhat conscience-stricken as he mourned the tragic consequence of the sin he had caused the younger prophet to commit.

Observe, now, the last sentence in verse 18: ". . .but he lied unto him." Everyone who compromises the profession he makes through identification with apostasy is a living lie. And when one lives a lie, he will tell a lie without any compunction of conscience. So it was with the old prophet. I ask you another question: Ought the man of God from Judah to have known that he was being lied to? Most certainly, for he had the Word of God and knew the will of God. If you want to know the Word and will of God, my friend, don't depend upon getting it from someone else. The last person to whom you should look for counsel and advice concerning spiritual things is one who doesn't have sense enough to leave the camp of apostasy. If God reveals His will to you, it will be through His Word. Do not depend upon the word of any other man - or even an angel from heaven; no, not even the pastor of the Orlando Bible Church. You certainly wouldn't depend upon the word of the Pope of Rome, would you? Or a priest of the Roman hierarchy? Absolutely no! We reject every form of Nicolaitanism - the rule of the clergy over the people. It is of paramount importance that we learn the will of God through His Word. And when we know it, we are to obey it implicitly. There is no substitute for obedience to the Word of God. I Samuel 15:22, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. "

Verse 19, "So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water." And they two had a lovey-dovey time of fellowship together! Or did they? Look at verse 20: "And it came to pass as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back" - their fellowship was interrupted by a message of Divine judgment, verse 21: "And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water "in the place" - please note these last three words - "of which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. And it came to pass (verse 23), after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. And when he was gone (verse 24), a lion met him by the way and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it; the lion also stood by the carcase. And, behold (verse 25), men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. And when the prophet (verse 26) that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God who was disobedient unto the Word of the LORD" - and the word for "disobedient" in the Hebrew is literally "rebelled."

Now it may seem that this were just a light thing to go in and have a little fellowship with this man before going back to Judah. My friend, listen to me! What this man of God from Judah did was sin. It was serious sin, and the seriousness of the sin is demonstrated in the severity of the punishment. It is

interesting to observe the first instance in which God does anything in Scripture. For example, Nadab and Abihu, at the institution of the priesthood, were struck dead because they offered false fire; Ananias and Sapphira, in the New Testament, were struck dead because they professed to have given all while in reality they held back part - they professed a consecration which they did not possess. It is well to pay attention to the first instance in which God does a thing in Scripture. In this particular case, the man of God from Judah lost his life. For when he entered into fellowship with the old prophet, he compromised the message he had preached so faithfully and God Almighty visited a summary judgment upon him so as to enforce the authority of the message he had proclaimed.

Verse 27: "And he spake to his two sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him." The "him" is in italics indicating that this word was supplied by the translators. It refers to the ass, not the prophet. It would have been better to have supplied "it" in order to make the meaning clear. Continuing with verses 28-32: "And he went and found his carcase cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcase: the lion had not eaten the carcase, nor torn the ass. And the prophet took up the carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass, and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. And he laid his carcase in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother!" Verses 31 and 32 express a wistfulness in the heart, the mind, the thinking of this old prophet. Listen to the words as I read them: "And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones: for the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar at Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass." It was as though he were saying, "Would to God I had spoken out against that awful apostasy! Would to God I had had the courage to denounce Jeroboam's idolatry!" He hadn't done that; he stayed in the place of apostasy and never raised a word of protest against it. He kept his mouth shut; he was an appeaser instead of being an opposer. If there be anything more appalling than apostasy itself it is the awful apathy of a patronizing people. Now, as he laments the death of the man of God from Judah who had preached so well, it is as though he were saying, " I wish that I had had the courage to do what he did." He is looking back, reflecting upon his past.

I have had men say to me, "Brother Minnick, if I had it to do over again, I would do differently; I would speak out." This past week I met a man in the Post Office whom I hadn't seen for years. He came over to me and said, "I saw that letter you had in the paper last fall expressing your protest against the corning of Mr. Graham to Orlando in 1978. It took courage to write a letter like that," he said. "I'm sure that there are others who think the same way as you do, but I didn't see any other letters appear in the paper. The situation with which we are faced today is a perilous situation." I said, "Yes, it is a perilous situation." As expressed by Jeremiah, the prophet, "A wonderful and horrible thing (an amazing thing, an astounding thing) is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" This dear man was telling me that it took courage to write such a letter, and that perhaps this was the reason why others did not write. I am not judging the motive of others - it was he who passed the judgment. And I rather detected in his statement the wistfulness of the old prophet, as though to say, "I wish that I had written such a letter." Beloved, the stand you take, the stand that I take, will encourage others to take the same stand!

Ought we to separate from believers who refuse to obey the command to separate from unbelievers? The Bible answer is yes. "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (II Thessalonians 3:14-15) Dr. Rice, on the other hand, would suggest that we have fellowship with believers even though they are tolerant of unbelievers. He will use men like Doctors Criswell, Daniels, Lee and a host of others that might be mentioned who claim to be fundamentalists, yet remain in the ecclesiastical camp of apostasy. But I say again: tolerance toward believers who are tolerant of unbelievers is sabotage - even as we announced in our theme, "The Subtle and Satanic Sabotage of Scriptural Separation." Sabotage! That's what it is - sabotage! What does that word mean? It means to weaken, undermine, and to ultimately destroy the effectiveness of anything. Let me illustrate how this nefarious principle works. Everyone of us remembers the Viet Nam war. Do you know what the United States of America did? They sent men, money, and materials to Viet Nam to fight the communist Viet Cong, who were the enemy. Yet all the while we were fighting the Communists in Viet Nam, we were trading with and supporting the Soviet Communists, who in turn were supporting the communist Viet Cong, who in turn were killing our soldiers - 55,000 of them. It doesn't make sense, does it? It didn't then, and it doesn't now. The Administration in Washington didn't believe in secondary separation. The Viet Cong were our enemies. We were separated from them. But the stupid leaders of State did not believe in secondary separation; they didn't believe in separating from the Soviets who were sending military aid to the enemy with whom we were at war. Thus the war effort was compromised, our fighting men were betrayed, and this once great nation suffered the most humiliating defeat in its history. Such are the tragic consequences of sabotage, sabotage by compromise and appeasement.

Is this issue important? The sin of aiding and abetting apostasy through a refusal to practice among evangelically minded people today. In the area of Christian worship, witness, and testimony we must not fellowship with unbelievers - the Jeroboams: nor worship with believers - the old prophet - who do. We need to get back to the Word of God and obey it!

Thank God this morning for Jesus and for Calvary, for the shedding of His precious blood! The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was never more precious to me than it is this moment. Charlotte Elliot was preparing to go to a ball one evening, when her pastor, a godly man, stopped by her home for a visit. She explained that she was getting ready to go out to a dance, but that she would be able to spare a few moments and would appear very shortly to receive him. When she carne into the room, this faithful pastor began to press the claims of Christ upon her soul. Under conviction of the Holy Spirit, she said, "Pastor, I know that I am a sinner, but I am too great a sinner to be saved - there is no hope for me." Said her pastor, "Come just as you are, and Jesus will save you." "Just as I am?" replied Charlotte Elliot. "Just as you are," said her pastor. There was no dance for her that night. She fell to her knees, repenting of her sin, and put her faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of Calvary. Out of that experience carne the wonderful old hymn - "Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me, and that Thou bidst me come to Thee: 0 Lamb of God, I come!" Thank God, this morning, that the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth from all sin!

For our Scripture Lesson, please turn with me to I Corinthians 10:16-22. If you have a Scofield Bible, observe the heading over the section beginning with verse sixteen: "Fellowship at the Lord's table demands separation." "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" As we partake of these elements once again on this Lord's Day morning, they symbolize the truth concerning the Person and redeeming work of the Son of God on the cross of Calvary. We thus appropriate that truth to our hearts, making it a very part of our own experience. Just as when we sit down and partake of physical food, that food becomes a part of us, even so when we fellowship with our blessed Lord, the truth concerning His Person and work is assimilated into our very being. It becomes a part of us. Through the appropriation of His precious blood, we enter into the fulness of fellowship with the God of Heaven and His wonderful Son, the Lord Jesus Christ - all made possible by the Holy Spirit who indwells us!

Verse seventeen: "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." Who is the Bread of Life? Jesus said, "I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35). . .I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven: if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live forever: and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51).

Verse eighteen: "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" In the Bible School lesson this morning, brother Harry was emphasizing the manner in which God recognized the unity of Israel. Every Israelite home on the night of the Passover offered a lamb, yet in the reckoning of God there was but one congregation, one assembly, and the sacrifice was spoken of as "it," in the singular. By way of parallel, this speaks to us of the unity of the Body of Christ. "Behold Israel after the flesh: are they not which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" The answer is "yes." They were identified with that form of worship which God had designed under the Old Testament economy; they were one in fellowship before God.

Verse nineteen: "What say I then?" To what conclusion shall we come - "that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything?" There were some in the Corinthian congregation who had carried their liberty to such an extent that they were actually going into idolatrous temples, mind you. And by going into these pagan temples they were identifying themselves with demon worship - can you imagine that? Now Paul says that there is nothing to the idol itself; there is nothing in that piece of stone or wood before which the heathen bow in worship. It is what is behind the idol that is so dangerous - deadly dangerous! And just what is it that lies behind idolatry in all of its forms? Satanic agency.

Verse twenty: "But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (literally, 'demons'), and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils (literally, 'demons' )." While, as Paul has emphasized, there is no moral quality in the idol itself, it is what is behind the idol that makes the sin of idolatry so serious. To be identified with idolatry is to be identified with demon worship. I received a letter from a missionary friend in Japan. It told of a young Japanese man who had recently become a Christian. One of the members of his family died and the family was placing pressure on him to attend the funeral, which involved worship at a Shinto shrine. Could this young man by conviction as a Christian attend that service and worship at a Shinto shrine, even though it be for a flesh and blood loved one? Absolutely no! Question: What is the difference between a modernistic church and a Shinto shrine? Absolutely none, with this exception, the one calls itself Christian and the other doesn't. Both are systems of idolatry, and to be identified with either is demon worship. "And I would not," says the inspired apostle, "that ye should have fellowship with demons." This is exactly what happens when those who name the Name of Christ identify themselves with modernistic liberal churches and worship therein. They involve themselves with demon worship; it is just that serious.

Verse twenty-one: "Ye cannot" - the Bible draws a very clear line, doesn't it? "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons." If you drink the one, you have no right to drink the other! Some of those in the Corinthian congregation, if you go back to Chapter eight of I Corinthians, were actually going right into the idol's temple. They were carrying their liberty that far. And that, my friend, is too far! That is when liberty becomes license, doesn't it? Our liberty in Christ, the liberty of grace, does not give us license to do that which is contrary to the Word and will of God. "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons." Thus saith the Scripture! But let me tell you something: the whole of the New Evangelical camp is giving it a good try, aren't they? They are giving it a good try!

Verse twenty-two: "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?" While Moses was up on the top of the mount receiving the Law from the hand of God, what was the nation of Israel doing? At the foot of the mount, they were dancing the dance of death around a golden calf. And the Lord God Almighty got mad - I mean He got mad! He became thoroughly provoked. He said unto Moses, "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:9-10). Step aside, Moses, and I will wipe this people out! I will transfer the promise made to Abraham to you! If it hadn't been for Moses' intercession at that particular point, that is exactly what would have happened. Furthermore, Aaron, the man who had been appointed high priest in the plan and purpose of God, would have died - he would have lost his life had it not been for the intercession of Moses, Deuteronomy 9:20. When Moses drew the line and cried, "Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come unto me" (Exodus 32:26), all the sons of Levi stepped over that line, and that included Aaron. I would like to think that he was the first one over that line, because he was the one who had involved them in the sin of idolatry. If he had not responded to the challenge of Moses and stepped across the line, he would never have been made the high priest in the house of God over the nation of Israel. Suppose Moses had said: "Now, Aaron, you are not only my flesh and blood brother, but you are my brother in the Lord; I'm going to make an exception for you - I'll spare you even though you do not step across the line!" You see the absurdity of the whole thing, don't you? You see what a damnable doctrine this whole concept of degree separation turns out to be! Had Aaron not stepped across the line drawn by Moses in the camp of Israel that day, he would have been put to death by the sword just like the rest who refused to do so - even though he were a brother in the Lord. The line is drawn very clearly in the Word of God: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons" (I Corinthians 10:21); Moses said, "Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come unto me!" It is either one side or the other. There is no neutral ground between truth and error.

With reference to our message this morning, let me ask you to turn to Jeremiah 5:30-31: "A wonderful" - an amazing, an astounding - "and horrible thing is committed" - literally perpetrated and practiced - "in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so." If there be any thing more appalling than the apostasy itself, it is the awful apathy of the people who name the Name of the Lord with regard to apostasy. And now the question - do you see the question? ". . .and what will ye do in the end thereof?" The inevitable result of compromise is confusion. Did you hear me, my friend? Compromise always leads to confusion. We live in a day when God's people, those who profess the Name of Christ, for the most part, can no longer tell the difference between truth and error, between right and wrong. We live in an age of utter doctrinal and moral confusion. "I dreamt that somehow I had come to dwell in Topsy-Turvydom, where vice is virtue, virtue vice; where nice is nasty, nasty nice; where right is wrong, and wrong is right; where white is black, and black is white." Confusion is the tragic consequence of compromise. ". . .and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

Since the beginning of the New Evangelical movement more than thirty-five years ago, the concept of truth - not the truth itself, for truth can never change - but the concept of truth in the thinking of people has changed. Such is the deadly danger of compromise. It is fatal in its consequences. Confusion results when people try to go in both directions on a one-way street. Confusion results when the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound so that the soldier does not know whether to go to bed or get up. Confusion results when God's sign posts and landmarks are removed or altered. Confusion results when expedience replaces obedience and when unity is preferred to purity. Confusion results when soldiers in a battle cannot tell the difference between their own men and the enemy. It is confusing when evangelical leaders say they are neither Fundamentalists nor Modernists. There is no middle ground between truth and error. God says He will spue from His mouth those who are neither hot nor cold.

I have before me a statement that I would like to read for you. In II John 10-11 we are commanded; "lf there come any to 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." Commenting upon these verses of Scripture, a certain well-known evangelist, in earlier years, had this to say: "Here we have the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ involved. If a man blatantly denied the deity of Christ or that Christ has come in the flesh, we are not even to bid him God speed. . .Thus the Scriptures teach that we are to be separated from these who deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . No doubt there are some men in the church today who deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. If I knew that a man denies His deity, I am not to commend him or have spiritual fellowship with him, but I am to treat him as an antichrist and an enemy of the cross." How do you like that statement? Would you like to say "Amen" to that? Yes! Most assuredly we would give our approval to such a pronouncement. Who would think that the pastor of the Orlando Bible Church, having exposed the wicked compromise of Billy Graham over a period of many years, would ever say "Amen" to anything that Graham said? But I will say it when he makes a statement like that. Mr. Graham full well knows that there are men in the nominal church who deny the deity of Christ - not merely some, but many. How clearly he expressed himself when he said: "If I knew that a man denies His deity, I am not to commend him or have spiritual fellowship with him, but I am to treat him as an antichrist and as an enemy of the cross." Amen, Mr. Graham! I'm all for you when you make a statement like that. This is exactly what the pastor of the Orlando Bible Church believes.

Well written, Dr. Graham, now practice what you preach! Open your eyes, Dr. Graham, and take a good look at the General Chairman of your 1963 Los Angeles campaign, Bishop Gerald Kennedy of the Methodist Church. In his book, God's Good News, page 125, the blaspheming Bishop declares: "I believe the testimony of the New Testament taken as a whole is against the doctrine of the deity of Jesus." It is your move, Dr. Graham! You stand self-indicted. By your own acknowledgment your sin of compromise with Modernists is condemned by the Word of God. You know it, yet persist in pursuing a course of compromise contrary to the clear command of the Holy Scriptures. Ah, my friend, do you see the confusion that is wrought when a man preaches one thing and practices another? If I preached against drunkenness on the Lord's Day morning and you saw me staggering dead drunk out of a saloon through the course of the coming week, what would you think of my preaching? Would you have any confidence in it? Most assuredly not! Nor can we have confidence in the ministry of a man who tells us that it is sin to fellowship with those who deny the deity of Christ, yet goes ahead and does it. The Word of God tells us very clearly, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers"!

Now let me illustrate. Here we have a man who believes the Bible to be the Word of God. He believes the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith pertaining to the Person and redeeming work of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He is a believer. Now, over here, however, we have a man who rejects everything that this first man believes - he is an unbeliever. He doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God; he doesn't believe in the fundamental doctrines concerning the Person and redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ - His virgin birth, absolute deity, sinless life, atoning death, and glorious resurrection from the dead. This man is a rank unbeliever. Now the one who is a believer knows his responsibility with regard to his relationship to the unbeliever in the area of Christian witness and testimony, doesn't he? The Word of God is clear in its command, II Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." So the first man, the believer, in the area of worship, witness, and testimony, cannot and will not - if he is obedient to God - fellowship and cooperate with the second man, because the second man is an unbeliever. All of this, thus far, is like simple arithmetic. When you add two and two together, you get four. And you knew the answer even as I posed the problem, didn't you? You knew that it is utterly wrong for a believer to fellowship with an unbeliever according to Holy Scripture. Ah, but here is another man - a third man, who claims to be a believer and says he believes as the first man does. Yet this professed believer sees nothing at all wrong in identifying himself with the second man who, as we have seen, is an out-and-out unbeliever. The question which is now to be raised is this: what is the responsibility of the first man, who is a believer, to the third man who says he is a believer yet nevertheless identifies himself with the one who is a rank unbeliever? Is the believer who separates himself from the unbeliever to identify himself in the area of Christian witness and testimony with the believer who refused to separate himself from the unbeliever? The answer is absolutely no! As obedient children of God, we will have no fellowship with unbelievers, nor will we identify ourselves with disobedient believers who do. It is the damnable doctrine of degree separation, devised by the New Evangelicals to excuse their disobedience, that is the underlying cause of all the confusion so prevalent in the ecclesiastical world today.

Several years ago I received the following item through the mail. It was not in the form of a letter. Inside the envelope was a page taken from a Christian and Missionary Alliance publication, in which was an editorial entitled "Accenting the positive." It is from this editorial that I am now quoting: "It takes all kinds of people to make the world, and presumably we should be thankful for all of them who are not bent on doing moral and physical mischief. Certainly, within the household of faith we are obligated to love one another and to appreciate the differences, gifts, and temperaments which God has welded into the body." Let me pause momentarily to say that we would find nothing wrong with that statement. I believe that too. I continue with the quote: "I confess, however, to a certain impatience with those whose calling in life seems to be to find fault" - whoever sent me this article has these words underlined - "with the methods and motives of everyone else." I pause again to say that I have been exposing the compromise of Billy Graham since 1949, and never once have I sat in judgment on Mr. Graham's motives; I do not know what his motives are. No man knows the motives of another's heart. But I have both a right and a responsibility to judge his methods when they are contrary to the Word of the living God.

The editorial continues: "Some weeks ago a correspondent presumed to attack evangelist Billy Graham because he invited liberals to sit on his platform. This, said my correspondent, is in 'direct disobedience' - the editor has those words in quotation marks indicating that he does not believe that the man's judgment is right - "This, said my correspondent, was in 'direct disobedience' of scriptural admonition to 'be. . .not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.' Perhaps when I have won as many people to the Lord as Billy Graham has I shall feel qualified to criticize him. Until then I shall continue to thank God for the way He is using Billy Graham to reach a large segment of people whom I cannot touch. When we all get to heaven we may discover that God is less interested in how many publicans we refused to eat with than in how many people we helped into the Kingdom." Now, my friend, I have news for this Christian and Missionary Alliance editor. We do not have to wait until we get to heaven to find out what God's will is for us in relation to liberal ministers and theologians. God tells us very plainly in His holy Word; "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (II Corinthians 6:14). And when Billy Graham invites liberals to sit on his platform he is guilty of deliberate disobedience to the revealed Word and will of God. These men reject the very doctrines he professes to believe. Yet, through his identification with them, he creates the impression that they are worthy of confidence and recognition as ministers of Christ, when in reality they are Bible-denying, Christ-rejecting agents of Satan.

The issue is not at all that of associating with publicans, as the writer of this editorial would have us believe. Those who attempt to excuse the sin of Graham's compromise must of necessity resort to subterfuge to do so. We would have no objection whatsoever to Graham's association with publicans and sinners. I have done this throughout my entire ministry for the purpose of witnessing to them and winning them to Christ. Association is one thing; identification with apostate infidels in the area of worship, witness, and testimony is quite another. It is this latter to which we object so strongly in the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. Nor is the issue the number of souls he may have won to Christ. If he won the whole world to Christ, it would not excuse his sin of disobedience. The tragic truth of the whole matter is this - a compromised ministry produces a compromised Christ; and a compromised Christ is a counterfeit Christ; and when people are won to a counterfeit Christ instead of to the Christ of the Bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are saved. To do evil that good may come is a damnable doctrine, and we would tell this Christian and Missionary Alliance editor so. There is no substitute for obedience to the revealed will of God as set forth in His holy Word.

The editorial concludes: "We ought not to get sidetracked from our real vocation as believers; we can be so narrowly negative that we do no positive good." The last several paragraphs in this article have been underlined by the person who sent it to me. There was no name attached; I would assume that who ever sent it was some one who attended our fellowship in time past, but got disgruntled and left. Written on the margin of the page in ink, was the following comment: "You need this if anyone ever needed it. When you are criticizing Billy, you cannot be preaching the gospel. You cannot say two things at the same time; love and hate do not go together. You need Christ; He will give you love, and not hatred and jealousy. Your jealousy of Billy is awful sin." Thus endeth the comment, and, as I have said, there was no name attached. Now, my friend, if you think I am wrong, I will have the utmost respect for you if you will come to me and tell me so. And if you can show me from the Bible where I am wrong, I will be glad to adjust the situation and correct it. I will have the utmost respect for you if you will come to me and tell me you think I am wrong, even when I know I am right. And I will go on loving you just as though you agreed with me 100%. But if you send me a note in the mail without having the courtesy to sign your name, I have no respect for you at all.

It was Henry Ward Beecher who walked into his pulpit one day and saw a large sheet of paper there, and on it was printed in large capital letters one word: F-O-O-L! He called it to the attention of his congregation and said that he had heard of many instances in which some one had written a letter and had forgotten to sign the name; but this was the first instance across which he had come in which the person signed his name and forgot to write the letter. My correspondent says that when I am criticizing Billy I am not preaching the Gospel. How about that? I submit to you that when I expose Billy Graham's compromise, I am making the truth of the Gospel so clear that there is not a person who cannot understand it. I am making the difference between truth and error so plain that there need be no confusion in your heart and mind. If Billy Graham were to repent of his sin and take a true stand for Bible separation, I would be the first one to back him. But until he does, I cannot support him or I would be guilty of the same sin.

My correspondent says: "You cannot say two things at the same time; love and hate do not go together." How about that? Let me ask you a simple question: do you love the Lord Jesus Christ? How much do you love Him? Do you love Him enough to hate all that is antichrist? If you don't, you do not love Him as you ought to love Him! Love and hate do go together. And if you haven't found that out yet, you need a simple lesson in ordinary common sense. You cannot love the truth without hating error; you cannot love the right without hating that which is wrong; you cannot love God without hating the Devil. Who of us does not hate the Devil and the Devil's work? If you cannot answer that in the affirmative, there is something wrong with you. You are spiritually sick. The person who made this comment thinks nothing at all of sitting in judgment upon my motives - something that the Bible forbids to be done. Now, of course, it is possible to bring an orthodox message from a wrong motive. To do so would be thoroughly reprehensible, and I would be held accountable before God. But is there any possible way in which my correspondent can with certainty determine the motive of my heart? Certainly not! No man can determine with absolute certainty the motive of another's heart. That is known only to myself and to the God to whom I am accountable. It should be obvious, then, that motive is not the issue. I would ask my correspondent one question: is what I have preached the truth? If what I have said is true, then the issue to be faced is not at all a matter of motive, but the orthodoxy of the message. Believe me, beloved, when I say to you that my motive, by the grace of God, is pure and clean in exposing apostasy and compromise therewith. I have but one purpose in exposing the compromise of Billy Graham and all the rest of the New Evangelicals, and that is to make the truth so clear that none will be drawn into the confusion wrought by such compromise. Confusion! Confusion! Confusion! When I tell you that Billy Graham is the champion of compromise and confusion, I am doing it to warn you so that you do not follow him in his compromise and end up in the same confusion. If you heed not the warning, you will forfeit your reward at the judgment seat of Christ, II John 6-11.

In a previous message I called your attention to the danger of the doctrine of degree separation. It is in this manner that scriptural separation is being sabotaged. Let me illustrate. For a period of some fifteen years our local fellowship had contributed to the ministry of the International Board of Missions to the Jews. In the early part of 1974 we discontinued this support and directed it to another Jewish missionary ministry. Some two years later I received a letter from Dr. Jacob Gartenhaus, the director of the Mission, inquiring as to why we were no longer sending to them. Somehow or other, they seem not to have missed our support for two years. I made response, explaining the reason why. Whereupon I received the following letter from him: "Your letter shocked, surprised, and disappointed me. You state that it was not any lack of interest that led you to discontinue support. The men you referred to are on our advisory board and have not been added recently; they have been with us for many years" - I had objected to some of the names that appeared on his stationery - ". . .I don't agree with the men on our advisory board; I use them for decoration," says Dr. Gartenhaus, "they are the ones who have to agree with my standards instead of vice versa. Dr. Robert G. Lee is still in the Convention; I am not."

To this I made the following response: "Greetings in the Precious Name of the Lord Jesus! If my letter shocked, surprised, and disappointed you, yours of the eleventh was equally disappointing to me. You say that the men on your advisory board, to whom reference was made as being involved in areas of compromise, have been with you for many years. That is just the point - they ought to have been eliminated long ago. Although you may not remember it at this late date, during your second visit quite some time ago I raised questions of concern in this area with you personally. Having received assurances from you that the situation would be corrected, we continued our support in the hope that the inconsistencies would be eliminated. Instead of being eliminated, they have intensified to the point that we felt we could no longer support the ministry of your mission. You say in your letter: "I don't agree with the men on our advisory board; I use them for decoration." If you do not agree with them, if the only purpose they serve is that of decoration, why not in the interest of consistency remove them? Surely a genuine work of the Lord needs no decoration, and especially when that decoration involves a compromise of principle. If you are right in separating yourself from the apostasy of the Southern Baptist Convention - as I most surely believe you are - then these men are wrong for staying in. They are guilty of disobedience to the revealed will of God. Disobedience is deadly and is bound to have an influence upon those who involve themselves in it. Surely, my dear brother, you do not need this kind of "decoration."

One of the most thorough-going advocates of the degree concept of separation is Dr. John R. Rice. At this point in my letter I make mention of Dr. Rice for the purpose of demonstrating the inconsistencies in which a man involves himself when he holds so shallow a concept of separation. Continuing the letter: "The name of Dr. John R. Rice appears on your advisory board. In his Sword of the Lord, April 17, 1970, Dr. Rice wrote as follows: 'One of the most brilliant students and scholars I ever knew went to Baylor University where he took the highest honors continually. He was the son of a fervent Bible-believing, soul winning pastor, but he turned out to be a liberal professor. Surely those who promote the denominational program will have to answer for that kind of results.' The underlining for emphasis is mine. This is what Dr. Rice said in 1970, and I whole-heartedly agree with it. He continues: 'Everybody who raises money for the Co-operative Program of Southern Baptists is thus taking part in the teachings of Nels Ferre, George Buttrick, Elton Trueblood, Reinhold Niebuhr, and other modernists promoted and brought to the seminaries to teach or preach.

"‘Is there not some fatal dishonesty,’ asks Dr. Rice, ‘some unrecognized hypocrisy in talking up for Christ and the Bible in the pulpit and then supporting with your money people who break down faith in the Bible and turn people away from Christ and an infallible Bible.’" Again the underlining is mine for emphasis. "Fatal dishonesty" and "hypocrisy" are the terms Dr. Rice uses to describe the sin of those who lend their influence and support to an apostate program which they know full well is dedicated to destroying the fundamentals of the faith they profess to believe.

He then presents two examples: "Dr. W.A. Criswell, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, ardent fundamentalist and Bible believer whose book, Why I Preach the Bible as Literally True, helped to spark this controversy, and which book was radically opposed by modernists in the Convention, yet he goes on raising money for the Cooperative Program." This is Dr. Rice criticizing Dr. Criswell. He continues: "Dr. Criswell is a noble good man in his preaching. Should he not be just as noble in what his money preaches and teaches. Should he not give the same way he talks?" The answer, of course, is yes, he should. He ought to practice what he preaches. And the issue involves more than his money; it involves his influence through identification as well.

We come now to example number two: "‘Dr. E. J. Daniels, a fervent evangelist and my noble friend for many years, believes all the Bible, wins thousands of souls, but he is in the process of giving a special library of evangelism to the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Thus in fact he is encouraging young men to go to the New Orleans Seminary where they would have heard Dr. Buttrick, and where, according to the published intent of the president, they will hear other infidels from time to time and be taught the historical critical approach to the Bible, which undermines the authority of the Bible as the inspired inerrant Word of God. Now my dear friend must decide whether he will go on preaching one kind of gospel in his revival campaigns and in his paper, and another kind of gospel through the New Orleans Seminary and the Cooperative Program.’" How clearly Dr. Rice sees the issue! This is from the pen of Dr. Rice in 1970. Dr. Rice calls for a decision on the part of his two friends, Criswell and Daniels, who are still in the Southern Baptist Convention. He is challenging them to leave the camp of apostasy.

It would appear from the manner in which he expressed himself that unless Criswell and Daniels made the right decision and severed their relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention, he would refuse to be further identified with them in the area of Christian witness and testimony. He says in his criticism of Dr. Daniels that he is preaching one gospel and supporting another. It would appear then that Dr. Rice would stop supporting him as long as he is supporting another gospel. That is what he should do, shouldn't he? Yes! But this is not so. E.J. Daniels is still operating in and through the Convention and Dr. Rice is still using him in his Sword Conferences. Is he not thus compounding what he himself called the "fatal dishonesty" and "unrecognized hypocrisy" of men like Daniels and Criswell? That is exactly what it is - fatal dishonesty and hypocrisy. He used the expression "unrecognized hypocrisy"; I prefer to call it clearly recognized hypocrisy. Dr. Rice becomes guilty of the same sin when he continues to use them, even though he knows that they are committing the sin of disobedience. It is for this reason that Dr. Rice no longer appears on the campus of Bob Jones University.

This breach came about in the early Seventies, but is only now becoming more manifest. At that time Dr. Charles Woodbridge - a firm believer in absolute separation as required by the Word of God - wrote a booklet in which he exposed the fallacy of degree separation and, in the process, called attention to some of the inconsistencies of Dr. Rice. I have in my files a letter from Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., dating from that period of time, in which he declared himself to be in 100% agreement with Dr. Woodbridge's position but that he objected to his mentioning Dr. Rice by name. We said then that sooner or later he would have to face the issue, and the sooner the better. Five years afterward he finally got around to doing what Dr. Woodbridge had done five years previously. He wrote a booklet entitled: Facts That Dr. John R. Rice Will Not Face. This cleavage between two long time friends came about because Dr. Rice insists upon identifying himself with professed believers who enter into fellowship with unbelievers, and Dr. Jones does not. Dr. Rice will not fellowship with unbelievers, but will fellowship with believers who do. Dr. Jones refuses to fellowship with unbelievers, and he will have no fellowship with believers who do. And in this, the position of Dr. Jones is scripturally correct. Dr. Jones believes in absolute separation; Dr. Rice is an advocate of degree separation.

To refuse fellowship with an unbeliever while entering into fellowship with a believer who, in turn, fellowships with that unbeliever, is to commit the same sin as that of entering into direct fellowship with the unbeliever. Such is the seriousness of the sin involved in the degree concept of separation. I quote from the pen of Dr. Woodbridge: "This new, ephemeral, imaginary, non-Biblical distinction between 'first' and 'second' degree separation is a deadly menace. . . .The effort these men and others to differentiate between 'first degree' separation and 'second degree' separation, while it may appeal to undiscerning souls, is contrary to the Word of God. . . .To be separate from means to be separate from! To hate evil means to hate evil! There must be no linguistic gymnastics or spurious verbal compromise here. Our authority is not human opinion but the everlasting Word. . .. A believer can have no true fellowship either with those who do not really fear God or with those who walk in disobedience. His separation extends beyond a primary relationship. It extends to a secondary, or tertiary, - or to any relationship in which disobedience to God is involved." The wickedness of those who advocate degree separation lies in the fact that the lines of demarcation between rigid loyalty to the Word of God and placid disloyalty are erased.

We bring this message to a close with the testimony of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who on October 7, 1888, stated: "That I might not stultify my testimony, I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith" - that's primary separation, isn't it? - "and even from those who associate with them" - that's secondary separation. Spurgeon was a firm believer in the Bible doctrine of absolute separation from every form of unbelief, either directly or indirectly. This is the position of the pastor of the Orlando Bible Church because I believe it to be the position of the Word of God. There is nothing complex about it. It is made complex when otherwise good men refuse to draw the line. Compromise always produces confusion, resulting in calamitous consequences. "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jeremiah 5:30-31)