DOES ROMANS 16:

DOES ROMANS 16:17 DEMAND SEPARATION ON BASIS DOCTRINE?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2000. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites and cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are a member of, and request to be placed on the list. Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days to activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 17th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site -- http://www.wayoflife.org/. The End Times Apostasy Online Database is also located at this site.]

Updated June 10, 2000 (first published June 9, 1997) (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following is from the new book THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, copyright 1996, David W. Cloud, Way of Life Literature --

There are two different interpretations of Romans 16:17-18 today. One understands it to be a warning about the sin of divisiveness. The other understands it to be a warning about those who teach false doctrine. Which is correct? Consider the following points:

1. THE MOST COMMON INTERPRETATION AMONG BIBLE-BELIEVING COMMENTATORS HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN TO VIEW THE PASSAGE AS A WARNING ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS WHO DEPART FROM THE DOCTRINE WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US IN THE APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. Consider the following excerpts from various standard commentaries:

"WHATEVER VARIES FROM THE FORM OF SOUND DOCTRINE WHICH WE HAVE IN THE SCRIPTURES OPENS A DOOR TO DIVISIONS AND OFFENCES. If truth be once deserted, unity and peace will not last long" (Matthew Henry).

"The 'doctrine ye have learned' is the pattern given in this epistle. Apostolic teaching is the only standard of comparison. That teaching now found in the written word (Isa. 8:20). Divisions and offences are themselves contrary to that doctrine, and also are occasioned through departure from it. TRUTH UNITES BELIEVERS; ERROR SEPARATES THEM. Believers are capable of judging between truth and error" (Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans, 1878, p. 334).

"There were probably two evils in the apostle's mind when he wrote this passage; THE DIVISIONS OCCASIONED BY ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES, and the offences or scandals occasioned by evil conduct of the false teachers. ... THE DESCRIPTION HERE GIVEN IS APPLICABLE, IN A GREAT DEGREE, TO ERRORISTS IN ALL AGES" (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, 1864, p. 450).

"There has been much conjecture as to the character of these early evil workers (of verses 17,18) at Rome: some regarding them as evil teachers, probably of a Jewish character (Sanday); others as early Gnostics, which insidious Satanic philosophy developed itself fully later (Moule). IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, AS NECESSARY TO KNOW THEIR HISTORIC SETTING, AS TO TAKE THE MORAL LESSON HERE, AND TO DISCERN SUCH CHARACTERS, WHATEVER THEY BE, IN OUR OWN DAY AMONG THE SAINTS; AND TURN AWAY FROM THEM. THE INABILITY TO TURN RESOLUTELY AND HOLILY AWAY FROM FALSE TEACHERS AND EVIL WORKERS, IS A MARK OF SPIRITUAL ILL-HEALTH, DECADENCE, AND POSSIBLY OF THE STATE OF SPIRITUAL DEATH ITSELF! Mad dogs are shot; infectious diseases are quarantined; but evil teachers who would divide to their destruction and draw away the saints with teaching contrary to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles are everywhere tolerated! How ghastly and ruinous is this false toleration! Let us take heed lest we 'partake in the evil deeds' of such evil workers! Remember II John 9,10,11" (William R. Newell, Romans Verse by Verse, Moody Press, 1938, p. 559).

"...just before he finishes, HE GIVES ONE DEFINITE AND DIRECT WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS. We need not suppose that these agitators and false teachers had actually invaded the Roman scene. Probably they had not. If they had we would expect direct encounter with them in the body of the epistle, as, for example, in the epistles to the Galatians and Colossians. But Paul was well aware of the existence of these heretics and, if their propaganda had not reached Rome, there was good ground for fear that the danger was impending. ... The trouble-makers are by some regarded as antinomian libertines, by others as Judaizing zealots. ... WE HAVE HERE FALSE TEACHERS AND PROPAGANDISTS. ... HENCE THE STUMBLING IS THAT CAUSED BY FALSE DOCTRINE AND FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF THE ERROR ANATHEMATIZED IN GALATIANS. ... These teachers were skilled in the artful device of 'smooth and fair speech', a common feature of those who corrupt the purity and simplicity of the gospel" (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1959, pp. 235,236).

"You have been instructed in the true doctrine of Christ; and THERE ARE SOME THAT WOULD INNOVATE AND TEACH ANOTHER DOCTRINE, THAT BROACH OPINIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY, OR, AT LEAST, BESIDE THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS PURE AND APOSTOLICAL, and so make divisions and factions amongst you" (Matthew Poole).

"They profess to be apostles, but they are not apostles of Christ; they neither do His will NOR PREACH HIS DOCTRINE" (Adam Clarke, 1826).

"These men to be avoided cause divisions contrary to the doctrines which Paul has set forth in this epistle. REJECTORS OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL WE ARE TO REJECT" (Ian Paisley, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, Belfast: Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, 1968, p. 189).

"Something occurred before the letter to the Romans was concluded and dispatched to make St. Paul insert A FINAL WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS, who were causing divisions and perverting the gospel as all Christians had at first received it, in the interests of their personal aggrandizement. St. Paul makes a brief but vigorous appeal to the Romans to be true to their first obedience, and maintain their reputation unsullied. This abrupt insertion strongly reminds us of the Epistle to the Galatians (see 1:7-9; 6:13), and of the similar outburst in the Epistle to the Philippians (3:1-3). St. Paul believed that such Judaizing teaching was inconsistent with the fundamental Christian 'tradition.' He does not imply that Rome was already corrupted, but he scents danger" (Charles Gore, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, London: John Murray, 1900, p. 198).

"He has evidently in view THOSE JUDAIZERS who from Jerusalem had come down to trouble the church of Antioch, who from Syria had followed Paul step by step to Galatia, and even to Corinth, and who would be sure, as soon as they heard of a church founded at Rome, to arrive on the spot, seeking to monopolize it for themselves" (F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889, p. 401).

"MEN ARE DISTRACTED FROM THE UNITY OF THE TRUTH WHEN THE TRUTH OF GOD IS DESTROYED BY DOCTRINES OF HUMAN INVENTION. ... Note, too, that Paul is speaking to those who had been taught the pure truth of God. It is a blasphemy and sacrilege to divide those who agree in the truth of Christ. But IT IS A SHAMELESS PIECE OF TRICKERY TO DEFEND A CONSPIRACY OF LYING AND GODLESS DOCTRINES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF PEACE AND UNITY. THE PAPISTS, THEREFORE, HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR USING THIS PASSAGE TO STIR UP ILL-WILL AGAINST US, FOR WE DO NOT ATTACK OR DESTROY THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, BUT THE FALSEHOODS OF THE DEVIL BY WHICH IT HAS HITHERTO BEEN OBSCURED. INDEED, PAUL CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT HE DOES NOT CONDEMN EVERY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITHOUT EXCEPTION, BUT ONLY THOSE WHICH DESTROY AGREEMENT OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH. The force of the passage lies in the words, which ye learned, for the Romans had to forsake the customs of their forefathers and the institutions of their ancestors before they were properly instructed in the Gospel" (John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, p. 324).

"It would seem from ver. 17 that Judaizing teachers are meant: Gal. 2:6-11; Phil. 3:2,18,19; 2 Core. 9:13. ... THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVINE REVELATION IS OPPOSED, WHEN ANYTHING IS ADDED ON HUMAN AUTHORITY. ... This canon of truth is stated more strongly at Gal. 1:8; and is also found in 1 John 2:20-27; 2 John 9; Jude 3. ... IT IS EQUALLY OPPOSED TO ALL DENIALS AND ALL ACCRETIVE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL DEPOSIT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE COMMITTED TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST" (H.P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1893, p. 300).

"There were probably two evils in the apostle's mind when he wrote this passage; THE DIVISIONS OCCASIONED BY ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES, and the offences or scandals occasioned by the evil conduct of the false teachers" (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1875, p. 448).

"Though he warns the Roman saints of the danger of listening to men of this type he lets them know that he has only heard good things of them, but he is jealous that they should maintain their excellent record. ALAS, HOW SOON DID THIS VERY CHURCH OPEN ITS DOORS TO JUST SUCH FALSE TEACHERS AS HE WARNED THEM AGAINST, AND SO BY THE SEVENTH CENTURY YOU HAVE THE PAPACY ITSELF ENTHRONED IN ROME!" (Harry Ironside, Romans, New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946, p. 172).

"After Paul has, in verses 17-20, GIVEN WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS who might creep into the church and by fair words turn it away from Christ, and after those who are with Paul--we note in particular the name of Timothy who is referred to in several of Paul's letters as sharing in them, and of Tertius who has served as Paul's secretary in the writing of this epistle--have added their greetings, the words of conclusion follow, in verses 25-27. They have the form of a doxology" (Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, London: SCM Press, 1952, pp. 456,457).

"PAUL HAS NO SYMPATHY WITH THEOLOGICAL SLEEPINESS. CHRISTIANS ARE TO MAKE A MENTAL NOTE OF THOSE WHO ARE OFF-BASE. SECOND: 'KEEP AWAY FROM THEM' (V. 17B). HERETICS ARE TO BE SPURNED" (R. Kent Hughest, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991, p. 300).

"IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE ALL OF ONE KIND. Some may have been legalists (Judaizers), others antinomians or perhaps ascetics, or advocates of a combination of two or more disruptive isms" (William Hendriksen, Romans, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 510).

"THE ARTICLE DENOTES THOSE ANTI-PAULINE DIVISIONS AND OFFENCES -- i.e. temptations to departure from the true Christian faith and life, well known to the readers,--which at that time arose in so many quarters in Pauline churches, and might readily threaten the Romans also" (Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876, p. 378).

Another Bible commentator who interpreted Romans 16:17 as a command to separate on the basis of false doctrine was Dr. Charles Woodbridge. He was one of the many prominent Christian leaders who attempted to correct Billy Graham when Graham began to depart from biblical separation. Woodbridge had been a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, before he rejected the New Evangelicalism that was taking over in that day and separated himself from this false philosophy. Woodbridge was a highly educated Presbyterian, with an MA from Princeton, a Ph.D. from Duke, and further studies at Berlin and Marburg Universities in Germany and the Sorbonne in Paris. In his classic book The New Evangelicalism, Woodbridge relates a visit that Graham made to his home in 1958:

"Dr. Graham came to my home in Altadena, California, in 1958 to chat with me about these things. We talked for two hours. I pointed out to him Romans 16:17. I did my best to persuade him to come out from among unbelievers, so far as the conduct of his campaigns was concerned. But to no avail (Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, 1970, p. 44).

Note that Woodbridge used Romans 16:17 in his attempt to instruct Graham about biblical separation from Modernists and Roman Catholics.

2. THE VIEW THAT ROMANS 16:17 WARNS AGAINST THE SIN OF DIVISIVENESS AS OPPOSED TO THE SIN OF FALSE TEACHING IS PROMOTED BY THE ECUMENICAL CROWD WHICH LOVES TO TWIST SCRIPTURE TO FIT ITS PRECONCEIVED VIEWS. Evangelist Jack Van Impe, for example, in his broadside against biblical separation (Heart Disease in Christ's Body, 1984), makes this claim in regard to Romans 16:17 --

"The consensus by multiplied theologians is that the culprits to be avoided in this portion of God's Word are 'Antinomian Libertines,' purveyors and perpetrators of error about licentious and lewd living. ... The doctrine over which they were causing divisions and offences was 'liberty' versus 'holiness'" (Van Impe, pp. 139,140).

Van Impe claims that multiplied theologians interpret Romans 16:17-18 as referring strictly to the error of antinomianism. He claims that it is not false doctrine in general that we are to separate from, but only the false doctrine pertaining to moral licentiousness.

We would make two comments:

FIRST, WE HAVE CHECKED THIRTY OR FORTY COMMENTARIES ON THIS PASSAGE, AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT VAN IMPE IS WRONG. We have already demonstrated that many standard commentators apply this passage to false teaching in general. Most of the commentaries I checked, in fact, take this position. As we have seen, most of the commentaries believe that Paul was warning specifically of the danger of the Judaizers who perverted the Gospel of Christ by intermingling grace and works. This is precisely the error committed by the Roman Catholic Church with its sacramental gospel. Thus, according to the commentators, this passage directly requires that we mark and avoid Roman Catholic priests and their false doctrine of salvation. This, though, is what Jack Van Impe refuses to do. He has released a video in which he exalts the pope as a defender of the faith!

SECOND, EVEN IF VAN IMPE'S CLAIM WERE TRUE (AND IT IS NOT), AND MULTIPLIED THEOLOGIANS DID INTERPRET ROMANS 16:17 AS REFERRING STRICTLY TO THE ERROR OF ANTINOMIANISM, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT. The fact is that most theologians who publish books are not doctrinally sound. Most do not even believe that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God. Sadly, most "theologians" today are undependable. A consensus among them certainly does not mean they are correct. Their statements must be examined carefully by the Bible. In this case, it is obvious that Paul did not limit his warning merely to the error of teaching that Christians do not have to walk in holiness. Paul did not say, "Mark them which cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine of holiness which you have learned..." He made the much more general statement that we are to mark and avoid those who cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned. What doctrine? SINCE THE APOSTLE DID NOT DELINEATE WHICH PARTICULAR DOCTRINE, IT IS OBVIOUS TO US THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO ALL OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH THE APOSTLES HAVE GIVEN US. Those who teach false doctrine and thereby cause heretical divisions among the saints and injure the spiritual life of the sound churches are to be marked and avoided.

Beware of the interpretations of men who lack spiritual discernment.

3. IF THE PASSAGE IS SPEAKING OF THE SIN OF DIVISIVENESS, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT REFERRING TO DIVISIVENESS IN GENERAL. The Bible plainly states that not all division is wrong. In fact the Lord Jesus Christ said that He came to bring division. "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law" (Lk. 12:51-53). The truth always creates divisions. Those who preach the truth will be divided from those who preach error. Those who love righteousness will be divided from those who love sin. We are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Those are fighting terms, and it is a fact that the faith has always been defended through controversy with error

Many godly men have made divisions among Christians because of the truth and have been charged with divisiveness, but they were not wrong and their actions do not fall under the condemnation of Romans 16:17. For example, John Tombes is one of a multitude of men who have made divisions from time to time by their stand against infant baptism. Tombes was a minister in an independent church in England in the 17th century, but when he began preaching and writing against infant baptism, he was dismissed from his pulpit and charged with being a man of "restless spirit" and with creating divisions and confusion (Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists, vol. i, p. 183). Was Tombes doing an evil thing by causing division on the basis of baptism? By no means. Rather, he was obeying Jude 3 and earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints.

Therefore, if Romans 16:17 is referring to a sin of divisiveness, it is the sin of IMPROPER divisiveness produced by false teaching and personality conflict or other such thing. It is definitely not condemning the man who stands uncompromisingly for the truth of the Word of God and who, as a result, causes division and trouble. If that were the case, it would be criticizing the Apostle Paul Himself--yea, even the Lord Jesus Christ!