This is actually a review of a review, for in the article that I am reviewing, Robert Waters was reviewing James P. Needham's article entitled "False Teachers or Teaching Falsely?" This article was published in the March, 2000 issue of the Gospel Anchor. Robert's response can also be found in the March, 2000 issue of the Anchor under the title "False Teachers or Teaching Falsely? A Review."

     As you can see, the Gospel Anchor does not have a "closed door policy." Truth has nothing to fear from open and honest investigation. Truth shines even more brightly when it is contrasted with error. Let the reader understand the significance of this last statement - this contrast must be made! Those associated with the Gospel Anchor will not allow material that we consider to be false, to go unanswered. When brother Waters asked if we would allow his response I told him yes, but that I reserved the right to answer him. He agreed.

     I read Robert's article twice, hoping to find some scriptural response to Needham's arguments. I found none. What I did find were many references to the "traditional position" on divorce and remarriage. Those who are familiar with Robert Waters' writings know that this is his favorite tactic. Rather than addressing and answering his opponent's passages and arguments, Robert creates a smoke screen by charging his opponents with taking the "traditional position." Robert appears to believe that by describing his opponent's position "traditional," he has successfully answered that position. Actually, Robert's tactic is a red herring. He resorts to this characterization in an attempt to draw readers away from the central issue. This is exactly what he did in his response to James Needham. Robert needs to accomplish far more that this. He needs to find Bible authority supporting the notion that the word "false" always describes one's motives or character, and never just describes one's words or deeds. In this task Robert waters has failed miserably.

     Before I leave the subject of "traditional positions" too far behind, I must make an observation. The apostle Paul said, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15). According to this passage, there is a "traditional" position that is pleasing to God. He wants people to hold this kind of traditional position. The traditional position of this verse is the right position. It is the biblical position, and because of this, it is the only position on that particular subject that God approves!

     Jesus allowed the right of divorce and remarriage only for the reason of fornication (sexual immorality). He said an innocent party might divorce his unfaithful mate, while reserving the right to remarry. Jesus also said the divorced fornicator might not remarry (Matthew 19:9; 5:32). Robert rejects this understanding of these passages labeling such a view as the "traditional position" on divorce and remarriage. Interestingly enough, by using the biblical definition of "tradition" set forth in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Robert is right. This is the "traditional" position. It is the traditional position because it is the scriptural position.

     Robert Waters writes like a vacillating sectarian who denies our ability to understand the Bible. He said,

     "I don't agree with brother Hailey completely but what if he is right, or close to right?"

And,

     "Again, what if Homer is right? If Homer is right what has James done?"

And,

     "James, by your reasoning, Homer and all who agree with him, could charge you with being a false teacher. If he is right, have you not been "exposed to the truth", and are you not then "tenaciously clinging" to false doctrine?"

     Waters told Needham that he had no business labeling Hailey as a "false teacher" or "heretic" because James "could be the one who is wrong." This is standard grace-unity rhetoric. The charge is made that we can never label anyone else as being wrong, since we ourselves may also be wrong. Given the volume of material Robert has written in an effort to bolster his own positions and refute others, I am somewhat shocked by his present approach. Robert's argument disqualifies him from telling anyone that they are wrong. His criticisms of Needham are as elastic and as baseless as his concept of the truth. If Needham cannot say Hailey is wrong, then Waters cannot say Needham is wrong!

     Robert has no principle upon which to base his attack. If he claims the Bible to be his guide, then he has blasphemed God's Holy word by representing it as such a pliable and tractable document. The Bible represents itself as being infallible, all sufficient, and "forever settled in heaven" (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Ps. 119:89; 1 Pet. 1:24-25). These fixed truths are perceptible to the minds of honest men and women (Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Rev. 1:3; Matt. 13:23; 15:10; 24:15). When accepted and assimilated by such people, Bible truth is just as certain and just as inflexible as it is in the pages of the Bible.

     Robert's "if he's right, if I'm right, if they're right" mentality completely ignores simple Bible statements. Robert may just as well ask, "But, what if Cain were right?" or "What if Judas were right?" Or better yet, "What if the devil was right!" One thing is certain; Robert Waters isn't right.

     Robert Waters said,

     "However, James and others need to realize that they don't belong to the flock of which brother Hailey is a member. Thus, to use Titus 3:9-11, to justify their actions is to misuse the passage."

Related Articles

False Teachers or Teaching Falsely by James P. Needham

False Teachers or Teaching Falsely: A Review by Robert Waters

My Reply To Brother Waters' Review by James P. Needham

False Teachers: Impure Motives or Impure Doctrines? by Tim Haile