Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Analysis of the Doctrine

Under this section I will include specifics of their doctrine and compare it to scripture.  As I indicated before, there are so many issues I will be adding to this section for a long time.

Points to come: Does this universal moral law come from scriptures? The argument on "law" and "the Law", Gentile's "natural law", confusions between Israel and Jews. Some false issues such as "were the Gentiles under a law" will be included.

Direct Support for a Universal Moral Law which began at Genesis and continues to the present. Or- Does this doctrine come from the Bible?

I feel this is an extremely important point.  A basic foundation of our faith is that only God can reveal spiritual things.  Only those things directly referenced by Scripture have a part in our Faith.  This goes far into the past, beyond the centuries of the church, beyond the four Gospels, beyond to the very beginning of the revelations of God to man.  Only that which was reveled by God is to be accepted.  If the promoters of the Law of the Gentile group do not believe this then let them clearly say so. As long as they associate with the churches of Christ they bind themselves to this principle and thus criticism for failure to abide by it. Or do these men believe themselves to be modern day prophets with the ability to add to the Scripture as they see fit?  

Deut 4:2  "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 1450 B.C.

Prov 30:6  " Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."      960 B.C.


Matt 15:7-9  7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.  9 And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "  30 A.D.

Rev 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 95 A.D.

I have read much material by these people, listened to meetings held by them, and studied with a few.  In my opinion, I have not read nor heard anything from the Bible that directly references the existence of this Universal Moral Law.  

You say, that is your opinion!  Well it is also the opinion of Homer Hailey; "there was no codified system of law given to man by God until the law was given through Moses: and it was given only to the Jewish nation. Gentiles were not under that covenant law."  The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God, Nevada Publications, 1991, Page 34.  To codify means to organize into a system of law. Codifying is the very thing they have asserted has happened yet Hailey accepts that no Law or "Code" of the Gentiles exists in Scripture.  

I consistently hear Hailey's disciples proudly acknowledging that the "law of the Gentiles" is not written about in the pages of the Bible while confirming the existence of such. Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Hailey's, as well as Bassett's, proof that the Universal Moral Law of the Gentiles existed was to prove that people in Genesis lived under some direction from God.  What a leap! How does proving they lived under God's authority establish this very specific universal law outlined in such detail by them.  The Bible account of those times is that God did not have a universal law but rather gave the law to heads of tribes and the laws were different. Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

The fact that the law was tailored to the people spoken to was very important in God's plan.  This was how that Jesus was able to become our High Priest because the laws given to Abraham and Melchizedek were different.  Study Genesis. You will clearly see things differed and were NOT Universal (Catholic) in scope. 

Heb 7:11-18 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

So a collection of independent laws given to different people under Genesis is to be codified into an Universal Moral Law by men today. The Catholic Church was created in much the same way.  The many independent local churches established by scripture were codified into a single great church by men in declaring the church as Universal in scope. Yes the word Universal is synonymous with Catholic.

  I don't see the difference.  The Catholics were originally members of the church.  They were the most respected and authoritive members of the church.  They claimed special knowledge of the Scripture to move the church beyond what is written. They used their position to belittle, berate, and beleaguer their opponents.

 The church believes man to be under the control and authority of God both now and in the past.  It has just been the prerogative of false prophets like Joseph Smith to codify a law to support their false doctrines which depend on the "discovery" of a new law.

There is much about this doctrine that reminds me of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness also.  The Mormons with all their talk of newfound covenants about the Gentiles, with teachings alien to Scripture but supposedly taken from them, and rallying around a few personalities.  At least the Mormons claimed to find a lost part of the Bible and didn't pull it out of the air.

The Jehovah Witness for their manner of argumentation;  the sophistry of plausible arguments; the use of difficult prophecies combined with ignoring the God given interpretation of them;  the aggression towards and demonization of those who oppose them.

This is truly a "Frankenstein" Law. Just as the story of "Frankenstein" was about a mad scientist who put together a monster from many different bodies; the originators of this law have cut parts from the two legitimate laws in our Scriptures and sewn together this monster from the pieces.


Without direct Bible evidence, this doctrine is unworthy of the church and it's members.   If they have such evidence let them come forwards with it. And, If they believe themselves to be Prophets- come forwards with that too. See: What's Wrong page.

The Age of the doctrine

One of the arguments we use against false teaching is that a belief is not old enough to be followed unless it goes back to the first century.  How old is this doctrine?  1988 with Hailey? The 1950's with Fugua? Joseph Smith in 1823 (did you know he created his religion to justify adultery but his wife didn't buy it? So I guess its still about divorce!)

 I have involved myself in a research project to find if this doctrine has been around for long.  Galaxie Software has a Theological Journal Library on CD.  This CD has a tremendous amount of Bible history and religious writings on it including the 38 volumes of The Early Church Fathers.  I have run several searches and have failed to find any reference to such a belief.  Although that is not conclusive, it is very significant.  Either this principle is applied to our own people or we quit saying it to Catholics, Protestants, and the cults.

If you have significant information on the question of the origins of this teaching, I would be very glad to receive it. Be sure to send references so that I can confirm the facts. Take a look at my History page

1. History and Development of this Doctrine

2. Analysis of the Doctrine

3. What is wrong with this Doctrine

4. Ungodly Behavior

5. Homer Hailey and this Doctrine


Home          Contents       Guestbook

E-Mail the Author/Editor