Truth Magazine

I have never made any claims with respect to being a scholar, and so far as I know, no one has ever accused me of being a scholar, at least not to the extent that I have formal training or credentials which are prescribed by the literary community. But I think that I have enough intelligence, knowledge, and experience to recognize scholarship when I see/hear it (or don’t see/hear it, as the case may be).

I have respect for those who have made special efforts to obtain knowledge in a given field, and have also obtained a commensurate degree of wisdom to go with their knowledge (Prov. 1:1-9; 4:7). I am still trying to learn both the writing and speaking of the English language, and a few experts in this area have flattered me into believing that I have at least obtained a passing grade in my efforts.

With the Greek language, it is an entirely different mat- ter. I can neither speak, read, nor write Greek, unless it be a transliterated term like “baptism,” or the Greek word for God’s called-out people, the church. But, I do know some Greek scholars (though not personally), who translated the New Testament from Greek into English, and I’m a pretty good reader of the English language, as well as a fair speaker and writer. And I’m not too overly impressed by philosophers or scholars who resort to human reasoning and what they term “a new hermeneutics,” while “intruding into those things which he (they) hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his (their) fleshly mind(s)” (Col. 2:8, 18).

I used to think I knew where Romans 14 fit into the Book of Romans, and into the other New Testament epistles (to wit, right between chapters 13 and 15). But if some things I’m reading and hearing are true, Romans 14 has at least an hundred more verses than it used to contain, and several of the other New Testament epistles have been deleted to get their contents into Romans 14, and said epistles are rendered completely meaningless.

For instance, let us use Matthew 14 and 16 as an example, then return to Romans 14. In Matthew 14, we have chronicled the events which led to the beheading of John the Baptist. The body (whether with or without the head, I know not), was dutifully buried by his disciples, then they “went and told Jesus” (Matt. 14:12). Without claiming to be a scholar, I know that some events recorded in the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, are not always recorded chronologically. But in the case of John the Baptist’s death, Jesus visited several other places around the Sea of Gennesaret (Galilee), eventually “came into the coasts of Caesarea” (Matt. 16:13ff), and among other things said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). John the Baptist had been dead for two chapters and several months before Jesus even promised to build his (Christ’s) church at some future date. So, John never built any church for himself, much less one for Christ, the “bridegroom” (John 3:29, 30). Now, back to the Book of Romans . . .

If Romans 14 admits as many false doctrines and teachers as some scholars and their non-scholar disciples claim, then the language of Romans 16:17 is utterly superfluous as well as contradictory. In the latter passage, Paul admonishes, even commands and beseeches, “. . . mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Such doctrines and their advocates are further identified in the following verse, who “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (v. 18). If I understand English, the “doctrine” of Romans 16:17 is the same thing as the “doc- trine (gospel) of Christ” in 1 Timothy 1:9, 10.

Scholars tell us that 13 or 14 of the New Testament epistles were written by Paul (and though not a scholar, I can count that far). This being the case, much of what Paul wrote in later epistles (as they appear in the New Testament order), including Romans 16:17, contradicts or nullifies what he wrote in Romans 14. In practical application, as far as false teaching/teachers are concerned, the New Testament ends with Romans 14 the way some interpret it.

Further, it may be claimed that if we are going to have the peace enjoined in Romans 14:19, that we will have to fellowship or bid God speed to those who teach contrary to the doctrine of Christ with respect to marriage/divorce/ remarriage, human institutions usurping the work/mission of the church, and even with respect to the plan of salvation itself (“What must I do to be saved?”). But James answers this supposed dilemma when he says, “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable . . .” (Jas. 3:17). Without maintaining the purity of the doctrine of Christ, we can attain only to a worldly definition of peace, and not a peace that is of God (John 14:27).

Let us leave the language of Romans 14 where it is in that epistle, and with respect to other New Testament epistles.

By Donald Townsley

Many good members of the church who would not think of using the vile gutter language of the man of the world, will turn right around and use the euphemistic form of the same words and think nothing of it. Christians need to realize that they will give account for their words, thoughts, and actions. The Lord said in Matthew 12:36: “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”

Following is a list of some of the words many members of the church use without thinking anything of it, but which are euphemisms (softened forms of a word or phrase that is considered less offensive) of the “real thing.”

1. “Blamed” — “damned” — a euphemism (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary).

2. “Darn” — a euphemism for “damn” (the curse). (Funk & Wagnall’s Dict. of the American Language).

3. “Dickens” — “the devil” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictio ary).

4. “What the Deuce” — “deuce” means “devil” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary).

5. “Dog-gone” or “doggoned” — A euphemism for “God-damn” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

6. “Gee” — a minced oath: “Jesus” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemistic contraction of “Jesus” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

7. “Golly” — a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

8. “Gosh” — a minced oath, used as a substitute for “God” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

9. “Heck” used euphemistically for “hell” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemism for “hell” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

10. “Goodness” or “For Goodness Sake” — a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

11. “Blasted” — “damned” (Webster’s New World Dic tionary of the American Language).

12. “Confounded” — “damned”; a mild oath (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

Brother and sister, don’t use words that you don’t know the meaning of. If you do, you may find yourself cursing without realizing it!

Note: The following article written 100 years ago is as timely today as it was when first published. It was submitted by Paul K. Williams. It was the front page editorial written by F.D. Srygley in the Gospel Advocate, some time between 1889 and 1900 and is taken from the book, The New Testament Church, edited by F.B. Srygley, 193-195.

The “Baptist and Reflector” refers to the differences and discussions among “us as a people,” and suggests that we ought to agree among ourselves and quit arguing with each other before we push “our plea” for the union of all Christians on the Bible much further.

The brother errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Because we differ in opinions and argue questions among ourselves, it does not follow that we are not united as Christians on the Bible. We have never proposed or desired to unite Christians in any institution that is too narrow to allow them to differ in opinion or argue with each other. We are in favor of giving everybody room to think and liberty to speak for himself.

For myself, I am opposed to any institution that allows no one but the bosses and grand moguls to entertain an idea or express an opinion. For the life of me, I can’t see that I am under any more obligation to agree with Alexander Campbell than he to agree with me. I would never unite with him or anybody else on the Bible on any other condition than that I am as free as he to study the Bible. This is the only kind of union we have ever proposed, and it is the only kind that is practicable or right among men.

Whenever it comes to human organizations in which no one but the framers of doctrinal standards are allowed to do any thinking, I beg to be excused. My thinking apparatus is not very large, I admit, but I claim all the room the Bible allows me in which to operate it.

The Reflector evidently thinks that because every man, with us, is free to think for himself and to differ from and argue with everybody else, therefore we are not united. That is an error. We are united, and the beauty and strength of the union is to be found largely in the fact that it is a union in Christ wherein everyone is allowed to study the Bible and think for himself, without being amenable to ecclesiastic authorities or doctrinal standards of human make.

The Reflector seems to have the old, bigoted idea that if a man should happen to differ from me and undertake to argue a question with me, he must get out of my church and start a little concern of his own. That has been the trouble with religious bigots all along the ages. It takes just such bigotry as that to build up denominations and keep Christians apart. “We as a people” are a rather contentious set, I admit, but we have not yet given in to that idea.

It is just at this point I file my objection to the Baptist Church. One must accept its doctrinal standards, written by uninspired men, or get out of it. Here is the “Baptist and Reflector,” for instance. It could think out some very good ideas of its own and express them in very creditable English if it only had room. But, my! Wouldn’t the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen someday to think a little thought all by itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards?

The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should.

There are a few men among us who are trying very hard to “organize” the thing called “us as a people,” so as to shut off all investigation and stop all discussion; but they are entirely too narrow in their ideas to fairly represent this reformation. They say that if something of this kind is not done very soon, “our plea” will burst into smithereens, “our organized mission work” will break all to flinders, and “we as a people” will go to smash on general principles; but I think not. The shortest route I know to such a crash is to organize us and undertake to compel us all to quit thinking and arguing and accept the conclusions and carry out the plans of “leading men and papers,” without the liberty to conceive an idea or express an opinion of our own.

By Richard Boone

Wednesday, September 9, 1998, Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia: 90 minutes after take-off from New York’s Kennedy airport, an MD-11 jet, Swissair Flight 111, disappeared from radar and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. 229 people died; known only to God is the number who lost their souls. The most frequent question has been, “How could this tragedy have been prevented?” More specifically, what could we have done to prevent it? Due to our training and locations, likely little or nothing.

A more important tragedy faces us — spiritually lost people die every day; what are we doing to “snatch them from the fire” (Jude 23)? I want to focus on three actions that we may not think about often enough. Paul thought about and practiced them “for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:19-23; cf. v. 23). Notice what he did:

He Restricted Himself

To win Jews to Christ, Paul was willing to be Jewish (v. 20). By lineage and upbringing Paul was a Jew, an above-average Jew (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5-6). He did not, however, remain a Jew when he learned the truth about Christ (Acts 9:1-22); he began preaching “the faith” he once destroyed (Gal. 1:23-24).

His strong desire was to save his fleshly kinsmen. He was willing to be accursed from Christ that they might be saved (Rom. 9:1-5; 10:1). He was willing to go to any extent lawful in the gospel to win Jews to Christ. Though free from all men, he willingly became a servant to all “that (he) might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).

For influence’s sake, Paul was willing to restrict him- self in certain ways toward Jews. He would first go to synagogues to teach Jews about Christ (Acts 13:14, 46). He had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). He took a vow, then shaved his head when it was completed (Acts 18:18), interesting in light of Jewish opposition at Corinth (Acts 18:4-6, 9-10, 12-17). On another occasion, he paid for the completion of others’ vows (Acts 21:20-26). He used the Old Testament to teach Jews, rather than demanding sub- mission to his apostolic authority (Acts 17:2-3; 18:4; etc.). “Fine,” you might say, “But how is this relevant to me?” Excellent question; I’ll proceed with an answer.

Occasionally we are in circumstances where, for the sake of the gospel, we should refrain from certain liberties we have. For example, several years ago a sister in Christ washed her laundry on Sunday afternoons and hung the clothes outside to dry. She was approached by a neighbor who questioned her “working on the Christian Sabbath.” This sister faced a dilemma — continue her laundering on Sunday, knowing that she was at scriptural liberty to do so, or restrict herself “for the sake of the gospel.” She moved her laundry-washing to another day, as I recall. When no violation of Christ’s law occurs, we can (should) restrict ourselves where necessary for the greatest influence on those who are not Christians.

He Released Himself

While Paul was concerned about Jews, he knew his primary mission was to Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Eph. 3:8; Gal. 2:8-9). In Christ he was no longer obligated to keep the Mosaic covenant and its requirements to be saved (Acts 15). As he went to Gentiles he released himself from Jewish restrictions (1 Cor. 9:21).

A good example is circumcision. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), but refused to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5). Was Paul hypocritical? No; the circumstances explain the difference. With Timothy, circumcision was expedient (profitable, helpful) because the Jews of that area knew his father was Greek (Acts 16:1, 3). Timothy was circumcised for the sake of influence. Titus’ circumstances, however, were different. The compulsion for circumcision of Titus was from Judaizing teachers as a requirement for salvation. Paul yielded not “even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). Paul knew that circumcision was not required for salvation in the New Covenant, and he did not allow others to bind it as law when God released all men from it.

Other examples include Paul’s association with Gen- tiles (Acts 16:34), clearly a violation of Jewish standards and practice (Acts 10:28). He taught Gentiles from their perspective, not Jewish perspectives (Acts 17:22-31), thus leading them from where they were to where they needed to be. Paul released himself and Corinthian Christians from Jewish restrictions on eating meat bought in the marketplace after it was sacrificed to idols — as long as no homage to idols was involved (1 Cor. 10:23-27). Observance or non-observance of days as a personal scruple was allowed (Rom. 14:5-6).

We pause to note the relevance of this to us. One example will suffice. In the area where I live is a large 7th- Day Adventist population. On Saturday, one community practically “roles up the sidewalks.” If I were engaged in spiritually-acceptable activities on Saturday and learned it was a stumbling block to Adventist neighbors, I would forego them on Saturdays. On the other hand, if I were in an area where my neighbors were of some other religious group, my Saturday activities would likely not offend them. I would proceed freely with those activities. In the first case I would restrict myself “for the sake of the gospel;” in the second case I would release myself from such restrictions, even to discuss spiritual matters with my neighbors!

He Reduced Himself

In verse 22 of our text, Paul “became as weak” to the “weak” so that “(he) might win the weak.” He reduced himself to the level of others so that he might “by all means save some.” Who are “the weak” in this passage, and to what did Paul refer when he “became as weak”?

Perched perfectly in the middle of a discussion of personal liberties, 1 Corinthians 9 reveals Paul’s practice of what he taught the Corinthians in chapters 8 and 10. In chapter 8 he makes two vital points about meat sacrificed to idols: (1) Idols are nothing (v. 4); and (2) Meat is not inherently helpful or harmful in God’s kingdom (v. 8). Verse 7 is the key: “There is not in everyone that knowledge.”

The “weak” person of this context is without adequate knowledge and understanding of some matters. (He is not one engaged in inherently sinful actions, or one who, out of stubbornness or belligerence, is a Diotrephes, 3 John 9-10). In light of one whose knowledge is incomplete, Paul would forfeit his liberty to eat meat (vv. 9-13). Why? “That I might win the weak” (1 Cor. 9:22) . . . “For the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:23). This “reduction” principle guides one’s conduct before weak Christians (1 Cor. 8) and unbelievers (1 Cor. 10:23-33) alike.

We face situations frequently where we apply Paul’s teaching, especially in teaching the lost. Once I was dis- cussing some biblical subjects with a coworker to lead her to obey the gospel. It was during the “Christmas” season and she asked why I did not celebrate Christmas as “the birthday of Jesus.” I had two options in answering her query: (1) There is no authority to observe December 25 as his birthday, with all the attendant aspects of Bible author- ity; or (2) Ask some questions on her level to provoke her thinking and study. Both options would be acceptable, but since she had no knowledge of the importance of Bible authority, it would have been futile to respond on that basis. I asked some questions that caused her to think and study for herself, and was still able, on her level, to teach about Bible authority. I’m sure you have faced similar circumstances in your Bible discussions with those whose knowledge was/ is at milk stage (1 Pet. 2:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14; etc.). I am also confident that you, like Paul, became as weak to the weak “that (you) might win the weak.”

Conclusion

Tragedies that kill people, like the crash of Swissair 111, occur daily. While they are devastating to those affected by them, a greater tragedy also occurs daily — people who die unprepared to meet God. Our work as Christians is well stated by Paul to Timothy: “Save yourself and those who hear you” (1Tim. 4:16). By the Spirit’s words and by his own life, Paul taught Christians how to better accomplish those tasks — restriction, release, and reduction. This he did, and so must we, “for the sake of the gospel.”