Truth Magazine

 

Dear Aristobulus:

Our beloved brother Paul is no longer with us; but being assured that his writings are understandable (Eph. 3:4), I will do all I can, as an uninspired secretary, to answer your letter. Paul would surely appreciate the spirit of your comments and the desire to know truth.

Romans 14:1 tells us to receive “one who is weak in the faith,” and we must identify such an one by information found in the context and confirmed by the teaching of Scriptures as a whole. God has received him (v. 3), and he is a servant of God (v. 4), but he believes he must eat (only) herbs (v. 2), and he esteems meats to be unclean (v. 14). While so believing (subjective “faith”) if he should eat meat, he would violate his conscience and this would “destroy” him (v. 15).

But was it wrong, per se to eat meat? No! Paul says meat was not unclean “of itself ” (v. 14). He called meat eating “good” (v. 16) and the meat eater was the “strong” one, while the herb eater was “weak”(v. 2; 15:1). The strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, leading to his “edification” (15:2) so that eventually they could “with one mind and one mouth glorify God” (15:6). Paul contributed to that “edification” by his teaching on meats here and elsewhere.

The herb eater lacked a clear understanding of what God said about meats, but he was “fully convinced” (assured) in his own mind (14:5) that he was doing what God wanted done. The illustrations of “days” and “meats” make this point (v. 6). “He who eats, eats to the Lord .. . and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat.” In his determination to eat only what he thought the Lord wanted him to eat, the herb eater showed strong subjective faith toward God. So, with reference to your “First” comment, it seems both the meat eater and the herb eater were “fully assured” in their subjective faith. The herb eater was commended and deserved patient consideration for this, not for his misunderstanding concerning meats.

Regarding your “Second” comment, both the meat eater and the herb eater acted, as you say, “conscientiously.” But Paul is our best example to show this does not guarantee right conclusions (cf. Acts 23:1; 26:9). Paul was concerned that both know the truth about meat (see above), but it is apparent “receiving each other” took precedence over meats and days. You correctly observe (paragraph 4) that Paul and other inspired men teach us to “mark . . . and avoid” those who teach false doctrine, such as instrumental music or polygamy (your illustrations). It is therefore apparent “meats” and “days” of Romans 14 are in a different category than these and were not regarded by Paul to be of such consequences as to war-rant “mark . . . and avoid” (16:17). They may be called matters of indifference  but with caution.

Paul said, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything” (Gal. 5:6); yet he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), but strongly resisted efforts to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5). Conceivably, the herb eater could press his convictions upon the congregation, or the meat eater could stress his “rights” to the disruption of peace and fellowship. One’s regard for a day” could promote a totally unacceptable situation (Gal. 4:10-11). Paul wanted the truth taught regarding meats and days, but such “issues” could be overshadowed by strike if handled in an ungodly manner (2 Tim. 2:23f).

In your “Third” comment, by considering “faith” exclusively in a subjective sense, you overlook the fact that the set of conscience is determined by the level of one’s knowledge. “There is not in everyone that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol. . .” (1 Cor. 8:7-11). Paul could persecute Christians in good conscience only because he did not know better. When he was convinced that Jesus was the Christ the setting of his conscience changed  and that is exactly what would happen when the herb eater accepted the truth regarding meats. Paul urges those with knowledge to be patient with those who lack understanding in certain matters of indifference, but who do what they do because they sincerely believe God wants it so.

“The faith” is used forty-two times in the New Testament with “faith” often in the noun form and eleven times in the exact form of Romans 14:1, referring to what is believed rather than to the act of believing. Check Jude 3, Galatians 3:23, and Acts 13:7-10. In Romans 14:1 the herb eater was strong in subjective faith (or conscience) but was weak in his understanding regarding meats.

You acknowledge “each has been received by the Lord when each obeyed the gospel.” Note it was not when they obeyed error “in good conscience.” Their continued reception by the Lord hinges upon their continuing desire for truth (1 Pet. 2:1-2), even in these matters of indifference. We are to encourage and assist one another to better know truth  all truth  and never adopt the concept that a good conscience relieves one of the need to “prove all things.”

Your problem with “May-pole dancing” seems like a typical illustration of the “meats and days” principle, but one could promote creedalism by listing modem conducts for this category. Unity is not achieved by creeds. If we will cultivate the love and concern for our brethren that Paul advocates in Romans 14, we can be of “one mind and one accord” in our “press toward the mark . . .” and herein lies the only “perfection” we can attain in this life (Phil. 3:13-15).

Yours in quest for truth,

Secretarius

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 11-12
November 7, 1996

By Dick Blackford

No fireworks! No Elvis impersonators! No antique car shows! No gimmicks!

All of these have been sponsored by churches in our area, but the church of Christ at 516 Rocky Point Road just wants to be a church after the New Testament order. All we offer is the gospel, without addition or subtraction. Our goal is to specialize in just being a church, not a club. Sometimes men mix the social gospel with the true, thereby diluting it. There is a difference between the pure gospel and the modern social gospel, which is really another gospel (Gal.1:6-10).

The Lord’s church was given a three-fold work to do. 1. Its primary mission is to evangelize. It is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim.3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8). 2. It also has the responsibility to teach and train its own members so they may grow to maturity (Eph. 4:12). 3. And it was given the work of benevolence (Acts 6:1-6).

Christ’s mission was to save souls for eternity. He made a clear distinction between the sacred (what came from heaven) and the secular (what came from men). If it came from men, it had no heavenly authority (Mark 11:30). The responsibility of recreation and entertainment was never given to the church. Men have so blended the sacred and the secular that it is difficult to distinguish them. Inspiration cautions us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Do you feel insulted if a church thinks the only way they can keep you faithful to God is with food, entertainment and recreation? Do you desire to associate with those who simply want to worship God because they love him and Jesus died for them?

It is refreshing to meet folks who want to go back to the Bible and just be the church Jesus built. That is our goal. We hope you will make it yours! Won’t you come and investigate?

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 12
November 7, 1996

 

Dear Brother Paul,

Greetings from the Roman saints, brother Paul. We have carefully read your epistle to us and have appreciated it greatly. For the most part, we have understood it and have been encouraged by all of it. However, there is one section about which some question has arisen. We are disagreed about its meaning and application. At times our disagreement has become somewhat sharp and severe. I am referring to the section in which you instruct brethren who differ concerning “food” and “days” to receive each other.

I have been asked by the brethren here to write you asking for further clarification. I am doing this by in-forming you how I understand your teaching. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me frankly and plainly.

First, I understand you to mean that the difference between the “weak” and the “strong” brother is that the former is not “fully assured” in his faith and the latter is “fully assured” in his faith. Thus, in each case “faith” is personal  subjective  and does not refer to “the faith”  objective  as our brother Jude teaches in his epistle.

Dealing with “false teachers,” men who make fatal flaws concerning “the faith,” is taught later in this epistle as well as in other epistles. “Mark and turn away” from those who are teaching things “contrary to the doctrine.” We are familiar with brethren Jude and Peter’s instruction concerning such teachers. We have also heard of, though we have not yet seen the epistle, brother John’s instruction “to give no greeting” to a teacher who does not bring “this doctrine.” To the best of our ability we are practicing these instructions from the inspired witnesses.”

Second, I find no evidence in your instructions that you are concerned with which “faith,” “strong or weak,” is correct. Neither are you saying that the “strong brother” has “faith”; the “weak brother” is holding an opinion. Each is acting conscientiously. Your instruction relates to “receiving each other”; the how and why of it.

Third, it appears evident to me, that the matters about which there is a difference in “faith” do not involve the congregation. They involve brethren acting personally and independently of the group.

“Eating or not eating,” “esteeming one day above another” may be done personally and are not of the same classification as singing in the assembly accompanied by lyres and harps; or choosing an “elder” who has two wives.

Here are my reasons from your instruction for drawing these conclusions: (1) You use “faith” four times in this con-text. The last three unquestionably refer to personal faith. It seems highly unlikely that you would use “faith” in the be-ginning “objectively” and then use it “subjectively” in the conclusion. (2) “Receiving” each other is not based upon the correctness or incorrectness of each brother’s faith because: “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.” “Each of us shall give an account of himself to God.” The “strong brother” is “not to set at naught him that eateth not” and is “to bear the infirmities of the weak.” On the other hand the “weak brother” is not to “judge (condemn) him that eateth.” Therefore, each is to “receive” the other while each holds his own faith. Since each has been “received” by the Lord  when each obeyed the gospel  the future standing of each will be decided by the Lord.

The “why” each is “to receive” the other is stated in these words: “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” “For the kingdom of God is not (about) eating and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” “Let us follow after things which make for peace . . . and edify each other.” “The strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” and “please his neighbor . . . unto edifying.”

Some who question my understanding of your instruction warn me  which I do not take lightly  that this interpretation would permit us to “give the right hand of fellowship” to some teachers who have recently come from Africa teaching and practicing “plural wives.” I reply that their concern is unfounded for that problem has been addressed by your later teaching in this epistle as well as in the epistles of Jude and Peter, and what we have heard about brother John’s. These “believers” do not argue their “faith” from the teaching of “the faith.” They “deny” our Master by not “listening to His witnesses.”

Our concern here is not about “eating meats” and “es-teeming days.” It concerns “May-pole dancing,” originally a celebration to a “god” which is not God, as you wrote the Corinthian brethren. Now it is simply a national and recreational holiday. Some of us participate in the game being “fully assured.” Some of us are not “fully assured” and therefore do not participate. Some think that we should study the matter until we are of “one mind and one accord.” Others, such as myself, think that we should “receive” each other in spite of our differences. Each “side” claims your instruction as their authority. My judgment is, as I have tried to explain, that we should maintain fellowshipping each other while permitting each brother to “May-pole dance” or not according to his own “faith.” And, that God will finally decide who “stands or falls.”

Be assured, beloved brother, that each of us is resolved to do God’s will endeavoring to remain a “company of believers.” We eagerly await your further instruction.

Fraternally,

Aristobulus (State Gymnasium Captain)

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 10-11
November 7, 1996

By Irvin Himmel

King Saul was sent by the Lord to utterly destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. He was told plainly to “go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

The haughty Saul spared Agag, the Amalekite king, and the best of the livestock were brought back. When Samuel the prophet rebuked Saul for his disobedience to God, the rebellious king admitted, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.”

As the leader of the people, Saul had the responsibility to go before them in the fear of God. No matter what the people desired, God’s will should have been respected by the king. Saul let the people lead him when he should have been leading them.

Elders in the church sometimes cave in to the demands of the people when they should insist on following the New Testament plan for the church. Preachers often are influenced by the voice of the people. They preach what the people want to hear rather than what the people need to hear. Such men ought to read, believe, and obey Paul’s charge in 2 Timothy 4.

Let us always fear God and obey his voice.

 

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 9
November 7, 1996