Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The ancient town of Megiddo was destroyed so many times and by so many different conquerors that its name became synonymous with all out war and total destruction. Megiddo overlooks the Jezreel Valley and has been important militarily since ancient times.

The fortified hill of Megiddo is a remarkable tel (settlement mound) where 20 layers of civilization have been uncovered since excavations began in 1903. Megiddo is located in the only pass through the Carmel mountain range. A major trade route that skirted the coast passed through the Carmel range of mountains at Megiddo. Of vital military and trading importance, this highway was named by the Romans Via Maris. Whoever controlled the Jezreel valley controlled northern Israel and the trade routes that passed through it.

About 4000 B.C. Canaanites took over the settlement here and remained there for some 2000 years. A Canaanite temple and fortifications survive. Egyptian records indicate that Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.) defeated an Asiatic coalition headed by the king of Kadesh. The name “Megiddo” first appears in the Bible when Megiddo was conquered by the Israelites under Joshua in the 13th century B.C. (Josh. 12:21; 17:11) and given to the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:11). The Philistines subsequently held the city (Judg. 1:27), but it was retaken by David in 1000 B.C. Solomon enlarged the city and there are many remains from that period (1 Kings 9:15). The six chambered gate is from the time of Solomon. 

King Ahab built an underground shaft and water tunnel 118 ft. deep and 213 feet long. On the site of Solomon’s palace, he built a chariot stable for 450 horses, chariots, and riders (1 Kings 9:19; 10:26). In front is a large circular grain silo. Conquered by the Assyrians in 733 B.C., the site frequently changed hands and was abandoned in 538 B.C. 

Megiddo was the scene of some major battles in the Old Testament. Deborah and Barak defeated Sisera and Jabin, king of Hazor, there (Judg. 5:19). Ahaziah died here when Jehu led a successful rebellion in Israel (2 Kings 9:27). Josiah was killed in a battle with Pharaoh-nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). The battlefield was so renown that Armageddon is used in the book of Revelation to describe a great spiritual conflict.

Significant artifacts found here include:

• In 1903, a seal that said “belonging to Shema, the servant of Jeroboam.” Could this be from the servant of King Jeroboam I or II?
• A collection of 282 ivories from the 13th-12th centuries B.C.
• A circular altar for Canaanite worship.
• A water tunnel belonging to the time of Ahab.
• Solomonic double gateway entrance.
• Ruins for stables from the times of Omri and Ahab. These formerly were thought to be from the reign of King Solomon, but are now generally thought to have been from Omri and Ahab. The stables housed 450 horses. Megiddo  

By Eugene Britnell

The great apostle Paul had appealed his case unto Caesar (Acts 25:11). After all the charges had been made, Agrippa said, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (Acts 26:32). At his trial in Rome, due to insufficient evidence, he was about to be released when the chief of the Jews said, “But we desire to hear thee, what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against” (Acts 28:22).

The word sect was used by Paul, but in denial. Paul said to Felix, “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14, NKJV). In Acts 26:5, Paul said, “that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” In Acts 24:5, Paul was described as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” In Acts 5:17 the word is applied to the Sadducees, and in Acts 15:5 it was applied to the Pharisees. It is ironic that the word would be used in reference to Paul, for the Holy Spirit used his pen to say more in opposition to sectarianism than all other writers of the New Testament combined.

What Is A Sect?

“A group holding similar views; a party. In religion: a party dissenting from an established or parent church; a body of sectarins. One of the organized bodies of Christians; a denomination” (Webster).

Hairesis, a choosing, is translated “sect” throughout the Acts except in 24:14, A.V., “heresy” (R.V., “sect”); it properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage; hence a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of “the truth” held in toto; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue; the order “division, heresies” in “the works of the flesh” in Gal. 5:19-21 is suggestive of this (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words 1007).

Cruden’s Concordance comments: “This word is generally used to mean a party in religion, differing in belief from the main body. In our old version it is usually translated heresy, which the revisions changed to sect. The religion preached by Christ and his disciples was frequently called a sect, for it was quite a number of years before it was extended to the Gentiles, and the Jews who embraced it were faithful to the major part of their ancestral faith.”

According to these definitions, the term “sect” is synonymous with heresy, division, and denomination, all of which are condemned in the New Testament. Therefore, this cannot describe the church of Christ.

What Is The Church?

Having defined a sect or denomination, we now define the church according to the Bible. Please understand that we are not necessarily discussing any particular congregation you may know or think about. We are concerned about the church we read about in the New Testament.

When the apostle Peter confessed the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). That’s the one we are speaking of in this study. When Jesus promised to build the church, he meant that it would be of himself and belong to him. That is why a plurality of congregations were called “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). It is noticeable to the student of the New Testament that we never read of denominations as branches of the church. They all came into existence after the close of the New Testament and without the authority of God. This thought may be impressed upon our minds by simply asking the question: Which denomination did Jesus have in mind when he said he would build his church? The answer is that he had no denomination in mind. From this thought we gather three important lessons: (1) All denominations exist without the authority of Christ; (2) No denomination that exists today is the church of Christ; (3) The church of Christ, or the church that Jesus built, is not a denomination!

Seven Reasons Why The Church Is Not A Denomination

1. Christ was the builder. He said “church” not “churches.” He spoke of “it” not “them.” Read again Matthew 16:18.

2. Christ is the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). It was built upon Peter’s confession of Christ. In his early years he was familiar with building and grew up in a carpenter’s shop (Matt. 13:55). Did he lay a foundation large enough for his building (church) and hundreds of others? No, the foundation was designed and adequate for the building he erected.

3. The church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23). He is the head of the body. Is he the head of many bodies or a divided and mutilated body? No. “And he is the head of the body, the church” . . . “for the sake of his body, which is the church” (Col. 1:18, 24).

4. Christ is the creed of the church (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2). His word is our guide and the basis for unity. Denominations are created and function by their own human creeds.

5. The church must honor the name of Christ, not some man or doctrine. “He is the head of the body, the church . . . that in all things he may have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). His name is the basis for unity. The three rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians 1:13 show that we are to wear only the name of him who is not divided, was crucified for us, and in whose name we were baptized. That produces unity, not denominationalism!

6. The church of Christ has no earthly or denominational headquarters. Contrast that with Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other denominations.

7. The church of Christ has no denominational organization. Christ is the head, and each congregation is to have a plurality of elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Man-made denominations have formed hierarchies and systems of government not found in the Bible. For example: Catholicism, with the pope, cardinals, arch-bishops, priests, etc.

Present Conditions In The Church

Until recently, nearly everyone in the church understood what it was and that denominations were sinful. But we see change in the teaching of some brethren. Rubel Shelly is a good example of this change. In 1972 he wrote:

Liberal elements within the churches of Christ have made great strides toward turning the church into a denomination. Although not many brethren seem to realize it, we are being influenced to abandon our distinctiveness. I have recently encountered several individuals who are frankly urging that we admit to being a denomination.

If we do not intend to maintain our distinctiveness, we have no right to exist. If we are not going to preach the truth boldly, let us not preach it at all. If we are unwilling to oppose false teachings and false practices, let us quit claiming to be the people of the holy God! . . . The church of Christ is not a denomination. But it will soon be if some among us have their way! As soon as we cease preaching the distinctive message of the gospel, we cease being the true church of Christ and become something less (What Is Happening In The Church).

In view of the above statements, let us consider recent efforts by Shelly to “abandon our distinctiveness” and “turn the church into a denomination.” One of many will be sufficient. 

Billy Graham is the nation’s leading exponent of denominationalism. In his weekly newsletter, “Love Lines,” February 23, 2000, Rubel wrote:

God willing, Billy Graham will be preaching four nights in Adelphia Coliseum this spring. I hope you have marked June 14 on your calendar . . . I hope you are praying over your “Operation Andrew” list of people you plan to invite to the crusade. The likelihood that you know an unsaved person who would attend one or more nights of the Graham Crusade is very high. For one thing, curiosity alone might be enough to motivate that person. Hearing Dr. Graham speak in one of the final crusades his age and health will allow him to conduct could get someone there — and the Spirit of God can handle things from there. The preached Word of God can be his instrument to touch that person’s heart.

Brethren, can you believe what you just read? The “Spirit of God” can handle things, but Billy does not preach what the Spirit has revealed. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit guided Peter to tell believers to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Billy does not preach that for he doesn’t believe it!

Shelly, who preaches for the Woodmont Hills church in Nashville, is a General Committee Member for the Graham Crusade. He wrote that “Several of our shepherds wrote letters of invitation to Dr. Graham to encourage him to come to our city.”

There are more than fifty churches of Christ in Limestone County where I live. The vast majority of them are conservative, understand what the church is, and oppose denominationalism. Two churches (Valley Church and Seven Mile Post Road) joined with fourteen denominational groups in promoting and conducting a rock/gospel concert on a ball field at Athens State University. The newspaper reported that souls were saved on the field, and no one from those two churches denied it. The program had mechanical music with the gospel songs and sectarian speakers.

One of the errors the two churches teach is that we are not under law today. On their radio program June 4, the speaker said that each and every one of the churches of Christ in the county is a sect. I deny it! If they want to use labels, “faction” would be a good one for them for they were formed in rebellion to elders in the churches where they were raised.

Inconsistent and Confusing Teaching

F. LaGard Smith has written a book entitled Who Is My Brother? In it he says many good things, and seems to want to defend the church and the gospel plan of salvation. In other statements he seems to want to compromise what he has said and extend fellowship to those in denominations. Here is a sample of what I mean:

If indeed there is such a thing as “faith fellowship” apart from true “in Christ” fellowship, the next question is, How does that fellowship operate in practical terms?

It means, first of all, that we must be bold enough to acknowledge Christ-centered faith wherever we find it — even in those who may be outside the boundaries of Christian fellowship. We must come to accept that it is not wrong to fellowship as believers others who wear the name “Christian” but aren’t. Without giving anything away we can honor their faith, learn from their faith, be rebuked by their faith, be prompted by their faith, read the words of their faith, and sing the feelings of their faith (112).

How can he say that they have Christ-centered faith, and that we can emulate their faith in many ways if they are not in the faith and walking by faith that comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17)? If, as he said, they are wearing the name Christian but are not, then they are in darkness. But true Christians are told to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). I don’t follow his thinking. To accept those who are not Christians and fellowship those who are in error is not being bold; that is cowardly!

We are in complete agreement with the following statements by brother James P. Needham:

When people say one church (denomination) is just as good as another, they are correct, and all denominations put together are not as good as the one God purposed in eternity, our Lord bought with His own precious blood (Acts 20:28), and brought to fruition on Pentecost (Acts 2), which was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, and fulfills God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10, 11). To say this divine organization is equal to or parallel with human denominations is to border on blasphemy and endanger the souls of those who so teach.

Those brethren who seem determined to make the church of Christ just another denomination have lost their faith in the Lord’s order of things, and have bought into the so-called ‘new hermeneutic.’ They should study to regain their faith, repent of their sins, and pray for God’s forgiveness, or failing that, join some human denomination where they will feel more at home. When it comes to the Lord’s church, one should love it or leave it (Gospel Truths, May 2000).

At the end of Pentecost (Acts 2), every saved person in Jerusalem was in the church of Christ, for the Lord had added the saved to it (v. 47). There was not a saved person who was not in the church, and every responsible person outside the church was lost. That divine process continues today. Therefore, the church of Christ is not a sect or a part of anything; it is the whole thing!

P.O. Box 505, Athens, Alabama 35612 
ebritnell@iopener.net

By Truman Smith

When we were asked to take this assignment, to deal with such an often debated topic, the admonition of 1 Peter 2:17 where Peter said: “Love the brotherhood,” came to mind. Peter’s use of the word “love” conveys the idea of care and concern. Though the exercise of it often leads to an emotional love, it is not, within itself, of that nature. But, it is the kind of love that the Father expressed when he gave his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world (cf. John 3:16). Thus, if we know our own heart, and we think we do, and though we write with emotion, what we have to say here emanates from our love, care and concern for our great and wonderful brotherhood. However, since we wish to write so as to be clearly understood, we will therefore “use great plainness of speech” and make no apology for it (2 Cor. 3:12).

Brethren, we are being treated to the philosophies and ideologies of this age. Our first observation of these ideas came in the 1960s when we started hearing from the vulgar, long-haired marchers who were bent on change! They were protesters! Characterizing themselves as advocates of “love,” they protested against using the old math in the public school system; corporeal punishment of children in schools; dress codes in the schools, etc. You could depend upon them to be opposed to capital punishment for capital offenses. These were the folks that advocated children having the right to sue their parents in a court of law. It was about that time that we first began hearing: “It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it!” In the name of “love,” lest the atheists be offended, they pressed for no Bible reading or prayers in the public schools. And, though the teaching of evolution could have free course, they opposed the teaching of the Bible account of creation in the public schools. In the name of “love,” they viewed these as violating the law of “separation of church and state.” When it came to mercy, they tried to out-do God himself!

The spirit of “positivism” has come of age! It was in the days of the “old hermeneutic” that the church experienced its greatest growth. We never questioned the need for direct statement or command, apostolic approved example, or necessary inference in order to obtain authority from God’s Word for what we did. We challenged the denominations in debate on the basis of such authority and multiplied thousands were converted to the Lord. Indeed, it was that attitude toward Bible authority that led this scribe out of religious error many years ago! Now the cry is for a “new hermeneutic”! Yet, no one seems to want to spell out just what the “new hermeneutic” consists of, for one will tell you one thing while another will tell you something else. But let us tell you the truth about the matter: it is simple rebellion against the authority of the Scriptures. Not only do these people want to throw out the old hermeneutic and bring in the new, they also are attempting to rewrite the definition of just what constitutes a “false teacher.”

Here again, brethren, there was a time not so long ago that we all seemed to be in general agreement on the definition of a false teacher. In fact, it was only since we learned about brother Homer Hailey coming out publicly and teaching what we once called “the Fuqua position” on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Belen, New Mexico, then the 17 articles written by brother Ed Harrell in Christianity Magazine from November 1988 to May 1990 in which we were all encouraged to continue having fellowship with brother Hailey in spite of his false teaching on MDR, that this question has been brought to the fore. Does that not seem a bit strange? Generally speaking, our brethren understood that a false teacher is one who teaches false doctrine. It seemed, however, in this case that the definition of a false teacher needed to be changed in order to accommodate an old, beloved brother, and one who has done so much good back through many long years of Bible teaching at brotherhood colleges. Have we forgotten the words of Paul? “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

There is much said in Scripture about false teachers. No, the designation “false teacher” is not specifically mentioned  very many times, but the subject is! For example, Paul referred to false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:16-18; but spoke of their teaching as “profane and vain babblings.” Were these teachers of truth? Certainly not! Their “profane and vain babblings” made them “false teachers”! Apollos was a false teacher, though Luke does not use that terminology to describe him, until Aquila and Priscilla “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). Thankfully, our brother Apollos was honest and stood corrected and became a teacher of the truth. Just why are some folks so insistent in saying that they must find in the Bible the expression “false teacher” before they can consider them such? We often preach against the sin of dancing, of gambling, etc., though such are not condemned in Scripture by name. But many are saying today that to be a “false teacher,” one must fit the descriptions of 2 Peter 2:1-19, such as having “pernicious ways,” being “covetousness,” etc. One brother even says: “Being a ‘false teacher’ is not simply about doctrine but about character as well.” Granted such men as Pat Robertson and Billy Graham say a lot of good things in their sermons, yet are they not “false teachers” by reason of the error they teach? We dare say any of us would deny that such men are “false teachers.” However, can you name anything about their “character” that fits the description of 2 Peter 2:1-19? We think not! Is it not true that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”? Do these men “privily . . .  bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them”? Honestly, is that an apt description of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham? We think not! But these are considered to be some of the most prominent “false teachers” of our day! What makes them “false teachers”? It is obvious that it is their false teaching! You see, the thing emphasized in the Word of God that makes one a false teacher is that which he teaches. Beloved, the same thing that makes the above mentioned men “false teachers” makes brother Homer Hailey a “false teacher.” If not, why not? This writer always had the utmost respect for brother Hailey and considered him one of the very best of scholars, especially of the Old Testament prophets.

We have visited him in his home in Tucson. We have a picture of us both together! We have cherished our friendship for years! But since we learned of his false teaching on the subject of “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,” We must consider him a “false teacher”!

Why do men desire a “New Hermeneutic,” a new definition of a “false teacher,” and a new interpretation of Romans, chapter 14? What will be next? Will our children and grandchildren want to just rewrite the Bible? Already, we have every kind of “new revision” of the Bible on today’s market that one can imagine! All such things point up the fact that many in our society today have lost respect for the plain truth, and thus continue their search for something more palatable to their fancy. All of which reminds us of Paul’s words to the Galatians: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).

We do not wish to sound too simplistic, but brethren, remember that the very nature of truth is that it is the opposite of that which is false; thus anything that is not according to the truth of God’s Word is antagonistic to truth. Is this not the reason God’s Word has so much to say about us coming unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4)? Surely we will be judged in that final day by that Word (John 12:48; Rev. 20:12). Conversely, just look at the warnings that reflect the need for the truth being taught in its purity and simplicity (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19). Furthermore, we are warned not to have fellowship with false teachers (2 John 9-11). We are admonished to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15); so it is imperative that we know how to “rightly divide,” or “handle aright” the truth. This is one of the reasons James admonishes: “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). And such complies well with the context of 2 Peter 2. Just observe the context prior to it and that also which follows. Oh, yes! This applies as much to this writer as to anyone else! Thus, if we teach “damnable heresies” then we are a “false teacher” also! And, even if one is sincere, yet fails to understand the consequences of his error, he is a “false teacher” as long as he teaches it.

One of the most significant parts to Billy Graham’s teaching is that one does not have to be baptized in order to be saved; thus, think of the consequences of such a doctrine! Just so, suppose every local church were to allow false doctrine to be taught on “marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” Think of the consequences! Every congregation would become a haven for adulterers! That certainly would qualify as being “damnable” (“destructive,” NASVB), would it not? But, brethren, the responsibility rests upon us to study God’s Word and teach only that which we know as true from the Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15). Indeed, the truth can be understood. Paul said: “Therefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is “ (Eph. 5:17). So, if I fall to understand it, I must study it until I do. How else can we carry out the directive of 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul said: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Paul also said: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

In conclusion, let us plead with all of our brethren that since we are all required to be teachers of truth in whatever capacity is permitted in the Scriptures, let us study diligently to know the truth, then teach it with all the force within us! Let us teach it by every scriptural means available to us, whether by word or epistle; but when we discover, at any given time, that we have embraced destructive error, let us be like Paul and Apollos and give it up, so we can be teachers of truth and righteousness. At the same time, let us not guard and protect those who are teaching false doctrine, regardless who they might be; but let us hold up the hands of those who have the courage to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

130 Audubon Ave., Florence, Alabama 35633

By Marshall E. Patton

The 14th chapter of Romans identifies a divinely authorized area of tolerance. It shows that some differences among brethren are to be tolerated without making such a test of fellowship. This area of tolerance is circumscribed and bound by divine law. The principles by which the boundaries are determined must be carefully learned and respected, otherwise, one is likely to be found going beyond the “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). Unfortunately, some have done just that, including our brother LaGard Smith in his book Who Is My Brother? now under review in this special issue. While we must be careful to retain in our fellowship all whom God intends, at the same time we must not run roughshod over divine limitations. The design of this article is to establish in the light of the Scriptures those parameters beyond which some brethren have gone in their efforts to justify fellowshipping those unauthorized.

An overview of the whole chapter together with a brief exegesis of some key verses are essential to a clear understanding of some particulars in the chapter, some of which are pertinent to this study. The thrust of this chapter is to show brethren who differ in certain matters how to have fellowship with each other in spite of such differences. As a means to that end three primary matters are discussed, namely, clarity of conscience, individual action, and offending a brother.

Paul begins in verse one by exhorting brethren to “receive” (into fellowship) one that is “weak in the faith” (KJV), which also may be translated “weak in faith” (ASV, NASV). If understood according to the former, the reference would be to objective faith, i.e., the gospel (Acts 6:7; Jude 3). In this instance the weak brother would be lacking in knowledge. If understood according to the latter, the reference would be to subjective faith, i.e., one’s own faith in or toward the action or object under consideration. In this instance the weak brother would be lacking in conviction so that he could not partake of that in question believing it to be right. Since the expression of itself admits either translation, its contextual setting should be the determining factor. Also, since clarity of conscience is emphasized throughout the chapter as a primary objective in all that one does (vv. 5, 23), I conclude that the weak brother lacked faith to eat meat or to esteem “every day alike.” Hence the word “faith” in verse one should be understood in the same sense as in verse 23, i.e., in the subjective sense: “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” The weak brother’s problem was likely threefold: a lack of knowledge, and, consequentially, a lack of faith (subjective), and consequently, a conscience that would not allow him to do what others were doing.

The church in Rome was made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Some found it difficult to leave off some of their former beliefs and practices after their conversion. The Jews found it difficult to lay aside the restrictions of Judaism respecting meat eating, the observance of days, and other rituals of the law of Moses. No doubt some in order to be safe and for conscience sake pursued the course of a strict vegetarian. However, the “weak” brother of our text pursued the course of the vegetarian while “judging” others (condemning them) to the point of making it a test of fellowship. Obviously, he believed that such was a part of the gospel, and, therefore, binding upon Christians. The Gentile had a similar problem in regard to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Thus, we find under these conditions, when a transition was being made from their former religion, both the “weak” and “strong” among the early Christians. These were nebulous matters among them. Remember, the church in Rome was yet without the information Paul gave the Corinthians (1 Cor. 8; 9), nor did he tell them to settle the issue on the basis of which was right or wrong. Rather, Paul commanded both the “weak” and the “strong” to leave off judging each other (3, 4, 13) and to “receive” (fellowship) each other, “but not to doubtful disputations” (for the purpose of wrangling, condemning, and creating strife).

In verse three, Paul gives another reason for this fellowship: “for God hath received him.” The “for” (Gr. gar) is a causal conjunction which introduces the reason for the two-fold exhortation (to both the vegetarian and the meat eater). The “him” in the last phrase of verse three has for its antecedent both or either of the individuals in the exhortation just given — depending on the one under consideration at the time. The reason for both exhortations is the same. This shows that at some time in the past (aorist tense) God had received both individuals under consideration; that they were brethren, and, therefore, worthy of better treatment from each other than being received unto “doubtful disputations.” Right here we learn more of the limitations placed upon this area of tolerance, namely, the fellowship authorized applies only to those who are Christians — those who have been “received” of God, and who are, therefore, brethren in the Lord. Doctrinal differences over what is necessary in becoming a Christian are excluded.

In verse four Paul deals with their present practice: “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (present tense). Here we learn another limitation placed on this area of tolerance, namely, only individual matters are included. By “individual matters” I mean actions that involve only the individual in contrast to actions that involve joint participation or group action. Thus, the vegetarian could act according to his conscience and the meat eater could act according to his conscience without either one violating his own conscience. I realize that a clear conscience does not guarantee the action to be right (Acts 23:1; 26:9; Prov. 14:12), but all should remember that keeping the conscience clear is a basic requirement of all Christians (vv. 5, 22, 23; 1 Tim. 1:5).

This explains why issues that involve joint participation — group or church action — bring about division, e.g., instrumental music in worship, sponsoring church, church support of other institutions, the social gospel concept, etc. In such cases the one who conscientiously opposed the practice would have no alternative but to violate his conscience or separate. On the other hand, issues that involve only the individual do not or should not divide churches, e.g., the covering of 1 Corinthians 11, the war question, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, observance of Christmas, etc. Each can act according to his own conscience and “unto his own master stand or fall,” yet, participate in unison with all Christians in every function of the church. Our “liberal brethren” have a hard time understanding why we can differ over these individual matters and still fellowship each other, while we cannot do as much with them in relation to the matters that divide us. They do not understand Romans 14. One is in an authorized area of tolerance and the other is not.

Thus far, we have observed four fundamental restrictions limiting this area of tolerance: (1) Nebulous matters (vv. 1, 2), (2) Limited to brethren (v. 3, “for God hath received him”), (3) Conscientiousness (a requirement of all Christians at all times, vv.1, 5, 23; 1 Tim. 1:5), and (4) An individual matter (v. 4 “to his own master he standeth or falleth”).

It should be observed, however, that not all individual matters fall into this area of tolerance. None of us would be willing to tolerate lying, stealing, murder, or any specified sin (clearly established) regardless of who or how many were involved. Yet, there comes a time when men of knowledge, who are conscientious, differ over whether or not a transgression is involved in the action in question. Such are comparable to the differences in our text. It should also be observed that all four of these limitations are to be respected in determining a matter of tolerance.

Brother LaGard Smith’s book Who Is My Brother? ignores these divine limitations, and consequently, misapplies the command “Let us not therefore judge one another any more” (Rom. 14:13). Smith arbitrarily sets up a human standard for measuring who is to be fellowshipped. This standard (including five levels of fellowship) permits him to separate from brethren with whom he differs doctrinally for conscience sake, yet continue in fellowship with them in what he calls the “extended family,” or “in Christ fellowship.” Other articles in this special issue will show more in detail how this is done.

The New Testament teaches that fellowship with God that is synonymous with salvation is based upon the declared message of the holy apostles and prophets; that this fellowship is with God, Christ, the apostles, and the faithful (1 John 1:3; Eph. 3:5). Any doctrine (unless within this authorized area of tolerance) outside this inspired revelation will separate one from such fellowship. Proof follows: Paul taught that any other gospel would remove one from Christ, and whoever taught it would be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). Again, Paul said, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness . . . from such withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). Concerning Hymenaeus, Paul said, “I have delivered unto Satan,” an expression referring to the withdrawal process (1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:3-5,13). Why was this done? Paul answers when speaking of him and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:18: “Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” False doctrine breaks fellowship with God, Christ, the apostles, and the faithful. This is done in its twofold sense: (1) Removes from the state of fellowship (1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:14), (2) Precludes joint participation (2 Thess. 3:6).
2 John 9 is perhaps the most pertinent verse in the whole Bible on this particular issue. It deals a death blow to LaGard’s argument which is the same as that made popular by the New Unity Movement (NUM) a few years ago. Because what I wrote then in reply answers now LaGard’s argument in his book now under review, I submit the following : “The NUM affirms that ‘doctrine of Christ’ (2 John 9) refers to doctrine about Christ (v. 7). They say the context demands it, and, thus, they exclude sincere brethren in error from the condemnation of verse nine. However, a more careful examination of these verses shows that verse seven is the exception (a specific of the whole) to the contextual theme (the whole body of truth) which runs throughout this short chapter. The ‘truth’ (singular) — the whole body of truth (vv. 1, 4); the ‘commandment’ (singular) — inclusive of all commandments (v. 6), and ‘doctrine’ (singular) — not one of the doctrines (v. 9) identify the theme of the context. Thus, the NUM’S view is arbitrary, out of harmony with other passages (e.g., Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10,11; 2 Tim. 2:15-18), and at variance with scholarship in general. Consider the following:

‘Of Christ’ is the subjunctive genitive: the doctrine Christ taught and still teaches through his apostles’ (R.C.H. Lenski).

Thayer defines the word ‘doctrine’ as ‘that which is taught, one’s teaching, i.e., what he teaches, 2 John 9.’

‘The doctrine which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. The doctrine of Christ is the truth; he who has not the truth has not God’ (H.A.W. Meyer).

‘Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christian’s walk (1 John 2:6)’ (A.T. Robertson).

Brethren, be not deceived by those who would make distinctions where God’s word makes none, who place a restricted meaning on passages to accommodate their peculiar doctrine, especially when at variance with other passages and the scholarship of the world in general. We must always speak that which becometh sound doctrine (Tit. 2:1)” (Answers For Our Hope, 304, 305).

There is one statement I feel compelled to make before closing this study of a portion of Romans 14. I do not believe that the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question qualifies for this area of tolerance. It is not an individual matter! Others are always involved. Adultery itself is always with one and against another (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11).

1024 Coronado Ave., S.E., Huntsville, Alabama 35802 mepevang@aol.com