Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

In the epilogue of his book, Who Is My Brother?, F. LaGard Smith publishes his letter to Max Lucado containing his replies to Lucado’s book, In the Grip of Grace. Following the letter, brother Smith writes: “Having now myself gone public through the pages of this book, and having written my own letter of reply to Max, I invite similar responses from any who might wish to continue the dialogue. The crucial issues raised in this book need all the collective attention we can give them. Nothing but good can come from an honest, open searching of the Scriptures on the nature and boundaries of Christian fellowship” (254).

I applaud the spirit these words express. It is good for brethren to discuss ideas and argue their differences in an honorable and brotherly way. Accepting brother Smith’s invitation, I offer this article in response to his discussion of five levels of fellowship. He affirms that there are five categories of fellowship, which he discusses in chapters 5-9.

Universal Fellowship: The Family of Man

The first level of fellowship, discussed in chapter 6, is that which exists among all humans. We all are descendants of Adam and are brothers and sisters in the family of man. We share the human experience, render aid to one another, and participate with fellow humans in various endeavors of common interest (e.g., PTA). As Christians, we are concerned for the spiritual well-being of our fellow humans, and we seek to lead them to Christ.

There is little with which I would take issue in the discussion of universal fellowship. Certainly there is a bond and a relationship that all humans share. This relationship is a kind of fellowship, but it is not the kind that is described in the Scriptures. The term is used in the Scriptures to describe the relationship of those who adhere to the declarations of the apostles (1 John 1:3).

Faith Fellowship: Like Family

Chapter 7 discusses a level of fellowship that the author describes as “faith fellowship.” This is fellowship with those who believe in Christ but have not been biblically baptized. This level of fellowship is higher than “universal fellowship,” but it falls short of “in Christ” fellowship (to be discussed later).

Brother Smith says that these unbaptized believers are not “family,” but  they are “like family.” The description, “like family,” is not identical to Ketcherside’s “brothers in prospect,” but it does have a similar ring to it. Explaining this description, he writes, “In virtually every way they think and act as those in the family would think and act” (106). Really? Do they think and act as those in the family? Their thinking utterly rejects what Jesus said to do to be saved as well as the need for scriptural authority in religion, and their actions in worship and service to God are not governed by his word. Such thinking and acting is certainly not appropriate for the family of God.

I was surprised to find that our brother uses the incident recorded in Mark 9:38-41 to provide a scriptural basis for “faith fellowship.” John reported that he and the other apostles had seen a man casting out demons. They had forbidden him to do so “because he followeth not us.” Jesus corrected John’s error. The fact that the man was not among those traveling in Jesus’ immediate company was no reason to forbid him to perform miracles in the name of Jesus. This man was not comparable to those who are involved in unscriptural religious systems. There is no hint that he rejected any portion of divine truth or was involved in any false religious activities.

Brother Smith believes that we should appreciate and value unbaptized believers. Indeed, we may benefit from some of the accomplishments of those in religious error, but our brother makes some comments that both astound and appall me. Read his words and think: “Globally, it is hard to overestimate the good that has been done by Anglican and Roman Catholic missionaries in civilizing pagan cultures. (Their notorious errors and excesses pale when compared to the good done.)” (109). I am not able to comprehend how a man of LaGard Smith’s knowledge could make such an assertion. These false religious systems teach errors that lead souls away from Christ and into the eternal agonies of hell. Does that horrible fact pale when compared to the material good that they have done. Is the fact that they lead souls to eternal damnation outweighed by the fact that they have civilized some cultures?

Expressing his appreciation for the fellowship he enjoys with unbaptized believers, brother Smith writes: “I recently shared with my colleagues on the law school faculty my distress at having come to the conclusion that I had more of a spiritual bonding with a visiting professor who is Catholic than I have with some of my colleagues who are baptized members of the Lord’s church” (113-114). The author thus reflects his assessment of the law professors at Pepperdine. I am thankful that I have through the years enjoyed association with more spiritual brethren.

Extolling the spirituality and commitment of certain unbaptized believers, brother Smith writes of the edification he receives from his fellowship with them. I have a different viewpoint. Brother Smith is talking about people who profess faith in Christ but reject his conditions for salvation, teach others to reject those conditions, and engage in human religious practices rather than those that are divinely revealed. I am not even comfortable calling them believers when they do not believe what the Lord has taught us to do to be saved. I do not share with them a common faith and I do not consider myself to be in fellowship with them. I commend them for their zeal, but they and I are going in different directions. Despite brother Smith’s talk of their devotion and commitment, their devotion and commitment have not been sufficiently strong to lead them to reject their human doctrines and religious systems and be guided by God’s word. When people renounce fundamental truths of the gospel and vigorously oppose faithful saints who teach those truths, I do not consider them to be “like family.” “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

“In Christ” Fellowship: The Extended Family

This is the fellowship we have with all who have been scripturally immersed. It includes those with whom we have serious doctrinal differences and those who have gone into sin. It is true that these are brethren in God’s family. Nevertheless, we must not extend the “right hand of fellowship” to those who teach doctrines that condemn souls or engage unrepentantly in sin. We must not give the impression that we endorse their teaching or conduct or that we regard them to be right with God (2 John 9-11; Eph. 5:11). The Bible does not teach that the faithful are in fellowship with those in sin (2 Cor. 6:14).

In his discussion of this level of fellowship, brother Smith discusses those who are baptized without understanding its significance. They should be taught the true meaning of baptism, he says, but then they may be regarded as brethren and given the right hand of fellowship. I believe that in order for baptism to be biblical, it must be for the biblical reason: the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Being baptized without understanding its significance is of no more value than eating the Lord’s supper without understanding its significance. Repentant believers who were baptized for the remission of sins are my brethren.

Conscience Fellowship: Close Family

Brother Smith says that conscience fellowship “provides elbow-room for the exercise of individual and collective conscience” (78). Certainly, allowance must be made for differences of conscience in our personal lives. However, we are not free to tolerate practices that are clearly sinful. Our brother recognizes this fact, acknowledging that “there are some doctrines too obviously ungodly to leave to others’ conscientious understanding” (143). He mentions, for example, homosexual marriages and “also heterosexual re-marriages that violate Jesus’ clear teaching” (143). In fact, he avers, “Such obvious sin cannot simply be a matter of individual or congregational conscience” (144).

Having said that, however, brother Smith warns of the danger of confusing sin with doctrinal differences. As I understand it, he believes that if someone’s doctrinal belief leads him to believe that a remarriage is not adulterous, then allowance should be made for his view. That puts the matter on the level of a doctrinal difference rather than sin. He asserts that we may be guilty of “accusing others of tolerating adultery without acknowledging that, if the other person is right about the remarriage not being adulterous, then there is no sin at all being tolerated” (146). Brother Smith does not discuss whether he would make the same allowance for those whose doctrinal beliefs lead them to believe that homosexual marriages are acceptable. Those inclined to accept his position would do well to consider this point. If the Bible clearly condemns a practice, the fact that some brethren do not accept that teaching does not make the practice any less sinful or any more worthy of acceptance.

Brother Smith also discusses differences among congregations due to diversity of conscience regarding congregational practices. He says, “If the extended family must at times be separated into enclaves of conscience fellowship, it can never be at the expense of koinonia fellowship. We must still care. We must still share.” This means “that, despite those differences, we recognize and appreciate brothers and sisters in Christ who are as much a part of the extended family as we are” (148). Regarding the division over institutionalism, he states, “Unfortunately what should have been a victory for conscience fellowship has turned out to be a colossal defeat in terms of our attitude towards those on the other side of the doctrinal fence” (150). Certainly, good attitudes must be maintained and brotherly love must continue; nevertheless, those who are involved in unscriptural practices cannot be regarded as faithful saints, and we must not speak and act as though we regard them as such.

Congregational Fellowship: Immediate Family

This is the fellowship among Christians who work and worship together in the local congregation. Brother Smith discusses the blessings of such a family relationship, but he also discusses the problems that sometimes lead one to consider departing a particular congregation. Sometimes the congregation’s activities are such that one has difficulties maintaining a good conscience while participating. Our brother shares with us that he has experienced that dilemma.

He has already given indication of the flexibility of his conscience. In chapter 7 he tells of attending a church in England and singing with an instrument despite his opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship. He consoled himself with the thought that everybody else there was singing with the instrument, but he was singing without it (103). He admits that this rationalization did not solve the problem and that the use of instrumental music marred the worship; nevertheless, he continued to worship with that church. We should not be surprised, therefore, if his conscience allows him to remain in a congregation engaging in activities he believes to be wrong. Indeed, our brother acknowledges that he has long remained with a congregation that has posed many questions of conscience.

Brother Smith sets forth six questions to consider when one is determining whether he should remain with a congregation. They are legitimate questions worthy of sober consideration. However, regardless of how good the questions are, one who is seeking to justify a particular course of action can answer them so as to justify that course. The author says, “Having struggled with these complex questions for many years now, I have somehow managed to maintain a continuing, if rocky, fellowship among brothers and sisters with whom I sometimes disagree almost as much as I love” (165).

Our brother believes that his remaining in the congregation despite his strong disagreements with its practices has enabled him to be a part of vital evangelistic work in his community. He writes, “It’s easy to be so consumed with the problems of family fellowship that we forget our far greater responsibility to bring others into the family” (165). One must consider, however, into what are we bringing these converts? When we baptize people, we should teach them to observe all our Lord’s commandments (Matt. 28:18-20), not lead them into a congregation teaching or practicing error.

In his discussion of congregational fellowship, brother Smith acknowledges that doctrinal differences may require two groups within the congregation “to go their separate ways.” When such occurs, each group should respect the conscience of the other and “continue to respect each other as fellow Christians doing their very best to follow in the steps of Christ” (166-167). He has more to say later in the chapter about our attitude toward congregations engaging in practices contrary to our conscience. He writes that “we must nevertheless honor the collective conscience of each and every other congregation” (172) and that we have no biblical right to ostracize them (173). Yet, he says that we should seek to teach them what we believe to be the truth.

In considering our attitude toward such a congregation, we must remember this: When a congregation is engaging in unscriptural activities, it is not just one individual practicing his personal conscience. The leadership is leading the whole congregation to believe and practice error. In addition, it is binding those unscriptural practices on all who would  become a part of that congregation. The congregation’s message is, if you do not join with us in these practices, you may not be a part of us. Even though we love them, we cannot be tolerant of their propagation of error. Far more than individual conscience is involved.

Brother Smith’s discussion of our attitude toward such congregations leaves me somewhat unclear as to the practical applications. Does “ostracizing” them mean that we make it clear that we regard them as unfaithful? In order to respect their collective conscience and avoid ostracizing them, must we announce the activities (Gospel Meetings, Vacation Bible Schools, etc.) of congregations we believe to be teaching and practicing error? Or if one of the elders or the preacher were an excellent song leader, would we ask him to lead singing in our Gospel Meeting? Such would surely give the impression that we regard them as faithful. Would brother Smith apply these principles to the congregation consisting of homosexuals and upholding homosexuality? If not, why not?

Conclusion

There is some good material in brother Smith’s book, but the purpose of this article has been to briefly explain what he means by the five categories of fellowship and to point out some views I believe to be in error. Fearful of misrepresenting my brother, I have diligently endeavored to be fair and accurate in dealing with what he has written.

4992 County Road 26, Rogersville, Alabama 35652 johnnys@

By Matt Allen

I must confess I am quickly turning into a political junkie — as far as the upcoming Presidential election is concerned. In fact, I haven’t been this excited about an election in a long time. From installing a screen saver featuring my favorite candidate on my computer, to watching some of the political shows on television, I regularly keep up with the campaign.

On July 25 the announcement came out that Republican Presidential nominee, George W. Bush, had chosen former Wyoming Congressman Dick Cheney as his Vice-Presidential pick. Immediately Bush’s critics began saying almost in unison that the choice of Cheney added “gravitas” to the Republican presidential ticket. Rush Limbaugh, the noted radio talk-show host, said on July 27 that in describing the Bush ticket the word “gravitas” has been used over 200 times during July (most of that within a week).
What exactly does “gravitas” mean? If you’re like me, perhaps you have hardly, if ever, heard the word “gravitas” used before. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary lists the following information concerning the word in question.
______________________
Main Entry: grav·i·tas
Pronunciation: ‘gra-vi-täs, tas
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin
Date: 1924
Definition: high seriousness (as in a person’s bearing or in the treatment of a subject)

There are some who need to add a little “gravitas” to their Christianity. After all, that is what this article is about. That Christians need to approach their walk with Christ seriously is a theme throughout the New Testament. Keeping our soul is serious business! 

Failure to keep the soul right before the Lord will have eternal ramifications. Jesus said, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:24-26). In what ways do we need to approach Christianity more seriously?

We need to add “gravitas” to our attitude toward sin and sinful behavior. In our lives and in the church sin needs to be dealt with seriously. There is constant temptation to make light of sin. At times, all are guilty of attempting to rationalize or excuse sin. Sin can have eternal consequences resulting in everlasting separation from God (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rom. 6:23).

Sin must be looked at seriously because of the high price that was paid to cleanse us from it. In Ephesians 1:7 Paul wrote: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” Christ was offered on the cross on our behalf out of God’s love for man (John 3:16). Jesus had to pay the price for our sins. He was the only one that could (Heb. 7:25-27; 9:26). When we are tempted to think that our sins are not that bad, we must remember it was our sins that put Christ on the cross!

We need to add “gravitas” to our attitude in local church work. We must approach the work within the local congregation seriously! All brethren within each congregation must have a mind to work (Neh. 4:6) so much will be accomplished. Often, with the noblest of intentions, goals are set at the beginning of each year only to find the work half-completed at the end of the year. How many personal work programs stall out during the year? What about the plans to visit/encourage the spiritually weak, physically sick, and those in need? How many good intentions of getting together with brethren in the congregation fall short of actually happening? Many of us could do much better.

Christians must learn to abound in the work of the church. Jesus said that we must work while we have opportunity (John 9:4)! Paul said, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). Often failure to follow through in our plans boils down to nothing more than a lack of seriousness (gravitas) toward the work of the Lord!

By depending on others to do our work for us, we become guilty of taking a less than serious approach to the work in the local church! Too often most of the work is left up to the elders, the preacher, or a select few within the congregation. Much more good will be accomplished if everyone will resolve that when something needs to be done, they themselves will do it! “If it is to be, it is up to me” comes to mind! Sincere and noble intentions mean absolutely nothing if there is no work to follow through. Remember the words of Paul. Christians have been created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10).

Christians must add “gravitas” to their commitment to Christian growth. Perhaps the clearest example of children of God being indifferent to their need for spiritual growth is the Hebrew brethren (Heb. 5:11-6:3). Many of them had been Christians for years but failed to add to their faith.

This was leading to a spirit of unbelief (3:12-13). They were instructed to lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares . . . and to run with endurance the race set before (them) (Heb. 12:1).

There is much to distract the modern Christian from spiritual growth. Have you ever known times to be “busier” than our own? Servants of the Lord constantly face a demanding and increased workload — ranging from a career, family matters, and hobbies to projects “around the house.” All of this can make one approach Christianity in a less than serious matter. We have been instructed to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:18). Paul encouraged Christians to meditate on good and wholesome things (Phil. 4:8-9).

Conclusion

There is a definite need to add “gravitas” to our spiritual life. Let us realize the gravity of the situation! Souls (yours and mine) are at stake! Remember the words of the Hebrew writer: “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). 

1302 E. Fairmont Blvd., Rapid City, South Dakota 57701    allen0226@aol.com

By Bobby L. Graham

This study considers another aspect of F. LaGard Smith’s book, Who Is My Brother? in this special issue. The need to consider this matter is the result of little and ineffective teaching concerning the uniqueness of the Lord’s church in the world and its distinctiveness from all human religious systems in most quarters over the last several decades. Preaching that points out the pattern of Christ for the guidance of his people in a collective sense is overdue, as well as teaching which causes people to understand the difference between the church belonging to the Lord and those human efforts called denominations. Proof for this statement could easily he produced in the multiplied statements that have referred in recent years to the church as “just another denomination.”

In an April 1940 article “Why Oppose Denominationalism,” Granville W. Tyler stated: “Denominationalism is a term used to describe modern Christianity divided as it is into parties (more than two hundred in America) with their distinctive names, creeds, and practices. Sectarianism means divisions, factions, and parties. The term describes, for example, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church. All started hundreds of years after the days of the apostles, and all have conflicting doctrines and practices. Their teaching is in addition to and different from the Bible.” How long has it been since you heard or read frank teaching kindly expressed like that?

As Tyler proceeded to show, denominationalism exists without Scriptural authority, violates Bible teaching on unity, belittles the Lord’s church, and teaches pardon short of scriptural conditions. One can be a Christian (part of Christ’s church) without being part of any denomination (Acts 2:47). Though one who obeyed the gospel might have later joined some denominational body, he is not a Christian by virtue of such membership and ought to depart their ranks to be faithful to Christ. The existence of such a religious conglomeration in our world is neither God pleasing nor Christ-honoring, though many thank God for the choices allowed by this situation. All must remember that it is not men’s choices, but God’s, that establish the standard of right. Understanding the place of denominations in relation to the Lord and his church should move us to oppose them and to try to rescue those honest souls who have been caught in the web of sectarian teaching and practice. We do not fight them but the error in which they are participating.

Perhaps a brief statement concerning the church would also help to keep matters in sharp focus. When we speak of “the church” in this article, reference is being made to the people of Christ, characterized as they are in the New Testament as submitting to the Lord in all respects, both individually and collectively — doctrine, local organization, congregational work, public worship, and individual life. The only functioning unit of the church in the general sense is the individual child of God, while the local church alone has the right to operate collectively in carrying out the will of Christ for the church. It is because Christians have answered the summons of the gospel to follow Christ that they have become the ecclesia of Christ. The express meaning of this term describing them impresses on our minds their separation from the world and their loyalty to Christ. Does not their status as people belonging to the Lord and existing for his service demand that they “make common cause” with him and his people, rather than with those who have erred into the realm of denominationalism, in violation of his will?

“Faith Fellowship” Explained

Smith referred to the kind of sharing that he proposed with those in denominations as “faith fellowship,” based upon their belief “that Jesus Christ is Lord.” He places this kind of fellowship (one of the five kinds that he postulates and explains) one step closer to Christian fellowship than “universal fellowship,” but outside the boundaries of the kingdom of the Lord. Smith says that they share faith in Christ but not rebirth. He judges them possibly closer to kingdom citizens than nominal Christians; in this respect they are “like family,” because they think and act as those in the family in most ways, as in bearing the fruit of the Spirit. He applies Mark 12:28-34 to them in their being “not far from the kingdom.” He also wrote that they are similar to the demon chaser of Mark 9:38-41 in that they are not the Lord’s enemy, but not of him either, possibly being in jeopardy of eternal condemnation.

Smith believes that we should honor those who give honor to Christ in what they do. Such honor to them, which, he believes, is the reward assured them in Mark 9:41, shows appreciation for their faith. We already demonstrate it by seeking to learn from their faith, receiving rebuke from their faith, being prompted by their faith, reading the words of their faith, and singing the feelings of their faith in songs written by them. Because we willingly do this honor to them, we should also acknowledge their Christ-centered faith, refuse to view them as spiritual lepers (by attending their revival meetings), think about the blind spots in our own faith (try to learn something that we don’t know), seek out the spiritually-minded among them for daily association (he prefers a believing friend with faith on fire over a brother who is not electrified), and try to teach them.

Commendable Points in Smith’s Book

Not all that Smith wrote in Who Is My Brother? is incorrect; much is laudable because it conforms to the teaching of Christ in the New Testament, as we gladly point out. The presence of much truth in Smith’s writings is the factor that makes them most dangerous. Error is never so well camouflaged or concealed as it is by truth. As with a drop of poison in the medicine bottle, so the error combined with truth has the potential of spiritual harm.

The book’s epilogue, “Open Letter, Open Heart,” is Smith’s response to Max Lucado’s In the Grip of Grace. He wrote it to encourage “tough and tender dialogue” on issues that divide, and he particularly targeted Lucado’s call for unity with “believers who have never been immersed or whose only baptism was as an infant.” At this point Smith clearly stated that the unbaptized are not part of Christ and have no fellowship in him. In his effort to deal with Lucado’s attempt to minimize baptism, he correctly said that baptism is not just a symbol but does accomplish something in the work of salvation.

It should be remembered, then, that LaGard Smith masterfully presented some matters:

• He strongly challenged the position of Lucado in his “Open Letter” epilogue.
• He clearly delineated “faith fellowship” to be different from the fellowship of those in Christ.
• He well presented biblical teaching concerning the need for baptism.

To Lucado he wrote these pointed words: “As hard as it is for us to grasp the thought that there are friends and colleagues who live and think perhaps more Christianity than we do, yet still are not biblical Christians — still not saved, still not forgiven, still not brothers and sisters in Christ — even so our quandary is no cause for open mutiny. It’s not our ship. We don’t make the rules.” This reminder will also serve its author well.

Weaknesses in Smith’s Book

The author repeatedly alleged that denominational people share our faith in Jesus Christ or believe that Jesus Christ is Lord; in doing so, he did not represent them completely. While it is correct that they do have some faith in Christ, their faith is weak and incomplete. If Smith meant to say only that their faith was weak and needed strengthening, he should have said it. Intellectual faith, which merely says Jesus is Lord, is not the faith that saves the soul (Heb. 10:39). Faith apart from works is dead, being alone (Jas. 2:14-25). The faith of the unbaptized and the faith of the saved person are alike in this respect; faith must show the same willing response to God’s stated will, whether before or after baptism.

Smith’s basing of “faith fellowship” on a misuse of Mark 9:38-41 is another weakness, though he does say that he rejects the wide-open Christian fellowship espoused by many who cite this passage. He described the man rejected by Jesus’ apostles as “not one of us,” and yet not his enemy. Notice, however, that the Lord acknowledged the man was a true disciple, casting out demons in the name of Christ, but not one in the immediate company or acquaintance of the apostles. How could he do the miracles unless authorized and empowered by the Lord to act thus? Jesus thus conceded him to be one of his disciples, not a pretender. He further lent him his approval in his concession that the man was for him. This passage provides no basis for any kind of sharing with denominational members. In fact, those who teach and practice in denial of the lordship of Christ are acting in opposition to him, though they might have some faith in him.

The author’s use of 2 Chronicles 6:32-33 comes closest of all passages introduced; he presents it as suggesting  something very much like “faith fellowship.” The passage, in fact, presents Solomon’s prayer of intercession on behalf of the foreigner, who came to the Temple because of the Lord’s great name and outstretched arm. The king prayed that God might hear such a one so that even he might know the Lord’s name, fear him, and know the Temple was called by his name. This passage clearly envisions a role of influence by example for Israel in leading the nations to know Jehovah, though God did not set before his people an evangelistic mission. Observe that the influence was that of Israel, not the foreign power; and the learning was that of the foreigner, not Israel. In describing his “faith fellowship,” LaGard reversed the influence/learning by suggesting our learning from denominational people: the meaning of worship from his English associates, a more emotional expression of faith from the Pentecostals, the value of meditative silence in listening to God from the Quakers, a greater zeal for social justice from the Anglicans, thinking more Christianly in everything from the Dutch Calvinists, and a greater need for confessing sins from the Catholics. It must be emphasized, however, that our Lord did not refer first-century believers to other “believers” like the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Samaritans. Instead he consistently reminded them of the law of God by quoting or alluding to what was written in the Scriptures. There might be some examples of certain desirable traits in unexpected places, and honesty demands that we acknowledge such, even as Jesus acknowledged faith in Gentile individuals whom he encountered during his earthly work. On the other hand, the Scriptures are adequate for every purpose in our learning desired by the Lord (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Danger of This Concept

In addition to indicting the weaknesses of the plan proposed in this book, we must also cite dangers of the concept as a whole. By using the word “fellowship” in such a broad sense as to refer to different kinds of fellowship, it sets forth a sliding scale of fellowship, thus leaving room for the conclusion that when the Bible refers to fellowship, it must speak of these various kinds. The truth of this matter is that the New Testament is entirely silent concerning the reality of any kind of fellowship except that enjoyed in Christ by the fellows of Christ. It provides no basis for spiritual fellowship with denominational people. We can conclude this by realizing that Christians are in fellowship with other Christians, who are in fellowship with God, and that denominational members are not in fellowship with God. Because fellowship with God is the sole basis of approved fellowship with one another, there exists no basis for the fellowship here described as “faith fellowship.” Spiritual fellowship requires spiritual fellows.

There are also additional dangers of this concept and the approach induced by it. The idea of honoring people claiming faith in Jesus Christ, at least as illustrated in this book, comes close to encouraging acceptance/approval of denominational people as they are by growing comfortable with the differences, exerting little effort to teach them further, and eventually compromising convictions (as in singing with them with the instrument playing and rationalizing it as Smith did). Smith’s own compromise is a strong argument against this approach, in view of Scriptural teaching to the contrary. 

Appreciating and honoring the measure of faith observed in others seems to be the commendable desire of the author. We can show them true honor and appreciation for their faith by helping them to understand the biblical basis for whatever faith they have achieved and helping them to submit to the lordship of Christ in all matters. The essence of being a believer or a Christian is found in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus said, “. . . teaching them to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you.” Loyalty to Christ will lead any person to this desired standard. For individuals to join with other concerned citizens in a common cause, even in dealing with social/moral issues about which the Lord has spoken (like abortion or acceptance of homosexual lifestyle), is acceptable. We need to know, however, that calling such an endeavor “fellowship” and trying to justify it with the Bible is to distort a biblical idea by misapplying a biblical word.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@)juno.com

By Walton Weaver

Jesus, as the master teacher, always fitted his teachings to the minds and hearts of his hearers. He drew his illustrations from their own
life’s experiences, and as a rule, his illustrations were simple ones because the people he addressed were mostly hard-working ordinary people. He often addressed them from concern for the basic necessities of life. He once filled the stomachs of those in his audience and he soon learned that they were a materialistic crowd (John 6:1-14). Jesus rebuked them for their materialism (v. 26), but he also used the opportunity to teach an important spiritual lesson.
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst (John 6:29-35).
To eat the “bread of life” is to believe in Jesus and receive his teachings. The one who eats this bread will soon discover that he has lost his appetite for the unholy and sensuous. He will find great delight and happiness in his new-found relationship with Jesus and his teaching.

But these people were still sense bound. When they brought Moses into the conversation by way of comparison, it became evident that they were missing the great opportunity of their life. Helen Hosier has well said, “It is not want of evidence that keeps a man away from belief in Christ, it is want of heart. Plainly these people had not lacked for signs and proofs of Christ’s Messiahship. How true it is that ‘none are so blind as those that will not see’” (Jesus: Love in Action, the Caring Jesus in the Gospel of John 59).

Faith and Reasoning

The Jews began to find fault with Jesus’ claim. How could he be that “bread of life” that had come down out of heaven? They knew his parents were Galileans, so how could he be from heaven? See John 6:41-42. Their reasoning began to get in the way of belief in him as the Messiah. This is not to say that faith is blind. It is not. It is more reasonable to believe in Jesus Christ than to disbelieve. But too often man in his unbelief reasons away all possibility of belief. Reasoning oftentimes proves to be a stumblingblock to faith.

Paul made it his practice to enter into the synagogues and “reason” with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:4; 19:8). He persuaded some, but most of them had a veil over their faces so that they could not see Christ in those Scriptures: “But their mind was hardened,” Paul says, “for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ” ( 2 Cor. 3:14, NASB). The only way they could possibly understand the Scriptures Paul was using as he preached Christ to them was for them to come to see Christ in them.

Looked at from the human point of view alone, it was not reasonable to these Jews that one whose parents they knew to be Galileans had come down from heaven as the “bread of life.” But the “unreasonable” had in fact happened! He is the “bread of life” who has come down out of heaven — reasonable or unreasonable, believe it or not. Had he come as a conquering king, with wealth and honor, they would have willingly enough received him. But one who seemed to be nothing more than a poor, lowly, ordinary man? Never!

Does “Draw” Mean “Drag” In John 6:44?

Maybe the reason these Jews would not believe on Jesus was because they could not believe on him. When this statement is put in the form of a question, the answer to it is both a yes and a no. He can’t, but he can. In commenting on that part of verse 44 which says that “no man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,” Alva Hovey gets it right when he says, “The inability to come to Christ, which is here affirmed of every man, left to himself, is intrinsically moral, and may be identified with unwillingness or disinclination. The sinner cannot, because he will not” (Commentary on the Gospel of John 156).

Jesus often attributed the cause of unbelief on the part of those who heard him to unwillingness on their part: “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40); “If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17); “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” — not “could” not! (Matt. 23:37).

The extreme Calvinist of course will tell us that the word “draw” in John 6:44 means “drag” in the sense of force. R.C. Sproul, for example, rejects the meaning of “woo and entice men to Christ” for this word and insists that the word means to “drag.” He says, “The Greek word used here is elk¿. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible       superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” (Chosen By God 71). After defining the word in this way, he then cites two examples where the word has this meaning. In James 2:6 James tells his readers that “the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts,” and in Acts 16:19, we find that Paul and Silas were “dragged” into the marketplace to the authorities. In both of these places the word used is helk¿ , the same word used by Jesus in John 6:44.

This sounds pretty impressive, but to my knowledge no one denies that the word as used in the two examples cited has a literal meaning. But what Sproul fails to point out is that almost all the lexicons also give a metaphorical or figurative meaning to this same word in both John 6:44 and 12:32. For example, Arndt and Gingrich say, “drag, draw . . . 1. trans. a. lit. . . . Acts 21:30 . . . 16:19 . . . Js 2:6 . . . b. fig. of the pull on man’s inner life . . . draw, attract J 6:44 . . . 12:32” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 251).

This same source points out that this word is also used in a figurative sense in the Septuagint version (Greek) of the Old Testament in Jeremiah 38:3 and Song of Solomon 1:4. So the lexicons recognize a difference of meaning in the word when used literally as over against a figurative use of the word. When used in a literal sense (as in Acts 16:19 and James 2:6) it means “drag, draw,” but when employed figuratively (as in John 6:44 and 12:32) it means “draw, attract.” Sproul’s statement that “linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” is simply not true. By the term “compel” he means “drag” or “force,” and he is saying that this is the only meaning given to the word in the lexicons.

Why Not “Draw”?

As the reader surely knows, the only reason Sproul will not allow a figurative use of this word is that he believes in, and is defending, an “irresistible call” for all the elect, and only for the elect. He, as do all hard-core Calvinists, believes that only the elect will be saved, and all who are among the elect have from eternity already been chosen by God to be saved eternally. He ridicules the idea that God would only “woo” or “entice” men to be saved. He rejects this meaning of the word because, as he puts it, “man has the ability to resist this wooing and to refuse the enticement. The wooing, though it is necessary, is not compelling. In philosophical language that would mean that the drawing of God is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition to bring men to Christ. In simpler language it means that we cannot come to Christ without the wooing, but the wooing does not guarantee that we will, in fact, come to Christ.

We are not surprised that in his discussion of the “drawing” of God Sproul never once makes reference to John 12:32, another passage where this same word is used by Jesus. Why would he completely ignore Jesus’ use of this same word in that passage? Because he believes that God will “drag, force, compel” only the elect to come to Jesus, but in John 12:32 Jesus says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Now notice it: if “draw” (helk¿ ) always means “drag, force, compel,” then here Jesus states that he will “drag or force” all men to come to him! If the definition Sproul gives to this term is correct, then John 12:32 teaches the doctrine of universalism — all men will be saved. As a matter of fact, however, all who are drawn do not come to Jesus. The fear that Sproul has in giving the meaning of “woo” to the term “draw”is a justified fear, at least in view of his erroneous doctrine of election. If he were to force the literal meaning of “draw” upon John 12:32 it would destroy his theory of election. But that is exactly what he has done when he insists that only the literal meaning can be given to the term in the New Testament.

But if not by force, how does the Father “draw” men to the Son? He does it by moral persuasion, as we have already indicated. Paul was doing this very thing with Felix and Agrippa, and so was Peter with the Jews on the day of Pentecost — but with differing results. When Paul  preached of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” before Felix, we are told that he “trembled” as he heard Paul’s message (Acts 24:25). Although Felix put off and waited for a more convenient time, it is obvious that God was doing some “drawing and attracting” through Paul’s preaching. The same was true with Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” (Acts 26:28). In Acts 2, however, some 3,000 of Peter’s listeners were “drawn” to the point of believing in Christ, and they also acted on their faith in repenting and being baptized as Peter had commanded (Acts 2:38, 41).

Hearing, Learning, Coming

But why would not Jesus’ statement which is recorded in the very next verse (John 6:45) show that this is what Jesus means when he says that the Father “draws” men to the Son? Read it and see: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall be all taught of God.’ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” I know the Calvinists apply this verse only to those who have already been drawn to Christ, but how can that be when the very last statement of this verse says, “cometh unto me.” How would one who has already been drawn to the Son still be “coming” to him? Surely the “coming” in verse 46 is the coming due to the “drawing” described in verse 44. That being the case, note how the drawing is done and the order in which it is described: The ones who “come” to the Son are those who have “learned” of the Father. But none can learn of the Father except they first be “taught,” and the one who is taught must “hear” in order that he might learn. Just as the drawing is done by the Father, so the teaching in this verse is also attributed to the Father, even though verse 46 suggests that it is the Son who is teaching for him. It seems clear that this is how the Father draws men to the Son. He draws all who will hear what the Father is making known to them through his Son. Those who hear, learn, and those who learn, come to the Son.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032