In What Way “Liberal” or “Conservative”?

In What Way “Liberal” or “Conservative”?

The terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been convenient terms in politics and religion to describe someone as regards their relation to the US Constitution (politics) or the Bible (religion).  A person is taking liberties with the constitution or the Bible and so the term is used to show objection. When a person is described as “conservative”, it means that they are trying to stay close to the Constitution or to Bible authority. Being careful with the authority of the Constitution or the Bible is trying to be conservative or careful with the source of authority and handle it respectfully.  These labels may be useful in some contexts, but generally need further explanation. Sometimes they are too conveniently used to dismiss people without a fair hearing. Therefore, we should explain what we mean rather than just use these as labels.

CHANGES IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST HAVE CREATED A NEED TO FINE TUNE THE DESCRIPTIVE USE OF THE TERMS "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE".

There are many different areas in which a person or church may be either “liberal” or “conservative”.  The following areas will help us determine the area of thought or practice in which a certain person or church may be found to be “liberal” or “conservative”.

A. AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

1.  The liberal view of the Bible is that it is either: 

a.            subject to error (fallible),

b.            insufficient to guide us completely,

c.             an inspiring document but not the authoritatively inspired revelation of God.                                                    

2. Notice how loose or liberal this view has to be with such passages as 2 Tim..3:16-17; 2 Jn..9; Matt.28:18 20; 2  Pet.1:19f

The view that is most conservative with the issue of authority is the view that the Bible is complete, giving us God’s full will, and is authoritative for all issues of faith and practice.

 B. APPEAL USED TO DRAW PEOPLE

1.            The liberal view is to view the cross of Christ as an insufficient appeal or incentive in reaching out to the lost and drawing him to God.  Entertainment, recreational facilities and events are used to cover the painful gospel "hook" with a more appealing kind of bait. They will get the hook after they come for the bait.

2.            This view will often study a variety of marketing techniques to out do the denominational competitors. This attitude takes a liberal view of such passages as I Cor.1 3. Follow this line of reasoning:

a.            If the eloquence of a speaker should not be the attraction, and

b.            If nothing should be the attraction but the message of the cross, then,

c.             Entertainment, facilities, music, gymnasiums, etc., should not be allowed to be the basis of appeal to people.  Nothing but the cross, the story of man’s deepest needs addressed in Jesus and Him crucified, should be the appeal of the church of Christ.

 

         C. WORK OF THE CHURCH

  

1.            The liberal view of the work of the church is that it should include in its scope of work: 1) secular education, 2) recreation, 3) social services such as Kindergarten, Mother’s Day Out, and 4) even medical services.

2.            It takes a liberal view of such passages as (1 Tim..3:15; 5:16; Eph.4:12; Acts 6:1-4.)

3.            The conservative view looks at these passages and sees that the main work of the church is to hold up the gospel. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.  Thus, this is the main work, and the above verses will show that it will take care of benevolent needs among the members when that need arises, but the soul needs take precident over the body, and the church engages work together accordingly.

         D.  FINANCING THE WORK

1.            The liberal view is that the church may use rental, car washes, raffles, etc. to raise money for its work. They don’t feel a need to limit themselves to a particular pattern. ( I Cor.16:1 3; I Cor.9:7 9) They reason that the Bible doesn't say NOT to do these things.

2.            The conservative view is that the Bible tells how and when to raise funds and the pattern of sound words sets the limits within which to operate.

 

  E. UNIT OF ACTION

1.            The liberal view is that several congregations may team up in area wide, state wide, and national projects. Those holding this view think they see authority for it in uniting and giving toward the emergency situations described in the New Testament where several churches sent aid to a church in physical need. Therefore, it is concluded, churches can create a "need" of any kind and appeal to brethren everywhere for financial support. In doing this, the “united” churches take a liberal view of the local church as God's independent unit of action. (Phil.4:14 18; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet.5:1f)

2.            The conservative view is that the local church is sufficient as God’s unit of action in evangelism and in benevolence. That sufficiency is always within its own ability until circumstances beyond their control puts them in emergency need of help.

        F. ORGANIZATION

1.            The liberal view is that organization between churches can be had by assigning boards, inter-congregational committees to control and direct certain aspects of church work bigger than a local church can handle. This view was seen in the Christian Missionary Society of the 19th century and later in the various evangelistic and benevolent organizations of the 20th century such as the Herald of Truth broadcast and benevolent institutions like Potter's Home and Childhaven, etc.  These organizations tied several churches into a supportive role for the human institution.

2.            The conservative view is to limit ourselves to the Bible pattern of churches organizing only on a local scale (Phil.1:1), each church working independently, but concurrently at the same kind of work with the same mission.

         G.  MORAL PURITY

1.            The liberal view allows for immoral behavior to go unmarked, unreproved, and tolerated under an umbrella of grace and love.  There is danger in accepting a liberal view of such things as adulterous marriages, because eventually, by the same rationale, homosexuality and many other vices will sooner or later be reasoned under that same umbrella of “grace”, etc. This view deals very loosely with such passages as I Cor.5; 2 Thess.3; Tit.3:10 11; Rom.16:17f; Matt.5:32; 19:9; etc.

2.            The conservative view is to mourn over sin and seek to encourage repentance as such issues arise among the members.  Teaching on moral issues is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

H. WORSHIP: DESIGNED BY GOD?  OR,  BY MAN?  (JN.4:24; I COR.11, 14)

1.            The liberal view is that what we do in assembly to worship God can be designed by human wisdom and desire. 

2.            The conservative view of scripture is that worship has always been regulated by God from the worship of Cain and Abel (Gen.4) through the Mosaic Tabernacle period (Lev.10) and on into the New Testament.  Therefore, we must conduct our worship in the way that fits the pattern of sound words. Doctrines of men can corrupt and make our worship “in vain”. (Matt15:8-9; Col.2.)

TWO SOURCES FOR AUTHORITY

 A.        THE BIBLE                                                                                                              

1.            The revelation of God’s mind and will (1 Cor.2; Eph.3:1-4)

2.            The COMPLETE guide (Eph.3:1-4; 2 Tim.3:16-17; Jn.16:13)

3.            God’s religion abides within the boundaries of this revelation (2 Jn.. 9-10).

 B.        HUMAN DESIRE

1.            There is a religion to support every human desire (thus hundreds of different denominations today)

2.            This serves MAN’S interests, but not God’s interests

3.            This creates conflict of interest (supporting and maintaining a human division is a sinful work of the flesh – Gal.5:19f).

WE MUST GET BACK TO THE BIBLE FOR AUTHORITY OR ADMIT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN HUMAN DESIRE.

 CONCLUSION:  There is a religion to support every human desire. When everyone does what is right in his own eyes and believes that God accepts that, then SIN becomes pure imagination, and Jesus came and died in vain.  He died because man was "wrong" about something (thus committing “sin”) and we should not deceive ourselves into thinking we are right. (1 Jn..1:7 9.  The gospel we preach must be distinguishable from the many fads and fashions of modern denominational gimmickry.  It must be the same pattern of sound words employed by the early Christians or it is not the same gospel. (Gal.1:6 10)

This article demonstrates that churches have lost their sense of direction and need to get back to biblical authority for everything, learning how to properly use the Bible, and how to use it in establishing authority for what we do as a local church and the individuals of His greater universal body or church. Has this generation “lost the book”?  Or, will you do all within your power to make sure ours is the generation that will step up to the challenge of holding up the book of God as a light that every man, woman, and child so desperately needs? Will YOU “hold fast the pattern of sound words”?

Terry W. Benton

“Fellowship in the Gospel”

“Fellowship in the Gospel”

A Study of the Greek Word Koinonia

By Kyle Pope

The word “fellowship” describes the beautiful relationship of faith which connects true Christians to God and to all other true believers. Yet, in the religious world, not only among denominationalists but among our own brethren this word is used in reference to everything from recreation halls built onto church meeting houses, to casual social interaction between Christians or non-Christians. In this study we will examine the words used in the New Testament in connection with the concept of fellowship.

     The word generally translated fellowship is the Greek noun koinonia. Henry Thayer defines the word -“fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 352). It describes the state of “association” or “joint participation.” Koinonia belongs to a family of words used in the New Testament which describe such “joint participation.” Other in this family are koinoneo , the verb meaning - “to fellowship”; koinonos, a noun describing - “One who fellowships”; koinonikos, an adjective describing - “the willingness to fellowship,” and koinos, an adjective meaning - “common.”

     Koinonia is basically a bond for a united purpose. The nature of the bond varies depending upon the nature of the purpose. For example, in Luke 5:10 the physician describes James and John as “partners” (koinonos) with Simon in the fishing business. Here their bond was that of a common occupation, and their shared purpose was to (literally) catch fish. In Matthew 23:30 Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for claiming they would not have been “partakers (koinonos) with them [i.e. their ancestors] in the blood of the prophets” (NKJV). The bond in this case was a common spirit and the purpose was shared opposition to God’s prophets.

     The two examples above concern “joint participation” yet, the first involves fellowship in the fishing business and the second fellowship in carrying out persecution. The focus of the New Testament is on a very specific bond of fellowship. Philippians 1:5 describes this as - “fellowship (koinonia) in the gospel.” In John’s first epistle, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, he tells us how this bond comes about. He writes - “That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship (koinonia) with us; and truly our fellowship (koinonia) is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:3). This indicates to us that “fellowship in the gospel” is a spiritual bond which comes about when one accepts the gospel. When the gospel was first preached on the day of Pentecost, those who accepted it - “...continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship (koinonia ), in the breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). Contrary to the modern argument that this sanctions social functions as a work of the church, the connection of the word fellowship with the phrase “the apostles’ doctrine,” suggests that fellowship in Christ involves “joint participation” in the entire system of faith, towards the shared purpose of “common (koinos) salvation” (Jude 3).

     We might notice some things about this “fellowship in the gospel” from some other texts where these words are used: 1.) Koinonia must not exist with those who “walk in darkness” (I John 1:6), or who practice “lawlessness” (II Corinthians 10:20). 2.) The Christian must not have “fellowship (koinonia) with demons” (I Corinthians 10:20) nor “share (koinoneo) in other people’s sins” (I Timothy 5:22). In fact we are told that someone who greets the one who transgresses the doctrine of Christ “shares (koinoneo) in his evil deeds” (II John 11).

     Koinoneo (i.e. fellowship) involves a person’s relationship with God. The one who is in fellowship with God, is in fellowship with all others who are truly in fellowship with Him (I John 1:3). First Corinthians 1:9 will refer to this as “the fellowship (koinonia) of His Son” and Second Corinthians 13:14 will speak of it as “the communion (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit.” Those in Christ are said to be “partakers (koinonos) of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4). Christians have received the things of God’s Spirit (I Corinthians 2:10) and Christ dwells in us through faith (Ephesians 3:17).

     The question remains - When exactly is a Christian practicing fellowship? In one sense a Christian is always in fellowship with God and other Christians. Yet not every activity we share with other Christians is “fellowship in the Gospel.” When Peter, Andrew, James and John went out to go fishing for a living, it would not have been accurate to call that “fellowship in the gospel.” It was fellowship in the fishing business. What kinds of activities are “fellowship in the gospel? First Corinthians 10:16 describes the observance of the Lord’s supper as the “communion (koinonia) of the body of Christ.” In this text the church (i.e. the body of Christ) jointly participates in the memorial emblems of the broken body of Christ. The same text compares this with the sacrifices of the old covenant. Those who ate were “partakers (koinonos) of the altar” (10:18). When we participate together in those things that involve the Gospel we are “partakers” of the gospel of Christ and thus engaged in “fellowship in the gospel.” Four times in the New Testament the word koinonia is used in reference to material or financial contributions that support the teaching of the gospel (see Romans 15:26, II Corinthians 8:4; 9:13 and Hebrews 13:16). The gentiles who helped the Jews in Romans 15:26,27 are described as having “shared (koinoneo) in their spiritual things” (NASB).

     In our day and age the word fellowship is often thought to refer to the eating of a common meal. While we know that early Christians ate with one another as a result of the love they shared (Acts 2:46), nowhere in the New Testament is the word fellowship used to refer to a social, common meal. Christians should spend time with one another away from times of assembly alone. Yet, if we begin to think of participation in social functions as “fellowship in the gospel,” we are misapplying a Biblical concept. May we all continue to study this mater and always strive to use “Bible names for Bible things.”

Pope, Kyle. "'Fellowship in the Gospel' : A Study of the Greek Word Koinonia" Biblical Insights 4.7 (July 2004): 4-5. 

Fellowship: A Church Social Activity?

Fellowship: A Church Social Activity?

(Note:  A preacher in a conservative church of Christ has recently made the argument that the word “fellowship” is a “hijacked” word by brethren who disallow that the word “fellowship” as used in the Bible has reference to social activity. http://www.mandevillechurch.org/?p=1639&fb_source=message

Read that article and then compare it to the following article from a speech by Bill Hall.  First, here is part of Bill Hall’s speech on the issue of “fellowship”):

 Fellowship

 Probably the argument that most of us who are sitting here are wondering about is simply: "What about fellowship?"  Doesn't the Bible teach that the church is to have fellowship?  Indeed!

 The Bible does teach that the church is to have fellowship.  But what a lot of people have overlooked is the fact that the word "fellowship" in the Scriptures has to do with spiritual activities.  I have before me a photocopy out of a book that I have which contains every Scripture that uses the Greek word for fellowship, koinonia.  An interesting thing about this is: not one time does it have reference to social fellowship.  Here really we're getting to the basics: fellowship.  What does the word fellowship mean?  Sharing, communion, participation in, joining together.  The very definition itself suggests that we have to decide what we're "joining in", what we're "sharing".

One interesting thing is the word "fellowship" in the Scriptures -- that is, the Greek word -- is used for a business partnership.  Turn to Luke, chapter 5.  Let me show you this usage.  Do you remember the time that Jesus told Simon to launch out into the deep, and let out the nets for a catch -- "a draught", I believe the King James version says -- and they caught so many fish that their nets began to break?  Now look at verse 10 of Luke chapter 5, "and so also were James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon" --  Partners.  This is the same word that is translated "fellowship" in other places.  Business partnership.  They were having fellowship in the business of fishing.

 Now, another usage of "fellowship" is social fellowship.  This is where we smell the doughnuts and coffee.  Friday night a bunch of us got together and had some elk stew, and I tell you it was all right.  We had a good time together.  We socialized together.  We shared in the eating of elk stew and a few other things that some of the people brought.  Are you aware that the Bible never uses the word "fellowship" in reference to such social activities?

 Now, another use of "fellowship" has to do with spiritual things.  Every time, every time the word is used in regards to the church's activity, it is always this.  And to my knowledge, there is not one Scripture in the Bible that uses the term "fellowship" in regards to eating elk stew, or whatever socializing we do together.  Not one Scripture that uses the word "fellowship" like that.  Let me show you, for instance, I Corinthians 1:9 (We'll not turn to these).  We were "called into the fellowship of His Son."  In Philippians 1:5, Paul commends the Philippians for their "fellowship in the gospel."  Fellowship in the gospel.  He says in Philippians 2:1, "if there is any fellowship in the Spirit..."  Philippians 3:10, he wants to know the "fellowship of the suffering of Christ."  Notice none of that has anything to do with having a good time together.  It has everything to do with our relationship with God and our relationship with one another as Christians.

 I John, chapter one.  I want to turn to that one with you.  Look at I John, chapter 1.  Here is the fellowship that the Bible emphasizes.  If we could ever learn this, then we're going to realize that this term "fellowship hall" is really a misnomer.  It may be for social fellowship, but it's not for the fellowship that the Bible talks about.  Now, I John 1, beginning with verse 1.  John says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."  John says, I am writing these things concerning Jesus Christ that you might have fellowship with us.  I want to tell you, there's not a thing in the world you can read in I John that has anything to do with doughnuts and coffee and elk stew.  It has everything to do with our sharing together in spiritual things.  And then he says our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

 What has happened to us, brethren, when every time we hear the word "fellowship" we immediately think in terms of fun and games and eating and drinking together?  What has happened to us that we see that, every time we see the word "fellowship", when it's never even used in the Bible that way?

 No, you cannot find the authority for a local church, as a part of its program of work, planning and providing materials for social activities in the word "fellowship" in the Bible, because it doesn't use the word "fellowship" for that.

 May I make this point?  The church at Pepper Road has a fellowship hall.  Let me say that again.  The church at Pepper Road has a fellowship hall.  You're in it.  We're in it right now.  We are sharing in worship to God, in the study of His Word.  We are learning what John wrote to us, that we might have fellowship not only among ourselves, but that we might have fellowship with the apostles.  And indeed, our fellowship is with God and with Jesus Christ.  We must learn that this is the kind of fellowship that the Bible talks about.

 May I make another point?  The Pepper Road church has a fellowship meal in this fellowship hall.  It's called the Lord's Supper.  Turn to I Corinthians, chapter 10.  Look at verse 16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, it is not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"  What is the word communion?  Same word.  You know, sometimes we just refer to the Lord's Supper as the "communion".  I don't know how we got started doing that.  That's the same thing as saying "I'm going to go prepare the fellowship for Sunday."  That's what the word communion means.  And what that passage is saying is when we eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine, we are having fellowship, communion, with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Now, let's read further, verse 17: "For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."  Oh, now, that's not just communion with the body and blood of Christ, but there's communion among all of us within the one body.  And let me tell you, that one body is not a local church.  That one body is God's people.  When we partake of the Lord's Supper, we are having not only communion with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but we are having fellowship around a fellowship meal, if I may use that term, with all of God's people, all over the world, who can legitimately eat of that bread and drink of that fruit of the vine.  There's one bread and one body, and we all partake of one bread.  You may have five or six pieces of bread.  At New Georgia, we may have four pieces of bread.  But there is one bread, one bread, and all of us partake of that.  What a fellowship!

 One of my favorite passages in the Scripture is that passage that talks about us all sitting together in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:1-7).  It is as though this building were one huge building that is constantly expanding, and we look over here and we see Paul and Peter and Stephen and Barnabas and Lydia and Dorcas, and we see faithful Christians we've known in our lifetimes who've already passed on, and there are the faithful of our present generation, and all of us are sitting together.  And the central figure with whom we sit is Jesus Christ.  And we have a fellowship meal; it's called the Lord's Supper.  And what a fellowship!  And then somebody comes along and every time he sees the word "fellowship", he thinks in terms of having a good time.  What we have done is just missed the whole principle of Bible fellowship. But somebody says, "Doesn't the Bible talk about people eating together and enjoying one another?"  Yes.  Before the church was ever established, I remember Jesus went to a feast that Levi gave -- Matthew.  A great feast.  Publicans and sinners were present.  I remember another time when Jesus went to a feast, and apparently Martha gave the feast.  Lazarus sat at the table, John, chapter 12.  You might want to look at Acts, chapter 2.  Here were Christians eating together.  In Acts chapter 2, verse 46, we read concerning the activities of some of those early Christians.  We are told, "So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart."  May I pause to say that the term "breaking bread" may sometimes refer to the Lord's Supper, while sometimes it may refer to eating a common meal.  You have to let the context determine.  In this case, we're talking about a common meal.  But notice they broke bread from house to house, and ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.  But nothing here would imply that it was part of the church's program of work to provide for that.

 Consider also I Corinthians, chapter 11.  The church at Corinth was not observing the Lord's Supper as Jesus had instructed.  It seems that there were two problems.  First, they had turned the Lord's Supper into a common meal, and, second, in their divided state, some were eating while others had nothing to eat.  There was total disregard for the poor among them.  In dealing with this problem, Paul writes, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?  Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?  What shall I say to you?  Shall I praise you in this?  I do not praise you."  You have houses to eat and drink in, Paul said.  "But Paul is correcting abuses of the worship", someone may be thinking.  That's right.  But he did not say, "You should wait until after the worship for the church to provide for eating and drinking."  He said, "You have houses for these activities."

 Turn with me to I Timothy 5:16.  Let's bring all this, hopefully, to a conclusion.  I Timothy 5:16: "If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows."  Now, I'm going to take that and enlarge on it.  I've got a widowed mother.  Now, whose responsibility is that widowed mother?  Well, I'll tell you what, it's not the church's responsibility.  It's my responsibility, and my two sisters' and Sewell's to take care of my widowed mother.  Charlotte has a widowed mother.  Whose responsibility is Charlotte's widowed mother?  Not the church's responsibility.  It's the responsibility of me and Charlotte, and Charlotte's three sisters.  Let me do this so the church won't be burdened.

 May I just enlarge on that a little bit?  Suppose that I want my children to be educated in math and English.  Let me provide for the education of my children.  Don't let the church be burdened with that, so the church can do the wonderful work that God has given the church to do.

 Suppose I want my children to have recreation.  Suppose there are not only my children, suppose there are other young people within the group, and I want them to have good wholesome recreation.  Let me provide recreation for my children.  Don't let the church be burdened with that, so the church can do those things that God has given His church to do.

 Is there a place for social activities?  Indeed.  I enjoyed that good elk stew we had the other day.  I wouldn't want to eat it every day, but that was good!  But let me provide for hospitality.  Let me provide for social events.  And if others want to join with me in that, that's fine.  But let not the church be charged or burdened with providing for social activities, so the church can do the things God has told His church to do.  It's just that simple.  And nowhere in the Scriptures is there anything to indicate that the church is to provide materially and plan for social activities.  That is the issue.  That's where it lies.

 Let me close this series of lessons with this.  We are either going to take this matter of restoration of New Testament Christianity seriously or we're not.  We are either going to take the idea of "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent" seriously or we are not.  If we are not going to take the concept of restoring New Testament Christianity seriously, then by all means let's quit giving it lip service.  Let's just forget the whole thing and do anything we want to do, whether we have Bible authority for it or not.  But, on the other hand, if we are really serious about restoring New Testament Christianity -- if we are really serious about making the local church according to the pattern given in the New Testament -- then let's rid ourselves of these things that have been introduced into the church for which there is no New Testament authority.  Let's go back and become what the Lord intended His church to be.  It's one way or the other.  We can't have it both ways, talking about restoring New Testament Christianity while accepting all kinds of innovations for which there is no New Testament authority.  It just won't work.

 You have listened well.  I appreciate it.  And I hope you've understood where the issue lies.  That's been our goal.  I hope you have been able to focus on the issue, two weeks ago, last Sunday, and today, to know what really caused all the divisions that took place in the '50s and '60s and created so much trouble among families and among churches -- preachers being fired, churches being divided; it was a sad time.-Unquote! http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/KitchensAndFellowshipHallsWhatWasTheIssue.html

Truth does not Bind?

Truth does not Bind?

In a recent article, “Truth is a Hijacked Word”, we are told that “truth does not bind”, and that brethren have basically “hijacked” this word and forced a new meaning upon the word. In the effort to cast suspicion upon brethren for “hijacking” and therefore misusing this word, the author actually unwittingly casts suspicion upon his own thinking. He says:

Truth brings liberty; it does not bind. Whatever truth is, it is for our good. –Unquote! http://www.mandevillechurch.org/?p=1624

Let us test this position (1 Thess.5:21) and if it proves good, hold to it, but if it proves to be wrong, then let us reject it and expose it (Eph.5:11).  Jesus said “Thy word is truth”(John 17:17). So, does God’s word “bind” anything upon us?  If the word of God binds things upon us, then our brother has ”hijacked” the word “truth” and tried to give it a meaning that does not include any binding law.  Yet, he quoted some verses that mentions “obeying the truth” which shoots his argument that “truth does not bind” in the foot.  Even when he tries to tell what the true meaning of “obey the truth” is, he still contradicts himself. He explains that “obeying the truth” actually means: “coming to Him and being like Him. It is being who God intends us to be.”  Well, then truth BINDS that we “come to Him” and that we “be like Him” and that we “be who God intends us to be”. Our brother’s goal was to make us think that brethren have hijacked and misused this word, but he actually accomplished making it suspect that he is the one who hijacked the word and got himself tangled in the mess of error one gets in when he says “truth does not bind”.

One of the basic things about “truth” in the Bible is that it includes the truth of God’s law and how to properly “handle the word of truth”(2 Tim.2:16).  Improper handling of the word of truth is what is causing our brother to try to cast suspicion on his brethren’s use of words like “pattern” and “truth” and “sound doctrine”.  He wants people to think that truth does not “bind” and that brethren are “hijacking” the word “truth” and making it “bind”. 

This reminds me of Satans’ discussion with Eve.  He cast suspicion upon God and His word, the truth that God had bound upon the first couple in the Garden not to eat of the tree in the midst of the Garden. She knew the truth about what God’s word had bound upon her, and she knew the liberty she had to eat of all the other trees, but Satan tried to get her to cast off the part of truth that bound and restricted her.  Even so, we find Peter talking about the false teacher and how he “allures through the lust of the flesh” and “promises liberty” that the truth does not give (2 Pet.2:18f).  This is the way of error used by Satan, and you can see that it is very often characteristic of the false teacher.

The Way of Truth includes God’s Ordinances

Ps 119:30-31

I have chosen the way of truth and faithfulness; Your ordinances have I set before me.

 I cleave to Your testimonies; O Lord, put me not to shame! AMP

Ps 119:43-45  -And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for I hope in Your ordinances.

I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever [hearing, receiving, loving, and obeying it].  And I will walk at liberty and at ease, for I have sought and inquired for [and desperately required] Your precepts. AMP

God’s LAW is Truth

Ps 119:142  -Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.  [Ps 19:9; John 17:17.]  AMP

Ps 119:151  -You are near, O Lord [nearer to me than my foes], and all Your commandments are truth. AMP

The Total Word of God is Truth

Ps 119:160  -The sum of Your word is truth [the total of the full meaning of all Your individual precepts]; and every one of Your righteous decrees endures forever. AMP

John 17:17  Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.ASV

To teach that “truth” does not bind is to teach that God’s law is not truth that binds. Surely, it is our brother who has hijacked the word “truth” and tried to give it a different meaning.

Handling the word of God deceitfully is not handling the word of God truthfully

2 Cor 4:2  but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. ASV

Truth Binds us to Walk Uprightly

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before (them) all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? ASV

Truth Binds that You Not Go Back to Practicing the Law of Moses

Gal 4:16   -So then am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth? ASV  Paul had exposed the false teachers there for trying to bind part of the Law of Moses, and he ask if his doing so had now made him their enemy?  The insincere would count him as their enemy, but the sincere would appreciate his effort of love to correct them. So it is today!

Truth Binds that you believe and obey Jesus

Eph 1:13 -in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, — ASV

Truth Binds that You Live Righteously and Holy

Eph 4:24  -and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. ASV

Truth Binds that you handle the word aright

2 Tim 2:15  - Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. ASV

Truth Binds that you do not stray from God’s word and turn to fables

2 Tim 4:4  -and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. ASV

Truth Binds that One Be Born Again and Bring forth Fruit

James 1:18  -Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. ASV

Truth Binds and Restricts While Giving Liberty within Limits

James 5:19 -My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him;ASV . One can err from the truth and need converting. But, one can restrict the actual freedom in Christ (Gal.5:16) by binding the thing Jesus loosed people from, namely the Law of Moses.

Truth Binds us to Obedience to God’s word

1 Peter 1:22  -Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:ASV

False Teachers Will Speak Evil of the Way of Truth

2 Peter 2:2  -And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. ASV

Truth Is Connected to Keeping God’s Commandments, and Commandments Bind us

1 John 2:4-5  -He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;  but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him: ASV

Truth Binds Us to Walk a Certain Way

2 John 4 - I rejoice greatly that I have found (certain) of thy children walking in truth, even as we received commandment from the Father. ASV

3 John 4  -Greater joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. ASV

Clearly, truth restrains us from going beyond the boundaries of God’s revealed word. Truth demands that we not pervert the gospel (Gal.1:6-10).  Truth demands that we seek to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:1-4), and it compels us to “test all things, hold fast what is good”(1 Thess.5:21). Truth compels us to “test the spirits because many false prophets have gone out into the world”(1 John 4:1-3).  Truth sets us free from sin and false doctrine and error of all sorts.  Don’t let any man hijack the word and tell you that truth does not bind or that it does not include God’s law or living within the restrictions of Jesus’ authority.  Beware when brethren “despise authority”(2 Pet.2:10) and “speak great swelling words of emptiness”(2 Pet.2:18), alluring people through “licentiousness” and promises of liberty (2:18). Remember that these brethren are inside the church “carousing in their own deception while they feast with you”(2:13), “beguiling unstable souls”(2:14).  Beware of people inside the congregation “secretly bringing in destructive heresies”(2:1).  Of these John said:

1 John 2:19 (NKJV)- They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

The false teacher is trying to do as much damage as he can before he actually leaves. His heart is already gone from us before he can get his bodily presence out.  He would prefer to change whole congregations to his way of thinking, but he knows he must be subtle in order to accomplish such a mission.  The warnings against false teachers in the first century are written for our own learning and for our protection. Brethren need to be wise and beware!

Terry W. Benton

The Bible is Written to Correct All Errors of Any Kind #2

The Bible is Written to Correct All Errors of Any Kind #2

An amazing exchange of ideas was recently engaged on a public media when a brother said:  Just a note for those who are really interested in the Bible. Not one word of it was written to correct the errors of denominationalism. Every passage dealing with division relates to those who are brethren who are not together. Let us learn to quit using The Book to attack denominationalism. It didn't exist when it was written.

Now, that statement has gone through a series of tests and explanations which render it worthless. The writer now says that scripture will correct all errors, but that : 1) There were no denominations when the Bible was written, and 2) None of the Bible books were DIRECTED at denominations to try to reform them.  But, that is a useless point, for NO ONE is “using the Book to attack denominationalism”, much less read the book TO them in an effort to get them to reform their denomination.  So, his original words were red herring words designed to create confusion, and ultimately had no practical value, and actually encouraged some weaker brethren to think they should not speak against the errors of denominationalism.  If they do not see his newer admissions, they will think that they should not use the scriptures to point out the errors of denominationalism.  Our brother’s  latest explanation was:

On the use of scripture to teach about errors associated with the denominationalism we see everywhere we may certainly use scripture to oppose all error, but not one word in scripture was directed at denominationalism because it did not exist. On a similar note; when we argue there is no authority in scripture for Mormons calling children "elders" we need to remember, the Mormon church isn't authorized in scripture so they can call them whatever they want since they make the rules. I may well show that elders in scripture are older, married men with children, but not one verse of scripture is directed toward Mormon "elders."\

TB: But, this renders his original comment as totally useless except for purposes of confusion. He now says “we may certainly use scripture to oppose all error” including “errors associated with the denominationalism we see every where”. Well, that is all anybody EVER does. When he says “not one scripture was directed at denominationalism” when it was written, that is an immaterial point. Nobody today reads the scriptures as if it was DIRECTED at a denomination.

 He says “I may well show that elders in scripture are older, married men with children, but not one verse of scripture is directed toward Mormon "elders."\. Well, then he is using scripture to correct the errors taught by the Mormon denomination even though the scriptures were not directed toward Mormon elders. So, what difference does it make if they were directed at Mormon elders or not?  That is a useless point since no one believes that Paul was writing to a Mormon Church, and no one is trying to reform a Mormon Church.  All who preach against the Mormon religion are simply using the scriptures to show the errors in teaching and practice that differs from what the scriptures actually teach.

His original comment indicated what we are “attacking” the denominations if we use the scriptures to point out the errors of denominationalism, and that we should quit using the scriptures to point out the errors of denominationalism since it did not exist when the scriptures were written.  But now he says we may use the scriptures to show the difference between what the Mormon “elder” is doing and what the Bible says SHOULD be characteristic of “elders”.  Well, that is all any of us ever do. When our brother does that, is he “attacking” or teaching?  I don’t view teaching the truth to correct errors in denominational thinking as “attacking” anyone. I view it as teaching the truth in love in an effort to lead one out of error into the light of truth.

Now, the Bible was written to correct all errors, no matter where it comes from, and when we try to correct errors that are promoted by denominational people, we are not “attacking” them, but trying to teach the truth in love so that they too can be corrected by the scriptures (2 Tim.3:15-17), just as we have been corrected by the scriptures and just as we are being corrected by the scriptures.

We all have adjustments to make and the scriptures call upon us to continually work on making those corrections. The brother above said to ”Quit using the Book to attack denominationalism”, but who is using the Book to “attack” anyone?  Was our brother “attacking” someone when he made the above comment?  Words need to be used wisely, no doubt, but all errors need to be corrected, no matter if it is taught by preachers and teachers from denominations, or if the errors taught in denominations are brought into the church, or if we simply want to equip the brethren with knowledge of error that may potentially come from denominations into the thinking of our brethren, or if we want to equip brethren so that they can teach others the truth and lead them out of error. 

Our brother was not too pleased that I tried to point these things out. At any rate, he began an effort to explain his meaning, but as he did so, his original message began to change a little at the time. Notice some further comments he made on this topic. Our brother said:

1.       However, you never cited a scripture which pointed out the errors of any denominational body which was (were) directed at such a movement.

TB: When we teach someone in a denominational body we always teach the truth on Jesus, His Lordship, and how doing what Jesus says is not what is done in a denomination. Thus, those scriptures that point out “doing the will of God” or “doing what Jesus commands” are scriptures that begin pointing out the errors of their denominational body.  I don’t know of anyone who contends that the scriptures were “directed at such a movement”, but only that the truth first directed to Christians is truth that Christians must use to correct any and all errors. Why would I need a scripture “directed at the Mormon Church” before I could point out the errors associated with the Mormon Church?  It is an absolutely useless point to make in an effort to try to justify the error of his original comment.  

I do not know of brethren who  think that we should spend time trying to artificially “unite” the various denominations.  So, if our brother above is upset about brethren trying to do that, then he is wasting his breath.  Nobody makes those kind of efforts.  We try to correct one person at a time and use the Bible to correct whatever errors that person has been involved in in their particular denomination, so that they do not stay in that error-teaching body. He further said:

2.        As for not teaching on issues which may not be specifically addressed in scripture (Islam, for instance) that does not mean one cannot preach Christ. When we put forth the Savior of the world who died for men's sins, those who come to hiim will want to follow him correctly.

TB: Notice that our brother shoots his argument in the foot.  By saying that they will “want to follow Him correctly”, he is unwittingly admitting that they might be influenced wrongly unless they learn HOW to follow Him correctly. But, to follow Him correctly, they must learn that they have been taught incorrectly about Jesus and their whole religion has been incorrect. Our brother  tries hard to pretend that he does have to spend any time “correcting” people from Islam or from denominations, but he is fooling no one but himself.  When you talk to a Muslim, you will have to correct his thinking about the Bible, versus the Quran. You will have to correct his thinking about Who Jesus is: Messiah and Mighty God, or just a human prophet. You will have to use the scriptures to correct his thinking, even though NONE of the Bible was originally written to the Islamic religion.  See how utterly useless was our brother’s original comment except to create confusion which misleads some to think that they should not spend time using the scriptures to correct errors of denominationalism?

Our brother  changed his original statement a bit more in an effort to cover over the error of his original comment. He says:

 I really don't know what to say, but will say it anyway. All error should be corrected from the scriptures where possible. However, not one verse of scripture was directed at denominationalism to correct its errors. Denominationalism did not exist at the time the Book was written.

TB: Of course NO ONE, especially me, ever said that the scripture “was directed at denominationalism to correct its errors”.  I have insisted that the scripture will correct all errors including those errors taught by denominations and their teachers.  How am I wrong? I never seek to bash anyone or to cram things down the throats of people, but we do try to humbly teach the truth and correct errors that sometimes originated in denominations and filter into the church.  Our brother should have stopped when he said: “All error should be corrected from the scriptures where possible.”  Well, some error comes to us from denominations, and then it is possible to correct it. Some error in denominations are influencing them to talk about the “cult” and error of churches of Christ as they view it. That means that we have to be ready to defend the truth against the errors of denominationalism.

 It is immaterial whether modern denominations existed when the Book was written. The Bible teaches the truth; modern denominations teach error, and therefore the Bible is written to correct error if it comes to us from within the church or if it comes to us from denominations outside the church. “All error should be corrected” and that is the stand our brother should have taken instead of arousing brethren by his original controversial comment.

In our day, there are many denominational preachers who misuse the scriptures to “attack” churches of Christ.  They call us a cult or a denomination. We should “correct the errors of those denominational preachers” by standing up and contending earnestly for the faith. We should us the scriptures correctly and use them to correct those denominational errors.  Our brother should have said this instead of the misleading comment he made. 

Now, in summary, the scriptures are given to the man of God so that he can be “corrected” and help to correct others who are in error (2 Tim.3:16-17). When we are converting people to Jesus, there are times when we have to show that they have been taught “another Jesus”(2 Cor.11:3-4) and “another gospel”(Gal.1:6-10).  We have to use the scriptures to “correct” the misinformation they have been fed for years and years.  We have to be ready to show the difference between “faith” and “faith-only” which is learned in denominations.  We have to be ready to show the errors people are taught that do not coincide with the scriptures.  We have to be ready because some people want to know the truth, and some people need the truth contrasted with the errors they have been taught.  We should not spend all of our energy and time bashing other religions and denominations, but we certainly would be wrong if we did not correct errors that are now in the church or correct errors that are in the minds of people outside the church so that they can know to come in.  I say all this in love for our brother, and for all people who got the same idea from his words as I did.  I do not wish to differ with anyone, but since we do, I want to set the record straight.  We have to use the scriptures to correct error that is already in the church and error that can potentially enter the church via the teaching of denominations. No matter where the error is found and no matter when the particular error arose, the scriptures are given for “correction and instruction in righteousness”.  God said it, and that settles it whether people want to believe it or not!

Terry W. Benton

The Bible is Written to Correct All Errors of Any Kind

The Bible is Written to Correct All Errors of Any Kind

A brother wrote:

Just a note for those who are really interested in the Bible. Not one word of it was written to correct the errors of denominationalism. Every passage dealing with division relates to those who are brethren who are not together. Let us learn to quit using The Book to attack denominationalism. It didn't exist when it was written.

TB:  First, let me say that teaching the truth about someone’s errors is not “attacking” them necessarily. When we preach against the errors of adulterers and fornicators, we don’t view ourselves as “attacking” those people. We should be lovingly pointing out the truth in hopes that the truth will weigh in on their minds and consciences. We “cast down imaginations”(2 Cor.10:4-5) because we hope people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth that will set men free from all kinds of errors and enslavements (John 8:30-31).

Secondly, it does not matter when denominations came into existence,  they came into existence by teaching error, not truth.  The truth is written to correct those and all other errors. The scriptures are given “for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.3:16-17).  Paul wrote the Corinthians to correct their divisions (1 Cor.1:10-13).  Thus, whenever someone establishes a division and teaches error, the Bible was written to correct and instruct (2 Tim.3:16-17) those errors and all other errors. When people today join denominations that were built around men, no matter if they existed in the first century or not, and they are saying “I am of John Wesley” or “I am of Joseph Smith” or “I am of Martin Luther” etc. , then the Bible certainly IS written to correct those errors too.

If we take that preacher’s statement above to the logical conclusion, we would have to say that we should not use the Bible to correct people in Islam since Islam did not exist when the Bible was written. The Bible is written "for correction and instruction in righteousness" no matter who needs correction and instruction and no matter when a new error or division arises.  Our brother said: "Not one word of it was written to correct the errors of denominationalism". Now if denominationalism is right, the Bible will not correct it. If it is wrong, then it is at least ONE of the things it was written to correct. If not, why not?  I could not get an answer to this.

I thought surely he meant something else and I wanted him to clarify his statement, but he took offense that I would dare to ask questions of him so that he could clarify. If the Bible does not correct errors of denominationalism, then it leaves those errors alone.  Can one be reconciled to God and remain in a denomination? Yes or no! Can you live for the Lord and remain in denominationalism? To say that the Bible does not correct the errors of denominationalism seems clearly to imply that a person can be brought to the Lord and remain permanently in denominations.  I realize that time and growth may be involved, but even then they will not leave a denomination and be just a Christian unless the Bible does indeed correct the errors of denominationalism.

He said: “When I teach a sinner about Christ and lead him to the Lord the one will have left denominationalism.”  But, many people think they have been led to Christ and STAY in the denomination.  So, what will be said from the Bible to correct this situation? There must be something in the teaching of Jesus that will correct the person and make him understand that he needs to leave the denomination.  Another brother made a very good observation. He said:

Sometimes when typing, as some have noticed, my mind runs ahead of what I am typing and I don’t type all the words I am thinking, thus leaving out a key word now and then. Sometimes that key word can make all the difference in the world.

For example, if I were to write, “you don’t lead people to Christ by preaching against false teaching,” that would be misleading. But if I were to write, “you don’t lead people to Christ by JUST preaching against false teaching,” then that would be right on. That little word, “just” makes all the difference in the world.

When preparing soil for planting it is often necessary to clear the ground of briars and weeds before planting the good seed. It is rather naive to think that the good seed will somehow thrive and push out the well rooted briars and weeds. But after the briars and weeds have been removed, then the good seed must saturate the soil or briars and weeds will return with a vengeance. Also, when nurturing and cultivating the crop springing forth from the good seed, one must keep the hoe handy to chop out any returning weeds or they will take over the ground.-Unquote!

That well summarizes the issue. If the brother had only clarified that he meant to say that you do not lead people to Christ by ONLY talking about the errors of denominations, there would have been hardy “amens”,  but he did not try to clarify that way at all. I asked, “why will leading a person to the Lord cause them to leave denominationalism if the Bible does not correct "the errors of denominationalism"?  Our brother still refused to clarify. Leading to Christ is simultaneously a commitment to leave all sin. If denominationalism is not a sin, why will one leave something that is right and not sinful ?  The scriptures are written to guide men into all truth and to correct them from all kinds of error, no matter when it started.  Granted that it will correct some things more quickly than others, but to say the Bible does not correct the errors of denominationalism is not sound reasoning.

One good sister wrote:

 I cannot comment on ---------  --------‘s status, but if I could - I would say that while denominationalism may not have been present during the first century, there certainly were false teachers - both members of the church and non-members. The Scriptures were, in part, most certainly written to combat false teachings. So the question becomes - are denominations teaching false doctrines?

Since the answer is also most certainly yes - then the Scriptures are definitely written to correct the errors of denominationalism.

It's that simple. Isn't it? –Unquote!  Well, it seems that simple to me, but some others are saying that I misunderstood the brother.  I certainly don’t wish to misunderstand, and I certainly don’t wish to differ with anyone, but, I don’t know how else to understand the words my bother used.  I got accused to being unbrotherly, and I certainly don’t want to be unbrotherly.  Some thought they got another idea from his words than I and several others did, but for some reason I could not get their explanations to jive with his words. So, I will just hope that I got the wrong impression and when it finally dawns on me I will make apology and correction, or it will dawn on him that he should apologize for his words.  I do not like being misunderstood, nor do I desire to misunderstand any other brother.

Does the Bible correct the errors of denominationalism? Absolutely!  It corrects all errors of any kind.  Let me close with another quote from another sister who observed:

I always thought Paul rebuking the Corinthians for thinking they were "of Paul" or "of Apollos" were the indications of the beginning of denominationalism. Yes, they were Christians, but to me it's the same as saying "I am of John Wesley" or "I am of Martin Luther". I don't think those men thought they were starting "denominations", but that was the beginning.-Unquote!

The very attitudes that led to some saying “I am of Paul” was “corrected” by the Bible. It was written to correct such errors.  It is written to correct errors that later on developed from those same divisive attitudes into the modern full-fledged denominational divisions.  People who are lead to Jesus will learn from Jesus in His word the errors of denominationalism and seek to live on the Rock of Jesus’ will.

Galatians 5:19-21 talk about “seditions” and heresies.  Those are forms of division. Denominationalism is a modern form of seditions and heresies and division.  The Bible was written to lead us to Christ and “teach us His ways” Matt.11:28; Isa.2:1-4).  He prayed for unity of all disciples (John 17:17ff). He teaches us against forming divisions and supporting false teaching (2 John 9-10).  To teach people to come to Jesus is to teach them to learn from Him and to give up all forms of sin. So, in learning from Jesus in His word, the Bible, we find that He corrects all kinds of errors in thought and practice, no matter when that particular error came into being.  I fully expect Him to correct me if I am wrong about any of this. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected.  We are disciples of Jesus in order to grow and let Him correct us. I hope good things for all my brethren.

Terry W. Benton