These Things Became Our Examples

These Things Became Our Examples

So much talk about “examples are not binding” is really not helping brethren understand the reason why examples are very important.  It did not matter to Paul about whether the Old Testament contained “narrative” or “story” (who would ever dispute that?).  Yet, as he read the stories embedded in the Old Testament, he found things that “became our examples”(1 Cor.10:6).  The mistakes of Israel were examples NOT to follow in the church.  He said “they happened to them as examples and they were written for our learning”(v.11).  Get this!  Christians are to learn from the examples embedded in the stories of the Old Testament.  That would especially be so in the New Testament as well.  From examples we learn what is NOT acceptable to the Lord, and from other examples we learn what IS acceptable to the Lord. 

By the same token, if Paul “ordained” things in “all the churches” (1 Cor.7:17), one of which was to learn from examples, then what we see in the uniform practices of the early churches would be examples for us to follow.  Paul urged the Corinthians “not to think beyond what is written”(4:6). That means to get all your ideas and information from this source and don’t even desire to listen to something if it is beyond what is written.

One thing that is written is “imitate”(follow the example of) Paul (1 Cor.4:16), and let yourself be reminded of his “ways in Christ”(which includes his approved examples)(v.17).  The reason we can follow the apostles “ways in Christ” is because they had “the mind of Christ”(2:16). The wisdom of God was revealed to them by the Spirit (2:10).  These men were led by the Spirit and they were “ministers of the new covenant”(2 Cor.3).  The Old Testament had been a ministration of death, but the New Testament was a ministry of the Spirit and of life.  As we follow the examples of the apostles we learn things that we can “prove are acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:1-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  What Paul taught in one church, he also taught “everywhere in every church”(1 Cor.4:17).

When the church at Corinth got off track with the Lord’s Supper and made it into a meal to feed their appetite, Paul reminded them of the EXAMPLE of what Jesus did the night of His betrayal when He SHOWED what He wanted done (1 Cor.11:23).  Jesus showed them what He wanted (example to follow), and He told them what He wanted (command). “Do this in remembrance of Me”.  From the command and example Paul also drew some necessary inferences: 1)When you partake of the Lord’s Supper you are “proclaiming His death till He comes”, and 2) when you do not take it with the focus on the body and blood, you do it in an unworthy manner and therefore are guilty of the body and blood.(v.26,27).

When did the early disciples come together and partake of the Lord’s Supper?  We learn from the examples in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7, that they did it “on the first day of the week”.  Nobody questions but what that is “acceptable to the Lord”.  The same thing done in one church with apostolic approval is what all churches did.  Those who follow that same example are no doubt doing what is acceptable to the Lord.  But, what of those who want to do it on Thursday?  They cannot “prove it is acceptable”. They have no statement or example after the Lord “drank it new IN THE KINGDOM” except the examples of doing it on the first day of the week.  Thus, if you cannot “prove it is acceptable” you have no business doing it. It should be that simple since even the uniform practice of the early disciples “became our examples” and are written for our learning.  The apostles showed us things that were acceptable to the Lord as well as told us. They even showed us how they reasoned from examples and came to the necessary inference that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised (Acts 15). That gave us an example of how to use statements and examples and come to the “necessary conclusion” or judgment of what the will of the Lord is.  Using the model of settling issues and questions by this process shows us how to go about “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.  These things also became our examples in how to “test all things, hold fast what is good”(1 Thess.5:21).  Some examples are incidental and do not form a uniform pattern.  But, some examples clearly show us what we can prove is right and cannot be wrong, and those examples ought not be dismissed in favor of something you cannot prove.  The stories and narratives of scripture are to show us examples of what we can safely follow and of things we should avoid.  –Terry W. Benton

Jeroboam's Mistakes

Jeroboam’s Mistakes

There were many different factors that led up to the division in Israel that left that nation split in two. We read of this split in 1 Kings 11-12.  There were the usual attempts to make the northern ten tribes to be convinced that they were right. They were wrong, but they tried to justify their new divided state and what they were now doing.

In the New Testament John mentioned that those that “went out from us were not of us”. In other words, they had been in a mental and spiritual drift away from us long before they decided to relocate their bodies away from the faithful brethren.  There are brethren today like that.  Some have left for liberal churches, and some have left to join denominations. Some are still physically among us but their heart is not with the authority and teaching of God’s word and with brethren who seek to maintain the authority of scriptures and the commitment to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.  They will be leaving soon but they want to see if they can take whole groups with them.  Please notice the parallels to be seen in the division in Israel and the divisions among spiritual Israel today.

Jeroboam made the following mistakes:

1.       Trying to appear legitimate by outward honor of special historical places. 12:25

2.       Cutting off the house of David. V.26

3.       Cutting off exposure to truth. V.27

4.       Making his religion more appealing, liberated, and convenient. V.28

5.       Ignored the “example” of David, the nature of “specific authority”, and hated the idea of seeking authority first before acting. V.31,33; 13:33-34; 14:7-10

6.       Employed the doctrines and commandments of men. V.32

 

How can the people be led to worship with a different place of worship, with a priesthood that is not from Levi, and in the manner so different?  How does such a change become accepted?  I can see that all it would take is to lead the people to question the “old hermeneutic” and those who interpreted the scriptures incorrectly all this time did so because of “traditionalism” and “legalism”. The change agents can keep criticizing the old practices as “traditionalism”. The old “traditionalism” of worshipping at Jerusalem was because the “legalists” had been very arbitrary in WHICH examples they followed.  Because of “traditionalism” and the blindness of the old hermeneutic and being so arbitrary in which examples to follow, they had neglected these important places like Penuel and Shechem.

 

The 10 northern tribes can say, “We will not be legalists and traditionalists that think their traditionalism is the only way. If others were more open-minded they would realize that we should have never neglected places like Shechem, Penuel, and Bethel. Here are some examples that they have not been keeping. They are so inconsistent with which examples are binding”.  In view of the way change agents today are operating, I can begin to see more clearly how such a large segment in Israel could have gotten swept into the change and justified it in their own minds.

Today there are change agents that use Facebook and other social media to gather “friends”. But, like the northern ten tribes, they then begin “cutting off” brethren who might question their views on this media. These brethren grow their number of friends, appealing to the weak and undiscerning, cut off dissenting  voices as “traditionalists”, “Pharisees”, and” legalists”, gathering sympathy from the undiscerning, blocking friends who do not agree with their views.  By cutting of dissenting voices and keeping only those who approve or will say nothing negative, and feeding prejudice against faithful brethren by such terms as “legalists”, “Pharisees”, and “traditionalists”, the crowd they keep on their list are now swallowing the Kool-Aid. Those are points two and three in Jeroboam’s program of justifying his promoting and maintaining the division in Israel he was now leading.

 

Look at the six mistakes listed above again.  Point three is cutting off exposure to truth.  To maintain a sense of legitimacy, Jeroboam could not afford to let his people be exposed to the truth taught by the old traditionalists in Judah.  So, he cut off the opportunities for his friends to see and hear discussions where his views could now be challenged.  It is easy to say the Levites in Jerusalem were “traditionalists” using a faulty hermeneutic, but that cannot hold up well is actual discussion where the change agents have to prove their own hermeneutic is correct and where they are actually called on to “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”.  Prejudice does not work as well when someone can answer them.  So, the change agent must always back away from actual discussion and debate with the old “traditionalists”. They could never stand up in the kind of discussion and “much dispute” seen in Acts 15. They know it too, and so their mode of operation must always be to cut off those voices of truth that might expose them.

 

The modern change agents cut off any on their “friends” list who might expose the weakness of their teachings, or those who might give their readers a different impression of the change agent. Thus, they create a cult of personality and use the old “promise liberty” routine that false teachers have long used in the past (2 Pet.2) to “allure” people into the changes.  The change agents promise liberty from misguided, hypocritical “traditionalism”, and they have their “friends” swallowing the bait and regurgitating it to each other as they now have little or no voices on their list who might reel them in and provide a needed scriptural rebuke and effort at correction.

 

Look at the list of mistakes Jeroboam made again.  We have seen parallels in those first three items. There is an amazing similarity between the mistakes of Jeroboam and the modern change agents. I hope you can see what is happening now and how it is moving among brethren in so many congregations. The bodies may still be together, but soon those who have influenced them the most through social media will have convinced them to change the local church or move out from those close-minded traditionalists.  The devil has been at work.  He is seeking to devour you and any church that still believes in “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.  We will consider the last three items on the list in our next post.  Please, give it careful attention.  Terry W. Benton

 

What Makes A Church A Denomination?

Part 3

One brother pushes for changing the sign from something biblical (“church of Christ”) to something else (no more expedient than the other sign). He argues that to object to changing the sign is a “denominational marker”.  But, if the sign was scriptural and right to start with, if brethren see no need to change the sign, why would he be divisive about it? He perceives that it is important to change the sign because he perceives that the name on the sign has become an obstacle to outsiders.  On the one hand he argues that those who do not change the sign are in a denomination.  If this is so, he needs to be honest and tell everyone in a church of Christ to LEAVE the denomination.  Changing the sign does not make a denomination become a scriptural church.  If the Baptist Church changed the name to “the church at _______” has it now ceased to be a denomination?  Masking the exterior name on the sign becomes deception. We don't need to use deception to get people in.  It is still a denomination that teaches the distinguishing doctrines that formed the Baptist denominations. 

If our brother wants to charge “churches of Christ” with being a denomination, he needs to address the doctrines or teachings that distinguish modern churches of Christ from the first century churches of Christ.  This is hard to do on an issue of expediency.  The early churches of Christ did not have an expedient option of a building, and if they had a building, it was not expedient to put a sign up to advertise the nature of the group that met there.  That is still the case in some places like China.  It is more expedient to meet in secret and never put up a sign to advertise your meeting and the nature of the group.  But, in a free society, we find it expedient to advertise the nature of the group that meets in this building.  This may not always be the case, but so far it has been helpful. 

 “Church of Christ” is a good and expedient description.  It does not denominate us FROM Christ and His church.  It does not denominate us from the nature of the early churches.  We are not only advertising what we are, but what the early churches were.  If the time comes when it is expedient to meet in secret again because of similar circumstances of persecution, then we will still be churches of Christ, but will opt to not have a sign.  The sign does not make us any less the undenominational church belonging to Christ. Changing the sign does not make us change from being a denomination to now being non-denominational.

We need a better definition than our brother gave in Part 2 of this series.  A better definition of what constitutes a denomination is as stated in the following quote:

As far as I know, there is no denomination using the name "Church of Christ." A typical definition for a denomination is: "A group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." While churches of Christ are united under a common faith, that which is found exclusively in the Bible, and many, but not all, use a common name based upon Romans 16:16, there is no single administrative and legal hierarchy here on earth. The only head recognized by Christians is Christ Jesus (Matthew 28:18). http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/04-13c.htm

Now, this is what makes a denomination. A church is not a denomination just because someone imagines that it is, nor that someone with an ax to grind SAYS it is.  It is not a denomination because it shares common faith with other like churches (that would make the early churches a denomination). It is a denomination if it divides itself from the original order in how it describes itself AND in the doctrines and practices that separate it from the original order.  It can do this by organizing into a group larger than the local church but smaller than the universal church.  The Southern Baptist association is an example of an organization of churches into an order larger than a local church but smaller than the universal church.  Thus, a division that is away from the New Testament pattern.

 

 A local church can become a denomination by dividing away from a legitimate, scriptural local church in order to press some unscriptural practice such as making the Lord’s Supper into a common meal and making a distinguishing law that they must meet in personal houses instead of in buildings purchased by the group.  A church is not denominational because they happen to meet in a home with no sign out front, but by divisive, distinguishing doctrines of men.  

All denominations are actually “sects”. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “sect’ as “Body of persons agreed upon religious doctrines, usu. different from those of an established or orthodox Church from which they have separated, and usu. having distinctive common worship, non-conformist or other Church as described by opponents, party of faction in a religious body, religious denomination. . . followers of a particular philosophy or school of thought” The Greek equivalent to “denomination” is “HAIRESIS”, it is translated in our English Bibles as either “sect” or “heresy”. It means “An opinion, then, a party” (Bullenger’s Lexicon) W.E. Vine defines “HAIRESES” a division developed or brought about by an issue” The word appears among the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and has a marginal definition of “parties”. Today there are thousands of parties (or denominations) which were begun by men at various times in history. http://www.churchofchrist.com.au/Tracts/Denom.htm

It is SINFUL and fleshly to start and continue to support a heresy or sect or division.  If one is in a denomination, they must destroy it or get out.  There is no scriptural authority to be in one and to support one. The only way to avoid being in one is to obey the will of God. That will mean proving what is acceptable to the Lord (Rom.12:2-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  If the organization is acceptable to the Lord and you can prove it, then it is to that extent the will of God and undenominational.  If it is local only in order and organization and the local order is within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.  If the assembly is conducted within the will of God, then it is not a denomination.  If the teaching advanced and supported is provable by handling aright the word of truth, then it is not a denomination.  If what the local group calls itself is within the will of God, then it is not a denomination. 

When all of the above is proven by the will of God, then the local church should object to someone trying to characterize them as a denomination.  When preachers start doing this, it is time to test what he says and object when he is wrong.  I know that I have never been part of a “church of Christ denomination”.  I don’t intend to start being a part of one. But, neither am I going to sit quietly and say nothing when some preacher wants to make the charge that unless we are willing to change a scriptural designation on the sign that it MAKES a church a denomination, I will object to this unfounded charge. There are several preachers pressing for such a change of sign, but that can be making a divisive issue where it does not need to be pressed.  Divisive brethren need to be marked and avoided (Rom.16:16-17).  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Let Jesus have “all authority” and be “preeminent” and do all in His name. Prove what is acceptable to the Lord and then act accordingly. You will not be in a denomination, but you will be working with brethren of like precious faith.  That is part of truly living for Christ.  If you are in a local church of Christ that makes doing the will of God their mission and priority, and the groups is acting by the authority of scriptures, then don't let someone get away with calling you a denomination just because you don't see a need to change the sign and they want to be divisive about it.  Put the responsibility on them to prove that it is necessary to do the will of God to do what they say we must do. –Terry W. Benton

What Makes A Church a Denomination? Part 2

What Makes A Church a Denomination?

Part 2

Quote: The Evangelical theological dictionary defines "denomination" as: "anything distinguished by a name … such as Baptists and Methodists.” Second, “Associations of congregations that have a common heritage.” There is no doubt that there exists a "church of Christ" denomination that belies the claims of those within it to local autonomy. And, the unwillingness to consider changing a sign outside a building is an indication of a sectarian attachment - not an attachment to Christ but to a denomination. (Jeff Young)-Unquote!

TB: If the above definition really gives the scripturally-based definition of a “denomination”, then the early church was a denomination.  They were “distinguished by a name”, “Christian”, and there was a “common heritage” of associated congregations (Rom.16:16).  They were associated together with their common heritage of hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ.  There is something very lacking in the above definition when it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination by definition while only really wanting to make modern “churches of Christ” out to be a denomination.   Was there “local autonomy” in the early churches?  We could easily argue that they shared a common heritage that made them tend to share common practices.  Does sharing a common heritage make a denomination?  I think that is not really a good argument to make.  If it makes the early churches of Christ a denomination then it is probably not a good, sound argument to make.

Since I am unwilling to change the sign outside because I really think “church of Christ” is one of the best ways of describing the Lord’s church, the above writer says I MUST be willing to change the sign or I will be in a denomination or possess a “sectarian attachment” to the name on the sign.  But, think about it. Isn’t it sectarian to be so set on changing a sign to something else that only sectionalizes brethren into smaller sections?  What will a different description on the sign accomplish?  Will it prevent people from thinking you are a denomination?  It never has. It never will.  As we pointed out in part 1, the sign does nothing.  A person with only denominational concepts will still have denominational concepts. Teaching the TRUTH and believing the truth is the only way to get concepts corrected.

A person or group of people may have an “unwillingness to change the sign” because they think the sign is an adequate description of what they are, a church belonging to Christ, not a denomination.  Think about this carefully. The above argument says that unless you are willing to change the sign from “church of Christ” to something else, you have a “sectarian attachment” to a “denomination” instead of to Christ.  Hold on a minute!  How often will we need to change the sign to make sure we don’t have a denominational attachment?  Is there a schedule of sign changing that will avoid this?  I doubt very seriously that changing the sign is crucial at all.  In fact, could it not also be the case that one can have a factious and denominational spirit that says in essence that “the nature of this denomination will be our devotion to changing the name on our sign”?  This will be our common denominator with others who are also willing to change their signs often.

 

I knew of a case where the preacher was so set on changing the sign that he divided the brethren. His accusation was that they were too denominational in wanting to retain the name on the sign and their accusation was that he was too denominational in wanting to change a legitimate sign. Who was really denominational in this case?  To me, the preacher was trying to create a denomination that would be known for sign-changing as the key issue of his new denomination.  It was not devotion to Christ that demanded a change on the sign.  It was a divisive spirit that would ultimately make sign-changing the key doctrine of those he would associate with. 

 

Those brethren who would not make that THE issue would be mentally assigned to a different denomination while they think only they have captured “undenominational” status.  Brethren and outsiders would take note that this new denomination will make changing descriptive signs THE distinguishing feature to this new denomination.  If it is really so that a church becomes a denomination if they keep “church of Christ” on their sign, then it is still a denomination if they change the sign.  Changing the sign is not out of devotion to Christ. Christ has no interest whatsoever in brethren pushing for a change on the sign out front from “church of Christ” to “the church at ________” .  It is out of devotion to their denominational marker of making sign-changing their distinguishing doctrine.  If they are a denomination if they describe themselves as a “church of Christ”, then they are a denomination if they call themselves “the assembly of Christ”. 

The definition our brother offered above is very inadequate and applies just as well to his own local church.  There is a “distinguishing name” involved and his church is still associated with a common heritage of churches.  If he succeeds in changing the church till no other church feels a common heritage with his church, he has created a new denomination that is starting a new heritage.  You see the definition our brother gave of a denomination still fits his church and church heritage.  He has not escaped the parts of the definition he offered.  That is because his definition is wholly inadequate. He gave a partial definition that indicts his own church that changed the sign out front, and his partial definition indicts every local church you read about in the Bible.

I cannot look at the early churches of Christ (Rom.16:16) as a denomination, nor can I believe that describing local churches today as “churches of Christ” is any more a denominational indicator than it was in the first century.  Thus, we need to quit bashing brethren and calling them a denomination if they are only imagined to be a denomination.  Imagining the local church I attend as being a denomination or part of a denomination does not make it so. There is inadequate definition and a lot of imagination at play here.  I don’t accept our brother’s definition or his imagination.  We need to understand what the universal church was in the first century in order to know what it is now, and we need to understand the local church in the first century in order to know what is should be today.  We also need to know that the early churches did not form denominations and denominations are not supported now.  The Bible does not support divisions, seditions, and heresies (1 Cor.1:10; Gal.5:19-20). We need to challenge people who do not teach the truth and mischaracterize churches of Christ.

(to be continued)

Terry W. Benton

What Makes A Church A Denomination?

What Makes A Church A Denomination?

(Part 1 of a series)

Quote:  There is no doubt that there is a denominational attachment with the phrase, "church of Christ" or "churches of Christ" among many.-Unquote!

TB: I’m thinking about the Lord’s church found in the Bible and want to use an expression that captures what it is.  It is “the church”.  It is “the assembly”, but it is not just any assembly. It is a very unique assembly of people and they are related to Jesus Christ.  “Church of Christ” is certainly good and biblical. Do some have “a denominational attachment with those phrases”?  I don’t have a “denominational attachment” to the phrase “churches of Christ”, but I really like that phrase as a very adequate and scriptural way of describing the Lord’s church.  I don’t see a need to drop the phrase just because someone will accuse me of having a “denominational attachment” to that phrase.  I could just as easily accuse those who are choosing to drop the “church of Christ” phrase and just calling it “the assembly” as having a “denominational attachment” with that phrase.  Does that make it so? 

Quote: …the use of the phrase and the attachment to it as a denominational marker. –Unquote!

TB: Is the use of the phrase “church of Christ” a “denominational marker”?  I don’t think so. But, let’s test this.  If Paul described a bunch of churches “churches of Christ”(Rom.16:16), is that a denominational marker?  I really don’t think so, but let us suppose a group of churches decided it was a “denominational marker” to refer to the Lord’s church by the regular designation of “church of Christ”. Instead, they decided to put “the assembly” or “the church” on the sign outside.  Has that now become a “denominational marker”?  It could just as easily become a new “denominational marker” as the “church of Christ” description phrase.  If not, why not?

Providing the description is biblical, the sign will never keep people from thinking of a “denominational marker” no matter what you put on the sign.  Paul was not able to escape the charge of “sect-arianism” with or without a sign.  The sign is not a “denominational indicator”.  Let us be honest.  People reject churches of Christ because of the TRUTH generally taught from those groups, or because they were turned off by an experience with a “Christian”.  Some “Christians” have not represented Jesus very well.  To keep people from being prejudiced against “Christians”, should we drop the name “Christian”?  People were prejudiced against “Christians” in the first century and later.  Would it have then been expedient to quit referring to themselves as “Christians” so that the prejudice could die down? Absolutely not!  What we will do is try to encourage Christians to try to represent Jesus better and quit giving the name “Christian” a bad name by bad behavior.

Likewise, if you change the sign outside from “church of Christ” to “the assembly”, what have you accomplished?  If the members have not changed their personal behavior, how will the new sign avoid the “denominational marker”?  How will the sign keep the “Christians” from bad behavior?  It won’t.  Teaching the truth about what you mean by ANY description on the sign (if you opt for a sign at all) is the only way to educate people about the Lord’s church.  The fact that three churches decided to drop a reference on their sign in favor of another description means they have now adopted a NEW “denominational indicator” if the old sign was a “denominational indicator”.  If the discarded description was truly a “denominational indicator”, then so is the new sign. I really don’t care what you put on the sign, the sign is not by itself a “denominational indicator”.  So, I think the phrase “church of Christ” is a very good description, don’t agree that the group inside is a “denomination”,  or that the words on the sign outside is a “denominational indicator”. It really depends on other things, not the words on the sign. 

Let’s suppose that a group decides to put “Christians meet here” on the sign. Another church thinks that is a good idea and so they do the same. Has this sign now become a “denominational indicator” of what this group is?  This is the denomination that likes to put “Christians meet here” on their sign.  If we are honest we know that “church of Christ” on a sign is not a “denominational indicator” any more than “the assembly” is a denominational indicator or “Christians meet here” is a denominational indicator.  It depends on other things.  I want people to know us for what we do and teach, not for what they think they can assess from the sign out front.  Remember, with no building and no sign the apostles were still thought to be in a “sect”. They were not. But, the lack of a sign did not keep people from thinking that he was in a new “sect” instead of the undenominated , non-sectarian body of saved people belonging to God.  So, changing the description on the sign is not the answer. Taking down the sign is not the answer.  Using a description on a sign that describes what you are, a group that belongs to Christ, may help brethren think of commonality, but it does nothing toward keeping denominationally-minded people from pigeon-holing you as a denomination or sect.  Overcoming that idea is only accomplished by teaching. Let us not be ashamed of a good description, nor shy away from telling the whole TRUTH and nothing but the truth. The truth will set men free from denominationalism and every other sin. –Terry W. Benton

What is the Spirit of the Law?

What is the Spirit of the Law?

From time to time I hear people say "We should follow the spirit, not the letter of the law". This has a deceptive ring of scripture to it. It is a misuse of 2 Cor.3.  "The letter" is made to mean the strict wording of scripture, and "the spirit" is made to mean "what you think they really mean to you". They seem to think "the letter"(what the words actually say) versus "the spirit"(how I feel inside) is what 2 Cor.3 is about.  However, 2 Cor.3 is actually contrasting "the letter"(the already written Old Testament) with "the Spirit"(the New Testament, being at that time, revealed through the Spirit to His apostles and prophets). Read the context carefully and  the spirit of the New Testament will show that this is the case. The letter they had was the Old Testament, and the Spirit was now leading them under the authority and covenant of Jesus Christ. Thus, in context "the letter" is the Old Covenant from Sinai and "the Spirit" was the New Covenant now being revealed through the apostles and prophets (Heb.2:1-4; Eph.1:22; 3:3-5) by the Holy Spirit.

Going back to the misuse of 2 Cor.3, how does one determine what the spirit of a law is? It says “do not commit adultery”, but what is the “spirit” of that command?  It uses letters to condemn homosexual activity, but what is the actual “spirit” we should get instead of following the letter of the law? Doesn't this reasoning, in essence, wind up telling people to follow their own imaginations and desires above God's law? Each person gets to bend the actual words and imagine a certain “spirit” that is more important than the actual law demands. Thus, we can always over-rule something by appeal to spirit over letter.

Was the question of circumcision settled by an appeal to "the spirit of the law"? (Acts 15). Could the Judaizing teachers have justified this innovation by saying the spirit of God’s law is to not get so technical about what the apostles had commanded or not commanded?

Instead of insisting on taking literal unleavened  bread (in observing the Lord's Supper) in harmony with the "letter of the law", can we just observe "the spirit of what it's about"?  Can we treat everything else in this way?  Baptism?  Confession?  Assembling? Church organization?  Who determines what the spirit of the law actually is?  How is this determined?  This is not by reasoning upon the evidence of the words available in scriptures, but rather it becomes handy to claim a more spiritual attitude while ignoring the responsibility spelled out in God’s revealed word.  I hear them say “You are just concerned about the letter of the law, while I am more concerned about the spirit of the law”.  It is actually another form of pride that tries to act superior when their errors are pointed out.  Beware of this misuse of 2 Corinthians 3. There is the matter of “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”(Rom.12:2-3; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  How would you prove something is acceptable to the Lord?  You will have to start with stated principles, and commands, examples, and what you can rightly infer from what the scriptures actually say.  You cannot pull it out of thin air and call it “the spirit of the law”. -Terry W. Benton

“Not Forbidden” is Our Authority Now?

“Not Forbidden” is Our Authority Now?

Quote: Everything must begin with truth. Truth is the foundation of all things. Suppose we substitute the converse, “not false”, which is a valid definition of “true.” If the thing between them (or the question between us) is not false or not forbidden, then continue to the next step. If it is false or untrue, then stop.-Unquote ! (Max Ray)

TB: Everything must begin with truth, and truth is foundational.  Truth is complete as well.  So,  we do not necessarily look for what is “not forbidden” but for what is “not approved”.  If it is approved, then continue to the next step.  If it has not been approved by any statement, command,  or  example, then it is not part of the “all truth” God wanted to reveal (John 16:13). Thus, even things that are not forbidden must be proven to be approved.  I can give my daughter a grocery list. If she starts picking up things on the basis that I did not forbid that item, my bill will be larger than I was planning on and I will not be pleased with her approach to my authority (expressed in the list).  She knows that the list is for the things that I approved.  How should she look at the authority of my will expressed in the grocery list?  Should she buy all that I did not forbid?  Or, does she buy only what she knows I approved?

I believe our brother commits a fundamental error in his view above.  He thinks that in order for a thing to be “false” it has to be specifically forbidden. That allows him all kind of room to bring into the church things that are not authorized, but not forbidden. Such things as kitchens and gyms and instrumental music are not specifically forbidden.  Perhaps you could also bring in new offices or leaders for the church such as a presiding bishop over a diocese of churches. After all, once you open the door by saying “not forbidden” you have opened the door to anything and everything that is not specifically forbidden.  That is how you reason to the position of Pope and Cardinals. “Not forbidden” and therefore don’t object unless it is specifically forbidden.  There is a serious flaw to this way of thinking.  It is not a new approach. It has been around a long time. 

Jefferson David Tant observed: These questions rose early in the church, as Tertullian (ca. 150-222) wrote of those who claimed that “the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” Tertullian responded with, “I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden.”

 

 In the Reformation

 

 There were differences in the approach to the Scriptures by the Reformists Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). In his early reformist years, Luther wrote, “Whatever is without the word of God is, by that very fact, against God.” He based this upon Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” In later years Luther changed his view, stating, “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and Scripture for it.” The Swiss Zwingli taught that practices “not enjoined or taught in the New Testament should be unconditionally rejected.”

 

Luther’s view won the day, and his looser interpretation became the preferred practice as denominations developed and proliferated. If Zwingli’s view had been preferred, then the history of the religious world might be quite different. But Luther lived 15 years longer than Zwingli, and thus had a longer period of influence. Zwingli suffered an untimely death after a Protestant pastor was captured by a Catholic group, tried for heresy and sentenced to be burned. The Protestant Zurich government declared war against the Catholics, and in a subsequent battle, Zwingli was serving as a chaplain when he was wounded and died. It was October 10, 1531. http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/BiblicalAuthorityAndTheSilenceOfTheScriptures.html

Think how this view has evolved the Roman Catholic Church with icons and relics that are not specifically forbidden and new offices that were not specifically forbidden. Think of infant baptism. Does scripture forbid it? When you think about this approach to authority, was Cain’s offering forbidden?  Was the fire used by Nadab and Abihu forbidden?  The oxcart on which David put the ark to bring it home from the Philistine territory was not specifically forbidden. Yet, none of these approaches fit the standard of authority enjoined by God’s word.  The question we should be asking is: “Does the scriptures approve it?”

The Word of God enjoins upon us the responsibility to “prove what IS acceptable”(Rom.12:2; Eph.5:11; 1 Thess.5:21).  It does not enjoin upon us the responsibility to “prove what IS NOT acceptable to the Lord”.  There is a huge difference between those two ideas.

Our brother has started down the same path that brought about the apostasy that developed the Roman Catholic Church,  and that kind of thinking has endorsed every major denomination of the Protestant Reformation movement.  It is a step in the wrong direction.  He talked about how the two women at Philippi could come to unity of faith, but it was not for one of the sisters to yield to a practice of the other sister unless she could show it was a practice that was forbidden.  A better example would have been an appeal to the issue of circumcision in Acts 15.  If they had thought in terms of asking if it is “forbidden”, then it was not forbidden.  They asked another question instead:  Was it positively taught in the original teaching of the apostles?  If not, then it was not to be imposed on the church.  It is automatically forbidden as a matter to impose on others if the apostles did not teach it.  Brethren need to take heed to the fruit of this kind of teaching.  “Prove what IS acceptable to the Lord”.  If you can’t prove it first, then refrain from it. That is what is “true”.  The two women would work out their differences by putting Jesus first and behaving themselves under that authority and peace. That is what we must do too.

Terry W. Benton