Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

In John 20:30-31, John says, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” In these two verses, he affirms some things that deserve our attention.

First, he notes “these are written.” He did not want people to rely on memory or rumors, which might fade (or grow) with the passing of time. He was an eyewitness (see also 1 John 1:1), and wanted to be sure the report was accurately preserved for others. This he could do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). So this valuable record has been preserved, accurately, and in detail for all to be able to read!

It was written to convince. That means it was adequate to do the job!

That was John’s purpose  to produce a record adequate to convince us of the great truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God! He didn’t have to record everything that Jesus did, but he did record an ad-equate record of the important facts we need. Nicodemus recognized the evidence was there and adequate (John 3:2), as did the man who was born blind (John 9:32). Jesus appealed to his works as proof of his deity (John 5:36; 10:25, 36-37), and also to his character as well (John 8:46). John’s record will stand! So will the test! He mentions such details as the folded face cloth (John 20:7  who would bother to do this if they were stealing the body before the soldiers caught them?), the de-lay Jesus intended before raising Lazarus (John 11:39), and the convincing appearance to Thomas (John 20:2428). These were the same proofs (along with fulfilled prophecy) that Paul used to convince the Jews (Acts 9:22; 17:3). Yes, we have all we need to do the task God has given us!

Not only can it demonstrate these truths, but John in-tended for us to believe! That means he wrote these truthsso we could understand them, become convinced of the validity of his arguments, and form some convictions as a result. Indeed, if the “common people” could understand Jesus’ message (Mark 12:37), we are without excuse if we “neglect so great a salvation” (Heb. 2:3).

Sometimes people reason, “But you have to have the Holy Spirit before you can understand God’s truths.” Did the “common people”? (Mark 12:37). Those of Samaria heard, believed, and obeyed (Acts 8:12-13) before they ever got the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16)! Those of Berea “searched the Scriptures daily” and as a result, “many of them believed.” It doesn’t say the Holy Spirit had already saved them, then guided their understanding to a fuller comprehension. John wrote so we might examine, reason over the evidence, and become convinced from the written record! Paul affirmed, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16) and that “faith comes by hearing . . . the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). John had this very motive in mind when he wrote his gospel record.

Lastly, as a result of believing, “you may have life in his name.” Not all believers, however, went on to enjoy eternal life. Some preferred the praises of men (John 12:42-43; cf. Matt. 10:32-33). Judas fell away and became the “son of perdition” (John 17:12). But those who believed were granted the right “to become” children of God (John 1:12; cf. Gal. 3:26-27 to get “the rest of the story”). John didn’t write just to shut the mouths of the opposition, but to convince and to save. This is the same purpose we are to have (see 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:16). Sometimes it becomes necessary to shut the mouths of the opposition, knowing they have no intentions of ever obeying the truth (cf. Acts 13:6-12), but let us always strive to have the same goal John had in our preaching  and not just to “skin the sects.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 13
November 7, 1996

 

Dear Aristobulus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in quest for truth,

Secretarius

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

By Dick Blackford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Dear Brother Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraternally,

Aristobulus (State Gymnasium Captain)

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