Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In discussing the principles taught in Romans 14, some have justified an ongoing fellowship with those they admit to be teaching doctrines contrary to the revealed word of God and with others who are practicing the things advocated by false doctrine. Sometimes they call this ongoing fellowship “forbearance.”

Forbearance

The Bible does teach the principle of forbearance.

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love (Eph. 4:2).

Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye (Col. 3:13).

  The word “forbearance” in these two texts is translated from anechomai which is defined by Thayer to mean “to hold one’s self erect and firm (against any person or thing), to sustain, to bear (with equanimity), to bear with, endure.” Looking at some of the occurrences of anechomai, Jesus had to “bear with” the apostles’ weakness of faith as shown by their inability to cast out a demon from a boy (Matt. 17:17; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:14). Paul “suffered” persecutions (1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Thess. 1:4). The person bears with or endures whatever provocation comes, not giving up his faith in and service to the Lord. The principle of forbearance in Ephesians 4:2 is described by Colly Caldwell:

To forbear is to endure patiently, to suffer tolerantly, to hold back reaction, to evidence self-restraint. Unity is destroyed by fault-finding (Gal. 5:15; 1 Cor. 13:7; Rom. 15:1; 2:4). “Bearing with” or “forbearing” is enduring the faults of brethren with an attitude of holding up, sustaining, and seeking to help rather than criticize. Hasty judgment is antagonistic to peace. Remaining unshaken, erect, and firm in the face of personal difficulties leads to unity (Truth Commentaries: The Book of Ephesians 158).

  The Christian virtue of forbearance should be practiced. We exhort the showing of forbearance, with reference to both moral sin and doctrinal aberration. We should not be guilty of violating the principles of forbearance in any of the following ways:

1. Hasty accusation. We should not go over a person’s life and writings with a fine-toothed comb looking for something to criticize.

2. Fault-finding. We should not be super critical of every misstatement that a brother makes. Hyper-critical examination of his every word reflects on the man who is uncharitable to his brother.

3. Over reactions. We should not over-react to a brother’s offense by making a “mountain out of a mole hill.”

Withdrawal of Fellowship is the Last Act

Withdrawal from a brother is sometimes necessary, but it is always preceded by extensive efforts to save his soul. In personal offences it is preceded by orderly steps described by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. When a brother is over-taken in a trespass, spiritual men try to restore him (Gal. 6:1-2). Those who were “walking disorderly” or “unruly” were to be “warned”; only after they refused to repent were they to be withdrawn from (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6).

When a brother is overtaken in a fault or falls into error, we should do everything within our ability to restore him. We should do this in a spirit of brotherly love, remembering that we also are tempted to sin. Only after every means of restoring the brother has been exhausted should the church act to withdraw from the erring brother.

There Is A Forbearance That Is Sinful

The word anechomai also appears in 2 Corinthians 11:4. There Paul condemns an unholy tolerance of false teachers. He wrote,

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Paul is condemning the Corinthians’ bearing with those who preached another Jesus and received another spirit or another gospel. That which sometimes passes under the banner of “forbearance” is an ongoing fellowship with sin.

Brethren must recognize the difference between an ungodly tolerance of false teaching and a godly forbearance that does not act hastily, seeks to restore the ones who have stumbled, and does these things in brotherly love. The one has God’s approval and the other does not. When a brother commits himself to a doctrine in conflict with the word of God that leads those who follow what he teaches to commit sin, the time for forbearance will soon pass. When he circulates his false teaching through various means (private studies, public preaching, published articles and books, etc.), brethren must become concerned for those whom he might influence. This is not a time for forbearance; it is a time for marking the brother. The same apostle who commanded forbearance also wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, markthem which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). He warned of the dangers of tolerating false doctrine and ungodly conduct in a local church, comparing it to the spread of leaven (1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9).

Brethren may not reach at the same time the conclusion of when forbearance must cease and marking begin. We must give each other room to exercise his own conscience in reaching that conclusion. However, we should be able to agree that an ongoing fellowship with those who teach and practice things contrary to the word of God is not authorized under the Bible principle of forbearance. Rather, this is an unholy tolerance of sin that leads to compromise with that sin.

Romans 14

Romans 14 is discussing a forbearance that is ongoing because no sin is being committed. We need to distinguish between forbearance with our brethren who choose to act differently from us in the matter of authorized liberties (in-difference) and an unscriptural ongoing fellowship with those who are committing sin or teaching others to commit it.

With reference to eating meats and observing days, Christians must receive one another. This is to continue so long as both shall live because neither is involved in sin. The same is true of all matters that do not involve a person in the practice of sin (wearing the covering, using one cup, only using the King James Version, etc.).

An ongoing fellowship of those who are practicing sin cannot be justified under the principle of forbearance. The man who had his father’s wife was not allowed to remain in the fellowship of the church. After a period of time for re-storing him was exhausted, the church was to deliver him to Satan (1 Cor. 5). Those who followed in the steps of Jezebel “to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20) were to be removed from the fellowship of the local church after a judicious time was given them to repent.

Conclusion

Which is to be practiced with reference to divorce and remarriage? Does Romans 14 teach an ongoing fellowship with those who divorce their mates for any reason and marry new mates? Does Romans 14 teach an ongoing fellowship with men who teach that those who have divorced for any reason and remarried can continue to live with their second (third, or fourth) mates with divine approval? Some are arguing that these issues are to be treated like the covering and carnal warfare issues and not like those in Revelation 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 5. In this they are wrong for the reason that committing adultery is not an authorized liberty or a matter of indifference.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 23, p. 2
December 7, 1995

By Kenneth D. Sils

As Jesus was passing through Jericho, according to Luke, a grand gathering thronged the Son of God. One interested person in the crowd, Zacchaeus, was so deter-mined to see Jesus, he climbed up into a sycamore tree just to get a look at his Lord. When Jesus came to the tree, he told Zacchaeus to come down for he intended to eat at his house that day. Zacchaeus was ecstatic and poured his heart out to Jesus, proving his determination to turn from all sinful activities. The multitude wasn’t impressed by seeing Jesus associate with such a sinful person as Zacchaeus and murmured against him in Luke 19:7 saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.” How spiritually blind this multitude was! Little did they realize the mission that Jesus had from his Father. Jesus then reminded them that Zacchaeus was also a son of promise, being from the lineage of Abraham, just as they were children of Abraham. The mission of Christ was made very clear when he said, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).

Many of the unseemly characters that surrounded Jesus were, at one time, involved in some base behavior. These sinners were not the kind of people that governments would select as their good will ambassadors. Jesus ate with tax collectors, harlots, and thieves. Jesus forgave a woman who supposedly was caught in the act of adultery and told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He allowed a sinful woman to wash his feet with her tears while at the same time telling the teachers of the law that she loved God more than they did. Jesus came to take all penitent sinners under his wings. Isaiah 53:5 said of Jesus that, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.” Jesus came to earth for only one purpose: to seek and to save those who were separated from God because of sin. He was anointed to be man’s salvation, so he concentrated each day on his heavenly mission. What a wonderful Savior!

As a result of this effort from Jesus, the church of Christ was established and grew in the first century. Paul reminded the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 to “. . . shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Jesus purchased this called out group, the church, with his blood. He died to save these elders from their sins. He died so his elect, the church, could have a relationship with God. As a result, the main function of his church was to take this message of salvation to a lost and dying world. The apostles of Jesus understood this mission from the great commission Jesus gave recorded for us in Matthew 28:18-20, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. “The apostles’ commission was the same: to seek and save the lost.

Friends, is this what we observe today from churches across our fruited plain? When was the last time you have heard a preacher on TV persuade people to obey all the commands Jesus taught in the New Testament in order to be saved from sin? Does tele-evangelism major in the doctrine of repentance, confessing Christ before men, or even baptism? No! Jesus made it very clear in his great commission that teachers of the gospel must preach baptism in order for one to be a disciple of Jesus, yet most “churches” shy away from the necessity of baptism like a cat would water. There seems to be 1001 different ways, methods and practices for discipleship into the churches of men. Yet, Jesus never authored a “Burger King” salvation which is the philosophy of “have it your way” religion.

The New Testament does not teach that salvation from sin is based on one’s emotions or experiences, but it is based on truth. The apostle Paul told Christians in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation.” The apostles of Jesus had the same mission that Jesus had. They went out from Jerusalem “seeking and saving the lost” with the message of the gospel of Christ. Acts 5:42 says, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that Jesus was the Christ.” As a result of their preaching, people were saved through baptism, becoming Christians. As the church grew and persecutions from the world became more pressing, Acts 8:4 shows, “those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the Word.”

The church of Christ in the first century and today has the same mission; to preach the word, the gospel, which can save the soul of man” (James 1:21). The functions of the church of Christ encompass its mission. In the first century, the church grew at an enormous rate because it taught and applied the soul saving message of the gospel. Ephesians 4:11-12 tells us the church functioned with various offices of leadership, “for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The church of Christ needs only the teaching of the gospel to be built up in spiritual strength. Peter told Christians in 1 Peter 2:2 to, “desire the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby.” Members of the church helped “newborn babes” in Christ gain spiritual maturity through the teaching of the apostles. In this way, the church continued to add, develop, and mature as Christians, not as modern denominationalists.

The Hebrew writer told Christians to “consider one an-other in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:24-25). Worshiping God in a public assembly on the first day of the week is another way commanded by God to build up each person in the faith. In Acts 20:7, Christians gathered on the first day of the week to break bread and hear preaching from God’s Word. When is the last time you heard this godly command demanded from a preacher on TV or from some denominational pulpit? For a church to function as the church of Christ functioned, it must apply only God’s teaching for godly knowledge and assemble each first day of week for “spiritual” edification.

Did you know that the church of Christ never focused on changing the physical problems of the world? It set out to call men back to God and to take care of its own needs. The funds that were collected on the first day of the week were for the purpose of supporting gospel preachers and taking care of the needs of the church (Phil. 4:15; Rom. 15:26). The church of Christ does not concern itself with fulfilling the recreational, social, or political desires of man. The true church of Christ doesn’t set up a table of chicken which encourages men to fill their bellies, but sets up the bread of life, Jesus Christ, by encouraging people to spiritually feast upon his salvation. The church of Christ has no scriptural endorsement to use swimming pools, gymnasiums, social services, meals, bowling alleys, hospitals, summer camps, bus ministries, or other social enticements to the physical side of men to capture disciples. The church of our Lord functions around the life saving mission of Jesus and acts only in accord to the commands, examples, and necessary inferences drawn from the New Covenant of Christ with man.

Let us not forget whom Jesus prayed for before he went to the cross in John 17:20. He prayed, “. . . for those who will believe in me through their word.” The church of Christ is unified. It is busy at the business of saving souls through God’s ordained tool, the preaching of the gospel of Christ. As a result, men and women today can find rest for their souls and grow spiritually through its teaching. This is not what we find in mainstream religion today. My challenge to you is to find a group who still respects the mission and function of the church of Christ, adhering to the authority of the gospel for all their actions. Paul reminded the Christians in Ephesus that, “Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). If you want food, fun, and frolic, denominational bodies will slobber all over you for a generous offering. If you want what Zacchaeus wanted, the salvation of one’s soul from sin, look for the body of Christ, the church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 23, p. 10-11
December 7, 1995

By Jim McDonald

Many appeal letters have come from almost all quarters of the Philippines with pleas for help to buy rice. From November 1994 – April 1995 there was virtually no rain and this drought has made the rice harvest a disaster. Since rice is the major food for Filipinos, a great crisis has arisen. The Philippine government has imported rice from other Asian nations but this has not fully resolved the problem. Citizens must stand in line for 3-4 hours to buy a small supply of rice and the scarcity of the commodity has driven the price to more than double the price it was six months ago. This condition exists on Luzon, Palawan, Oriental Negos and many other islands as well.

Very likely, to congregations and/or brethren who sup-port or already have contact with Filipino brethren the above information is not new. We simply say, the crisis is real, the need is genuine, and if it is at all possible that you can do so, double up with your help one month to him/whom you support. And, provide extra for those in the congregation (or congregations) he works with. They are affected just as adversely as is he.

There are however, many areas in which preachers receive no help from brethren in the States and which will receive no help from the above suggestion. They also are bitterly affected by this disaster and need help ever bit as much as others. We do not propose to be a “collection agency for Philippine Food Distribution” but since we are in con-tact with a dozen or so general areas in which there are pockets of churches from 10-12 and from 45-50, we are familiar with faithful men in all these areas who would faith-fully distribute benevolence to needy brethren and would provide signed sheets showing such distribution was made. There are likely 200 or more congregations affected by this, containing thousands of Christians, some being affected more severely than others, of course.

If you desire to help, names and addressees to whom help can be sent can be supplied to you. I can be reached by telephone Sunday nights (after 9 PM)  Thursday noon at (409) 63270229 and from Thursday nights 9 PM Sun-day 4 PM at (903) 935-5597. You may also write: P.O. Box 155032, Lufkin, Texas 75915-5032.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 23, p. 7
December 7, 1995

By Edward O. Bragwell

“Fellowship” and “friendship” are not synonyms. We have a hard time understanding this. We find it hard to deny the “right hand of fellowship” to friends, regardless of the their spiritual condition. A few find it hard to work in true partnership (fellowship) with any other than close friends. When a brother says he cannot fellowship a brother, then too many of us automatically assume that he is no longer friendly toward that brother. Such need not be so.

Vine makes an interesting observation on the difference between a fellow (Gk: hetairos) and a friend (Gk:: philos). He says, “This (hetairos), as expressing comradeship, is to be distinguished from No. 1 (philos), which is a term of endearment.” Thus, one can maintain friendship (endearment) with one with whom he cannot maintain fellowship (comradeship or partnership); or else a Christian could have no friends outside of Christ. Even one’s joining with the local church in withdrawing fellowship from a brother does not mean that he is withdrawing his friendship (2 Thess. 3:15); though the circumstances calls for not keeping company with him. (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 Thess. 3:14). Neither friendship or fellowship need be the basis for the other.

There are people with whom I maintain a relationship of endearment (by friendship, kinship, etc.) to whom I cannot extend fellowship  either in the sense of congregational fellowship, or becoming partners with them in moral and spiritual efforts (such as ministerial alliances), or extending “the right hand of fellowship,” or any other gesture that would signal a general endorsement of them in their work.

I have close friends and dear relatives who are not Christians after the New Testament order. I love them dearly and they me. Either would quickly come to the other’s aid in time of need. Yet, we are not fellows in the Lord’s work. I cannot partake of their sins or encourage them in their spiritual work. I cannot afford to make any gesture that could be taken by them, or others, that there are no vital differences between us in spiritual matters. Even if one of these close friends or relatives, even a parent, brother or sister in the flesh, comes into this community to spread his doctrine then I must neither receive him into my house nor bid him godspeed, to avoid being a partaker of his evil (2 John 9-11). I could not announce his spiritual activities. If he cameto the services I would not call on him for prayer. Would that mean that I no longer felt close to him as a friend or relative? Of course not!

Sometimes those who, because of various relationships and associations with us, have greatly endeared themselves to us. Its awfully easy to gear our degree of fellowship with them to our degree of friendship with them. They can virtu-ally “get away with murder” in matters vital to the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls and we still treat them as pillars in the church. Their actions not only causes their faithfulness to the Lord to be suspect, but the openness of their actions places the Lord’s cause in a bad light before all. If the same positions and/or practices were embraced by those not so friendly with us, we would have long ago quit bidding them godspeed.

If a good friend gets into a situation that we cannot in good conscience endorse or encourage, it need not destroy our feeling of friendship toward him because we cannot conscientiously do anything we feel would encourage him in his situation. In fact, good friends do not want the other’s endorsement or encouragement against the conscience. Nor should scriptural disciplinary action be taken as an act of animosity.

No, friendship and fellowship are not parallel lines.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 23, p. 5
December 7, 1995