Truth Magazine

By Mark A. Cascairo

I wish to respond to an article which appeared in the July 20, 1995, Guardian of Truth written by Michael W. Green of Orange, Texas. The article began with a reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution and ended with the statement, “If you do your job properly, you have nothing to fear with respect to the teaching in public schools.”

The intervening lines of the article point out two examples of religious activities in public school settings which caused controversy, and the court decisions, in each case, prohibiting the activities. The argument is made that the decisions were based on the Constitution’s directive to “protect religion from government interference.” The conclusion was that, when decisions are made based on the First Amendment which prevent the state (schools) from “proscribing” religious expression, these same court decisions also protect our religious freedom, and therefore, we should not be alarmed. We should let the state do its job (secular education), and Christian parents should do their job (religious training, Eph. 6:4). Then came the ending statement cited in the previous paragraph.

This article raised concerns for a number of reasons. First, brother Green has attempted to prove too much with his evidence. The article revolves around the “separation of church and state” issue and the constitutionality of religious activities n public schools. Then, the conclusion suggests that the “teaching” in public schools is not to be feared. These are two very broad and different issues, and the article left many stones unturned, prior to its confident conclusion. I can appreciate brother Green’s main point, that Christians must assume diligently the responsibility to provide the religious training for their children. I believe, however, that his confidence in the state to “do its job” is somewhat misplaced.

There are many in our country who are appalled at the state’s lack of success in even providing the basics of a “secular education.” This is enough to make a parent fearful, or at least a little concerned. But more importantly, the values often taught (yes, taught, both actively and indirectly) are to be feared. From evolution (taught as fact, not theory), to values clarification (home of situational ethics), to health curricula depicting premarital intercourse, homosexuality, and abortion as popular and potentially “healthy” choices, the teaching in public schools is not benign.

Secondly, who relinquished the responsibility to provide a “secular education” for our children to the state? It is my opinion that Ephesians 6:4 must include proper “secular” training in a father’s responsibility to his child. “Secular education,” itself, is a myth. Learning skills to function in society so as not to be a burden, to provide for one’s own family, to be respectable husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, and to be able to share with those less fortunate, are all part of the Lord’s admonition or instruction (2 Thess. 3:11, 12; 1 Tim. 5:8, 16; Titus 2:1-8).

In most cases this part of the parent’s responsibility is delegated as regards the details of the training, but I believe parents are accountable ultimately. Public school is a relatively new invention, and it has served a useful purpose in our nation’s history. Many alternatives exist, however  parochial schools, home school, private schools, and education co-ops. A parent who blindly entrusts his child to the “teaching” in the public schools is similar to a parent who gives his child a remote control to a cable television and then leaves the room. Nobody would suggest, “Let the entertainment industry do its job. You have nothing to fear if you’re doing your job properly as a parent.” Likewise, the responsibility of appropriately educating our children is not to be “rendered unto Caesar.”

A third concern returns us to the “separation of church and state” issue. May it be noted at the outset that the phrase, “separation of church and state,” is not even to be found in the Constitution. The authors of the First Amendment did not view religious activity in a state institution as a violation of this amendment. The Founding Fathers were highly religious men who included God and the principles of the Bible in framing the Constitution and in conducting governmental business. Their intent was to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination as the state church (like the Church of England) with emphasis on allowing the free exercise of any religion. Separation of church and state, as an idea, is a recent invention of the courts, as they inappropriately interpret the intent of the First Amendment. Though the courts may claim to rule based on a desire to protect religion from government interference, the tragic effect is often government interference.

The two examples of the graduation ceremony prayer and required Bible reading in school, given by brother Green, were cases in point. The court decisions to prohibit these religious activities were violations of the First Amendment clause regarding “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Countless other cases could be cited in which courts have interfered with religious activities in public schools, even if the entire district, classroom, or graduating class were in favor of the activity. This is not the effect of the First Amendment the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yes, we must submit to the laws of the land, including these court decisions which misinterpret the First Amendment, but we need not happily agree with the misinterpretations. We have a right and a responsibility as citizens to strive for more accurate and equitable decisions by the court. If these efforts are unsuccessful, then appropriate action to protect our children from the resultant ill effects of such decisions (e.g., removing our children from the public school) need not be regarded as a lack of submission to the governing authorities.

In addition, many local school officials and administrators of public schools have been influenced by such misinterpretations of the First Amendment. In many in-stances, the officials have concluded that the proper adherence to the “separation of church and state” mandate prohibits all activities which mention God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. These are activities in which the courts have not been directly involved. Here are some absurd examples: a Christmas bulletin board (which featured a snowy landscape and a church building) was disallowed in a classroom, though witches and goblins were allowed at Halloween; an after school Bible study club was banned, even though it was conducted off campus; lettering forming the Ten Commandments was ordered to be removed from a school hallway wall, while elsewhere, rock and roll music with explicit profanity was allowed in a physical education class.

Many would argue that the decisions that are rendered are purposely aimed at removing God and the Judeo-Christian influence from the public arena especially since other types of religious expression are not prohibited in the schools (for example, transcendental meditation is actually taught). Even a goal of promoting secular humanism has been attributed to the educational elite, and this with a large amount of supporting evidence. John Dunphy expressed this goal in a 1983 edition of The Humanist: “The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

Truly, as brother Green has stated, one cannot expect the state to provide religious training for our children. That is our job as parents. On the other hand, we are commanded to “walk circumspectly” (Eph. 5:15), and our attitude to-ward our children’s training in the public schools should be one of sober vigilance, both in regard to the content and quality of the “teaching,” and in regard to the free exercise of their religious expression. It is our parental responsibility to see that the religious training we diligently provide is not undermined by any influence, including those that may emanate from the public schools.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 20-21
October 19, 1995

By  W. R. Jones

Have we forgotten what our business really is? For the most part I think the answer is yes. Peter Drucker, a well known business management expert, has written several books advising business people how to be successful. In one book, The Practice Of Management, he points out that the most dangerous and destructive thing any business manager can do is to forget what “the company’s business really is.”

A case in point is about a mile from my house. Many years ago a man started a lawn mower sales and repair business which became very successful. He was honest and did good work. His prices were high, but we stood in line to trade with him because he attended to business in a depend-able way. The owner grew old and had to step down. He turned it over to his son whose only interest in life is “scuba diving.” Within a year he divided the showroom in half, reduced his lawn mower stock, and reduced his faithful crew. His main interest became scuba diving equipment. The business began to decline and a reputable competitor opened up which no one had dared try in past years. Early on I predicted the demise of this business. Sure enough, I passed by the other day and the sign is up: “out of business.” The son, whose only interest was “scuba diving,” had forgotten what their business really was. He “killed the goose that laid the golden egg” because he forgot and neglected their foremost business.

When I observe preachers, elders, and other leading men in the church today, I am made to wonder if we haven’t to some degree forgotten “what our business really is.” I know the church is not a “business” like Mr. Drucker advises, but I believe we would do well to take a look at this advice about “forgetting what our business realty is.”

What Is Our Business?

“In a nut shell” our business should be, as Jesus said, “my Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). Our business should be the mission of Christ which was to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). This, of course, includes restoring the erring, edifying one another, and as Paul instructed Timothy: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Plain and simple,our business is “soul saving.” In the past forty years many churches of Christ have drifted into the “social gospel” mold and have turned to entertainment, recreation, secular education, and other things of the same secular stripe. But I am not writing about these brethren who have chosen to follow after “liberalism.” I am talking about those of us who are trying to maintain the church on a solid foundation. Have we forgotten what our “business” really is?

Why Are We Not Reaching Many of the Lost?

Is it impossible? Is it because there are no honest souls left and our task is an impossible one. No, it is not true. There are still many about us who are “disciple material” and can be converted. The trouble with many of us, after having the door slammed in our face a few times, is simply this: nobody cares, and nobody will listen. We have talked ourselves into a negative attitude and have withdrawn into a dark cave of defeat to wait for the end. If the Lord had been so easily discouraged, we would never have had redemption.

Difficult times. Obviously, we are in hard times and most people are not interested. Let us remember, however, this was also true when Jesus came and through much of the ministry of his apostles. In spite of that, people were converted and the church grew rapidly. I have heard it said, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Maybe we need a little more of that spirit.

The Value of the Soul. I think the “value system” about the soul of man has been misplaced in many of us. Materialism has greatly diminished our value of a soul. Many of us have lost our “everlasting” view of the soul. Case in point: a man drowned in a bayou and hundreds joined in the search for his body. Thousands of dollars were spent in the recovery effort which, after four days finally succeeded. I am not criticizing the effort, but I could never find where any concern had been shown for his soul during life, even though he was surrounded by Christians. In death his body was supremely important. In life his soul was supremely unimportant. Jesus said, “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt.16:26) Consider the following thought. I don’t know where it came from and I wish I had said it, but I didn’t. “There are many things in life worth winning, but when one is won over to the side of truth, we beat the devil in the battle over the eternal soul of man. This will outshine and outlast all the achievements of the world put together.”

A Tragic Misconception. Sadly, there is a common belief among members of the church that they do not have any evangelistic responsibility. “After all,” they say, “that is why we support a preacher.” When will Christians learn that the presence of an evangelist has nothing to do with their own responsibility toward saving souls. The astounding growth of the church in the first century is not attributed to preachers alone but to individual Christians. “Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). I like the story of the store owner who went to a convention. Someone asked him what his business was. He replied, “My business is to serve Christ and win souls.” He added, “I run a hardware store to make a living.”

Preachers Have a Duty. Preachers should lead the way in spreading the word. They should set an example for others to follow. I fear we dig ponds and sit back and expect the fish to jump in. That is, we build nice buildings and expect the lost of this world to rally in them. We would do well to remember that the Lord has made us “fishers of men” and not merely the “keepers of the aquarium.” Preachers face a lot of discouragement, you may be sure. I fear that many of us have re-treated to ivory towers where we read what pleases us, play with our computers, and look for something to write about that will attract a lot of attention. I don’t look for this to improve unless we get a renewed interest in what our “business” really is. Preachers need to lead the way and also teach the members their responsibility toward the souls of others.

Enlist God’s Help by Prayer. There is a song which says, “Lead me to some soul today; 0 teach me Lord, just what to say; friends of mine are lost in sin, and cannot find their way. Few there are who seem to care; and few there are that pray; Melt my heart and fill my life: give me one soul today.” I believe we ought to pray for the Lord to help us in the work of “saving souls.” When there appears to be a drought of prospects, ask the Lord to help you open a door. But someone fearfully says, “Will I be lost if I don’t win a soul today!” No! Someone else is involved and we can’t always succeed. But the danger of our being lost is because we are not trying. The danger lays with our indifference toward the souls.

What Could We Expect If We

Were To Suddenly Change?

What could we expect if all preachers, elders, and paper editors, along with each congregation suddenly returned to what “our business really is?” This is what I think would happen and it would all be for the good.

1. The number baptized into Christ would increase dramatically.

2. We would be too busy to do much meddling in the affairs of other congregations.

3. We would get back to exposing false religions with more fervor.

4. There would be less time for “finger pointing” about every little thing.

5. There would be an increased degree of unity and harmony among us.

Of Course, Error Must Be Exposed. In the meantime, when real error (not just some slightly different slant) rears it ugly head, sound and faithful brethren must step forth and expose it as needed. We should expose what is wrong and teach what is right and give brethren an opportunity to consider it before we plunge into what sometime seems to be a personal warfare. I still have a lot of confidence in our brethren about seeing the truth when it is plainly and lovingly set forth. Let us trust the power of truth when rightly applied. Don’t look too long and hard for something to expose. If you do, you are likely to see things that really never existed. But, when error becomes obvious, don’t put it off, deal with it.

We Still Have a Common Mission. I remember back in the fifties and six-ties how united we were in our fight against institutionalism, centralization, organizational corruption, and the social gospel. All during that time there were things of a “lesser light” about which we differed, but we rallied to a common and much needed cause. When I was up to my neck in a debate, I remember how so many preachers and others gathered around to help any way they could, great or small. Many of those preachers, in their heart, very likely believed they could have done a better job, but it didn’t matter. They were behind the truth and they were behind my efforts. It was one of the most unselfish outpourings I have ever witnessed, except in cases of natural disaster. My brethren, though the former conflict is in the past, we still have a “common mission” of supreme importance, namely, “to seek and to save the lost.” Let us not forget our real business.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 10-11
October 19, 1995

By Raymond E. Harris

1. A clear knowledge of Jesus as Savior. The unconverted church member can expect little success at winning others to Christ. You cannot interest others in serving a Savior you have never really served yourself. You can-not lead someone to where you have never been.

A clear knowledge of Jesus as Savior includes three things:

1. A knowledge of pardon through the blood of Jesus (2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Tim. 4:6-8).

2. Victory over sin through the risen Christ (Rom. 6:3-11, 23).

3. Absolute surrender to Christ as Lord (Rom. 6:17-22).

2. A firm conviction that every person who has not accepted and obeyed Jesus is lost. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost! His awareness of mankind’s lost condition drove him relentlessly onward. In like manner Paul admonished night and day with tears all who would hear him (Acts 20:26-32).

We too should be tireless in our efforts to snatch our contemporariesfrom the flames of hell. We will be-come active soul winners only if we are motivated by compassion for lost and dying individuals (Acts 17:16).

3. A practical knowledge of the Bible. The New Testament was given by God (1) to produce faith in Jesus Christ, (2) to convict man of his sin, and (3) to convey the terms of salvation.

For us to be fruitful personal workers we must know our Bibles and know how to use them to produce faith, conviction and conversion. Too often the zealous do not have the knowledge and the well informed say they do not have the time. Both should be ashamed! To hunger and thirst is to know; and to grow up spiritually is to have the time (Col. 4:6; 1 Pet. 3:15).

4. Love. Nothing wins like love. When we love lost souls enough to tell them of a loving Savior who died for them, souls will be saved! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The story of the gospel is that Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected to redeem mankind. Yes, the story of the gospel is the story of a loving Savior who loved us to the point of dying for each and every one. A heart filled with love will continue to tell of Jesus’ love (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

5. Self-Denial. Jesus said, “Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men” (Mark 1:17). Again he said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:34). If we are to be effectively useful in personal work or any other work for the Master, we must put away personal interest, our own comfort, ego, pride and personal feelings. Selfishness is by far the greatest enemy of personal work “Personal work” is submission to Christ for the welfare of others. Personal work will be thwarted and neutralized to the ex-tent that church members allow personal feelings and desires to supersede spiritual responsibility. Remember John warned, “Love not the world or the things of the world” (1 John 2:15).

6.Prayer. Here are some things for which we should pray: (1) The personal worker must pray for wisdom (James 1:5). We will need wisdom in every effort to lead others to Christ. No matter how well we know the Word, no matter how experienced we may become, we need the wisdom from above if we are to succeed. (2) We should pray for those we teach, that their hearts would be receptive to the word. (3) The prayer must be real, earnest and persistent.

7. Perseverance. A text that must sink deep into the personal worker’s heart is this: “Let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9). Soul winning requires great patience and perseverance. Yet, no work is more worthy of our endurance and steadfastness. Many think they are personal workers if they extend an invitation here, offer a word of encouragement there, and express sympathy somewhere else. Flitting about here and there with little spiritual pleasantries is not personal work and such will not really convert anyone. Personal work that truly converts will be a consistent work in a situation where the gospel is taught, discussed and learned. If after extensive work we feel that we have failed, we should show our perseverance by seeking another person to teach. And, if we fail again, we must have the strength and stead-fastness to seek out another and still another.

“In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening with-hold not thy hand, for thou knowest not which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good” (Eccl. 11:6). The successful personal worker is “at it, always at it.” He is on the watch for souls and always sowing the seed. God is calling all Christians to rouse up and go to work! Who will hear the call? A glorious reward awaits all who do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 1
November 2, 1995

By Mike Willis

We have been studying Romans 14 to see whether or not inherently sinful conduct is under discussion in this chapter. This chapter has be-come a battleground for fellowship. In every generation, those who have introduced things unauthorized have used Romans 14 to appeal for unity with those who oppose their unauthorized practices. The same appeal is being made today with reference to loose teaching on divorce and re-marriage. Some among us who believe the truth on divorce and remarriage are teaching that we can have fellowship with those who teach false doctrines on divorce and remarriage, and with those who receive into the fellowship of their local congregations brethren who are guilty of adultery (Matt. 19:9); they are appealing to Romans 14 to justify their looser fellowship.

So far in this series, I have shown that Romans 14 does not contain instructions that can be applied to sinful practices. We have shown that this is true by (a) refuting the alternative views on Romans 14 and (b) examining the textual evidences that point to the chapter being limited to authorized liberties. In this article, I intend to show that the instructions given in Romans 14 demonstrate that this chapter cannot be applied to matters inherently sinful.

The Instructions of Romans 14

1. Receive one another just like Christ has received you (14:1; 15:7). The word “receive” is translated fromproslambano which Thayer defines in the use of Romans 14:1 and 15:7 to mean “to receive, i.e., grant one access to one’s heart; to take into friendship and intercourse.” He continues, “God and Christ are said to proslabesthai (to have received) those whom, formerly estranged from them, they have reunited to themselves by the blessings of the gospel, Rom. xiv.3; xv.7” (548). The sense of the word is given in the modifying clause “as Christ also received us” (15:7). Christians are to receive one another just like Christ has received us (15:7). Whatever limitation one imposes on the meaning of “receive” with reference to brethren receiving one another (to make it mean something less than to “receive into one’s fellowship”) destroys itself on the phrase “as Christ has received us.” We are to receive one another just like Christ has received us.

Does Christ receive us so long as we are continuing the practice of our sin, defending it as an act of righteousness, and encouraging others to join us in the practice of our sin? If not, then we should not receive others who are doing those things. Does Christ “receive” us in the sense of treating us like a brother but less than “fellowshipping” us? If not, then this is not the sense of “receive” under discussion in Romans 14.

If Romans 14 “tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions” (as taught by Ed Harrell in Christianity Magazine [May 1990]), then our obligation according to Romans 14 is to receive those who are so teaching and practicing. That would apply to those who are involved in adulterous marriages as well as those who de-fend people in adulterous marriages by teaching that these marriages are scriptural. In this event those congregations that refuse fellowship to the brother who divorces his mate for any cause and marries another stand condemned as guilty of violating Romans 14:1, for not receiving one’s brother. However, Romans 14 cannot be limited to this sin alone. My second article demonstrated that those who have constructed a list to limit which sins Romans 14 includes have not logically sustained their position. Hence, logically the application of Romans 14 to any sinful practice leads to the conclusion that we receive those who continue in the practice of every sin. If this instruction cannot be applied to such sinful conduct, then sinful conduct must not be under discussion in the chapter.

2. Do not engage in doubtful disputations (14:1). The Amplified Bible reads, “but not to criticize his opinion or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with discussions.” The instructions of Romans 14 therefore teach one (a) not to criticize the conduct of the other and (b) not to become involved in discussions trying to prove one is right and the other is wrong. When we apply these instructions to matters inherently sinful, we have the ridiculous position that a Christian cannot criticize the conduct of the sinner and cannot enter a discussion with him to show him wherein his sin lies. If this is the case, Paul violated his own principles when he rebuked the Corinthian fornicator (1 Cor. 5) and entered into disputations with the false teachers at Galatia (Gal. 1-4). If this instruction cannot be applied to such sinful conduct, then sinful conduct must not be under discussion in the chapter.

3. Do not condemn (14:10,13). Paul asks, “But why dost thou judge (krino) thy brother? . . . Let us not therefore judge (krino) one another any more.” Thayer defines krino in this usage to mean “to pronounce judgment; to subject to censure.” Can these instructions be applied to matters inherently sinful? If so, a person who condemns his brother for drunkenness is acting in violation of Romans 14. He is “judging” (“pronouncing judgment; to subject to censure”) his brother and Romans 14 says, “Let us not therefore judge one another.” However, Paul would stand condemned as a hypocrite for violating his own principle in his “judging” those who went to law with one another before unbelievers (1 Cor. 6:1-8). If this instruction cannot be applied to those practicing such sin, then Romans 14 does not pertain to sinful conduct.

4. Do not set at nought your brother (14:3, 10). These verses read as follows: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. . . . But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” The word exoutheneo is translated “despise” (14:3) and “set at nought” (14:10). The word is defined by Thayer to mean “to make of no account, to despise utterly.” There are some who are to be treated like “a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17); there are some concerning whom Paul wrote, “with such a one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). These are brethren who persist in the practice of their sin. Did Paul violate his own teaching in Romans 14:3, 10 when he commanded brethren not to receive brethren involved in sin? If Romans 14 applies to things inherently sinful, he did. If the instructions of Romans 14:3, 10 do not apply to those continuing in their practice of those things inherently sinful, then Romans 14 does not include sinful conduct.

5. Do not put a stumbling block in front of another (14:13). Romans 14:13 says, “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” This makes perfectly good sense when applied to authorized liberties. Romans 14:13 is instructing the man who can eat meats without violating his conscience not to conduct himself in the exercise of his liberty in such a way as to encourage a man who cannot eat meats without violating his conscience to sin against his conscience. Try applying that to sinful conduct. On the one hand, let us assume that the “strong man” is the man who cannot commit fornication and the “weak man” is the one who commits fornication from a clear conscience. Then Paul is telling the man who abstains from fornication not to practice his abstinence in such a manner as to cause his brother to abstain from fornication. On the other hand, let us assume the “strong man” is the man who commits fornication without violating his conscience (Does anyone believe that Paul could call such a person a “strong” Christian?), and the “weak man” is the man who abstains (Is the man who abstains from fornication the weak man?). Then we have the absurd position that Paul is saying that one can commit his fornication so long as he does it in such a manner as not to cause his brother to stumble. If the instructions of Romans 14 do not fit such sinful conduct, then the context is not discussing sinful conduct and is limited to matters of authorized liberties.

6. Bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves (15:1). In Romans 15:1, Paul wrote, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” I can understand these instructions when they are applied to matters of authorized liberties. Paul is instructing the man who thinks he can eat meats to forego the exercise of his liberty for the sake of his weaker brother. He should not be so selfish in pleasing himself that he destroys his brother for whom Christ died for the sake of doing something that is a matter of indifference. Let us see if this instruction will fit sinful conduct. On the one hand, what is the result if we assume that the “stronger brother” is the one who does not believe that he should commit fornication and the “weaker brother” is the one who commits fornication without violating his conscience? In that case, Paul is instructing the stronger brother not to press his abstinence views to the point that he censures and condemns his weaker brother; he should bear with the infirmities of his weaker brother, accepting him in his practice of sin. On the other hand, we must consider the result if we assume that the “stronger brother” is the one who can commit fornication without violating his conscience (does anyone believe that Paul could call such a person a “strong” Christian?) and the “weak man” is the man who abstains (is the man who abstains from fornication the weak man?). In that case, we have the absurd position of Paul instructing that the strong man can commit fornication so long as he does not cause a brother to violate his conscience by following this example. If the instructions of Romans 14 do not fit such sinful conduct, then the context is not discussing sinful conduct and is limited to matters of authorized liberties.

7. Please one’s neighbor (15:2). In Romans 15:2, Paul instructs, “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.” That makes sense if one is applying this to matters of authorized liberty. In that case, Paul is teaching the principles by which he lived in 1 Corinthians 9. He relinquished his liberties in order to win more people for Christ. When we apply this to sinful conduct, we have the absurd position that one can practice his sin so long as he does it in such a way as not to destroy his brother. Hence, if he can practice his sin without enticing his brother to sin, he has God’s approval in continuing his sin. If the instructions of Romans 14 do not fit such sinful conduct, then the context is not discussing sinful conduct and is limited to matters of authorized liberties.

8. Keep it to yourself (14:22). In Romans 14:22, Paul wrote, “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” This passage is teaching the obligations one has in connection with his personal liberties. If a person chooses to eat meat, he should quietly practice what he wishes to do. He should not start a campaign to teach every other person in the congregation to act as he acts. The same is true for the one who chooses to abstain from meats. When we apply this to sinful conduct, we reach absurd conclusions. The man who believes he can commit fornication is then instructed to practice his fornication in such a manner as to keep his brother from being encouraged to violate his conscience by committing fornication. So long as he can commit his fornication without causing others to sin, Paul is saying, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the fornication which he alloweth.” On the other hand, if we assume the stronger brother is the one who abstains from fornication, Paul is saying, “Keep your belief that fornication is sinful to yourself. Don’t preach it and condemn your brother who practices fornication.” If the instructions of Romans 14 do not fit such sinful conduct, then the context is not discussing sinful conduct and is limited to matters of authorized liberties.

Conclusion

Those who apply Romans 14 to include sinful conduct gut the chapter of any relevant application. After teaching that Romans 14 includes sinful conduct, they are unwilling to abide by the instructions given in the chapter about how to treat those practicing the sinful conduct they say is under discussion. By their unwillingness to apply the principles of Romans 14, they give silent testimony that Romans 14 does not apply to sinful conduct. The instructions of Romans 14 make good sense when they are applied to matters of authorized liberties (things God allows but does not demand). These are the only matters under discussion in Romans 14.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 2
November 2, 1995