Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

The doctor, looking at the routine test results, announces to the patient, “Hey, man, give me five. Have I got good news for you? Your blood pleasure is super. Your pulse rate is fantastic. And, man, what a fabulous gall bladder. It is beautiful to behold. You are in marvelous shape.”

Now the patient really feels good about himself. In fact, it confirmed what he had thought all along  there was nothing wrong with him. He only went in to satisfy his wife. She is one of those health nuts that thinks one should have a periodic checkup even when he is feeling good about himself.

Then the doctor says, “Sit down, I want to tell some really good news about our treatment plan for folks like you  you will love it and hardly feel a pain  I tell you it is sensational.”

The patient asks, “Treatment for what, Doc?” “You just said I was in great shape.”

“Well, you are, or at least we believe you need to think you are (haven’t you ever heard of Positive Mental Attitude), but everyone needs a treatment plan,” replies the doctor.

“How much is this going to cost me, Doc?”

“You don’t need to concern yourself about the cost now, I will explain that to you a bit at a time while you are recovering from the initial surgery.”

“From initial  what?”

“Initial surgery for that nice tumor that I think you may have  isn’t that super! Can you say `super’?”

“To tell you the truth, Doc, `swell’ is about the best I can do until I find out what will happen if I don’t have surgery. What will likely happen?”

“Do I detect that you are beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable about your-self? I was afraid of that. We can’t have that!”

“But, Doc, why didn’t you tell me to start with that I had a tumor and needed an operation?”

“What kind of doctor do you think I am? I am of the new school that tells patients how well they are, rather than that old negative school that tells folks how sick they are. How can I claim to be a `good news’ doctor if I keep telling folks the `bad news’ about their health and what all it is going to take for them to get well?”

“Doc, I think news about the surgery and its cost would have been `good news’ to me had you honestly told me first, with convincing evidence, the `bad news’ about my illness.”

The Doctor Is The Preacher

The above fictional doctor’s approach parallels a growing approach to preaching among us. One who sees no flaw in the doctor’s approach will likely see no flaw in this new style of preaching.

The idea that we can help sinners without first convicting them of sin is both unscriptural and illogical. The first order of business of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles was to “convict the world of sin” (John 16:8). As they went forth preaching under the direct guidance of the Spirit, they first convicted men and women of their sins; then they gave them the good news about how to be saved from sin.

Notice the order in Acts 2. Peter first convicted them of their sin by plainly pointing out, with ample evidence, that the One they had rejected and crucified was the Christ of prophecy. He concluded “that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” That made them rather uncomfortable about themselves. It even cut them to the heart. They asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37) They were now ready for the good news. There was a way out of their sinful condition (v.38). They gladly did what they were told to do (v. 41).

Of course, they were not made to feel bad about themselves and left hanging. They were given good news of the way out of their sinful and lost state. They would not have been ready for the good news until they no longer felt good about having crucified Jesus. As long as they felt that they were innocent of wrong doing they would have felt no need for the gospel. They would have not considered it good news.

Once men and women are faced with the guilt and consequences of their sins when they understand that they are lost and hell bound, then the news of the gospel plan of salvation indeed becomes great news. It is good news even when they understand that discipleship involves effort, hard-ships and sacrifices.

No, we are not saying that every sermon or every article or every class lesson must be to convict one of sin. There are other purposes in preaching and teaching. But, there is entirely too much emphasis in today’s preaching upon trying to make people feel good about themselves rather than convicting them of sin. Too much psychology and not enough gospel in lessonsdirected to those in and out of the church. A preacher friend recently told me about hearing a young visiting preacher preach an entire sermon on “the grace of God” without even mentioning the plan of salvation. A few years ago I stopped at a place on a Sunday night and heard a sermon on “the new birth” without baptism being mentioned  much less showing that people needed it and urging them to do it. There is less and less emphasis upon what we must leave behind and what is involved in being saved from sin and condemnation.

The world hasn’t changed so much since the first century that it does not need convicting of sin. The church has not changed so much that there are no brethren who need convicting of sin. The word of God has not changed so much that it is not still designed to make us see what manner of men we are  prompting us to do something about it (cf. Jas. 1:25).

If our preaching makes one still in his sins feel good about himself then we have done him an injustice. It is like-wise an injustice to make one think that salvation and discipleship are without cost. But once one understands the gravity of his sinful condition and the rewards of salvation, he will eagerly accept the cost of obeying the Lord. The gospel, with all its conditions, tribulations, and blessings will indeed be good news to him, because he has fully understood the bad news of his condemnation.

It is time that we quit trying to spare the sinner the pain of honestly facing the reality of his condemnation; so that we might introduce him to the glorious relief in the gospel of Christ. It is time that we quit trying to make disciples of Christ without painful decisions having to be made. Repentance is not painless. It is prompted by godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:9,10).

When one obeys the gospel there are sinful pleasures that must be sacrificed. There are often beloved, hindering relationships that must be severed. When preachers preach and people understand the whole picture, the Lord will be pleased and souls will be saved. When one understands the profitableness of godliness for the life that now is and that which is to come (cf. 1 Tim. 4:8), he will gladly count the cost worth it all. But one can hardly understand and appreciate the profitableness of godliness until he understands the unprofitableness of ungodliness.

Maybe we need to be more concerned that our preaching be profitable rather than painless.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 2-3
October 19, 1995

By Irvin Himmel

Deconsecration

In 1839 a brick meeting house was erected in Mooresville, Alabama, in southern Limestone County. In the course of its long history it was used by the Cumberland Presbyterians, the Baptists, and the Methodists.

Several months ago the old brick church building was sold for use as a community building. A newspaper story reported that the Methodists had a service to “deconsecrate” the building.

To “consecrate” is to set apart, make holy, or dedicate to the service of God. That word appears a number of times in the Bible. To “deconsecrate” means the opposite. That word is not used in Scripture.

I do not know how the Methodists went about “deconsecrating” a building which had been sitting idle for many years. They seem to have a ritual that fits whatever the occasion may invite.

This much I do know. Many who have obeyed the gospel of Christ have “deconsecrated” themselves. By their actions they have made themselves unholy. Since being baptized into Christ, they have returned to the world. They have removed the sacred character of the calling which they formerly heeded. Some of these remind one of the dog that returned to its vomit. Others have departed from the truth and chased after religious error. It takes no spe-cial ceremony to “deconsecrate” one’s life. And a life has far more value than a material building.

It Might Have Been

Young people, choose your companion for life with prayerful thought and wisdom. Do not be guided only by outward appearance or emotions. If you marry the wrong kind of person, there will be deep regrets and far-reaching consequences. Many years from now you will look back and think what might have been.

Parents, do your very best to bring up your sons and daughters to fear and obey God. Teach them by your godly example. If you do not, they will disappoint you, and you will be haunted by what might have been.

Sinner, stop lingering and obey the gospel. Surrender your stubborn will to the Lord. Time is slipping by rap-idly. Do not wait too long and then with bitter pain remember what might have been.

Christian, be faithful, diligent, and zealous. Grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord. Do not allow pressures and problems, disappointments and discouragements to deter you. Never grow weary in well doing. You be-come unfaithful, you will forfeit your right to the tree of life.

“Of all sad words of tongue or pen,

The saddest are these: It might have been!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 19
October 5, 1995

By Mike Willis

This article proposes to examine the two arguments used to prove that Romans 14 includes sinful practices and then present positive material to demonstrate that the chapter is discussing only matters of authorized liberty.

1. Does Romans 14:4-5 Refer to Sinful Conduct?

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every dayalike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The argument is made that observing days in Romans 14:4-5 is sinful conduct. Romans 14:4-5 is tied with Galatians 4:10-11 to reach the conclusion that the conduct under discussion in this passage is sinful conduct. Galatians 4:10-11 reads as follows: “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” The point is made that “observing the day” was sinful conduct.

The options for understanding this verses include the following: (a) The individual may have kept the Jewish days as a matter of custom with or without regard to its having religious significance; (b) The individual may have kept the day as obedience to a divine command for all men to observe it.

The New Testament shows evidence of non-binding observance of days by those who were Pharisees. In Jesus’ parable about prayer, he referred to a Pharisee who fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12). This fasting “was in pursuance of the custom of some `more righteous than the rest,’ who, as previously explained, fasted on the second and fifth days of the week (Mondays and Thursdays)” (Edersheim, The Life of Christ II:291). The disciples of John fasted frequently (Luke 5:33). Jesus did not forbid the observance of these days of fasting as sinful (contrast this with the teaching of Matt. 15:3-9), but only taught those who chose to fast not to do their “righteousness” to be seen of men (Matt. 6:16). Here is an ex-ample of Jewish observance of days over and above what the Law of Moses mandated. The motive of the Pharisees was to be “more righteous than the rest.” This practice of the Pharisees fits the context of Romans 14 very well. This is the reason that the ones observing the days were setting at nought and condemning those who chose not to observe days. This understanding of the text certainly meets the circumstances required by the context under discussion.

Furthermore, early Jewish Christians continued to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath day; frequently, Paul went there to teach (Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). Apparently, some of them attended Pentecost (Acts 20:16). In his commentary on Romans, F. Godet says, “The days are those of the Jewish feasts, which Judeo-Christians continued for the most part to observe: Sabbaths, new moons, etc. (Col. ii.15)” (456). Based on these Scriptures, we conclude that their conduct was not inherently sinful.

There is nothing in the reference to observing days that necessitates that sinful conduct is under consideration in this text. Whatever day is under consideration is one that a person can “regard to the Lord.” H.A.W. Meyer is certainly correct in saying, “For anything that is opposed to Christ the Christian cannot thank the Father of Christ” (512). Alford is correct in this observation: “He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days, with the eating and abstaining from particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute indifference in themselves” (II:452).

2. “He Stands or Falls”

Some brethren also think that there is evidence that sinful conduct is under consideration in the statement in Romans 14:4  “to his own master he standeth or falleth.” The argument is made that the reference to “falleth” is an indication that the person is guilty of sinful conduct.

Keep in mind that “standing or falling” is used with reference to eating meats, prior to the mention of observing days. If one is going to distinguish eating meats (a matter of indifference) from observing days (a sinful activity), he must tie “stand or fall” to observing days for it to have any relevance. But the reference to “standing and falling” has application to the conduct of eating meats, a matter of in-difference, as is admitted by all. Here are the verses: “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. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:3-4). What the verse is teaching is this: The meat eater should not judge his brother who chooses not to eat meat (and vice versa), because he answers to his own master. His master is the one who accepts or rejects him.

This general truth, “to his own master he standeth or falleth,” does not state that either the meat eater or the vegetarian stands or falls. Neither eating meats nor abstaining from meats is inherently sinful conduct. To read into this statement that one or the other conduct is sinful is to abuse the text. The next statement confirms that this is so, for it says, “Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” That simply is not true about sinful conduct. God does not and shall not hold up a man involved in sinful conduct  not presently and not in eternity.

One can see how Calvinists who deny the possibility of apostasy would argue from this verse that, in the judgment, God will uphold Christians involved in sin. I do not see how one can avoid the Calvinist’s conclusion if he asserts that what is under discussion is sinful conduct. To avoid the Calvinist’s conclusion, one must insert, without any con-textual reason for so doing, the condition that the person must cease his sinful practice and repent of it in order “to stand.” This makes the passage teach that the man must quit observing his unlawful days in order to be received by Christ. If one can insert “if he repents of his sin” in order for the brother practicing his sin to be received by Christ, the same reasons would require that “if his repents of his sin” be inserted before he is received by his brethren. The text says “God has received him” and that we are to receive one another as “Christ has received us.” Both texts emphasize that the person is presently in the fellowship of Christ and, therefore, should be received into our fellowship. If the text is applied to sinful conduct, we have two logically tied conclusions: (a) We should receive the practicing sinner in our fellowship and (b) Christ receives him into his fellowship.

The Internal Evidence

There are a number of statements in Romans 14 that confirm that the context of this chapter is limited to matters not involving sin. Please consider each of the following:

1. God has received the one under consideration (14:3). This is not describing one whom God received when he was baptized and who now stands condemned before God be-cause of some sin in his life. Rather, it is talking about a person whom God presently receives while he continues in the practice of eating meats and observing days.

2. God will make this man stand (14:4). The man to be received by his brother is one that God will make to stand on judgment day. Does that fit the man who is committing sin?

3. The conduct is acceptable if it is done with a clean conscience (14:5). Could this be said about sinful practices?

4. The matter practiced can be done “to the Lord” (14:6). How can sinful conduct be offered “to the Lord”?

5. The matter under discussion is not unclean (14:14). The conduct is only unclean to the man who thinks it is unclean. Such cannot be said about things inherently sinful, such as adultery.

6. The conduct is described as “good” (14:16). “Let not your good be evil spoken of ” has application only to things not sinful. Things inherently sinful cannot be de-scribed as “good.”

7. The conduct can be done in service to Christ (14:18). The description of the brother as one who “in these things serveth Christ” cannot fit those practicing things inherently sinful.

8. The conduct is “acceptable to God” (14:18). Not only is this conduct done in service to Christ, but it also is “acceptable to God.” Could this be said about things inherently sinful?

9. The conduct is “pure” (14:20). The conduct under discussion in Romans 14 falls into that category of things called “pure.” Could sinful conduct ever be so described?

10. The conduct is acceptable so long as it is practiced with a clear conscience (14:22-23). Could this be said about things inherently sinful?

These contextual evidences lead us to the conclusion that Romans 14 is discussing matters of authorized liberty (indifference). This chapter applies to things that fit the description given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:8  “for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”

The Commentaries

These same contextual reasons lead many commentators to the same conclusion: that the context of Romans 14 is limited to matters of indifference.

Lenski opens his discussion by saying, “Justification by faith enables the Christian to take the correct view of all adiaphora (indifference, mw)” (811). He repeatedly applies the text to the “overly scrupulous,” distinguishing them from the Judaizers who confused the law and gospel (812).

F. Godet limits this discussion to areas in which “no Christian principle was seriously compromised” (454), practices “in which the two opposite lines of conduct may also be followed with equal fidelity” (456), “two lines of con-duct are equally admissible” (456), and “the two different ways of acting with a seal of equal holiness” (457).

Sanday and Headlam (ICC): “The Apostle now passes on to a further point; the proper attitude to adopt toward matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples” (384).

Alford: “He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days, with the eating and abstaining from particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute indifference in them-selves” (II:452).

In addition to these comments by denominational authors, consider the following from works prepared by brethren:

Whiteside: “In Paul’s discussion of these matters of opinion, the Lord’s appointments are not included. The Lord has set apart the Lord’s day for worship; its observance is therefore not a matter of opinion or indifference” (on 14:5-6, pp. 268-269).

Vinson: “To receive is to recognize one as a brother, embrace him as such, and therefore, to fully fellowship him as a brother. It allows no partial reception but enjoins a full recognition and acceptance of him. But in so receiving him, this is not to be extended with the object of disputing and reasoning on opinions, and thus implicitly to accept him on the grounds of his accepting the reasonings and opinions of the strong. He is to be accepted as he is with his scruples. Now, if it was a matter of faith and authorized duty, instead of being one of opinion and therefore a matter of indifference, such a qualification would not be proper” (261).

Grubbs: The title of this sub-division is this: “Inculcation of Christian Freedom and Fraternal Tolerance As to Matters of Opinion” (154).

Lard: “It is pre-eminently a chapter as to duties in regard to things indifferent in themselves” (412).

McGarvey: “This section is, as Lard remarks, ‘pre-eminently a chapter as to duties in regard to things indifferent in themselves.’ For things not indifferent there is another rule (Gal. 1:6-10; 2)” (523).

Conclusion

We are on solid exegetical ground in concluding that Romans 14 is limited in its application to matters of indifference. We have, therefore, defended the proposition that Romans 14 does not include things inherently sinful. We still have to list the various instructions given in Romans 14 which also confirm that this chapter is limited in application to matters indifferent.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 20, p. 2
October 19, 1995

By Donnie V. Rader

Dealing with others is not always easy. What should I say? How much should I believe of what I hear? Is there another side to the story I’ve been told? Am I being fair in my dealings with others? These and other questions must be answered.

When we deal with others there is always the potential for differences to arise. When those differences come it is easy to forget to use some common sense rules in our conflict. We are not always as fair in dealing with those we disagree with as we are in defending ourselves or those with whom agree.

For some time I have been thinking about how brethren treat one another. I have thought about how many problems are simple misunderstandings. It seems to me that we are not always as careful as we ought to be. As I have thought and talked with others, some basic rules come to mind that we ought to follow.

1. Pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). If there is any time we need wisdom it is when we deal with those with whom we disagree. Let us pray that we may have the wisdom to know: (a) how to approach others, (b) what we should say and what we should not reveal, (c) what I should believe and what I should reject of what I hear, (d) the good that is in other people, and (e) how slow or fast I need to be in my conclusions.

2. Be careful what you say. Any of us could easily get carried away and say things that we would later wish had not been said. The proverb writer said, “He who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov. 10:19). We must be careful what we say to and about others. It may be information that others have told us in confidence. It may be that the one to whom we give the information may not honor our request to keep it confidential. Let us be “slow to speak” (Jas. 1:19) knowing that “a tale bearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Prov. 11:13). We don’t have to tell all we know. “A fool vents all his feelings, But a wise man holds them back” (Prov. 29:11).

We must be careful how we choose our words. Let’s make sure we are conveying the right idea. If we are not cautious, our words can be like the “piercing of a sword” (Prov. 12:18). We must watch what we say and how we say it. Remember, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1).

Let us also be careful lest we say something detrimental to others. “The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor” (Prov. 11:9; cf. v. 13; 20:19). It is possible that I could be telling things about others when I don’t have all the facts. What I say could destroy the name and reputation of others.

3. There are two sides to the story. In some situations there is some fault on both sides. Thus, both of the parties at odds have some legitimate points. However, there are some situations where the two sides are the right side and the wrong side. Still, there are two sides.

The questions I must ask myself are: Am I listening to and believing the wrong side? Am I taking the wrong side? Have I considered the other side of the story? There may be more that I need to know before I draw my conclusions and state them. The proverb writer said, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). Whoever tells his side first makes it sound good.

4. Don’t jump to conclusions. Too often we take a little information and fill in more gaps than are there. We can easily assume motives that we have no way of knowing. I wonder how often our talk and criticism about others would change if we deleted everything but the real facts that we know.

The proverb writer warned, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18:13). Let us not be hasty in our words (Prov. 29:20).

5. Give others the benefit the of the doubt. Love “believes all things” (1 Cor. 13). It gives a person the benefit of the doubt. That means when a questionable situation arises where you could put more than one construction on it, believe the best. When a problem arises and you can put either a good or bad motive on it  believe the best. After all, don’t you want others to do that with you (Matt. 7:12)?

Yes, these rules are simple. But, with a little application we can avoid a lot of friction and misunderstanding.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 19, p. 14
October 5, 1995