Truth Magazine

By Jim McDonald

The Broad Street church of Christ here in Mineola, Texas has just conducted a “Seminar” on “Managing Your Money.” Four more seminars are planned by the church for the rest of 1991: “Helping Our Parents as They Grow Older”; “Self-Esteem for Children and Parents”; “Drugs and Alcohol Abuse” and “Coping with Teens/Parenting Skills.”

The social gospel is a concept that emphasizes the “whole man” and caters to his “social needs.” Such is concerned with the “now world” and while denominations for nearly three-quarters of a century have occupied themselves with such; churches of Christ for years past regarded such to be wholly without the scope of the mission of the Lord’s church. Great changes have occurred in “brotherhood” thinking in the past three or four decades, however. An epidemic of the “social gospel fever” has a affected most congregations and brethren.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if Peter on Pentecost, or Paul in Antioch, Corinth or Ephesus would have conducted a two or three day seminar teaching folk in their day on subjects like: “Biblical Basics for Financial Management”; “Your Checkbook Speaks”; “How to Make a Million”; “I Owe, I Owe, So Off to Work I Go”; “Successful Financial Planning”; “Mom, Dad, the Kids and Their Money.” The only reference to Christ in the complete brochure appears in the term: “church of Christ.” Not one reference is made either to the gospel of Christ, his death, his resurrection, nor the salvation he offers to a troubled world. Nothing! And yet, money that was supposedly given to further the cause of Christ and the work of his blessed church will be spent for such seminars as these.

We grieve that men, who of all men ought to know better, have turned aside from emphasizing the gospel and are rushing headlong into the preaching and practicing of the social gospel. It pleases me not to publicly call attention to the apostasy that is present among us, but we want all to know that although simple Bible preaching and strict adherence to the work of Christ’s church is not popular with the world nor even with the bulk of our brethren, we neither endorse nor wish to be mistakenly identified with churches of Christ who have abandoned the plea, “let us speak where the Bible speaks, let us be silent where it is silent. Let us call Bible things by Bible names and let us do Bible things in Bible ways.” We are fully committed to the principle that we will speak as the oracles of God, persuaded that faithfulness to Christ allows us to pursue no other course.

It does not disturb me that we are in the minority. So were Noah, Abraham, Enoch, Daniel, the Hebrew children Gideon and the apostles. What matters is that we abide in the doctrine of Christ knowing that if we do that we can confidently say: “If God be for us, who can be against us?”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, p. 303
May 16, 1991

By Bobby Holmes

Not long ago I was talking with one of the elders of the large, “liberal” church of Christ in the city of Duncanville, Texas where I live. I was inviting him to be in attendance at the “Dallas, Texas” meeting, in July of last year. (This was a meeting that was made up of several speakers from “both sides” of the “liberal” churches and the “conservative” churches and conducted July 12-14, 1990. This elder acknowledged that the church where he served did indeed have a gym and that they used it. In fact, he said, “We use it a lot. ” He went on to say that he could not understand why people referred to them as “liberals.” I believe that he was honest in his statement and thus the purpose of this article. I intend to try to set up some studies with him personally on the subject, but for now I would like to address the subject that the title of this article suggests.

According to Webster, the definition of “liberal” is as follows: 4. Not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict (i.e. a liberal interpretation of the Bible). 5. Tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-meaning; specify, not orthodox or conventional. 7. Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc. ” With these thoughts in mind, let us look into the word of God and notice some examples of some that were, indeed, liberal according to the true definition.

The first one we take note of is King Saul as recorded in 1 Samuel 15. God had directed him to “utterly destroy all that they have. . . ” including old and young of both animal and human alike (v. 3). It is obvious that Saul fell into the category of the definition of “liberal” when we look again at it as given by Webster. Saul did not restrict himself to “the literal meaning” of what God had said or restrict himself to “the literal meaning” of what God had said. He was “broad-minded” in his views concerning God’s directive. He stated in verse 13, “And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed (be) thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord. ” Saul did not feel compelled to do exactly as God had directed. After all, would not the animals he brought back be used as sacrifices unto God? (Read the entire account 1 Sam. 15:1-35.) Samuel’s bottom line reply to Saul is noted in verses 22-23. “And Samuelsaid, Hath the Lord (as great) delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey (is) better than sacrifice, (and) to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion (is as) the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness (is as) iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from (being) king.” It is clear to see that Saul had become “liberal” and the curse that came on him as the result of his actions.

The next one we note is the example of Nadab and Abilm, recorded in Leviticus 10:1-7. They had clear instructions concerning the source of the fire (Lev. 16:12). They became “liberal” in their thinking. They “reasoned” that as long as they got the job done, what difference did it make where they got the fire. They didn’t take the word of the Lord to be “literal” in its meaning. (Note again the full definition of “liberal” according to the dictionary and you will see that it fits them perfectly. There are many, many more we could give as examples, but space does not permit.)

Let us notice some avenues into “liberalism.”

A. A wrong attitude toward the Bible. Evidence of this is seen in the expression of some that say, “We don’t need Scripture for everything we do. ” However, if we really believe God’s word to be just that, God’s word, we will take heed to the things he tells us. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, (do) all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). (Note also 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Matt. 17:-15; 28:18; Lk. 6:46; Jn. 12:48). These Scriptures prove we must have a “thus saith the Lord” for everything we do in religion. To be otherwise, one becomes “liberal” in the real meaning of the word.

B. A wrong attitude toward the church. Many cry for the church to provide recreation for the youth (and older people too), but, the Lord’s church is not social in nature. Jesus did not die on the cruel cross of calvary so that people might be provided recreation and all manner of social activities, but that souls can be saved (1 Tim. 3:14-15). “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Christians need to learn this valuable lesson. The church is to be the “pillar and ground of the truth.” That is spiritual in nature. If you are a member of a church that has within its budget, the funding of social activities out of the treasury, you need to ask the leaders of that church where is the Bible authority for it. I’ll state again what I have preached for some thirty-seven years now. With what one is converted, that is what he is converted to. If one is converted with the social gospel (fun, food, and frolic), then that is what he is converted to. Take that away and you lose him. On the other hand, if one is converted with the gospel, he is converted to the gospel and to the Lord and nothing will change that fact. People that are converted with a “soda pop and sandwich ” have to be kept with “candy bars and ice cream. ” (Read also Eph. 3:8-11,21.) The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a divine institution, purchased with the precious blood of Jesus and those who try to turn it into a social thing have a materialistic view of that which is spiritual and are “liberal.”

C. A wrong attitude toward worship. Some churches have “children’s church” in which they “practice” taking the Lord’s supper. This is supposed to have them educated so that when they become “Christians, ” they will “know how it is done.” Many times I hear of churches celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, etc. in their worship services. Where does this fit into God’s plan for spiritual things in worship? Some are bringing in their choirs that are simply forms of entertainment in song. Again I ask, where is the authority? These are but a few things that answer the question, “Liberal, What Does That Mean?” Let us take heed to 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove our own selves. . .

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 302-303
May 16, 1991

By Ricky Floyd

“The days of our years are three score years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength, labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psa. 90:10). “For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” (Jas. 4:14).

These quotations from the Old Testament and the New bring sharply into focus the brevity of human life. No man can read such words with any degree of comprehension without realizing how swift and how certain is the approach of death for everyone of us. All our earthly hopes and ambitions, our plans, our dreams, and fondest expectations will finally come to rest beneath a little mound of dirt over which the green grass will grow for centuries after we have returned to the elements. How futile and how silly to think we can build anything that will endure on this earth!

I found the above paragraph in an article written several years ago, and yet as I read it I could not help but notice how it characterized my friend and brother in the Lord who was taken from this life. Wayne Francis was, in every sense of the word, a plain man, a man who was down-to-earth and who knew of the futility of life. Wayne Francis was a man of faith. I would like to dedicate this article to Wayne and his family.

I met Wayne in 1983 after relocating from Columbia to Murfreesboro. We attended church services together and although I had met him I did not really get acquainted with him until 1985 when I had an aneurysm that would allow Wayne and me to become the best of friends. After my surgery this man spent hours of time calling me on the phone and giving words of encouragement. While recovering from my illness I would go visit him at work or go on an errand with him, the whole time talking of things of spiritual value. Our lives, those of my family and me, was made more bearable the next several months mainly by this man’s concern for others. I would like to tell of some of the things that made Wayne Francis what he was.

Faith and love for God. Wayne was a man who had an unfeigned love and zeal for the Lord and was a faithful member of the body of Christ for many years. He served as a deacon for the University Heights church and always participated in Bible classes and every phase and function of the local church. Wayne spent much time and used his talents in preparation of Bible class materials that still are used by the brethren in Murfreesboro. This writer has several of the study texts that were put together on a number of the Old Testament books that meant a great deal to me then, and will mean even more to me now than ever since my brother is gone.

Love for his family. Wayne was a devoted husband and father. One of the first comments I heard about him was how he loved his wife, Janette. I visited with this family many times and was always welcomed and knew that I was among friends. Wayne and Janette were blessed with two children, Rebekah and Terry, who are in the Lord’s church because of the influence that surrounded them all their lives. I recall sitting at home one evening when the phone began to ring. Terry wanted to be baptized into Christ and Wayne wanted me and another friend to be with them at this special time in their lives and in the life of Terry. Rebekah is today attending Florida College and is a very fine Christian lady. Wayne was devoted to his wife and children but he continued to remember his mother, a widow, and Janette’s parents. Their activities for the day included checking on all of the family. When Wayne and Janette found out that they were going to relocate, Mrs. Francis and the Ralphs (Janette’s parents), sold their respective houses and moved to Elizabethton also. Thus we see how our brother was committed to his family.

His love for his fellow man. This world has lost a friend in that Wayne was always interested in people. I recall his attitude in wanting to set the proper example. He always was concerned that he was not doing enough and realized the influence he had on those about him. We had many conversations of concern over those who were outside the body of Christ, or those within the church who were not living as they should. Thus, we see this man of God, who had his shortcomings and peculiarities, but a man who stood by his convictions, and had a trusting confidence in the Savior. He loved God, his family and his fellow man.

When I arrived at the funeral home on Sunday afternoon I saw brethren from so many different congregations. They had services on Saturday in the town where Wayne was living and I am confident that the same love and concern was expressed to the family there. In the Revelation letter John writes, “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them” (Rev. 14:13). Wayne was fifty-one years old, a man with much life left to live. His works are following him today as so many feel the sadness and loneliness without him. We pray for his family and hope that as Wayne reached out to others, we will incorporate into our lives that same compassion. A large crowd attended the memorial service in Elizabethton, TN the afternoon of February 9. Congregational singing was led by Greg Nelson, and Tom Wheeler spoke words of comfort and encouragement. Bob Buchanon spoke beautiful comforting words at the short graveside service February 11. Wayne’s body was laid to rest near Gamaliel, Kentucky, approximately 40 miles from Dixon Springs. I rode to the funeral home reminiscing about all of the good times and bad that we struggled through. It has been some time since I had talked to Wayne. Sheila and I had planned many times to call them and see how things were going for them. Let us live everyday upon this earth in the realization that today could be the last here for us, or those that we love. If we would do so, I am confident that we would all spend more time encouraging one another and expressing to one another our love that we have.

To you who are not a Christian we urge you to recognize the shortness of this life and the promise of the judgment day. I close with Paul’s words to the Thessalonians, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which have died, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them which die in Jesus will God bring with him” (1 Thess. 4:13-14).

Wayne and Janette knew Christians everywhere. Their home was a great example of what a hospitable home should be. Wayne was killed instantly in a car wreck. Janette and the children can still use words of friendship and encouragement. You may contact Janette at Rt. 11, Box 430, Elizabethton, TN 37643. Phone 615-543-7661.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 10, pp. 308-309
May 16, 1991

By Mike Willis

The subject of the fellowship of the saints has become a matter of serious discussion in the last several decades. The ecumenical movement in denominationalism, the unity-in-diversity movement (based on the gospel/doctrine distinction) practiced by the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals, and the unity movement of Ketcherside/Garrett among our own brethren have influenced several gospel preachers among us to teach loose principles of unity. In the last two decades several among us have been hopelessly lost to the gospel of Christ because they have adopted these loose views of fellowship which allow doctrinal and moral disagreements (matters of “the faith,” Jude 3) to be matters on which we can have unity-in-diversity.

That doctrine has reared its head again among us. Some have made application of the same principle on the issue of divorce and remarriage. The consequences of this unity-in-diversity plea are serious. If unity-in-diversity can be practiced on one matter of “the faith,” it can be practiced on all matters of “the faith.” In defending unity-in-diversity, some are teaching that we should determine the bounds of Christian fellowship on these bases: (a) the clarity of the Scripture; (b) the honesty of the individual; (c) the gravity of the issue; (d) community standards of decency. Let us examine whether or not these principles will meet the demands of Scripture.

The Clarity of Scripture

The test for determining whether or not a particular matter is made a test of fellowship is said to be the clarity with which a matter is presented in the Scriptures. If the matter of “the faith” taught in the Scripture is clear, it should be made a test of fellowship. This approach has these weaknesses:

1. Who shall determine the degree of clarity with which a matter is presented? Unless we can agree on the degree of clarity with which a matter is presented, the test is worthless! Should we begin listing the matters on which biblical scholars are disagreed, we might conclude that nothing is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. Hence, this test is weak because there is no appointed standard to use in judging which matters are clearly revealed and which are not. It reduces the subject of fellowship to every man’s subjective judgment.

2. Some matters which are clearly revealed are specifically forbidden to be made tests of fellowship (Rom. 14:1-15:7). Whether or not to eat meats and whether or not to set aside a specific day as holy were matters which were expressly forbidden to be made tests of fellowship. The teaching about the subject is clear, but these matters cannot be made tests of fellowship.

3. This approach makes man a “Judge” of God’s law (Jas. 4:11). For man to sit in judgment of God to state which matters he clearly revealed betrays a subtle arrogance which borders on blasphemy. Who shall charge God with lack of clarity in revealing any part of his will for our salvation? We believe the Bible is inspired of God and fitted to man’s needs exactly as it came from his hand. Who am I to charge that God did not clearly reveal his will to man?

Honesty

Another test that has been used to determine the bounds of Christian fellowship is to pass judgment on a man’s honesty. While one sometimes has sufficient evidence to determine whether or not a man is honest, he certainly cannot extend the “right hands of fellowship” to every good, honest and sincere man (Gal. 2:9). The Lord has not given man the ability to judge the integrity of another man’s heart. Paul wrote, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11) Though we admit that dishonesty is sinful and can become one reason for breaking fellowship, being honest is not sufficient grounds to bring one into or to maintain fellowship. To make the criterion for determining the bounds of fellowship to be a man’s assessment of another man’s integrity makes determining the bounds of fellowship impossible for the simple reason that no one can judge another man’s heart. If I must extend fellowship to a man who sincerely believes that Jesus is not come in the flesh, the teachings of 1 John 4:3 are flawed. There John wrote, “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. ” Those who do not confess Christ are not of God, regardless of whether or not they are honest. The Gnostics, even the good, honest and sincere ones, could not be fellowshipped.

Consider the logical consequences of using this criterion for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship. A Christian would be compelled to extend fellowship to those who distort the mission of the church by involving the church in recreation, the worship of the church by introducing instrumental music, the organization of the church by the sponsoring church arrangement, and any other apostasy, unless he could verify the teacher and/or his disciple was dishonest. And why stop at the boundary of the “restoration movement”? He also would be logically compelled to accept those good, honest and sincere Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics on the same grounds and for the same reason.

Gravity of the Issue

Another test for the bounds of Christian fellowship is the gravity of the issue. How serious is the matter? This test is weak for many of the same reasons already cited.

1. Who determines what issues are of serious gravity? Unless we have some criteria for determining what issues are of grave importance and what issues are trivial, or unless we appoint some man or group of men to pass that judgment for us, the test is worthless. Every man becomes his own law; every individual decides for himself what is of serious consequences and what is not.

2. This test makes man a judge of the Law of God (Jas. 4:11). The Christian is required to sit in judgment of God’s law to determine which matters are serious violations and which are not. The result of this approach will be a division of the Bible’s commands into two groups – “gospel” and “doctrine, ” although the specific names applied to the two groups might be different. Man is unqualified to pass judgment on which violations of God’s laws are serious offences and which are not. Man’s assessment is limited, since man is unable to see the end from the beginning. How many could assess where the first step of apostasy might lead as sin develops?

3. This test leads to venial and mortal categories of sin. Some transgressions of the law of God will be judged as trivial and unimportant while others will be judged to be serious, making one in danger of eternal damnation. This will result in mortal/venial categories of sin, regardless of the names by which they are called.

Community Standards of Decency

Based on a misuse of 1 Corinthians 5, some have suggested that moral aberrations which break the fellowship of the saints should be limited to those areas which are condemned by the community. Notice what the passage teaches:

It is reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife (5:1).

From this passage we learn these truths: (a) There was a kind of “fornication” which would not have shocked the Gentiles. Nevertheless, this kind of fornication was also equally condemned and barred one from entrance into heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-20; Gal. 5:19-21). The local church could not fellowship these fornicators which the Gentile world would have accepted (1 Cor. 5:9-13). (b) The Gentile community would not have been shocked had this man taken his neighbor’s, fellow Christian’s, or some stranger’s wife. Nevertheless, this sin would have been in violation of the will of Christ (Matt. 19:9). This passage is not teaching that only those matters of immorality disapproved by the community can become matters of withdrawal of fellowship. If this should be done, the following results would occur:

1. The world’s standard would become the standard for the church. Rather than the church transforming the society in which its members lived (Rom. 12:1-2), the church would sink to the level of the pagan society around it.

2. The standard would vary from community to community and time to time. In Corinth in the first century, the world would have approved both women and men becoming temple prostitutes. In San Francisco, CA in the late twentieth century, the community (which elected a homosexual as its mayor) approves of homosexual behavior. In Las Vegas, NV, the community approves gambling in all its forms. Hence, if the community standards are followed, the standard of right and wrong will vary from region to region and time and time. Far from teaching that the community determines the standards of right and wrong, Paul commanded the church to withdraw itself from every fornicator, idolater, railer, drunkard, covetous person, and extortioner (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Many of these sins the pagan world tolerated as acceptable conduct. But Paul warned, “Be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2).

Weaknesses of the Subjective Approach to the Bounds of Christian Fellowship

As we assess the subjective bases for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship, we begin to see some of their common weaknesses.

1. These tests take our focus off the word of God and concentrate ourfocus on the believers. The test that emphasizes that we determine fellowship based on a man’s honesty and sincerity focuses our judgment on his heart. I may not be able to determine whether or not a man is honest, but I can determine whether or not his conduct is sinful by going to the world of God to discern good and evil.

2. These tests take ourfocus off the action andjudge the heart. Instead of looking at the man’s actions and comparing them to the teachings of the word of God, we are advised to look at the man’s heart. We do not look to see whether or not the man is keeping the commandments (1 Jn. 2:3-5), for we are told that important moral and doctrinal differences can be tolerated; instead, we judge whether or not he is honest and sincere.

3. These tests make man a judge of the Lord’s law. Instead of simply obeying the Law and calling on others to do the same, this approach to fellowship encourages and demands that man pass judgment on (a) which parts are clear; (b) which parts are of serious gravity.

Appealing to an Objective Standard

Fellowship is not to be extended at the subjective whim of every man’s personal judgment. If that were the case, there could be no right and wrong in the realm of fellowship The condemnation of Diotrephes’ refusing to fellowship those received by God demonstrates that there is an objective standard of fellowship. All other standards of fellowship are sinful (3 Jn. 9).

The book of 1 John provides guidance in finding the bounds of fellowship, teaching that these following tests should be applied: (a) Is the individual keeping the commandments? “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 Jn. 2:3-5). The man persisting in the practice or preaching of sinful conduct cannot be received into the fellowship of the saints (Rev. 2:14,20).

(b) Does he confess the truth? “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (1 Jn. 2:22-23). “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). This verse teaches us to try the spirits by asking them to confess what they believe. We are following the instructions of the Holy Spirit when we ask, “Do you believe using instrumental music in worship is sinful?” “Do you believe that the church can send contributions to human institutions, such as orphan homes, missionary societies, colleges, etc.?” “Do you believe that Matthew 19:9 applied to all men?” “Do you believe that Matthew 19:9 gives the guilty party in a divorce for fornication the right to remarriage?” By hearing what is confessed, we can know whether or not fellowship should be extended.

(c) Does he heed the word of God? “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (I Jn. 4:6). Recognizing that a man may be in sin because of ignorance, we can learn whether or not to extend the right hands of fellowship by seeing his reaction to the teaching of the word of God. The man of God listens to and obeys the teachings of the word of God. When a man of God is taught the word, he will bring his life into compliance with it; he will study patiently with you. We can determine the bounds of Christian fellowship by watching the reaction to the teachings of the word of God.

An Objection: Faith or Opinion

Objection 1: “The position on fellowship which you are espousing requires that men distinguish between matters of faith and matters of indifference. Does not this require that men become judges of the law?” No! This requires that men be students of the law to determine where the objective standard of God’s word places the particular matter – in the category of sin or category of indifference (authorized liberty). For example, I study the word of God to see if adultery is categorized as a sin or as a matter of indifference. When I see that it is called a sin and that it keeps one from heaven, I recognize that those who persist in the violation of that commandment cannot be fellowshipped (Gal. 5:19-21). I have no right to pass judgment on this law to say: “Is this clearly revealed?” “Is the matter grave?” “Is it a violation of community standards?” When I learn that God has spoken, my obligations are settled!

Objection 2: “We differ on the subject of divorce and remarriage; therefore, we should not make this matter a test of fellowship.” Men differ about nearly every subject, ranging from whether or not God exists to the action and purpose of water baptism. The fact that men differ about any and every subject does not prove that there is no absolute standard in that area.

When we acknowledge that we differ, we should commit ourselves to study with one another to arrive at the common truth of the Scriptures. We cannot escape the fact that men have reached different conclusions about many different Bible subjects, including some which relate to sin. These differences should have the effect of driving us back to the word of God to study the one divine standard of right and wrong.

Unfortunately we are living in an age during which men fear controversy and view it as unhealthy. We need to be reminded of these positive contributions from controversy: (a) We are purged by the input from one another. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). (b) The discussion of differences constantly drives men back to the word of God to see whether or not their practice is authorized in God’s word. This creates a trust in and reliance on the word of God which is healthy. (c) The discussion of differences reminds me of my own human imperfections, creating in me a humility and driving me to seek the counsel of my wise brethren. Far from being a scourge in life, healthy discussions of the Bible are one of God’s gifts to men to keep us walking in the light.

What Is the Role of Honesty in Fellowship?

Someone might sincerely ask, “If honesty is not the criterion for determining the limits of fellowship, what role does it play?” Honesty is only one test to be applied. Should I have indisuptable proof that a man is dishonest, that would show the man to be a sinner in the same manner as having reliable proof that he was guilty of adultery. Fellowship should be broken with the dishonest man for the same reason that it is broken with the adulterer – he is guilty of sin and refuses to repent.

To assume that a man’s sins do not bring him into condemnation so long as he is good, honest and sincere, and therefore should not break the fellowship of the saints, is contrary to the teaching of God’s word. The good, honest and sincere can still be lost because of their sins (Matt. 15:13-14). Their teaching still can influence others to commit sin and be lost (Matt. 15:14). Since the sins of the honest break their fellowship with God, they also will lead to a break in the fellowship of the saints. For that same reason, honesty is not an adequate test for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship.

Conclusion

The approach to learning the bounds of Christian fellowship based on (a) honesty, (b) clarity of the law, (c) gravity of the issue, and (d) community standards, is subjective. There are no objective criteria which can be brought to limit the application of these principles. If these principles are consistently followed, they will logically lead to universalism, notwithstanding the good intentions of those proposing these criteria for determining the bounds of Christian fellowship.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 11, pp. 322, 342-343
June 6, 1991