Truth Magazine

By Cecil B. Douthitt (1896-1971)

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 have been erroneously used and misapplied to teach that certain religious activities projects and methods of church work should be abandoned merely because they offend the consciences of weak brethren. These chapters teach no such thing.

Romans 14:1-2 – Weak in Faith

The brother described in this chapter as “weak in faith” has a unwarranted scrupulosity toward lawful and harmless self-indulgences or pleasures. Due to his lack of understanding of God’s will, his faith is so weak that he cannot eat meat of any kind without violating his conscience; he eats herbs only. As long as he thinks it is wrong or doubts that it is right to eat meat, he cannot eat “of faith,” and he would sin if he ate it, because “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (v. 23).

The brother whose faith is strong can eat all things without any doubt as to his God-given right to do so; because he knows and is “persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; save that to him who accounted anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (v. 14).

Since nothing is involved but an innocent personal privilege neither the weak in faith nor the strong in faith has a right in the sight of God to judge or condemn the other. The brother with the weak faith must be received in Christian fellowship without any doubtful disputation, even though he does hold groundless scruples vv. 1-4).

Under certain circumstances, expediency may require the strong brother to forego his lawful privilege to eat meat, for the sake of his weak brother. (Expediency takes precedence over the lawful right of innocent self-indulgence.)

Expediency forbids the strong brother’s eating meat or indulging in any purely personal pleasure, if and when his doing so would persuade or influence the weak brother to do that which he thinks is wrong. The strong would thereby show lack of love in deliberately causing the weak brother to violate his conscience. By such conduct the strong brother could overthrow the work of God, and destroy him for whom Christ died (vv. 1-21).

The Point Illustrated

A man who had been a Seventh-Day Adventist from his youth learned the plan of salvation and obeyed it. He could make distinction between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ with one exception: he still thought that it was wrong to eat pork or hog meat of any kind. He and other guests were invited to eat with a brother who knew how this former Adventist felt about eating hog meat. But ham was served. The host made a few jesting remarks about “unclean meat,” and others laughed. This made a refusal to eat the ham entirely too embarrassing for this brother of “weak faith.” Therefore, in violation of his conscience he ate a little of the ham; he did not eat “of faith”; he sinned. Everyone who influenced him to eat that meat sinned too; they did the very thing the Lord forbids in Romans 14.

Under the circumstances that host should have served food that his guests could eat without violation of conscience. Neither the work of the church nor the method of doing the work was involved, but only a personal lawful privilege, and that “liberty” should have been relinquished on that occasion.

On the other hand, if that former Adventist had tried to force his unwarranted scruples on others as an ordinance of God, it would have been the duty of the strong to tell him plainly that he had no right to legislate where God has not, and that “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking,” neither the “weak” nor the “strong” should be permitted to make it such.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13 – Weak in Conscience

The brother described in this chapter as being weak in conscience can be emboldened or caused easily to engage in forbidden religious performance without any compunction of conscience whatever. Having been accustomed in former days to eating meat sacrificed to idols as an act of worship of that idol, he is unable to expel from his mind the idea or the opinion that he is worshipping every time he eats such meat. He does not know that a thing “may be morally right, but religiously wrong.” He is unlike the weak brother of Romans 14, who had groundless scruples against certain innocent deeds. Therefore, when he engages in the forbidden act of eating such meats as worship, he does not violate his conscience; he defiles it (v. 7).

Those who understand the will of God, and “by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil,” know that meat sacrificed to idols may be eaten to satisfy hunger, but must not be eaten as a religious rite or act of worship. They are able to distinguish between eating meat as an act of worship, and eating to satisfy hunger. Therefore, they can eat such food without sin. “Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge”; they eat the meat religiously; they sin against God.

Here again, under certain circumstances the law of expediency takes precedence over a lawful thing, and forbids the brother with knowledge from exercising his lawful right to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, even though he eats it for the sole purpose to satisfy hunger. If and when the strong brother’s eating that meat encourages the weak and ignorant brother to eat it “as of a thing sacrificed to an idol,” the brother with knowledge becomes a stumbling block to the weak; he sins against his brother and against Christ; he may cause his weak brother to perish. God has always been exacting and undeviating regarding acts of worship and ceremonies.

Therefore, the brother with a properly educated conscience must “take heed lest by any means this liberty” to partake of innocent personal pleasures or indulgences “becomes a stumbling block to the weak” (v. 9).

The Point Illustrated

A brother with “knowledge” understands that instrumental music is nothing, and that he ordinarily has the liberty to play on instruments of music for pleasure or entertainment in the home, but never as an act of worship anywhere. Howbeit, there is not in all men that knowledge; but some being used until now” to instrumental music in worship, are not able to distinguish between instrumental music as an act of worship, and instrumental music as entertainment in the home or elsewhere. Therefore, under some conditions, a brother with “knowledge” must forego this “liberty” of accompanying his singing with mechanical instruments for pleasure and entertainment in the home, lest the weak brother be “emboldened” to return with good conscience to his instrumental music in worship to which he was long accustomed, and which he has tried to think is acceptable to the Lord.

These restrictions of “liberty” in the field of innocent pleasure are binding not only for the sake of weak brethren, but also for the sake of unbelievers (1 Cor. 10:23-33).

These difficult Bible chapters of deference to ignorant and weak brethren pertain only to personal liberties of the strong, and must not be applied to the work of the church. An interpretation or an application of these passages, which contradicts some other part of God’s word, is wrong. For the Bible does not contradict itself. Therefore, weak and ignorant brethren must not be permitted to do any one of three things:

1. They must not bind their wishes and scruples on others, or legislate where the Lord has not. Commandments of men always make void some part of God’s word (Matt. 15:1-6). Christians are forbidden to subject themselves to “precepts and doctrines of men” who say, “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch” (Col. 2:20-23). “The Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith” by submitting unto religious laws which the Lord has not enacted (1 Tim. 4:14). In matters of private and personal liberty, the brother with knowledge is to voluntarily forego certain pleasures in garcious deference to the ignorant brother, and not because the weak brother has ordered or even requested it. If the weak brother demands it, then the brother with knowledge is forbidden by the Scriptures to submit.

2. The weak brother must not be permitted to prevent anyonefrom doing anything the Lord has commanded. When the apostles were charged by man to preach no more in the name of Jesus they replied, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:28,29). Whether that “man” be an officer of the law or an ignorant brother, the people of God must not let that “man” prevent them from doing the Lord’s will as revealed in his word.

3. The ignorant brother, weak in faith or conscience, must not be permitted to prevent either an individual Christian or a church from employing any righteous method of doing the work assigned by the Lord. The writer did not have “methods” of doing church work under consideration at all in these two chapters. Applying these restrictions of “liberty” in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 to methods of teaching in classes or the number of containers used in the Lord’s Supper or the way the collections are taken or anything else, except liberties in thefield of innocent andpersonal indulgences, would remove the oversight of the Lord’s work from the elders, and place it in the hands of cranks. The elders and the churches could not so much as begin the work assigned, if they were required to find ways and “methods” to fit the whims, opinions, scruples, and consciences of all the ignorant brethren. The elders have no more right to surrender the oversight to a few cranks in the congregation than they have to surrender it to the elders of another local church.

Some have argued that Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 teach that churches should not use instrumental music in worship, to contribute money from their treasuries to Bible colleges or missionary societies or any other centralized agency, because many good brethren cannot conscientiously support and participate in these unscriptural innovations, and all admit the work can be done acceptably without these unscriptural things, and, therefore, in deference to weak brethren, and in obedience to these two chapters, these things must be abandoned. These chapters teach no such thing, and he who argues that they do, must prove two things:

1. He must prove that the Holy Spirit in these chapters is discussing church work as well as private and personal liberties in things inherently innocent.

2. He must prove that the objectors to these innovations are ignorant of the truth, and that they would not object if they had more knowledge of the word of God.

These innovations – instrumental music in worship, church contributions to human societies and centralized agencies are unscriptural and wrong, and they should not be used in the work and worship of the church; but the mere fact that their use violates somebody’s conscience is no proof at all that they should not be used.

Summary

Two kinds of weak brethren are described by Paul in these two chapters under consideration. Their only point of similarity is their ignorance of God’s word.

The weak brother of Romans 14 has an unwarranted scrupulosity against partaking of things innocent and harmless and lawful. Strong brethren are warned lest they cause the weak brother to do that which he thinks is wrong.

The weak brother in 1 Corinthians 8 does not know the difference between doing a thing as an act of worship, and doing that same thing for some purpose other than worship. Strong brethren with knowledge are warned, lest they cause the weak brother to return with “good” conscience to unauthorized acts of worship which may still have a strong appeal to him.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 76-78
February 7, 1991

By Al Kiestelkamp

There is no way to completely avoid controversy among brethren. Recognizing this, we need to be determined to remain friends in spite of our differences. If you and I are friends we will seek every option available to us to maintain our relationship, but if we are merely acquaintances we may not be that concerned about it. Indeed, “A friend loves at all times” (Prov. 17:17).

Differing convictions put a strain on us, posing potential for a break in friendships, which increase the chances of division. This should cause us to do all we can to remain friends even though we have disagreement. I have some suggestions as to how to remain friends even when we differ:

1. Study together the issues that threaten unity. To avoid discussion on matters of disagreement is only delaying the inevitable.

2. Avoid name-calling. Usually the “brands” are not appreciated by the one being “branded.” At the same time recognize the difficulty in completely avoiding labels, and determine not to be “hurt” if one is used in referring to your position.

3. Avoid broad generalizations. Do not assume that your friend believes and/or practices everything that is advocated by those with whom he is associated, It is unfair to claim he has swallowed the camel because he has swallowed some gnats.

4. Avoid ridicule. Nobody likes to be ridiculed. Treat him and his beliefs with the same dignity that you expect him to have toward you and your beliefs. Always speak kindly and respectfully.

5. Assume good motives on the part of him with whom you disagree. He probably is trying as much as you to please God. If not, let God deal with that problem. You wouldn’t want him to impugn your motives!

6. Try to understand the opposing position. Truly listen to the other point of view instead of “tuning him out” while you prepare your next argument.

7. Determine to part friends. Even if you don’t come to agreement, be committed to maintaining your friendship. If the friendship can survive, opportunity still exists for unity.

The question may arise: What if the person with whom I disagree is not a friend? Then I suggest, treat him just like a friend, and likely he’ll become your friend. Remember, “A man who has friends must himself be friendly, but there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:36).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, p. 72
February 7, 1991

By M.C. Kurfees (1856-1931)

It is one of the easiest things for men to be lopsided in religion. They go to extremes, either stopping short of the true line of rectitude or going beyond it. There is probably no field in which this tendency is more conspicuously exhibited than in the field of religious controversy. Personal wrangling is wrong, but so is a passive attitude toward error. There is a golden mean, a proper and highly important course to be pursued in that line, and the purpose of this article is to point out that course.

Let it be carefully observed, first of all, that contradicting men and disputing with them for the sake of mere disputation is, of course, wrong, and all Christians should avoid it. In this matter, precisely as in all other matters in religion, our sole inquiry should be, What is the will of the Lord? Fortunately, we have a record of that will, and our appeal, in the language of Isaiah, shall be “to the law and to the testimony” (Isa. 8:20). Hence, on the matter of religious controversy, what does the inspired testimony say? Does it condemn or enjoin and encourage it? Even if there were not a word on the subject in the entire biblical record, yet as long as truth and error are in conflict with each other, with their respective advocates arrayed against each other, common sense alone teaches us that controversy is inevitable.

However, turning now to the record, the apostle distinctly tells us that we are to follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). But it is no exaggeration to stay that, from the day he entered upon his public ministry to the day he expired on the cross, his life was a constant battle, an irrepressible conflict, an unceasing controversy with men. In fact, it was an exceedingly stormy life. Some of the sharpest contentions in all the annals of controversy are among his encounters with the scribes, lawyers, chief priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The rule was that whenever and wherever he and they met, the gauntlet of battle was at once thrown down and the contest began. If our readers will turn to the eighth chapter of John’s testimony and read carefully all from verse 12 to verse 59, they will find pictured in graphic and impressive terms one of his grapples with the Pharisees and one of the most pronounced and conspicuous samples of controversy with men which marked his career. It was not only a regular word battle between him and the Pharisees, but it actually ended in an effort on their part to stone him, though he escaped out of their hands. “They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (Jn. 8:59).

Now, since we are under the apostolic admonition to “follow his steps,” how can we do it and avoid controversy? It is thus seen to be an utter impossibility if we do our duty. Those who embrace his doctrine and preach it faithfully to men are certain to encounter similar opposition and to be drawn into similar controversy. Hence, the only way to avoid controversy in the case of such an encounter is to make an inglorious surrender to the enemy; and no “good soldier of Christ Jesus,” as Paul designates the faithful Christian (2 Tim. 2:3), can consent to such a surrender. Rather such a soldier, as the apostle further commands, will “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim. 6:12).

But not only does the example of our Lord, as we have seen, enjoin upon us the duty of religious controversy, but it is specifically enjoined upon us by apostolic command. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). That language gives no uncertain sound. Christians are “to contend”; they are to contend “for the faith”; and they are “to contend earnestly for the faith.” This inevitably plunges them into controversy wherever they encounter opposition to “the faith.” It was so in the lives of Peter, John, Stephen, Paul, and all the early Christians who were worthy of the name; it is true of the same class today; and it will be true of them as long as the conflict between truth and error continues.

But there is a right way and there are wrong ways to conduct religious controversy, and Christians should scrupulously guard this point. Their fight is not only a fight for the truth, but it is a fight founded in love – love for both God and man. Hence, while we are under the apostolic admonition to engage in religious controversy, to contend and fight for the truth, we are also under the apostolic admonition to engage in it in the right way. Here it is: “Speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). That tells the story in a nutshell, and it enjoins a duty that should never be overlooked. We must love the truth and fight for the truth, but we must fight for it in love – love for God and love for man. In fact, the great and controlling purpose of the Christian fight is to win men to the truth and to save their souls. It is the truth that is to make them free (Jn. 8:32). We must contend for it, but contend for it in love. Hence, religious controversy, when properly conducted, is always on a high plane. Be it ever so earnest and enthusiastic, it is never less than dignified. It does not condescend to assail the motives of men and thus to dwindle into a mere personal wrangle. It not only shows respect for men unconsciously involved in error, but it shows very pronounced respect for them.

Another prominent characteristic of the right kind of religious controversy is the obligation to examine fairly the arguments presented by our opponents; and wherever truth is found on their side, we should freely and gladly concede it. In brief, a truly thoughtful Christian man in debate will always see how far he can agree with his opponent and thus narrow as far as possible the field of difference. Every step that can honorably be taken in this direction is a step toward the right kind of victory ultimately.

Finally, while we should discourage all improper conduct on the part of men engaged in religious controversy – the conduct of religious controversy in an improper way – nevertheless, we should encourage controversy itself. It is one of the most powerful ways of eliciting and propagating truth. The day of controversy is the day when truth comes to light and flourishes. Let us encourage and always and everywhere uphold the hands of those engaged in honorable religious controversy (Gospel Advocate LXV, 8 [22 Feb. 1923]: 180-81).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 67-68
February 7, 1991

By George Harris

Three years ago when Conrad Steyn and I took a stand for the truth and repented of liberalism, there were some articles from us that appeared in the faithful journals. One such article by myself appeared in Searching the Scriptures. Ricarte S. Velonero of the Philippines wrote to me on the 23 November 1987, and informed me that he had read the article with interest. He had been preaching for the liberal church for four years.

Since that time we have been studying the Scriptures together by correspondence, and he has come to a knowledge of the truth in relationship to local church autonomy and institutionalism, and has made a public statement to that effect. In the process he has taught the congregation that he preaches for, the things that he has learned regarding the truth on institutionalism and the whole philosophy behind it, and they are all in one accord in denouncing liberalism and standing for the truth. The whole group comprises some 30 members.

On the 4 January 1988 he wrote to me and informed me that during a fire his house had burned down and he had lost all that he owned. All of us preachers would be horrified if that happened to us. If our studies were burned down there would be many years of hard labor and valuable material that would be lost and we would have to start from scratch.

On the 16 July this year Ricarte wrote to me of the devastation caused by the earthquake which they experienced; it resulted in the loss of the life of his brother who was his greatest helper in the work of the Lord in his area. The apostle Paul would probably have felt a similar loss if that had happened to one of his companions.

Ricarte needs your support, your prayers and your letters of encouragement, just as we needed them three years ago. I am pleading on behalf of this fine soldier of the cross, that you help financially in any way that you can, realizing the urgency of the need to preach the truth to the people of the Philippines. I am confident knowing your generosity that you will respond in a very beautiful way, and the Lord will bless you richly for your work of love. If you are unable to help financially, please drop him a line and encourage him for the stand that he has dared to take against the onslaught of liberalism.

You can contact him at the following address: Ricarte S. Velonero, Lampayan, Matalan, Cotabato Philippines 9322.

Statement from Ricarte S. Velonero of the Philippines

Ricarte S. Velonero

Lampayan Church of Christ

9406 Matalam, Cotabato

Republic of the Philippines

I would like to state that in the past I have been associated with the liberal churches, who practice much error in regard to the work and organization of the church. Much of my error has been in fellowship as the church here is autonomous and I have been self-supporting in the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ here in Lampayan, Philippines.

After much general soul searching, much fervent prayer, and extensive study with George Harris of Cape Town, South Africa, the error of the liberal church is apparent to me. The “sponsoring church” practice violates the pattern of sound words in regard to local church autonomy. “Institutionalism” is an affront to the sufficiency of God’s organization of the local church. True New Testament fellowship, is a relation enjoyed by faithful brethren in accompanying God’s eternal purpose in the church, and this fellowship excludes church sponsored recreation and using the church’s financial resources for those other than qualified needy saints.

Beloved brethren, I have repented of any and all contributions that I may have made to those errors and teachings that those whom I have been in fellowship with have perpetrated and have asked for God’s forgiveness. I have severed all ties with the liberal brethren and you are the only brethren that I can look to for fellowship in the gospel. I ask you as faithful brethren in Christ Jesus to forgive me and receive me into fellowship. I covet your prayers on my behalf that I might use the remainder of the years which Jehovah our God blesses me with to proclaim the simple gospel of Jesus Christ found only in the pattern of sound words, and that he will bless me with caring brethren to support me, that I might serve him full time in an effort to redeem the time for the days are evil. This is our Father’s world and he wants it evangelized. Please help me in my task as I labor in the Cause we all love so dearly.

The members of the church here have also taken a stand for the truth, and we are united in our plea for the simple gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, p. 73
February 7, 1991