Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

In every generation, there is an attempt to justify a “broader fellowship” to include those preaching and practicing some sin or doctrinal error. The attempt to justify such invariably includes Romans 14. The advocate of a “broader fellowship” notes the apostle’s instructions to “receive” the one with whom we have a difference in preaching and practice (Rom. 14:1). The next step is to say the differences discussed would include a doctrinal matter or practice of some sin. Thus, we are told we must “receive” those who are preaching some errors or practicing some sins if we obey this instruction. The crux of the issue is this: Does Romans 14 include doctrinal error and sinful practice in the differences under discussion?

The issue is not whether brethren who differ on an issue need to be longsuffering with one another. The Bible clearly teaches a longsuffering and forbearing attitude as essential for unity (Eph. 4:1-3). God says clearly that we are to “admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14 – emphasis mine, HRO). Paul’s exhortation on restoring in a spirit of gentleness one who is overtaken in a trespass is a principle we must teach and practice. In the case of a brother sinning against us personally, Jesus shows that we must exhaust every effort to solve the matter before counting him as “the Gentile and publican” (Matt. 18:1517). Even the factious man is to receive the first and second admonition before we refuse him (Tit. 3:10). We can never be justified in severing the bonds of fellowship at the drop of a hat. We have responsibility enjoined of God to be longsuffering in our search for the resolution of every difference between brethren.

The focus of this study is on the proper application of Romans 14. Does it justify the continued acceptance of some doctrinal errors and sinful practices or is its scope limited to matters of indifference? In this study, we will see that the apostle is discussing matters of indifference or opinion. The differences in practice discussed involved only those areas in which either of the different practices involved no sin, both were right in and of themselves.

Study of Context

Paul’s instruction to “receive” the brother with whom we have a difference is immediately seen as a contrast to John’s instruction in 2 John 911. John commands another way of dealing with the differing brother, “receive him not” (2 Jn. 10). Do the two writers contradict one another or are they speaking of two entirely separate types of differences?

In 2 John, the difference under consideration is plainly declared to involve the doctrine (KJV) or teaching (ASV) of Christ. John speaks of one who transgressed God’s will, thus, sin was committed. As a result, this one was no longer in fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9). Not only was the practice of such sin condemned, but so also was the teaching that would justify it. Therefore, faithful Christians were urged to make no provision for and give no encouragement to the preaching of the doctrinal error (2 Jn. 10). The provision for or encouragement of such sin and error was condemned as illicit involvement in the “evil works” of the transgressor (2 Jn. 11). Clearly, John says no harbor is to be given to the one practicing sin or preaching error.

Furthermore, we cannot interpret what Paul wrote in Romans 14 in such a way that it contradicts what he wrote in other places. For instance, Paul tells these same brethren at Rome to “mark” and “turn away from” some (Rom. 16:17-18). Did he contradict what he wrote just two chapters earlier? No, the contrasting instructions stem from the contrasting types of differences under consideration in each passage. Paul repeatedly says in his writings that some are not to be received (Eph. 5: 11; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; Tit. 3: 10-11; Gal. 2:5). Brother Irven Lee made the following observation:

The fourteenth chapter of Romans does not say one word in defense of the man who knows he is openly and deliberately violating God’s law. No man is allowed the luxury of fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:16-21). A man must control his temper and his passion if he would be called a brother in good standing among Christians. Repentance brings forth worthy fruit (Matt. 3:8). Thus repentance is absolutely essential (Lk. 13:3; 2 Pet. 3:9).

The factious man who would cause divisions contrary to the doctrine of Christ by subverting whole houses is not the weak brother whom we shield and protect. He is a strong enemy of Christ, and consequently is to be silenced, marked, avoided, rejected, and put away from the flock (Rom. 16:17,18; Tit. 1:10,11; 3:10,11; Phil. 3:17-19). One point of maturity in the stronger Saint is the ability to discern between the weak brother who serves to the limit of his knowledge and the wolf in sheep’s clothing that would destroy the flock. The Lord has not asked his church to let the heretic be in charge lest he complain (Irven Lee, Romans For Every Man, Florida College Lectures, 1983, p. 168).

When sin and error were involved, Paul never instructed Christians to “receive” the teacher or practitioner of such as they continued in their path.

Romans 14 clearly defines the kind of differences under consideration in this context. The issue is brought into focus with the first verse:

NASV: Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

RSV: As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.

Phillips: Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples.

These versions correctly present the nature of the differences dealt with in this chapter – matters of indifference or opinion. Matters of indifference are those areas in which God has neither enjoined nor prohibited a practice. Thus, two differing practices may be right in and of themselves given the fact that God has allowed both practices. The two brethren who are involved in the differing practices may both be acting in the way that is right, given their diverse backgrounds, circumstances, and consciences. These variables would form the basis for the two to differ in their opinion or judgment of the practice in question and to differ in that practice, yet both be acceptable before God. In such cases, Romans 14 instructs brethren not to “judge,” “dispute,” or “argue” with one another over such matters of indifference or opinion. The rest of the chapter clearly shows this restriction to apply only in matters of indifference where the variant practices would both be right in and of themselves.

In areas of difference regarding that enjoined or forbidden by God, the differing practices would not both be right in and of themselves. In such cases, “judging” a sinful practice is right and necessary (1 Cor. 5:3-5). “Disputing” would be essential in order that harmony upon the truth might be achieved (Acts 15:1-29).

Romans 14:2 defines the stronger brother as the one who had “faith” to eat meat. This faith would come from an understanding of the principles declared by God. Paul says God created meat to be received by man with thanksgiving and “is sanctified through the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:3-5). How is meat sanctified through the word of God? It was God’s instruction, his word, which allowed man initially to eat meat (Gen. 1:29; cf. 9:3). It was God’s instruction which showed Peter that the restrictions regarding clean and unclean meat in the law of Moses were no longer binding (Acts 10: 11-16). Even when that meat had been offered to an idol, God allowed partaking of meat in a situation that gave no deference to the idol and provided no stumblingblock for another (1 Cor. 10:25-32). There can be no doubt that the practice of the stronger brother in eating meat was allowed by God – it was right in and of itself!

The basis for receiving a brother with a differing practice is clearly stated in verses 3 and 4. The meateater recognized that it was not essential to eat meat. It was the one who did not eat meat who believed the meat-eater was engaged in an unlawful practie. This false idea is plainly refuted when the apostle instructs, “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” Why? “For God hath received him” (v. 3). Notice three facts about this last phrase:

(1) The word “for” is from the Greek word gar which is a conjunction used to express cause.

(2) The word “received” in the original language carries the idea of a past, completed action.

(3) The antecedent to the “hirn” of this phrase is “him that eateth” in the previous phrase.

When we add these facts up, what must we conclude? God had already (at a past time) received “him” that ate meat in his practice, therefore the other brother had no right to judge or condemn him now. This passage declares right or lawful action as a necessary prerequisite for right or lawful fellowship.

In the next verse, Paul shows the same thing through the use of a sequential argument. First, an accepted premise, “To his own Lord he standeth or falleth.” In other words, it is God that has the ultimate right to judge regarding the brother’s acceptance or rejection in this matter of eating meat. Second, an emphatic declaration, “Yea, he shall be made to stand.” That is at the final judgmerit (where all of God’s judgments will ultimately be revealed), he will stand before God. This statement is the emphatic declaration that the man will be approved (future tense) in the final judgment with respect to his practice of eating meat just as God had “received” (past tense) him in that action as stated in verse 3. Third, a causal phrase, “For the Lord hath power to make him stand.” Again, gar is used indicating a reason for the validity of the preceding point. The Lord’s power should remind all men of his ability to make the acceptance of the meateater in his practice complete in the final judgment. No one had the authority to reverse the Lord’s judgment on the pratice so as to cause the meat-eater to be lost in eternity.

The practice of esteeming days is clearly identified as being of the same nature as the eating of meat – the practice of esteeming days and esteeming every day alike were both right in and of themselves. Each one was right as long as he carried out his practice “fully assured in his own mind” or without doubt (v. 5).

Can such be said of a practice that is not right in and of itself? If one was “fully assured in his own mind” that he could commit adultery, would God encourage him to do so? If one was “fully assured in his own mind” that he could steal, would an inspired writer countenance his practice? Certainly not I We must limit this advice to the category of things under consideration – those cases where two variant practices were both right or lawful in and of themselves. Those differing in practice both acted “unto the Lord” (v. 6). Such a statement could not be made if one or both of the practices were wrong or unlawful.

From this point, Paul urges those differing in practice not to judge one another and to remember that they face a final judgment of God (vv. 7-12). He also urges that they refrain from acting in such a way as to cause another to stumble (vv. 13-23). One can see how this could happen with the eating of meat from either of two possibilities.

First, the Jew who had been converted to Christ might have a problem eating the meat he had seen as unclean all of his life. Intellectually, he would know God now allowed such, but it takes time for the old feelings to be fully conquered so that no doubt remains. If a stronger brother exhorted him to eat while those doubts remained, sin would result (v. 23).

Second, the Gentile who had been converted to Christ might have a problem eating meat since the practice was so closely tied to the worship of an idol all of his life. Intellectually, he would know there is nothing to the idol, but old patterns of thought are not fully changed overnight. If a stronger brother encouraged him to eat meat while doubts remained, sin would result (v. 23).

Again we come back to emphasize the basis of this entire chapter. Brethren differed in thought and practice regarding matters that were right in and of themselves. True, the weaker brother did not understand that the practice of the stronger brother was right. However, the fact remains that both practices were right. Paul repeatedly emphasized the lawful nature of both differing practices. Upon that basis, both brethren were to receive each other, for God had already received them.

Some brethren today believe the point emphasized in this chapter is the individual nature of the practices discussed as opposed to collective action that involves the whole church in the practice. They believe Paul’s admonitions here would apply to matters that may be inherently wrong or sinful, but would not involve others in those actions. However, Paul makes his appeal to receive the meat-eater based on the fact that “God hath received him” (v. 3) and the emphatic statement that the meat eater “shall be made to stand” (v. 4). The individual nature of the action is not the basis of Paul’s appeal.

The view that we must receive even those who practice sin as long as it does not involve our direct participation has dangerous consequences. It would mean we must receive the fornicator and idolater who did not involve us in their practice even though Paul says we should not (1 Cor. 5:11). Should we receive the murderer as long as he did not involve us in pulling the trigger? Are we not to judge the musically talented brother who plays the piano or organ in worship with every denomination in town as long as he does not involve us in such? If we have a brother who, as a professor at the local university, openly teaches and supports the theory of evolution in his classes, must we receive him? If Romans 14 instructs of us to accept even the one with a sinful practice as long as it does not involve us, we must receive the brother without “arguing over his opinions” or “judging” him. Any position that demands such erroneous consequences must be rejected for we cannot harmonize such a position with other clear passages regarding the legitimate extent of our fellowship.

In the next article, we will examine various applications of this passage – past and present.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, pp. 240-242
April 19, 1990

By Mike Willis

In 1 Timothy 1:8, Paul wrote, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” With all of the recent writings about “law,” one could get the impression that law is bad.

Those in the grace-unity movement have emphasized that the New Testament is a series of love letters instead of a legal code. Here is the typical statement of the grace-unity doctrine:

The Apostolic epistles do not compromise a written code. They were never intended to be a compilation of laws . . . . The apostolic writings are guidelines to happiness. No one confuses the guidelines on the highway, provided for safety and convenience, with a statute book (Mission Messenger, Vol. 32, No. 11, p. 162).

The grace-unity advocates repeatedly condemn legalism, charging brethren such as ourselves with being guilty of that sin.

Man cannot establish his own righteousness, and anyone who thinks that he can and seeks to do so is really “ignorant of God’s righteousness” as the apostle Paul says.

But this is exactly what we who are heirs of the American Restoration Movement have done and are still doing to a large extent. We have reduced Christianity to a legalistic relationship contrary to the teachings of the new covenant scriptures . . . . We who are heirs of the American Restoration Movement are steeped in legalism” (Jimmy Albert, “A Zeal Without Knowledge – Legalism,” Outreach [May/June 1977], pp. 5,7).

Consequently, I want to study what the Scriptures teach about “legalism.”

What Is Legalism?

To begin my study of legalism, I went to Young’s Analytical Concordance to find all of the passages in which “legalism” was condemned. The concordance went directly from “leg” to “legion,” without listing “legalism.” That should tell me something.

I then turned to “law” and “lawful” to see what the Scriptures said about this subject. I found several entries that referred to “that which is lawful” (cf. Matt. 12:2,4,10,12; 19:3; 20:15,17). 1 could not find any criticism from the Lord for someone asking, “Is it lawful?” Indeed, several Scriptures teach men to ask just such questions (Jn. 8:32; 1 Jn. 4:1; Acts 17:11).

Then I also found some passages which condemned the effort to be justified by the “works of the law” (Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16). This I understood to affirm that man could not be saved by perfect conformity to law, whether the law of Moses or the law of Christ, because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). This idea corresponded to the dictionary definition of “legalism” – “strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law; in theology, the doctrine of salvation by good works.” The second definition, the theological definition of salvation by good works, affirms that man can earn his salvation by his good works, by perfect conformity to the law. This is not true because no amount of good works can forgive any sin.

The problem which faced me then was this: “Who among us is teaching salvation by good works, by perfect conformity to the law?” I have neither read nor heard any preacher among us affirm that man can earn his salvation by good works. Consequently, I was unable to conclude that those writing in opposition to “legalism” were opposing the figment of their imagination.

Redefining the Terms

During this part of the study, I found this comment about “legalism” from Gordon H. Clark, my former professor at Butler University, widely known philosopher and author. He called my attention to the modernist use of the charge of “legalism” saying,

The term legalism in theology used to designate a theory of justification by works. Liberals have now redefined it so as to exclude rules, laws, and obedience from moral living. Amorphous love replaces definite commands. This enables the liberals to transfer the odium of legalism in its historic sense to the evangelical view that is not subject to such a criticism (“Concerning Justification,” Christianity Today [16 March 1973], p. 5).

Now, things began to fall into place as I understood what was occurring among brethren through the charge of “legalism.” Some of my brethren, under the influence of modernism, have begun to criticize those who call for conformity to the Bible pattern for morality, salvation, church organization, corporate worship, etc. as “legalists.” They do not mean that we teach salvation by perfect obedience. What they mean is that they do not believe there are any rules and laws which man must obey to be pleasing to God! This depreciation of the law of God manifests a sinsick attitude toward God’s revealed word. It is a conscious effort, on the part of those who cannot cite Bible authority for what they practice, “to transfer the odium of legalism in its historic sense” to those who call for book, chapter and verse authority for all that we do and teach.

What the Bible Says About the Law

I would like to present some of the statements from the Old Testament Scriptures which demonstrate what God says about the law. These are drawn from Deuteronomy 4-6.

1. The Law is the veritable word of God. The law is the “commandments of God” (4:2), his statutes and judgments (4: 1). The law is not the invention of men, even good men such as Moses. The law is the word of God.

2. The Law should be strictly followed. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (4:2). “Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (5:32).

3. Man shows wisdom and understanding when he walks in obedience to the Law. “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations” (4:6).

4. God drew near to Israel by giving her the Law. “For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for. And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” (4:7-8).

5. Obedience to the Law comes from love for God. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart . . .” (6:4-6). D. Davis wrote, “The love of the Lawgiver produces love of his law. Law is a projection of God’s thought, a mirror of his mind, and overt act of love. The true child will highly esteem every known wish of its father” (The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy, p. 128). Writing in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Deuteronomy, A. Gosman said,

It is clear also from the reference of our Lord to this command, that the law and the Gospel do not differ as an outward and carnal service from an inward and spiritual one. Love holds the same prominence in both, but the gospel gives new and peculiar motives to enforce this love (95).

One demonstrates his love for God by his obedience to the Lord’s law.

6. This law was given for man’s good. “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us” (6:24-25).

Jesus’ Teaching On Drawing Near To God

When Jesus confronted the Pharisees who rejected the revealed word of God in order to cling to their traditions, he boldly proclaimed that their spirit was the spirit of rebellion which separated man from his God. He stated what the traditions of men do:

1. Cause men to lay aside the commandments of God (Mk. 7:8).

2. Cause men to reject the commandments of God (Mk.7:9).

3. Make the word of God of none effect (Mk. 7:13).

4. Cause men to transgress the commandments of God (Matt. 15:3).

These comments demonstrate that Jesus thought that the “traditions of men” could be distinguished from the “commandments of God” and that men should obey the commandments of God and reject the traditions of men. Consequently, he made this declaration regarding those who lay aside the commandments of God in order to keep their traditions:

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:8-9).

Those who seek to draw “nigh” to God through the commandments of men are only guilty of hypocrisy.

We can see a modern application of Jesus’ statement in our own day. The Catholic celebration of Christmas is a ceremony in which the religious leaders “draw nigh” to God “with their mouth and honor” God “with their lips.” Nevertheless, those who participate in this ceremony have a heart “that is far from” God.

The heart that “draws nigh” unto God is the heart of the man who approaches God through his Law. Recognizing that the Law is the relevation of the mind of God and resolving not to depart from the law either to the right hand or left are necessary to have a heart that is near God. Jesus taught that men draw nigh unto God through obedience to the revealed Law!

The spirit of innovation comes from a heart that is “far away” from God. Regardless of how much love for God might be professed, departure from the revealed Law of God takes one away from (it does not draw us near) God! Those who have departed from the faith to walk in the commandments of men are hypocritical when they honor God with their lips. The man who draws nigh to God is the man who abides in the doctrine of God and approaches God in the revealed way!

Those Who Shout “Legalism” Are Libertines

The modernists among us who condemn brethren who call for book, chapter, and verse authority for everything we practice or preach are libertines, men who reject the restraints of law. We need to recognize the modernists among us who cry “legalism” just as we identify the modernists in the denominations. Their rejection of God’s law has not taken them so far as those further down the road of modernism have gone, but it is the same leaven of apostasy which is working in both cases. Where you hear the cry “legalist,” look for the man who refuses to confine himself to the law of God. Those who shout “legalism” have no appreciation for what God’s revelation to man does. They need a good baptism in Psalm 119.

Conclusion

Under the entry “Legalists,” McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature warns against the danger of releasing men from responsibility to obey God’s law. They described some antinomians saying,

They think that whatever leads or leaves men, without distinctly rejecting Christian virtue, to feel little anxiety and take little pains about it; anything which, though perhaps not so meant, is liable to be so understood by those who have the wish to leave them without any feeling of real shame, or mortification, or alarm on account of their own faults and moral deficiencies, so as to make them anxious and watchful only against seeking salvation by good works, and not at all against seeking salvation without good works – all this (they consider) is likely to be much more acceptable to the corrupt disposition of the natural man than that which urges the necessity of being “careful to maintain good works.”

In their admonition, the writer said, “Christian teachers should not shrink, through fear of incurring the wrongful imputation of ‘legalism,’ from earnestly inculcating the points which the apostles found it necessary to dwell on with such continual watchfulness and frequent repetition” (XV:325).

I suggest that we, too, need to avoid being driven off preaching the oracles of God by those modernists among us who point their accusing finger and shout “legalists.” For “we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 9, pp. 258, 278-279
May 3, 1990

By Ronny E. Hinds

Having and knowing the truth on any issue is not sufficient. We must speak the truth out of a disposition of love for the one being taught. Every elder, preacher, teacher and member must understand and be warned by this.

Why? Because the Scriptures teach it. Paul’s God-inspired statement to the Christians in Ephesus is, “but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into him who is the head – Christ” (4:15).

This text is interesting because it is found amid warnings of being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the trickery of men, in cunning craftiness” (4:14) and yet we are to speak the truth in love. It would be so easy under those circumstances to lash back, to use their corrupt, ungodly tactics. But that is the way children act and “we should no longer be children” (4:14).

Instead we are to grow up. We are to allow Christ to rule our lives as brethren. He is our head “from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love” (4:16).

The Lord’s servant is instructed not to “quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil” (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

Teaching the truth to people caught in sin is not easy. No one likes to be informed that the life he is living is wrong. Frequently anger is displayed toward the one doing the teaching. Often his friends and weak Christians do not understand why you are saying those things. They get angry at you. Once, Jesus’ disciples reported to him that his words had offended people. Jesus answered, “Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:12-14).

As long as we are teaching the truth and manifesting a disposition of love and care for the one lost in sin, then we are doing what we are supposed to do. If others detract then, “let them alone,” that is, “let it go, pay no attention to their detractions, ignore them.” For the Lord’s servant is not looking for a quarrel, but with patience and humility is seeking to bring about correction in the life of the one who is sinning. The Lord’s servant is not to become involved in a war of words, a battle over who is right, but is always to be seeking lost souls. Vindication of self or “our side” is not the issue – saving of souls is! We must carefully and honestly search our hearts to make sure our motives are right and pure. Without this, we condemn ourselves no matter how right we are.

The essence of this biblical teaching is well expressed in the saying, “truth without love is brutality, but love without truth is hypocrisy.” Truth and love go together. One without the other is a perversion of God’s will. Yet we are often guilty of such. We often cloth our failure to speak the truth to those who need it by saying we love them, we don’t want to hurt them. Such is hypocrisy. It is not real love. If we loved them, truly loved them, we would lovingly speak the truth that would correct the sin in their lives. No, it is not easy. Yes, they and others may misunderstand, accuse us of meddling, being self-righteous, and all the other things people often say. But the Lord knows our heart and his advice would be “let them alone.”

Long ago the wise man Solomon made this inspired observation. “Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:5-6). Think about those words. Pray about them. Pray for wisdom that you can make them a part of your life. Let us encourage one another to be the friends we ought to be and not be deceitful!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 9, pp. 257, 279
May 3, 1990