Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Fifty years ago, a prominent preacher warned:

The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. Of course it is right for the church to care for the fatherless and widows in their affliction, but the work should be done by and through the church with the elders having the oversight thereof (Guy N. Woods, A CC Lectures, 1939, p. 54).

B. Using commonly accepted terminology as employed in the quote above, the Scriptures shall be our authority in this study of institutionalism (2 Tim. 1: 13; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Pet. 4: 11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

C. Topics to be discussed:

1. Is there a Bible pattern?

2. How is scriptural authority established?

3. What is the church?

4. What is the work of the church?

5. What is the issue?

II. Discussion:

A. Is there a Bible pattern?

1. Noah had a pattern (Gen. 6:22).

2. Moses had a pattern (Exod. 25:8,9,40; 26:30; 27:8; cf. Acts 7:41,44; Lev. 10:1,2; 1 Sam. 15).

a. “Works of their own hands” (Acts 7:41 vs. God’s, v. 44).

b. “Obey better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22).

c. Cf. Jereboam – “devised of his own heart” (1 Kgs. 12:33).

3. New Testament pattern (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:5; 3:16,17).

a. For gospel obedience (Rom. 6:17,18; 1 Tim. 1:16).

1. If not, cannot bind baptism.

2. If not, cannot forbid infant baptism.

3. If no order, no disorder.

b. For worship (Col. 3:16,17).

1. If not, Lord’s supper on Saturday.

2. If not, piano, beads, candles.

3. If no order, no disorder.

c. For organization (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2).

1. If not, one man pastor plan of Protestants?

2. If not, accept priestly caste of Catholics?

3. If no order, no disorder.

d. Some want to pick and choose which patterns they will follow – “Lazy Susan” patternism.

e. Others use the Bible to show there is no pattern! Is the Bible a pattern for “no patternism”?

B. How is scriptural authority established?

1. Direct command, statement – “Take, eat” (1 Cor. 11:24-26) – Observe Lord’s supper.

2. Approved apostolic example – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7) – When to observe Lord’s supper?

3. Necessary Implication – “Upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; Exod. 20-8) – Frequency of observance.

4. Generic and Specific authority:

 

C. What is the church?

 

1. Universal body of all obedient believers (Matt: 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27,28).

2. Local congregations (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11,20).

3. Cf. Eunuch and Saul – both members of the church, but a member of no local church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1: 13; Acts 8:26-40; 9:26; 2:47).

4. A plurality of local churches did not move, act or work in concert as a single unit – no “churchhood” concept.

a. If so, cite head, organization, work, treasury. b. If so, what are entrance qualifications? Officers qualifications? How appointed?

D. What is the work of the church?

1. Preaching (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 11:22).

2. Edification (Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14; Acts 11:22-26).

3. Benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16).

4. Recreation, Entertainment? No Scripture.

a. “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain” (B.C. Goodpasture, Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1948).

b. “Building recreation rooms and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament” (Gospel Advocate Annual Commentary, 195 1, p. 229).

E. What is the issue?

1. In evangelism:

a. The issue is not.

1. Should preaching be done.

2. “How” preaching should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain missionary societies to do work God gave the church to do.

 

2. In edification:

 

a. The issue is not:

1. Should saints be edified.

2. “How” edifying should be done (means, methods).

3. May churches cooperate.

4. May a place be maintained.

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain colleges to do the work God gave the

church to do.

 

 

3. In benevolence:

a. The issue is not:

1. Should needy receive care.

2. “How” should care be done (means, methods).

b. The issue is: May churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent societies to do work God gave the church to do.

 

 

III. Conclusion:

A. Compare principles above to church sponsored recreation.

1. Note a “what if” comparison:

 

2. Church does the work, provides gym, games, toys, coaches.

 

3. Not this:

 

 

4. If the church is not a “home” and must contribute to a benevolent society, as some argue, then since the church is not a gymnasium, must it contribute to YMCA’s to play?

B. The local church is all-sufficient to do the work God assigned it to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 142-143
March 1, 1990

By Edgar J. Dye

Introduction

As we indicated in the first article in this series, 2 John 6-11 serves as our text and in view of the pertinent points declared therein suggests to one and all what our attitude toward error should be.

The cry is heard repeatedly that we must have the proper attitude and is one with which we agree provided the attitude called for is in harmony with the doctrine of Christ. There always has been and always will be a need for that kind of attitude. Unfortunately, what some have in mind when they raise their voices in this cry is not at all in harmony with the doctrine of Christ and biblical principles. Therefore, our need to study this matter.

Position of the Church in the World

Our first article (which see) dealt with the correct understanding of the position of the people of God – the church – in the world, which is necessary if we are to develop and maintain the proper attitude toward sin and error. In that article we noted that the church is the “called-out” body of people belonging to the Lord by right of purchase – a “called-out” and “purchased” people; each member of that “called-out” body has been called and chosen of the Lord by means of the gospel of Christ, which is God’s power to save and which all the apostles were commissioned to preach; each member is blood-bought; thus the whole body is a people of God’s own possession, a peculiar people, a purchased people; God’s people are people who are in the world, but not of the world; they are a people who must be separate from the world and every evil work or every form of evil; they are a people who must not be fashioned after or conformed to the world, but transformed; a people identified as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world”; they are a people who have learned, believed and obeyed the truth by which they are made free from sin and its condemnation; they are a people who “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” and hate every false way; a people identified as God’s spiritual family – God’s born-again sons and daughters, the church of God; they are a people identified as saints, who are sanctified unto the Lord – a saved, purified, justified people by “the washing of water by the word . . . a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing . . . holy and without blemish” to be presented to the Lord; also, that they are a people who are identified as Christians, adherents of the Lord who are to be holy as he is holy.

The Father and the Son’s Attitude Toward Error

We now turn our attention to the attitude of both the Father and the Son toward error, without a knowledge of which we can neither determine nor maintain the right attitude toward it.

The Father’s attitude toward those who teach falsely is revealed in Jeremiah 23:30-32, where he said, “I am against the prophets that steal my words every one from his neighbor; I am against the prophets that use (marg. “smooth”) their tongues, and say, He saith; I am against them that prophesy false dreams, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies and by their lightness . . . therefore they shall not profit this people at all.” (Sounds as if the Father was somewhat of an “Anti,” doesn’t it?) In Deuteronomy 18:20 he said, “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.” In Deuteronomy 13:5 he demanded that his people put all such “evil away from the midst of thee.” In Proverbs 6:16-19 he reveals that speaking falsely is one of the seven things which he “hates,” which “are an abomination unto him.”

The Father’s attitude toward those who believe not the truth and live wickedly is that “your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:1-5). “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth” (Psa. 34:16; cf. Jer. 44:11). “The Lord is far from the wicked” (Prov. 15:29). He will laugh at the calamity and mock the fear of those who refuse his call, who set at naught his counsel (Prov. 1:24-28). His wrath “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness”; and those who “commit such things are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:18-32). (See also Rom. 2:1-11; 1 Cor. 10:5-10; Heb. 3:7-19; 11:6.)

The Son’s attitude toward error will remind us of what ours must be. Through the apostles he demands that we preach the truth and condemn error (2 Tim. 4:1-5); we rebuke them that sin, one and all (1 Tim. 5:19,20; Eph. 5:1-11; Tit. 3:10,11; cf. Acts 5:1-11); we endorse no one in error (2 Jn. 6-11); we try the spirits (1 Jn. 4: 1; Rev. 2:2); we stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers (Tit. 1:9-11). This is not done by force or deceitful pressure tactics, but by the word of God, the Sword of the Spirit. We must not condemn, cut off, disfellowship, mark or quarantine anyone before first proving false teaching and ungodliness against them (Tti. 3:11). When repentance does not take place after such has been proved, we have no choice in the matter but to do the Lord’s will; for he already has decided for us (I Tim. 5:19-21; Rom. 16:17,18; 1 Cor. 5:1-7,13; 2 Thess. 3:6). He also demands that we recognize all perverters of the gospel as accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

On the other hand, Jesus himself warned us to beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15-20); condemned transgression of the commandments of God by following human tradition (Matt. 15:1-9); twice cleansed the temple and publicly rebuked those who would make his Father’s house a house of merchandise (Jn. 2:13-17; Matt. 21:12,13). In Matthew 23 he exposed the religious leaders of Israel of his day as false teachers, hypocrites, blind guides, fools, and unclean persons full of iniquity. Unlike Jesus, we can’t look on the heart and immediately know one has improper motives. Proper attitude today demands that we give one the benefit of the doubt and count him as honest until we have definite proof to the contrary. But whether it is a case of ulterior motive or being honestly mistaken, one must be exposed for his error. For the Bible is filled with examples of those who were wrong, but had pure motives, were honest and sincere, and were highly religious (Acts 8,9,17). Whatever we do we must not assume one is unteachable simply because he is zealously devoted to error; Saul of Tarsus wasn’t!

Jesus himself employed various ways of exposing error and the need of repentance. The Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well is one example (Jn. 4); the Pharisees and the adulterous woman, another (Jn. 8:1-11). Since he used various ways to expose and correct error, so must we. Sometimes error can be corrected by merely preaching the truth on it. Sometimes error has to be exposed, but it may not be necessary to name the propagators of the error. However, sometimes error can’t be properly exposed without exposing the man or men who are teaching the error, due to the proneness of some people to. follow their favorite preacher, preachers of reputation, or because of close ties of friendship which blind some to the error they are teaching.

N.B. Hardeman forcefully expressed himself on this matter in Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Vol. IV, pp. 119, 120), where in substance he said: Christ was crucified because he condemned error and exposed wrong, not for preaching the truth. Opposition of the religious world is not aroused by merely preaching truth, but by exposing their false doctrines. . . When exposed they seek first to ignore you. Next they want to debate the issue, and finally they want to put you to death. Paul did not suffer merely because he preached the truth, but because he exposed the errors of his day (Acts 13:6-10; 1 Tim. 1:19,20; 2 Tim. 4:14,15).

Conclusion

By this we can hardly misunderstand the attitude of God the Father or of God the Son toward falsehood, error and sin. Of course, both the Father and the Son are longsuffering and also require us to be (Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 3:9-15; Acts 20:30,31; Gal. 6:1,2; Eph. 4:1,2; 2 Tim. 4:1,2; Rev. 2:21).

Our attitude toward sin and error is one thing and our attitude toward the one sinning is another (Psa. 119:104,127,128; Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:18-21). Both the Father and the Son love people – all people (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). But both hate every false way. So must we! For our attitude toward error must be the same as the Father and the Son. If not, why not!

Our life declares the thoughts of our heart – the attitude we possess: Wrong action, wrong attitude; right action, right attitude. If we have the attitude the Lord expects us to have we will study to prepare ourselves and to save our own soul; we will give of our time, talent, and money to preach the gospel -, the whole truth – the plain truth – to the lost that they may be saved; we must fight the good fight of faith hating error and loving truth and righteousness.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 137-138
March 1, 1990

By Jon Quinn

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven ” (Eccl. 3:1). We live in a world of constant change. Time changes everything we see and touch. Things that were “in” yesterday are “out” today. I remember when I was a boy seeing all my father’s old ties hanging in the closet. They were wide and colorful, full of intricate designs. He never wore them so I asked why. He said no one wears ties like that any more but he expected that if he waited long enough that they would come back in style. I doubted that anyone would every wear anything like those ties again, at least not unless forced to do so at gun point! But sure enough, by the time I was in high school I was able to borrow his old, outlandish ties and let everyone assume that I had paid big bucks for them at the store.

The state of the world is different than it was ten years ago; far different than forty years ago. What will it be like ten years from now? As we read the Bible we see that it has always been so. We see changes in society; apostasy and return; dynasties thought eternal crumble and new ones take their places. Individuals age and grow closer to God, or sometimes grow away from God. We are accustomed to seeing things change.

It seems as if everything changes but such is not the case! Our link to Abraham, Moses and Paul is that we serve exactly the same God as they did. We may live in a different time, under a different government, but we build our relationship with the very same God, and for that reason the lessons they learned will find application in our lives today. God does not change. Let us consider this idea.

God’s Existence Does Not Change

“Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands. Even they all perish, but Thou dost endure, And all of them will wear out like a garment. . . but Thou art the same, and Thy years will not come to an end” (Psa. 102:25-27).

God had no beginning nor does he have an ending. Children sometimes ask the question, “Who made God?” The answer is that God did not need to be made because there was never a time in which he did not already exist. He will never cease to be, nor will he ever cease to be what he already is, He is deserving of our trust because “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27).

God’s Character Does Not Change

“And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you'” (Exod. 3:14).

In the course of human life, events may alter the character of a man. There are things that happen to us that can change us forever. For example, a trusting soul may become cynical when he has been betrayed. But nothing like this happens to the Creator. He will never become less fair, honest, truthful, or good than perfection will allow. The character of God today is exactly as it was in Bible times, and as it will be long after this world ceases to be. Even the name “Jehovah ” or “I AM” bears out the eternal changelessness of God. The New Testament describes God as “the Father of lights, with Whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (Jas. 1:17).

God’s Purpose Does Not Change

“And the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1 Sam. 15:29). God does not alter his purpose. He does not go half-way into a job, then realize that he has made a mistake and repent. All his plans are based upon perfect wisdom and knowledge so he never has to! Nothing can take God by surprise. If he were painting a room he would not paint himself into a corner.

The Psalmist declared, “The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations” (Psa. 33:11). Some may wonder about a few passages which seem to indicate that God does repent (Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11; Jon. 3: 10; etc.). However, it must be understood that none of these suggest a change in his eternal purpose, nor do they suggest that God was taken by surprise. They are cases of God’s reversal of his prior treatment of an individual or group because the people had changed. If a people grew increasingly wicked, then God’s treatment of them changed from what it was before. If a people repented and sought forgiveness, then God would bless instead of punish.

God’s Son Does Not Change

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, yes and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus loves us as much today as he did on the road to Calvary. There is a story of someone asking him, “How much do you love me?” Jesus answered, “This much ” and he stretched his arms out wide, and died. Certainly the gift Jesus has given us shows us that his love is eternal. His death proves that his love is undying. Jesus is “the Living One, and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev. 1: 18). Jesus is “able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). He is our absolutely trustworthy friend. What a friend we have in Jesus!

Conclusion

What is the difference between our relationship with God and those in Bible times? We worship the same God, not a new one. His character remains the same, we can know what he is like now by observing what he was like then. His purposes remain unchanged. The Messiah we accept is the same Son of God who they looked for, welcomed, and accepted.

We may live in a different age. We may rejoice that we live under a new covenant. We may have a complete written revelation and therefore a more accurate picture of God’s eternal purpose, character and nature. But God remains the same. By all means, place your eternal spirit in his hands.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 149-150
March 1, 1990

By Tom M. Roberts

One of the ongoing battles that confronts each generation of Bible students is that of determining items of faith, as distinguished from items of opinion. Some claim that there is no conceivable way of determining, decisively, which is which short of allowing a denominational heirarchy or papal decree to establish a canon of accepted creeds. Of course, this is the denominational way and the catechisms, manuals of faith and creed books are formal attempts to establish a distinct body of faith for each sect. Advocates of New Testament Christianity reject such organizational attempts to catalogue the Scriptures. However, relying on our individual consciences and/or congregational consensus to determine which part of the Bible we will allow to fall into an area of faith and which will be regarded as opinion (judgments) results in much contradiction and confusion.

Those with a rebel mind relish this situation and capitalize on it by saying that there is no way that anyone can determine such a difference and seek to relegate all matters into the realm of opinion. Inconsistency, however, contradicts their attempt at a universal liberty of the conscience when they demand that the deity of Jesus is the one matter of faith that is absolutely essential. Never mind that this lone bastion carries with it no more warranty that it is a matter of faith than another subject. Never mind that no criteria have been established upon which we may, uniformly, distinguish faith from opinion. We are told that the deity of Jesus is the only matter of faith which would limit fellowship; everything else is opinion. On the one hand, the faith is demoted to the plane of human opinion, resulting in abandonment of sound doctrine; on the opposite extreme, every opinion is elevated to the plane of the faith and churches are fragmented, having no basis for unity.

Are we thus bound to such a chaotic condition in determining matters of faith/opinion? Are there no guidelines to follow, no rules to help us? Are individual consciences or congregational consensus the only factors, short of manuals of faith, which provide assistance in this vital subject? Some propose that we should “preach the man and not the plan,” but we are right back to the extreme “deity of Jesus only” proposal and still have not learned anything about why we let this single item be a matter of faith and everything else be matter of opinion. Is the matter hopeless and must we be condemned to a spiritual life of chaos because God has not provided an answer to this dilemma? Or is it possible that the Bible itself provides the answer if we will allow it to address the question? Can we tell the distinction between faith and opinion? Let the Bible speak.

Definition of “Faith”

Vine says that “faith” is “firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing” and “by metonymy, (that) which is believed, the contents of belief, the faith” (p. 71). He lists Acts 6:7; 14:22; Galatians 1:23 and Jude 3 (among other passages) to illustrate the fact. Thayer adds that it is “objectively, the substance of Christian faith or what is believed by Christians” (p. 513). Since we are “to contend for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3), be “obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), and can “continue in the faith” (14-22), it follows that the faith can be identified, understood, separated from extraneous matters, taught, contended for and followed. The faith is a body of truth given to us by God that identifies the content of our belief. Such belief is not subjective, open to individual approval of conscience, vote by committee or authoritative only by papal bull. The faith is objective truth, to be received as and when we accept the author of the faith, God himself. Personal faith and the faith are so closely identified that one word encompasses both and the distinction is maintained only by context. We can no more relegate a portion of “the faith” to opinion than we can relegate the existence of God to opinion. God exists whether we believe in him or not. The faith exists whether we acknowledge it or not. The parameters of the faith are not diminished because some of its tenets do not coincide with my notions.

In Acts 15, the question of fellowship with Gentiles caused much “questioning” (vv. 2,7). The Holy Spirit, along with the elders at Jerusalem and the apostles “considered” (v. 6) the matter. God’s will was declared (vv. 7-21) and the ensuing decision, reached by “accord” (v. 25), was circulated to all the churches as “these necessary things” (v. 28). Now, would “these necessary things” be equated with matters of I ‘the faith’ I or of “opinion”? When Paul rebuked Peter over this same issue (Gal. 2:11) and said that he I ‘stood condemned,” was it over the faith or opinion? When he warned against perverting the gospel of Christ into a “different gospel; which is not another gospel,” (vv. 6,7), was he respecting what had been declared in Acts 15 to be God’s will or was he binding his own opinion on his brethren? Obviously, “the faith” concerns “necessary” things which have been so designated by God and the result of accepting the will of God is accord, rejoicing and peace (vv. 25,31,33).

Definition of “Opinion”

While we have been using the word “opinion” as the common term describing that which is different to “the faith,” it is readily acknowledged that “opinion” is not a New Testament term. One of its equivalents would be found in Romans 14:1: “scruples” (ASV) or “doubtful disputations” (KJV). Here, Vine states that the word denotes “a seeking, then, a debate, dispute, questioning” (p. 322), and gives Acts 15:2 as an example of an unsettled questioned (though it was about to be settled). In Romans 14:1, it obviously refers to a matter of no consequence to God (though it may be a matter of consequence to men who differ regarding it). We should emphasize, perhaps, that our zeal concerning a “scruple” does not make it a matter of faith. In this passage, “judging” is prohibited by men and deferred to God since we should not “set at nought thy brother” (v. 10) over matters of indifference to God. One can quickly see that there is a vast difference between a matter of “the faith” and a matter of “indifference.” This is further illustrated in 1 Timothy 1:4 where Paul exhorted Timothy to avoid subjects that “minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith,” a clear distinction between faith and opinion. The same word is used in 2 Timothy 2:23 where the same young preacher is to refuse “foolish and ignorant questions, knowing that they gender strifes.” To Titus, he admonished: “shunning foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (3:9).

The Problem Addressed

We have constant and recurring problems distinguishing between matters of faith and opinion. Yet, as can be readily seen, there is a vital and observable difference. Matters of faith have to do with revelation, the will of God, the expression of truth, necessary things. This truth is knowable, identifiable, and complete as a body or unified whole. It is uniform in every age (since its revelation), applicable to every society and circumstance and able to be obeyed by every accountable creature. God will hold us responsible for our treatment of it (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 3; Eph. 5:17; 3:4; etc.). But with opinion, we enter the realm of human judgment, faulty reasoning, biased conclusions and traditions “handed down from the fathers.” As the Jews came to hold their traditions on a par with God’s revelation, men today are jealous of their opinions and insist on their practice as though they are matters of faith. Are we thus to be torn constantly between these poles, unable to “understand the will of the Lord”? I know that one church cannot speak for another church or for all churches. Nor may one person speak for another or for all others. But can we not agree on the fact that the difference between faith and opinion is discernible? Can we not study to learn if there are principles in the Scriptures themselves which help us identify matters of faith that affect and limit fellowship? If this is possible, and I for one believe that it is, we will not be so quick to bind matters of opinion or to loose matters of faith, confusing ourselves and those whom we would teach.

Matter of Faith

Matter of Faith	Matter of Opinion
Baptism: Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; et al. Immersion in water for remission of sins. Violation of the faith to promise salvation on other terms.	Use a baptistry or not; wear shower cap or not; only preacher baptize; use “baptismal formula” when baptizing.
Preaching: Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16; Gal. 1:6-9. Violation of the faith to use anything other than the gospel to bring to Christ.	Travel by boat, plane or ship; use TV, radio, or press; use gospel meetings, VBS, etc.
Lord’s Supper: Matt. 26:17-30; Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7 (cf. Exod. 20:8); 1 Cor. 11:23-28. On first day of week in assembly of saints with unleavened bread and fruit of vine.	Number of containers on table; time of supper in worship; time of day.
Work of the Church: Preaching (1 Tim. 3:15); Benevolence (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8, 9; Acts 11:27-30); Edification (Eph. 4:11-16); etc. Violations of the faith include instititionalism, centralized control, and social gospelism.	Amount of aid to be given to needy; give goods, service, or money; how long to continue aid; number of classes; who teaches the class; age divisions; what kind of literature.
Singing: Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12, etc. Vocal music is plainly a part of the faith but instruments are another kind.	Whether to use a tuning fork or pitch pipe; kind of book; who is to lead; how many songs.

Conclusion

Many of the items listed above as opinions are not of the sort that have divided churches, although some of them are. These are listed as illustrative of the differences many fail to make. Many of the things currently being labeled as opinion are clear violations of the faith (cf: institutionalism). Their introduction as opinion creates a problem to those who see them as violations of the faith. And herein lies the problem. Without a doubt, determining the difference between faith and opinion will continue to be a challenging task and one that is fraught with many dangers for fellowship among disciples. But, at least, let us approach this study with an attitude that accepts the proposition that God has made a distinction between the two and that it is discernible. The alternative (that faith and opinion are essentially the same) is ludicrous and elevates the ideas of men to the level of divine wisdom. It is axiomatic that those who hold the faith in common will walk in the same direction while those who elevate opinion will splinter and divide. Let us determine to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 140-141
March 1, 1990