Truth Magazine

By Roy H. Lanier, Jr.

In the silence of many pulpits, and in the absence of distinctions formerly made about accuracy of doctrine, hasn’t the time come to step back and take a serious look at just where the church is today in modern America? Have some methods and means gradually crept in, some of which may displease the Lord?

Things that have been heretofore accepted, assumed and granted now are being ignored. A gradual loosening of boundaries that former generations were loathe to violate has taken place. Is it just that today, in the modern genius, men have discovered many expedients that are more helpful in getting the Lord’s work done? One might do well to remember a small but important point: To be expedient, something first must be lawful (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Or could it be that today’s generation of churches has carelessly crossed some vital boundaries?

The church is in the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3: 10,11). The redemption through Jesus Christ, as well as the design of His church, are from eternity.

The design of the church is to accomplish the mission of the Savior. He was to “save the people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21), stated as to “seek and save that which is lost” (Matt. 18:11), and to “give his life a ransom” (Matt. 20:28). Because the church is His body (Eph. 1:22,23), to be the “fulness of him that filleth all in all,” the church fulfills the mission of the Lord.

The church is designed to include all necessary functions in doing the mission of Christ. It is His fulness, the “habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22), God’s “husbandry” (1 Cor. 3:9), and the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Surely none will want to argue that God did not design the church properly or fully to accomplish its purpose.

The church, as designed by God, is vital and absolute. It was purchased by the blood of Jesus (Acts 20:28), a distinction accorded no other organization, and He gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:23,25-30). He is coming to claim it and present it back into heaven. No other group, body or organization has such a promise.

Only one such unit exists (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:13,20). God’s design and purpose included only one body, one group, one organization to be thus involved in the mission of redemption.

Spread within and without the local church today, a mass of other organizations interwoven within the framework of the church is manifest. It forms an umbrella round about the church, hovering over it. It is the “Para-church,” foreign to the Bible, but well-known to all in the 20th century.

Mission organizations, benevolent groups, medical units and edification-growth businesses are springing up outside the framework of local churches. Their intents and actions are good, even spiritual. Some of them are on an individual basis for all funding, but many are expecting local churches to finance them.

These extra organisms may include all sorts of evangelistic efforts not a part of, nor under the oversight of, any local congregation. It is not unknown for mission teams to be sent into foreign nations with the intent of establishing a local office structure outside the framework of any local congregation that might be established. Finances and planning are handled by this office, not by any Stateside church or church begun on the mission field. Radio stations are built, owned and operated by independent boards, but their finances are funded by local churches. Hospitals, medical clinics, foundations for medical operations, and so on, are now an accepted part of today’s working churches. Some of these are independent businesses, perhaps operated on a non-profit basis, but almost totally dependent upon local congregations for funding. Secular schools, called “Christian schools” and “Christian colleges” are quietly getting back into local church budgets.

Relief funds, set up as independent from any oversight of local churches, have sprung up soliciting local churches for their funding. They participate in many good works, but is this the way the Lord designed His church? Growth and edification corporations are now available to local churches, but churches are being asked to contribute regularly to their expense funds. Private care-home businesses are being organized, with every intent of being funded by churches across the United States.

Some necessary distinctions must be made. First, it is right and proper for individuals to do missions and benevolence outside the framework of any local church. In fact, one is not fulfilling one’s responsibility to Christ without doing such. One who is taught the truth is told to “communicate” (share in this world’s goods) with the one teaching him (Gal. 6:6). One also is charged to care for needy family members personally, that the church “be not charged” (1 Tim. 5:16). Thus, many challenges are open to individuals to accomplish great spiritual ends in the name of Christ on an individual basis.

Second, a distinction must be recognized between the individual’s doing something and the local church’s doing the same actions. A local church may feed a needy family, or a godly couple within the local church might buy the needed groceries, never calling upon the church for any reimbursement. Either way, the Lord can be glorified and the needy loved.

Third, the church can only march at the direction of its Head, Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18,19). It must avoid stepping out into the area of human genius and invention to do things that the Lord Jesus has not directed it to do. This was one of the major problems of the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day; they added their traditions to the instructions of the law of Moses, thus violating sacred trust (Mk. 7:8,9).

Fourth, the church is charged exclusively with its work: teaching and helping (Eph. 4:11,12). Many would say “evangelism, edification and benevolence,” and this is as good a way to say it as any. The church is charged to teach the lost, continue to teach ones baptized (Matt. 28:18-20), and care for the needy (Acts 6; 11:29,30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). So far as is known, no other work or activity should be charged to the church.

Finally, a church may pay for services received without funding the business itself. The church may purchase lesson books from a publisher, receiving goods and paying for them. Yet, the church cannot fund the man’s private business by making contributions to the firm itself. That is his private business and not within the instructions of the Lord for His church. A church may hire a plumber for needed work, but it has no right to include in its budget the support of the man’s business. The church has no right to fund some man’s business – spiritual or benevolent in nature though it may be.

Let the church be the church. Do not cloud it with all kinds of extra organizations or clutter it with things foreign to the Lord’s instructions. It has the greatest challenge of all centuries; let it be “about the Father’s business.”

Let individuals continue to climb great peaks of performance of spiritual works. Let men continue to invent ways to help redemption’s cause, let organizations flourish that may help in spiritual ways, and let the individuals pay for such great accomplishments.

Let there be accurate distinctions kept between the instructions of Jesus and the changing methods of men. We do not need organizations formed by men, planned to be funded by churches, that deny the absoluteness of God’s eternal planning for His church. God did not make any mistakes in planning, nor did He leave anything out that should be added by men.

God needs men to take seriously His design and go to work. The plans, designs and provisions are there. Why desire to change, add, devise, reorient or restructure the Lord’s church? God needs the help of men today, but in the way of participation, not addition, to His design.

A “para-church” is not the answer; the Lord’s church is the answer devised from eternity. Why question or change God’s provisions?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 323-324
June 1, 1989

By Edgar McFadden

I often think about heaven and spending eternity with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the angels, and all those who will have been judged righteous on the last day. In doing so, the words of the hymn written by James Rowe, “I Walk With The King” readily come to mind:

“I walk with the King, hallelujah! I walk with the King, praise His name!”

A familiar passage of Scripture conveying this beautiful thought is found in Colossions 2:6-7. It reads, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding with thanksgiving.” “Walk” in the New Testament usually means the way a person lives. This concept is clearly shown in Romans 6:4, Ephesians 2:10, and 1 John 2:6. Christians are to live and walk by the Spirit in like manner as Christ walked while on this earth.

Another way one can walk with God is to keep all of his commandments. “Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess” (Deut. 5:33).

Enoch, the father of Methuselah, was one of two men in the Old Testament who did not taste death (Elijah was the other one) because he “walked with God: and he was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). The ungodly and profane are without God in this world because they have chosen to walk contrary to his teaching. The godly, on the other hand, walk with God, which presupposes reconciliation to God, for two cannot walk together, except they be agreed (Amos 3:3). The Holy Spirit, instead of saying, Enoch lived, says, Enoch “walked with God” for it is the life of a righteous man to walk with God. It was the joy and support of his life coupled with communion with God that was better to him than life itself (Phil. 1:21).

Enoch was removed to a better world in that he did not live like the rest nor did he die like the rest “for God took him.” We are told in Hebrews 11:5 that he was translated to heaven. It was the faith and steadfastness of Enoch that pleased God and consequently was removed from mortality without death to immortality. This is the change that shall pass over the living and the dead at the second coming of, Christ (1 Cor. 15:51-54).

Most people today never take the time to seriously think about heaven. Our lives are measured by time. There is a time for us to get out of bed, a time to eat, a time to go to work, and a time to go back to, bed. There is even a time when we shall die. The Hebrew writer said, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). The account of the last judgment is given by Jesus- in Matthew 25:3146. All nations will be judged and separated with the sheep on his right hand and the goats on the left (v. 33). The sheep represent the righteous and they are the ones who will inherit the kingdom.

It is a sobering thought, indeed, that each passing day brings us that much closer to our eternal destiny, whether it be eternal life or eternal death. Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people because we have already experienced a part of the joy of heaven while living by faith on earth. James reminds us, “draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you” (Jas. 4:8). Therefore let us continue to march with unrelenting determination toward the city “whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Then we’ll be able to join the hymn writer in saying,

No longer I roam, my soul faces home,

I walk and I talk with the King.

Oh! What a glorious day that will be for you and me.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, p. 307
May 18, 1989

By Michael Garrison

The word “must” is used several times in the Scriptures. Some do not know the meaning of the word or else they ignore the meaning in an attempt to hold to a position they think to be scriptural.

First, we should define the word. Strong’s dictionary defines it as: “it is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding): behooved, be meet, must (needs), (be) need(ful), ought should.” Thayer’s definition is: “it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper; . . . it denotes any sort of necessity.”

In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” This new birth consists of being “born of water and of the Spirit,” i.e. in order for one to be born again, “it is . . . necessary (as binding)” for one to be born of both water and the Spirit. One may think he was “born anew” before either or both elements involved in the new birth were complied with, but Jesus, by using the word “must,” shows the necessity of water and the Spirit in being born again.

Another example of “must” occurs in Acts 1:16. Here, the apostle Peter said, “This scripture (Psa. 41:9) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas.” In other words, “it was necessary (as binding)” that Judas do what he did in betraying Jesus.

Now, having established the use of the term “must,” let us look at two modern examples where some reject the meaning and application of the term.

In Charles Holt’s magazine, The Examiner (Vol. 2, no. 2, March 1987), Holt wrote, “1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are abused and misused when the things mentioned there are asserted to be ‘qualifications’ necessary for one to be officially appointed to be an ‘elder’. . . We read all of this into these passages.” Is he teaching truth when he says this? No!

Not what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write: “A bishop then must be. . . ” and a list of about 16 items follows. From the definition of “must,” we learned it “denotes any sort of necessity.” So, 1 Timothy 3 is not misused when selecting men to be appointed elders. It would be a misuse of the Scriptures to teach, as Holt and others do, that “The word ‘elder’ simply means ‘older’ or ‘senior'” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986).

I wrote to Holt and informed him of his error in March of 1987 and have yet to hear from him. I told him I noted the word “must” is used in Acts 9:6. There Saul of Tarsus was told by Jesus Christ to “arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (emphasis mine, m1g). Now some may will say that we abuse and misuse the passage and say baptism (required in Acts 22:16) really is not one of the items one “must” submit to, but that doesn’t change the Truth that Jesus found it necessary to bind baptism to wash away sins. So it is when some teach as Holt does; the Truth must be taught and contended for and those teaching error must be exposed.

After Bob West had an article in The Examiner (Vol. 3, No. 5, Sept. ’88) titled, “I’ve Learned Better,” I wrote to him to let him know how disappointed I was in his departure from the faith. (He basically agrees with Holt on the subject of elders.) We have engaged in a good deal of correspondence. In one of his letters, West wrote, “. . . Isn’t it possible that Paul was giving Timothy a general description of a shepherd (and the kind of person one should be) instead of a list of legal specifications? Have you noticed that his instruction to Titus was not identical?”

I wonder if West thinks Jesus’ use of “water and the Spirit” in John 3:3-7 is just a “general description” of being “born again” or if they are to be considered as “legal specifications” before one is “born anew”? I wonder if brother West thinks that Peter’s use of Psalm 41:9 in Acts 1:16 is just a “general description?’ of the one who betrayed Jesus or does he consider it a “legal specification” of Judas himself? Does he think Jesus told Paul there was something he must do (Acts 9:6) as a “general description” or was it a “legal specification”? Honesty would demand Holt and West to teach I Timothy 3 and Titus I are items men must – of necessity – meet before they are qualified to be appointed as elders, or they must treat John 3:7; Acts 1:16; and Acts 9:6 the same way they mistreat 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, etc.

The quibble that the instructions in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus I not being identical is as easily answered as if he said the instructions in Acts 2:38 are not identical to Acts 16:31. Bob West ought to know we combine various passages to find the plan of salvation – it is not found altogether in one passage – and I’m sure he knows this! When we combine all the Scripture says about elders, we can know what God has taught concerning that subject. Some of that is elders are married men with children, and meet various other qualifications and that each congregation has a plurality of elders. This is what God has specified; it is not a general thing, but a must!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 329
June 1, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Perhaps you are familiar with the classic conversion experiences of those in denominationalism. They cite their “testimony,” or give their “experience of grace,”. relating how they “received Christ as” their “personal Savior.” Generally, upon their confession that “God hath for Christ’s sake” pardoned their sins, they are presented to their denomination as a candidate for baptism. At the next appointed baptism service (some weeks later), they are baptized into their particular denomination.

It seems not to matter to such people that their process of pardon is not found in the New Testament. They rely on their “calling,” “feel led of the Spirit,” and are quite satisfied with their “church home.” That they are led by a spirit, I do not deny, but the Holy Spirit of God does not lead them into an experience, a confession, a church and a baptism unknown to the Bible.

Christians have always pointed out the contradictions noted above and appealed to the word of God. Not a few have been truly converted to Christ. This is as it should be. Beguiled souls can be redeemed when they have been “taught of God” (Jn. 6:44-45).

Now, though, there are even some Christians who are telling of their mid-life conversion experiences. They sound something like this:

For years, I felt a chafing sense of legalism as I witnessed Phariseeism. in the church. Now, I have always been a member of the Lord’s church, and I don’t question my roots in the body of Christ. However, the harder I prayed and the more I went to church, the more frustrated I became. But a few years ago, I cast, off the yoke of brotherhood bondage. Today, my prayer life is more meaningful. I smile more often. Even my wife has noticed it. Our faith should be a happy faith! Everyone smile out there! That’s better. And it didn’t break your face, either, did it?

Brethren, we have “Nadabed and Abihued” the world to death. We have made laws out of some of our traditions, and that’s exactly what they are – traditions. We need a more positive gospel of love, and we need to learn to emphasize God’s grace. We’re turning people off with our commands and our laws. I’m afraid we’ve almost become the Pharisees of our day that Jesus condemned.

Now, don’t misunderstand me (some have in places where I’ve preached these things), but since I have allowed Jesus to be in my heart more than rules and regulations for the church – well I’ve been a changed person, and I feel more secure in my salvation. Honestly, I used to think I’d probably go to hell. I thought God probably hated me and was just waiting for me to do something wrong so he could condemn me, but now I don’t feel that way because of the change in my life.

Sound Familiar?

Brethren, have you heard a reasonable facsimile of the speech above? Keep your ears open. “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “Take heed . . . how ye hear” (Lk. 8:18). You may hear such things, for they are being said. They are being spoken with great piety and sincerity, which makes them even more dangerous.

So, I hope that after this week, you’ll feel better, too. I trust that you’ll have the joy of knowing Jesus in your heart as I do and not just the drab and dreary knowledge of the laws and barriers in the church that some well meaning but misguided brethren have erected.

But one aspect is not clear. Why is it that a sectarian’s “testimony” of his “conversion experience” is unacceptable, but a Christian’s “testimony of his mid-life conversion experience is acceptable? If a. brother’s “personal testimony” of his conversion is to be a pattern, then why not receive the sectarian’s story of his conversion? One is as good as the other. But since when is a man’s “personal experience” to be my guide? Tell me why I must reject one as a pattern but accept the other. Until someone does explain that question, I shall reject both and cling to the word of God, for it “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

If a man needs a mid-life correction, he should have it. He must regret, renounce and repent of anything that turns him, from truth. But I do not need to take Alka-Seltzer because someone else burps.

Phariseeism In The Church

The Pharisees constituted “the most straitest sect of our (the Jews) religion” (Acts 26:5). The condemnation of the Pharisees consisted of their:

(1) Doctrine – Matthew 16:6, 12.

(2) Hypocrisy – Luke 12:1; 16:15; Matthew 23:5,14, 23-31.

(3) Covetousness – Luke 16:14; Matthew 23:14.

(4) Outer Form vs. Inner Purity – Luke 16:15; Matthew 23:5,23-31

(5) Human Tradition vs. Divine Commandment – Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:9-13.

(6) Self-righteousness – Luke 18:9-14.

Phariseeism is not:

(1) Strong Conviction. Some equate firm, certain belief or conviction with smug, self-righteous Phariseeism. Paul, Peter and John were men of strong conviction (2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:3; 1 Jn. 4:6). Luke wrote of “things which are most surely believed among us.” He “had perfect understanding of all things” and wrote “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (Lk. 1:1-4). Timothy was to continue “in the things which thou hast learned and has been assured of” (2 Tim. 3:14).

We, too, are to “know the truth,” “the doctrine which (we) have learned” (Jn. 8:32; Rom. 16:17). We are to “hold fast the form of sound words,” “that which is good” (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:21). We are commanded to understand what the will of the Lord is, and we can understand it when we read what the apostles wrote (Eph. 3:4; 5:17; 2 Cor. 1:13). Some apparently have strong convictions that such an attitude is Pharisaical. Are they Pharisees for their strong stand against Phariseeism?

(2) Keeping (Obeying) Commandments. Some insist that we are Pharisees if we demand obedience to commands, but the Pharisees did not keep the commandments of God (Matt. 23:2-4; Mk. 7:9). Jesus said, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). Was he advocating Phariseeism? Is it Phariseeism to say, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (Jn. 14:21)? “If a man love me, he will keep. my words . . . . He that loveth me not keepth not my sayings” (Jn. 14:23, 24; cf. 14:15; 15:14). “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46) “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). Those who say. Phariseeism is demonstrated by stressing obedience to commandments and “rule keeping” have a problem. They have a rule against keeping commandments. Is their rule against rule keeping a form of Phariseeism?

(3) Condemning Error And Its Advocates. Since the Pharisees questioned Jesus and the disciples (Matt. 12:2; 15:2), some say Christians are guilty of Phariseeism. when they rebuke denominational doctrines. Is this true? Jesus answered the arguments of the Pharisees. He did not challenge their right to raise legitimate objections. He condemned their motives and confounded their allegations, but he did not deny one’s right to question another (1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2:2; 1 Thess. 5:21). Was Jesus a Pharisee since he rebuked error and its exponents (Matt. 7:15-28; 11:2024; 12:39; 15:13,14; 23: 1 ff.; 22:29)?

Was the apostle Paul a Pharisee in the negative sense? Observe his open and pointed reproof and rebuke of Peter and Elymas (Gal. 2:11-14; Acts 13:8-11). See his strong words of sarcasm and condemnation in Galatians 1:6-9; 4:12; Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-13; Philippians 3:2. If one does as Paul did, and is a “Pharisee,” then Paul was a Pharisee, too. “These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). Are those who condemn the “error of Phariseeism,” Pharisees for doing so?

(4) Pattern Theology. It is argued that exclusive, binding patterns are a symptom of Phariseeism. Some spit out the words “pattern theology” and “pattern mentality” as though they were vile terms. In short, if you believe the Bible is a blueprint, a pattern for one’s work and worship, then you are a Pharisee (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; Matt. 28:20).

Is initial obedience to the gospel Phariseeism? There is a “form (mold) of doctrine” to be obeyed (Rom. 6:17,18). Is there a pattern for becoming a Christian? Is there a specific body of truth to be known, believed and obeyed, or is becoming a Christian a nebulous, ephemeral, hazy, subjective thing that “just happens” (Jn. 8:32; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 1:22)? If there are specific, certain terms or conditions to be obeyed,,i.e., a pattern, is this Phariseeism (Mk6 16:16; Acts 2:38; 19:1-5)? Was Jesus’ mercy and longsuffering in the salvation of Paul a case of Phariseeism? It is 46a pattern” for us (I Tim. 1:16). Was Jesus guilty of Phariseeism in saving Paul via this “pattern”?

Ironically, those who charge Phariseeism go to the Bible to prove their position. Is the Bible a pattern for teaching non-patternism? If so, do they have a “pattern theology,” a “pattern mentality,” and are they Pharisees when they use the Bible to prove non-patternism?

False Concepts

Those who have had a “mid-life conversion experience” and charge the church with being Pharisaical often hold to false concepts. First, they confuse biblical worship with “traditional, rote, going through the motions” religion. Those who make the charge often ref~r to their own “traditional past” when they “did all the right things,” but were devoid of “true love.” Well, that is their problem., Because they were once self-confessed Pharisees does not prove that others are. One may do things by rote and ritual and leave his first love, but that does not mitigate against the form of true worship (Rev. 2:2-5). Because Ananias and Sapphira, went through the motions of giving (Acts 5:1-11), does not justify a Monday night collection. Because the church at Corinth perverted the Lord’s supper with their tradition (1 Cor. 11), does not authorize a Thursday night communion. Nor do those examples make one a Pharisee if he contends for the biblical pattern (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

Second, they say, “Our church laws and traditions, though essentially correct, turn others off.” No one should devise human laws and traditions, whether they repel or compel others. But what specific items, though “essentially (scripturally) correct,” should we reject so as not to offend some people – immersion for the remission of sins? Elders in every church? Lord’s day communion and contribution? Singing without a piano? What? Preaching Jesus as the Son of God “turns off” many people (Acts 9:20; 18:4-6). Should we abandon this as a “church law and tradition”?

“Two songs, a prayer and another song” are rote, ritualistic worship; it is too trite and traditional, or so we are told. Well, is it scriptural? Do you pray before your meals three times a day? If so, is it “trite and traditional”? Worse yet, is it Pharisaical? Sectarians have objected to serving the Lord’s supper every Sunday for the same reason. It makes it too common, they say. Should we dispense with the weekly communion because they consider it too formal and rigid?

Shall we have spontaneous singing to break out of the rut of this alleged ritualism? How about during preaching and praying? Should we sing then? Some think humming hymns during the Lord’s supper is “a nice touch.” How about humming during prayer or preaching? After a while, though, humming during the Lord’s supper would become trite and traditional. That is the way of all fads. When a fad gets old, it becomes a tradition – sprinkling, instrumental music, beads and candles – all are examples.

Some like applause after a sermon. How about hissing and booing a poor sermon? Some prayers are better than some sermons. Shall we clap for them? If your wife and kids hummed hymns while you gave thanks for breakfast and applauded after you were through, would you commend them for “breaking out of the rut of trite and traditional” thanksgiving?

Third, some say, “We have freedom in Christ. God did not deliver us from one law simply to enslave us under another one.” Certainly, we have freedom, liberty in Christ (Jn. 8:32,36; Gal. 5:1). Paradoxically, our freedom is contained in “the perfect law of liberty” which we must look into and continue in (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). Even Galatians 5:1 commands us to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Are we “free” to disobey that command? Liberty has its bounds, its restraints (1 Cor. 8:8-13). “For, brethren, ye have been called into liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

Some who promise liberty make themselves the servants of corruption (2 Pet. 2:19). Some who promote and promise freedom in Christ become servants of human traditions and enemies of divine truth. Diotrephes was not “free” to oppose apostolic doctrine. Was John a “Pharisee” for opposing him (3 Jn. 9-11)? Hymanaeus and Philetus were not “free” to teach their views without Paul exposing them (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Was Paul a “Pharisee”? The Corinthians were not “free” to cause confusion with their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14). Was Paul a “Pharisee” for putting limits, for setting rules and restrictions on their exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:23-33)?

Frequently, an appeal is made to Romans 14 for freedom. The very first verse of that chapter contains a command and a prohibition! One must receive the weak brother, but not to doubtful disputations.” Am I “free” to disobey? The strong brother is not free to despise the weak brother (v. 3). One is not free to cause his brother to stumble (v. 13). One is not free to exercise his rights if they cause a brother to stumble (vv. 14, 21). Usually, when a denominational preacher is hemmed in and cannot justify his doctrines, he will flee to Romans 14, but the chapter has rules in it, the very thing he is trying to avoid.

But while we are speaking of freedom, I, too, am a “free man in Christ.” As such, am I free to:

(1) Preach and bind baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts. 2:38)?

(2) Preach that sprinkling is not baptism (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36-38)?

(3) Preach that Jesus built his church, not Martin Luther’s, or any other man’s (Matt. 16:18)?

(4) Preach that Jesus is the head and Savior of only one church (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23-25; 1 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 12:4,5; Col. 1:18,24)?

(5) Preach that the Lord’s supper should not be carnalized with a common meal (1 Cor. 11)?

(6) Preach that some will subvert your souls by teaching doctrines not found in the word of God (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Thess. 2:1-3,15; 2 Jn. 9; Matt. 15:8,9)?

Will those who spout and flaunt their “freedom” tell me whether I am free to preach the things above? Am I free to oppose them when they, under the cloak and guise of freedom, endeavor to bring in their doctrines, or am I bound not to do so? Or is their “freedom doctrine” a one way street? They want freedom, but they usually deny it to those who oppose them. Finally, if, freedom is as broad as they say, am I not free to be a Pharisee? Or is there a law against one being a Pharisee? (For a more complete and thorough study of Phariseeism, see James D. Bales’ book, Faith Under Fire, from which I shoplifted many of the above thoughts. The rest I simply plagiarized.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 304-306
May 18, 1989