Three Situations Examined
By Timothy Glover
As already suggested, some are advocating that fellowship be extended to all baptized believers even across denominational lines because we are not perfect nor do we have all knowledge. Romans 14 is often used as a proof text for this view. Our response to differences can be outlined in three different situations. First, when God has not spoken, we are at liberty to choose if it is expedient and edifying. Second, when God has not spoken, we may not tolerate teaching that binds a personal liberty as a matter of law because it asserts divine authority where there is none. Third, we must contend (agonize over) for the faith once for all delivered to the saints because it is God’s will. It is imperative in this outline that we study to show ourselves approved and examine ourselves to see if we are fair in our application of the truth.
The first scenario is taken from Romans 14, a context that reveals God’s will when differences exist in matters of liberty. A liberty is an area of personal practice about which God has not spoken. The “doctrine of Christ” does not refer to any dietary law or the observance of certain days other than the first day of the week (Gal. 4:10). The context does not refer to the doctrine of Christ but to “doubtful disputations.” In particular, the setting of Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 concerns the matter of the conscience of a weak brother. He does not have strong convictions about something, so he is not demanding that everyone conform to his view. Despite imperfect understanding (1 Cor. 8:7), we that are stronger must not encourage a weak brother to compromise his view and thereby violate his conscience. If it was a matter of revelation, all Paul had to do was say, “Hey, there is no law against eating meat offered to idols. So, get over it and eat with us.” This would not have eased his conscience. If this was an “issue” of whether to eat or not like Acts 15 and circumcision was an issue, then Paul set the record clear in 1 Cor. 8. Brethren were disregarding the conscience of ignorant or weak brethren, having confidence in the knowledge that eating was a personal liberty. But, there is no issue in this context where no one was trying to bind a practice as law. There was no law against or for eating or not eating. The only law was the law of the conscience and that is the law of Christ.
Similarly, there was a “disputation” over circumcision, it was also a personal application, and there was also no law against it, either. The difference is that Jewish brethren were making it a matter of law (an issue) when it was not (Acts 15:24). They had a strong conviction but not based upon the law of Christ but upon their on tradition.
They were claiming that this was part of the “doctrine of Christ.” When they tried to force Titus to be circumcised, Paul and his companions did not cater to their demands that the truth of the gospel might continue (Gal. 2:3-5). If it was kept a matter of personal liberty, then by all means, observe the practice if you are compelled to do so. No doubt, Timothy was circumcised for a similar reason that a brother would not eat meat in front of a weak brother. It was not observed because he would have been in violation of the law of Christ but for the benefit of his Jewish brethren. Where there is no law (Doctrine of Christ), one is at liberty to esteem one day above another or eat unto the Lord (Rom. 14:5-6). Where God has not spoken, I must respect the differences among my brethren (vs. 10, 15, 21) with whom I am in fellowship. It is only in this area that there is a semblance of “unity in diversity.” Then, I may “know” and be “fully persuaded in my own mind” that a particular course of action is the right one for me. We cannot take that statement, however, and apply it to the right of a local church to do whatever they “feel” like doing when God has spoken and then reprimand brethren for speaking out against it.
Finally, there is a written will of Christ that we are not at liberty to altar – the doctrine of Christ. Is the teaching or doctrine of Christ that which he and his apostles taught or is it teaching about Christ? Notice similar expressions. The “doctrine of Balaam” and the “doctrine of the Nicolaitans” were not doctrines about someone (Rev. 2:14-15). Jesus told the church at Pergamos that He had things that he held against them because they had some there who held to these doctrines. He called for repentance. Here, they were not teaching error but they were supporting it by bearing with or tolerating those who were teaching error. John was pleased that his children were walking in truth (2 Jn. 4). They were abiding in the teaching of Christ. The specific error mentioned in verse 7 was just one specific instance of departing from the teaching of Christ. In verse 7, John describes the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh as being the anti-Christ. Yet, not all anti-Christs deny that Jesus came in the flesh. They all have one thing in common. They are all against Christ and his teaching and are characterized by deception. Matthew 24:24 reveal that many would say, “I am Christ” and “false Christs” would arise. Paul and John warn of false apostles and deceitful workers or liars (2 Cor. 11:13, Rev. 2:2). John warns of false prophets that must be put to the test (1 John 4:1; cf. Mathew 24:11-12). 1 John 4:6 tells us that the spirit of error is known when people will not hear the apostles or do not receive what the apostles taught. Such a one is not of God; he is the spirit of error.
