Answering 13 Questions that 'Church of Christ' Preachers Supposedly Can't Answer

A brother-in-Christ called me up a week or two ago and asked me to look at an article online that his wife had discovered. The article was written by Pastor David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, TN and is entitled, Common Sense Questions a 'Church of Christ' Preacher Cannot Clearly Answer. In just the third paragraph of the article, Mr. Martin brashly says:

"If you ask one of these preachers any of the questions in this tract, you won't get a straight answer due to their 'screwball theology.' You'll have them in 'hot water,' 'swimming in circles,' trying to explain their heretical positions. They'll be 'hopping all over the pond' because they can't stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines."

Now, I don't know Mr. Martin and have no issue with him personally. But considering the fact that I have been preaching for 'churches of Christ' for 11 years now, I suppose that I am qualified to answer his questions. I will only add that I'm not answering Mr. Martin's questions to be argumentative, but because these are very common questions that many honest people have.

I sincerely hope that my answers are adequate and helpful.

1. According to the history of the "Church of Christ," God used certain men to "restore" the New Testament Church in the early 1800's. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?

It's true that a Restoration Movement occurred in the 1800s here in America and that "churches of Christ" became quite prevalent as a result. The reason that the members of "churches of Christ" are sometimes labeled Campbellites (by outsiders, because this is not a label we use for ourselves) is because a man named Alexander Campbell was a leader in this movement.

While it's tempting to conclude, based on these facts, that our history can be traced to the work of Alexander Campbell, I would first of all suggest to you that if New Testament Christianity was truly restored by Campbell and his contemporaries (e.g. Barton Stone, "Raccoon" John Smith), then our history goes back to the first century, not the 19th century. So the question is, "Did they restore New Testament Christianity?" That was, after all, the aim of the Restoration Movement.

But more to the point, I see men such as Campbell and Stone as just a few of the countless men throughout history who made the same effort to restore and practice the faith of the New Testament. Take John Huss, a well-known Pre-Reformation reformer, as an example. In the early 1400s, John Huss wrote from Bohemia to Richard Wyche in England, "“Dear brother, the people will hear nothing but the Scriptures, especially the gospels and epistles. And wherever, in town, village, house or castle, a preacher of the sacred truth appears, there the people flock together in crowds. Lo, I have but touched the tail of the Antichrist, and it has opened its mouth, that it may swallow me up with my brothers. Our Lord the King and his whole court, queen, barons, and common people, are for the word of Jesus Christ. The Church of Christ in Bohemia salutes the Church of Christ in England.”

I believe that there have always been Christians faithfully following the New Testament pattern, and this letter from John Huss to Richard Wyche is evidence of that.

2. If a "Church of Christ" elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campebllite "preacher" in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation - the "Church of Christ" preacher is necessary to salvation for he isperforming a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?

I, for one, do not preach that baptism is not valid unless it is administered by a "Church of Christ elder." And I know a lot of elders and preachers in "churches of Christ" all across this great country, and I've never heard any of them use this reasoning. It's not a matter of who baptizes you, but why and how you're baptized (in keeping with the New Testament teachings).

3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.

I'll answer a question with a question.

If a sinner is going to church to hear the gospel and is ready to believe and accept it...but he dies on the way to the building, or the preacher's car breaks down and the service is cancelled...or let's say he dies of a heart attack during the sermon, right before he really believes in Jesus...is he hopeless and hell-bound?

In the end, all any of us can do is use the opportunities that come our way to preach the gospel, obey the gospel, and help others find the Lord. "What if" scenarios such as these do not change the message of the gospel in any way. If the New Testament mandates baptism for salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-7; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:20-21, et al), then that is what we must preach and practice.

THE NEXT FIVE QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH OUR BELIEF THAT SALVATION CAN BE LOST. I ONLY WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BELIEF IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHURCHES OF CHRIST; THERE ARE EVEN MANY BAPTIST CHURCHES THAT REJECT THE "ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED" DOCTRINE.

4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to "lose my salvation" and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn't my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry?!! - before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn't that my best opportunity?

I have to admit that this question made me chuckle.

First, according to Romans 6:3-7, because baptism is modeled after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, one must be immersed in water and then raised up from the water to "walk in newness of life" as the apostle Paul instructs.

Also, it would be an act of murder for the baptizer to hold you under the water against your will, and an act of suicide to hold yourself under the water. So it might just be better to go ahead and complete the baptismal act, put your dry clothes back on, and start living your life in such a way that you can bring glory to God (Matt. 16:24-26; 1 Cor. 10:31-33) and bring more into His kingdom (Matt. 5:13-16). That's God's expectation. The apostle Paul said, "For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:23-24).

5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to "lose my salvation," just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.

I don't think the Scriptures equip us to discern between "damning sins" and "non-damning sins." All we're told is that sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), causes our death (Rom. 6:23) and keeps us out of the light of God's fellowship (1 John 1:5-8). Therefore, we as Christians ought to just do our very best to avoid sinning (Rom. 6:1; 13:14) and when we do, to repent and confess our sin to God, who promises to forgive us (1 John 1:9).

6. If as a Christian I can fall and "lose my salvation," is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God "takes away" my salvation, doesn't that make Him an "Indian giver"? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?

Yes, we can regain our salvation. John tells us that when we sin, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Also consider Acts 8:22; 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 and James 5:19-20.

Is God an "Indian giver" for taking away our salvation? When we choose to sin and depart from God's will, we are forfeiting our salvation; God isn't taking it from us. According to 1 John 1, when we're right with God, we're "in the light." Sin is darkness. So when we sin, we are choosing to step out of the light (and thus out of God's fellowship).

7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the "point of no return" so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.

There are two sins that are unforgivable, I believe.

First, there is the famous "unpardonable sin" in Matthew 12:31-32, which is identified in the text as "blasphemy against the Spirit." Without spending too much time here, the context tells me that this is not a one-time sin that we accidentally fall into, but rather a mindset that is so severely wicked that true repentance is impossible. Even 2 Peter 2:14 describes those who "cannot cease from sin" because they have so given themselves over to the power of darkness.

The second kind of "unforgivable sin" is that sin which a person persists in and for which he does not seek forgiveness. Paul writes in Romans 6:1, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" John adds that "He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins [practices sin, CH] is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." I gather from these and other verses that if we continue in sin and do not repent, we will not be forgiven.

8. If I committed some sin -whether in thought, word, or deed, one minute before a fatal car crash - would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don't just say that it's up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.

Why is it so wrong to say "it's up to God" without giving a specific Bible reference? When describing his experiences in heaven, Paul said "whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows" (2 Cor. 12:1-4). I don't feel like I'm ignoring the question at all by acknowledging that there are some things I don't know. "God knows." That's not me being evasive; that's me being honest and, I believe, humble.

9. Why does the "Church of Christ" insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the "church of God" eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the "church of Christ." The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn't say "church of Christ." Where does the Bible call the church the "church of Christ"?

Mr. Martin references Romans 16:16 but does not quote it, so I will: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you." If there were "churches of Christ" (plural), then there was a "church of Christ" (singular).

Now, I'm not claiming that this is some official name for the church that we MUST use to the exclusion of all other names. It is merely a description of what the church is. The church is an assembly of Christians that belongs to Christ. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "I will build My church," and in Ephesians 1:22-23, we're told that Jesus is the Head of the church. When we identify ourselves as "churches of Christ," we're not only striving to use a biblical designation, but to give all the honor to Christ, our Lord. What is so wrong with that?

I agree that the churches in the first century were also identified as "churches of God" in places like 1 Corinthians 1:2. Many other designations were used for that matter. For this reason, I do not bind the "name" "Church of Christ," nor do I condemn the use of other scriptural designations for the church. I just want to give honor to my Savior, and the Bible indicates that this is one way to do that.

10. If the "Church of Christ" claims to worship God only as "authorized" by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the "authority" to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are "aids to worship," where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an "aid to worship" for the song service in the "Church of Christ," then why can't a piano be an "aid to worship" for Baptists who may need more help in singing?

There is a lot to say here, but I will simply give an illustration to make my point...

I'm sure Mr. Martin would agree that we are to observe the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures specify that we're to use bread to represent Christ's body and fruit of the vine, or grape juice, to represent His blood. Would it be acceptable to use Oreos and milk instead? Or Sun Chips and Pepsi? No, because the scriptures specify bread and grace juice!

But...the Scriptures do not specify how we're to secure the emblems, or how we're to serve them, etc. We realize, however, that we must secure them somehow, and that we must serve them somehow. Right? So we may purchase them at the store. We may bake our own unleavened bread. We might serve the Lord's Supper by having a select few members distribute the emblems to the congregation, or we might do it by having everyone come to the front, or by sitting around a table.

The point is this: where the Bible specifies what we are to do, that is what we must do. Where the Bible doesn't specify how we're to go about doing something, it's up to us to determine the means by which we will do it. This is how we understand authority in every walk of life.

Because the Scriptures plainly instruct us to "sing" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13), that is what we do...nothing more and nothing less. But how are we going to be unified in our singing? How are we going to go about it? This is where we have liberty in how we act, and I personally know of many different congregations who go about this in different ways. Some use pitch pipes to help find the right pitch, others do not. Some use song books while others use PowerPoint projectors or "call and response." None of these things, however, change the fact that we're singing.

11. The "Church of Christ" teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one's sins forgiven? Every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ - never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins," it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to "take away" sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that "for the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain' in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense? In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22) - the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb.10:4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30), all sin - past, present and future - was paid for, and the plan of salvation was completed, so that 'whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, "Father, forgive them,") and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.

Mr. Martin says that every time the phrase "for the remission of sins" appears in the Scriptures, it refers to sins already forgiven. He sees the word "for" as meaning "because of," not "in order to obtain." This is a classic argument and at the heart of many debates about baptism. 

Without getting into a lengthy debate about the meaning of the Greek word eis, I will simply point to Matthew 26:28. Before He was even on the cross, Jesus said to His disciples, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Did Jesus shed His blood on the cross because our sins were already forgiven, or in order to obtain the remission of our sins? This verse would seem to crush the premise of Mr. Martin's argument.

The fact is, the people in Acts 2:37 asked Peter and the apostles what they had to do (in response to the news that they were guilty of crucifying the Son of God). Peter responded by telling them what to do, and his instructions included both repentance and baptism "for the remission of sins." It's clear, based on the context, that they were repenting and being baptized in order to obtain forgiveness and salvation. 

In Acts 22:16, Ananias asked Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." In Romans 6:3-7, Paul explains that "the body of sin" is destroyed in baptism, a point which is repeated in Colossians 2:11-12. So even if a person struggles with the meaning of "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins," these other verses make it clear that sin is forgiven and destroyed when we are baptized.

12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of "righteousness," then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16) In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit - grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)

I don't believe that baptism is a "work of righteousness." Works of righteousness (Titus 3:5) are those works of which we can boast to the neglect of God's grace. It's true that we cannot earn or merit our own salvation. Those who arrogantly or naively think that they can work hard enough to "deserve" heaven are flat-out wrong! But there is a difference between works of merit and works of humble obedience. Hebrews 5:9 says that "having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." And Luke 17:10 makes it even more clear that obedience doesn't earn us anything!

I believe that if God places conditions on salvation (e.g. faith, repentance, baptism) or gives us instructions to obey, we ought to obey without question. I have taught and baptized a lot of people over the years and I have never once seen anyone come up out of the water or walk away from our studies thinking that God owed them salvation. I've only seen gratitude toward God.

I'll only add that if salvation is by grace alone (something the Bible doesn't teach), and if it is truly unconditional, then all are saved because God's grace has appeared to all (Titus 2:11). Mr. Martin would reject this conclusion. The dirty little secret is that even those who teach that salvation is unconditional teach that we must believe to be saved. And repent (Luke 13:3). And confess (Rom. 10:9-10). They just want to exclude baptism...even though the Bible is just as clear that baptism is essential.

13. The "Church of Christ" teaches that "obeying the Gospel" includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were "purified by faith" (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism!We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theology of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without "muddying the waters" of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?

Some of Mr. Martin's questions are rather lengthy, aren't they? And there are really four questions here, and more answering than asking, but that's okay.

I admit that this is difficult, but I will try to provide a concise answer for each question.

How is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The text actually doesn't say that they were saved by faith before and without water baptism. Or did I miss something? If one is going to argue that they were justified at the point of faith before baptism on the basis of Acts 15:9 (which says that God purified their hearts "by faith"), I would turn your attention to Acts 16:31-34. After being baptized, the Philippian jailor "rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household." In the context of individual conversion, the word "faith" may include the act of being baptized since it is an act or response of faith.

The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost - so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? First of all, I wonder if Mr. Martin is contradicting his early statements that works do not save us? It would appear so. To answer the question, though, while it is true that those who obey God receive the Spirit, it's not necessarily true that only saved people can receive the Spirit (see 1 Sam. 19:18-24 and Num. 23:1-5). This is because the Spirit may be given for reasons other than salvation.

In Acts 10:6, Cornelius was told that Peter the apostle would come to him and tell him what he must "do." Peter later recounted that he was sent to Cornelius to "tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14). If you'll read the text of Acts 10:44-45, you'll quickly discover that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles suddenly and unexpectedly, not because they obeyed Peter's message. Peter wasn't even done with his message! So the Holy Spirit wasn't sent upon the Gentiles in response to anything they did. Therefore, by Mr. Martin's own reasoning, the Gentiles in this story weren't saved yet even though they received the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues.

So why did they receive the Holy Spirit if they weren't saved? The context would indicate that because the Jews were so doubtful about the Gentiles, God baptized them with the Holy Spirit to prove that they were candidates of salvation (see Acts 11:16-18).

It's interesting that when Peter finally told Cornelius and the Gentiles what to do to obey the gospel message, he said, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47)

In light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation. I admit that this is a very unusual and unique story in the book of Acts. The events of Acts 10 clearly stirred up a lot of controversy even then, so it's no surprise that the same response is seen today. In the end, I believe that Cornelius and the Gentiles heard the gospel, believed it, and were baptized into Christ. The fact that they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water (vs. 44) only proves contradictory if you assume that this was a sign of their salvation. The context, however, indicates otherwise.

For more on this, listen to a sermon I preached on this topic here.

Conclusion

These 13 questions posed to preachers of "churches of Christ" are very common and, in most cases, very understandable. There was a time when I had many of these same questions. In fact, I was once a very active Baptist like Mr. Martin. But in the end, I believe that these questions are either rooted in misconceptions and/or easily answered with Scripture.

As I stated earlier in the article, I have no beef with Mr. Martin. This isn't personal. Someone from my church family asked me to take a look at this article and I saw it as a good opportunity to address some very common questions. Some of these questions were easily and quickly answered while others were deeper and required more attention.

If you're still reading this article, I'm impressed. It's been a long one. Clearly, you are interested in these issues. Please understand that there is SOOO much more to say here, so if you have any questions yourself, please let me know. I mean that.

Upholding BOTH Law & Liberty - Three Final Points

In the first two articles in this series (which can be accessed here and here), I made the point that when it comes to daily decisions and moral choices, we cannot condemn what the Bible does not condemn.

Based on a few comments that I received from good brethren, some may have gotten the impression that I was making a case for moral anarchy - everyone can do what they want to do and no one can condemn anyone's behavior. And even if you disagree, you're a judgmental Pharisee if you say anything.

Is that the necessary conclusion from such studies on liberty? 

I don't believe so.

In this final article, I'd like to make three points that ought to govern our moral behavior when in the realm of liberty.

We Must Acquire Wisdom

In many ways, the book of Proverbs epitomizes the main point of this series of articles. Even though Solomon, in this book, does condemn certain activities and behaviors (e.g. 6:16-19), the theme of this book is WISDOM.

"To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, judgment, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion - a wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of understanding will attain wise counsel, to understand a proverb and an enigma, the words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (1:1-7)

What is wisdom? Applied knowledge, right? Well...yes...but it's much deeper than that. You see, obedience is applied knowledge, too, but there is much more to wisdom than just obedience. Wisdom is not just the willingness to obey the specific teachings of Scripture (i.e. don't commit adultery), it's the ability to apply the principles of Scripture to those gray areas. 

As an example, the command to avoid lust in Matthew 5:28 will keep me from ever justifying pornography. It will also keep me from movies that include nudity, sex-scenes, suggestive material and even rampant immodesty. As a father, it causes me to teach my daughters the importance of modesty so that they are not a stumbling-block to boys in the future, and to teach my son the importance of guarding his heart. Because of the dangers of lust (and knowing my own weaknesses in this area), I try to avoid public beaches and swimming pools where there are bikini-clad women all over the place.

Is it sinful for a Christian to go to a public beach? Is another Christian family sinning when they have different views on modesty? This is where I think the previous two articles come into play.

In the New Testament, Paul instructs us to "walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:15). He adds in Romans 13:14 that we're to "make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts."

Not everything is black and white. There are gray areas. This is where wisdom comes in.

And while we cannot condemn folks for making choices that we believe to be unwise, we all do have an obligation to (1) encourage wise behavior, and (2) respond positively to godly counsel. Remember, Solomon said that "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov. 1:7). Don't be that person.

We Must Love One Another

Americans often have a sense of entitlement. We have rights and we feel entitled to those rights. If someone tries to infringe on our rights, we freak out. I once knew a brother-in-Christ who, in response to the government's ban on incandescent light bulbs, said he'd shoot anyone who came onto his property to take his incandescent bulbs. 

Even though we have incredible liberty in Christ, Paul instructs us in Galatians 5:13-14...

"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It has been said that "with great power comes great responsibility." This is especially true when it comes to Christian liberty. We cannot have the attitude that because we have certain rights and liberties, we can and will do what we want to do, no matter what the consequences might be.

Isn't this the main point in 1 Corinthians 8? "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (vs. 1). In regards to the eating of meat offered to idols - a clear Christian liberty - Paul concludes in verses 12-13:

"But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if good makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

We have to give thought to how our actions will influence others!

It it worth it for me to exercise my liberty in an area if it's going to hurt my influence? Is it worth it if it causes a weaker Christian to stumble?

I have always taken a very strong stance against drinking, and still do. I have talked to brethren over the years, however, who believe that it is okay to have an occasional drink. My response has always been the same: even if you think it's okay to have a drink, is it really wise given the number of brethren who have struggled with drinking and even alcoholism in the past, or who might not have the same level of self-control that you claim to have?

Do you see the point?

There are a lot of things that we can do but shouldn't! And even when we have disagreements about what does and doesn't constitute liberty, our love for one another ought to keep us from pushing our rights to the point of division (see 1 Cor. 6:7).

Jesus is Calling Us To a High Standard!

I do believe with all my heart that we need to do a better job of understanding and respecting the realm of Christian liberty. But it's of equal concern to me that some brethren see liberty as an excuse to remain weak and worldly.

It's true that we all start out as "babes in Christ." We're weak and feeble and brethren may have to bear with our lack of knowledge (Rom. 15:1). But just as babies grow into children, and children grow into young adults, and so on...so also should all Christians undergo spiritual development.

"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food...But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:12, 14).

If and when seasoned Christians are consistently justifying unwise and worldly behavior, there is a problem. The more that we grow in Christ, the more holy and righteous our lives should appear. This is NOT because we lose sight of our liberty or become more prudish, but because we develop a deeper understanding of God and His will that inspires wisdom within our hearts.

Conclusion

If we are all seeking God's wisdom, a deeper love for one another, and spiritual excellence, I truly believe that we will find ourselves making wiser decisions in our upward walk with Christ. The result won't be moral anarchy or a surge in worldliness, but a deeper respect (from the heart) for God's word that will increase our morality and godliness.

So can we encourage wisdom by openly discouraging certain behaviors and situations? Absolutely! In fact, this is something that we must do. But we have to be careful not to erect barriers that God hasn't Himself erected. I know it's a scary thought, but there does come a point where we have to give brethren room to grow in wisdom.

Perhaps this is where "longsuffering" comes in.

Upholding Both Law & Liberty - Case in Point

I received a lot of feedback - mostly positive - on an article I wrote last Friday on the importance of upholding Christian liberty. Although several points were made in that article, the main point was that we cannot condemn moral choices on the basis of principle(s) alone. This is because principles are, by definition, generic (i.e. the application isn't specified).

The Scriptures identify in plain terms a number of sins (i.e. fornication, lust, idolatry, covetousness, etc.). We can condemn these things because the Scriptures condemn them. But can we condemn an activity on the sole basis that it may lead to lust or covetousness?  

I few years ago, I was studying the issue of Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8. I don't remember if I was just going through the book of 1 Corinthians or if something came up in my life that caused me to reexamine this chapter. Regardless the circumstances, my studies forced me into an awkward conflict with my own assumptions about moral laws.

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul raises the issue of eating meat that had been offered to idols. Was it right or wrong to eat meat that had been offered to idols? In a more subtle way, he even addresses the act of eating in pagan temples. In a society where the culture and economy revolved around these pagan temples, I can imagine that there were all kinds of practical implications! How were these Christians to approach this?

As I restudied this chapter, it occurred to me that had I been an evangelist in Corinth in the first century, I would have condemned the act of going into pagan temples. Wouldn't such an act have epitomized "the appearance of evil?" Wouldn't people have assumed that you were going into the temple to worship the idol? Even with the eating of meat offered to idols, why on earth would you buy such meat when you had the choice to buy meat that hadn't been offered to idols? In other words, if I were to approach the activities outlined in 1 Corinthians 8 in the same way that I approach a lot of these moral issues today, I would have to condemn them!

And yet that's not what Paul did...

In 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, the apostle Paul explained to the Corinthian brethren that even though the meat had been offered to idols, it was just meat. While some couldn't eat the meat without violating their weak conscience (vs. 7), "food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse" (vs. 8). So while it may have been wrong for certain Christians to eat this meat, it wasn’t inherently wrong.

Then, in vss. 10-12, Paul alludes to the act of going into the pagan temples. He writes…

"For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.”

Paul wasn't arguing that it was inherently sinful to enter a pagan temple to eat. We know this for two reasons.

1. The act of eating in the pagan temples only became sinful (vs. 12) if it negatively impacted weaker Christians. So it wasn’t the act of eating in the pagan temples that was sinful; it was the potential violation of this principle that was sinful. What if there were no weak brethren in the church? What if eating in the pagan temples was a problem in Corinth, but not in Ephesus?
2. The use of the word “knowledge” in verse 10 implies that the more mature Christians knew that the meat was just meat and the idols were nothing (vs. 4). This “knowledge” potentially allowed them to eat in the pagan temples without violating their own conscience. Technically, they were eating just another meal in just another building. It wasn’t an act of pagan worship for them as it may have been for the weaker Christians (those who lacked this knowledge).

If Paul wanted to make the point that it wasn’t inherently sinful to eat the meat offered to idols or to eat in the pagan temples, he could have easily done so. Instead, his point to the brethren in Corinth was that even though these acts were not inherently sinful – and thus in the realm of Christian liberty – there were vital principles at stake that, if broken, could result in sin.

If the apostle Paul didn’t outright condemn the act of eating in a pagan temple – something that seems so obviously wrong to me even now – then perhaps we ought to rethink our approach to issues today.

Now, I’m not saying that we can only teach on the principles and never speak about specific situations or activities where these principles might be at stake. In fact, Paul affirms as strongly as possibly in 1 Corinthians 8 that we MUST take these principles seriously! This is something that I want to address in my next article.

What I am saying is that we have to give our brethren room to grow. The "knowledge" that Paul speaks of in places like 1 Corinthians 8 - and the maturity he alludes to in a number of other places - is not a destination that everyone reaches as soon as they step out of the baptistery. It's a journey, and we're all at a different place along the way. So instead of pointing fingers and micromanaging the daily and/or moral choices of other brethren, let's help them grow in Christ...and ask them to help us in the same way.

"Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense" (Rom. 14:19-20).

Upholding Both Law & LIBERTY - Three Guiding Principles

I can't tell you how many discussions (COUGH...arguments...COUGH) I've had over the years with fellow believers about moral issues, and specifically, whether certain acts are sinful or not.

Is it sinful to wear shorts or skirts that don't reach your knees? Is it sinful to go to public pools or beaches where there is rampant immodesty? Is it sinful to have one drink...or two? Is it sinful to buy a lottery ticket or gamble? Is it sinful to smoke? If recreational marijuana is legalized, would it be wrong to indulge on occasion? In 'dating' relationships, where is the line delineating appropriate and inappropriate behavior? Is it sinful to go to the prom? Is it sinful to cuss?

And the list goes on...

If you've been active in the faith for any real length of time, I'm sure you've seen brethren discuss these questions, and many others. If you have observed such exchanges, I'm sure you've seen brethren get heated, perhaps even animated or angry. Perhaps you've studied these issues and have your own convictions. Perhaps you've been involved in these arguments yourself and have accused others of either being "liberal" or "Pharisaical."

I'm not here today to answer all of the above moral questions. I am here, however, to share with you three successive scriptural points that might help you to better approach these questions. This might come across as revolutionary or "liberal" - I don't know - but in my mind right now, these points really seem very simple and absolutely undeniable.

First of all, if it is our desire to uphold God's word alone - to neither add nor take away from it and to "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent" - then we cannot condemn what God has not condemned. And I'm speaking here, not of our worship and service to God, but of daily choices that fall into the realm of "Christian liberty."

Isn't this the point of Romans 14? Paul says, "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things" (vs. 1). There are certainly matters of faith and law where God has spoken and we must obey. In these cases, we should make efforts to help our brethren recognize and overcome their sin (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1; Jude 22-23). But if God has not condemned something, neither can we condemn it.

The second point is this: we cannot condemn something on the basis of principle(s) alone. Now, what do I mean by "principle(s)," as this word may mean different things to different people. What I am referring to are guidelines or rules that are general, rather than specific.

The command to avoid fornication, outbursts of wrath and drunkenness in Galatians 5:19-21 is quite specific, and therefore quite plain. On the other hand, the command to "make no provision for the flesh" (Romans 13:14) is general and may manifest itself differently in the lives of believers who have their own unique circumstances, personalities, strengths and weaknesses. 

It is also a matter of general principle that we must be shining lights and thus examples of godly conduct in a sinful world (Matt. 5:13-16; 1 Cor. 10:31; Phil. 2:15). One person may believe that going to the theater to watch a certain PG13 movie will set a bad example for others, while another person believes that it is perfectly acceptable to see that same movie. Do you see the point?

Principles are not specific; they are, by definition, general. We can bind the principle and encourage people to make wise choices, but in the end, we cannot apply the principle to a specific situation or choice, condemn the specific situation or choice and then judge (criticize) others for violating the principle. Maybe the principle was violated. Maybe it wasn't. Can we say what was in their heart at the time? Or can we necessarily judge the effects of their decision on others?

Finally, if it isn't already clear from what I have said, we cannot erect barriers for our brethren that God Himself has not erected. To put it another way, we have no right to add to God's definition of righteousness or to have higher expectations than does God! Again, this is the whole point of Romans 14! If it truly is a matter of liberty (not law), we must leave it to the realm of personal judgment. Consider this lengthy excerpt from Romans 14...

"Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it...For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (vs. 4-10).

It's easier when everything is black and white. It makes things clearer for us and gives us the control that we so desperately want (over ourselves and others). But not everything is black and white. 

And sure, I understand that such open conversation about liberty may give weaker Christians the excuse they've been looking for to indulge the flesh. The proper reaction, however, shouldn't be to create our own system of bylaws to further restrict moral behavior (to ensure compliance), but rather to encourage these weaker brethren to grow in wisdom. This is why Paul writes, "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13).

I also agree that unity among God's people is critical! But true unity is achieved, not when we supplement God's law to forcibly fit others into our mold, but when we respect all of God's word - both what it does say and what it doesn't say.

In the end, we ought to teach the principles of Scripture and encourage our brethren to honestly apply these principles to their lives. But the second we begin micromanaging for all others how each of these principles relate to specific situations and condemn them where God has not...that's the very second we become guilty of usurping Christ's role as Judge...

"Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?" (James 4:11-12)

I can tell you that I've been guilty of this more than I want to admit. It grieves me in my heart to think of the numerous ways I have judged and condemned brethren in my heart. I am in anguish over the very notion that my judgmental attitude may have been a stumbling-block to others in the past. Have I turned truth-seekers away from the Lord or burdened babes in Christ beyond what they were capable of at the time? If I have, I pray for God's mercy and forgiveness.

But I cannot dwell on the past. All I can do is be committed today and in the future to upholding both God's standard of law as well as His standard of liberty.

Will you join me in this commitment?

NOTE: If you disagree with this article, you are burdened with proving from the Scriptures that we can unilaterally condemn something on the basis of principle(s) alone. PLEASE let me know if this is something that you believe can be defended from God's word.

Escaping Temptation By Prayer

This is going to be short, but sweet. I'd like to make a simple connection between two well-known verses.

First, there's this one...

"No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13)

And then... 

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannon sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:15-16)

So perhaps a "way of escape" from temptation is prayer. 

If you're in the midst of temptation - whether it's lust, greed, anger, or whatever - and you don't know what to do or how to overcome, in the very least, know that you can (and should) pray. God says that He will give you a way to escape temptation, and then says that you can obtain help, through prayer, during times of temptation and need.

I told ya this one would be short and sweet.

Technology Can't Replace Love

A fellow Christian shared this video on Facebook. Check it out...

It's an amazing message, isn't it?

The application to family life is clear. And as a father of six children in a technology-driven society, this message hits close to home. In all honesty, there are some changes I need to make.

But this message applies not only to my physical family, but to my spiritual family as well.

It's easy for churches to get caught up in technology. We have our websites, our blogs, our Facebook pages, and even our fancy PowerPoint presentations on Sunday morning. It's easy to pride ourselves on being a "21st century church." We even sometimes criticize churches for being stuck in the past - not having PowerPoint or a good website.

But in the end, what makes a church is not whether it has the technology, but the LOVE!

"But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Cor. 12:25-26)

 "...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." (Eph. 4:16) 

"Ask for the Old Paths" - a Lesson From 2 Chronicles 11

There always seems to be push to abandon the old ways and rush forward to embrace that which is new and exciting. Things that have been around for a while lose their appeal, especially for folks who are obsessed with pleasure. And that's our society today, isn't it?

It's also the case that the old ways - the "traditional" institutions, you might say - have been around long enough for us to discover all the flaws. The up-and-coming system of thought or institution still looks perfect to us, or at least better than the old.

From fashion styles to social movements, from diet plans to philosophies, short-sighted people obsessed with the here and now choose the excitement of what's coming over the wisdom and experience of the past.

In 2 Chronicles 11, we see a major transition taking place in the kingdom of Israel from what we call the "United Kingdom" (of Saul, David and Solomon) to the "Divided Kingdom" (Israel in the north and Judah in the south). When it was time to appoint Solomon's son, Rehoboam, to be king, the people warned Rehoboam that if he didn't agree to make certain changes, they weren't going to support him as their king. When he failed to comply, they said, "What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to your tents, O Israel! Now see to your own house, O David!" (2 Chron. 10:16). Granted, Rehoboam handled the whole situation poorly, but the people were quick to abandon their loyalty to the Davidic line - the royal line God promised to bless  - in favor of something new and "more promising." They went on to make Jeroboam their king.

But here's what I find fascinating.

When this transition took place - and when it became clear that Jeroboam was not going to be a godly king - "those from all the tribes of Israel, such as set their heart to seek the Lord God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their fathers" (2 Chron. 11:16). This included the Levites and priests as well as an untold number of people who were committed to truth.

I'm not suggesting that we should cling stubbornly to traditions, nor am I saying that new ideas never have a place at the table. What I am suggesting is that, like the Hebrews in this text who migrated to Jerusalem, we shouldn't be so quick to embrace what is new simply because it looks and sounds better. Rather, we should be willing to take a firm stand upon truth, even when it is couched in a system that seems outdated and drab.

I'd rather cling to the proven truth of old, even if there are traditions and people surrounding it that are flawed (i.e. Rehoboam) than hastily embrace the glitz and glam of the present (i.e. Jeroboam) that not only lacks truth, but will eventually develop the same warts and blemishes that I might find so repulsive with the "old" now.

We have to develop foresight and maturity like this or we will be like "children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).

I can't help but agree with the prophet Jeremiah who once said, "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it" (Jer. 6:16).