Thrust Statement: God does not want one to use his knowledge as a club to beat to death those who do not yet understand things very clearly.

Scripture Reading: 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; Romans 14:1—15:7

            Christians frequently encounter opposition from other believers when they fail to understand the odd interpretation of some distinctive fellowship of believers. Salvation, to some extent, is based upon one’s discernment of Holy Scripture, especially with details concerning a so-called worship service.  Many years ago, this author was thrown out of the one-cup and non-Sunday School movement over his failure to adhere to the interpretations placed upon Scriptures frequently cited to maintain faithfulness to the party. If one deviated from the norm, then salvation, so it was thought, could not belong to the one whose knowledge did not measure up.  Within this fellowship, one had to cross every “t” and dot every “i” according to the political party leaders in order to enjoy fellowship among the so-called chosen of God. This group, as a whole, did not make allowances for differences within the circle. Salvation was established upon correct knowledge of the Scriptures, not the finished work of Christ.

            But this kind of attitude is not unique to just one particular assembly of God’s people; it is true with almost every faction within the Churches of Christ.  Each rupture within the Stone/Campbell Movement stresses correct knowledge before the right hand of fellowship can be extended. In other words, absolute perfection in knowledge is made a condition of salvation. Salvation is contingent upon absolute freedom from error. As one reflects upon the implications of such a philosophy concerning precision in knowledge, one is confronted with a number of questions that everyone must answer for himself/herself. For example, does Scripture advance this notion of perfection in knowledge? Can individuals be in fellowship even when one’s information is deficient. Is absolute freedom from error a condition of salvation? Is complete rightness in knowledge a prerequisite for salvation? These are difficulties that every believer must investigate for himself/herself. Does the Word of God deal with this problem of exactness in comprehension? Can one be incorrect in his/her information and still be saved?

            Every Christian should thank God that He has not made salvation dependent upon flawlessness in one’s insight; if He had, none could be saved. In this same vein, one can thank God that He has not made freedom from error a stipulation of salvation; if he had, none could be saved. Christians frequently ask the question: Are you in fellowship with brethren in error? The answer is yes! There is no other kind. Christians are in fellowship with fellows, not error. Many Christians have not learned that salvation is based upon God’s grace, not one’s work or one’s clear insight. One’s justification with God begins with faith and ends with faith.

            It is not uncommon for Christians to look down upon others whose knowledge has not progressed as much as theirs. If one would go to the Bible without spectacles, one would quickly see that the Scriptures deal with such a scenario. One’s failure to grasp clearly the teachings of God does not give one the right to snub a child of God.   Paul, for example, discusses this issue of correct and incorrect knowledge in his first letter to Corinthians and in his letter to Romans.

In the Corinthian letter, Paul castigates the so-called knowing ones. Some of the believers were accurate in their perception of meat sacrificed to idols and their perception that there is only one God, but, on the other hand, there were some Christians who did not get the picture of these things quite as clearly as others. How did Paul confront this theme of imperfection in discernment? The following is Paul’s response to the crisis in Corinth:

Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. ² The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.  ³ But the man who loves God is known by God. ⁴ So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.  ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ⁷ But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:1-7).^[1]

Paul goes right to the heart of the matter: “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know” (8:2).  There is not a Christian on earth that knows everything, as he/she would like to know. Everyone’s knowledge is deficient. Paul says that it is true that “we all possess knowledge” concerning things sacrificed to idols, but one cannot press his/her knowledge to the point of disregard for another brother or sister in Christ. He asserts that knowledge can make one arrogant, but, on the other hand, love can edify. One of the greatest statements made by Paul in this epistle is, “if anyone loves God, he is known by Him” (8:3). Paul cuts through all the arguments and underbrush by saying that it is true that not everyone knows everything as he/she ought to know, but, at the same time, he zeros in on the detail that matters most to God—“if anyone loves God, he is known by Him” (8:3). In spite of an absence of knowledge in this area concerning idols and food, God still loves the one that loves Him. Even though Christians may excommunicate other Christians over their legalistic enactment, nevertheless, God still knows him/her.

As one evaluates this controversy, one wonders if the subject of “one God” is less important than instrumental music, grape juice, bread pinching, Bible colleges, and so on? The one-cup movement, as well as many other divisions within the Churches of Christ, is hopelessly divided over the most trivial issues. Just a perusal of some of the journals published by those associated within the Churches of Christ confirms the factiousness that is prevalent. How did Paul confront this dilemma of insufficiency in knowledge about the one true nature of God and the erring brother or sister? Paul says that it is true that there “is no God but one” (8:4). In the development of his arguments, he continues to express, “there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (8:6). Did all the Corinthians understand this truth? How should individuals respond to this question? One should allow Paul to respond to this question with his penetrating analysis of knowledge and fellowship and toleration. Listen as Paul continues his arguments for toleration: “However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled” (8:7). According to Paul, if the “knowing ones” insist upon their rights to the downfall of the weaker believer, then he affirms that “they sin against Christ: For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (8:11-12).

Paul, after setting forth various differences within the community of believers (chapters 8—12), concludes his remarks in the thirteenth chapter. Paul takes up five chapters in developing his thoughts on “knowledge” and “love,” which gushes forth in toleration. In chapter 13, he sums up his arguments that began this discussion of imperfection in knowledge (8:2) with this conclusion: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love” (13:12-13, NSAB).  Carl Ketcherside sought to capture the very essence of Paul’s writings when he pointed out that fellowship in Jesus is not contingent upon agreement of opinions:

Those who were in Christ in the days of the apostles were in error on many points. They were mistaken about a lot of things but they were not charged with “preaching another gospel.” Freedom from error is not a condition of salvation else all men would be damned. We are not saved by attainment to a certain degree of knowledge but by faith in Christ Jesus. It is by belief of facts related to him, and not by grasp of abstract truth, that we are justified before God. Certainly it is not by performance of meritorious deeds nor by legalistic conformity. When we postulate a program of justification by knowledge we hang ourselves on the gallows we have constructed to rid ourselves of others, unless we are prepared to make ourselves even more ridiculous by affirming that we know as much as God.^[2]

            This citation from Ketcherside is in harmony with the teachings of Paul in the Corinthian and Roman correspondences. Paul, in writing to the Christians at Rome, says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:2); “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (14:4); “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (14:5); “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (15:7).

CONCLUSION

One should do some soul searching at this point in his/her life. Just how does God accept individuals? Does God recognize an individual with imperfection in his/her  knowledge or in his/her life? It is in this same manner of God’s favorable reception that Paul encourages Christians at Rome to put into practice. Many sincere Christians reject the evidence for toleration in spite of the evidence. If an individual’s prejudice is so deep-seated, then, in effect, a verdict is passed before the evidence is even considered, then, surely, prejudice negates the possibility of understanding a text. Some have such a rigid stance on the basis of their own hermeneutics that they have accused others as not respecting the authority of the Bible. This author has not hesitated to reject ancient traditions when the presuppositions are untenably based upon the evidence from Holy Scripture. It goes almost without saying that much theology has been passed on to the church by godly teachers who learned their traditions and interpretations many years earlier. Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell—founders of three distinct religious bodies—sought to eliminate long-held traditions passed on from generation to generation.

One cannot show this point more clearly than by quoting at length from the pen of Thomas Campbell (father of Alexander Campbell). He confronted the enforced attitude of conformity to the status quo in his own day. When he refused to allow an ecclesiastical body to dictate to him what he could or could not believe, he rebelled. As a result of his concept of “unity-in-diversity,” he was excommunicated in 1809. Following this encounter with the church authorities, he wrote the Magna Charta known as the Declaration and Address—completed on September 8, 1809.  In this document, Articles 6 and 7, he wrote:

6.  That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.

7     That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion; unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.^[3]

Every Christian must learn to reevaluate and reinterpret the traditions handed down to them through the centuries. The traditions of the church make it difficult, if not impossible, for many sincere believers to read the Bible without spectacles.  It is difficult for Christians to hear anew the Word of God. The faith of the founding fathers in the various subdivisions within the Churches of Christ has become the watchword for orthodoxy. Their interpretation was passed on as normative to their particular band of believers and became authoritative for that scrupulous schism. Those who refused to submit faced excommunication for departing from the idiosyncrasies advanced in each meticulous splinter throng of so-called “sound” Christians. 

 

---