|
 Bro.
Turner:
Do
you regard Rom. 14: and 1 Cor. 8: and 10: as teaching we should
fellowship the “liberals” today? DT
Reply:
Both
“fellowship” and “liberals” are used so differently
today that I hesitate to answer categorically. The passages
cited do not allow participation, support, or encour- agement of
“important deviations from N. T. authority” or “detrimental
trends which gnaw at the vitals of N.T. ways and means” — to
use Bill Wallace’s words.
These
passages deal with problems arising over differences in
conscience relative to lawful matters. It was not wrong, per se,
to eat meat that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. (1 Cor.
8:8) Paul said, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience sake.” It was lawful
although it may not be expedient. (1 Cor. 10:23- 25) Paul
considered a brother “weak” who had scruples about eating
meat. (Rom. 14:2) (There are differences in the “meat”
situations of these passages, but in no case does Paul suggest
compromise with error.)
Even
these things lawful within themselves were forbidden when made a
“test”. “If a man say unto you, This is offered in
sacrifice unto idols, eat not —.” (1 Cor. 10:28) UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ONE EAT OR ACT AS TO HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH
THE ERROR. (1 Cor. 10:20)
“Fellowship”
means sharing, being a partner in, or partaker of something,
joint
|
|
participation. (It is by Extension —
metonymy — that the word is applied to that which is the
outcome of fellowship, as “contribution” — Rom. 15: 26.)
Diversities
in understandings and concepts are common in all congregations.
I will not sever all relationships with a brother who believes
the church treasury should be used to support a benevolent
institution. But I will not jointly participate with him in such
error. I will not put my money into a treasury that is used for
such, nor will I give encouragement to those who do. If he would
not seek to force “joint participation” upon me — by
putting such institutions in the budget, where my money would be
used to support — or by making such public avowal and
association of the congregation with these institutions, that my
very presence indicated approval and encouragement of the error
— then we could worship together.
I
would regard him as being in error on the point — and he would
regard me as being in error on the same point — but neither of
us would “have fellowship” (jointly participate) in that
which we believed to be error. I am firmly convinced that God
has made it possible for brethren who have the proper respect
for His word, and the proper regard for one-another, to be at
peace, united in His truth. (See “God Wants Unity Too”, page
5)
It
takes a perverted heart indeed to see “fellowship with error”
in the efforts of brethren to study their differences together,
and measure their practices by the word of God.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
