Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Jesus gave his life a ransom number on Calvary, on Mount Calvary, cruel
Welcome to the Florida School of Preaching Harvester podcast.
We are happy that you joined us in season one, episode four.
I am the host, Brian Kenyon, and with me are co-host, and we have a guest speaker,
George Beals
and for Santa maceras whose wife just had a baby is not able to be with us on this podcast
but we look forward to his return as soon as possible we're talking this season about
unity and we've given some lessons already in this podcast but today we have a great
lesson in store and the topic is how the Bible teaches because to understand biblical
unity we have to know how the Bible teaches and then we have to know the three types of
actions.
Brother George Beals has done a lot of work in this area recently
and he was on the floor of school of preaching lectures recently and so a lot of the
things that we will talk about today are coming from some of his material and so George
tell us about how the Bible teaches and how that's important
Well, I would say that there are at least three presuppositions that we should keep in
mind for any Bible study, including this one.
And let me just go through these quickly.
I would say we need to understand that the Bible is the Word of God.
And then once we're on the same page on that, then realize that the Bible
is all sufficient, that is, it equips us unto every good word, work rather.
That terminology is found in 2 Timothy 3 verses 16 to 17, and the expression every good
work is found in that passage, those very words.
So we notice then 2 Timothy 3, 16 to 17, where the Bible makes the claim that it is all
sufficient equipping us unto every good word.
Furthermore, should understand that we must have Bible authority for everything we do.
This is taught, for example, in Colossians 3.17, whatever you do in word or in deed, all
in the name of the Lord Jesus.
In the name of the Lord Jesus, there refers to His authority.
Compare that with Ephesians 1.20-23, for example, and you would see that
in the name of means by the authority of.
So, in particular, this all-sufficiency of the Bible, 2 Timothy 3, 16 to 17, when we think
about that, we can discern that every possible action in which we could engage today is
either a biblical prohibition that is a sin, according to the Bible, or is a
biblical requirement or it is a biblical option.
An example of a biblical prohibition, a sin, is engaging in homosexuality.
According to Romans 1, 26-27, for example, the Bible teaches that all homosexual behavior
is sin.
A second category, Bible requirements, is exemplified in John 4, verses 23-24.
We must worship in spirit and in truth.
And then for biblical options, an option is something that you can do or not do and be
right with God either way.
The Bible exemplifies that, for example, in Romans 14, 23, where we have the instructions
about the eating of meat or not the eating of meat.
You can do it either way.
You can eat meat or not eat meat and be right with God either way.
So prohibitions, requirements, and options are the three categories that the Bible
identifies.
And it should be noted that he went through that pretty quick, but we can prove we won't
take the time in this podcast.
However, we may have a second season where we deal with nothing but apologetics, but it
can be proven that the Bible is the inspired word of God and no doubt about it.
And, and these things can be, can be proven.
We just won't take the time here.
Now, as far as prohibition, sometimes, you you don't always have to have a thou shalt not,
but such passages like.
put to death, you know, the works of the flesh and things like that.
They can be stated affirmatively, but they are still prohibitions by the context of the
Bible.
That's one of the, kind of a simple principle of understanding.
have to apply, just logically understand the Bible and how it teaches.
It doesn't always have to be an explicit, thou shalt not, in order to understand that it's
prohibited, or, or thou shalt.
There may be ways that the Bible teaches, which I'm sure George you're gonna get into a
little bit more, but that's a good way to understand that.
Helps us when we're trying to talk about building our unity.
And what George would you say if you say the difference between an explicit statement
versus an implicit statement and how each of those authorizes?
Well, an explicit Bible teaching is a teaching whose very words are found word for word in
the Bible.
An example of that is 1 Timothy 2 verses 3 to 4 in which you have the statement, desires
all men to be saved.
That then is an example of a
of an explicit Bible teaching.
very words of the doctrine are found word for word in the Bible.
However, that does not exhaust the way that the Bible teaches.
It also teaches implicitly.
An implicit Bible teaching is nicely illustrated by examining John chapter 3 verse 16.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
Now if I were to come up with the doctrine, God so loved Stephen.
This Stephen, sitting beside me here, that he gave his son, that also is a true Bible
teaching.
It is not explicitly found, that is Stephen's name is not found in the Bible.
However, it is impossible for that statement to be false given the wording of John 3.16.
He is included in the expression, the world.
God so loved the world.
So there's an example then of an implicit Bible teaching.
So everything the Bible teaches, it teaches either explicitly and or implicitly.
And I think it's good to note, as George just said, it's impossible for God loves Stephen
to be false given John 3.16.
And so I want to point out here that it's, you know, God loves Stephen is just as true as
God so loved the world.
Just as true.
It's not like one is more true than the other.
They're both equally true.
Well, doctrine is correct.
And so because a lot of people, we've heard them, you know, well, that's not
That's not what the Bible actually says.
Well, it still teaches implicitly, and it's still just as true.
And of course a classic example of that would be, besides the one that George has
mentioned, Lot came out of Egypt, but I don't recall the Bible ever explicitly saying Lot
went into Egypt, Genesis 13, 1 and 2, but in order come out of something you had to be in
Egypt.
so, Lot being in Egypt is just as true, even though the Bible doesn't explicitly state
that, as Lot came out of Egypt, which the Bible does explicitly
Of course, Bible in the Old Testament scriptures, for example, in Isaiah chapter 1 verse
18a, that is the first part of that verse, we have the teaching, Come let us reason
together, says Jehovah.
And then over in the New Testament scriptures, the same principle, 1 Thessalonians chapter
5 verse 21, Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.
So he expects us to go to the Bible as reasoning people, using the gray matter that he's
given us.
to determine truth.
Very good.
Okay, let's talk a little bit more about how those, all those, the, there's only three
types of actions in the Bible.
Prohibitions, obligations, and options.
Now how does that affect unity?
Well, maybe I can point this out before we discuss that.
And that is, there are different ways, and Stephen alluded to this a moment ago, there are
different ways that the Bible identifies an action as being in one of these three
categories.
For example, a biblical prohibition or a sin is indicated by the Bible sometimes with a
negative command, thou shalt not, for example, Romans 12.2.
A second way that the Bible addresses an action as being a sin is by
by the action as having a negative consequence if we do it.
You see that for example illustrated in 1 Corinthians 6, 9 to 10.
There are quite a few there, which is saying that, not deceived, neither homosexuals nor
adulterers nor drunkards and so forth shall inherit the kingdom of God.
It doesn't actually come right out and say, thou shalt not, but indicating the consequence
of the action is implying therefore that these are prohibitions.
Another way that the Bible addresses an action as a prohibition or a sin is by not
addressing the action at all, that is, being silent about it.
We can establish that maybe in another lesson that Bible silence forbids Colossians 3.17
as well as other passages would establish that.
There are different ways that the Bible identifies an action as a requirement.
One is that the action is addressed as a positive command.
You have two of those in Acts 2.38.
And before we get to that, let's go back to that silence of the scriptures.
There's a lot of misunderstandings, and I know we can get a lot more detail on this later
in a future podcast, but I think there's a lot of misunderstandings where people equate no
explicit statement with silence.
But that's not really the case, is it, George?
there is confusion among Bible students on that.
Some seem to consider, or take seam out, do consider an implied Bible teaching as an
instance of Bible silence.
Actually it is not.
By Bible silence we can show that
There is nothing on the subject one way or the other in the scriptures.
Zero.
Absolutely nothing.
No, not one thing.
Nothing.
Hebrews 7, 13 to 14 uses that very terminology, for example.
If in fact a person has found a passage that implies a particular action,
then it must be that this is an implicit Bible teaching therefore, that the Bible is not
silent about it.
If you can find a passage that either explicitly or implicitly addresses the action in
question,
then you have found a passage.
There must be a passage or a combination of passages in the Bible on the subject and
therefore you do not have silence.
You have something in that case.
So that needs to be understood and not understanding that distinction between Bible
silence and implication has resulted in some difficulties and divisions, unfortunately,
among professed Christians.
That issue, seems to me that it exists only in biblical things.
I think we overcomplicate that issue.
For example, if I were to tell my kids, no sweets tonight.
Now I didn't say cookies, and I didn't say popcorn, I didn't say bubble gum, I didn't say
juice.
So for them to say, well daddy, it would be illogical for for that conversation to happen.
And we can understand that in a very trivial kind of a conversation like with sweets with
the kids, but for whatever reason, when it comes to biblical matters, I think we
convoluted to try to give ourselves a license for certain things, whatever the case, but
it's just a very basic and logical sort of process to understand this principle.
Some people illustrate it with the Simon Says game.
So in that game, for example, you have to raise your hand if I say it.
I suppose you could say if I say it or imply it would be a good study in and of itself, an
examination of that.
But the point is, if I don't say Simon Says do this, then you shouldn't be raising your
hand.
So it's that principle.
Unless the Bible authorizes an action, that is, unless you can find a Bible passage or a
combination of Bible passages that either explicitly or implicitly requires or permits the
action, then it is unauthorized.
And if you add further, there is nothing in the Bible that even addresses it to prohibit
it, then you have silence.
A good definition of Bible silence is this.
There is no Bible passage or combination of Bible passages that either explicitly or
implicitly requires, permits, or forbids the practice.
There is nothing in the Bible on it.
Zero.
In that case, what do we do?
Well, Colossians 3.17 in the All-Sufficient Bible teaches by implication that we ought not
to engage in the practice.
And there are other passages that will establish that principle as well.
Yes, and I think to...
show how some people misunderstand that.
I remember several years ago I was at a major lectureship and they decided to have the
last morning of the lectureship and they would have what they called, was kind of like a
debate set up where you'd have brethren that agreed, you know, that it was wrong for
example to have instrumental mechanical instruments of music and worship and then on the
other side were brethren that said it was okay to have mechanical instruments in worship
and it was kind of like a debate thing where one would speak the other would respond
another would speak and another would respond and I'll never forget this and this
really stood out and I use it often in illustrations but one of the brethren that was
trying to justify mechanical instruments in music and worship he said you know we do stuff
that's unauthorized all the time we use a microphone we use a songbook and he kept saying
that that is unauthorized but we have no problem doing that and then he tried to connect
that with silence of the scripture we do things against the silence of the scripture all
the time but I
Back then I knew, and even now I'll say that, as George said, the Bible is not silent on a
type of music.
And it's not silent on whether a microphone is scriptural or not, even though the word
microphone is not found in the Bible.
What that microphone is used for is to help to project the voice so people can hear, so
people can understand.
In singing, it's used to project the voice.
And so it's not.
interfering with singing at all is help expediting singing.
And so just because microphone is not explicitly in the Bible, yet does not mean that the
Bible doesn't touch on that subject.
And that of course gives rise to the need for us to examine the Bible to see if in fact we
can show some passage or a combination of passages that does imply the use of a
microphone.
The burden of proof is upon us to establish that.
I believe we can, and maybe we'll get into that particular example as we proceed here, but
that is the responsibility that we have.
We must find Bible authority for everything we do, Colossians 3.17, and there is
Bible authority for using a microphone, for using a baptistry, etc.
Having a church building and we can get into that later.
Okay, okay.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but go back to what you were talking about,
So, requirements.
There are different ways that the Bible indicates that an action is a requirement.
Among these are the action is addressed as a positive command, Acts 2.38, repent and be
baptized.
You have two there.
Another way that the Bible indicates that an action is a requirement is to address the
action as having a positive consequence if you do it and a negative consequence if you do
not do it.
That's illustrated in Matthew 25, 34 to 36, and Matthew 25 verses 41 to 43.
There are several such actions indicated there.
Further, at least some of the ways that the Bible informs us that an action is an option
is to explicitly say it.
For example, at 1 Corinthians 7 verse 39, there, and a particular action is said to be
a matter of liberty.
That word is in the passage.
Another way that the Bible tags an action as being an option is to show or to give an
approved example of doing the action and
an approved example of not doing the action.
An excellent illustration of this is Acts 16, 1-3 where we have Paul circumcising Timothy
as an approved example.
And then over in Galatians 2, 3-5, the same apostle Paul here is not
circumcising Titus.
And so notice we have an approved example of doing an action and approved an approved
example of not doing the action and therefore it must be okay either way.
That would never be the case in the same covenant of a requirement or a prohibition.
And I think a good point here is that in both cases, the one constant in both cases of
circumcision or non-circumcision is what would best advance the gospel.
case of Timothy being circumcised, of course it talks about him working among the Jews and
there's no way a Jew would even give him an audience if he was not circumcised, even
though circumcision was done away with at the cross when Jesus nailed that old law to the
cross.
But in Titus's case, they were making circumcision a condition of salvation.
And so Paul refused to have that done in Galatians chapter 2.
Really the whole book is about the law versus the gospel.
And so the advancement of the gospel is one of the key factors in whether we exercise an
option or not exercise an option.
And that's getting into the point about the implementation of a biblical option as being a
matter of expediency.
And then another way that the Bible indicates that an action is an option is by what we
can call a generic requirement.
And this is what I sometimes call by umbrella authority.
For example, the
The instruction in the Great Commission recorded in Mark 16, 15 to 16 in Matthew's account
in chapter 28, 18 to 20, 19 to 20 in particular, we have the Great Commission where the
Bible teaches that we ought to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
That is like an umbrella in that it gives generic authority for every specific that
carries that out.
accept any that the Bible addresses to exclude.
So then if it's not excluded, if a particular means of implementing the Great Commission
is not excluded in the Scriptures, then the specific way chosen of carrying that out is
authorized by the Great Commission itself.
So those are ways that
at least some of the ways that the Bible indicates that an action is a prohibition or a
requirement or an option.
Yes, and that's a good point about the Great Commission to go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature.
And I know we have heard illustrations and preachers say all the time on that, that it
doesn't matter if it's by horse or by boat or however we carry the gospel, as long as that
method of carrying the gospel is not sinful of itself.
That's right.
And just another example of that, I was in a public debate at the University of Michigan
several years ago, and my opponent claimed that we have an example of Bible silence that
we're allegedly violating by our cars out front, because there were no cars in the first
century.
Well, she's making the mistake of
of equating or at least considering an implied Bible teaching as a matter of or an
instance of Bible silence.
It is not.
The fact that we have the Great Commission authorizes use of a jet plane or a chariot or a
walking or whatever.
Or the internet, exactly.
And I think that was a good example also of, you know, just because something's not
explicitly stated, i.e.
a car in the New Testament, does not mean that it is unauthorized because it does fall
under the generic of go into all the world and preach the gospel.
Exactly.
Which I think is an awesome point about the Bible and the way it's
you know by design of course that and and we were just talking about this i was teaching
class about leadership and the question was asked about you know how come there's no
step-by-step you step one and for pointing elders at a congregation here step one here
step two here step three and you know the answer i gave which kind of applies to this is
you know it's some of these things are you know because the new testament was written for
all cultures at all time
down the crowd of times.
and so if it had a step one step two it would have to make sense in the first century when
it was written but the culture might be totally different in two thousand years later and
so it's up to us to look at the principles that we see in the new testament the explicit
principles and the implicit principles and make the application to our culture because if
we lock if the new testament was locked now some parts of it are but if it's locked in a
certain culture
and it would be impossible for us to follow it today.
And I can anticipate perhaps a hearer saying, wait a minute, now you just said that some
parts are.
So would you want to elaborate on that?
Why, sure, I would want to elaborate that.
Certain ways that women show subjection, for example, in a different culture.
I remember when I was a little kid in Disney World first opened up, and of course I was a
kid and I'd walk around and see sometimes the people from India, the country of India, the
women would walk ahead of the men.
And I knew nothing about the Bible.
I knew nothing about anything except for having fun back then.
But I would notice that the women would walk in front of the men.
And then sometimes the women will walk behind the men.
And was very deliberate, very obvious, even to a little kid.
And it was about 30 years later that I learned that even in India, certain parts of India,
women show subjection by going ahead.
And then in certain parts of India, women show subjection by being behind.
And I don't know the reasoning for all that, but that's the way it is.
And so when you think about the veil, for example, in Corinth,
you know there's nothing in the fail itself they show subjection i mean remember in
genesis thirty eight i believe it is tamar had that veil and that was the the the outfit
of a prostitute back then but in color and to be unveiled menu a prostitute and so that
veils kana locked in culture even though and we'll have another episode about this more so
even though
it was that culture that doesn't mean it's our culture.
Now there's some that would try to bind that head covering.
And again, that's for another episode that we'll get to, but, um, that's an example of
something that's cultural.
Now the principle of women being subject to men in the church and at home, that never
changes, but how it's seen implemented does in culture.
That's interesting out along those same lines in first Corinthians chapter 11 it says that
in verse 14 does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a
dishonor to him but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her well would it be
conceivable for a particular culture for that to be reversed and
If that's the case, then that particular passage is making reference to a cultural matter
and is not to be bound as such.
Now, someone would say, wait a minute, now it says, but does not even nature itself teach
this?
Does this mean that I would expect that to be the word phusis in the original Greek?
does that mean therefore, is it saying that it's part of our genes for a woman to have
long hair and a man to
have thought here?
No, because I would say that if you could examine that word nature, sometimes it could
have a reference to something inherent, but other times it can have the idea of, and I
think demonstrated here, of long-standing practice.
And when you're dealing with nature in that sense, then of course that can change.
and it's the idea of habitual practice and we would say in our culture almost it's like
second nature, it's second nature.
When we talk about a baseball pitcher being really good we say something like he's a
natural born pitcher or a natural born quarterback.
We're maybe overstating.
Yes, yes, but I think we're using the word nature in a way like that, but habitual
practice can become nature.
And if you look at the lexicons in the definition of that particular word, it will show
that in some of the definitions as well.
And so that's a very good point.
And so when we think about these, you know, the Bible either implicit or explicit is how
it teaches.
implicit truth is just as true as explicit truth and There's no levels of truth there
They're equally true and then we've looked at the fact that the Bible does all actions are
going to fall into one of those three categories Prohibition biblical prohibition biblical
obligation or requirement or a biblical option and Where problems often arise we're to get
into in our next
episode where problems often arise usually arise I would dare say is in that area of
options and throughout the history of the Lord's Church even in the New Testament there
were some that were binding where God had loosed or loosing where God had bound and then
there was
loosening would be another term for option.
And binding, of course, would cover either a prohibition, you can see that that is either
a prohibition or a requirement.
In other words, we're bound not to do something in action.
Exactly.
Or we're bound to do it.
And then if there's neither of those, then it would have to be a biblical option.
And we will we will address those in more detail in our next Podcast our next episode and
so we hope that you can join us for that Any other comments that you brethren would like
to make before we end this episode?
a comment from me, Stephen might have a word or two as well, but isn't it wonderful that
brethren can get together like this and implement 2 Timothy 2.15 which says, diligence to
make yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of God, that we can do it in peace and unity and with the aim of understanding what
God would have us to do today.
Absolutely, and I just add that sometimes conversations like this could just seem mundane
or that they need to be relegated to a realm of academia, maybe in the college classroom,
but it's important for us to have these kind of conversations for people to be
knowledgeable because we will all stand before our Lord and we need to understand what is
required and what is not so that we can one, have fellowship with him, 1 John 7.
of 1st John 1, 7-9 and also so that when the judgment day comes we can have a good
understanding of what our Lord requires of us so that we can stand before Him being
faithful, obedient, and righteous.
that.
All right, we hope that you will join us the next time for the Florida School of Preaching
Harvester podcast and we will address the areas where problems arise in more detail.
We've just talked about briefly right here just to give you an introduction, but we'll
have a whole episode on that in our next episode.
We thank you for joining us and we pray that we look forward to being with you again very
soon.
We might