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.
Welcome to the Harvester Podcast.
We are very happy you have chosen to join us today.
as we are in between seasons four and five.
Season four wrapped up a few episodes ago and we looked at the expediencies of marriage
from 1 Corinthians 7 and we will begin season number five with a study of the minor
prophets in a few more episodes.
But now we're doing some episodes, we call them bumper-soweds because they are in between.
seasons as bumper music is in between segments of a radio show so our bumper's episodes
are in between seasons.
And so we are looking at a few uh lessons as we have already given on doctrinal unity,
doctrinal unity, and we've discussed some things that get in the way of unity.
We first looked at Apollos.
and though he was teaching wrongly, he is not the same as a false teacher as per Romans
16, 17, and 18, and other places.
He was easily corrected when he saw the truth, and he repented and continued preaching the
truth even more forcefully, Acts 18, 24 through 28.
And then we looked also at the idea of, quote, white doctrine, unquote,
and quote, black doctrine, unquote.
How that that is just an excuse to not study and obey what the scriptures teach because
the doctrine of Christ is neither black nor white, but it is for all people for all time,
no matter the culture, no matter the skin color, no matter the ethnicity.
It is the doctrine of Christ for all.
And so now we want to address another thing that I have seen, and I am by the way, I'm
your host, Brian Kenyon.
And we will look at some things here.
And so here's another thing that I have found that is often divisive and it creates a
doctrinal disunity that should not be.
And I want to introduce this, and actually we'll call this, the safest thing, quote
unquote, really scriptural?
Or is it a reflection of brotherhood politics leading to binding
what God has not bound.
Now several years ago, when I was a younger preacher, in fact it was probably close to
thirty years ago, I forget, but several years ago I was asked to perform a wedding
ceremony for a couple that was from another congregation and I did not hardly know the
couple but I knew their preacher very well and I knew the congregation very well and they
were both exemplary, sound congregation
and a very good exemplary and very influential preacher that was sound.
Now when this couple asked me, and I asked them why they wanted me to do it, I learned
that the other congregation, the preacher over there, would not officiate their wedding.
And so since he did not officiate their wedding, he told them no, and I highly respected
that preacher, I also told this couple no, I would not do it.
Now that decision, even at the time, it slightly bothered me because it seemed the only
reason I refused was because the preacher whom I highly respected refused.
Well, as the years progressed, it became more apparent that my decision was not based on
Scripture, but it was based on conforming to another man's decision.
And I realize all of us have decisions to make, and we, you know, base our decisions on
certain things.
We have a right to do that.
Yeah, we don't have to as a preacher and I teach our students, we don't have to perform
wedding ceremonies if we don't want to.
And now, of course, if we know the couple has no right to marry, then we cannot perform
that.
But even if they do have right to remarry, we don't have to.
But again, my decision was based on conforming to the other preacher's decision.
And so that couple that eventually did get married
They were in full fellowship and they attended that very same congregation that that
preacher refused to do their wedding ceremony.
And they were in full fellowship with that congregation.
The brother was, you know, he was allowed to lead prayers and wait on the Lord's table and
such.
And I got to thinking, well, that would not be the case if the marriage, the second
marriage, was unscriptural.
Because I know that preacher, I know that congregation, he would not have been allowed to
be there.
He'd been disfellowshipped.
And so I thought, well, if God allows remarriage in certain circumstances, and He
certainly does, for example, Matthew 19, 9, whosoever shall put away his wife except to be
for fornication, and marries another commits adultery.
So that means if a man puts away his wife and it is for fornication, he is not committing
adultery when he remarries.
In Romans 7, 2 through 3,
A wife is bound by the laws oh as long as her husband lives, but if her husband's dead,
she is free to marry, to remarry.
And of course, in Romans 7, Paul is using that to illustrate that they were dead to the
law, and so they are perfectly legitimate to be married to Christ.
In fact, that's where you should be married to Christ.
In 2 Corinthians 7, 39,
Widows have a right to remarry only in the Lord, and we discussed that in season four
toward the end of that season.
But there are situations where God allows remarriage.
Namely, when a spouse has died, the remaining spouse, surviving spouse, is free to
remarry.
Of course, only a person who's eligible.
And in Matthew 19, a innocent, affordication spouse
in a scriptural divorce is allowed to remarry by God's Word.
And so if God allows remarriage in certain circumstances, why should I consider that
wedding ceremony second rate or not worthy of consideration and support?
You know, after all, 1 Corinthians 12 and verse 26, and if one member suffers, all members
suffer with it, or if one member is honored,
all the members rejoice with it so as a congregation we should rejoice we rejoice with
those in fact romans twelve fifteen rejoice with those that rejoice also in second or
first corinthians excuse me first corinthians thirteen verses four through seven love
suffers long and is kind love does not envy love does not parade itself is not puffed up
does not behave rudely
does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity but
rejoices in the truth, bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures
all things.
And so those qualities of love, that should be celebrated, that should be rejoiced.
And so if somebody wants to marry, even if it's their second time, and it's scriptural,
why should I refuse to marry them?
To perform their wedding ceremony.
and so and i realize sometimes we don't know sometimes people may have that policy because
they don't know but why not find out if you're not sure whether a couple is eligible to
marry why not study with them what because if they're not a little to remarry don't you
want to let them know that so they don't their souls in jeopardy if they do
So why would you not want to least sit down and counsel with them?
I mean, I personally have a policy I will not do anybody's wedding ceremony unless they
agree to at least three one-hour sessions of premarital counseling.
Because this way, even if they're members of the church already, but this way I know that
they know, at least I know that they've been taught correctly and I know what they've been
taught.
And so, but you know, why refuse just because it's a second marriage?
Well, you know, if God allows it and those circumstances are present in the couple wanting
to marry, that is, they have a scriptural right, why should I consider that wedding
ceremony again second rate?
Now, years later, I did repent by letting the groom know that I was wrong.
Then recently, after all these years, I learned other preachers have the same policy of
never, never performing the wedding ceremony.
of any second marriage.
Now, since that policy is not taught in Scripture, you cannot find where God says, do it.
You can find where God authorizes it in what I just mentioned, the three passages, Matthew
19, 9, Romans 7, 2, and 3, 1 Corinthians 7, 39, that there are some circumstances where
second marriages are perfectly scriptural.
And so it's to never do it is either a judgment call or it's binding what God has never
bound.
And again, this is of course not to say that the policy is inherently sinful, that I will
never do a second marriage, but the principle behind it and similar policies of the safest
thing is definitely worthy of our examination and evaluation.
So again, this episode is entitled, is the quote, safest thing, unquote, really
scriptural?
Or is it a reflection of brotherhood politics leading to binding where God did not bind?
And I've heard lots of brethren say, well, it's the safest thing.
And so I'm just going to stick with the safest thing.
And that's okay if that's your conscience and stuff.
But to bind what you consider the safest thing,
that if somebody else goes against it, and again, it's an optional matter like remarriage
and the cases that I just stated.
If it's a scriptural thing, we need to examine that policy within ourselves.
Make sure we're not binding what God has loosed.
All right, so first let's consider what's the of the statement that we find in Romans 14,
23.
Whatever is not of faith, or whatever is not from faith, as New King James translates
that, whatever is not from faith is sin.
Now, to be sure,
And Romans 14 teaches this as well as other places, to be sure, if we cannot do something
spiritual or optional, if we cannot do something optional with a good conscience, we must
not do it.
Now, eating meat sacrificed to idols is a good biblical example.
In fact, I would say that that's the best example to consider when thinking about those
things.
All right.
uh
But some Christians in Paul's day were converted from paganism.
1 Thessalonians 1, 8 through 10 commands the Thessalonian church because they turn from
idols to serve the living God.
And so, 1 Thessalonians 8, you know, some convert from paganism.
Now the only time in those pagan cultures
that they would eat meat was in connection with idolatrous worship.
Thus, the Corinthians asked Paul whether it was scriptural to eat meat in 1 Corinthians 8
verses 1 through 4.
And let me go ahead and read that so you have a better idea of what exactly Paul is saying
here.
In 1 Corinthians 8 verses 1 through 4, and of course back in chapter 7, by the way, now
concerning verse 1, now concerning the things were have you wrote unto me.
that begins a series of questions that Paul begins to answer, that Paul begins to answer
in this epistle that they have asked questions.
And we don't always know what their questions were, but we know we can get a good idea
from Paul's answer.
And so that's how chapter 8 verse 1 opens up, now concerning the things offered to idols.
So they had asked him a question about idols.
And so now concerning the things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.
Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing as he ought to know.
But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.
Therefore concerning the eating of those things offered to idols, we know that an idol is
nothing in the world and that there is no other God but one." Down through verse 4.
And so Paul let the Corinthians know that there was no such thing as an idol God, but
there's only one true God.
In fact, in the end of verse 4, there's none of the God but one.
Verse 5, for even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are
many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all things,
and we for Him.
And one Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we live.
Okay, and so there's only one God.
However, since all were not fully convinced of that, Paul declared it was wrong for
Christians to eat meat if it violated their conscience or if it caused someone else to sin
by violating their conscience.
Notice in verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 8.
However,
There is not in everyone that knowledge, for some with conscious of the idle until now,
eat it as a thing offered to idle, and their conscious being weak is defiled.
But food does not condemn us to God, or commend us to God, for neither if we eat are we
the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
But beware, lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are
weak."
For if anyone sees you 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 would wound their weak conscience, you sin
against Christ.
Therefore if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat.
lest I make my brother to stumble." So Paul discussed similar issues in Romans 14, whether
Christians may, quote, eat all things or only vegetables, end quote, or whether they can,
quote, esteem one day above another or every day alike, end quote, Romans 14, one through
six.
Now, after much discussion in that chapter, the apostle concluded,
quote in Romans 14 23, but he who doubts is condemned if he eats because he does not eat
from faith.
For whatsoever is not from faith is sin.
Whatsoever is not of faith is of sin.
Now the word faith in this context refers to personal conviction or to personal
conscience.
In other words, if a person cannot eat meat or participate in any other God-authorized
optional matter, if he cannot do that in good conscience, then he or she does sin.
uh Romans 2 and verse 15, Romans 2 and verse 15, where Paul talks about that law unto the
Gentiles, he says, they show the work of the law written in their hearts
their conscience also bearing witness in between themselves their thoughts accusing or
else excusing them.
And so Paul talked about that in Romans, earlier in Romans chapter 2, and so the
conscience is involved in that.
But if our conscience condemns us in anything we do, then we should not do it until, of
course, we learn otherwise.
Now this does not teach that a person
does in good conscience, that what a person does in good conscience automatically makes it
morally right.
For Paul said in Acts 23, 1 that when he was persecuting Christians, he did all things in
good conscience.
In 2 Timothy 1 verse 3, he says he served God in good conscience as well.
And so it doesn't mean that just because we can do something in good conscience doesn't
mean it's right, but it does teach
that doing potentially scrupulous, as some translations have, optional matters are sinful
unless the person doing them is fully convinced in his own mind.
Romans 14 verse 5.
And so, when it comes to optional matters, yes, if it violates our conscience, we should
not do it.
Now, when we go back to the example I gave when we opened this episode about
performing a second marriage if I know, now again, if I know the couple getting married
have a scriptural right to marry, and I'm going to emphasize, if I know that, then why
would my conscience bother me in performing that wedding ceremony?
Now if I'm bothered by it, is it because I want to please the preacher across town
who wouldn't do it, he might think I'm trying to one-up him if he refused, but I did it.
If that's why I'm refusing to do it, then I'm involved in church politics, it would seem
to me.
Now if I doubt that they have a right to remarry, then that's a different story.
But if I know they have a right...
then why would I not do that?
Just like if I know a faithful member of the congregation, maybe it's their first
marriage, if I know they have a right,
Why would I refuse?
Now it might be don't have the time, got something planned that day, or it might be I'm
just lazy and I don't want to do it.
Or it might be another reason.
It could be legitimate.
But think about that.
Why would I refuse to do a wedding ceremony of a couple I know has a scriptural right to
remarry, but because it's their second marriage?
What about that?
makes me not want to do it and then again that's just something for us to reflect upon
So we do need to do stuff in good conscience.
Secondly, another quote, we spent a little bit of time on this last, in a different
setting, last episode, but Paul said in Galatians 1 verse 10, For do I now persuade men or
God?
Or do I seek to please men?
For if I still please men,
I would not be a bondservant of Christ," Galatians 1.10.
Now that's very interesting where he says, and of course the old King James says, for if I
yet please men, and that word yet carries the idea of still.
So Paul had likely been accused by his enemies, and we talked about this in Galatians.
Galatians, the whole book, he's basically defending his apostleship against these false
teachers.
We call them Judaizing teachers, although that term is not explicitly found in Scripture,
but it does describe those that we find in Acts 15-1 and Acts 15-5 who are trying to bind
certain aspects of the law of Moses as matters of salvation, particularly circumcision.
So Paul had likely been accused by his enemies of preaching a message that was seeking
favor, New American Standard 95 Update translates, or approval to ESV of men.
But nothing could be further from the truth, for he had just pronounced a curse upon those
who would change the gospel.
Galatians 1, 8, and 9.
Serving Christ and pleasing people at the gospel's expense are not compatible.
And being a bond servant of Christ means willingness to give up all for Him, including
having the favor of men.
Remember in John 12, 42 and 43, there were some of the Jewish leaders there that believed
in Jesus but would not confess Him for fear of being put out of the synagogue.
John 12, 43 says they loved the praise of men more...
than the praise of God.
So this harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 9, 19-22, where Paul says, I've become all things to
all men, that I might win some to Christ.
Remember, Paul could take on Jewish customs as long as they didn't violate God's law.
He could take on Jewish customs.
He could take on Gentile customs.
He could take on the customs of the people he was trying to influence and teach, that he
could win them to Christ.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
In fact, we need to do that.
The church needs to do that more in this generation to reach the next generation.
This doesn't mean changing the gospel, obviously, but it does mean we need to change our
perceptions of the generation.
We need to change ways of contacting, communicating with this generation.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
was just talking about that in the local congregation here about a young adults class.
And the young adults today...
They communicate better by texting.
Not letter, sent, snail mail, even emails kind of getting iffy these days.
But messaging, texting, messaging.
And so why write a formal letter and mail it to them when the same thing can be
communicated through texting?
And that reaches them quicker and that's the way they prefer.
And so why not make that change?
Nothing wrong with that.
All right, but we'll go back to Paul here in Galatians.
Do I seek to please men or do I seek to please God?
You know, Paul would not want to unnecessarily offend others.
Now, the gospel will do that plenty of times, but may it not be our disposition, may not
be the way we say things, may that not offend people unnecessarily.
And so, Paul would adopt their customs as long as those customs did not violate God's
Word.
Again, Acts 5.29, we ought to obey God rather than men.
Paul did not place pleasing others above the gospel.
Remember, Jesus said, no man can serve two masters.
Either he will hate the one, love the other, despise the one, or cling to the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon.
And, of course, mammon there seems to be some monetary thing, but we could put in there,
you cannot serve God and man.
You cannot serve, you cannot be the slave of both at the same time.
And so Paul gave insight to his former life in Galatians 2 verse 10, when he, by using the
word still or yet in the King James, comes from the preposition eti, actually the word
eti, for if I still please men, I could not be the bond-servant of Christ.
This tells us that when Paul reflects on this, on his life as Saul of Tarsus,
that when he served Judaism, he was doing it to please men.
Yes, he thought he was doing God's service, but when he writes Galatians, he was actually
doing it to please men.
And remember, Galatians takes us back to just after his conversion in chapter one and two,
remember.
Talked about he immediately went to Cilicia and stuff and where he was taught the gospel.
And so when we read about Saul of Tarsus, like for example in Acts chapter 7, Acts chapter
7,
And go to verse 58, Acts 7 verse 58, and this is, you know, Stephen's tremendous sermon,
but in verse 58 it says,
And then if you go to Acts chapter 8 verses 1 through 3, now Saul was consenting to
Stephen's death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church, which was at Jerusalem, and
they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles.
And devout men carried Stephen to his burial and made great lamentation over him.
As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house and dragging off men and
women
committing them to prison.
And so Paul says in Galatians when he was doing all that, he was really doing it to please
men.
Remember, he was high up in Judaism.
Philippians 3 talks about that.
In Galatians 2 talks about that.
And he thought he was doing God's service.
But again, as he reflected, he was actually doing it to please men.
And so he was deceived into thinking he was serving God.
In the Gospel of John 16 and verse 2, we have that Jesus warning and Jesus discussion
about that.
Let me turn over there, John 16 and verse 2.
They will put you out of the synagogue, yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you
will think that he offers God service." And that describes Paul, even though it wasn't
written to Paul directly, it written to original twelve apostles minus Judas.
He had already left by this time.
But that would describe Paul.
Saul of Tarsus, I should say.
He thought he was doing God's service, but again, as he writes Galatians, and he reflects
on that.
He was really doing it to please men.
And when you think about people today, there's a lot of people that think they're doing
God's service, but when you really analyze what they're doing, the positions they're
taking, it's really to please men.
And so again, no person can serve two masters, God and man.
And so rather than pleasing men, Paul's post-conversion message was, in part anyway, to
quote, make known to you brethren.
that the gospel which I preached, that the gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man.
And so that all we preach and teach must be the gospel, not the commandments of men.
Matthew 15, 9.
And even Titus 1, 14 warns us against preaching the commandments of men.
Now, to plug this in, do I seek to please men or do I seek to please God?
And so when I think about that illustration, for example, about not doing a second
marriage because it's the safest thing, well, again, is that decision to please God.
Or is it to please men?
And again, causes, I'm hoping we'll reflect upon that.
My decision as a young preacher was, don't do it because the preacher across town didn't
do it and I respect him.
But isn't that pleasing men?
Would it please God if I did the wedding ceremony?
Would it please God if I did someone's first wedding ceremony?
That had a scriptural right to marry?
I think it would.
because I'm going to teach at least three sessions, one hour sessions about marriage.
What's wrong with that?
Wouldn't that please God?
and especially if they don't understand that they're immature Christians or maybe even
people from the world.
Yes, I'll do people's wedding ceremonies from the world as long as I can have my at least
three one-hour sessions of premarital counseling, which is basically a Bible study, and I
can bring them to Christ.
Why wouldn't I do that?
Because I'm lazy?
Because I want to please the preacher across town who refused to do it?
Why would I?
Because it's the safest thing, safest from what?
Influencing uh a young couple or an older couple?
Influencing them with the gospel for life?
why would i refuse
Thirdly, let's consider the quote that we find actually comes from the Lord's Supper, but
let a man examine himself.
but we can apply it to our conscience and we need to realize that one person's conscience
over an optional matter is not God's of judgment over another person's actions.
Again, 1 Corinthians 14, 3 through 13 tells us that we all have our conscience, we all can
do certain things, keep certain days, keep certain feasts as a matter of devotion, but we
can't bind those things.
unless God has bound them, of course, but he's talking about optional matters.
He's not talking about prohibitions, he's not talking about obligations, but he's talking
about options.
Thus, for a scripturally mature preacher to have a, safest thing, end quote, policy that
automatically excludes scriptural options and faithful brethren is questionable.
Let me say that again.
spiritually mature preacher to have a safest thing policy that automatically excludes
scriptural options and faithful brethren is questionable.
Consider again the second time wedding ceremony mentioned above.
Do preachers with policies to never perform such ceremonies, do they not trust those
involved?
Now again, there may be some times you can't trust those involved.
Not all the time.
even their own earthly families whom they know have a scriptural right to remarry.
While is true again that some people are not trustworthy, it is also true that some are.
And in such cases, does not love demand consideration?
1 Corinthians 13, 7.
believeeth all things, hopeeth all things, etc.
Do preachers with such policies not want to be bothered by the extra work of a wedding
ceremony?
Now, I know that preacher's time is very, very valuable.
and may be overwhelmed.
But it is also true that sacrificing time to encourage Christians and even maybe
non-Christians is worthy.
Again, Ephesians 5 verses 15 through 17, Ephesians 5, 15 through 17, Paul has this to say.
But if you bite and devour one another, beware, lest you are consumed by one another.
I say then, walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts...
never mind, Rachel, scratch that.
I'm in Galatians.
Let me get to Ephesians.
Ephesians 5 15 through 17.
Okay, here's I'll start reading in a few seconds
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time
because the days are evil.
Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is." Again, Ephesians
5, 5-17.
Are preachers afraid if they perform one second marriage and not another, they will offend
the ones involved with the other marriage?
Again, while it is true, preachers should not want to unnecessarily offend anyone.
Ephesians 4.15 says we should preach the truth in love.
Would it not be better to state the reason why we could not perform a particular wedding
ceremony than to make a blanket policy that we're not going to do it?
Is not that what preachers do with first wedding ceremonies they cannot perform?
In other words, if it's a first wedding ceremony, and I'm willing to perform it, then I
perform it.
If it's a first wedding ceremony, first time that people are married and I'm gonna be busy
the week they wanna get married, then I tell them that's why can't do it.
And so why should not a second marriage that's absolutely scriptural, why should we not
follow the same standards?
Lastly and very importantly, our preachers with such policies merely trying to please men
whom they highly respect in the brotherhood.
Again, while it is true we are to love and respect the brotherhood, 1 Peter 2, 17, we
should not let brethren be our source of authority.
Again, 2 Corinthians 10, 12 and verse 18 says that we're unwise if we measure ourselves by
others.
because we can always find somebody that we're doing things better than, that we're more
spiritual than, but rather those passages teach us we should judge our living based upon
God.
Our standard of judgment is upon God, not upon how we compare to others.
And so when brethren's example and teaching were commended in Scripture, it was because it
harmonized with the truth.
Again, Corinthians 11.1, Paul says, be followers of me as I also am of Christ.
And in 2 Peter 3, 15, and 16, there are some who would twist the Scriptures, would rest
the Scriptures, the difficult Scriptures, which, you know, Paul, he calls Paul's epistles,
he mentions what Paul wrote about the longsurfing of our Lord that some people twist.
but he called what Paul wrote, Scripture.
It is Scripture.
And everything we do must be harmonized with Scripture.
And could some preacher's refusal to do certain optional matters be to keep in good
standing with influential brethren rather than Scripture?
Again, it is true we need to respect brethren's positions on optional matters, but we must
not cave to their demands of conformity, whether explicitly or implicitly.
As Paul stated in Galatians 2, 3 through 5, he wouldn't stand for a minute being forced to
circumcise Titus because brethren were pressuring him.
And so the potential problem with this conformity that is brotherhood politics is that
those participating begin to think that this option over an optional matter is equivalent
to God's law on the subject.
because well-respected brother so-and-so will not do a second wedding, his policy is not
to do a second wedding ceremony, then that should be my policy.
And then we start thinking about that.
And as well, why is it my policy?
Because it's his?
because I don't want to study the passages myself.
I'm too busy and I just don't want to do any wedding ceremonies but I would almost
guarantee you they'd make an exception if it was their own family member that they felt
close to that really wanted to do it.
They might still deny it, I don't know.
But I just have to ask why.
Let us examine why would we hold such a policy.
We do jeopardize our souls and the souls of others when we bind what God has not bound.
Matthew 16, 19, Matthew 15, 8, and 9, the doctrines and commandments of men.
Matthew 23, 15, where Paul is rebuking the hypocrites, the Pharisees, for doing just that.
Colossians 2, 20 through 23, no touch not taste not handle not.
That asceticism there.
you're better off not doing it, it's the safest thing.
Well, the safest thing isn't always scriptural, especially when we press it to be as if
God commanded it.
Revelation 22, 18 and 19, we can't take away or add to that which was written in that
book, and the principle applies across the board to all scripture.
We cannot add or take away.
And so think about the reasons why we would have such policies.
Is the, safest thing, end quote,
really scriptural?
Or is a reflection of brotherhood politics, or maybe spiritual immaturity, but either way
does it lead to binding what God has not bound?
And there's other examples.
I just happened to do that second wedding ceremony because that's something happened in my
life and I can speak from that from my own mind, my own conscience and stuff, and the
reality of that as I reflect upon it.
Kind like Paul, when he reflected back on his life as Saul of Tarsus,
you know, if I yet still please men, but he does not want to please men.
And as he reflected at the time, he thought he was doing it God's service.
But when reflected, it was just really the commandments of men, or try to please men.
And so if that's the reason why we have that policy, let's examine ourselves.
But you think about other things like some of the non-institutional positions.
you can't eat in a church building.
Well, the safest thing, let's just not eat in the fellowship hall.
The safest thing, let's just have dinner on the ground.
And that's okay to have dinner on the ground.
But if it's because you want to fit in politically, or you want to cave to someone's
conscience, now again, if they haven't learned better, that's one thing.
But sometimes, as one preacher's wife said a long time ago, is it stumbling or is it
grumbling?
that they don't want to do certain things.
But you know, the safest thing, though, and again, I'm saying if our conscious doesn't
allow it, then we don't do it.
But why does our conscience not allow it?
Is it legitimate scriptural reason why?
And so as we conclude this, ultimately a preacher's or any Christian's decision on
optional matters is between him and the Lord with consideration to others involved in that
decision.
However, should we evaluate the motives behind our policies,
we should evaluate the motives behind our policies to make sure we are not falling prey to
the deceptive tactics of the devil.
Unfortunately, some sound brethren have been shunned because they participated in optional
matters that the more influential brethren would not have done because of their, safest
thing, end quote, policies.
Again, maybe I've been shunned by some because I performed, I'm trying to think if I've
ever done it before.
I'm sure I have somewhere, performed the second marriage of somebody.
Well, I can't think of one that I have done, but I probably have.
But if the two were scripturally eligible for marriage, I'd have no problem with it.
If I had the time and I was going to be in town and all that.
Because again, I look at it as a time to study the Bible, as a time to influence people.
But again, it might be the safest thing because, I don't want to mistakenly marry two
people who are unscripturally married, who are not eligible.
And that can be a concern.
But if I know...
That's not a concern.
And if I'm not willing to find out for the sake of their own soul, if for nothing else,
then what kind of a preacher am I?
What kind of Christian am I who is not concerned enough to know whether they have a right
to remarry or not?
And so those are some things to think about.
Are those forbidding policies the safest thing policies?
Are they really based on scripture?
Or do they reflect more brotherhood politics?
and or elevating human opinion as if it were God's law.
Let us always be endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and not
allow our conscience, not force what our conscience says on other people, and not bind
what God has not bound simply because it's the quote, safest thing, end quote.
And so these are some things that interfere with doctrinal unity that should not.
And that's what this episode we're calling a bumper suit in between seasons is all about.
We don't want to disrupt true doctrinal unity by binding things, even though we may have
good motives for doing that.
But quote, the safest thing is not always
scriptural.
So we appreciate you joining us here for this podcast, and we welcome your feedback.
We welcome any questions you may have.
Just email us at fsop at fsop.net, and we'd be happy to address them.
We thank you for tuning in, and we pray that we'll see you again next time.
We're actually proverbial speaking.
We won't see anybody on this podcast, but we hope that you will listen again as we
continue this study.
And then after this we will begin our season five on the minor prophets.
Thanks for joining us.