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 my
Welcome to the Florida School of Preaching Harvester podcast, season one, episode five.
We are in the middle of discussing unity, but we're discussing it under the terms of, you
know, what, does scripture fit into this?
And so I'm Brian Kenyon with my cohost, guest speaker, George Beals.
And Forrest Animasaris, whose wife just had a baby, is not with us today, but he will join
us as soon as possible.
And so we established in the episode four, we talked about ways the Bible teaches and how
all Bible actions fall under three categories.
George, how about refreshing our memory on that?
Well, perhaps one way of illustrating this is to draw a box.
And in that box put in every possible action in which we could engage today.
Put in those words.
And then under that box there are three additional boxes.
One you can title a biblical prohibition, otherwise known as a sin.
A second box under that generic box is, you could put in there, label that a biblical
requirement.
And then the third box, a biblical option.
So every possible action in which we could engage today due to the all sufficiency of the
Bible, 2 Timothy 3, 16 to 17, has to be one of these three.
And that sets up a nice
frame of reference for the remaining discussion I would submit in this podcast.
And of course we did talk about the Bible either teaches explicitly or implicitly.
and explicitly as word for word.
For example, 1 Timothy 2 verse 4, God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of
the truth.
That's the explicit statement.
Well, the implicit statement is just as true.
God wants George or Steve or Brian or whoever wants that person to be saved.
Even though that is not explicitly stated, it is just as true as what is explicitly
stated.
God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the
Now when we talk about a biblical prohibition, George, what would be some of the areas of
that?
Well, an example of that would be Romans 1 verses 26 to 27, which is a biblical passage
that teaches that all homosexual behavior is sin.
It's a prohibition.
Okay.
And what about an obligation?
Where's a good Bible example of that?
Well, I like what the term obligation or requirement, yeah, if we're not careful, the term
obligation could be ambiguous and that some may think of that as being an obligation not
to do something versus an obligation to do something.
And so then I suppose you could say the same thing about a requirement.
I just prefer the term requirement.
So an example of a biblical requirement is to worship.
We must worship in spirit and truth according to John four verses 23 to 24.
Okay, and then obligations, and this is really where most of the division or a lot of
division comes in options.
Yeah, options I meant to say.
And so let's talk about that.
Well, of course, an option is a...
an action that can be done or cannot be done and be right with God either way.
So an example of that is Romans chapter 14, which talks about the eating of meat or not
eating of meat.
You can eat meat, you can be a vegetarian or not a vegetarian and be right with God either
way.
That being the case, we ought not to split on that.
We should allow liberty in that area.
Romans 14 illustrates that.
Yes, and when we think about Liberty and often think of eating meat as per 1st Corinthians
8 and of course there it's you know meat is good 1st Timothy 4 verses 3 through 5 you know
if it's received with Thanksgiving, you know there's nothing wrong with all with meat It's
good however Paul does point out that if it causes our brother to sin or if it violates
our conscience Romans 14 as well Then it's wrong to eat meat is sinful to eat meat
in that specific.
and that this in that context and so it's eating meat is good but there's some times where
it's wrong and so there's an an an option
It would be wrong not inherently, but would be wrong instrumentally in that particular
context.
And we are given instruction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 along those lines.
Paul, the Apostle Paul, writing through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explains that
if you're in the presence of a person who objects to this,
and is thinking that this is sin, then Paul explains that you need to abstain in that
context, otherwise you could be pressuring him to go against his own conscience and
thereby cause that person to sin.
So we need to be aware of that, that's right.
Having both of those passages in there helps us to see that that in fact is optional.
So we can't go to other doctrines and say, well this one is also optional.
Because in here you have both of those mentioned, you you can eat meat, it's not any
problem.
And then well, don't eat meat if it causes your brother to stumble.
And so having both of those stated like that helps us to see.
So we don't just have the ability to kind of just run a rough shot of the scriptures to
call whatever we desire optional.
All right.
And I think it's very interesting that in 1 Corinthians 8 and verse 8, where Paul does
talk about eating meats and stuff, he makes this statement, but food, and I'm reading from
the New King James translation, 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.
And yes, so there has to be an option with that.
However,
And we are going to develop this in just a moment, but sometimes we can, some brethren
will make optional matters, either requirements or prohibition, and that's where a lot of
issues come in.
But before we get into that, just want to remind us, remember when Jesus, made that great
confession, you are the Christ, Son of living God, Matthew 16, 18, or 16, and then Peter
said, or,
he said him lesser that some of our john a flesh and blood is not revealed in the middle
of our time and i'll give you the keys of the kingdom except he said what sir you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
and it wasn't just peter but all the apostles were told that matthew eighteen eighteen the
pronouns are different it's plural in matthew eighteen eighteen but whatever you buy the
nurse rebound in heaven and so
We realize that God has bound some things, and I would equate that with requirements and
prohibitions, but God has also loosed some things where we have options to do it.
But when we get those mixed up, all kinds of troubles happen in the first century church
as well as in the 21st century church.
Another interesting point to make there.
is the wording of that particular passage.
Whatsoever you bind on earth, actually in the literal Greek, it's, whatsoever you bind on
earth shall have been bound in heaven.
Whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
This is the future perfect in the 10th, in the original Greek.
And then, so what that is telling us is that the authority
is in heaven, not in the human.
Right.
Exactly.
And I believe the new American standard even translates that way.
Yeah, which is very very good point to make with those verb tenses okay, so George go
ahead and Show us where the problems occur with obligations or I mean options.
Yes, I keep saying obligations so
might think...
back to the chart that I, that illustration that I used.
I think that might help here.
So picture again all actions, all possible actions in which we could engage as being that
top block and then under it you have the block labeled prohibitions and another block
requirements and other block options.
Where some of the difficulties have arisen, giving rise to unscriptural division in the
church, is of two kinds in particular that we could address here.
One we can call theological liberalism.
Theological liberalism treats a biblical prohibition, a sin, as if it were a biblical
option, or treats a biblical requirement
as if it were a biblical option.
So the problem with theological liberalism is that it is being freer than the Bible is.
An example of mis-categorizing a sin as an option is, as we've already indicated, a
proving of homosexuality.
That violates the prohibitions taught in Romans 1, 26-27.
which is that all homosexual behavior is sin according to the Word of God there.
An example of miscategorizing a requirement as an option is a cavalier worshipping of God
as if we may worship God however we please and be right with God either way.
Well that violates the teaching given to us in John 4.
verse 24, which teaches that we must worship in spirit and truth.
Now notice it does not say in spirit or truth.
If it had said in spirit or truth, then being sincere, but even though you're worshiping
incorrectly, the Bible does not authorize, would be okay with God.
Or,
if you did not have the right attitude, but I'm sorry, you had the right attitude but you
had a false means of worship, or you had a bad attitude with the true work, a true...
practice of worship.
Either one would be fine according to that.
But in fact it does not say in spirit or truth but says we must worship in spirit and
truth.
And the ending of that, of those two, narrows the range of acceptable worship.
And so then by having a cavalier attitude and behavior in worshiping God,
as if we can worship him however we want would be an example of miscategorizing a biblical
requirement as if it were a biblical option.
Theological liberalism.
Yeah, and I think that's a very good point.
And when we think about the and or the or, there's a big difference between that.
And we can see worship in the Old Testament, worship in the New Testament that may have
had one of the things, and if it were or, then it would have been okay.
And I'm thinking of Isaiah chapter one verse 11, where Isaiah writes to what purposes, and
he's given kind of the...
you know this is what's wrong with Israel to what purpose is a multitude of your
sacrifices to me says the Lord I've had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of
fed cattle I do not delight in the blood of bulls or the lambs or goats when you come to
appear before me who has required this at your hand to trample my courts being no more
bring no more futile sacrifices incense is an abomination to me the new moon Sabbath the
calling of assemblies etc
and he goes on down but yet you who's the one that commanded all these you know God is the
one that commanded these but think the reason verse fifteen when you spread forth your
hands i will hide my eyes from you even though you make many prayers i will not hear your
hands are full of blood and so even though they were doing one could argue maybe the
outward acts
that God required but because their hearts weren't right, their hands were full of blood
and they thought they could come worship God without it despite that, he says I don't want
that and I think that's a good example of you you can do the outside stuff but if you
don't have the in spirit it's not acceptable to God.
the opposite, yeah.
And in Colossians you have that phrase that
Colossians 2, you know where he talks about touch not taste not handle not and You have I
like the way the King James translates it, but the new King James has a little bit
different but where he says You know it talks about you know if you died with Christ, you
know why you why you live as if
the basic principles of the world.
Why is the living the world?
Do you subject yourselves to regulations?
Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle, which concern things which perish with the
using according to the commandments and the doctrine of men.
These things have an appearance of wisdom and the New King James self-imposed religion.
I believe the King James has will worship.
false humility neglect of the body but of no value can see indulgence of the flesh that
you know a person can think he is highest think he's reverent think he's got the right
spirit but he's inventing his own system you know that's a violation but if john four
twenty four said in spirit or in truth then that would be acceptable
All right.
Yeah, I was just thinking about the same principle in Romans chapter 10.
Those individuals had zeal and so there was some sort of emotional, mental thing that was,
I guess you might say favorable at least, but it wasn't according to what God wanted.
And without having both of those factors in place, it wasn't right.
made that very, clear in Romans 10, 1 through 3.
And the ending is found elsewhere as well as John 4 verse 24.
One passage that I've written down in my Bible beside John 4 24 is 1 Samuel 12 verse 24
and that reads, Notice that.
You serve him in truth with all your heart.
And we can show that expression,
your heart is an accompanying requirement.
So in truth and with all your heart, using the wording of John 424, the same principle, we
must worship in spirit and in truth and truth.
And I think some translations may have their sincerity in the passage you just read, but
it's the idea of in spirit and with the heart.
The inner man needs to be connected in worship.
It's not just the rote action.
It's the interconnection with God.
And then of course we see all kinds of violation of that in today's religious landscape,
unfortunately.
People thinking that doesn't matter how you worship as long as your heart is right and
that kind of thing.
So as long as you're sincere it's okay.
not so according to these passages.
You have to have the right spirit and true worship.
Acceptable to God.
That kind of reminds me a little bit, going back just a few minutes, we were referencing
Matthew chapter 16.
where those things that Peter would preach will have already either been bound or loosed.
And so we don't have authority today to say, well, let's go ahead and invent something.
There are people today who would presume to be apostles and they sort of try to give
licensure to the things that they would do in worship.
And so you have all sorts of things going on, but those are not the things that God has
already either loosed or bound.
So that is kind of an important factor from that passage, at least in thinking about what
we would be willing to bound or lose.
We don't get the authority to do that.
That belongs alone to God.
Right, and that dovetails nicely, Steven, into Colossians 3.17, whatever you do in word or
in deed, do all in the name of Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Absolutely.
Okay, now what about options that involve binding what God has loosed?
So that's another difficulty, cause of problems and unscriptural division in the church.
And a term that we might use for that is anti-ism.
I tried to be graceful in my use of terminology, but I don't know that I know of a better
term for this practice than anti-ism.
That seems to tag it for what it is.
Yes, some would try to use the word non-institutional, but both terms have their strengths
and weaknesses and of course, you know, we're anti some things, but I think the key is
their anti-biblical options.
Even non-institutional will believe in some institutions, but not other institutions, but
that can be more...
talked about here in just a moment, but go ahead.
Anti-ism covers a lot of territory.
this is in contrast, let's put it this way, goes in the other direction than what we said
about theological liberalism.
Theological liberalism is being freer than the Bible.
That is, it treats a biblical prohibition or a biblical requirement as if it were a
biblical option.
Anti-ism goes in the other direction.
It treats a biblical option as if it were a biblical prohibition.
And so it is being more
restrictive than the Bible is.
And again, you'll notice that this switches categories in the opposite direction than what
theological liberalism does.
Just one example of miscategorizing an option as a prohibition, I would observe, is the
insistence that it is wrong or that it is sinful to eat in the church building.
.
But if we read, that is the claim is that you're in a church building, it's wrong to eat
in there.
And I've seen this in practice.
one way of, let's say, responding, but maybe we can say clarifying for people that it is
okay to eat in the church building, take a look at Acts 20 verses 7 to 11.
And if we were to look at verse 7,
Verse seven, maybe somebody could read that here.
Yep, I got it.
On the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight.
So in context, this passage, verse seven, shows that Paul and others were meeting for a
worship assembly in an upper room in some building.
You can see that from the context.
But then continue reading in verse 11.
What does that say, Steven?
When he therefore was come up again, this is with reference to Eutychus, when he was come
up again and had broken bread, I'm sorry, yeah, Paul and Eutychus returning, says, and
when he therefore was come up again, he had broken bread and eaten and talked a long
while, even till break of day, so he departed.
So it looks like what we have here in verse seven is people worshiping God in a particular
upper room of some building and then down in verse 11, afterwards they ate a meal together
in the building, the same building in which they had worshiped God on the first day of the
week.
So a close examination of these verses I believe shows that
that this is an option.
It's not a sin to do that.
You could also compare other New Testament references along these lines.
For example, the house churches that we have referenced in Romans 16, 3-5 and 1
Corinthians 16, 9-10.
Brethren were meeting in somebody's house to have a worship service and surely in the
house you also, in another situation, you have a meal.
Your family has a meal.
So must be that therefore this is
biblical option, not a prohibition.
Yes, and I think sometimes maybe because people have abused that, you know, one can maybe
argue 1 Corinthians 11, you know, the has versus the have nots were abusing their coming
together to take the Lord's Supper, but that doesn't say if that was in a building or not.
So sometimes people will make too much out of that as it applies to eating in the church
building.
And then another thing I found with that is that, you know, sometimes they'll come up with
reasons why they can eat.
For example, I was at a congregation where some snowbirds came down and since the
fellowship room was not technically under the same roof but connected by a breezeway, they
said it was okay to eat in that church building.
are individuals that believe to otherwise it's wrong.
Yes, yet many times devos and you know especially the teenagers would meet in that
fellowship room and have worship services and things like that and so they were still
eating in a place of worship.
But again the doctrine it's kind of like you know that when people are grasping at straws
to try to show how they can and cannot in some instances often becomes a red flag to me to
look at that doctrine even closer.
Of course, you could also raise the question, is there a water fountain in the building to
get a drink?
I was visiting the congregation one time up in Pennsylvania, and one of the elders there
showed me the layout.
And he said, now this building over here we constructed as a separate building.
so that we wouldn't make this an issue.
And if we have potluck meals, we go over to that building.
But if we're have worship, we go to here, go to this particular building.
So all the expense was put into the second building so that I guess they wouldn't have to
eat in the church building.
Well, Acts 20 teaches that it's okay to eat in the church
And,
Just to something on this is that the option is there too.
I mean, it's okay not to eat in the church building, but it's when, that is bound as if it
were, as if that option were an obligation, that's, that's where the issues come in.
And I think often of, you know, church treasury, you know, is it okay to support, you
know, orphans from a church treasury?
Well, biblically it is, but it's okay if a congregation decides not to do it.
It's just when they make that option, they bind that as if it were
a requirement a prohibition right
One of things I like, one of you alluded to it just a few moments ago, I it have been you
Brian, I can't remember.
But anyway, when Paul is making reference to this whole thing in 1 Corinthians chapter 11
about eating in your homes, if you just stay in that same book, just go a few chapters
more, in chapter 16, he is greeting the brethren and he says in verse number 19, the
Church of Asia salute you, equivalent of Priscilla, salute you much in the Lord with the
church that is in their house.
So if you're saying you go eating your own home, he's telling them to eat in a place where
you have worship and just keeping the context, writing the same book, same writers, same
context, overall you would have a conflict.
And so you have to understand then what is he talking about?
And so you, you know, you go back to the first mention here in the chapter 11, I think it
becomes a little bit more clear what he's talking about, not necessarily the location, but
the way they were doing it.
Yeah, that's a very good point.
Very good point.
I never thought of that before.
Aquiline Priscilla had church in their home and those brethren would say, go eat in your
home.
Well, for Aquiline Priscilla, that's a command to eat in the church building.
Avengers, yeah.
And of course the problem in 1st Corinthians 11 was that the Brethren at Corinth, the
Church of Christ at Corinth, was
was they were, it was partaking of the Lord's Supper, the brethren, were partaking of the
Lord's Supper and not thinking about what the elements of the Lord's Supper represent.
Rather, they were making it a common meal.
And he chided them for that.
And the point is that when we partake of the Lord's Supper and we partake of each of the
elements, we must be thinking about what each element represents.
and not the take of the Lord's Supper to fill our belly.
Yes, and that's a very good point too in in in knowing you know why does the Bible?
Say something is wrong because a lot of times these groups that bind options Don't look at
the context of the passes to which they appeal
And they'll just grab something out of that.
And if you don't actually read the text and study the text for yourself, you'll think
they're right.
But when you look at the text, as George said, it's not about where you eat.
That whole chapter is not about where you eat, but it's about the Lord's Supper.
They were abusing the Lord's Supper.
And that's why I always like to say the haves versus the have-nots.
From the King James, you get that in there.
Those that have are not waiting for those that have not.
And they're making it not just a meal, but a meal where the rich are flaunting their stuff
against the poor.
And so totally,
context for what the Lord's Supper should be about.
In that context he says wait for one another and then partake.
Yeah, context helps.
Context helps for sure.
Verse 33 of 1 Corinthians 11, Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait
for one another.
But if any was hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment, he says.
So if we do not partake of the Lord's Supper with the proper attitude, that is to say,
remembering what these represent, we jeopardize our souls.
Yes, and so we have to always look at the context.
have to always look at what's being taught in these passages and not stretch them to try
to prove a doctrine that we just like.
Right.
Could we go on a little bit of a tangent on that point?
If we were to look at 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 27, says, And in context, is the
unleavened bread that represents the body of Jesus Christ on the cross, and the cup
represents the blood that he shed on the cross.
And it says again,
the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Verse 28, but let a man examine himself, in other words, look inward and in this manner.
let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Sometimes I've run into situations where a brother or sister in Christ does not partake of
the Lord's Supper because they think they had a bad week or something.
They weren't worthy of partaking at the Lord's Supper.
The problem there is that they need to understand the difference between an adjective and
adverb.
This is not talking about our being worthy as if this were an adjective, but rather it
talks about this as an adverb in an unworthy manner.
And in context that means partaking of the Lord's Supper without thinking about what it
represents.
The thing that's being forbidden here, prohibited, is partaking of the Lord's Supper in an
unworthy manner.
None of us is worthy of that in that sense.
We would have to be sinless, if that would be the case.
So surely it's not talking about our being worthy, but rather they were not partaking of
the Lord's Supper in the manner stated, and that is what is being forbidden.
Yes, I used to use that verse when I taught English grammar from the King James.
said, whoever partakes unworthily and they have the L Y there.
And that's always one of the key keys to an adverb, which is, you know, modifying the
action rather than the actual thing itself.
But the newer translations do have unworthy manner.
And so that's a very good point.
All right.
We appreciate your being with us in this podcast of.
where problems often occur when dealing with Bible obligations, requirements,
prohibitions, and options.
And so we appreciate Steve and George joining us in the discussion that we just had.
And so we will follow this up with a third, and that is the solutions, the biblical
solutions to the problems that arise when we do not properly understand
prohibitions, requirements and options.
We hope that you will join us next time for that podcast.
Life a ransom number on Cal...
On Mount Calvary...