Think on These Things
May 2001
1. Conflict Resolution - Doctrinal Matters
Conflict Resolution - Doctrinal Matters
This
month we will take up the issue of doctrinal conflict resolution, and next month
we will look at personal conflict resolution.
Both lessons are based on Acts 15, but the approach to them is quite
different, as we shall see. The
first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about
doctrinal matters? Why not
just live and let live? Let us take
a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from
Judea and {began} teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according
to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them,
{the brethren} determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them
should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”
Paul
and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we do not
agree. So you go your way and we
will go ours, and we will pretend that there is no differences among us.”
But that is not what they did. They
immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity
for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23). It
is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth
on this matter. Not so.
Then already knew the truth, and they taught that truth on the way to
Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). Thus, their
goal was more to determine if, in fact, these men had been sent from the
apostles as they apparently claimed, and to notify them of what these
troublemakers were all about. This
issue had been raised there and resolved as recorded in Acts 11.
When they arrived, they found that the source of the problem were some
Pharisaic Christians who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4).
Please continue reading on Page 3.
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
Faith-Based
Initiatives.
This buzz-term has not been buzzing around our nation’s capitol as much
as it was a month or so ago, so perhaps it is just going to die on the vine.
We hope so. The idea behind
faith-based initiatives is to let religious organizations do much of the health
and welfare work that is currently being handled (for better or worse) by
governmental agencies at all levels. The
reasoning is that most religious organizations do benevolent work, and that in
this regard, a longer term solution would be forthcoming it the programs did
more than just treat physical needs. There
is certainly an element of truth in this, since the vast majority of needs of
individuals within our society could be solved if they, and perhaps their family
members, would make the behavioral changes that are taught by most religious
groups. So what is the problem?
The
problem is one of control and bureaucracy.
The reporting mechanisms alone will require each participating religious
organization to either establish a new position or take someone away from their
spiritual work. But even more of a
problem is the future hurdles that these organizations will have to go through
to maintain their levels of funding. And
who must assure that all of this funding is being used properly?
It has to be the federal government.
This puts a federal bureaucracy over religious organizations.
The current political problem of faith-based initiatives is that the
supporters (mostly “evangelicals”) are having second thoughts about Moslem
or other non-traditional faiths participating.
But they cannot have it both ways. If
it is open to one it must be open to all.
True
faith-based initiatives are made by faith-based individuals, not by the federal
government. We should all insist
that our religious organizations serve their memberships and the world as given
in God’s word. We should not need
incentives and funding from the federal government to have an impact on our
society’s problems.
Back to the Contents
Acts
15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also an example to us
for following the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by
the Holy Spirit. We might ask,
“why did not the Holy Spirit just given them the answer and let it go at
that?” Answer: He did — read
Acts 10 and 11. So, no reason to
reveal it again. The elders and
apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem
that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict from existing revelation. There were three ways that this was accomplished:
1.
Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11).
Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again,
review Acts 10-11).
2.
Approved apostolic example. (Acts
15:12) Paul and Barnabas related
what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision.
This was confirmed by miracles. This was verified truth when they
accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it was still God’s will.
3.
Necessary inference. James
then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12):
'After
these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has
fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the
rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My
name, ...' Is there anything in
this passage about circumcision? Yet,
James is applying it. Why?
Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles
would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the
Jewish nation. Thus, circumcision is not a requirement of salvation.
So
we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving
doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary
inference. When these were applied
in the first century, the doctrinal issue was resolved! Does that mean that
everyone went along with it? No.
For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish
Christians just would not let go of. But
that does not mean that we cannot apply the same principles today to resolve
doctrinal issues. Those who were
faithful abided by the resolution that was made based on a total review of the
truth. So should we.
Back to the Contents
Ye
often hear it said ...
“I refuse to debate doctrinal
matters.”
but
Luke reported (Acts 15:7) ...
"... there had been much
debate ..."
As
with most false teachings there is a grain of truth in what is often heard.
We should not be contentious or enjoy arguing.
But as Christian soldiers there is a time to take up arms and go to war.
Our arms are spiritual in nature (Eph. 6:13f).
We
live in a time when it is widely taught and believed that there is no such thing
as absolute truth, and that religious agreement is virtually impossible.
And, as we see the divisions that crept into the first century churches
(e.g., see 1 Cor.), we see that this is not a new idea.
But today it has been given the status of a doctrine itself.
Christians are told that they can be divided on just about any issue that
might separate them except one. And
the one they disallow is the very one that Paul was teaching in 1 Cor 1:10:
“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you
all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the
same mind and in the same judgment.” Our
Lord prayed fervently for it in His last hours (John 17:23): “I in them, and
Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that
Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.”
And yet, it is the one thing that is disallowed by the ecumenicals who
insist it is impossible. Not so if
we would just put down the traditions of men and pick up our bibles.
This is your individual obligation.
Back to the Contents