redletterbignt

He was quite convinced his view was correct. “After all, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, therefore it must not be sinful,” he said. When he was approached with the fact that the New Testament condemned homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7), he said, “I only go by what Jesus said.” This fellow had a belief that he was only obligated to obey what was printed in “red letters” (denoting words spoke by Jesus). If Jesus did not say it in red letters in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, he did not feel bound to obey!

This story came to mind while I was pondering the fellowship issues being discussed at graceconversation.com and the myriad confusing comments passers-by are leaving following the writer’s blog entries. One of the current claims in the “progressive” camp is that since there are no passages that specifically say those who worship differently from the New Testament pattern should not be fellowshipped, that we therefore are obligated to accept any error in worship practice in full fellowship.

Although it is not an exact parallel, this argument is akin to the one the fellow in the illustration above used to justify homosexual sin. In the illustration, the young man took out only the portion of scripture he wanted to hear, and left the rest. In his case, he only wanted the “red letters,” and left the apostles. Never mind the fact that the words of Jesus were recorded by the Holy Spirit through these apostles (John 14:26; John 16:13). Never mind that Jesus told the apostles to teach all the things that He had commanded them (Matt. 28:18-20). Never mind that what the apostles taught about salvation and the church was totally inerrant (John 14:26). The young man had found a way to justify and accept a practice, and he was sticking to it!

The reason they seem akin to me is that many “progressives” are doing the same thing, only they are not claiming only the red letters, but rather they are seeking to limit the scope of apostolic teaching and–more directly–apostolic examples. For instance, in 1 Timothy 6:3 Paul tells the evangelist,

“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness…”

Some are saying that these “words of our Lord Jesus Christ” only include personal morality issues, and not worship practices. However, this would be an unwarranted constricting of the concept of “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,” since the apostles were charged to teach all that Jesus had commanded, and the Holy Spirit would bring them into perfect remembrance of these things. Therefore, what the apostles taught were also “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and the doctrine which accords with godliness.

Additionally, some have charged that the “doctrine which accords with godliness” does not include worship or church organization practices. However, one would have to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) to be godly. Since God’s word is truth (John 17:17), one would be “ungodly” to ignore His word in all facets of our lives, including worship. While instructing Timothy, Paul told him to be sure that elders had certain qualifications, and deacons had certain qualifications (1 Tim. 3). He also taught about prayer and the submission of women in the worship (1 Tim. 2), and about widow women on the “church rolls” (1 Tim. 5). Apparently, to Paul, godliness included church organization as well.

Finally, some “progressives” are also trying to limit the meaning of “the doctrine of Christ” in 2 John 9 to mean only the teaching that Christ came in the flesh. However, this idea becomes illogical when you consider the fact that John said, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting” (2 John 10). Would that mean the readers could accept a teacher who came to them with the teaching that Jesus came in the flesh, but that the resurrection had already happened? This was what Hymenaeus and Philetus taught (2 Tim. 2:17). Hymenaeus was one of the men Paul had “handed over to Satan” in 1 Tim. 1:20. What about someone who came teaching that Jesus came in the flesh, but contradicted Jesus’ own words by saying that baptism is not necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16)? Would this not be overthrowing the faith of some, and leading them away from the truth?

The teachings on baptism are part of the doctrine of Christ. Not only because He taught it (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19), but also because the inspired apostles taught it (Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21).

The teachings on the resurrection are part of the doctrine of Christ (John 5:28-29). The apostles taught it also (1 Cor. 15:1-58; Hebrews 6:2). Would one be okay to accept someone teaching falsely on these things, as long as he taught okay on Jesus coming in the flesh? See my article on 2 John for more on this.

Limiting the “words of Christ” and godliness only to moral issues and excluding worship and church organization issues throws scriptures into contradiction with itself. Like the young man who sought to justify homosexuality by restricting what portions of the scripture he would obey, we must be careful not to do a similar thing by restricting biblical concepts to allow us freedom to do things that are pleasing to us, but not necessarily pleasing to God.