The Exculpatory Rule

by Aubrey Belue

 

In law, those who prosecute a case, seeking to prove a person guilty of a crime, are required by law to put forth ALL the facts, even if there were facts which contradicted the prosecution’s case (everybody who watches “Law and Order knows that!). In a sense, among brethren, some are prosecuting the case that we have no pattern, that God accepts the level of “unity” now existing, and that most sins are covered automatically without any effort on our part and that most sins are covered automatically without any effort on our part.

To one who is familiar with their tactics, one thing is clear. They NEVER bring up facts (scriptural facts) which contradict their case. It’s kind of like the Baptists who NEVER bring up Acts 2:38 when considering the role of baptism. We NEVER hear from them Biblical definitions of real unity; we never hear how God actually dealt with conditions when unity was missing; we never hear how God advised the church so that unity could be achieved; we never hear the passages which make obedience to actual acts a necessity for salvation, etc.

If the case cannot stand up under the inclusion of such facts as these, what are we to conclude? How trustworthy is the “Bible teacher” who ignores scriptures which undermine his personal view of God’s plan? He certainly is not following the apostle Paul, who did not “shun to declare the WHOLE counsel of God” (Acts 20:27)

 

Other Articles by Aubrey Belue
It's Not How You Feel