More
and more we are hearing that "we need to major in the gospels and minor in
the epistles." What is that all about? What it is about is the so-called
"new hermeneutic." It places greater importance on what Jesus said and did
than on what the apostles said and did. It is a part of the scheme to rid
ourselves of the restraining influences of finding a direct statement,
approved apostolic ex-ample or necessary inference to authorize our teaching
and practice.
We have some
among us who are terrorized by the ghost of tradition. Never mind that
traditions are sometimes approved and other times condemned. Paul wrote,
"Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you
have us for a pattern"
(Phil. 3:17).
He also said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which
you were taught, whether by word or our epistle"
(2 Thess. 2:15).
The church at Thessalonica was charged to "withdraw from every brother who
walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from
us"
(2 Thess. 3:6).
So, all traditions are not to be rejected.
The Source of Apostolic Teaching
Those who worry
about putting too much emphasis on the epistles need to be reminded of the
source of the message in the epistles. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to
guide the apostles into all truth, bringing to their remembrance what Jesus
had taught them, and revealing to them truth which Jesus had not expressed
while with them in person. Read
John 16:7-14.
Paul said, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom
teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches" and then added, "But we have the
mind of Christ"
(1
Cor. 2:13,16).
"If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord"
(I Cor. 14:37).
Now, if the
apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, had the mind of Christ, and what
they wrote were the words of Christ, how say some among us that we need to
minor in the epistles?
New Testament
congregations which received and obeyed apostolic instruction in the
epistles were following the will of Christ. That is why Jude wrote, "But,
beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of
our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Jude 17).
Those words were a pattern to shape our thinking and practice.
A "Better" Way?
Some of those
who are weary of precept, approved apostolic example and necessary
inference, tell us that this is not all bad but they have found a "better
way," that in addition to these means of establishing divine authority, we
may add the three "P's", principle, purpose and perception. Older brethren
will recall the time when E.R. Harper was trying to find divine authority
for the Herald of Truth sponsoring church arrangement and came up with
"principle eternal." He had no precept, no approved apostolic example and no
necessary inference from the word of God, so he found it in "principle
eternal." But how do we know what principle to follow except in terms of
what the word of God actually says? How do we know what purpose is to be
served apart from divine instruction? How do we know what perception or
perspective was present except from what is said in the text?
It is being
argued that the only pattern for us is what we think Jesus would do. That is
a subjective approach to religion. We "walk by faith, not by sight"
(2 Cor. 5:7).
Faith rests upon solid evidence, not subjective feelings and perceptions.
The truth of the matter is that Jesus taught by the use of commands and
precepts. What do you make of the Great Commission if that is not so? He
"left us an example that we should follow in his steps"
(1 Pet. 2:21).
He also drew necessary conclusions
(Matt. 22:23-33)
or left it so
that his hearers would do so.
There seems to
be a terrible dread among some (especially some younger men) that they will
do something which brethren have done before and therefore will fall into
some theological rut from which they will not be able to extricate
themselves. So they tinker with the order of the worship until it borders on
disorder. They fear that worship will not be exciting enough. But exciting
to whom? To us, or to our God? They must deliver us from boredom. But who is
bored? Are we bored, or is God? Certainly worship ought to be offered from
the whole heart. We ought not to go through empty rituals. But God has
ordained certain acts of worship and who am Ito say that he is bored when
his children perform these acts in harmony with what God himself instructed
us to do?
These are
dangerous times. The only safe guide to see us through these times is the
inerrant, eternal word of God. It is a perfect guide. Our eternal destiny is
too important to entrust to the shifting sands of human opinion and
subjective religion. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?"
(Psa. 11:3)
Let's hear what
Jesus said in the gospels but let's not minimize what he said in the
epistles through Holy Spirit-guided apostles. That is also a part of the
word that will judge us in the last day
(Jn. 12:48-49).
Guardian of Truth - October 7, 1993
Other Articles by Connie W. Adams
Divine Authority and Human Relations
Diving Authority and the Creation
In
Remembrance of These Things
The Perception Is ...
Sound Speech or Sound
Silence?
Protecting Churches From Error
The Problem of Private
Lust
The Trend Among the Young
Preachers
Old Song, New Singers
Umbrella Religion
Lest Anyone Should
Deceive You
For Past Auburn Beacons go to:
www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm
|
Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send
your request to:
larryrouse@aubeacon.com |