Good Fight of Faith vs Needless Disputes (2)
June 10, 2007
by Harry Osborne

The same apostle Paul who emphasized the necessity of fighting distinguished between essential battles for truth and needless disputes over mere words and opinions. We must understand that same distinction if we are to fulfill our responsibility to fight for truth rather than quarrel over matters of judgment. Differentiating between a good fight and a needless dispute is sometimes difficult, but the difference can be seen when we reduce the conflict to investigating the origin of its fundamental point. In his two letters to Timothy, Paul stated the principles involved in this effort. Notice those principles affirmed in these two passages:

If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth (1 Tim. 6:3-5).

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear. Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus an Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:14-18).

At the core of some conflicts, we see a fight based upon "sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ," while other conflicts are disputes over "words to no profit." Some issues involve doctrinal principles which affect godliness, but some issues are based upon the opinions or judgments which only subvert hearers if the opinions are bound on them. While God approves the teaching and practice of "words of truth" found in divine revelation, He abhors "envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth." Let us be sure of the nature of the fight before we engage in it. One who decries all efforts to defend and fight for the truth in honorable controversy has surely replaced the banner of the cross with a white flag of surrender. In so doing, he stands condemned. However, equally condemned is the one who elevates his opinions and hobbies as the rallying point for needless battle aimed at faithful brethren who do not submit to his efforts to impose his judgments as binding. He sees every difference as a call to battle. The extremes of viewing either no cause or every cause as worthy of conflict are both wrong.

Biblical Principles Helping Us to Discern the Difference

What principles help us to distinguish between good fights of the faith and needless disputes over opinions? Clearly, if we immediately and correctly recognized every issue as involving doctrine or opinion, we would have no problem in discerning when to fight. While issues do not come with "dog tags" denoting the category to which they belong, there are some principles from Scripture that will help us correctly distinguish where they belong. Let us examine a few cases from God's word.

Differences Over Eating Of Meats. First century Christians had differing practices regarding the eating of meats (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10). Not all of these differences were a result of eating meat from types of animals forbidden as unclean under the Mosaic law. Prohibitions against eating blood and meat from things strangled had been binding before the law of Moses and continued to be binding under the gospel of Christ (Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:19-21). Many of the Jewish traditions dealt with details of how the slain animal must be bled and how the meat must be washed so as not to eat the blood. Those who sought to serve God could all agree that drinking a cup of blood straight from the animal would have been wrong. They could also agree that this prohibition did not mean it was sinful for one to consume one molecule of blood while eating meat, for that would have made it impossible to eat any meat.

The doctrine prohibiting the eating of blood was an absolute necessity for all to obey, but that doctrine did not specify certain details which were involved in obeying the doctrine (i.e. exactly what amount of time was permitted between the animal being slain and it being bled, how long the animal was to be bled, how much should the meat be washed, etc.). At that level, there was a generic principle rather than a specific one. To keep the doctrine, one must make unspecified judgments in making application of the doctrine. Those applications or judgments may vary with different people depending on conscience and other factors while all accepted one another as obedient to the doctrine. Hence, there is no call for battle over differences of this type.

The same could be noted for those who sought to obey the doctrinal injunction to "flee from idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14). All could agree that eating meat in stated deference to an idol was sinful. Yet, Paul examined a few cases in which one might lawfully eat meat that others might have offered to an idol (1 Cor. 8 & 10). Were there other situations which may have been faced that were not specified by Paul? Yes. How were the brethren to decide what to do in each one of those cases? They had to apply the principles of "sound words" in good conscience, though no specific statement was made to detail the necessary action in that exact situation. Though brethren may have differed in a particular case as to what should be done, they could be united in doctrine as they continued in forbearance of one another in a given application not specified by divine law. Again, fighting in this realm would have been a needless dispute.

Differences Over Keeping Of Days. The requirement to give thanks to God for our physical blessings, such as our food, was a necessity under Mosaic law just as it is under the gospel (Deut. 8:10; 1 Tim. 4:4; 1 Thess. 5:18). Jewish Christians in the first century may have lawfully kept the feast of Tabernacles which was a thanksgiving for the harvest. In fact, they may have felt the conscientious necessity to do so in order to keep the doctrinal requirement of being thankful to God. But could they bind that expression of thanksgiving on all? Romans 14 shows that they could not do so. Though the doctrine was binding and all could unite in that doctrine, Christians of Jewish and Greek backgrounds could differ in their specific expressions of that doctrine. Why? Because those differing expressions were not specified by law, but left in the generic realm. No battle was needed here.

The above differences took place between brethren with strong convictions on the matters involved. They did not agree in every detail for reasons of conscience as they strove to maintain proper hearts before God (Rom. 14:23; etc.). Yet, they were to receive one another and not engage in conflict over these differences because they were abiding in the same doctrine. This is the very the teachers of error regarding Romans 14 have denied. They have blurred the distinction by labeling differences in matters of conscience as "doctrinal differences." We are not inconsistent to oppose the use of Romans 14 to include doctrinal error and sinful practices while advocating the inclusion of varying judgments in applying unspecified details concerning a commonly held doctrine. Having debated the legitimate use of Romans 14, this writer is teaching the same thing now that I affirmed in debate and writing since the error on Romans 14 and a broader fellowship began to be advanced.

The Corrupting Nature of Doctrinal Error

These differences in judgments were clearly distinguished from differences over doctrinal error and sinful practices. Doctrinal error and sinful practices have an inherently corrupting nature. They are based upon the misuse and abuse of God's word, twisting it into destructive errors (2 Pet. 3:16; Gal. 1:6-9). They are like a gangrene (2 Tim. 2:17). They wax worse and worse (2 Tim. 3:13). They corrupt the hearer (Matt. 16:11-12). They corrupt the church (1 Cor. 5; 15:33). They give license to ever more sin (Rev. 2). By their very nature, they do not stand still. They are progressive in their increasing perversion of Scripture and the growing number of sinful manifestations. This progressive nature of corruption is inevitable because doctrinal error and sinful practices inherently involve a different mind-set than the way of truth. Hence, we may objectively observe those who advocate a teaching or practice, and see whether it truly manifests that different mind-set which inherently accompanies doctrinal error and sinful practices (Matt. 7:15-20). This will help us distinguish between a necessary battle and a needless dispute.

A quick look at the history of various doctrinal errors and sinful practices in the religious world can illustrate this point. The doctrinal error of Gnosticism during New Testament times had a corrupting influence on other doctrinal truths and the daily lives of its adherents. The apostasy into Roman Catholicism carried with it a growing perversion of doctrine and morality that confirmed its evil nature. The same can be noted about Calvinism. Among brethren of a past century, we can notice the progressive degeneration borne of those who introduced innovations such as the missionary society and instrumental music in worship. The resulting Disciples of Christ/Christian Church with its vast changes in doctrine and practice made clear the nature of the differences involved. The same can be seen with institutional brethren whose basic premise has been followed to its ultimate, consistent end in the "New Hermeneutics" movement that has swept liberal brethren into a growing flood of progressive apostasy.

Conclusion
In New Testament times, brethren who upheld the same doctrine, but differed in unspecified judgments, did not manifest the same progressive degeneration. There was no inherent, corrupting effect of those following different applications about eating meat or keeping days. Why? The differences were not of a doctrinal nature. When brethren hold to the doctrine of Christ, but differ concerning judgments over unspecified details, let us not decimate the ranks of the faithful by turning the battle inward. In cases of this nature, we must apply the apostolic admonition: "If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18).

Continued in 'The Good Fight of Faith is Good'

< Back to Article List