THE BIBLE

Bible View, Loose or Strict?

In 1787 representatives of each of the colonies met to revise the Articles of Confederation and make them adequate to the demands of the colonies. History tells us they decided to wipe out the Articles and adopt a Constitution for the United States of America.

Several months went bye with many different sentiments regarding the Constitution, but in the end, two major forces argued back and forth.

One idea of government was championed by Alexander Hamilton; the States should sacrifice their powers and form a strong federal government. The other was put forth by Thomas Jefferson; the States should retain their powers, not yielding too much to the central government.

After much discussion and various compromises on, September 17, 1787, the Constitution was adopted. Next was the election of a President. As we know George Washington was elected with John Adams elected Vice President. The Constitution was considered the supreme law of the land. Once elected, President Washington then selected his cabinet. They were: Alexander Hamilton to lead the Treasury Department, Thomas Jefferson to be the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, now Secretary of State, Henry Knox Secretary of War, and Edmund Randolph Attorney-General.

Soon it became generally known that the country was deeply in debt. Alexander Hamilton secured passage in Congress of a bill assuming all the State debts and all the debts incurred by the war. He devised ways and means in harmony with the Constitution. He established tariffs on foreign articles, liquors and the like. The government was launched.

Alexander Hamilton then had another proposal, and that was the government should go into the banking business. He insisted the government establish a national bank.

Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State objected and the first great fight in the new government began.

Jefferson said the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it says nothing about establishing a national bank. Alexander Hamilton contended there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a national bank.

These two ideas were the foundation of two political parties the Federalists and Anti-federalists. As time went on Alexander Hamilton’s party was known as the Loose Constructionists, which is to construe loosely the Constitution, on the ground the Federal government is at liberty to do anything not specifically prohibited. Thomas Jefferson’s party was known as the Strict Constructionists that is they proposed the Federal Government be governed strictly by what was written and warned there was danger in going beyond.

The discussion became: Are we to be governed by what the Constitution says or is the government at liberty to provide any measure, establish any system, and engage in any kind of business the Constitution does not specifically prohibit?

Sound familiar?

We have the Bible which claims to be and we believe to be inspired by God. Unlike the Constitution of the United States of America the Bible is infallible and is not subject to amendments that take from or add to.

Do we look at the Bible as granting us the liberty to do anything not specifically forbidden? Are we governed by what it says or by what it does not say?

It was never a question with Hamilton and Jefferson as to whether there was anything wrong in a national bank. To Thomas Jefferson, that was not the issue. His question was: Are we going to respect the Constitution or not? That was and is the issue. Will I take God’s word strictly? Will I be governed by what God says or am I privileged to do anything just so God, in so many words, does not declare 'thou shalt not?"

Since the Bible has been, there have been two groups. One group takes the Bible strictly and holds closely to its teaching. This group, when questions come up asks, “What does the Bible have to say?” And they limit their practices within their understanding of the Bible. The other group interprets the Bible more loosely, and asks, “Is it forbidden or prohibited?” And what is not forbidden or prohibited is free to be practiced. One group walks by what the Bible says, while the other walks by what the Bible does not say which means they depend heavily on their own ideas. They feel free to do the things suggested by that wisdom, unless it is specifically forbidden. The practices of one group originate from God. No practice can be accepted with this group that does not come from God. God is the author of all religious service with this group. The other group looks largely to its own wisdom for authority and for guidance in religious things, and anything their wisdom approves may be used in religion unless specifically forbidden in the Bible. These paths rapidly diverge, and those on these diverging paths cannot walk together.

These diverse ways of regarding the Bible led to an early division among Christians.

In the 1530s Martin Luther was asked about infant baptism. He asked, “Where is it forbidden?” And because it was not forbidden he retained it. He taught that any religious activity is permissible unless God has specifically forbidden it in the Bible and using that logic, infant baptism is not even mentioned in the scriptures; hence, infant baptism is permissible. Later, others responded “'if infant baptism is not found in scripture we can have nothing to do with it.”, and they left it out. That is the reason why mottoes such as "Where the Bible speaks; we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent" began to be uniformly heard and became the battle cry of the restoration. Around the year 1539, Martin Luther was asked to consent to the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse a German nobleman who was very much involved in the reformation. With that request came enormous political and social pressure. He advised Prince Philip of Hesse that bigamy is allowed because it is not specifically prohibited. Of course, Matthew recorded Jesus’ thoughts on the matter in Matthew 19:6-9 and Paul presupposed monogamy as normative for the Christian. (Rom 7:3; I Cor 7:2; Eph 5:32-33) But Martin Luther’s position was I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture

My intent is not to pick on Martin Luther but to illustrate how the way you interpret the Bible is extremely important to the decisions you will make as to what is acceptable and what is not. Realizing that what man thinks is irrelevant unless it coincides with what God thinks.

Under this rule, many destructive and harmful practices may be brought into the church because they are not specially prohibited in the Scriptures. This principle of interpretation releases people from a close adherence to the will of God as revealed in the Bible, and gives wide license to the introduction of human wisdom as the rule in the church and the life of a Christian.
.

Over time, some have forgotten that our emphasis should be on what pleases God, not on what pleases us. Some have come to the conclusion that whatever makes us happy should be alright with God. The events around the golden calf in Exodus 32 must have been exciting, but it was not pleasing to God.

The Oyster Man

In the 1827 edition of Alexander Campbell’s Christian Baptist he included an article in which he reported on what he considered the loose and careless way in which the Bible was being understood and applied by the preachers of his day. To illustrate his point he reviewed three sermons. One example was a sermon titled “The Oyster Man. Campbell wrote: A man who can neither read nor spell can preach a sermon on a text or preach a sermon from a text. A certain man took for his text

Luke 19:21-22 (KJV)
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. [22] And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luke 19:21-22 (ESV)
for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' [22] He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?

The preacher could not spell well and he made it, “thou art an oyster man, He raised his whole doctrine on the word oyster. Accordingly, his method was

To show the …resemblance between the Savior and an oyster man.
To point out how suitably sinners resembled oysters.
To demonstrate how beautifully tongs which the oyster man uses to take up oysters represented ‘ministers of the gospel’.
To prove that the oysterman’s boat was a fit emblem of the gospel and of a ‘gospel church’.
Historically, correctly interpreting the Bible has often been at the center of controversy.

Erroneous teaching and erroneous doctrine can be identified only one way. We must know what the Bible teaches well enough that when we hear some strange teaching we can compare what is said with what the Bible says. Just like the Bereans in

Acts 17:11 (ESV) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

It is not a matter of how great a thing a person may do, how much sacrifice they may make, of how much persecution they may suffer, but rather how implicitly they put their trust in God and with what humility they give him the complete rule over their life, doing honor to the wisdom of God by the care with which they follow His teaching. The Bible has many examples of God’s dealing with man through the ages. On many occasions where man did the will of God implicitly he received God’s blessings, and on many occasions where he fell short of implicit obedience he suffered for it.

When God had made man, we are told

Genesis 2:15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. [16] And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

God gave a two part instruction:

Man was to work the garden and keep it and
He was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

No where do we see any indication that Adam and Eve failed to do what God told them to do but we do have record of their failure to respect God in regard to that which they were not to do.

We all know the story of Eve’s temptation. She knew God’s instructions. She know that God had told them not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but she was not willing to accept God’s way as best. The fact that God had spoken was not enough. She ignored His instruction and began to weigh the matter for herself. Eve resorted to her own thinking in the matter, and was soon led to ignore God’s teaching. This was her fatal mistake and one that is still being made by many today. She proposed to weigh the facts for herself. She did. She arrived at her own decision, one that removed God from ruling her life. The facts given to her in regard to the fruit were correct. It was good for food. It was delightful to the eyes. And it would make her wise to know good and evil. As she thought of these things and remembered that God knew that it would cause her to know good and evil, and surely she would not die for doing a thing like that, she seems to have come to the conclusion that her Creator and Maker would not do what he said he would. So she disrespected His teaching. She exchanged God’s instructions for her own reasoning which man has been doing ever since. How often do we hear people today justify some practice in rejecting some portion of God’s Word as “this is just a little thing,” admitting that they are not following the will of God in the strictest interpretation but reasoning that “surely this will be all right,” or “this is just as good.” What does “this is just as good” really mean? What is just as good as what? It means that man’s idea is just as good as God’s teaching on the point in question, that man’s wisdom is just as good as God’s wisdom. Eve may have thought the same thing but it was a mistake!

Have we ever fully considered what Eve really did in the light of human reasoning?

She did not repudiate God;
She did not deny that he was God;
She did not refuse to worship him as God;
She did not blaspheme his name;
She did not become moral degenerate;
She did not steal from her neighbor (whoever that may have been);
She did not kill anyone (whoever else may have been around);
She did not lie.

What did she do?

She merely took a piece of fruit and ate it and gave it to her husband and he ate. Can you think of an act less offensive? Can you think of an act that would be less degrading? Then why was this such a terrible thing to do? The magnitude of this wrong cannot be measured by our evaluation of the act itself. It can only be measured correctly when God’s Word is taken into consideration. From that standpoint what had Eve done? She had replaced God’s teaching by her own decision in the matter, and in so doing; she had dethroned God and enthroned herself or her judgment. When we exchange our reasoning for God’s we insult God. Because of that act, Adam and Eve were separated from God, driven into the world that was cursed because of them, a world in which they lost the place of honor that God had assigned to them when He set them over His creation.

The only way we can honor God is by implicit obedience to His will. The teaching God has given to us through his Son must be respected as fully and carefully as the teaching God gave to Adam in person or that which he gave to Israel through Moses.

Jesus made this point at the time of his temptation in the Wilderness. When Satan challenged Him by asking him to change stones into bread Jesus answered

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, "It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
But by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

Moses had given the same teaching long before this time.

Deut. 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

It is true today

Adam and Eve failed to do it, so they were cut off from the tree of life and they ceased to live. God drove man out from that close association because man refused to respect God’s word. Why should we think that he will receive man back into that close relationship to live for eternity when man has not learned to respect His word? This does not imply God expects perfection but he does expect man to treat him as God, his creator.

During Moses’ final message to the people of Israel as recorded in Deuteronomy he also said;

Deut. 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

Imagine how Moses felt when he said those words and remembered what happened in the wilderness of Zin and the water of Meribah where the people complained about not having water.

Numbers 20:7-12 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [8] "Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle." [9] And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. [10] Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" [11] And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock. [12] And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them."

Moses reminded the people of this experience and told them that he had asked God to let him enter the land on the other side of the Jordan but had been told he must die in the land of Moab. Why should Moses who had led the people of Israel for nearly forty years and Aaron be refused admission to the land of Canaan? God answered in:

Numbers 20:12
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them."

Numbers 20:24 “Let Aaron be gathered to his people, for he shall not enter the land that I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah.

Numbers 27:12-14
The Lord said to Moses, "Go up into this mountain of Abarim and see the land that I have given to the people of Israel. [13] When you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was, [14] because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin when the congregation quarreled, failing to uphold me as holy at the waters before their eyes." (These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)

Remember when Israel came to Samuel with the request that he give them a king. They knew that was not God’s order of things and Samuel tried to get them to change their mind.

1 Samuel 8:7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

This was not an announcement by the people that they would no longer worship God. They were not discarding the Tabernacle worship. They were not saying they no longer believed in God. They had not set aside one item in God’s arrangement.

But God said “they have rejected me from being king over them.

They had done the same thing that Eve had done: they had replaced God’s teaching by their own decision in the matter, and in so doing; they had dethroned God and enthroned themselves or their judgment.

Studying God’s Word is the most natural way to show our love and respect.

Luke 10:38-42 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." [41] But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."

On the Day of Pentecost

Acts 2:14 (ESV) … Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

Acts 2:37-47 (ESV)
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" [38] And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." [40] And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [43] And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common. [45] And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

How can we “devote ourselves to the apostle’s teaching? The Bible! We can devote ourselves to the apostle’s teaching by reading what they wrote as God inspired them. Picture this:

A group gathered on the Day of Pentecost.
Peter and the other Apostles taught those who gathered on that day.
Some of those received the Apostle’s teaching and were baptized.
They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching.
They devoted themselves to other people who had been baptized.
They devoted themselves to the Lord’s Supper as they remembered Jesus’ sacrifice.
They devoted themselves to praying, communication with God.
As needs of others who had been baptized became evident they distributed their possessions.
Day by day they attended the temple.
Those who owned houses in the area opened those houses and shared their food with others who believed.

At what point did this group of people decide that they should:

Decide that since Jesus was not on earthy they needed to elect someone to be the earthly head of the church?
Make a distinction between the “clergy” and the “laity”
Elect a pastor to lead the church?
Call the Apostles “reverend”?
Begin baptizing babies?
Since it was difficult to baptize a soldier with all of that armor they should substitute sprinkling or pouring for immersion?
This chanting just doesn’t do it for me so let’s add instrumental music to their worship?
Weekly is just to much so how about observing the Lord’s Supper monthly or quarterly or annually?
Substitute bake sales, garage sales, car washes and bingo games instead of giving their own money and possessions?
Even though they had been baptized it really wasn’t necessary to they should teach that people were saved by faith only?
Although we were baptized they would let people pray “the sinner’s prayer” to be saved?

The command that really tests our faith in God is one in which we see no logical connection between God’s command and the promised blessing

Our obligation toward the Bible is the obligation Thomas Jefferson felt toward the Constitution, It is the supreme law of the land…I must do what the Constitution says and not presume to go beyond it.

The Bible is the supreme law of the land and we must do what the Bible says and not presume to go beyond it.

We should take God at his word, believe what he says, become what he requires, live as he directs; worship according to his decree; practice those things for which there is authority in his word.

Acts 2:42-47 (ESV)
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [43] And awe came upon every soul… [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common. [45] And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, … they received their food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. …

We need to sit at Jesus’ feet and hear his word and the Bible is the only way we have to do that.

A person who does not read has no advantage over a person who cannot. A person who does not read their Bible has no advantage over the millions of people who don’t have a Bible and cannot get one.

(by:  Great Smokey Mountain Church)