The Word Abused . . .

“WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN”

This line of scripture, lifted from Ro. 14:23, is a classic example of how men so abuse the word as to make it mean something entirely different from what the writer intended. The lesser sin is to do this unwittingly, without giving careful study to the context; the greater sin is to make a verse mean what we want it to mean, so as to justify some party line or to put some brother at naught. The lesser sin is evident when men pass along what they have always heard, parroting the cliches of their fore bearers, uncritically applying the scriptures in a sectarian manner. The greater sin, which is far less excusable, is to know better and yet go right on abusing the word for partisan advantage. The old bromide, “I haven’t met a man yet that can answer it!” is relied on more than an honest examination of the text.

In the party in which I was reared and schooled, this passage is connected with Ro. 10:17, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” so as to show that if a particular practice is not mentioned in scripture (always something we oppose), then it is sinful. For something to be “of faith,” therefore, it must be in the Bible, for “faith” comes by hearing God’s word. It makes a perfect argument against the likes of instrumental music, and it is as sound as an Aristotelian syllogism.

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Instrumental music is not of faith.

Therefore, instrumental music is a sin.

There is a sense in which that conclusion may well be true, in the light of what the apostle was actually teaching, as applied to some people, but I’ll speak of that later. Let’s look first at the unwarranted liberties men take in handling the word in such a manner as this.

This argument depends upon Ro. 10:17, which can be expressed as another syllogism.

If something is a matter of faith, then it can be heard (or read) in the word of God. (Ro. 10:17).

Instrumental music cannot be heard (or read) in the word of God (implying New Testament).

Therefore, instrumental music is not a matter of faith.

Then comes the first syllogism. Since instrumental music is not a matter of faith, it is a sin (Ro. 14:23).

These syllogisms are valid, obeying all the rules of any logic text. But it so happens that an argument can be valid and logical and yet yield a false conclusion, such as:

All subscribers of Restoration Review are octoroons.

The one reading these words is a subscriber of Restoration Review.

Therefore, the one reading these words is an octoroon.

We love and accept as brothers all octoroons who are in Jesus, but I dare say we have very few on our subscription list. And there is nothing wrong with being an octoroon. But there is something wrong with that syllogism, just as there is with the other two. It does not necessarily follow that instrumental music is a sin or that it is not a matter of faith, just as it does not necessarily follow that you, a subscriber of this journal, are an octoroon.

One does not need a course in logic to realize that there is a difference between logic and truth. One may not get far with truth if he is illogical, but he can certainly be logical without being truthful. Has anyone ever accused Satan of being either stupid or illogical?

To examine an argument we must first look at its terminology. You would not know whether you are an octaroon or not, if you did not know what the word meant. Just so, in the first two syllogisms the term “of faith” can be misleading, causing one to draw a wrong conclusion. In fact, “faith” in Ro. 10:17 is different from the “of faith” in Ro. 14:23, while the argument implies that they are the same. This itself destroys the argument, for one equivocates when he uses a term in two different ways in the same argument, or when he uses a term that means something different in two contexts as if they meant the same. It is like arguing: Man is the highest creature on the evolutionary ladder; therefore, man is superior to woman. If we argue about “faith” from two different passages, as if the meaning of the word were the same, then the meaning must be the same. But this is not the case with Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, as we shall be seeing.

People who use the scriptures in this way always end up proving too much. If this kind of reasoning is sound, which means that it is true as well as logical, then it would go this way just as well:

Whatever is not of faith is a sin.

Plural cups (for Lord’s Supper) is not of faith.

Therefore, plural cups are a sin.

Once you tie in Ro. 10:17 the argument is a clincher. One reads about cups nowhere in scripture, nor is there any example of such. Since Jesus took “the cup,” there is no way to make plural cups a matter of faith, for “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

The minor premise can be adjusted to fit all party distinctions, whether classes, literature, agencies, societies, sponsoring churches, owning real estate, pastor system, choirs, stained glass windows, orphanages, and on and on. The couplet of Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, joined in argument as described herein, is unanswerable —“I haven’t met the man yet that could answer it!” It is unanswerable if the terms in the premises are allowed to mean what the person making the argument wants them to mean.

But we can’t have it both ways: using it against those who practice what we oppose, but rejecting it when made by those who oppose what we practice. We have debated long and loud in defense of the Sunday School, insisting that it is “of faith,” that is, in the scriptures, when the non-Sunday School folk use the argument against us. Then we hammer away at the instrumentalists of the Christian Churches, making the same argument that others make against us, oblivious of the difficulty we create for ourselves in so doing.

The context of Ro. 14 makes it clear what Paul means by saying, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” By following the word faith as it appears through the chapter, one can see that it is made to mean a good conscience or to perform certain acts without doubting. In verse 1, for instance, the one who is “weak in faith” is not weak in his trust that Jesus is Lord, but weak in that he has a vulnerable conscience. He is likely to violate his conscience in eating meats and drinking wine. He may even have a more vital faith than the “strong in faith,” but he is more likely to sin in reference to these things in that he has doubts about them while the others do not.

Verse 2 makes this clear: “For one believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs. The weak brother has doubts about meat, fearing perhaps that it was sacrificed to an idol, so he chooses to be a vegetarian. The “strong” brother, who is really the liberal, believes (that is, he has no doubts) he can eat both meat and vegetables.

Verse 5 says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” which means that he is to act so as to have a good conscience with no doubts. The next two verses show that one’s scruples about eat, drink, and keeping holy days are between him and the Lord. We do not have to judge him, for he is the Lord’s man. If he is not really conscientious in his protestations, the Lord will judge him, for it is before him that he stands or falls (verse 4).

Verse 10 asks a searching question: “But why dost thou judge thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” This is to say that each of us has his own faith (his own scruples about things), and so we are not to judge each other and set each other at naught in respect to them, for Jesus is the judge, and we will all one day stand before him. And he’ll know whether we have really acted in good conscience - so we don’t have to take that judgment upon ourselves, for we can’t know each other’s hearts anyway!

Verse 13 repeats the injunction against judging, and adds: “No man is to put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” This warns against infringing upon his faith, those opinions he holds that he must hold true to. I am not to act in any manner that would cause him to sin against his own conscience, for this would be “an occasion to fall.” This is why verse 15 says that I might grieve him with my meat, and so “destroy him for whom Christ died” —by causing him to sin against his own conscience through the stumbling block that I put in his way. 1 Cor. 8:12 is appropriate here. “Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.”

And so in verse 17 he shows that the kingdom of God is not a matter of keeping each other straight on all such regulations, but a matter of peace between brothers and joy in the Holy Spirit. Verse 19 further stresses that our mission as brothers is not to be judgmental toward each other, but it is a mission of peace and encouragement.

Then in verse 22 he asks, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Again, this has no reference to one’s belief in the gospel. It is rather like asking, Do you have certain convictions about these things we’re talking about? If so, he adds, you are to have them before God. You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them. That verse also reveals that Paul considers a man blessed who can behave in such a way that his conscience does not condemn him “Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows.”

That faith in this chapter means “to have no doubt in what one does” is evident from the very line that precedes “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” It reads, “He that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of faith.” Thus to act without faith is to act with doubt. The passage of our inquiry now makes all the sense it needs to: Whatsoever one does, not really believing that it is right for him to do, is a sin for him.

This takes us back to my statement following the first syllogism, to the effect that one might be sinning in using the instrument, for “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” It would be sinful for him since he believes it to be wrong. But the one who so believes (has that scruple or opinion) is not to judge the brother who does not so believe.

That is the meaning of Ro. 14:23. It teaches me that I am to behave with a good conscience. I am to be my own man, an authentic person, not other directed, except by the Lord himself. I am not to allow circumstances to dictate to me. I am to act with good faith. from my heart of hearts, and not allow people to con me into doing what to me would be wrong, however justified they might be in doing it. And the chapter as a whole is teaching me that I am to allow for that same self-authenticity in my brother. If I tinker with his conscience, I might destroy him. The Lord has placed a “Keep Off” sign on every brother’s conscience. If it so happens that he has a bad conscience after all, and my kindly overtures were misplaced, I don’t have to worry about that. I am not to judge him. God will take care of all the rest without any help from me. He is my brother, not my servant, and so it is not my prerogative to preside over his soul.

Ro. 10:17 (“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”) has no particular connection with Ro. 14:23. You could choose another verse at random from the Bible and it would fit just as well, which is to say that it doesn’t fit at all. That verse teaches that one must hear (or read) the gospel if he has faith. The preceding verse refers to Isaiah’s query, Who has believed our report?, which the apostle relates to the gospel: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” (verse 16). The report is the gospel, and that is how faith in Christ comes. That use of “faith” is entirely different from what we have in Ro. 14.

All this is terribly trifling and naive. Some of my teachers in the universities would smile over such a problem. Tiddle winks! They would say, “Well, of course that is what those verses mean. Why the big deal?” It would be difficult for them to believe that many of our leaders warp and twist such verses as these, generation after generation, and still have people duped by such interpretation.

So the big deal comes from the fact that our schools of preaching, some in the Church of Christ colleges, some in the pulpits and in the columns of “our” journals still teach this kind of stuff, to their shame. They actually abuse the scriptures for the sake of party antagonisms. They take the very verses that teach us to be loving and accepting and non-judgmental, and twist them into meaning that a brother sins when he has a practice that runs counter to our own party peeves. They abuse their brothers by abusing the Bible!

If we pronounce something to be a sin, let it be based on a “Thus saith the Lord,” upon what is clearly and distinctly set forth in scripture. When we move into the area of opinions and deductions (where there is legitimate grounds for differences), let us be very cautious with the way we handle the Bible. To abuse one another is grievous enough, but to abuse one another by abusing the word smells to heaven like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Surely “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” speaks to us in that context somewhere. It would surely speak to me, if I used those verses that way. —the Editor