MATTERS OF FAITH ARE MATTERS OF FACT

Our pioneer leaders had a way with slogans and mottoes, and they served them well in that they became capsules for powerful truths. One of these was "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love." It was not original with them in that it reaches back to the Reformation in one form or another, but they gave it new life and made it a guiding principle in their Movement to unite the Christians in all the sects.

It is such an attractive maxim that it apparently has no dissenters. I have not yet met the person of any party that did not readily accept it as a valid unity principle. "In matters of faith, unity." Everyone concedes that unity is realized only in matters of faith, and not in matters of opinion. When Rupert Meldenius coined the saying hack in the 1600's, he had it "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity," which may be even better, for it shows that matters of faith are really the essential truths.

It is noteworthy that we have a working principle with which we all agree. Each party leader among us can quote that old Reformation-Restoration maxim with unequivocal approval. We even agree to the "In all things love," even if we do not always practice it like we should. Even so, it is important that we have an ideal, a vital principle, that we all accept. It can become for us, therefore, a starting point in moving closer together. If we can get the first two terms properly hitched, faith and opinion, then we might get the love where it ought to be. Or does the love in all things really come first even if it be last in the saying?

Our problem is that we can't seem to agree on which things are matters of faith and which matters of opinion. What is but an opinion to one is a matter of faith to another, and vice-versa. If we charge a sister with making her opinion a test of fellowship over a mere non-essential, she will avow that she is not doing that at all, for the point at issue to her is a matter of faith, an essential, and therefore a test of fellowship. The peacemaker is hard put to deal with this kind of thinking.

One of the old pioneers, W. T. Moore, believed he had the answer. He backed up this maxim with another one, Matters of faith are mutters of fact. But he didn't go on to say what matters of opinion would be, so I'll try my hand at it: Matters of opinion are deductions, or to be more precise, matters of opinion are matters upon which we form deductions, or simply opinions are deductions. Moore might have said that matters of opinion are matters that are not factual and therefore subject to varying interpretations. There are other ways of saying it. Thomas Campbell allowed that only those things that are "clearly and distinctly" set forth in scripture can be considered matters of faith. This gives us a starting point.

When we say fellowship must be based upon "the Bible alone," we can't mean that fellowship is possible only when people see everything in the Bible alike—or even most things—and certainly not each of our parties' pet set of doctrines and their accompanying prooftexts. If we can all agree that fellowship based upon the scriptures alone (apart from all creedalism, whether written or unwritten) refers only to the clear and distinct facts of the Bible (apart from our opinions of those facts), then we might get somewhere.

A few illustrations may help, and I draw some of these from Barton W. Stone, who wrote along these same lines in his plea for the union of all believers back in 1828 (his Biography, p. 332f.).

Stone begins by saying, "We must carefully distinguish between believing fundamental scripture truths, and any explanation of them by fallible men." He notes that while all may agree that a passage sets forth a truth or fact, it still follows that every explanation of that fact may be wrong.

He takes the scriptural fact that there is only one true and living God, and observes that all believers would see this as an essential point of faith for all Christians. Yet he realizes that believers may have many varied opinions and deductions about the fact of one true God. In fact theology becomes obscure and baffling in what it calls theism or the doctrine of God.

Stone names the doctrine of human depravity as another example, for all believers recognize that the entire scheme of redemption is based upon the fact that man is a sinner. Stone contends that while we must all believe that man is depraved or a sinner, no one must be required to believe any particular explanation of this fact, of which there are many that have made their way into creeds.

He next cites the most fundamental Christian truth: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. If one does not believe this, he cannot be saved. But no one would be able to list all the opinions and deductions, some of them becoming part of what is called "dogmatic theology," in reference to the sonship of Jesus. No one can be required to believe any theory about Jesus. Campbell had a way of saying, "No one was ever saved by believing any theory; no one will be damned for disbelieving any theory." This is what Stone is saying, observing that the believer need not feel obligated to respond to such questions as "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity?" or "Do you believe that he is very God and very man, and yet but one person?" It was common for such questions to be laid on the people of Stone's day. He told them that faith is a matter of fact, and they needed only to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

Stone takes a fact like "We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," a plain Biblical passage, and refers to the unending theorizing that goes on in reference to the doctrine of reconciliation. A sinner can accept the great truth of reconciliation without understanding all possible ramifications of the remedy, just as a diseased person can turn to a physician for healing without being bothered about the component parts of the remedy. He drives home his point: "No man, or set of men, have a divine warrant to set up their explanation of Scripture truths, as tests of Christian character." He insists that this must be true or the Protestant cause is lost, and we may as well return to the Mother Church.

While Stone was especially concerned with those theories that were being imposed on people in his day, the point he makes is equally applicable to our own situation. We often go beyond what is actually written, beyond the facts, and make our own theories tests of fellowship. A few instances come to mind.

1.   The fact that the scriptures are "God breathed" or inspired. 2 Tim. 3:16 states this as a fact. But the Bible sets forth no doctrine of inspiration per se, only the fact of it. I, therefore, have the right to expect a brother or sister to accept the scriptures as God-breathed, but that is all. When I start talking about inerrancy and infallibility, or verbal inspiration or some other theory of inspiration, I move beyond the fact to my own deduction. It is just as well to make no such move, except as I make it clear that it is only my own opinion.

2.   The fact of the indwelling Spirit of God. The scriptures are overwhelming in positing the fact that the Christian receives the Holy Spirit. No fact could be plainer than "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts" (Gal. 4:6). Must we speculate beyond this? To lay down restrictions as to just how God acts in this regard or to theorize this or deduce that is to go beyond the fact itself. True, other facts can be brought to bear upon any given fact, but we must always stay with facts.

3.   The Holy Spirit bestows gifts upon God's children. Perhaps the charismatic movement has made too much of this and others of us have made too little of it. There is, after all, in scripture the fact of speaking in tongues, and it is sometimes very plain: "Do not forbid to speak in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:39). By taking all that is said on the subject some conclude that this gift was restricted to the primitive church and that it is not for our time, while others conclude precisely the opposite. These are all deductions, not scriptural facts as such. One's deduction may well be the true doctrine, but he cannot impose his interpretation upon his sister until she herself comes to see it as he does. He can only ask her to accept what is clearly and distinctly written, not his conclusions from those facts. So, if a sister comes up speaking in tongues, why can't we leave her to her own deduction, her own experience, and her own Master, before whom she stands or falls. She in turn must realize that she can interpret only for herself, and not assign second-rate status to all who do not see it as she does.

4.      The fact that baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38 says this in so many words. Something is wrong when one looks at that passage and says that there is no connection between baptism and remission of sins. Surely there is "some" connection, and "in some sense" baptism is for the remission of sins. Otherwise one has to deny a clear and plain fact. But it is something else to make baptism the sine qua non, or as Campbell put it, give baptism "an undue eminence" by making it mean more than the scriptures allow. To insist that one must have a given understanding of the act when he is baptized is also to reach beyond the fact. The fact is that baptism is for remission of sins. If we stick to the fact and forget about our deductions from the fact, we can all "speak the same thing."

5.      The fact that the saints broke bread on the first day. Since Campbell's time our people have made much of Acts 20:7: "Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread ... " We have deduced from this and other passages that the primitive saints took the Supper each first day, I personally believe this is a correct deduction, but it is still a deduction. If we stay strictly with the facts, we have to be less than certain. Another fact is that Jesus said, "As often as you break this bread ..." When our friends deduce from this that the time element is not nearly as important as the quality of the act itself, we must concede that this too is a reasonable deduction. Those who celebrate the Table on a quarterly basis claim that it can be made more meaningful when it is not so frequent. An Episcopalian friend of mine here in Denton seems to think we are irreverent in making the Supper so common! Here is an instance of where, when all the facts are assembled, honest hearts may reach different conclusions. We therefore are to recover the "ancient order" as we understand that order. We are to teach this to others, believing we are interpreting the scriptures aright, and if they come to see it as we do, we will feel that we have brought them closer to the truth. But we cannot be dogmatic, and we cannot make such teaching a condition for unity and fellowship. We must readily concede that where the scriptures do not speak absolutely, clearly and precisely, factually and without question, we are yet in the realm of our own interpretation and cannot make such a test for others. We can therefore be at one in Christ with people who take the Supper at different intervals. The fact is in the Supper itself, and in this Christians are in agreement.

6. The fact that the New Testament is silent on instrumental music. It is, of course, silent about a lot of things, such as electing trustees and owning real estate, and insuring it (Where is our trust in God!). It is silent about Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, singing schools, the salaried minister in the pulpit, and even the pulpit! It is even silent about congregational singing. These are all facts, facts of silence. The only certainty that can be drawn from the first fact is that the New Testament is silent on instrumental music. From that point on each is on his own, deducing and interpreting the silence. If one deduces that the church should therefore be acappella, then he should be acappella. If he interprets the silence differently, just as the acappella person interprets other silences differently, then he will use instrumental music. This cannot possibly be made a matter of faith, in the sense of the slogan, in that it is based, not upon a fact of scripture, but upon the silence of scripture.

All this is not to say that there is anything wrong with deductions. We have to draw deductions, the Bible being the kind of book it is. One might avoid deductions only when he is doing something like following the instructions on a prescription bottle or the directions on a can of paint. We only need to recognize that our deductions are fallible and cannot be imposed on others as if they were infallible. Only facts are infallible, not theories about those facts. As we study the scriptures in depth we will of necessity draw inferences and deductions from the facts we assemble. The more painstaking we all are the more likely it is that we will find general agreement on our interpretations. It is often the case that scholars reach almost unanimous agreement in their interpretation of scripture. We talk about rules of interpretation, which implies that if one ignores the rules he might get far afield in his deductions.

I have been reading the premillennial views of R. H. Boll (in the Boll-Boles debate), and I am impressed with the way brother Boll collected and handled the facts of prophetic literature, concluding that the Jews will be reconstituted in their homeland and eventually converted to Christ. Brother Boles, his opponent, interpreted the same facts differently and made rebuttal arguments. I am persuaded that brother Boll got the better of the argument, but even he insisted that these were matters upon which Christians can differ and still share a joyous fellowship.

This is what our pioneers were saying in their slogan, "In matters' of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love." Brother Boll believed he had the right to interpret the prophecies the best he could, set them before others for their consideration, believing that all correct interpretations will prove to be a blessing. But he did not believe he had the right to impose his views on others, as binding on them. Nor did he think the amillennialists have the right to make some "anti" position on prophetic teaching a test of fellowship. I agree. The pioneers said it with, "In matters of opinion, liberty."

But there are certain fundamental facts that are essential to the Christian faith. Paul lists seven of them in Eph. 4:1-6: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. He sees these as basic to "preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." He would never say that about theories about those facts. These facts all center in the one great fact of scripture, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior. If one believes that in his heart, he is not likely to get far astray in his interpretations, not for long, at least, When one believes that fact and obeys the act of baptism she is saved and initiated into the Body of Christ, and is our sister. As we grow together in Christ we will differ here and there, but that is where the liberty and the love come in. — the Editor