Have you ever head someone dismiss a disagreement saying, “But, is that a salvation issue?” “Is that really one of the weightier matters?” “Did Jesus say that or the apostles?” Or, maybe, “That’s part of the apostles’ doctrine, not the gospel, not the message of the cross.” Although some points of Christianity are more profound, impacting more of our lives than others (Matthew 23:23), are these “weightier matters” the only issues that can endanger fellowship and individual salvation? Throughout the years, there have been similar attempts to limit the applicability of withdrawal and requirements for Christian fellowship. The jargon, labels, and semantics may change, but the essential claim remains the same: “Of all possible observable sins, violation of only a small subset should obligate us to withdraw and break fellowship.” Similarly, these theories all suffer the same following weaknesses:
While watching for these common failures, please consider the following proposed but erroneous distinctions.
Proposed by people such as Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garret, and Ed Fudge in the 1970’s and 1980’s, earlier by J. A. Jungmann and C. H. Dodd in the 1930’s, this position draws a line of distinction between the “gospel” and “doctrine”. Although the exact elements varied, advocates generally taught that the “gospel” was “preached” and used to make Christians, to convert the lost, whereas the “doctrine” was “taught” after conversion and constituted instruction, encouragement, and exhortation for existing Christians. Ketcherside defines this “core gospel” as follows:
What were the constituent factors of the gospel? There were seven of these as follows: the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus of Nazareth. All of these are facts centered around the person of Jesus. All are designed to bring joy to suffering humanity through faith in Him. Jesus is the gospel. He is the good news. To preach the gospel is to announce Jesus. Thus the apostle says, “We proclaim Christ–yes, Christ nailed to the cross” (1 Cor. 1:23). Again, “I resolved that while I was with you I would think of nothing but Jesus Christ–Christ nailed to the cross” (1 Cor. 2:2). It was by this message God chose to save those who believe and those who believe these facts and demonstrate the lordship of Jesus over their lives by obedience in baptism are saved.
The gospel is epitomized in the three saving facts–the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. (Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures, Chapter 4.)
Only differences among the “gospel preached” should separate brethren, or so it was claimed. This position severely limits the application of Galatians 1:8-9 and other similar passages. But, do the Scriptures uphold such a distinction?
Paul recognized that the “gospel of Christ … is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16); however, he was “ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also” (Romans 1:15), the Christians receiving the epistle, so “the gospel … preached” was more than that limited to making Christians, since it was also preached to existing Christians.
Furthermore, notice what all “the gospel” contains:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia – remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine … But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:3)
First, please note that in addition to many heinous sins (“lawless, insubordinate, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers, kidnappers”), several more tolerated sins were also explicitly condemned (“fornicators, sodomites, liars, perjurers”). Second, please note that “any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” was likewise condemned by Paul’s “glorious gospel”! All of these specifically referenced sins - and anything else condemned by “sound doctrine” - were all contained in the “gospel” and are likewise condemned by it! Therefore, this gospel-doctrine distinction is not only without merit, but it also contradicts the Biblical usage of these words.
Furthermore, please note the following qualification that must have been demonstrated before someone could be appointed as an elder:
holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. (Titus 1:9-11)
Certainly, such false teachers would be confronted with the truth, even “rebuked sharply” if necessary (Titus 1:13-14), but eventually even withdrawal would have been required, if they failed to repent:
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11)
And again:
Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. (1 Timothy 6:1-5)
Therefore, not just “the gospel”, but even “sound doctrine” must be maintained if necessary even by withdrawal and severing of fellowship.
Lastly, please notice how Paul recognized the role that “doctrine” plays in our salvation:
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. (Romans 6:17)
If the “form of doctrine” was able to set free “slaves of sin”, would it not be synonymous with the “gospel”, which converts sinners into Christians?
Given the demonstrated interchangeable nature of these two terms and contradictory usage according to Scripture, the supposed gospel-doctrine distinction must be rejected as a false doctrine that attempts to use grace as a cover for fellowshipping sin (Jude 3-4).
For additional history, background, verses, and comments on this empty distinction, please see:
Closely related to the gospel-doctrine distinction is the claim that we should only enforce agreement on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, often referred to as the “word of the cross”, based on passages like:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, (1 Corinthians 1:18-23)
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2)
Taken out of context, we might assume these passages imply that only Christ’s crucifixion is essential to salvation; however, it must be noted that the “message of the cross” is contrasted with the “wisdom of the wise”, “understanding of the prudent”, “wisdom of this world”, and the “wisdom of men”, not additional teachings from Christ or His apostles (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5). Furthermore, Paul directed them in the same letter to “judge those who are inside” and to “put away from yourselves the evil person”, when they are guilty not of denying Christ’s death, burial, or resurrection, but of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). So, such a simplification fails within its own context and epistle.
“Who possesses the greater authority: Jesus, the apostles, or the prophets? Are we not to listen to Jesus above all other prophets (Hebrews 1:1-2; Matthew 17:1-6)?” Based on this reasoning, some may pledge fidelity to the “red letter words of Jesus”, referring to the words that Jesus Himself spoke in the gospels, colored red by some publishers. On the surface it may appear to exhibit wisdom, but at least two logical blockers prevent this position from serious adherence.
First, the words of Jesus are the words of His apostles and prophets. Jesus did not Himself write any words that we have today. Only His apostles and prophets recorded His words. If they cannot be trusted, if their writings and words are discounted, then so are Jesus’ words dismissed, since His words come to us by them!
Second, Jesus commanded that we listen to His apostles as to Him. They are His representatives and ambassadors. Speaking even to the seventy sent on the limited commission, Jesus provided the general principle:
“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
And, to the twelve apostles, Jesus said:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (John 13:20)
Now the names of the twelve apostles are these … These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “… He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (Matthew 10:2, 5, 40)
“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19; 18:18)
The apostles recognized their critical position in communicating God’s Word, providing the very link to Christ and therefore to God:
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:20)
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. (1 Corinthians 14:37)
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: … He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1, 6)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life – the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us – that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. (1 John 1:1-4)
Jesus equipped them for this task (John 14:16-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15, which was given to “the twelve”, Matthew 26:17-20; John 13:1-2), but the question before us is, “Will we accept the words of Jesus, Who invested His apostles with His authority to command?” To reject them is to reject Him. They are inseparable from Jesus by Jesus’ own red-letter words! Therefore, this supposed distinction also fails.
…
For additional verses and comments on this erroneous distinction, please see:
The words of this misunderstood distinction are found in Jesus’ scathing condemnation of the Pharisees:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! ”Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:23-28)
Beyond all dispute Jesus clearly distinguishes “weightier matters”, such as “justice and mercy and faith”, from not so weighty matters, such as “paying tithe of mint and anise and cummin”. Certainly, these virtues are fundamental, because they can and should drive all righteous actions. However, does the primacy of these virtues indicate that their derived actions can be ignored? No, Jesus indicates these “not so weighty matters” should not be neglected. Please notice again the above passage with slightly different emphasis:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:23-28)
No where in the above passage did Jesus release the Pharisees - or us by extension - to observe only the “weightier matters” in regards to obedience, salvation, or fellowship. The proposed distinction is a result of an unfounded conclusion, an inference not necessitated by the text, an unproven assertion, a false deduction! Furthermore, Jesus emphasized instead that both the “weightier matters” and other not so weighty matters - essentially all matters should be kept, none ignored. However, in keeping them, some should be observed “first”, so that the “outside may be clean also”. They are “weightier” because they are fundamental, not because only the “weightier matters” are essential for salvation and fellowship. (Please note that the essential virtue of “love” is missing from this supposed list of essentials, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, implying that this list cannot comprise the only matters that matter.)
Similarly, Jesus spoke of the “greatest commandment”:
Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ ”This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.“ (Matthew 22:35-40)
Again, please note that these two commands are arranged “first”, because they are the foundation for all other commands (“on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets”). If these two are not observed, neither the understanding nor motivation will be found to properly keep the others. This distinction is directly taught by the text. Any other distinction is assumed and unfounded, a human deduction without merit and validity.
Some may dismiss a disagreement regarding worship as irrelevant, because “it is not a salvation issue”. Are not all sins “salvation issues” (Romans 6:23)? Denying something is essential by labelling it as “not a salvation issue” does nothing to address the real issue. By itself, this assertion merely obscures and postpones judgment by appealing to a hidden creed, which can be exposed by asking, “Which matters are salvation issues?” Often this label is applied (or removed) in conjunction with one of the above disproven distinctions, and so it is answered with them. However, it can also be used as an independent cover.
Beyond those sins explicitly preventing one from “inheriting the kingdom of God”, Wes McAdams erodes any confidence to correct an erring brother or draw lines of fellowship, like so (emphasis, mine):
1. God has clearly revealed some salvation issues. When God says those who practice certain things “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9), then you can rightly call them salvation issues. Here are a few issues God says are salvation issues (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8) … This is not an exhaustive list, but these are definitely “salvation issues.” … 2. It’s presumptuous to say something else is a salvation issue. But there are other issues that are not explicitly declared salvation issues and we need to be very careful before presuming to call them such. For instance, I believe we can make a biblical case that Christians should NOT do these things … But when it comes to these types of issues, I believe we can teach, implore, and warn other Christians about engaging in these behaviors without adding the unjustifiable shock value of guaranteed eternal condemnation. In fact, when we condemn people for these behaviors, we will likely find we are condemning ourselves. Jesus said, “With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2). … When you condemn someone based on your deductive reasoning, chances are someone else could condemn you based on their deductive reasoning. It’s this kind of inconsistent and opinionated condemnation for which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (Matthew 7:1ff). … when we disagree, we MUST NOT condemn one another: “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4). (McAdams, How to Determine if an Issue is a Salvation Issue)
Ironically, McAdams’ employs human “deductive reasoning” to support his own “opinionated condemnation” of all possible sins discovered by “deductive reasoning”. In so doing, he groups all conclusions and reasoning from Scripture in the same category, regardless if it necessarily follows or not. However, the Lord Himself demonstrated that deductive reasoning, drawing necessary inferences is necessary to pleasing God. Given Jesus’ use of “deductive reasoning” to condemn the Pharisees and Sadducees, who should have arrived at the same conclusion, who are we to deny the power of God’s Word to condemn using “deductive reasoning”?
McAdams’ use of Romans 14:4 contradicts the verse’s own context, limited to revealed matters, where God has accepted either conclusion (Romans 14:3, 14, 16-18, 20; 15:7). Nothing in the context suggests that it can be used to extend fellowship to those in sin. Furthermore, the context begins by warning us to “make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts”, which certainly occurs when extending fellowship to those practicing or preaching sin (1 Corinthians 5:6-7; 15:33; Galatians 5:7-9).
McAdams and others should not be misunderstood to wholly justify all behaviors denounced by “deductive reasoning”. In fact, he states that as individuals, we may be in danger on any issue if we willfully disregards its non-salvation issue status. In such a case, our “rebellious attitude has made it a salvation issue”. And, on the same page he admits that, “there are other behaviors which mature Christian reasoning will lead us to understand are not the Lord’s will.” However, he never calls theses issues sin, and he clearly states that, “when we disagree”, eliminating all such matters from consideration in regards to fellowship.
Beyond McAdams, would you consider “forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from foods” a “salvation issue”? It is not referenced in any of the exhaustive list of sins, but yet Paul warns:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. (1 Timothy 4:1-6)
Furthermore, at least two of the passages explicitly listing damnable sins remains open-ended, making it impossible to define an exclusive list of all possible sins from Scripture:
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
Because these lists are open-ended, they cannot be exclusive, which defeats any effort to limit sins to those exclusively named by such passages.
…
For additional verses comments on this fellowship issue, please see:
Multiple lessons should be learned. First, any effort to distinguish between “essential” and “non-essential” Bible matters based on Scriptural language ultimately fails on multiple accounts. Notably the Bible uses the terms interchangeably and occasionally in contradiction with the proposed distinction. Second, old forgotten errors that were once defeated have a way of resurfacing after passing most people’s memory, which indicates we should more routinely preach on these errors, so their answers are not forgotten. Third, anyone, young or old, but especially young Christians, who are tempted to believe they have discovered an ancient distinction previously overlooked or ignored, especially one that opens the door for broad fellowship, should not think so highly of themselves or so poorly of the preceding generations. Likely, the error was discovered and defeated in previous generations long before we were even a twinkle in someone’s eye. Please inquire carefully, and study diligently before abandoning hastily and destroying recklessly (Luke 8:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).