Are We Commanded to Contend for the Faith?
Ronald D. Gilbert

To most Bible students Jude 3 comes to mind concerning contending for the faith. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Many in the church today choose not to do the things that are unpleasant. An example of this would be church discipline. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (II Thess. 3:6). What part of this verse concerning church discipline is obscure or difficult to understand? Could it be that it is not clear whether church discipline is commanded or not? Is authority the issue? That is to say, was this Paul’s opinion? No! It is to be done "in the name of (by the authority of) the Lord." Could it possibly be that the Bible is not clear as to who should be withdrawn from? No! Paul said, "every brother that walketh disorderly." So then, the problem concerning the lack of church discipline is not that the Bible is unclear. It is that church discipline is an unpleasant thing for many to deal with; thus, they refuse to do as God has said. Contending for the faith falls into the same category. It is an unpleasant task, therefore many refuse to do as God has said. Some feel that no one can contend for the faith without being contentious. They feel it is un-Christlike to argue or ever be negative about anything. Perhaps they should consult their Bibles more and read books on how to win friends and influence people less! Please take note of some of Paul’s admonitions: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (II Tim. 4:2). "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (I Tim. 5:20). "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).

Jesus is our example and His life was filled with occasions when He would contend for truth with the religious leaders of His day. The apostles also on many occasions did the same. Consider their conflicts with the Judaizing teachers in Acts 15:1-5 and Galatians 2:3-5. Paul even withstood Peter when he was wrong. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11).

Many do not seem to be aware that we are in a war (Eph. 6:11-20; I Tim. 1:18; II Tim. 2:3-4). They act as if they were running for public office and insist on offending no one under any circumstance. These pious pretenders are actually in violation of God’s Word by refusing to contend for the faith. Much error is being taught today from those claiming to be members of the body of Christ. You may choose how you will fight this battle. For example, you may contend publicly by articles, radio, classes, lectureships, books, brotherhood papers, or other means. You cannot, however, fail to contend for the faith in any form and claim to be following God’s Word. Many today are like the antis of years gone by. Concerning caring for orphans, they are not doing it and they are not sure how it is to be done. However, they are sure that the way you are doing it is wrong! It is not uncommon for brethren today who are not contending for the faith to condemn the methods of those who are. Also today when men try to follow the Bible and contend for the faith against false teachers, they may face one of the following. Someone may say that you just have an axe to grind. Or perhaps someone will accuse you of misrepresenting the false teachers. Still others may say "We have heard him preach before and we did not hear any false doctrine." Still others may say, "You say he is off on marriage, divorce, and remarriage; we will ask him not to speak on that." Some may even accuse you of judging when you try to obey the Bible and contend for the faith.

Are we commanded to contend for the faith? Yes! But like so many other commands, many are willing to do only the ones they choose to obey and condemn others because they do obey the Word of God.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

We live in an age when plainness and vividness is a way of life. Men talk about things in an open way that would not have been thought of just a few years ago. Is this a good thing? In some cases yes and in some cases no. If you want to know how issues and things should be dealt with, just read the Bible with this in mind. Some very delicate things are discussed in the Bible but always on the very highest plane possible. If one would like to know how to preach and what to preach, the best volume on preaching as God would have it is the Bible.

There are times when a certain measure should be taken and there are other times when a different measure should be pursued. In preaching, writing, and dealing with issues in the church there are many things to be considered. How serious is the matter under consideration? How much knowledge did the person or persons have when they did a certain thing? How many times had the person or persons involved been approached and talked to? What kind of opportunity did the people involved in a matter have relative to the situation under consideration? Was the wrong act done deliberately and with knowledge of the matter and had it been repeated over and over again? These are the kinds of things which should be considered when dealing with problems within the body of Christ.

Often we hear quoted Ephesians 4:15 and this is used to tell us how we should preach. While Ephesians 4:15 has an element in it that teaches us to speak the truth in love, I must say that I believe Ephesians 4:15 is very much misunderstood and misapplied by well meaning brethren and sometimes by those who do not mean so well. The primary thrust of Ephesians 4:15 is not the way we should preach the truth, but why we preach the truth. We preach the truth because we love the truth and because we want to see souls saved. That is primarily what the passage is teaching. Does this mean that I think we should be mean and uncouth in the presentation of the Bible? Definitely not! The general rule is "different strokes for different folks." Sometimes we speak very gently and sometimes we must speak very sternly. Sometimes our spirit will not be stirred very much and sometimes it will be stirred a whole lot. Sometimes we must call names and sometimes we do not need to do so. The situation under consideration must determine the way we act or react to it.

Was Jesus speaking the truth in love when He said the Pharisees loved the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues (Matt. 23:6)? Was Christ speaking the truth in love when He told the Pharisees that they loved to be addressed as Rabbi and Master (Matt. 23:7-12)? Was our Lord speaking the truth in love when He called these same Pharisees hypocrites (Matt. 23:13)? Was Jesus preaching the truth in love when He told the Pharisees that they robbed widows and made long prayers to be heard of men (Matt. 23:14)? Was the Master teaching the truth in love when He told the Pharisees they made people worse rather than better and that they made them children of hell (Matt. 23:15)? Jesus called them fools and blind (Matt. 23:17). Was this speaking the truth in love? Was Jesus speaking the truth in love when He told the Pharisees that they were a generation of snakes and then asked them how they could escape the damnation of hell (Matt. 23:33)?

The prophets often spoke sternly and in a very straightforward manner. Did they preach the truth in love? What about John the Baptist and his preaching (Matt. 3:1-8; Mark 6:14-18)? Was it done in love? What about the apostles and other inspired men who spoke stern rebukes at various times? You see, there is a place for hard, straight preaching and there is a place for other measures. All soft preaching is not good and all stern, hard preaching is not good. The preaching and teaching to be done depends upon the situation at hand. I believe a number of our brethren need to remember this.

Politics and Contending for the Faith
Glenn B. Ramsey

Surely no one who loves the Lord and believes His Word doubts that as a child of God one must do his part in contending for the system of faith (the Gospel) that has been given to God’s people. Jude said, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

Paul’s primary concern was in pleasing God. In Galatians 1:10 he said, "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." It is no wonder then, that Paul was set for the "defence of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17).

In the first chapter of Galatians we learn of a characteristic Paul had that is very admirable to us and absolutely essential if we are to please God. The characteristic is this: Paul was concerned first with pleasing God in his work as an apostle and preacher of the Gospel. Not only was he not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16), but he preached it to please God and to lead men to the salvation it (the Gospel) offers.

Paul’s statement, "for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ," should cause all Christians to stop and evaluate the motives of their lives. He does not say that one should strive to please men as a servant of Christ. He does not say that one can be a servant of Christ and please men!

He does say that if a man’s concern is to please other men (with his preaching and teaching) that this man is not a servant of Christ! Now, how does this fit in with the modern "politically correct" preachers among us?

There are some preachers who will not preach on any subject of truth until they have carefully scanned the "political" horizon of their brethren to see if such will cause them to be less pleasing to their constituents than if they said nothing! This is why many pulpits (in both "large" city churches, and in several "small" rural churches) are silent on the subjects of marriage, divorce and remarriage, the role of women in the church, church discipline, and especially in exegesis and application of Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 16:17-18.

Most of the "political" preachers and members among the Lord’s people pride themselves in their constant efforts to "not" be negative! They are really negative about being negative. In reality, the Gospel is not negative even when sin is rebuked in the most scathing terms. Who would accuse our Lord Jesus of being a "negative" preacher? Read Matthew 23 ! But some do not intend to do what Paul did in specifically pointing out individuals (by name, no less) who were guilty of sin (I Tim. 1:20; II Tim. 2:17).

Not only do these kinds of church members pride themselves in their "positive" approach, but they also pride themselves in their ability(?) of "getting along" with everyone in the brotherhood. Most of the preachers today will preach anywhere they are invited, even though it will involve having fellowship with people who hold false doctrinal positions and/or have fellowship with those who do!

On one occasion I talked with a person who argued that even if one attended a worship service where a known false teacher preached, sung songs with the church there, and lead a public prayer in that worship service that such was NOT fellowship! It is obvious that many have never considered what the Bible doctrine of fellowship entails! We are supposed to ". . .have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). We are supposed to (if we care about pleasing God, and not men) follow Paul’s command in Romans 16:17-18: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Here is one final point. In the modern church of Christ today it is almost unheard of that an eldership or a preacher will publicly repent and confess sins that were done in a public way. How could a preacher or an eldership be guilty of public sin any more than by inviting a false teacher to preach or teach in the congregation? Yet that has been done here in Cookeville, Tennessee, and throughout the land! Evidently the modern "politically correct" elders and preachers in the church of Christ have come up with a THIRD LAW OF PARDON!

This third law of pardon goes something like this: (1) when guilty of public sin, especially in having fellowship (by supporting) with a false teacher, public acknowledgment of such is never the best thing to do because it is so embarrassing; (2) just act as if nothing has happened (even if there are no plans to do it again); (3) let time pass and the people will forget that such occurred; (4) go on about your business as if nothing ever happened that violated the Scriptures and brought shame upon the Lord’s cause.

There is one major problem here. The Lord does not forget sin! Men do, the Lord does not! The Lord does forgive sin, but not the way some think! The Bible teaches that repentance and confession of public sin is necessary for the blood of Jesus to remove it from a Christian’s life. The Bible does not teach that when men forget, that therefore God forgets. The Bible does not teach that when men forgive that, therefore the Lord forgives. Some seem to think that they can tell the Lord how He is to forgive and forget! Indeed, we must please God in this as in all things if we would go to heaven.

Is There a Difference Between Gospel and Doctrine?
Holger W. Neubauer

First promulgated by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garret and then made popular by Larry West and the Whites Ferry Road church in West Monroe, Louisiana, the alleged dichotomy between Gospel and doctrine suggests fellowship can be held with brethren who use instrumental music in worship, partake of the Lord’s Supper on days other than the first day of the week and a host of other damnable doctrines. This faulty interpretation was touted as the key to fellowship with the Independent Christian church and claimed to be a true endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). However, as shall be shown, this doctrine has its derivation in the mind of men and not of God (Matt. 21:23-25).

Those who contend that there is a difference between the doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Christ explain that the Gospel is necessary and the doctrine is a matter of indifference concerning the issue of fellowship. The Gospel, they say, is simply the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and relates to the necessity of obedience to God in the plan of salvation. The doctrine of Christ is then said to include all other matters that must be held prayerfully and sincerely but at the same time no test of fellowship may be made on such a matter. There are several things that need to be said about this errant affirmation.

First, the dichotomy between the doctrine and the Gospel is not biblical. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul withstood Peter because of his hypocrisy in separating himself from the Gentiles when God had already revealed that those Old Testament restrictions were broken down. Paul said in Galatians 2:14 "When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" in referring to Peter’s hypocrisy. Peter had not denied the Lord’s resurrection or the plan of salvation but had nevertheless violated a matter of the "Gospel." In I Timothy 1:9-10 Paul mentions a series of moral violations of the law and instructs us that these things are "contrary to sound doctrine." The next verse says "According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (I Tim. 1:11). All doctrinal matters are Gospel matters and all Gospel matters are doctrinal matters. The doctrine is taught to the world (Rom. 6:17) and the Gospel is taught to the church (Rom. 1:15). The supposed distinction between the Gospel and the doctrine is an invention of men and not a teaching of God.

Second, the New Testament is referred to by a variety of designations. The message of the New Testament is to be preached for the Gospel is to be preached (Mark 16:15-16). We also have an obligation to preach the Word (II Tim. 4:2), the truth (Eph. 4:15), the faith (Gal.1:23) and the doctrine (Acts 13:12). Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Since the Gospel and the doctrine are equal in that they both are set forth in Scripture as being sufficient for salvation, it must be the case that the doctrine of Christ and the Gospel of Christ are equal to each other.

Third and finally, though the fundamental facts of the Gospel include the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4) the Gospel is not restricted to these facts. The term Gospel, which refers to the good news, applies to all of the good news. One promulgator of this false view of faith and doctrine suggested that why we don’t use instrumental music is not "good news." However, if it is sinful to utilize instruments of music in worship to God, and it is, then it is "good news" to find out why we should not use them. The Gospel and the doctrine of Christ are one in the same and those pushing for a distinction in these terms are pushing for division in the body of Christ.

Is Contending for the Faith Healthy?
David Hill

God charges Christians and not just preachers to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). The term contend means to struggle, to battle, or to contend with a rival. So, an understanding of Jude 3 is an understanding that a struggle is part of the Christian life. Timothy was told to "war a good warfare" (I Tim 1:18). But to consider contending for the faith as healthy or unhealthy might be a different term or line of thought.

It is sometimes best to define the terms under consideration at the very outset. Contending for the faith is understandable. Now let’s define the term healthy. Webster’s New Idea Dictionary on page 234 defines healthy as, "enjoying or typical of good health, well 2: conducive to health 3: prosperous, flourishing b: not small or feeble." So, again the question: Is contending for the faith healthy? Is contending for the faith good for health? Well, that might depend on some further understanding of the terms. One thing we can observe is a Bible example.

Stephen contended for the faith in Acts 7:54-60 and his physical health suffered because of it. In fact his physical health was lost due to the effects of stoning and he died. But in the process he looked up "into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55). His health suffered but he was spiritually blessed and comforted in a way like no other. Was it healthy for Stephen to preach the Gospel of Christ in a strong way? Some have been critical of Stephen’s approach, but he had the power of the Holy Spirit guiding him (Acts 6:8). If it is the case that a more tactful approach was necessary, then the Holy Spirit made a mistake and He needs some instruction in tactful diplomacy. How ridiculous can one be to suggest such a thing!

The apostle Paul said, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (II Tim. 4:2). In fact it was Saul, later known as the apostle Paul, at whose feet the witnesses laid their coats while Stephen was stoned (Acts 7:58). This same man, who "was consenting" to the death of Stephen, later obeyed the Gospel (Acts 9) and wrote the above referenced charge. Paul, the preacher of preachers and writer of the largest number of books in the New Testament said:

Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils of the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. (II Cor. 11:24-28)

All of the suffering listed above by Paul he deserved—right? He broke the law and was a criminal—right? No, that is completely wrong. He suffered all of that as a result of preaching the Gospel and standing for it. Was it good for his health? Paul warned, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Tim. 3:12). Is contending for the faith healthy? Well, not necessarily, at least not physically healthy. But Paul instructed the Romans that tribulation and persecution made them strong (Rom. 5). So the trials mentioned worked toward a greater health, that is, spiritual health. Yes, our "light affliction. . . worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (II Cor. 4:17).

With all the discussion of persecution of the righteous in the Bible, how can we today teach, preach and deal with these passages and throw up our hands to quit serving the Lord at the sound of criticism? Oh, there are some places in the world that one could go and potentially lose his/her life for teaching the Gospel, but it is not likely that you or I will be killed for preaching the Gospel of Christ. It is very likely that we will suffer persecution at the hands of or mouths of worldly brethren and political preachers. They will not attempt to kill with a gun, but rather attempt to assassinate one’s good name and destroy one’s good work. Is this good for one’s health? No, but it happens on a daily basis. The comfort to a Christian are the words of Christ: "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20).

Yes, persecution will come to Christians in one form or another and our physical health may be lost as the result. While earthly suffering and even death may come to the faithful, heaven awaits where no pain, suffering, death or destruction will be known. As the wonderful old song says, "No tears in heaven fair, no tears, no tears up there, Sorrow and pain will all have flown." Keep singing, praying and fighting, dear brother, for joy awaits us in the morning (Ps. 30:5).

Contending for Faith or Opinion?
Kerry Duke

Having opinions is natural. Voicing them is fine. But causing divisions over matters of opinion is wrong. The Lord gave us all things necessary to salvation (II Pet. 1:3; II Tim. 3:16-17), and we are to be united on those things He has revealed. But we should remember that matters of opinion are different. We can disagree over such matters and still be one in Christ.

Disagreements over matters of opinion sometimes are not handled with such an attitude. One of or both parties in a dispute may treat an opinion as if it were a law from God. The treasured opinion is pushed until contentions arise. Members who do this seem blind to the damage they do to the body of Christ and leave the real duties of Christianity undone. How sad and how tragic this childish mentality is.

What causes people to contend for their opinions as if they were commandments of God? Often a desire for attention is behind these contentions. Paul said, "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another" (Gal. 5:26). Notice what is at work in this passage: one who strives for vain glory provokes others and stirs jealousy. He causes resentment as he pushes and shoves his way to a place where he can be seen. Pride is contentious by its very nature. "Only by pride cometh contention" (Prov. 13:10). One who seeks glory cannot get along with others. For him it is his way or no way at all. Such a person causes contentions over matters so small they would be laughable in another setting. He refuses to admit he is wrong and defends his view to ridiculous extremes. Meanwhile, the real issues before the church are neglected.

Rashness is often a cause of contentions over matters of opinions. A brother may be hasty with the Scriptures and, having drawn the wrong conclusion, treat his new-found idea as an element of the faith. He thus perverts the Scriptures (II Pet. 3:16) and contends for something not even taught there. He also may be rash in reacting to an error. He sees an error and goes to the other extreme, quickly condemning anything that to him is similar to the error he rightly opposes. In so doing, however, he fails to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). He may be rash also in his opinions about others, jumping to conclusions and condemning them before he has the facts. These contentions cause great harm in the church.

Rashness is foolish. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Prov. 18:13). "Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? There is more hope of a fool than of him" (Prov. 29:20).

A person can be sincerely mistaken about an opinion. He may honestly believe that his view is actually Bible doctrine. His vigorous defense of it is understandable though mistaken. Such a man will correct his error when it is shown to him. But a man who is prideful will not be corrected and will continue to cause division over his pet opinions when the opportunity to do so arises.

Even if a person has an opinion which will probably be beneficial in the end, he must weigh how he pursues convincing others of his opinion. If that opinion, when pushed on others, causes strife in the body of Christ, its benefits are not worth the cost. We have enough serious and clearly revealed issues without having to become distracted, hindered, and divided over matters of opinion. Let us fight for matters of Bible teaching but be peaceable in matters of opinion.