Consequential Error Vs Inconsequential Error

By Bob Myhan

Is all error consequential? This writer does not believe so. There are some things about which we can afford to be wrong, although we should not want to be wrong about anything.

All actions can be put under one of three heads: (1) actions that God demands, (2) actions that God permits and (3) actions that God forbids. What God demands must be done; what He permits may be done or left undone; what He forbids must not be done. Thus, if we refuse to do what God de­mands or insist on doing what God for­bids—and never repent—we will suffer the consequence of eternal fire.

We cannot afford to treat actions in the first category as if they were in the second or third category. Nor can we afford to treat actions in the third category as if they were in the first or second category. To treat things in the second category, however, as if they were in the first or third category is ul­timately inconsequential, so long as one judges only oneself in those things. We do not have to do everything God permits. Therefore it is inconsequential if one is wrong in thinking God does not permit an action that He actually does permit.

The eating of meat, for example, is in the category of things God permits. But if one cannot eat meat with confidence, he should not eat it. His very own conscience puts it into the category of things forbidden (Rom. 14:23). This does not, however, mean that he can judge those who can eat meat with confidence. To do so is to act un­charitably toward and sin against his breth­ren both of which God forbids (Rom. 14:1-13).

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul gives a long list of actions that are worthy of death (1:18-32). That this is not an ex­haustive list is evident from the fact that he gives two similar lists in his first epistle to the Corin­thians (5:9-11; 6:9-10) and a third list in his epistle to the Galatians (5:16-21).

When one teaches that actions worthy of death are not worthy of death [or that “the works of the flesh” will not keep one from entering the kingdom of God] he is treating actions that God forbids as though they were actions which God permits, which is precisely what the serpent did in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-6). He encourages those he teaches to act in a way God has forbid­den. Since the actions themselves are con­sequential, encouraging one to so act is also consequential (see Luke 17:1-2).

God insists that alien sinners believe that Jesus is the Son of God, repent of sins, con­fess faith and be baptized for the remission of sins. If anyone teaches that God does not demand one or more of these actions, he is hindering them from receiving the remission of their sins. Thus, it is consequential either to convince others of this error or to be convinced of this error by others.

Jesus said, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). It is therefore necessary to know how to worship “in spirit and truth.” Both those who are wrong in how to wor­ship “in spirit” and those who are wrong in how to worship “in truth” are guilty of con­sequential error.

Since God forbids us to do anything “in word or deed” without authority from the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17), teaching or practic­ing anything without His authority is conse­quential. To extend congregational benevo­lence to non-saints without the Lord’s au­thority is consequential. To use instru­mental music in worship without the Lord’s author­ity is consequential.

It is one thing to be wrong in what you believe to be the truth [such as believing that an action is demanded when it is not, or believing an action is forbidden when it is not]. It is another thing altogether to teach or to practice something that Jesus has not authorized. For example, a “babe in Christ” may not have grown to the point that he fully understands why instrumental music in worship is wrong. But unless this error in his understanding is compounded by the practical error of singing psalms, hymns and/or spiritual songs to the accompani­ment of man-made musical instruments, it is inconsequential. In other words, one may be incorrect in his thinking and correct in his practice.

Since God forbids divorce [except where one’s spouse is guilty of fornication] and remarriage after divorce [except for one who divorced his/her spouse for fornica­tion], to teach otherwise is to encourage adultery (Matt. 19:9). This is conse­quential.

If it is the case that God demands that every woman throughout the church age wear an artificial covering on her head dur­ing wor­ship, those women who do not do so are guilty of a sin of omission. If, on the other hand, God does not demand that every woman throughout the church age wear an artificial covering on her head dur­ing wor­ship, those who teach that He does demand it are guilty of teach­ing error. But this error is consequential only for the teacher. Those women who are convinced that God de­mands such are not wrong in covering their heads, unless it is the case that God forbids them to cover their heads. Otherwise, they would be wrong if they did not cover their heads.

Those who wish to restrict their teaching and practice to that which has been author­ized by the Lord Jesus Christ will not teach or practice anything for which they have not found a “thus saith the Lord.” No one who truly believes in hell wants to be wrong in ei­ther his teaching or his practice. But those who really want to go to heaven will always be ready to re-examine their teaching and practice in the light of God’s word. After all, when one who is honestly mistaken in his belief and practice is shown the truth and under­stands it, either he will remain honest or he will re­main mistaken but he cannot remain hon­estly mistaken. &

IS DEATH A L0SS?

By Gary Puryear

We often use the word "loss" to de­scribe the passing of a loved one or friend. Most of us use that word as a way of describing our feelings at the death of someone dear to us. It seems that the word "loss" like many of the descriptive words in the Old Testament carries a nega­tive view of death. Consider some of the de­scriptive terms used in the New Testament for death. (1) Sleep - 1 Thessalonians 4:15. As a human we can truly understand the wonderful rest that comes at the end of a hard day's work. Death ends our labors on earth and brings us to the eternal rest. (2) Departure - 2 Timothy 4:6. Paul was ready to "weigh anchor and put out to sea." Death frees us from this world and lets us set sail for eternity. (3) Gain - Philippians 1:21-24. "...and to die is gain..." Paul knew that it would be advantageous for him to die and be with the Lord, but for the moment he knew that he needed to be with the breth­ren. (4) Put off - 2 Peter 1:13-14. Peter knew the time was coming when he must break up camp and go home. Our bodies are only temporary (tents), 2 Corinthians 5:1, thus we long to be clothed with the eternal. (5) Decease - 2 Peter 1:15. The word means to go out, exit, or depart. The same word is used to describe the exodus of the children of Israel in Hebrews 11:22. Death is the way out of this life so that we might enter the new life.

We will always miss those who have gone on before us but we need to remember that those who had prepared for eternity have gained so very much. There will always be grief at the death of loved ones and dear friends. No doubt we will continue to speak of death as a "loss" but it is helpful for us to remember that the loss is from the human side. I am very thankful that God has pre­sented a far better view of death for His children than does the world. For so many of this world death is their enemy but for those in Christ, death is a welcomed guest to set them free from the hurt, pain, and frailties of this life. "Going Home" takes on a much deeper meaning when we see from the other side. & (via Bulletin Digest, 844 Pine Street, Abilene, TX 79601)