Fellowship - 3

by Maurice Barnett

July 18, 2000
Fellowship - 1
Fellowship - 2

     Just like any other section of scripture, we all can understand Romans 14 alike. When two people disagree on the teaching of some passage of scripture, one or the other is wrong and perhaps both of them. If the disagreement is over a matter of personal opinion or an expediency that does not matter to God one way or the other, then both of them may be right. But, certainly, both of them cannot be right when there is disagreement over specific revelation that does matter to God.

Matters Of The Faith or Indifference?

     The first sentence of the chapter says - "But him that is weak in faith, receive ye..." In the Greek text the word "faith" is preceded by the definite article which would indicate "The Faith" and I will just grant that it likely refers to Godís revealed word. The word "faith" is found four other times in the chapter. Verse 2 says - "One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs." Here "faith" refers to the manís confidence that it is all right to eat meat, based on Godís revelation. The weak brother does not understand that and, from his own human reasoning, makes a law where God has not. Verses 22-23 say - "The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God ... But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." In these verses, other than verse one, there is no definite article preceding "faith." In these latter passages, the word also means "confidence," one of the meanings of the term "faith." Paul is saying that whatever one does, he must have complete confidence in what he is doing, that it is right. "Faith" is set across from "doubting." Some activity might be all right for one to engage in unless he does it with a doubt that it is all right to do. If the doubt is there and he does it anyway, he sins; a violation of his conscience. Of course, we cannot do something wrong with complete confidence that it is right and expect God to be pleased just because we are honest and sincere. Complete sincerity and confidence doesnít make something wrong to be right.

     In a similar situation, Paul clearly instructs that there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols; the idol is nothing and the meat is not contaminated in any way. In I Corinthians 8:10-13, Paul discusses the "weak" brother. He is set opposite the one who has knowledge, one who knows the truth from God and can make the distinction in regard to meat offered to an idol. The knowledgeable one knows that an idol cannot contaminate the meat and thus eats it. The weak brother does not understand that difference and so eats the meat as a sacrifice to idols and thereby sins. And, like Romans 14:20-21, he says that if meat causes this weak brother to stumble, he will eat no flesh.

     Though there are some similarities between I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14, there are some differences as well. The "weak" brother in each of the places is different. In I Corinthians 8, the "weak" one does not understand truth regarding meat offered to idols, neither is he a vegetarian; this "weak" brother eats meat just as the "strong" one does. In Romans 14, the "weak" one does not understand truth regarding eating meat versus vegetarianism. In I Corinthians 8 the "weak" is not only uninformed but is weak in resolve as well; he has no specific conviction and can be influenced by the example of the "strong" to eat the meat sacrificed to idols. However, in Romans 14, the "weak," while lacking understanding, has certain convictions about being a vegetarian; he condemns the meat-eating brother for his eating meat. In I Corinthians 8, the "weak" brother is emboldened to eat meat as a sacrifice to idols and thus sins. In Romans 14, the "weak" is "grieved" by the brotherís eating meat and does wrong in condemning the meat-eating brother.

     At the same time, "The Faith" gives us guidance on both subjects. I Corinthians chapters 6,8,10 give instruction on meat offered in sacrifice to idols and I Timothy 4:1-4 tells us it is all right to eat meat, period. A mark of falling away from the faith is to make a law that bans eating meat.

     In Romans 14, if the weak ones had understood The Faith, they would not have insisted that eating meat was sinful. Being a vegetarian was permissible as long as no one made a law where God had not, a law that said one cannot eat meat. In I Corinthians 8, if the weak had understood The Faith, he would have eaten the meat anyway, but not as a sacrifice to the idol.

     Romans 14:3 says, "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." The one who eats meat and the "weak" brother are not viewed exactly the same here. "To set at naught" means to treat with contempt, someone not worthy of notice. In other passages, Paul tells the Corinthians to accept Timothy without fear, I Corinthians 16:10-11, and so "let no man therefore despise him." That is, no one was to treat him with contempt. Paulís enemies at Corinth claimed, II Corinthians 10:10, that his speech was of "no account." That is, it was not worthy of consideration. In Romans 14, on the other side, the weak were "judging" the others. The word means to condemn. They were condemning those who ate meat for their meat eating. So, the weak had made a law that one cannot eat meat and those who knew the truth were treating them with disdain. This interplay is also in Romans 14:10, "But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother?"

     In the phrase of verse 3, "for God hath received him," we ask, "Who is the antecedent of "him?" If it referred to both sides, it would have said "for God hath received them." Here is the flow of the statement: "and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." That is, the weak were condemning the meat-eaters and they must understand that the meat-eaters have been received of God. On the other hand, the meat-eaters must understand that vegetarianism is all right, as long as a law is not made that requires it, and they are not to despise the weak: the "weak in faith, receive ye," vs. 1. Add to this Romans 15:7, "Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God." Couple these statements with other like admonitions in the chapter and we understand that whatever the items, those who believe and practice them are all acceptable to God and should be to one another. What each side is doing in either eating meat or not eating meat is inherently acceptable.

     Some made one day more important than another while others observed every day alike. This is slightly different from the meat-eating versus vegetarian controversy, though it is in the same category with it. We also know from The Faith that observing certain days as religious days is condemned in the scriptures. Galatians 4:9-11 says, "...but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." Though there is nothing wrong with coloring eggs and letting children search for them, observing "Easter" as a religious holiday, a celebration of the resurrection of Christ, is sinful. The same is true for Christmas, Halloween and other "days." It would certainly be unlawful for a Christian to observe pagan holidays just as it would be to eat meat as a sacrifice to idols, I Corinthians 8:10-12. Outside of the first day of the week, God does not care if we place emphasis in some way, for some reason, on particular days as long as they are not religious observances. Many people in our country go all out to celebrate the fourth of July with flags, parades and fireworks. Some do not do any of that and some of those who do charge them with being unpatriotic. Even if some think they are doing Godís will in observing days, it does not mean that they are right in that opinion.

     Whatever items can be included in Romans 14, all such things are "clean" in and of themselves. Verses 14 and 20 say, "I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself ... All things indeed are clean." But, certainly, there are many things that are unclean of themselves because God says so! Fornication, drunkenness, murder, theft, and all other works of the flesh are unclean of themselves. Is there anything "clean" about perverting congregational organization, instrumental music or any other departure in worship, rejecting the full deity of Jesus or any other revelation of the scriptures? Of course not!

     As we have before seen, there has always been, in denominational circles, the idea that it doesnít matter what one believes as long as he is honest and sincere. They base that, in part, on Romans 14. Phrases like those just noticed, as well as the following, are used: "Let each man be fully assured in his own mind, v. 5 ... nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, v. 14 ... the faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God," v. 22. Add to that the passages saying that God has received all sides in this, and you come up with the popular position that it doesnít matter what we believe or practice and we should fellowship anyone who has honest and sincere convictions. One might conclude that this is true Bible teaching, unless he keeps the category of items in the chapter clearly in mind.

     The category of things in Romans 14 are matters about which God is indifferent. He doesnít care either way what we do in such matters except in regard to the principles we will notice below. Whether a man eats meat or is a vegetarian does not matter with God. If a man observes one day above another or every day just alike does not matter with God. To borrow a line from the quotation below, it is astonishing to me when some do not see this.

     In a recent issue of Sentry Magazine, the editor, Floyd Chappelear, says the following:

     "(Let me offer an aside. Some Ďmarkí Ed [Harrell, MB] because he sees doctrinal and moral issues in Romans 14. Why, it is astonishing to me when some do not see them there. For instance, the War Question is both doctrinal and moral yet brethren will fellowship one another based on Romans 14. Are they correct in so doing? Romans 14 is dealing with those who are imperfect and how we are to receive them. Any who think the chapter is dealing with matters of indifference to either God or man probably shouldnít be expounding on the chapter at all. Are we to assume that killing people is a matter of indifference to God? Well, neither is observing days. Paul said he was afraid some were apostate because they observed days in Gal. 4:11.)"

     I take this paragraph personally, an implication that I am at best just stupid or even worse, mentally deranged. In his eagerness to criticize others for "marking," he does the very thing he condemns. He assumes, first of all, that the "War Question" belongs in Romans 14! Further, that some people can be inconsistent does not prove "doctrinal" and "moral" issues belong in Romans 14; all it proves is that some people are inconsistent.

Facts To Remember

     There are several facts we must keep clearly in mind regarding the people referred to in Romans 14.

     (1) Each side was told not to argue with the other about their differences, which is the meaning of "decision of scruples" ASV. It was disputing over matters of opinion.

     (2) These were not things that were just personal, sincere and honest belief that no one else knew about; they were practicing what they believed. Vegetarians were eating only plant material and meat eaters were eating meat.

     (3) As long as they did not ridicule others nor require that others believe and practice what they themselves were doing, they could believe and practice whatever they wanted with Godís full approval! God accepted both sides in the disputes illustrated in the chapter. Neither practice was unclean of itself.

     (4) They could believe and practice their convictions all of their lives. They would never have to change! Whether or not one was "weak" or "strong" did not matter in this regard because the weak brother could continue in vegetarianism all of his life as long as he met the other restrictions specified.

     (5) They could teach others and make converts to their belief and practice! They could do this with Godís approval for all their lives. They would never have to change and no one, by direct command, was to dispute with them about it.

Specifics and Generics

     God specifies those things that we must believe and practice that are important to Him, as well as specifying those things we cannot believe and practice. These specifics may be spelled out for us in statements or commands or determined as a necessary conclusion from premises (a necessary inference). When such a conclusion is reached as a necessary inference, it is a specific statement that contains all the options that go with a specific. Most Christians are aware that there are choices that must be made in order to carry out what we are specifically instructed from God. We also call these choices, expedients, i.e., picking the best possible way to carry out the instruction.

     Unanimous consent in what choice to make in any given circumstance isnít always possible; people will differ on the best way to do what God tells us to do. The most highly visible instance of this is Paul and Barnabas Acts 15:36-41. They sharply disagreed on whether or not to take Mark with them. Their decision was that Barnabas would take Mark and go one way and Paul would take Silas and go another. God commanded them to go teach all nations. They had to make a number of decisions about who to include in the group. It did not matter to God who went with whom, as long as they went. Of course, they had to keep the right attitude in the midst of any disagreement.

     In both Old and New Testaments, the nature of authority is the same, as is the nature of language. James 2:10-11 says, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou doest not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Notice that these are all specific statements and commands. One does not have to disobey all such instruction to transgress law, just one will do. The reason is that the same God that made one law made all the rest.

     Thus, God has said in the Old Testament that we are not to add to the words of God, nor are we to take away from them. We are not to turn to the right hand or to the left nor can we do more or less than what God teaches, Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 5:32, 12:32, Numbers 22:18, 24:13, Joshua 1:7, Proverbs 4:26-27. In the New Testament, we are told not to add to nor take away from, transgress or go beyond what is written, Galatians 3:15, I Corinthians 4:6, II John 9, Revelation 22:18-19. We must do just what God specifies and use only generic options contained in the specific commands or statements. We have no more right to declare something to be an expedient choice to carry out some specific command that does not exist than we have the right to make a law out of a true expedient.

     What God specifies does not change and must be followed. The lists of choices in carrying out specific instruction do change with cultures and centuries. We have more ways of doing some things today than they had in the first century, but the specific instruction has not changed at all. For instance, we are still obligated to teach and edify. The first century Christians had a short list of methods from which to choose in carrying out that command. We have a much longer list.

     Whatever we call it, option, choice, expedient, or generic, such decisions may come under the rules of Romans 14, seeing they are matters of indifference with God. But, specific instruction cannot be included in the rules of Romans 14 because we can only obey or disobey specific instruction. Following specific instruction is not a matter of indifference with God., even though some may consider their personal belief is the specific instruction of God; it may in fact be error. None of us can believe, practice and make converts to error on specific instruction and have Godís approval for all our lives, as we can with matters of indifference.

     Some, who by reason of time should know better, try to transfer how we must deal with disagreements over options of generic authority to disagreements over specific authority. Thatís a grave error with eternal consequences.

     Some want to place "doctrinal" things in Romans 14, emphasizing the definite article before "faith" in verse one. Others just say that "some doctrinal things" belong in Romans 14. When pressed to define what they mean by "some" and "doctrinal," we are told that it just means "teaching." Yet, that tells us little, except that when applications are made we are given a list of disagreements brethren have had that would be included in the "some."

     The list always includes the head covering, a Christianís participation in war, how many children must an elder have, must the elder be married, etc. However, the head covering must be determined from the teaching of I Corinthians 11, the qualifications of elders from I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and a Christianís participation in war from Romans 13 and other scriptures. These passages either teach one side of the disagreement or the other but they donít teach both!

     If we place such issues in Romans 14, it means that it doesnít matter which side of the disagreement one takes, the one side must accept the others because "they think they are right." If that is so, every disagreement on every subject that has ever existed between brethren can be placed there, matters of specific statement/command or not. If because of Romans 14, we must accept any and all teachers of whatever side of the list of issues, then there is no way we can refuse fellowship with the institutional and Christian Church crowd. Whatís the difference between accepting someone who sincerely believes that instrumental music in worship is taught by God in such passages as Ephesians 5 and the subjects in the usual "list of disagreements" we are handed? Or, what about the Herald of Truth and orphanís homes? Brethren who wonít go that far now are laying the groundwork for the next generation who will go further than this. At the close of the above mentioned article in Sentry Magazine, the following is said:

     "History suggests that those who are most eager to Ďmarkí others and who make such grandiose claims about what they think Romans 14 teaches will weary of their ever decreasing circle of influence and will end up pulling a Ketcherside on the brotherhood. They will one day embrace what they now so vehemently abhor. Their inconsistency will weigh heavily against their consciences and they will quickly drift into the liberalism they imagine that they are opposing. Ketcherside was not alone. Consider Leroy Garrett and others who have had a penchant for Ďmarkingí others. They often wear themselves out and will switch in their pursuit of a larger fellowship. Watch that prediction and report back ten years from now."

     Has Floyd forgotten the multitude of preachers who "marked" the liberals starting fifty years ago and STILL have not budged from their sound position? Is it "marking" that some error that leads one right into the Christian Church or is it just disagreeing with someone over Romans 14 that leads one to denominationalism? Neither logically follows. But, the intent of the article in Sentry is obviously to "mark" those with whom Floyd disagrees, warning brethren about how unscriptural and outright silly we are. I wonder just where Floyd will be in ten years; observe how far he has come in the last ten. No one has outdistanced Floyd in attacking and ridiculing those with whom he disagrees. Are we seeing a new Floyd Chappelear? Almost, but not quite. Actually, if Floyd is right on Romans 14, he has still sinned. Itís just like salvation by faith only and the impossibility of apostasy. With their doctrine, the Baptists cannot deny that I have eternal life, but, I can question theirís. Romans 14 requires that we neither dispute with those of different position nor sneer at them for their beliefs. With Floydís view, our very disagreement over Romans 14 belongs in Romans 14 and he is obligated to "receive" me without dispute because God has!

     But, I can make some predictions, too. The next generation of preachers and brethren will make the logical conclusion from the premises they are currently being taught on Romans 14 that place "doctrinal" matters there and they will wind up with instrumental music and every other error. The direction of such a position is the "Unity in Diversity" banner of Ketcherside. We warned the sponsoring church brethren about this very thing fifty years ago and look where they are now! The liberals are the ones who wound up with denominationalism, not those who "marked" them. In nearly fifty years of preaching, I have never believed anything on Romans 14 other than what I believe now; that is what I have preached. I know of many preachers who are the same. None of us have ever entertained drifting "into the liberalism they imagine that they are opposing," nor have we worn ourselves out so that we would "switch in the pursuit of a larger fellowship." I agree, check things ten years from now, but donít be surprised just who it is you find that has drifted from the truth!

     How can we tell the difference between what God requires us to do, and what is a matter of indifference with Him? Well, the Bible tells us and that is the only way we will know.

The Restrictions

     Though God is indifferent about the items in Romans 14, and receives everyone in regard to them, there are some circumstances wherein God does place restrictions on things that are right in themselves. He does this by certain principles to guide us in deciding what may be all right to do in one circumstance but wrong in another.

     I Corinthians 6:12-13 says, "All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them."

     "Meat" is again the subject here, setting the category of what is being discussed. I Corinthians 8:23 is a like statement concerning the same subject. It says, "All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify."

     Thus, the "all things" involve items that are lawful of themselves such as meat offered in sacrifice to idols. The meat is all right to eat, of itself. It has not been contaminated by the idol because the idol is nothing and has no power of any kind. One has "liberty" in these matters because God is indifferent regarding them. "But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor if we eat, are we the better. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to the weak," I Corinthians 8:8-9. So, some things may be "lawful," but . . . .

     [1] It may be lawful to do, but it may not be expedient. Expedient means something that is advantageous. Though it is lawful, it may not be to my advantage to do it. It might even be harmful.

     [2] It may be lawful to do, but it must not bring me under its power. Some things may come to dominate us; we may become obsessed with it, becoming emotionally if not physically addictive. Some modern medicines may be necessary and lawful, but of such a nature that one could easily become addicted to them if they are misused.

     [3] It may be lawful to do, but it may not edify. To edify means to build up. The activity may not help my spiritual growth and thus make me a better person. There may be some trivial games to play that may be lawful for us but they may actually be a waste of valuable time and energy. "Bodily exercise is profitable for a little, but godliness is profitable for all things," I Timothy 4:8.

     [4] It may be lawful to do, but we still may not have liberty to do it. Liberty means to have the right or freedom to act in a particular way. I Corinthians 8:7, 9 says, "Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak." Although here and in Romans 14, God is indifferent about eating meat, the "knowledgeable" and the "weak" in the two places are not exactly the same. The "weak" in I Corinthians 8 has a "defiled" conscience and so he eats the meat as a sacrifice to the idol and thus sins. This is not acceptable to God. The "weak" in Romans 14 is as acceptable to God as anyone else. At the same time, in the above passages, the knowledgeable one must be aware of the weak and take care of him. They all have the liberty to eat meat that has been offered in sacrifice but the weak, by misunderstanding what he sees the knowledgeable do, is encouraged to eat as a sacrifice to idols and thus sins. Circumstances determine the liberty.

     [5] It may be lawful to do, but it must not violate an unbelieverís conscience. I Corinthians 10 continues Paulís discussion of this category of things, primarily eating meat offered in sacrifice. Itís all right to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, but we are to seek our neighborís good and not let our liberty harm another. Vs. 32 also says, "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many." In I Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul speaks of becoming a Jew to Jews, a Greek to Greeks and "To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men , that I may by all means save some." Paul accommodated himself to the customs and attitudes of others so that he might save them. However, keep in mind that this only applies to the things indifferent with God. Paul said in Galatians 1:10, after clearly warning about departures from the gospel, "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." So, in matters of indifference, Paul sought to please others but when it came to specific statements/commands from God, he would not budge regardless of what others thought or did.

     [6] It may be lawful to do, but we must take care that whatever we do is to the glory of God. I Corinthians 10:31 says, "Whatever therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." By harming others in such matters as this, we shame God.

     [7] It may be lawful to do, but we must take care not to put a stumblingblock in a brotherís way. Romans 14:13, 21, I Corinthians 8:9. We may cause another to engage in something right for either a wrong reason on in a wrong way.

     [8] It may be lawful to do, but it must not bring grief to another. Love for a brother is involved. Romans 14:15-16 says, "For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not your good be evil spoken of." By insisting on our right to do a certain thing that is a matter of indifference with God, we may bring grief to another. It is like some have said, "I donít care what anyone thinks about this, Iím going to do it anyway." That is not an attitude of love for others and is wrong of itself. What may basically be right for us becomes wrong by our attitude in doing it. On the other hand, that is a correct attitude if we are talking about obeying Godís commands. Standing right with God is more important than considering what anybody else thinks about it. But that is not the category of Romans 14 where we are controlled by what others think and do about our conduct.

     [9] It may be lawful to do, but we cannot disrupt peace between brethren nor retard edification. Romans 14:19-21 says, "So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. Overthrow not for meatís sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." By our high-handed manner in doing something, something that might be all right to do under other circumstances, we cause division and destroy our ability to build up one another.

     [10] It may be lawful to do, but we must have complete confidence that we are right in doing it. Romans 14:22-23 says, "The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The word "faith" is set over against "doubteth." It may be all right for him to do something, such as eat meat, but if he doubts that he ought to eat at a particular time, place or circumstance and goes ahead and eats anyway, he sins. He thought it might be wrong and did it anyway, violating his own conscience. If there are any doubts, donít do it.

     Wine is mentioned in verse 21, "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." It is assumed that the "wine" here is fermented, which is not necessarily so. The word for "wine" in the Bible is general and can refer to nothing more than grapejuice. I Timothy 5:23 says, "Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomachís sake and thine often infirmities." The ellipses "not only but also" must be supplied here. "Donít drink water only but also a little wine for..." It is obvious that Timothy was not drinking any "wine" at all, though it obviously was available. It took a special statement from inspiration to urge him to take some. Notice that it was a "little" wine. The purpose was medicinal, something that some doctors even today prescribe for some patients. For the sake of argument, I will just grant that the "wine" in this passage was likely alcoholic but this is the only place in the Bible where it is encouraged, and that as a medicine. I deny that the wine the Lord created by His power at the marriage in Cana was alcoholic.

     What Paul is saying in Romans 14:21, "it is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth," is that he would not drink wine even for a medicinal purpose if it caused someone harm. Thus, some things can be all right under some circumstances and wrong under others.

     All of these are principles by which we determine, in matters of indifference with God, whether we can rightly do them or not. Such things as fornication, instrumental music, sponsoring church, theft, etc., and the believers/teachers of such things are not governed by these principles; such things are wrong to begin with. For example, one can have "faith," be firmly convinced, have no doubts, that fornication, unlimited divorce and remarriage, instrumental music in worship, etc., are acceptable to God and it still wonít change the fact that they are sinful.

     There are two categories. One contains the things that do not matter to God, He is indifferent about them. Within the principles listed, one can believe, practice and propagate them for all his life with Godís approval. The other category contains those things that God has required by specific legislation that are not indifferent to God.

by Maurice Barnett

Fellowship - 1 | Fellowship - 2
Back to the Top | Back Home