Romans 14: One Lord, One Strong, One Weak

 RESEARCH PAPER 

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

the Department of Biblical Studies & Christian Ministry

College of Arts & Sciences

Regent University

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree

Biblical and Theological Studies

___________________

by

John C. Carroll 

Research Paper

Exegetical Section

Romans 14:1-12

            Romans 14:1-12 is propositional literature where Paul argued for the unity of believers. There are two categories of believers that Paul had in mind when writing this section of Romans: weak and strong. Another way to view this section of Pauline literature is in terms of love and liberty.[1] The emphasis of this text is, “Both weak and strong Christians at Rome are accepted in Christ, and therefore they should accept one another.”[2] There is liberty in Christ for believers to live at different levels of their faith. Not all believers will grow in faith and grace at the same pace. Consequently, there will be differences in practice between believers in non-essential categories. Paul’s argument here is that those differences should not divide us from love and fellowship. 

Romans 14:1

Paul immediately referred to the “weak” in this section (14:1). However, he did not mention the “strong” until Romans 15:1. While Romans 15:1 is not in the immediate context under consideration, it is still in the context of the topic of our selected verses. Scholarly commentaries often make Romans 14:1-15:13 a single section.[3] Therefore, Paul’s use of “strong” in Romans 15:1 is the contrast to Paul’s use of weak in Romans 14:1. 

 

Romans 14:1 set the tone perfectly for this entire section of verses: “As for the one who is weak in faith, receive him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Rom. 14:1, [English Standard Version]). The first verse summarizes everything that Paul wrote throughout the remainder of the verses under immediate consideration as well as the larger section. It is about the strong and the weak accepting one another in Christ. 

It is not certain who the strong and weak believers are. There are at least six different possibilities for who the weak and strong are.[4] For the present section, that is unimportant. What is important is Paul message of mutual acceptance in Christ. Paul exhorted the Romans to “welcome” the one who is “weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1). The Romans were not just to welcome the weak, they were to welcome them for the right reasons. “Paul’s admonition not to welcome the weak for the ‘purpose of quarreling about opinions’ suggests that the gatherings of certain believers were becoming the occasion for the strong to dispute with the weak about what faith in Christ allowed.”[5] It was important that the gathering of believers for worship would remain a fellowship and not become a battleship. 

Romans 14:2

            Paul provided some clarity as to what he meant by weak faith. He means weak faith regarding what one may eat. One side thinks that he may eat anything, and the other side thinks that only vegetables are permissible. “The person who believes that he can eat anything

represents the strong, while the one who eats only vegetables represents the

weak.”[6]  The weakness in faith is about what one may or may not eat, not necessarily weakness in faith concerning Christ.[7]

Romans 14:3

            The one whose faith is strong enough to eat meat should not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains should not judge the one who eats. What they are not despise and judge one another concerning is eating meats and vegetables. The strong have the tendency to look down on the weak, and the weak have the tendency to judge the strong. Sometimes the strong look at the weak as less spiritual, and sometimes the weak look at the strong as less holy.[8]And Paul was arguing that they should not do that. 

Romans 14:4

            Neither the strong nor the weak have the right judge the other. Both are servants, and neither is the other’s master. One does not have the authority to judge one over whom he is not the master. They are both servants. The term servant isοἰκέτης and is literally a “household slave.”[9] Both servant stands before his own κύριος. In the context, God is the one master before whom both servants stand. And God will uphold both of his servants. 

Romans 14:5

            One person versus another person is a contrast between the weak person and the strong person. In keeping with the weak versus strong context, it is the weak who esteems one day above another and the strong that esteems all days alike.[10] Furthermore, it is important to note that the “one person” and “another” person are both house servants to the same Lord. They are both insiders. It is not a matter of one being in and the other being out.

            Even though they disagree, each one should be “fully convinced” in “his own mind.” There are two points here that are important. Whatever position one holds, they should be “fully convinced” of it. And they should be convinced their “own mind.” They should not be forced to live in subjection to the persuasion in the mind of another. If the Lord of the house permits a range of different views, then he wants his servant to have a mind of their own. 

Romans 14:6

Both the observer and the abstainer honor the Lord. The Lord receives honor from both the observation and abstention of the day. Both activities are honorable. Every servant does not have to hold the same view or perform the same services to honor their Lord. It is to the glory of the Lord that He can receive honor from opposite practices on a single issue. The greater issue for the Lord of both servant is not whether they choose to observe or abstain, but their thankfulness toward their Lord. 

Romans 14:7-9

            Without context, one may be tempted to become altruistic in this verse. One might expect Paul to follow up with how we are to live for others, but that is not what he did.[11] He goes on to say that servants live and die unto the Lord, and not to fellow servants who may wish to judge them.[12] To continue the image of the servants of the house from earlier, one lives ultimately for the pleasure of the Lord of the house and not the servants of the house. 

Romans 14:10

            Paul asked a powerful question based on the above conclusion: If one lives and dies to his Lord and not to other servants, then why do we pass judgment on our brothers. We are fellow servants and not the Lord of the house. Only the Lord of the house has the authority to judge the servants in the house. 

Romans 14:11

            Now the Lord of the house speaks for himself: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This is a citation from Isaiah 45:23. Therefore, this is not just Paul’s opinion about to whom the servants are accountable, or who should be judging the servants; it is the Lord’s opinion. The Lord made it clear that He and He alone will judge His servants. 

Romans 14:12

The conclusion of the Lord of the house motif is that we will all give an account of ourselves to God. We should not be worrying about what the other brother/servant is doing; we should focus on our own relationship with the Lord. When I stand before him, I can only account for my actions. The Lord will not hear my criticisms of his other servants. 

Theological Section 

Exegetical Summary

            Romans 14:1-12 is a powerful text demonstrating unity in diversity. There is room in the body of Christ for differences of opinion and practice. One reason that diversity of opinion and practice is permissible in body of Christ is because not all believers are at the same level of conscience and faith.  Some believers are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), and some believers are strong (Rom. 15:1). Even though they have different levels of faith, they are both brothers in Christ. The weak and strong need to act charitably toward one another. 

Schools of Thought 

            There are differences of opinions among scholars as to what the weaker brother refers. As with most texts, there is no universal consensus in this topic. According to Pate, Moo offers six possibilities for who the weak brother is:[13]

1.     The “weak” were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat (and perhaps wine), particularly on certain “fast” days, under the influence of certain pagan religions.[14]

2.     The “weak” were Christians, perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who practiced an ascetic lifestyle for reasons that we cannot determine.[15]

3.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain practices derived from the Mosaic Law out of a concern to establish righteousness before God.[16]

4.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who followed a sectarian ascetic program as a means of expressing their piety. This program may have been the product of syncretistic tendencies.[17]

5.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who, like some of the Corinthians, believed that it was wrong to eat meat that was sold in the marketplace and probably was tainted by idolatry.[18]

6.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic Law.[19]

There are theologians that hold to at least one of those views. Moo, Cranfield, and Pate hold to view number 6.[20] There may be merit to most of the views expressed above, but there was a view that the author intended. There is not enough space to make an argument for each of the views, but I will make the case for my view in the next. 

My View 

            The view presented in this paper will affirm the sixth view from the above list. Pate recapitulated Moo’s four reasons for choosing option six. First, the weak in faith and the strong parallels the differences to Jew and Gentile.[21]“Second, a Jewish origin of the position of the weak can clearly be seen in the term koinos (“unclean” [14:14]), which had become a semitechnical way of proscribing certain foods under the Mosaic law (see Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14).”[22]Furthermore, this is the way we are to understand abstention from meat and wine, and participation in holy days.[23]These points challenge the validity of options 1, 2, and 4.[24]

            Third, Paul’s insistence that the weak and strong accept one another demonstrated that the weak were not teaching anti-gospel views like the Judaizers thus refuting option 3.[25] Fourth, the lack of mention of “food sacrificed to idols” is against option 5. Therefore, that leaves option 6 as the best option. The weak in faith were Jews who still felt an obligation to the law, and the strong in faith were Gentiles who felt no obligation to the law because they knew that law ended at the cross.[26]

Cultural Analysis and Application 

            There are many ways in which the culture can benefit from a Christian community that lives out the message of the gospel in practical ways. While the specific details about the first century and the twenty-first century may differ, the big picture of a sinful culture and an imperfect church remain the same. That is why the principles and doctrines of the New Testament remain relevant. When dealing with humanity, there are things about our nature that will always remain true. Humanity will always be fallen. Humanity will always have a tendency toward works-based salvation regardless of the religion. Finally, humanity will always have to fight to resist the temptation to condemn others who do not hold their particular religious practices. 

The issue of weak and strong Christians as it relates to the secular and church cultures around us is still a major issue. In the day-to-day life of a Christian, there are many ways in which the principles from this text are applicable. We must understand that our brothers and sisters in Christ can stand at radically different places in faith than we do and still be a true Christian. We need maturity to walk in charity towards fellow Christians who are not on the same level of faith as we are. There are many secondary issues with which Christians must deal that will test our love for one another. The principles of the weak brother versus the strong brother is not about the essentials of the gospel; there is no room to move on that. The sinfulness of man, the holiness of God, the incarnation, the death burial and resurrection, and the deity of Christ are non-negotiable. Issues like eschatology, ecclesiology, and many other practices should not cause division among true believers. 

In the certain corners of modern Christianity, we fight over things that do not affect the gospel. It is no different now than in the first century. Some condemn others over facial hair on men, pants on women, television, holidays (Christmas, Easter, etc.), the timing of the second coming, women preachers, jewelry, wine or grape juice for communion, and so many other issues. Today’s church continues to need the message of Romans 14:19: “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” Adam Solorio made a powerful observation on this topic: “Disfellowshipping over petty issues is the luxury of an affluent church. If we were a persecuted church, then we would not be dividing over nearly as many things as we do.”[27] Perhaps, he was right. If our survival depended on other believers, then we would probably expand our definition of what true believers are.  

God is going to bring together all His people into perfect oneness (Eph. 4:11-16). God is at work on both ends and in the middle to bring together all the belong to Him. He has members of His elect in most denominations in Christianity and is going to bring them all together. God will accomplish this without compromise of the gospel. He will challenge the minds and change the thinking of those who belong to Him until we gravitate to one another by His leading. I believe that there are great things in store for the church. God is producing a church that will walk in charity to the so that the weak and strong may co-exist peacefully under the banner of the gospel. 

Conclusion 

From the time of the New Testament there has been conflict in the body of Christ. Even the apostle’s had disagreements among themselves (Gal. 2:11-13). While that may be uncomfortable to some, it ought to be source of comfort and reassurance. The message is that we do not have to be perfect to be accepted. There is room to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (II Peter 3:18). If the first believers had issues, then we will as well. Life in the church will always include internal struggle, but God uses it for His glory. There have always been differences within the Christian community and there always will be. But when we understand that those with whom we have disagreements are also members of Christ’s body, then we can live out the gospel in an incarnational way. 

 

References

Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. eds. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. ed. D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.  

Pate, Marvin C. Romans. Teach the Text Commentary Series. eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013.

 

 

---

[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 455, PDF. 

 

[2] C. Marvin Pate, Romans, Teach the Text Commentary Series, eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 409, PDF. 

 

[3] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 455, PDF; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 848, PDF. 

 

[4] Pate, Romans, 410-11.

 

[5] Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament, eds. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 311, PDF. 

 

[6] Ibid. 

 

[7] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 457. 

            

[8] Ibid., 459. 

 

[9] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 848.

 

 

[10] Matera, Romans, 312.

 

[11] Ibid., 313. 

 

[12] Moo, The Epislte to the Romans, 866. 

[13] C. Marvin Pate, Romans, Teach the Text Commentary Series, eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013). 410-11, PDF. 

 

[14] Ibid.

 

[15] Ibid. 

 

[16] Ibid. 

 

[17] Ibid. 

 

[18] Ibid. 

 

[19] Ibid. 

 

[20] Ibid., 411.  

 

[21] Ibid., 411-2. 

 

[22] Ibid., 412

 

[23] Ibid., 412.

 

[24] Ibid. 

 

[25] Ibid. 

 

[26] Ibid. 

[27] Adam Solorio, verbal communication with John C. Carroll, 2018. 

Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed

Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed 

            I am 45, so I remember well the video and television wars of the 1990s and early 2000s. In so-called conservative Apostolic circles, we were terrorizing the television watchers; not just the television watchers, but the home movie watchers. We were preaching against taking videos of birthdays and weddings. And we were certainly preaching against using video for church services. 

             But it’s even worse than that. We were not just preaching against TV as a matter of a local church standard or a personal preference; we were disfellowshipping preachers, pastors, and churches who did not align with us. In Tulsa, circa 1999, a preacher with the passion a Pentecostal can portray proclaimed that if you permit video, then “you are not my brother.” This scenario could be replayed many times over in many conferences all over America. Not only did we disfellowship them personally, but we also demanded that everyone else disfellowship him as well. 

            If you had anyone preach for you that used video, then we boycotted conferences at your church. I watched a former pastor of mine go through hell from some of his closest friends because he had a long-time friend and elder who used video preach for him. In the interest of transparency, as a teenager I was on the side of those who were opposing him. I watched the personal pulpit attacks. I watched the name-calling. I watched as we maligned their characters and questioned their integrity. 

            It is one thing to do that to pastors who have a paycheck every week. But may God have mercy on the evangelist that happened to preach for someone who allowed video. If he did not recant and repent, then his entire livelihood was taken from him. Pastors would call other pastors and tell them not to use him. And just like that, his revival schedule would disappear. Whether evangelist or pastor, if you had anything to do with video, you were anathema in that movement.

I wish I could create a montage of every abusive comment that preachers made on this topic. I wish I could capture the emotions of every person that we hurt and damaged by our vitriol. I wish we could compensate for all of the lost offerings because innocent men were “canceled” because they didn’t hold the same view we did. By the way, “cancel culture” existed in the church long before it existed in the culture. Most problems with society do. But we caused inestimable damage by our unchristian behavior over a non-essential issue. 

Fast forward to 2020. Many of those same preachers have multiple social media accounts. How often does it happen when watching Fox New live on Facebook that it notifies us that brother so-and-so is watching with you? Many of those men are now on social media recommending their favorite new conservative TV channel (Newsmax, OANN, etc.) and where to watch it online. They are buying the memorabilia of their favorite politicians like they are sports superstars, all the while denying fandom and hero worship. The former anti-TV men are now glued to a TV screen watching pre-election, election, and post-election news. 

I remember when it didn’t matter, we were told, whether you are watching TV on a big screen or a computer device. TV is TV no matter where you watch it, right? I remember when we ridiculed people for saying they only watch the news. I also remember the response that, “It starts with the news, but it never stays with the news.” Come on now preachers who are TV news junkies, can you tell us what else you are watching? Because, according to your former logic, people can’t and don’t “just watch the news.”

And here is the tragic part, we (corporately) changed no one has apologized for the damage they caused. We changed and no one has been honest about it. We changed, and no one is explaining why it’s okay to do the things over which we killed others. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they need to repent. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they owe them an apology. You do not have biblical permission to change as if nothing happened. Preachers who attack and try to destroy other preachers should be held to account. To murder your brother with the weapon of words is a sin against the image of God. We should take it seriously, but we treat it at best as a whoopsy. 

I have learned from this, and I pray others do to, to draw both biblical and fellowship lines with grace. I have also learned to mark the assassins among us and to avoid getting too close to them. They can’t and shouldn’t be trusted until they repent and demonstrate a true heart of love and compassion. 

            

 

How Jeff Arnold Has Changed Preaching

How J. W. Arnold Influenced Pentecostal Preaching

John C. Carroll

William Jessup University/Wilson University

Professor Dorisa Costello 

02/04/2019

How J. W. Arnold Influenced Pentecostal Preaching 

Introduction

            J. W. Arnold is popular and polarizing, charismatic and confrontational. Therefore, I have chosen to write about the significant impact that he has had on my love for preaching. My passion for preaching is twofold: I love to hear preaching, and I love to preach. Arnold has been one of my favorite preachers since I was a teenager. I not only like to listen to him preach, but I have cited him in many of my sermons. I am not alone in this. Many of my friends have either cited him or preached entire sermons of his. 

Conversion Experience

            Arnold has told his conversion story on many occasions. One of the more animated versions of his testimony can be found in a YouTube video titled, “STORE 2012 Jeff Arnold” (Arnold, 2013). He described the condition that his life was in immediately before his conversion. He was an alcoholic. He and his wife Patty were about to get a divorce. He described what he now believes to be the presence of God waking him like nudging someone on the shoulder. The waking event happened three nights in a row. Each night he got up and went to the kitchen and opened a can of beer and lit a cigarette. He felt a sensational presence in his room and house. He would get up and check all the windows and doors to make sure that there was no intruder. 

            Finally, after the third night, he went back into the bedroom and woke Patty and asked her, “If God were to call me to be a missionary to China, would you go?” Patty said, “Go to bed, Jeff. You’re drunk.” Jeff replied that he believed that God was talking to him and that he needed to go to church. He recalled the first time he felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in the little Pentecostal church they attended, and that it was the same presence that woke him up those three nights in a row. 

            He didn’t know that Patty had been raised in a Pentecostal church. The first church that they attended was another denomination. When they told Patty that if she signed a card that she would be saved, she said to them that she had not even received the baptism of the Spirit yet. She was expecting that she would receive the baptism of the Spirit and speak with tongues.

            The usher that was speaking with them at the altar got the attention of other people and told them what she was saying. Eventually, the pastor had them removed from the service. Arnold remembered how embarrassed he was that he had been thrown out of a church. He said that he had been thrown out of whorehouses, honky-tonks, hotels and other places. However, he had never been thrown out of a church. He felt like at that moment that was the lowest place in his life.  

            Eventually, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which changed his life forever. His conversion set him on a course in his life that will cause him to go down in history as one of the most prolific Pentecostal preachers of his time. His vernacular, flamboyance, charisma and depth of biblical knowledge has changed how Pentecostals judge preaching for the rest of my life. For generations, Apostolics and Pentecostals of all stripes will be listening to J. W. Arnold’s preaching. God changed his life, and he has changed ours. 

Arnold’s Preaching Career

Children’s Evangelist 

            Arnold began his preaching ministry as a children’s evangelist. He was an accomplished ventriloquist and magician. So, he would travel and preach kids’ revivals. He developed an act with his puppets that communicated the gospel (Traffic talk with Jeff Arnold, 2016). He was effective and in demand. However, his gift as a communicator would not allow him to remain as a kids’ preacher. Pastors and leaders within his organization began to recognize his talents. Consequently, his speaking matured and so did his audience. 

Pastor 

            Eventually, he became the pastor of a church in Gainesville, FL. He remained the pastor there for three-plus decades until his recent retirement. For a new pastor like myself, staying in one church for over 30 inspires me to remain faithful in my role through all the ups and downs of serving God’s people. Arnold has preached about many of the issues he has faced over the years—but he stayed through it all. 

Preaching Style 

            Arnold’s preaching style is as polarizing as it is popular. He draws crowds that fill large sanctuaries and conference halls. Most come to listen to the revelatory nature of his preaching. Others come to hear what he will say. Rather, they come to hear how he will say it. He speaks with a vernacular that his childhood, Brooklyn, New York home gave him. He uses crude, but not vulgar, language effectively. He makes people listen to what he has to say. His verbiage commands attention. 

            In addition to his crass, Brooklyn accent, he is one of the most honest Pentecostal preachers. He often speaks about his struggles with different sins. He discusses openly his past lifestyle as well as his present temptations. A combination of these factors has been how Arnold has changed how my generation of preachers see preaching. 

            Arnold makes unique connections between texts of scriptures in a way that no one else we have heard. When he preaches about the characters of the Bible, he leaves you feeling as if he interviewed them for his sermon. It is almost like he knows them. I, and those who have grown up on Arnold’s preaching, have never heard another preacher speak the way he does. As a result, we strive to know our bibles like a person knows their best friend. 

Conference Speaker 

            J. W. Arnold’s style made him one of the most prolific conference speakers of more than a generation. He preaches in camps and conferences across all organizational boundaries. Perhaps the best example of his national platform is his long-running presence at a minister’s conference in Louisiana every year. He preached Because of the Times (BOTT) from 1983 to 2014. BOTT is just one of many meetings that Arnold graced with his ministry. Thousands of preachers and their wives attend annually. The sermons that he has preached at these meetings gave to us revelation of God and his grace that draws us closer to Christ. 

Ministry Themes 

            The primary themes of Arnold’s sermons are grace and the miraculous. His greatest message about miracles was “The Miracle is Looking for a Vessel.” His greatest message about grace was “A Refuge from Despair.” The message about despair has been a refuge for me more than once. Every Christian needs to hear “A Refuge from Despair.”

            “The Miracle Looking for a Vessel” let us know that all we have to do is make ourselves available to God and He will use us to do extraordinary things. We don’t have to have great ability, but we do need great availability. “A Refuge from Despair” reminded us that in Christ there is a place of refuge from the despair that often follows failures. Arnold let us know that some Christians may not forgive us, but Christ will. 

Cultural Respect 

Social Media 

            Beyond his ministerial resume, the respect that Pentecostal culture gives to him is significant. There is a Twitter account that is dedicated to his quotes (@JArnoldQuotes). When I last looked, his tribute Twitter account had 7,175 followers. There are also many memes on Facebook and Instagram of his one-liners. Arnold is among the most quoted preachers in the Pentecostal movement. The fact of how often he is quoted in various formats demonstrates how inspirational his preaching is to my generation of ministers. 

Preachers Who Plagiarize Him 

            For a preacher, the highest form of flattery is for another preacher to preach his material. Using this criterion for flattery would make J. W. Arnold one of the most flattered Pentecostal preachers. Jentezen Franklin, among others, has preached Arnold’s messages. “Jentezen Franklin is the Senior Pastor of Free Chapel, a multi-campus church. Each week his television program, Kingdom Connection, is broadcast on major networks all over the world. A New York Times best-selling author, Jentezen has written nine books” (Senior Pastor, Franklin, 2019). Franklin is just one of the mainstream ministries has made use of Arnold’s content.

            I will cite one example from Franklin to demonstrate my point. Franklin preached a sermon called, “Be the Vessel” (Franklin, 2014). Franklin’s sermon was taken almost exactly and specifically from Arnold’s 1989 message titled, “The Miracle is Looking For a Vessel” (Arnold, 2015). The Arnold sermon discussed here is one of his classics. In an academic context, Franklin would be convicted of plagiarism. The above example is one of many to demonstrate the impact that Arnold’s ministry has had, not only in the United Pentecostal Church, but also across denominational lines. 

Conclusion 

            A combination of the above points should provide a compelling argument for the significance of Arnold’s influence on my generation—a generation of preachers. His national presence in preaching conferences, the tribute Twitter account, the many memes of his quotes on all forms of social media, the number of sermons that he has on the internet in various forms, the number of times that preachers across denominational lines have preached his sermons should demonstrate adequately that Arnold has been an influencer.  

Reference 

Arnold, J. [The Pentecostals of Sarasota]. (2013, December 5). STORE 2012 Jeff Arnold. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuqnqIuqLY

Arnold, J. [Because of the Times]. (2015, May 9). The miracle is looking for a vessel. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPmXgsCMjM

Franklin, J. [Jentezen Franklin]. (2014, October 31). Be the vessel. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVcjlKl39-w

Franklin, J. (2019). Senior pastor of Free Chapel. Retrieved from https://www.jentezenfranklin.org/about

Woodward, M. [Traffic Talk]. (2016, July 12). Traffic talk with Jeff Arnold. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWj6CoIHEhI&t=241s

The Need to be Honest with Scripture

I recently posted on Facebook about the need for hermeneutical honesty. The comments got so out of hand that I deceide to erase the post there. However, I have decided to reproduce that post here on my blog. My comments were as follows:

"Do we conservative Apostolics (of which I consider myself) care about hermeneutics in our preaching? I understand fully the concept of preserving traditional separataion. But a high view of scripture demands that you not commit crimes against the context of scripture to do it. We need a revival of biblical literacy and honesty. Preaching scripture soundly ought not to be too much to expect regardless of the setting. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I do need to respect your ability to interpret the Bible. If I disagree with you, then I will consider seriously that I may be wrong. I have a long history of being wrong, so I am aware that is a possibilty. Otherwise, I have no option but to dismiss your claims with respect."

I understand that much of the fury against the post was becasue of the timing. But anyone who knows me is aware that the above post is something that I have been passionate about for a very long time. My post was by no means isolating a recent sermon at PEAK 2018. Conversely, I am not suggesting that I am excluding said message from my post. The Facebook exerpt from above covers every sermon—including my own. I will go further and say, "Especially my own."

One of the primary purposes of preaching is persuasion. Paul wrote the following statement about preaching: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5.11, King James Version). My contention is that the way we handle scripture ought to have persuasion as its goal. We will convince no one of our view as long as we continue to demonstrate a disregard for context. As Apostolic preachers, we must start taking the Bible more seriously. As long as we misuse scripture to promote personal agendas we will continue to lose the respect of saint and sinner alike.

Finally, let me say that I am not a perfect interpreter of scripture—no preacher is. We all have room for improvement. Therefore, let us work hard to interpret scripture faithfully. 

As will every blog I post, I encourage you to comment below even if you disagree.

We Persuade Men

Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; (2 Corinthians 5:11a KJV)

I want to make a plea—hopefully a persuasive one—to my fellow ministers for us to consider how we interact with those with whom we disagree. I will be honest, I have seen some very poor examples in the last few years. I have seen examples of how not to interact with people with whom I disagree.

We have all had friends in the church (parishioners and preachers) that have taken directions with which we have disagree. Some of those friends have been more notable than others. Regardless of their position or notoriety, there is a proper, Christian was to do it. If we really believe that someone is going the wrong direction, our first responsibility is to persuade them. Our blog text reminds us of this sober responsibility. If we believe someone is straying from the truth, and knowing the terror of the Lord, we should seek to persuade them of their error. 

Brothers and sisters, the goal is to persuade. It is not to belittle or betray. I know that there is a natural impulse to be angry and disappointed, but we cannot allow those sentiments to control how we react. I must insist that we persuade no one—either the person themselves or observing outsiders—with condescending and demeaning speech. This kind of response is unbiblical an off putting. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not blog or preach with anger and vitriol. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not make your response emotional or personal. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then you will be more effective if you argue your point scripturally and limit your comments to the issues. I have seen very few stick with the issues. There are a number of reason why they don't, but that is a blog for another time.

If you think you have the truth, then use it. The truth, not anger and condescension, is the only effective weapon you have against error. Any weapon other than truth will be weak and ineffective. 

Don't be petty; be persuasive! 

The Value of Debate

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. 

Proverbs 18:17 ESV

My last blog I discussed three reasons why I think Apostolics should engage in intramural debates. At the conclusion of that blog I stated my intention to blog about why I think that Apostolics do not debate. I still intend to do that. However, while listening to a debate, one of the speakers used this verse to demonstrate the value of debate. 

It is likely that the context—strictly speaking—is referring to taking a matter before a judge. The lawyer that presents their case first seems like they have an air-tight case. That is until the other lawyer presents their case and answers the first lawyer's arguments. The truth in such cases can only be discerned after both sides have presented their cases. A strong case does not mind questioning. When a strong case is questioned it only becomes stronger for it.

One ought to be aware of the person who refuses to have his argument questioned. This means that person is fearful that their argument will not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Truth is never afraid of questions. Few things frustrate me as much as someone who launches a public, personal or theological attack against someone and refuses to answer any one's objections. If you are going to argue for something publicly, then be man enough to field the questions that come along with it. Don't hide behind moderated comments and pulpits!

Why?

Because if truth is what you are really after, then you won't mind both sides of the argument being heard. People who refuse to field questions are only interested in "seeming right;" they are not interested in "being right." There is a way to have healthy and productive debate on any issue. It's not divisive; it is unifying if done properly.

The early church and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 are an awesome example how coming together to discuss issues that are controversial can lead to consensus. Avoiding controversial issues does not produce unity, it only hides the conflict beneath the surface where it festers and grows. 

The Impact of Inconsistency on One's Argument Part II

I wrote Part I of this topic two blogs ago. I am following up on this post due to something I read in the last couple of days. It never ceases to amaze me how selective we are with our judgments of others. An former friend of mine once made the statement that, "If I condemn in my enemies what I condone in my friends, then I make myself the ultimate hypocrite." This is a true statement indeed. I must also add to this statement one of my own:"If I condone worse behavior in my friends that what I condemn in my enemies, then I am a malicious hypocrite."

It is so easy to condemn people against whom we are politically aligned while going to great lengths to condone people with whom we are politically aligned. We see it all the time in the political battles in our country. Republicans will condemn Democrats for a little of nothing, but will defend fellow republicans for the same thing or something greater. The same goes for Democrats to Republicans. This also happens often in Pentecostal fellowship politics. And it is more frustrating when it happens in the church—I might add. 

This is precisely why so many young men are disenchanted with certain segments of our movement. Brothers, I am not saying that we should start judging our friends the way we do our enemies. I am saying that we should start showing mercy to our enemies the way we do our friends. Furthermore, we should start showing the same mercy to both our enemies and our friends that we show to ourselves. The worst of the hypocrites is the person who condemns in others—both enemies and friends—what he condones in himself. 

I must confess that I have at some point in my ministry been guilty of every one of the above hypocrisies. I find myself having to repent repeatedly for this sin. Thankfully, I am having to do it less and less these days. The Holy Spirit is revealing me to myself and is causing me to become more self-aware. I am grateful for this, although it has been very uncomfortable.

So what does this have to do with inconsistency? It makes one wonder if you believe what you say you do when you condemn in your enemies what you condone in your friends. It appears politically motivated and it hinders your message. This may not always be fair, but it is the way others usually perceive it. I pray that the Lord will help me to show grace to everyone equally, and not just my friends.

"It Seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and To Us" Is Not a Blank Check!

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

INTRODUCTION 

Preachers often use this verse as their authority to preach against things for which they admit they have no prohibitive verse (s). Well...they actually only use part of the verse. But I will make that point a little later. So they use this verse as their trump card to every objection that anyone raises against their personal authority. They even use it to trump biblical arguments. 

I am writing this blog post to place this verse in its biblical context. It should not be used as a blank check to preach whatever one chooses. A pastor has the liberty to make certain requirements for local church membership for which he has no explicit biblical command. However, no pastor has the authority bind, either on his local congregation or the global church, as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. This applied to me when I pastored in Alton, IL. And it will apply to me if I should ever pastor again in the future.

As I stated earlier, we do not have the authority to bind as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. Furthermore, we do not have the authority to use our opinions as a basis to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

The context of Acts 15:28 was whether or not to bind circumcision—therefore, the whole law—on Gentile converts. The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised. This is the context in which one should understand the statement under consideration.

IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US: NO SCRIPTURE NECESSARY
This phrase is thrown around as though scripture did not figured into the apostles decision in Act 15. Therefore, this phrase is used to justify men binding their own opinions about contemporary issues on the entire body of Christ. This is the text many use to prove they don't need scriptural support for what they bind.  In fact, based on this verse, they can bind their own opinions on the body of Christ when the entire witness of scripture says the opposite.

So, did the apostles use this phrase because they issued a binding edict without, or contrary to, scripture? God forbid! Let's back up a few verses and see:

"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  (Acts 15:15, 18 KJV).

Brothers and sisters, James and the others based their decision on written scripture. The reason  it seemed good the the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders was because they consulted the written words of the prophets.

WHAT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US?
Notice the rest of the verse that never gets quoted:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

What seemed good to the Holy Ghost was not:

• To bind unnecessary rules for which one has no scripture. 
• To bind unnecessary rules that are contrary to scripture.
• To make ones own personal opinions the basis by which they judge those who do not comply. 
• To make 20th and 21rst century standards (many of which may be wise) perpetual, unbreakable law by which we condemn all present and future generations. 

CONCLUSION

"To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" is what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

If we are going to quote this verse, quote it all. And if we are going to use this verse, use it. Don't misquote and misuse it. 

Snake Handling: Bad Theology with Real-Life Consequences

http://news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645--abc-news-topstories.html

Mark Wolford is in the news after having been bitten by a timber rattler in a snake handling service.  I want to say first that this is a sad story and prayer should be offered for the comfort of his family.  However, there is another side to this story that also needs to be pointed out; doctrine has consequences.

There is nothing admirable, honorable or excusable about this situation.  This was an unnecessary and avoidable death based on a fatally flawed interpretation of scripture (Mark 16:17-18).  He was not the first, and he will not be the last to unnecessarily die.  

Just because this misunderstanding of scripture is sincerely believed does not mean that it is a valid belief; it is not.  These sincere and good people need to be converted from this false teaching.  Even though they call themselves Apostolic, this is NOT apostolic doctrine or teaching.  This was not the practice or teaching of the apostles concerning snake handling.  The apostles would have most certainly rejected and rebuked this tradition for a number of different reasons.  

There is not a single example of the apostles purposely picking up actual snakes to prove they were believers.  The only time an apostle handled an actual snake in scripture it was an accident, and he killed it (Acts 28:3-6).  This is the apostolic, and the Texas way of handling a serpent.