Don
Patton on Romans 14
Don
Patton
Q&A
Period Following Exegesis of Romans 14
Preachers'
Study - Grand Prairie, TX (November 10, 1994)
Ten minutes after Don Patton's presentation, the floor was opened to comments, and questions for brother Patton. Most of the questions are unintelligible on tape, and therefore the questions must be inferred from the answers given by Don Patton. Where it is possible to identify the questioner, or where the question is intelligible, it is transcribed.
Statement by Don Patton: It is extremely ambitious to stand up here and say we're going to answer all the questions anybody's got on Romans 14. But we'll do the best we can. Uh, who wants to ask...yes...
Lengthy statement made by unidentifiable brother, for the most part unintelligible.
A: Leaving it alone is not going to produce the standing that the passage is pointing towards. And that is only going to happen with the gospel as we pointed out. He is able to do it, but that's the power of the gospel that does that, and that's the only way. And anybody who leaves him alone I think himself is wrong. But I think in a spirit of reception you can do a lot better job of bringing him to stand. Drawing lines, and running him off and you get no more chance. And if its not a matter of joint participation, and doesn't involve you, I think the Lord is saying, let's put your arm around him while you get in their beard and tell him what the truth is. But yes, there are...a serious problem, and I think with this approach you can do a better job. Ed Fudge is a...well, has been a friend. I guess we haven't been unfriendly since we've been friendly. It's been a while since I've been around him, I was in school with him down at Florida College. But I know the kind of inroads that are being made by those who follow him, and its a serious thing among brethren. Others who are even more radical than he is are doing all too good a job, and I think we need something to stop them that will stop them. And I think this approach will do it. Yes...
Q: (David Holder) Don, probably the language that you used that will raise the questions is that matters of faith are not excluded in Romans 14. I want to ask you a question that I hope will give you an opportunity to fill that out a little more. I understood you to go on and say from that, that what we have to do in matters of faith is implement the limitations that are outlined in the scripture, like in Romans 14. Is that a fair hearing of what you're saying?
A: And when we say, matters of faith, are not all, certainly many of them are, but not all are precluded. Forbearance includes some, and other passages of scripture include certain areas. This includes, with different parameters, the same kind of thing. But when we say receive, we're not saying...we're not talking about the destiny of their soul, they're fallen, they're lost. And we're not implying that everything is fine by any means. This is a situation that is desperate, and they need to be saved. But it speaks of how you go about doing it. Is my understanding of it. Yes, they have to be fallen. If they...if its not a matter of faith they wouldn't be fallen. I think the observing of a special...somebody that observes Christmas at home, the day, is fallen. But that's like the covering question. It doesn't necessarily involve me. I can put my arm around him and tell him, and if he doesn't...if I can't make him see it, I can push it as far as I can push it and then back off a little while and come at him again later on. From time to time do my best to teach him. And I think that's the spirit and the action that has been described here.
I described in the previous session a couple of concrete illustrations of that, where had the alternative view been practiced one of the finest elders who ever eldered down in Orlando, Fl would have been run off, kicked out. And he certainly was wrong, but I think the wisdom that the elders exercised was...and maybe they didn't understand it in Romans 14...they may have been doing it by nature, but they did. And contrary to what I thought ought to be done at the time, they practiced, I think, what this teaches. They didn't allow him to teach in class, they took him out of the class situation. But he grew, and matured, and passed away about two years ago after serving about 30 years as a faithful elder.
Q: (Tom Roberts) One of your parameters has been that no moral issues can be found in Romans 14, but you gave as an example a moral issue.
A: Alright, when we spoke of adultery being not an individual matter. We pointed out the difference between the question, Is it adultery?, and the practice of adultery. Now when one's not practicing it, and it's an issue in their heart, that they...a scruple, an inner reasoning...The definition that we read from...deciding decisions...its a play on words there, and one commentator said that deciding decisions is about as good a translation as you can find there. A play on words. And those two definitions are, by the way, are on the same page in Thayer...ones a...anyway. When he stopped practicing it, and they insisted that he stop practicing it. It became then an individual matter that he couldn't teach, and wouldn't be allowed to teach. They kept their eye on it. If he had been promoting it, and influencing others they would have put a stop to it. But they did rebuke him, they did tell him this was wrong, they took away his class. But he continued with the same conviction, but agreed to hold this conviction, and study with them. And it was several years before he reached the proper conclusion and began to do a real good job of preaching on the subject. But that was a moral issue, but practicing that moral issue, and having inner questionings about that moral issue is two different situations. One's individual and one may not be.
Q: (Tom Roberts) But you just said that moral issues don't belong in Romans 14, and then you put a moral issue in Romans 14.
A: The question of, Is it adultery, Is this, in this particular case with this brother, the question was, Is it lasciviousness. He didn't think it was, and so he, convinced that it wasn't it, was not violating his conscience. He knew lasciviousness is wrong. And he wasn't...in his mind...he didn't know what it was, he was the weak brother who had a problem in understanding. Not a problem in violating his heart. And that's the difference between the practice of immorality and the inner questionings, scruples about that issue. One's individual and one isn't, one's...one you can do conscientiously, and one you can't. And this is where we get to the crux of the matter, where it finds application, where these inner reasonings, these deciding decisions within one's self individually is exactly what it's talking about. And that's where the Lord said this is not between you and him necessarily, you try to teach him, but this is between him and the Lord and He is able to make that kind of person stand. Now if he is practicing immorality he's going to violate his conscience. And with adultery he's going to be involving more than himself, that's a whole different ball game. There are two parameters trampled on in that case. But if he is questioning, is it right to say its alright to remarry if your spouse is dead, even though you have been put away for fornication. And he's encouraging adultery in the view of some when he says that, but others say...here's inner questioning about what is and what isn't adultery. Now that's the issue there. Without practicing, there's the question of where...what is and what isn't. I think that's the kind of matter we are talking about. And yes, that's a moral factor, but it's not the moral issue per se, but is it, which is different.
Q: (Tom Roberts) With your use of Romans 2, you say that there's innate knowledge (rest unintelligible)
A: He knows, and agrees that its wrong...(Tom Roberts unintelligible)...No, he didn't understand...he had a problem with understanding, but the question of whether or not its wrong is not a question. (Tom Roberts: But you said that in Romans 2, he knew it because God placed it in his heart to know, therefore (rest unintelligible)) No, I don't think I said that this time...I...that's my...I think it is innate, though I'm not sure we can prove that. It was there, in their heart, however it got there. Even with those Gentiles, and we can, I think, all agree on that. And what was in their heart was that you can't commit adultery, you can't lie, you can't steal, and he understood the principle...that is the moral principle...and if he had knowingly committed what he believed was fornication, whatever, any moral principle, his conscience just would have torn him up. He wouldn't have done it, he wasn't that kind of person, he was the conscientious brother we are talking about.
Q: (Tom Roberts) Don't you see, Don, that's what you are because you're saying, Romans 2, God placed it in your heart to know lasciviousness is wrong so when he took the teenagers to the beach in a lascivious situation in Florida, that he should have known, because of what God put in his heart, that he's wrong, therefore....
A: No, what he should have known was that lasciviousness is wrong, and he knew that, that was in his heart. But he had inner questionings about what was and what wasn't. Is it fornication is a different issue, or is it lasciviousness is a different issue from....lasciviousness wasn't an issue. He wasn't going to do that, and he wouldn't, you couldn't make him. But is it?, is like the difference between these brethren that we differ with on the war question. You say this is murder. And what I'm saying is, the issue is, is it murder? And that's a different...(Tom Roberts: Unintelligible) What value is it? If he doesn't...the value is that the brethren are instructed to treat him like...
End of Tape (Some information was lost as the tapes were being changed)
Q: (Carl Allen?, Not sure) (The question dealt with the scenario brother Patton mentioned earlier int he Q&A period of the man in Florida who had taken teenagers to a beach, for mixed swimming. The question asked, at what point would he need to be disciplined. )
A: Certainly...certainly if he were teaching it...if he were involving the congregation he would. Adultery certainly would, because he involved necessarily someone else. His own personal practice, individually, uh, I would have to think about that.
(At this point David Holder interrupted with a semi-intelligible statement: "You said he was taking somebody else..." {to the beach})
A: Right. Now if he continued to do that, no question that doesn't belong in Romans 14. Absolutely, if he continued that practice, the elders would not have put up with it. And neither would dad, of course dad was there preaching. He just...that was the first Sunday we were there, started a new congregation.
Q: Unintelligible, questioner unknown.
A: Unintelligible word...In the sense of saying you're wrong, certainly. But not in the sense of setting at naught, and refusing to receive him. (Unintelligible response from audience). No...they still received him. That's the opposite of setting at naught. They told him he was wrong....
(At this point, unknown response stating, "You said that no one should...(unintelligible)"
A: That's right, but he's not allowed to teach error. In terms of their intercourse with him, friendship. The personal relationship that's described there in that term, it wasn't one bit different. But he wasn't allowed to teach. Now, that didn't last all that long because he matured and grew, but it took several years. But he was received, and that's how he grew. Had he not been, he would have been run off, and he could have told you that right quick. But he was not allowed to affect the congregation. It was...had to be...it had to be maintained under that individual category, or its out. And it was an inner questioning in his heart about whether it was. It wasn't a question of shall we commit lasciviousness at all.
Q: Stan Cox. Question unintelligible. A hypothetical scenario was set up concerning a former Catholic, converted to Christ, who still practiced idolatry in the worship of the image of saints, etc. This question was asked by me to see how Don would handle a situation that did not involve moral issues.
A: We're not trying to describe a brother that's right...that's...he's false, he's wrong. He was practicing the observance of a sacred day that was unauthorized, that was wrong. He was practicing that. And the command was to receive him, and quit setting him at naught, while you bring him to a standing position.
Now there may be a brother, and (unintelligible word or two) the Catholic's excluded because this is one that God's received. But there may be a brother who came out of Catholicism, like this brother who may have come out of Paganism, who still had some remnants in their conscience about meats, or idols in this case. And if there...as long as that's individual and he's practicing that himself, he's certainly wrong, but this is the conscientious brother like the one observing this holy day is wrong, he is, I think, to be received while we teach him. Now the conscientious brother is teachable, and will be. The Lord's promised, he will stand; as He promises he will know.
Comment, Stan Cox: That's what I see as a problem though, as a practical application of the principle you are explaining, is that it will allow a number of practices, lasciviousness (unintelligible) practice, so long as the individual conscientiously believes that it is not an immoral practice.
A: Allow in the sense that we will not set him at naught, kick him out, draw the lines of fellowship while we are trying to teach him. As long as he's conscientious and doesn't...now I tell you, you get down to Florida, and I've spent a lot of time down there, there are a lot of our brethren who don't know that lesson. And it's worse there, believe it or not, than it is here. And in California its worse than that. And it's...they're not going to learn that overnight. These conscientious brethren want to do what's right, and they've grown up with this practice, and they have a hard time seeing that point.
And just like these brethren who had come out of the heathenism, or the Judaism, they didn't learn that overnight. And that's what he's talking about, you give them time to be made to stand. You certainly don't condone, and you certainly don't let them alone, you do your best to teach them. And I think you can do a better job of teaching them that way, but while they're not affecting anyone else, and fully persuaded in their own mind, you give them time to grow.
Comment, Stan Cox: As I understand your position, that you say, "Give them time to...", that although the intimation is they will stand, that there is no time limit in Romans the 14th chapter. So ultimately, you would say that you maintain your relationship with them despite the fact that they never come to that understanding and...(interrupted by Don Patton).
A: And we may be, we may be mistaken when we conclude that he is fully persuaded and that he's conscientious. We can't tell that. But if it appears that we have to assume that, that's an obligation of love. We put the best construction...and we may be wrong. But our job is to assume that he is, and this is the way we treat him, and it's between him and the Lord. This is the Lord's servant, and the Lord will judge him, we can't see his heart.
Comment, Stan Cox: My contention would be however, that in practice, even if it is not seen as being immoral or false doctrine or whatever. If ultimately he is not convinced, that it is a further expression of love to discipline him, and to withdraw that fellowship from him, and mark him, because of that same reason. And I think that is one of the purposes of the discipline as practiced in the church.
A: Well, if you've got a conscientious brother, who's fully persuaded. If he really believes, and is searching for truth, then this is the brother with the heart that's like it ought to be. Who has had a background for year and years, maybe out of heathenism, that doesn't understand the point that he needs to understand, maybe bowing down before an idol. That he doesn't think that's idolatry. Catholics do that, and it takes a while for some of them to see that. Sometimes with the pendulum swing going...they really have a hard time settling down on the truth on that with that kind of a background. I think disciplining that kind of an individual, well of course what I think about it is not relevant anyway. The question is what does this chapter tell us to do. And I believe that the specification involves someone who was observing a day which was unauthorized, it was wrong. And he was, we are told, not to set him at naught while we bring him to standing, as long as he is fully persuaded in his own mind. I think there is prima facia evidence that he isn't if he is committing lasciviousness, knowing of course that it is lasciviousness; if he is committing adultery, of course that gets the other parameter of the individual factor...but, just like the one who was observing this religious holy day, he is practicing this, he's wrong, but let's not set him at naught. And we may think we can express love by disciplining him for doing that, but the chapter says don't. And it does it while it maintains these parameters against apostasy. I think this is divine wisdom to produce peace. And they'll work.
Now when you see two brethren head to head, and here's him saying, Don't do that...Don't do that...I think we see peace is not just between him and God, it's between each other. For they were ready to shoot each other, one despising and the other judging, and that's to stop while you receive these brethren you think are wrong, is what he's saying here. But a very narrow definition of what would be involved there.
Comment, David Holder: If we're implementing the principles outlined in the chapter that situation is not going to remain static, more than likely. (Don Patton: No, He'll be made to stand.) We're going to keep teaching him, and he is going to change, or he's going to become factious, or he's going to become rebellious, or he will cause the faith of others to fall, or it will come...Could that be...that may very well be the providence that God is using to make him stand. God said, Paul said, (unintelligible word) will make him stand, now that may be the providence that God is using.
A: We certainly must teach him, and be plain. And not compromise the truth, and proclaim it from the pulpit. And not give quarter in any area. And if his heart's not right that will run him off. But if his heart is right, he may just say, well I don't quite understand that yet. And I've seen some that I was ready to judge they're heart, but I was wrong about them. I was wrong about this elder down there in Orlando. I was dead wrong. But I just....I was ready to...I really got upset. I was sixteen years old, I had a lot to learn. I had a father who knew better at that time. You know, maybe that will help.
Comment, Carl Allen: Unintelligible
A: No, what you're dealing with there is a situation, sounds very much like the one in Romans 2 where even the Gentiles knew that was wrong. (Carl Allen: No, we are talking about what you are talking about, that they're not teaching it, that they are backing off...) No, that's not the only parameter. The parameter involved the conscientious heart, whereas the Gentiles heart accused them when they practiced idolatry and fornication and murder. This person's heart is not going to...(Carl Allen: OK, but you're appealing to the law on that. Let me ask you a question. Can there be any law without revelation?) Uh, No. But, let me...let me, uh...(Carl Allen: Wait just a second. Even in Romans 2 they did by nature the things of the law. That was a revealed law that they did. And they had that in their minds and in their hearts because it had been revealed. Is that not what he's saying? They did by nature the things of the law?) The question is, was it innate. Uh, Now I'm not saying that its (unintelligible, speaking at the same time). No, it would be revealed to their heart. (unintelligible back and forth). I'm not sure that's the only way... (Carl Allen: Can any individual know anything without there being a revealed law, spoken or oral?) I think there may be, and I would have to say....there may be an innate knowledge of moral principles, and that may be...(Carl Allen: Are there people in the denominational world today that have an innate law, and they do the things knowing what they should do and what they shouldn't do?) It's said this was written in their hearts. Now the question is how it came to be written. One way or another it came to be written in their hearts. It may be because God made them that way, and wrote it in their hearts. It may be that these Gentiles who didn't have the law came to know it somehow. But, I don't argue that point, how it came to be, but it was in their hearts, and they knew better.
(Carl Allen): Let me push to one other point that I'm getting to. Ultimately, then, there's just no way we can determine exactly what is the law and what's not the law, and it's just an innate thing, and I don't have a revelation of it. I won't know what's right and what's wrong...(Patton: No, you have an objective standard, in the Bible, that allows you to test any concept)...(A few unintelligible sentences from Carl Allen, then Carl says)...Have we been wrong in making an argument on John 17:20-21, and I Corinthians 1:10 to be of the same mind and the same judgment, and that there be no divisions among you, have we been wrong on that?
A: If I understand what you're saying, in your application of this chapter, you may be wrong in not applying what this chapter says. That is, understanding that there are exceptions. And to be honest you have to understand that there are exceptions in this room, with everybody here, about our mind on virtually any issues in some area. We don't have....there are exceptions to the requirement that we be of the same mind, is what I'm saying. I think that this is an area that speaks to those exceptions. (Carl Allen was interrupting Don Patton while he was speaking, and his words were unintelligible, but caused this response by Don)...No, it doesn't, its wrong and you need to make a brother stand. (Carl Allen: The argument is an improper argument. Of course, you and I are going to differ on the thing one way or another. Then an unintelligible sentence)...Would you affirm that we are of the same mind here, on...(Carl Allen: The thing that I would affirm is that the Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 1:10 that we are to be of the same mind. I think that is attainable, and I would not use that as an argument to try to produce further division among the brethren.)
A: Let me respond. I think we are of the same mind in the sense it is described there. I think when brethren accept what Romans 14 says, or by nature do what Romans 14 says which is what is done here as we exchange ideas, we are receiving one another in the same mind. But to apply that to say that Bobby and Tom have to agree on whether or not this spouse dying releases to remarry, and they're not of the same mind if they do not agree on that, is beyond what that passage is saying. I think it is saying you apply principles like forbearance, and principles like you find in Romans 14, and doing that, receiving one another, you are of the same mind. I think that's completely consistent with...
Q: (Carl Allen): If that's true then, in I Corinthians 7:15, would you put that in Romans 14?
A: Questions like would you put this in Romans 14 are almost impossible to ask...uh to answer, because anything,...anything can...well, not can be...but, anything that could in some circumstances be in it, in many circumstances would not be in it. If you look at circumcision, which would be in it, even to those who say it is all about incidentals, but immediately would get out of it with the situation you have there in Galatians, where they were binding it and destroying the liberty and causing them to be severed from Christ, over this matter of circumcision. Its in and its out, it depends, you can't really say because of this issue that its in, you have to know what's going on.
(Carl Allen): Maybe then what you are saying is true, that we haven't had any (unintelligible) law. One just needs to do what he thinks is right. (Patton: I would oppose that with every fiber of my being. There is only one standard by which we can judge anything. But I know these people that have never studied the law, that have never had the law revealed to them, go out and commit fornication and got a conscience that just tears them up). I would agree with that, but you turn around, and the end conclusion of your argument, brother Patton, is that we can't agree so if we can't agree, what are we going to do?
A: Well, you need to repent of accusing me of that, because I'm not saying that at all, not even close. I haven't said that, I've simply said that there are I think...now how it got in their heart I can't prove, and I won't argue...I think it was innate, I think it looks likes that to me, I think God built it that way, but it all is subject to the judgment of the standard. We test the spirits to see whether they be of God, and we do that by seeing if this agrees with what the apostles' have taught, and that is the only standard by which we can determine right and wrong. But that doesn't deny that some people who never came close to the Bible know that its wrong or right, innately, it seems to me. It seems be what its saying when it says God wrote it in their hearts. But I won't argue about that. (Carl Allen: One other thing, and then I'm through. I disagree with you on that ...and that's it.) OK, I think you don't understand...You sound like you haven't grasped it yet (Carl Allen: I think I do). OK.
Q: (Commenter unknown): Would it be a fair assessment to say, that (unintelligible) limiting Romans 14 solely to matters of indifference would mean that we would be in a situation of purely arbitrary determinations as to what goes in and what doesn't go in. I would say that if I disagreed with him, if I think its wrong, then I can't put it in. And the other fellow over here says its alright, so he wants it in. But it doesn't prove it and it becomes purely arbitrary based on what I think in terms of what is right or wrong.
A: From a practical standpoint, I have seen it work that way. But when you say that its only matters that are incidental, the first and most obvious consequence, and I think there are two. The first is that you gut the chapter for any practical production of peace among brethren. Because, always there is one that thinks its a matter of faith. This notorious list that we had that included winking,. some wondered at that. There was a sister down in Panama City where I was preaching that was just absolutely, I mean she was having a fit, with one of the other sisters that was winking. And she said that's the way prostitutes act, and Christian's can't act that way. And I mean she just really got up in arms about the winking. In fact, eventually, we did withdraw from her. Which is another illustration that even something like that can be excluded from Romans 14. You can't tell by what the issue is...But as long as she thinks that is a matter of faith, and you said this doesn't pertain to matters of faith, you can't tell her to back off and let's study this thing. She is going to plow head on and draw a line of fellowship. And that's true with every issue among us. And if you can't name one, and you can't, where somebody doesn't think its a matter of faith, then you can't name one issue that's helped by Romans 14. And that's the first consequence, we lose the practical benefit.
And the second consequence is that it is an argument that Ed Fudge can answer. And when Ed Fudge answers it, then he is going to lead folks after him. I think that its an argument that won't stand, that provides a flimsy paper fence to apostasy. And I think we need some arguments that will stand. That we need them, and it will stand while it also helps grow people to strength. How long are we going to...I think you mentioned...OK, I think you mentioned...
We certainly can't settle all this. Let me say one thing before I just wind up something. I think I said it a couple of times ago...two times ago. But the first time I heard the position presented, I responded very inappropriately to my father, I was certainly wrong. Now he probably tried for several...well it was several years...and probably half a dozen times...before I finally grasped it. I think...I think we need to study it...I think we need to go home and look at some of these things that...and the charts...I think...Because I certainly did, and its...hopefully some of you can learn it quicker than I can, but...I understand people responding just with ire, because I did. And I can't get too upset with brethren doing what I did, I can see myself in that spot. But we have a conscientious conviction here, and I think on most of those things we do what I'm talking about. And I am just urging that we do that here. And I think that we can have some profitable study as a result of it.
Q & A Period ends
Tape transcribed by Stan Cox