Bible Authority? by Mitch Davis (3/17/13)

bible authority - banner
Listen to the Sermon / Download the PowerPoint

Inherent within commands and statements is context, which we employ through logical and sometimes necessary inferences. We illustrate and confirm God’s truths via examples. Even still, it’s not always easy.


What in the World is Hermeneutics? by Mitch Davis (3/10/13)

Listen to the Sermon / Download the PowerPoint

Hermeneutics, most simply is the ability to translate (from one language to another), interpret or explain. We’ll walk through history in a general application of hermeneutics as a springboard into next week as we look more specifically at a method of hermeneutics to establish and practice “Bible authority”.


The Lord’s Church and Biblical Authority, by Ward Hogland (10/17/11)

The Lord's Church and Biblical Authority


What is Truth?, by Mitch Davis (09/25/11)

What is Truth?


How to Get More from Your Bible, by Mitch Davis (07/24/11)

How to Get More from Your Bible


Law vs. Opinion, by Mitch Davis (05/08/11)

Law vs. Opinion


Are We a Giving Church?, by Mitch Davis (03/13/11)

Are We a Giving Church?


Let Us Move The Ark!, by Chris Smith (10/10/10)

Mitch Preaching


Does Having Bible Authority Matter?

Can we use mechanical instruments of music to worship God and edify one another?

Can a church rent/own an assembly place?

Can a church host a potluck?

Can a church buy a first aid kit?

Should it be churches or Christians that provide benevolence and welfare to the community?

Is it okay to take the Lord’s Supper on Monday?

Is it okay to have a “make-up” serving of the Lord’s Supper in an evening assembly?

Do you ever begin to think that we are majoring in minors and nitpicking about issues when we start asking questions about Bible authority? It seems that some churches are free to work on big issues because they don’t worry about authority, they just do what seems right to them?

In a moment of frank honesty, I admit that I worry about this sometimes. Sometimes I do think about the fact that I’m in a daily life and death struggle to overcome sin. I know people that are daily struggling to quit taking drugs, drinking alcohol, committing adultery, practicing homosexuality. I know some people that don’t even seem to be trying to quit gossiping, slandering, lying, coveting or whatever sins they view as small and insignificant. With all these personal and individual struggles going on, does it really make sense to spend time worrying about whether or not it is scriptural for a congregation to allow weddings in their meeting place?

However, every time I start travelling down that road, I can’t help but remember that Jesus believed it was important to act based on a higher authority than Himself. In John 8:28, Jesus said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.” In John 5:30, He said, “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” Jesus did nothing on His own authority. Jesus’ judgment was just not because most people agreed with His judgment, not because He had good judgment, but because He was seeking the Father’s will and not His own.

In John 12:49, Jesus said, “I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment.” Jesus refused to speak on His own authority but relied on the commandments He had been given by God. Further, in John 5:19, Jesus said, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” Jesus did not simply rely on what He wanted to do, He looked to the example of His Father and acted based on that.

No matter how frustrated I get with some of the discussions we have about New Testament authority, I can’t help but come back to the fact that Jesus believed it was important to act based on a higher authority. If God the Son in the flesh refused to act without authority, why should I think I can?

Am I worried that sometimes I get involved in straining out gnats and swallowing camels? Yes, I do. I certainly think we should recognize that not every issue carries equal weight with the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:34-40). I think there are perhaps some disagreements we can simply continue to study together without making them tests of fellowship, even though I’m not completely sure where to draw the line on that. However, I also can’t help but notice that when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for straining out gnats and swallowing camels, He didn’t tell them to quit straining out the gnats; He told them to quit swallowing camels (cf. Matthew 23:23-24).

I’m certain there is a need for balance and proper prioritizing. As I said above, I’m not always sure exactly where the right balance is. However, I am sure we shouldn’t go to extremes. We shouldn’t act as if every little question has the same weight and importance on our soul. At the same time, we shouldn’t travel to the opposite extreme by believing whatever we do doesn’t matter.

Jesus believed a higher authority mattered. We need to believe the same.


Be Careful with “The Slippery Slope”

Over the years, I’ve heard, and even used, a common form of argumentation that is beginning to bother me. It seems to have the sound of wisdom and biblical correctness, but I’m just not sure it is a biblical argument at all. You’ll often hear it said that doing something or not doing something places us on a slippery slope. “If you allow such and such, which isn’t necessarily wrong, then you’ll allow such and such, which isn’t necessarily wrong, but then you’ll allow such and such, which isn’t necessarily wrong, but then you’ll allow such and such and that is wrong, so we shouldn’t do that first thing I mentioned.”

Or I’ve heard it this way, “Is action A wrong? Well, A is the same as B. B is the same as C. C is the same as D. We know D is wrong, so A must be wrong as well.” I’ve also heard the argument made the opposite way. “Is action A right? Well, A is the same as B. B is the same as C. C is the same as D. We know D is right, so A must be right as well.”

There is a Bible passage that is causing me to think this kind of argumentation just isn’t biblical. Rather, it may simply be the last effort of those who don’t really have a biblical case to make.

Read Luke 6:1-5. Jesus’ disciples were plucking heads of grain, sifting the chaff out by rubbing it in their hands, and eating it. The rub (pardon the pun) was this was all happening on the Sabbath. We know the Sabbath law. They weren’t to do any work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:9-10). The question was, were the disciples working?

The facts: 1) if a farmer went out and harvested his field or sifted the chaff on the Sabbath, he would have been sinning and 2) the Lord of the Sabbath said what the disciples were doing was not sinning.

What was the Pharisees logic? Wasn’t it the “logic” of the slippery slope? If you can pluck one grain and sift it, you can pluck two. If you can pluck two, you can pluck ten. If you can pluck ten, you can pluck a whole row. If you can pluck a whole row, you can pluck a whole field. We know that plucking a field is wrong. Therefore, plucking a row, plucking ten, and plucking only one is wrong. 

They might even say, “Well, we’re not really sure if just plucking one is wrong, but isn’t it better to be on the safe side? Nobody can pluck even one grain on the Sabbath.” Hey, I know I’ve used this kind of argument myself. The problem is, it just doesn’t hold up in Luke 6 because Jesus is there to say that plucking a few heads of grain and rubbing it in their hands wasn’t working and wasn’t a violation of the Sabbath law. He should know. He’s Lord of the Sabbath.

Of course, someone could make the argument the opposite way. “If plucking one grain is okay, then plucking two is okay, then plucking ten is okay, then plucking a row is okay, then plucking the field is okay. If we can pluck one grain, we can pluck one field.” No doubt, we all recognize a farmer harvesting his field on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath law. But we can use the “slippery slope” to make it seem lawful. 

In either direction, this “slippery slope” logic is simply not a means of demonstrating authorization or condemnation. It is a bad argument to say something is wrong just because we think it is like something else that we are certain is wrong. It is also a bad argument to claim that something is wrong simply to be safe. It is just as unsafe to bind where God hasn’t bound as it is to loose what God hasn’t loosed. It is also a bad argument to claim something is right simply because it is like something we are certain is right.

Luke 6:1-5 demonstrates that there may be two very similar actions and one is lawful, while the other is unlawful. 

I’ll share what my struggle with this is. I’m a very black and white person. I don’t like gray areas. I don’t like claiming something is a matter of judgment. I want a rule for every situation that clearly states what I’m allowed or not allowed to do. I don’t really want to have to think about it or discuss it or debate it and then still be a little bit up in the air. 

But in Luke 6:1-5 we know that the disciples were not violating the Sabbath law by plucking a few grains and sifting the chaff in their hands. We know they would have violated the law if they harvested the field. When would they have crossed the line? Is the line an amount? Or is the line a motivation? Is it possible that someone else may have come out and only plucked a few heads of grain and have been violating the law? I just don’t know when the line would be crossed, which means there is a bit of personal judgment each of us must make in this scenario. Further, we also learn that we aren’t allowed to establish a rule for everyone based on our personal line.

Let’s use a modern day example. What about modest dress? The Bible rebukes lasciviousness, licentiousness, or sensuality (Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; et al). Lasciviousness is that which promotes, stimulates, expresses, or invites sexual feelings and actions. However, the Bible never spells out all the lines of what is sensuality in regard to our dress. I have no doubt that a woman walking around men other than her husband in a bikini is being lascivious and sensual. But what if she wears a shirt that doesn’t have sleeves? Or what if she wears a skirt that comes just above her knees when she sits down? I have my personal lines that I enforce in my family, but can I enforce those rules on everyone? I know that some brethren are like me. They want to find some kind of line to remove all manner of judgment or potential gray area here. But I can’t find such a line in scripture. Knowing exactly where that line is crossed is not laid out in scripture. In fact, I’m not convinced the line is completely a matter of length. Sometimes it is a matter of motivation. One woman may wear a skirt that comes just below her knees but is striving to stimulate someone else sexually because of her shapely lower legs. Another woman may wear the same skirt in the attempt to hide sexuality by covering her upper legs. Both might be wearing the exact same skirt and it be lasciviousness for one and not the other. 

Oh, I know, we want to cry, “But you are on a slippery slope!” Hey, I want to cry that. But are we really on a slippery slope? Or are we just making a decision that needs to be judged by itself in reference to the will of God and not in reference to every other similar decision we have to make?

Perhaps there is a valid place for saying “slippery slope.” However, I think we need to be cautious. I definitely think we need some personal humility about our own judgments instead of thinking our view of the slippery slope suddenly translates into rules for everyone else and all the other congregations. If we aren’t careful, we may find that we are on a slippery slope ourselves.


Next Page »