This lesson in part is a review of the book written by Cecil Hook, entitled Free In Christ. When people start citing examples or situations in which the commands of God seem unworkable or even hindrances, the following assumptions are being made: 1. The eternal wisdom of God isn't behind His Word. 2. The Bible doesn't prepare us for all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). 3. No-win situations exist, in which the only course of action requires the transgressing of God's law (which God flatly denies, 1 Corinthians 10:13; James 1:13). 4. The person making such an argument typically begins to play the role of God. Like the story of the overloaded lifeboat (which Hook doesn't mention in his book). The story assumes that the people in the lifeboat know exactly how long they will be lost at sea, but no man can know that! In real life, this group of people might be picked up in an hour or a day. 5. Certain elements in these stories never make sense. Like the alligator river story, in which a young couple in love finds themselves on opposites of a river invested by alligators, and the only means of access across the river is a single boat. So the woman commits fornication with the immoral boat captain to join her true love. The story doesn't make sense! How did this couple meet in the first place, if this river is so impassable? What community on a river has only one boat? 6. If the end is good, then the action must have been pleasing to God. Concerning the Lord's Supper, Hook writes, 'If a person derives the benefit of this remembrance on Wednesday instead of Sunday, does it suddenly become a curse instead of a blessing.' (p. 20) His argument puts a premium on how people feel, and the momentary earthly benefit. But the Christian must always look at things in the light to eternity. The commands concerning upon what day of the week Christians partook of the supper are clear (Acts 20:7=2:42; Hebrews 10:25=1 Corinthians 11:23-26=16:1-2). He writes 'There is no clear example of the Lord's Supper ever being eaten on the first day of the week.' (p. 21)

1. I. Principles Not Commands:

'The principle is broader and greater than the command…..The fourth command, "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"…In it, God is saying "Remember your spiritual relationship with me and remember the dignity and purpose of man". (p. 16)

Points To Note: 1. I am always uncomfortable when people start putting words into God's mouth (Proverbs 30:6 'Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.'). 2. Why did God give commands, if such commands really never expressed His true feelings about a subject? Why not just give the principle? Is God a poor communicator? 3. We are walking on dangerous ground when we insist that commands are to be taken rather loosely as to what they mean. In contrast, Jesus and the apostles took every word in Scripture to be essential (Matthew 5:17-18; 22:32; Galatians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:13). 4. If man can know what the principle is, without being told, they why did God speak? 5. Instead of saying principles override commands, it should be noted that commands define and clarify the principle! 'Flee immorality' (1 Corinthians 6:18), clarifies the principle of moral purity. Matthew 19:9 defines what it means to leave and cleave, as well as many other principles concerning the marriage relationship. Ephesians 5:19 defines the type of musical praise which God desires from Christians. 7. To argue otherwise, is to make the Biblical text irrelevant. And this is basically what Hook does. Consider his arguments concerning elders:

'Timothy was at Ephesus when Paul wrote describing the kind of men who should be appointed as bishops. If Timothy went ahead and appointed men according to Paul's qualifications, did he necessarily appoint men with believing children? Certainly not! He had no such instructions from Paul.' (p. 44) Concerning the letter to Titus, Hook argues, Timothy would have had no access to that letter, and he wouldn't even need to read it and compare the qualifications listed in Titus 1:5-11. Such descriptions are only general and were never meant to be taken literally. 'Paul was only directing the selection of men of spiritual maturity, reputation, and ability to teach and minister to the welfare of the congregation.' (p. 43) A. Then why didn't the Holy Spirit say that? B. Then the qualifications given are meaningless. He argues that a man doesn't have to have any children to be qualified. Well, if that is true, then neither does the elder have to be a man, married, and so on. C. He says, 'Because he had two obedient teenagers…that would not mean that he knew how to oversee a congregation of many adults. We could make a better case for his need of being successful in business.' (p. 44) What he just said, is that Paul didn't know what he was talking about (1 Timothy 3:4-5). D. I am amazed when people use pure assumption to argue against absolute and clear truths. No way, no how could Timothy know that an elder had to have believing children? Didn't this same Timothy possess a spiritual gift? (1 Timothy 4:14) If Peter had a collection of Paul's letters, why not Timothy, his personal assistant? (2 Peter 3:16) Timothy traveled with Paul for 16 years, as Paul establishes congregations, including appointing elders in those congregations, and yet not until Paul writes 1 Timothy, does Timothy find out what are the qualifications for elders? E. You just can't get away from what the text says. On the one hand Hook dismisses with the statement 'having children that believe' (Titus 1:6), but then he says, 'Surely, if a man had children who were disobedient or rebellious, that would disqualify him' (p. 44). He is like those in the Jesus Seminar who pick and choose which statements they like in the Bible and which they don't like.

1. II. Principles That Are Not Accepted:

Such men as the above try to intimidate God's people into thinking that we are missing grand and glorious principles, because we are so focused on what the text says. Brethren, there are tremendous principles, which Hook and others reject: 1. The Silence of the Scriptures (Leviticus 10:1-3; 1 Samuel 15; Prov. 30:6; Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 22:18-19). 2. Love will always obey the commands of God (John 14:15). 3. God's grace is conditional (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 2:11; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). 4. Man isn't saved by only one thing. Hook writes, 'So it is all by grace! If one is to be saved, it must be totally by grace.' (p. 24) But if that is true, then all are automatically saved, for the grace of God has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). In one of the most famous passages on grace, Paul emphatically affirms that grace is not the totality of what contributes to our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). Please remember simple statements made by Jesus and the apostles when people start trying to argue that Christianity is devoid of rules A. If 'grace' is all there is, then God's grace must be very weak, for Jesus has the majority ending up lost (Matthew 7:21-23). B. If grace makes up for not keeping the rules, then grace also automatically covers wrong motives in serving God. And yet Jesus denies this (Matthew 6:1-5; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). C. Hook tries to argue that the only thing that makes something sinful, is a wrong motive. 'Our purity of thought or defilement of purpose determines whether a thing is moral or immoral…Shakespeare only expressed this truth when he said, "Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.' (p. 49) Once again, we are back to the old denominational slogan, 'it doesn't matter what you believe or practice, just as long as you are sincere.' But such isn't true (Proverbs 16:25; Matthew 7:22; Acts 23:1; 26:9). If you are doing to argue that grace automatically covers doctrinal error, then you must, to be consistent, argue that grace automatically covers wrong attitudes, wrong motives and so on. For one is as doctrinal as the other (Ephesians 4:1-6). 5. 2 John 9 applies to everything Christ taught (1 Timothy 6:3; 2 John 4,6; 1 John 2:4; 3:22-24 'the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him.') 6. Grace provides forgiveness, but grace never means that we don't have to do what God said (Matthew 7:21). 7. The New Testament is a law and it does contain commandments (Hebrews 8:10; James 1:25; Galatians 6:2; in fact God has Peter sum up the totality of Christianity, and he calls it 'the commandment' (2 Peter 3:2; 2:21). And yet Hook argues, 'God did not send another law' (p. 24), 'The new covenant is not a written code' (p. 25), and then misapplies 2 Corinthians 3:6. Carefully note that the 'letter' in 2 Corinthians 3:6 is the old covenant. The text doesn't mean that anything 'written down' only leads to spiritual death. For the Gospel message is written on paper (Romans 1:16). In fact, the only Gospel message that we have is in written form.

1. III. Contradictions:

1. Like others with similar complaints, he condemns what we have formulated by our own specious logic. And yet he insists that instead of keeping legal specifics (divine commands), we must make responsible decisions (p. 37). On the one hand he complains about doctrinal stances arrived at through studying the Scriptures with care and making the necessary inferences, and yet it seems like he praises inferences drawn from a text that contradicts the text. 2. Don't let people intimidate you into thinking that carefully thought out arguments from the text are sinful. Hook's book is fully of his own finely tuned arguments. 3. He says, 'most of the disciples of Jesus through the centuries did not even have a Bible to study, and they could not have read it if they had owned one.' (p. 41) He seems to forget 'who' the Bible was written to, the common person. Why did Paul write to the Corinthians, if most of them couldn't read the letter? Paul believed that Christians could read and understand what was written (Ephesians 3:4-5; 1 Thess. 5:27). I find countless individuals in the New Testament that had access to the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2-3; 2 Timothy 3:15). 4. His attitude is that people like us who insist upon Bible authority and adherence to the text are acting like a bunch of lawyers. Brethren, this man attempts to build his own arguments from the text or supposed contradictions in the text. Don't be fooled, this individual is going over his bible with a fine-toothed comb. 5. Concerning Matthew 7:15, he writes: 'We have been inclined to interpret ("you will know them by their fruits") as "by their teachings you shall know them", but Jesus declares that the fruit of life will reveal the truth or falsity of the character.' (p. 76) While character is a fruit, it isn't the only fruit. What one teaches is also a fruit. In fact, people with wrong motives (poor character) do preach the truth. Paul believed in proper motives, put he didn't label as false teachers the person who taught the truth from less than pure motives (Philippians 1:12-18). 6. In chapter 11 of the book he seems to resent the name 'Church of Christ'. He also claims that the word 'Church' is an improper translation of the Greek word ekklesia. I'm not really impressed with any of this, because the Greek scholars who worked on our English translations, didn't have a problem with the word 'church' (Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28). In addition, Paul addressed the various congregations of God's people as 'All the churches of Christ greet you.' (Romans 16:16) So if you don't like the name 'church of Christ' as a proper designation for a local assembly, then you are arguing with the Holy Spirit and not me. 7. He uses Leroy Garrett's argument that just as a man who is missing a leg, arm, and so on is still a man, so a congregation which has only one elder, accepts tongue speaking, belief in miraculous healing, burns candles, and all sorts of other deviations is still the church. It is clear that Jesus doesn't agree with the argument. Congregations which were missing only one thing or a few things were called upon to repent or else (Revelation 2:4; 14, 20; 3:16). Jesus doesn't regard doctrinal, or any other changes as merely secondary in nature. When such things change the church does change in essence! 8. When we start playing loose with the Scriptures, we end up binding what God didn't bind. Concerning elders he says, 'The Scriptures set no tenure for elders, so the length of term of the appointment is left to our judgment. By electing for a specified tenure of years, recall can be made simply by failure of reelection.' (p. 139) Where do the Scriptures teach the above? In contrast, there is a set tenure, that is, until the man ceases to be qualified (1 Timothy 3:2 'must be'). One is binding their human opinion when they insist that a qualified man can no longer serve. 9. Like some others, he argues that the person being baptized doesn't have to understand that baptism is for the remission of their sins. (Acts 2:38; 22:16) This makes about as much sense as arguing that the person taking of the Lord's Supper doesn't have to understand what the elements symbolize (1 Corinthians 11:26-29). 10. He denies that baptism must be immersion (p. 46). It seems like he should have been studying the background of the Greek word rendered baptism, instead of other issues. The word means immersion and the examples and direct statements in the Bible prove the same point (Romans 6:3-5; Acts 8:38; 22:16).