Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
August 28, 1969
NUMBER 17, PAGE 6b-8a

Faith Or Opinion

Edward Fudge

Among those claiming to be "Christians only, the crux of almost every conflict over disputed practices has been the classifying of the practice as a matter of "faith" or "opinion." Careful consideration of restoration history in this country establishes this fact. It also reveals that the number of "conclusive answers" in such disputes usually equals the number of disputants involved.

Whether the subject be mechanical instrumental music in worship, the number of containers in the Lord's Supper, congregational support of various organizations, centralized programs of intra-church activity, or any of many other controversies, one "side" usually is found justifying what the other "side" calls a "departure" from the pattern" by classifying the disputed practice as a matter of "opinion."

One confused Christian once concluded in desperation that "what we want is opinion; what we oppose is faith." And while this was said half in jest, the conclusion has perhaps a grain of truth in it.

To my knowledge no one considers the restoration pioneers as final authority. Yet, as it is the point of these articles to systematize their thinking on various themes, they are here quoted also in this regard.

In The Beginning

In the Restoration Movement the terms "faith" and "opinion" have been used from the first. Though they are often given meanings today different from those ascribed by Campbell, the terms themselves are found quite often in the "Declaration and Address." Charles A. Young says that though others used councils of men to determine "essentials" and "non-essentials," Campbell "made the express word of Scripture the test, and so preferred the words 'faith' and `opinion' as more biblical."

Thomas Campbell made these distinctions on the basis of matters specifically stated by God and things deduced or inferred from God's word. "There is a manifest distinction between an express Scripture declaration, and the conclusion or inference which may be deduced from it," he wrote. And his son Alexander later wrote that "it is a concession due to the crisis in which we live...to distinguish between the testimony of God, and man's reasonings and philosophy upon it."

Alexander Campbell explained: No testimony no faith: for faith is only the belief of testimony or confidence in testimony as true." This being the case, it is necessary that "where testimony begins, faith begins; and where testimony ends, faith ends." (Christianity Restored)

In this same way Thomas Campbell states as a primary proposition in his "Declaration and Address" that although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion (fellowship), but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church.

This proposition is so basic that with it stands or falls the entire teaching and work of Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Go back and re-read it. Here is clearly stated a definition of "faith" and "opinion" that is workable in any age. It would be very difficult to over-emphasize the importance of these two sentences from Thomas Campbell.

As a general rule there are no simple answers to complex problems. For the most part, panaceas exist in the imagination only. Yet one can not help but wonder if the application of this single proposition — in an honest and impartial manner — would not remove much of the trouble in the churches of Christ and the Christian churches today relative to this general subject.

Thomas Campbell made only express disobedience a violation of "faith." "As the Divine word is equally binding upon all," he explained, "so all lie under an equal obligation to be bound by it, and it alone; and not by any human interpretation of it; and that, therefore, no man has a right to judge his brother, except in so far as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law" (emphasis mine).

Faith And Fellowship

Such flagrant disobedience would be the only grounds for disfellowship, as Thomas and Alexander Campbell saw it — with the exception of a factious man or one who persisted in immorality. This was made clear in the "Declaration and Address."

We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God's dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference — of private opinion; and such we esteem all things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God (emphasis mine).

"It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the intellect," wrote Alexander Campbell. "Would it not be just as rational and as scriptural to excommunicate one another, because our knowledge is less or greater than any fixed measure, as for differences of opinion on matters of speculation? (Christianity Restored)

The pioneers sought to be free from doing or believing, except the doing or believing of things required by God. Divisions come, not because one wants to be free from doing or believing, but because he binds the doing or believing of something on other brethren, though God has not commanded that it be done or revealed it so clearly that it must be believed.

Make any application you wish, and you will find this to be the case. Obligation, then, is on the one wanting brethren to do or believe, and he must show cause for their doing or believing. Furthermore, unless the doing or believing of the thing is essential to obedience to God, and therefore a matter of "faith" and salvation, an objector has only to protest in good conscience, and Christian love demands that the advocate either rationally convince the objector of the rightfulness of the thing, or else cease his demands that it be done or believed.

But this does not give the objector the right to forbid the other brother's doing or believing. Nor do these principles allow the "conservative" on any issue to demand a "confession" from a converted "liberal," or vice-versa. Advancement in knowledge is natural; a change of mind is human. And these should not be confused with willful disobedience or presumptuous sin.

In the "Declaration and Address" Thomas Campbell wrote:

It is not the renunciation of an opinion or practice as sinful that is proposed or intended, but merely a cessation from the publishing or practicing it, so as to give offence; a thing men are in the habit of doing every day for their private comfort...where the advantage is of infinitely less importance (emphasis mine.)

Liberty And Love

Alexander Campbell foresaw that some would become factious. This sort of man, according to Campbell (and the Apostle Paul!) was to be rejected — "not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage."

By their definitions of "faith" and "opinion," the Campbells would have called the practices mentioned at the first of this article matters of "opinion." But this does not say they would necessarily either approve or practice any of them. And it is very certain that they would not have approved of the bitter attitudes, harsh actions or tests of fellowship which so often accompany these issues today — pro or con!

Thomas Campbell wrote:

We have overtured that...all speak, profess, and practice the very same things that are...spoken and done by the Divine appointment and approbation, ...without introducing anything of private opinion or doubtful disputation into the public profession or practice of the Church.

Some would insist that so-called liberty is meaningless unless one practices the liberty. The Campbells would have agreed with this. But they would also have reminded such a person that he had classified the practice as "opinion," and that he therefore was obligated not to bind it on other brethren who might have conscientious scruples against it.

Thomas Campbell has gone almost unheard in his plea not to impose private opinions as articles of faith. He said this would be done when brethren so retain them in... public profession and practice... brethren cannot join...without actually becoming partakers in those things which they...cannot in conscience approve, and which the word of God nowhere expressly enjoins.

No group among us can feel self-righteous in the face of these various principles. These convictions, expressed here in the words of the pioneers themselves, would likely be very helpful today in ending much of the tension that exists. Part of the tragedy is that some brethren are not interested in ending tension. It is hoped that those who are find encouragement, and perhaps some aid, by considering these things.

— 944 S. Geyer Road, Kirkwood, Mo. 63122