Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #17

Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

I have noticed in the comment thread of your last letter that you plan on making your next letter your last in this series. In the event that ends up being the case, I want, first of all, to make sure to speak to several points you bring up in your last letter. After that, I want to pose a few brief questions I would like for you to answer before we close off this current dialogue.

In your section on “Clarification Regarding ‘Faith’ and ‘Order,’” you say that I define "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with my references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." Actually, if I am understanding correctly the traditional theological distinction between “faith” and “order,” I would say that I do not define “secondary matters” in terms of “order.” While I would agree that many matters of secondary importance do, in fact, coincide with what have been termed matters of “order,” I am not so sure that the actual division between “primary” and “secondary” always falls neatly along these same lines.

As I tried to make clear, especially in Letter #13, I certainly do not “dismiss” the importance of obeying any command of Christ, whether it concerns matters of “faith” or “order.” However, there are certain commands that, due to confusion in interpretation, or a certain degree of ambiguity in the biblical text itself, have been understood differently by sincere followers of Christ down through history. At the same time, there are certain matters that heretical groups and false cults have twisted in order to prop up their false doctrinal systems, and are of such central importance to the Gospel message itself, that to misunderstand and misapply them would compromise the very essence of Christian discipleship. Perhaps these are what you would call matters of “faith.” If such is the case, I do not have any real objection to this distinction. At the same time, I wish to make perfectly clear, once again, that I do not advocate any compromise whatsoever regarding one’s personal obligation to obey, as well as he/she is able to understand them, each and every one of Christ’s commands, whether they be matters of “faith” or “order.”

In your section entitled “Where Do You Stand?,” you say that several things I have written suggest that “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.” I forcefully disagree with this conclusion. I do not see a contradiction between the statements of mine that you quote, and a concerted effort towards “disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands.” The fact that we will not be judged according to our observance of the law, but rather in virtue of the righteousness vicariously gained for us by Christ at Calvary, does not, in any way, devalue the importance of obedience to his commands, whether in so-called issues of “faith” or “order.”

At the same time, you correctly understand me to voice a conviction consistent with a traditional Baptist interpretation of baptism. However, I believe you misinterpret me when you suggest I am confused about what I believe. Properly understood, I believe there is no contradiction whatsoever in my personal convictions regarding the biblical teaching on believers baptism by immersion, and the possibility of cooperating and fellowshipping with authentic followers of Christ who are sincerely mistaken in their views of baptism, and/or other “secondary” and “tertiary” matters.

While, in the spirit of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, I am open to growth in my understanding of biblical teaching in many areas, I do not, at the same time, consider myself to be in a “precarious position” of abandoning important principles due to an unhealthy influence of “modern missionary thought and practice.” Actually, the views I take on the particular issues we are discussing are views at which I have arrived after a heartfelt and diligent study of Scripture. They are matters of strong conviction for me from which I will not easily be moved.

With regard to your section on “The Definition of a Great Commission Christian,” I think it may help to “clear the smoke” a bit, at this point, to recognize that the term “Great Commission Christian” is not in itself a biblical term, and has only recently come into use among evangelical Christians and Southern Baptists. As such, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the definition we choose to give it.

The International Mission Board, when they first began to publish material on “New Directions” in regard to missionary strategy and philosophy of ministry around the world, gave the following definition to the term Great Commission Christian: “an evangelical Christian actively engaged in or committed to the fulfillment of the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, Glossary).

In addition, the following description is a bit more specific:

“…within the great sea of Christianity there are many born-again believers--men and women--who have experienced a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ and look to God's Word as their authority for faith and practice. These evangelicals are scattered all over the world and are growing in number. Current global estimates put their number at up to 500 million. They are found in more than 20,000 denominations with over 1,000 foreign mission agencies worldwide. It is these fellow believers who offer us tremendous potential as co-laborers in fulfilling the Great Commission” (from Something New Under the Sun, ch. 5).

On the comment thread to your Letter #16, several others have already pointed out that, according to the criteria you appear to be using, we ourselves as Baptists would be disqualified as Great Commission Christians. None of us is perfect, neither in our understanding of nor our obedience to the Great Commission. Undoubtedly, at the same time, however, many Baptists are sincerely trying to understand and obey as consistently as possible the Great Commission. But, then again, if that is the understanding we have of “Great Commission Christians,” so are many others in many, if not all, of the groups you reference in your letter. The real issue for me, however, is not who we may call “Great Commission Christians”, and who we may not, but rather with whom we fellowship and cooperate for the advance of the Kingdom of God in our desire to be obedient to the Great Commission.

In your section entitled “Unrepentant Sinners” and “The Baptist Renaissance,” you make the assertion that Christians who do not understand and practice baptism in the same way as Baptists are, in fact, “unrepentant sinners.” The question that must be answered at this juncture is whether or not someone who has made a heartfelt commitment to submit to the Lordship of Jesus as transmitted to us in Holy Scripture, but who is sincerely mistaken in their attempts at understanding and obeying certain commands, is truly “disobedient.” In American society, a commonly quoted maxim is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” However, as I understand it, the correct application of the principle enunciated in this maxim only applies in the case of laws that are punishable by condemnation and penalty. If, however, we have been set free from the bondage of the law (Galatians 5:1), and “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1), I do not understand sincere but mistaken attempts to obey as actual “disobedience.”

Under the New Covenant, we seek to understand and obey out of love, not obligation, or fear of punishment. As such, the true degree of our obedience is commensurate with the degree of our love. As a matter of fact, we can be completely flawless in our external adherence to the commands of God, and yet, at the same time, if we do not have love, be nothing more than resounding gongs or clanging cymbals. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

While I readily recognize, together with you, the dangers of compromising our convictions of the truth due to “sentimental gullibility,” I do not, by any means, concede that all of us who are diligently working towards progress in our understanding and application of Christian unity are doing so out of a lack of solid conviction. In my case, personally, I do not believe I am naïve or deceived when I affirm that my convictions regarding Christian unity are rooted first and foremost in my understanding and diligent study of the Word of God.

Malcolm, I can’t help but ask myself, in relation to what you have written here, whether you are really being obedient to Christ’s commands concerning unity in his Body. I am disappointed that you have not responded, as far as I can tell, to what I consider to be the main thesis of my Letter #13--even though we may be convinced of how we, in our personal practice, ought to obey specific commands of Christ, it does not necessarily follow that, in order to avoid disobedience in our own lives, we must demand the same understanding and manner of obedience from others. My thesis, as I understand Scripture, is that the most obedient option is many times the one of greater tolerance and acceptance of those who differ with us in their understanding and practice of secondary matters. From my perspective, it is not that I am being any less obedient to Christ’s commands concerning baptism, and other secondary matters, but rather, perhaps, I am being more obedient in regard to his commands concerning unity.

In your section entitled "A Positive Conclusion," while I appreciate and am humbled by your comments regarding my love for other people, you indicate that I seem to misinterpret John Gill in some way or another. Recognizing the breadth of your studies of Baptist history, I dare not call into question your understanding of Gill’s theology. However, in my post on Romans 14, I limit myself, for the most part, to quoting directly from Gill’s commentary. It would help me to know on what specific point you feel I have mischaracterized Gill.

While, most assuredly, you, I, and Gill are all totally convinced of the correctness of the Baptist view on the subject and mode of baptism, I think you are missing the point I was making from Romans 14--we may be totally convinced of our particular position, but the degree of certainty we have regarding our interpretation of a particular point is not what makes it a “disputable matter.” What makes it “disputable” is the fact that other sincere disciples of Jesus understand it differently than us.

Frankly, I cannot understand how you can call clear biblical teaching on the “common loaf” a mere personal preference, and, at the same time, call baptism by immersion an inviolable command. It seems to me that, in stating that baptism symbolizes the Gospel, and the common loaf symbolizes church unity, you yourself are making the same distinction between “faith” and “order” about which you forewarned me earlier. Malcolm, as the popular adage states: “You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.”

Now, for my closing questions to you:

1. I hope that by now you have a fairly good grasp on my theological views, at least on the particular issues we have been discussing during this dialogue. Do you believe there is a place for people like me in Southern Baptist life? Do you believe that any of the views I take should disqualify someone like me from service as a Southern Baptist missionary or denominational employee? Why or why not?

2. If I do not change my views concerning the matters we have been discussing here, do you believe it would be better for me to serve with some group other than the IMB? Why or why not?

3. If I understand you correctly, you allow for certain cooperation with non-Baptists in certain ministry projects. Where you (and recent adjustments to IMB policy) draw the line is specifically in regard to cooperation in “church planting.” As someone who has participated actively over the last 17 years in “church planting” ministry, I want to know: At what point do we cross the line from evangelistic and disciple-making ministry into “church planting” ministry? My experience has led me to conclude that this line is, in many cases, very blurry and hard to define. In actuality, practically all of what we do, as “church planters” on the mission field, involves, to a large degree, evangelism and disciple-making. I would like to know, if you can help me understand it, at what point do we specifically cross that line, and what are the reasons for drawing the line of cooperation at that particular point?

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Trip to South Asia

Today, I am flying out for a 3-week-long ministry trip to South Asia. Together with my brother Steve, and his wife Cindi, we will be cooperating with several indigenous ministries to train local pastors through the DVD large-screen presentation of the Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute materials entitled What Every Pastor Ought to Know.

David Garrison, IMB Regional Leader for South Asia, has said this about the region in which he serves:

South Asia is a huge gaping hole in the Great Commission. With more lost persons per square mile and more Unengaged Unreached People Groups than all the rest of the world combined, this region of the world continues to warrant the kind of attention it has only begun to receive from the IMB and other corners of the Evangelical world…In spite of South Asia being home to one out of every four non-Christians on earth, it is also home to millions of radiant born again believers…We feel that the greatest potential for reaching the 1.4 billion lost of South Asia is to mobilize and train South Asia's indigenous Christian population.

As you can well imagine, I am very excited about this trip, and the possibilities for strategic ministry it represents. All told, we are supposed to have training conferences with approximately 1,200 pastors.

I hope to be able to give some more specific information once we return, and perhaps even some pictures. But for now, for security purposes, it is probably best not to be more specific. I would appreciate very much your prayers, that the Lord would use us and keep His hand upon us during this time.

Also, I hope to have internet connection, at least from time to time, while I am gone. If so, I will do my best to continue to post, including my next letter in the Yarnell-Rogers Dialogue on the Great Commission.

"Evangélico" or "Protestante"?

In the midst of discussion on Evangelical unity and inter-denominational cooperation, a false stereotype is often portrayed by some that assumes compromise on essential issues.

My friend, brother in Christ, and missionary colleague in Spain, Enrique Montenegro (missionary from the Church of God in Argentina), has written the following incisive commentary on the use of the terms "Evangélico" and "Protestante" in relation to recent news on the Anglican church and the ordination of homosexual priests. The cultural context in Spain has led to a vigorous debate among some regarding whether it is better, as Bible-preaching Christians, to identify ourselves as Evangelicals or Protestants. I post this article with the hope that it will not only provide insight into the particular missionary context in Spain, but also help to correct some general misconceptions regarding working together with Great Commission Christians. (By the way, I totally agree with what Montenegro says here.)

What follows is my translation of Montenegro’s original text in Spanish…

I have always openly declared myself Evangelical and have rejected the term "Protestant" for the mere fact that, in the first case, I identify with the message, content and commandment of Jesus to "preach the Gospel" (Spanish = Evangelio), and the second term identifies us with one moment in history in the life of one part of the Church. From a contemporary perspective, anchored in the past.

But upon reading this article in "EL PERIODICO" (a leading newspaper in the Cataluña region of Spain) about the acceptance and ordination of homosexual priests and bishops in the Anglican church (see links to the articles below), in this case and only in this case, I must say that I am a protestant. Today, I identify myself as a Protestant because I protest the improper use of the identification of the Anglican church as evangelical. A church that is most assuredly Protestant, and without a shadow of a doubt is not Evangelical (as demonstrated by its sense of ethics and morality, and the content of its message), and even less so in practice.

I protest because the above-mentioned institution, rather than protesting the practice of homosexual behavior, even among its own leaders, not only refuses to condemn it, but also protests against those of us who dare to raise our voice to proclaim that there are news of Salvation for them as well.

I protest against the press, which, whenever they refer to the immoral actions of these churches, that identify themselves as Protestants, throws them in the same sack as us, calling them Evangelicals.

I protest against those brothers and sisters that constantly insist on declaring that our identifying label is "protestant", when our message, identity and content clearly is not so.

I protest against those within the Evangelical people who have a representative voice and something to say in regard to this, but prefer to remain silent and not commit themselves.

I protest those who could and should clearly condemn homosexual practices, but hardly even take sides to make a few ambiguous statements on the subject.

I protest against those who, although they still call themselves Protestants, are not consistent with their own name by raising their voice in protest for these immoral actions.

I protest those who take on an evangelical identity, but do not fulfill the duty of clearly proclaiming the gospel (evangelio) in order to counteract the poison of this type of Protestantism.

Last of all, I ask forgiveness of my brothers and sisters for becoming protestant, even if it was just for a moment. I promise that I will keep on being evangelical, and I will not renounce being consistent with our identity and mission, that is none other than proclaiming the Gospel (Evangelio).

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

At least, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=442384&idseccio_PK=1021

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/224485/0/pablo/epistola/romanos/

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #16

A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Dearest David,

Your last three letters clarify the basis of your desire for unity among those who claim to be Great Commission Christians. If I am not misreading, the thesis in letters 13 ("Obeying the Commands of Jesus") and 14 ("John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7") is that Christians should not divide over "secondary matters" or "disputable matters." You then provide the example of the use or not of the "common loaf" in your addendum letter ("The Illustration of the Hypothetical ‘Common Loaf Denomination’").

Clarification Regarding "Faith" and "Order"

Before proceeding to answer your thesis, please allow me to clarify one important issue: the distinction between faith and order that apparently caused some concern. Although I recognize the common theological distinction between faith and order, the thrust of my last letter (#12, "Enduring Submission to the Great Commission") was that the distinction never excuses disobedience to Jesus Christ. The only reason that I introduced the terminology of "faith" and "order" is because it is an established one that many theologians find useful and may help you in our conversation. (It actually does not help my argument.)

Moreover, another reason I raised the distinction is that it appears to be part of your own argument. The distinction that you use, following Gill, is between "what really matters" or "the grace of faith" on the one hand, and "secondary matters" or "disputable matters" on the other hand. You then proceed to define these "secondary matters" in terms of "order" with your subsequent references to "baptism by immersion" and "common loaf." David, as far as I can see, you have followed the very distinction that I introduced, but circuitously rather than directly.

The distinction of "faith" and "order" seems to be, though I might be misinterpreting you here, at the bottom of your search for a "hierarchy of values." I sought to limit the usefulness of this common distinction with this sentence: "Speaking and expositing about the essential of one’s ‘faith’ in Christ while dismissing the essential of obeying the ‘order’ established by Christ is utterly sinful." Unfortunately, I do not seem to have won you over to my position in this regard, for you still seem to treat at least some dominical issues of "order" as "secondary" and perhaps even "disputable."

Where Do You Stand?

With that clarified, perhaps you could help me interpret your letters better. Tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to waver on the issue of whether matters of "order" are important or not. On the one hand, you say such things as, "[W]e will not be judged according to our observance of all the different rules and regulations given to us by God in his Word." Again, you say, "However, when it comes to obedience of some commands of Jesus, at least from a certain perspective, it would appear the intent of the heart, despite the degree of correctness of our understanding, is indeed what really matters." This suggests that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands is not something with which disciples should be overly concerned.

On the other hand, you then defend believers-only baptism in a comment thread on the blog of Micah Fries, who copied your "Common Loaf Baptists" post. I will remind you of your assertion there: "As far as timing and mode of baptism are concerned, I would be inclined to agree that a ‘baptism’ that is not after a true conversion, or that is not by immersion, is not an authentic baptism." This suggests you believe that disciplined obedience to Christ’s commands, at least with regard to the order of baptism, is something with which disciples should be very concerned.

David, if I were to make a guess, it would be this: you, my friend, are still searching out exactly what you believe in many of these matters! Such doctrinal growth is admittedly part of the Christian life, but my fear is that you have been brought to a precarious position by some of the worrisome trends in modern missionary thought and practice. These worrisome trends include, among many others, a confusion as to what exactly constitutes a Great Commission Christian, the invention of a distinction between "Baptist" and "baptistic," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, confusion as to what it really means to cooperate with other Christians, and lack of clarity regarding a Baptist hierarchy of values.

The Definition of a Great Commission Christian

First and most germane to our ongoing conversation, please consider the definition of Great Commission Christians. It seems that the hasty move to recognize other evangelicals as Great Commission Christians has introduced thoughts and practices that undermine the biblical mandate. Rather than rehearsing the historical basis of this destructive error in Southern Baptist life, David, let me propose that we seek to answer the following question: Does a Great Commission Christian have to obey the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in its entirety and in its God-given order, or may we summarily dispense with some aspects of it, or practice it contrary to the God-given order, or emphasize something else?

The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as "evangelicals."

The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.

"Unrepentant Sinners" and "The Baptist Renaissance"

The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as "unrepentant sinners." When you disobey Christ, you are a "sinner." When you refuse to change your ways, you are "unrepentant." Thus, those who refuse to repent from their disobedience of Christ are "unrepentant sinners." This terminology seems to rub evangelical ecumenists in an especially noticeable way, which is probably why some of us readily use it. It helps bring forward important issues that are being buried in the rush of some naïve and errant children of the free churches to convert to Azusa Street, Canterbury, Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople.

The use of this language is not a claim, however, that such people are not Christians. Rather, it is a claim that they need to repent and follow Christ alone and in full. Moreover, the use of this language is not a claim that Baptists are superior to other Christians. Rather, it recognizes that God has given Baptists further illumination with regard to His Word. This compels us to help others understand His Word better. The gift of further illumination of God’s Word carries with it a greater responsibility to teach that Word with conviction and humility. Baptists are not perfect Christians, but Baptists are responsible for obeying and proclaiming with conviction what they do know, and for seeking to know even more from God’s inerrant Word.

Moreover, Baptists would do well to listen humbly to other Christians in order to learn what we may. This does not stifle communication with other Christians, but calls for it. However, this is a call for informed communication and convictional witness rather than sentimental gullibility in the name of "Christian unity." This is probably the one area where most of my detractors have totally misread me. Indeed, they might be surprised to learn that when living in a foreign country, I learned to disagree agreeably while maintaining an ecclesial distance alongside a spiritual harmony with other believers who were not Baptists. I may appreciate evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians for their understanding of the Gospel, but I have learned not to surrender the biblical order in the name of Christian unity even when living in a difficult context where Christians are a small minority.

When I speak of a "Baptist Renaissance," I am not compelled by Baptist hubris, but by a dynamic biblical conviction. I am a Baptist because I believe that our churches are the closest examples to the churches that Christ established in the New Testament. This does not mean we are perfect, for we are decidedly not! One need only consider the continuing erosion of our fidelity to Christ in the matters of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the priority of proclamation to know better. What it does mean is that the Baptist tradition is a purer and deeper tradition than any existing alternative, for it is intentionally grounded in the oldest Christian tradition, that of the apostles and of Christ Himself. If I may continue the city metaphor, we should bypass these other cities and be content with Jerusalem as our home.

A Positive Conclusion

David, I mentioned four other issues wherein there appears to be some indefiniteness in your theology: the distinction between "baptistic" and "Baptist," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, the true meaning of cooperation, and this idea of a hierarchy of values. Rather than discuss what seems to be an equivocal treatment of these ideas, let me conclude with a positive review of some of your other ideas.

First, please allow me to laud you on your love for other people, especially other Christians. I wish that all of us had that deep love for "each stone" that you have. You, my friend, are a treasure. Second, please note that I generally agree with your review of Romans 14, although I disagree with your characterization of John Gill, and I wonder at what exactly you would classify as "disputable matters." Believers-only baptism by immersion is beyond dispute (and here Gill would agree with me), and that includes not only the subject of baptism, but the mode of baptism, too. According to Paul, the mode of baptism as immersion is what makes baptism symbolically powerful. Baptism by immersion is the only mode that properly represents the death and resurrection of our Savior (Romans 6:1-6).

Third, although I actually agree with your preference for the "common loaf" as better fulfilling the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10, I do not think it is as debilitating a problem as baptism by sprinkling or by pouring. The fact is that the common loaf symbolizes church unity while baptism by immersion symbolizes the Gospel itself. Finally, please allow me again to thank you for the privilege of interacting with you and your readers. I love you more every day, my brother in Christ, even when I question your theology, especially your ecclesiology. In the midst of our discussions, I find that my own theology grows under the influence of your love. Then again, I also think your daddy, were he here, would often agree with me more.

In Christ,

Malcolm

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination"

Update: Although I had originally intended this post as independent from the Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, upon consultation with Malcolm Yarnell, I have decided to include this as Letter #15. This is because the content is related to our on-going discussion, and Malcolm's Letter #16 responds to this content, as well as that of Letters #13 and #14.

Please understand that what I am writing here is just an illustration to prove a point. I am emphatically NOT suggesting the founding of a new "Common Loaf Denomination." I have already written about this on a previous post. At that time, I was using essentially the same illustration to make a slightly different, though related, point, on the difference between planting "baptistic" and "Baptist" churches. Here, I am pulling out the same illustration again, because I believe it forcefully and poignantly drives home a point I have been trying to make on the last couple of posts in my on-going dialogue with Malcolm Yarnell on the Great Commission. I am not writing this as a separate letter in that series, but rather as a sort of detached addendum to the actual letters.

The illustration is the following:

Many Baptists in the past, as well as some in the present, have made such a major issue of the timing and mode of water baptism that it has led them to effectively separate, both in church fellowship, as well as in partnership in obedience to the Great Commission, with other authentic born-again disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me make perfectly clear that my own views regarding the timing and mode of baptism are totally "baptistic," and in line with the Baptist Faith & Message.

As "baptistic" Christians, we believe in baptism by immersion, as I understand it, on the basis of three primary reasons:

• Linguistically, the greek term baptizein, translated "to baptize" in the majority of our translations of the Bible in English, means literally "to immerse."
• Symbolically, we believe, on the basis of Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12, that baptism is a physical and visual representation of our identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.
• Historically, in the examples we read in the New Testament (Matthew 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:36-38), baptism seems to have been administered by immersion.

In addition to believing in believers baptism by immersion, I also happen to believe in celebrating the Lord’s Supper with a "common loaf" of bread. The reasons for my belief in "common loaf" communion are essentially the same as my reasons for believing in baptism by immersion:

• Linguistically, the term "breaking bread," generally accepted as referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, directly implies the use of a "common loaf."
• Symbolically, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, the use of a "common loaf" represents physically and visually an important spiritual truth: the essential unity of the Body of Christ ("For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread").
• Historically, in the examples we read in the New Testament (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19, 24:30, 35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35; 1 Corinthians 11:23-24), it is apparent that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a "common loaf."

*I will leave aside, at this time, the evidence that the Lord’s Supper was also apparently celebrated with a "common cup", as part of a complete meal, with unleavened bread, and with fermented wine.

Much has been made of the point that those who practice baptism by any mode other than by immersion are effectively disobeying the command of Jesus regarding baptism. By the same token, however, I cannot avoid the conclusion that those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers, or crackers, or pieces of bread, are not truly being obedient to the command of Jesus to "do this in remembrance of me." Yet, for some reason, as Baptists, we are much more tolerant with those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper in a defective manner than we are with those who are sincerely mistaken in their practice of baptism.

What is the solution to this dilemma? Should those of us who are convinced of the biblical truth concerning "common loaf" celebration of the Lord’s Supper separate from those who still insist on celebrating the Lord’s Supper with individual wafers or their equivalent? Should we form our own denomination that ensures that the missionaries we send out will only teach the churches they plant to practice "common loaf" communion? Or, should we take it to the extreme of refusing to even cooperate on the mission field with those in other groups who are mistaken in their interpretation of this "clear biblical truth"?

I hope, by now, the absurdity of what I am suggesting is obvious. Even though I am totally convinced of the accuracy of my biblical interpretation regarding "common loaf communion," it would be "nit-picking" for me to separate with other authentic disciples of the Lord Jesus, who are sincerely doing their best to submit to his commands in their own life, over something as secondary as this. Much more important than our differences on this point is our essential unity as joint members of the Body of Christ, who have been given a joint task to fulfill, and should work hand in hand, as brothers and sisters in Christ, to obey together the commands of Christ, to the degree each one of us is able to understand them.

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Chinese Christian Growth and Missionary Vision

Check out this interesting article in the Asia Times about the growth of Christianity in China. Pay special attention to what it says towards the bottom about the Back to Jerusalem movement, and the vision of Chinese believers for taking the gospel to the unreached Muslim peoples of the 10-40 Window.

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #14

John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

At a previous point in our dialogue, we have already had reason to refer to the thoughts of great Baptist theologians of yesteryear such as John Dagg, B.H. Carroll, Andrew Fuller, and Benjamin Keach. In the present letter, I will be referring largely to the thoughts of John Gill, generally considered to be the first major writing Baptist theologian. I find it both interesting and gratifying, in the midst of our present discussion on differences of opinion between true believers on secondary matters, to be able to reference the words of the good Dr. Gill, who interestingly enough, served as pastor in the same church Keach had served earlier, and where years later, the venerable Charles Haddon Spurgeon would so effectively grace the pulpit. Throughout this letter, I will reference various of Gill’s comments on Romans chapter 14, and the first few verses of chapter 15, taken from his Exposition of the Entire Bible.

As I mentioned in my last letter, I believe that Romans 14 (including, as well, as part of the larger context, Romans 15:1-7) is the classic passage dealing with the questions currently before us. The general topic of this passage is what Paul calls "disputable matters" (v. 1). Although the specific examples given are those of "eating everything" vs. "eating only vegetables" (v. 2), and "considering one day more sacred than another" vs. "considering every day alike" (v. 5), it would appear these are merely representative of any number of potential "disputable matters" on which sincere believers may take different positions.

On certain matters, it is true that sincerity, in and of itself, is not sufficient. Our faith in Christ in not limited to a willing disposition, nothing more. There is an objective, empirical content behind our faith, which if denied, would actually invalidate our faith altogether.

However, when it comes to obedience of some commands of Jesus, at least from a certain perspective, it would appear the intent of the heart, despite the degree of correctness of our understanding, is indeed what really matters. As v. 6 states: "He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Commenting on this verse, Gill observes:

The apostle strengthens the above advice with this reason, because what is done both by one and the other, is done unto the Lord. The weak brother that esteems one day above another, and regards the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, a new moon, or a seventh day sabbath, does it in obedience to the commands of the Lord, which he thinks are still binding, not knowing that they are disannulled by Christ; and the worship performed by him on any of those days is done in the name and strength of the Lord, with a view to his glory, and as believing it was pleasing in his sight; and whether he is right or wrong, it is to the Lord he does it, and to his own master he stands or falls (comment on Romans 14:6, emphasis mine).

The point is, the hypothetical individuals in disagreement with each other are brothers (and/or sisters) in Christ (vv. 10, 13, 15, 21). As Gill states:

The emphasis lies upon the word "brother", in both branches of the expostulation; and the force of the apostle's reasoning is that they should not judge or despise one another, because they were brethren, stood in the same relation to God and Christ, belonged to the same family, were partakers of the same grace, and had no pre-eminence one over another; they had but one master, and all they were brethren (comment on Romans 14:10).

That is, neither party maintains a position of doctrine and/or practice that would preclude an authentic faith relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not talking, for instance, about those who would deny the divinity of Jesus, or teach that salvation comes as a result of one’s adherence to the law.

As I alluded to in my last letter, if such were the case, our response would need to be different. There is an essential difference, both in the nature of the individual, as well as in the treatment that should be given, between "false prophets" and genuine believers who are sincerely mistaken in their beliefs and practice regarding certain points.

Nonetheless, although both parties have faith, the faith of one is relatively "weak" when compared to that of the other. The strength and weakness of faith alluded to here has to do, to a large extent, with one’s level of doctrinal understanding.

Commenting on this point, Gill refers to those "who are strong in the grace of faith, and are established and settled in the doctrine of it; and have a large and extensive knowledge of the several truths of the Gospel," (comment on Romans 15:1, emphasis mine) and also to "one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine" (comment on Romans 14:1, emphasis mine).

Furthermore, the doctrines and practices involved, though legitimately referred to as "disputable," are not necessarily doctrines over which the respective parties might have a certain degree of uncertainty or misgivings with respect to their particular positions. As v. 5 states, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind," and v. 14, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself."

However, one’s degree of certainty regarding the correctness of his/her particular view is not the issue. Even though we may be fully convinced, without one iota of doubt, that our position is right, and our brother’s position wrong, that is not to come between our fellowship in the service of the Lord.

As Gill observes:

The advice the apostle gives, in reference to such a person, is to receive him; not only into their affections, and love him equally, being a believer in Christ, as one of the same sentiments with them, only in this matter, but also into church fellowship with them. The Syriac version reads it, (adya hyl wbh) , "give him the hand": in token of communion, a form used in admission of members. The Gentiles were apt to boast against, and look with some contempt upon the Jews, and were ready to object to their communion, because of their want of light and knowledge in these matters; but this was no bar of communion, nor ought a person to be rejected on account of his weakness, either in the grace, or in the doctrine of faith, when it appears he has the true grace of God (comment on Romans 14:1, emphasis mine).

…because God had received both the one and the other into his heart's love and affection, into the covenant of grace, and into his family by adoption: they were received by Christ, coming to him as perishing sinners, according to the will of God; whose will it likewise was, that they should be received into church fellowship, as being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and God had also received them into his service, and they were made willing to serve him, as well as to be saved by him… (comment on Romans 14:3, emphasis mine).

…they are not to be despised for their weakness; and if in the church, are not to be excluded for their mistakes; and if not members, are not to be refused on account of them; since they arise from weakness, and are not subversive of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel: they are not to be treated as wicked men, but as weak brethren; and their peevish tempers, morose dispositions and conduct, their hard speeches and censorious expressions, are patiently to be endured; they should be considered as from whence they arise, not from malice and ill will, from a malignant spirit, but from weakness and misguided zeal (comment on Romans 15:1, emphasis mine).

The crowning point, in Paul’s line of reasoning, however, seems to come in chapter 15, vv. 5-7, where he exclaims:

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God."

Taken in the context of the discussion of chapter 14, it would seem that Paul is making the argument that, in the hierarchy of values in the kingdom of God, the "spirit of unity," which allows us "with one heart and mouth" to "glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," trumps the degree of our doctrinal correctness on "disputable matters." And, the way we put this unity into practice is by "accepting one another, just as Christ has accepted us," even though the other party may be sincerely mistaken about certain matters of doctrine and practice. And, when we do this, as a result, true, pure, authentic praise is brought to God.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers

Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue on the Great Commission, Letter #13

Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Dear Malcolm,

In Matthew’s narration of the Great Commission, Jesus tells us, as his disciples, that, as a part of the process of making new disciples, we are to "teach them to obey everything [He] has commanded us." This raises the question: "What, then, are the things He has commanded us?"

The answer to this question is not quite so simple, however, as identifying a list of "dos" and "don’ts" in the Bible. Paul, writing with the apostolic authority delegated to him by Jesus, tells us we are no longer "under law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14), and that He, at Calvary, abolished "the law with its commandments and regulations" (Ephesians 2:15), and "canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us" (Colossians 2:14).

That is not to say that the law has become entirely irrelevant for us as Christians, but rather that, in the last day, when we stand before the throne of God, if we are in Christ, we will not be judged according to our observance of all the different rules and regulations given to us by God in his Word. Instead, we will be judged in conformance with the righteousness gained for us by Christ when He paid the just penalty for our sins on the cross of Calvary.

However, there are, no doubt, certain guidelines, both in the New Testament, and the Old, that help us better understand God’s will for us, and line up our lives in accordance with that will. While we, as participants in the new covenant, are no longer judged by our degree of adherence to a set of rules, we do, out of love for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, desire to conform our behavior, as closely as possible, to that pattern laid out for us in Scripture. In addition, we strive to be sensitive toward the voice of the Holy Spirit within us, and submit to and obey that voice.

In a sense, there is a certain degree of subjectivity in our discernment of this pattern of behavior. God’s Word, in and of itself, is, in the words of Psalm 12:6, "flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times." It is, as the Baptist Faith & Message describes it, "totally true and trustworthy" and has "truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." At the same time, however, our ability, as fallen and fallible human beings, to perfectly understand God’s Word, and interpret correctly everything that He has revealed to us therein, is many times fraught with weakness and imperfection.

This is not to infer that the Bible is so complex and convoluted that there is no use in trying to understand and obey it. In the great part of what it relays to us, the message comes through loud and clear. As heirs of the foundational truths of the Protestant Reformation, we do well to insist on the general principle of the perspicuity of Scripture.

In spite of this, however, honesty and objectivity force us to recognize that, down through the course of history, equally sincere and dedicated disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ have come to Holy Scripture with a heartfelt desire to understand and obey its injunctions, and yet reached slightly different conclusions regarding the proper interpretation of certain details contained therein. Humility should lead us, while never giving up on our attempt to understand and obey better the Word of God in our own lives, to be somewhat tenuous in our claims to interpret correctly those points of doctrine on which other sincere students of the Bible have come to different conclusions.

This does not mean we, in the spirit of postmodernity, should adopt an approach of "anything goes." Malcolm, in your last letter, you make reference to a supposed division between matters of "faith" and matters of "order". Although, for the sake of analysis, this may be a useful way to distinguish between specific areas of our lives in which we are to obey, I do not personally see these as categories delineated in the Bible itself. As I understand the will of God, as revealed in the Bible, the question is not so much whether a particular command is a matter of "faith" or of "order", but whether or not it is a command we are expected to obey. And, indeed, we are expected to obey all of his commands.

At the same time, though we should indeed strive, to the best of our ability, to obey everything that Jesus has commanded us, and we are not free to pick and choose, at whim, which commands we prefer to obey and which ones not, it is also true that certain commands are more central to the gospel than others. Consider the following examples:

• Jesus, when asked what is the greatest commandment of the law, replied: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’" (Matthew 22:37-39).
• Paul also tells us: "The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’" (Romans 13:9).
• Jesus spoke to the Pharisees of the "more important matters of the law" (Matthew 23:23).
• Paul, when referring, in his instructions to the believers in Corinth, to that which he considered to be "of first importance," encapsulated the core truths of the gospel: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).
• Paul, understood in the context of the entire epistle to the Galatians, also seems to make justification by grace through faith a comparatively crucial matter, when he says: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8).

The direct implication of these verses is that there are other matters of belief and practice that, although not entirely without importance, are of not quite so high a priority as those things referred to here.

One particular point of practice that seems to have led to some contention among Southern Baptists, both in recent days, as well as in the past, is to what degree should we cooperate in our efforts to obey the Great Commission with other believers who differ with us on some of these finer points. It is my opinion that, in order to come to a correct conclusion regarding this question, we must first seek guidance from the very same Word of God.

Does the Bible address this particular issue? Inasmuch as I am able to discern, yes, indeed, it does.

• First off, it is important to recognize that there are certain passages that instruct us regarding separation from false teachers (Galatians 1:6-10, 2:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). There are, without a doubt, those who "twist" Scripture, and whose views, instead of being tolerated must be opposed and rebuked (1 Timothy 5:19-20; 2 Timothy 2:24-26, 3:1-9; Titus 1:9-11, 2:15; 2 Peter 3:16).
• Next, there are other passages that teach us about the importance of unity within the Body of Christ (John 17:20-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3, & 12; Ephesians 2:11-22, 4:1-16).
• Finally, and more directly relevant for the issue at hand, there are certain passages that teach us specifically about how to deal with differences of opinion on matters of interpretation with other members of the Body of Christ:

In Luke 9:49-50, the disciples of Jesus, upon seeing someone casting out demons who did not belong to their group, asked their Master whether or not they should rebuke him. Jesus' reply to them, in that context, seems to be instructive in regard to the issue we are discussing here: "for whoever is not against you is for you."

The classic passage on differences of opinion between true believers, however, is Romans 14. Due to the length limitations of the format in which we are working, I must leave a more detailed discussion of this passage for a future letter. For the time being, however, the following summary must suffice:

It is one thing to be as scrupulous as possible in our own personal obedience to what we understand to be the commands of Christ. It is something different, however, to take the same standard we apply to ourselves and to impose that as a litmus test or shibboleth of cooperation upon other believers who may come to different conclusions regarding how they should best obey the commands of Christ.

We must not forget, at the same time, that Christ does indeed enjoin us, by way of the teaching of Paul, to not be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Neither should we forget that there are false teachers and prophets who masquerade as believers (1 John 4:1). Therefore, the fact that someone claims to be a Christian is not, in and of itself, sufficient, when deciding to partner together with them in our efforts to be obedient to the Great Commission.

However, if some people, by their professed doctrine and observed practice, give us good evidence to believe they are indeed authentic blood-bought disciples of Jesus Christ, I find nothing in Scripture that adjoins us to refrain from fellowshipping with them and cooperating with them in the furtherance of the Gospel. We are to call into account those who fall into sin, and practice appropriate church discipline should they refuse to repent. But nowhere are we taught that we are to shun those who, in their sincere attempts to follow the commands of Christ, may find themselves in disagreement with us over points of doctrine and practice that do not compromise the essence of the gospel message itself.

Blessings,

David

Introduction

Letter #1, Two Requirements for a Universal Fulfillment of the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #2, A Steward must be Found Faithful, by David Rogers

Letter #3, Centripetal and Centrifugal, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #4, To Whom is the Great Commission Given?, by David Rogers

Letter #5, The Great Commission is Given to the Gathered Church, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #6, The End-Vision of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #7, Both the End and the Means are Established by the Lord, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #8, A Matter of Emphasis?, by David Rogers

Letter #9, Complete Obedience versus Hesitant Discipleship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #10, The Universal Scope of the Great Commission, by David Rogers

Letter #11, Freedom, Power and Authority in the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #12, Enduring Submission to the Great Commission, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #13, Obeying the Commands of Jesus, by David Rogers

Letter #14, John Gill on Romans 14 and 15:1-7, by David Rogers

Letter #15, The Illustration of the Hypothetical "Common Loaf Denomination", by David Rogers

Letter #16, A Condensed Response to Your Last Three Letters, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #17, Further Discussion on Cooperation and Obedience, by David Rogers

Letter #18 (Part I), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part II), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #18 (Part III), Faith and Faithfulness: Truth, Love, and the Limits of Fellowship, by Malcolm Yarnell

Letter #19, A Deep Division?, by David Rogers