Articles
Authority, Humility, and Discernment
“You cannot find it anywhere in the Bible. Therefore it must be classified as an inno-vation—something new or different. Our plea is to DO AS JESUS DID.
Where no law is, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). When the Lord has told us to do something, but not given a law about how to do it, there is no transgression re-gardless of the methods used. When God has given a law, we are not free to use our own judgment. We must do exactly the thing he said in the way He said.”
The Bible teaches by command, example and necessary inference. If none of these apply to the Lord’s Supper, we are free to do WHAT we wish…however, He [has] showed us what to do.”
If you’re still reading this, thank you for persevering while not having the slightest idea what this is talking about. All you likely know by now is that something un-scriptural is about to get EXPOSED! And, based on the respect for Bible authority and the sound exhortations expressed above, we are all well-primed to offer a hearty ‘amen!”
It might surprise you to know that the above statements were taken from the in-troduction of a pamphlet that was mailed to the NKY Church of Christ by brethren in Lubbock, TX just weeks ago (March, 2025). The title of the pamphlet: “Did Je-sus Use Individual Cups?” That’s right! Our brethren in Lubbock are insisting that we restore the original practice of using one cup, just as the “approved example” of Jesus teaches in the New Testament. After all, they ask, “where is the example of multiple cups? We only go by what is written, do we not?”
I share this, not because I intend to provide a thorough answer to the “one cup controversy.” [I trust my readers know that “the cup” is a reference to the contents of the cup and not the vessel which holds it, and to understand that it is the blood which represents the promise of the covenant, and not the vessel which holds it.] I shared it because I believe this “experience” offers us a very teachable moment. What experience? The experience of having come to a completely different conclusion despite the fact that we all agree, not just on the premise that authority in religion is needed, but also how it is established.
Teachable moment #1: The need for humility. I imagine the author of the pamphlet has little respect for those who call themselves believers, but who are still willing, after reading his arguments, to use multiple cups. We will be written off as unsound, loose on authority, and twisters of scriptures. You and I know that this is untrue, and that we care deeply about authority, only that, in this case, our broth-ers have made an “unnecessary inference,” and are attempting to bind it on the brotherhood. Humility, because this man has spoken with confident, emphatic certainty, and in his mind has based it on the scriptures...and yet, he is dead wrong.
Teachable moment #2: The need for humility. What? I’ve already said that? Well, go back and underline it! In the personal let-ter which accompanied the pamphlet, the author went so far as to say that multiple cups were a “serious violation of Scripture, and that those who use them...are surely [offering] vain worship (Mark 7:7). Imagine having the presumptuousness to pronounce judgment and condemnation upon such a wide swath of believers who do not share your particular understanding and conviction. James warned, “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another (James 4:11-13)?
Teachable moment #3: The Need for Discernment in Appli-cation of Principles. It is possible to ask all the right questions about an issue, and to say all the right things building up to one’s interpre-
tation, and still fail to apply our knowledge rightly. Keep in mind, our “one cup brother” feels quite emboldened by the fact that we can’t find a single verse showing the example of multiple cups. The root fallacy consists in trying to bind a specific detail of an example as if this was the only way a thing may be carried out—a common mistake.
The Pharisees, likewise ended up on the wrong side of many issues, even though their teachings were often rooted in the application (I should say, misapplication) of scripture. They failed to take into con-sideration all of the extenuating details. Consider Matthew 12—Where did the law say you could pluck grain? Show me one example! To what approved O.T. examples were the disciples of Christ able to point to justify their progressive behavior? Jesus does offer a defense, but it is not by pointing to an approved O.T. example, but by reasoning well from biblical principles, such as: “The Sabbath was made for man…” and, clearly there are exceptions as you yourselves know based on the work all of you are willing to do in pulling your animals from the ditch.
Teachable moment #4: Sometimes differences are inevita-ble. The cover of the pamphlet quotes: “I beg you, brethren, by Christ, that you all speak the same thing, with no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment.”
Although this is the goal, it isn’t always possible due to personal, un-bendable convictions. Sometimes difficult questions arise and breth-ren find themselves on different sides. The good news for our “one cup brethren,” if they can keep from condemning others for not sharing their quirky beliefs, then there is nothing sinful about their preference. They should have at it; I wish them good health!
There are many challenging questions which believers need to work out for themselves. Jim McGuiggan wrote: “To say the Spirit guided the church into ‘all truth...’ is to agree with plain Scripture, but to say...He delivered an exhaustive blueprint is false. To say God has given us all we need related to life and godliness is to repeat Scrip-ture, but to say He left no questions needing worked out is clearly un-true...This should come as no surprise—You can’t open your Bible without being confronted with unanswered ethical questions.” He then lists 17 different issues to illustrate his point. Space does not permit me to share them, but suffice to say, not only do we need to work them out, but we need to be willing to allow others to work them out for themselves. Not even the apostle Paul sought to “have dominion over the faith” of the brethren (2 Cor. 1:24).
