SAINTS ONLY?

Hugo McCord

A misled studious gospel preacher, writing in “brotherly love,” says: “No where do we find the church extending benevolence to the needy of the world.” However, a Spirit-inspired apostle (1 Corinthians 2:13; Galatians 1:1) wrote to “the churches of Galatia” to “work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward the household of the faith” (Galatians 1:2; 6:10). The phrase “all men” includes “the needy of the world” as well as those “of the household of the faith.”

Also, “the churches of Galatia” (probably Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, Acts 13:13-14:24; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2), and the churches of “Macedonia” (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, Acts 16:12-17:10; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4), and of “Achaia” (Corinth, Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:2; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2) sent money by Paul and some “messengers of the churches” (1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:23), not only “for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26), but also for “all men” (2 Corinthians 9:13).

Just as the phrase “all men” (pantas) in Galatians 6:10, refers both to saints and non-saints, so the same phrase in 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers both to saints and non-saints. But our beloved misled brother contends that 2 Corinthians 9:13 refers only to saints. He cites Thayer (p. 491) that the “all or any that are of the class indicated by the noun,” thinking that Thayer is saying the “all” refers back to “the saints” in verse 12.

But Thayer does not mention 2 Corinthians 9:13 at all, and it is a misuse of 2 Corinthians 9:13 and of Thayer’s statement to say that the noun “saints” in verse 12 is to be understood in verse 13. After the apostle had mentioned the “contribution to them” (the “saints”), the phrase “and to all” is an added thought that puts the non-saints in the picture.

Furthermore, Paul described both “the saints at Jerusalem” and “the needy of the world” in saying that he had brought church “offerings” to “my nation” (Acts 24:17). In his saying that the offerings were for “my nation” he was disowning the “saints only” heresy. No saints-only preacher would say what Paul said about his bringing church “offerings” to help “my nation.”

Our good brother sees a bad result of allowing non-saints to be helped by the church: “I have observed the churches that have followed your conclusion on giving and receiving, and most of them are now going the `Community church route,’ and have aligned themselves with the `social gospel movement.’” I too am concerned about the “Community church” defection, but the wrong of some of these churches is not in helping “the needy of the world,” but in compromising the gospel plan of salvation and giving way to the faith-only doctrine of the denominations. Wayne Jackson describes those churches: “The `social gospel’ (taking care of the outer man) has been maximized, while sound gospel teaching has been minimized--if not eliminated altogether. Rebounding against this unbalanced emphasis, our `saints only’ brothers have gone too far. To employ the old cliche, they have `thrown out the baby with the bath water.’”

Hugo was in a gospel meeting in Bayugan in the Philippines July 21-23, 1971. One of the things I preached was that “the royal law” (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” James 2:8) means that Christians will not only love and help fellow Christian neighbors, but they will do the same for non-Christian neighbors. I cited Paul’s teaching “the churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2) that “as we have therefore opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially to them who are of the household of the faith” (Galations 6:10). I also cited Paul’s complimenting the church at Corinth for their liberal contribution of money for “the poor among the saints at Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26), but also for “all men” (2 Corinthians 9:13).

I was surprised, at the Sunday morning Bible class in Bayugan, that a brother spoke up saying the church should only help needy Christians, not non-Christians. And I was shocked to realize that somebody had traveled from the United States all the way to the Philippine Islands to spread a false doctrine, reminding me of the misguided zeal of the Pharisees that they would “search the sea and land to make one convert” (Matthew 23:15).

I was relieved when the local preacher of the Bayugan congregation, Roman Cariaga, stood up and refuted the brother, using the passage from James 2:1-11 to show that if the church is willing only to help needy Christians it is “showing partiality” (James 2:1), and is guilty of “discriminating” (James 2:4) in refusing to help non-Christians.

Apparently Roman had met the brother before, and was ready. He showed that if a Christian lady’s non-Christian husband dies, according to the brother’s doctrine, the church building could not be used for his funeral. He also showed that if there was a bloody car accident on the street in front of the church building, and some water was needed for emergency treatment, it would be sinful to turn on the hydrant in the church building.

The “saints only” doctrine means that the church can teach Christians to love their neighbors as themselves, but that the church itself cannot practice what it teaches.

The “saints only” doctrine means that the church can teach Christians to be good Samaritans (Luke 10:30-37), but the church itself cannot practice what it teaches.

Unbelievable is the statement of a gospel preacher that “a church would go to hell if it took money from its treasury to feed hungry, destitute children” (A.C. Grider, GOSPEL ADVOCATE, September 15, 1965.

10-30-2000