P. J. Casebolt
God made man a creature of choice, with the ability or power to choose, and for good or bad, to accept the consequences of his choice. In his dealings with man, there are times when God uses the either/or principle, and gives man only one choice that is right and good. At other times, man may be given more than one choice, either or all of which may be acceptable. But man often invokes this either/or principle when there is no need for it, and to his own destruction.
The doctrine of justification by faith only is a good example of this either/or principle. God has decreed that man is justified by faith and works, but man has decided that he must choose between faith and works. Martin Luther made this mistake, and ended up rejecting the Book of James as "spurious" because it contradicted his conclusion that works had nothing to do with salvation.
The Methodist Discipline states that "we are justified by faith only" (Art. IX). The Baptist Manual says that "the salvation of sinners is wholly by grace" (Art. IV), yet says that justification is "solely through faith in Christ" (Art. V). God saves man by grace, faith, repentance, confession, baptism, works - a combination of God's grace and man's obedience, but man decides that salvation must be by faith only or grace only, contradicts himself, confuses people, frustrates the grace of God, and deprives himself of the salvation which God offers.
God invoked the either/or principle with the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). Joshua exhorted the people to make this choice (Josh. 24:15), and Elijah said, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him" (1 Ki. 18:21). Jesus says, "No man can serve two masters ... ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Mt. 6:24). The Lord told the Laodiceans, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:15, 16).
The hypocritical scribes and Pharisees were practicing the either/or principle when they paid tithes, but "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Mt. 23:23). There is no limit to the number of things we can do under the heading of "the fruit of the Spirit." We will have to use the either/or principle when it comes to the works of the flesh or the fruit of the Spirit, but we can practice "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:16-23).
When God has limited us, we need to abide within the bounds of that limitation. The Israelites were taught to circumcise their male children "on the eighth day" (Lev. 12:3), not the seventh or ninth day. Naaman was commanded to dip "seven times" in the Jordan River (2 Ki. 5:10), not six or eight times. Yet, when Elisha told Joash to "smite upon the ground" with the arrows, the king "smote thrice, and stayed. And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice" (2 Ki. 13:18, 19).
Some brethren misapply the either/or principle. They tell us that "it is better to do something wrong than to do nothing," implying that we must make one of only two choices: do nothing, or do something wrong. They ignore a third choice: do something, but do it right. And by following the scriptures, we will be "throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Paul condemned the idea of "let us do evil that good may come" (Rom. 3:8). We need to refrain from that practice, and reprove those who teach or practice such.
Some have insisted that we must believe that Jesus was either human or divine while on earth, but that we cannot believe both, or else our secular education in mathematics and spiritual knowledge becomes suspect. Now, some are conceding that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and to this the scriptures agree: he was of the seed of David according to the flesh, but at the same time he was "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Mt. 1:23).
In order to satisfy the doctrines of men, the premillennialist and others have invoked the either/or principle with respect to Christ and the church, and the church and the kingdom. Some say that salvation is in Christ, but not in the church, yet the Bible says that "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). Christ purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28), "he is the savior of the body" (Eph. 5:23), God's wisdom is made known through Christ and the church (Eph. 3:10, 11), and God is glorified through Christ and the church (Eph. 3:21).
Neither do we have to choose between the church and the kingdom as separate entities established at different times with separate identities, for the same terms are used interchangeably in the scriptures (Mt. 16:18, 19; Col. 1:13, 18; Heb. 12:23, 28). The term kingdom is simply one of several metaphors (house of God, flock/fold, body, etc.), by which God's called-out people (the church) are designated.
Bible language is not confusing when the principle of either/or is discussed. The matter only becomes characterized by confusion and strife when man is not content to abide by the ways and thoughts of God (Isa. 55:8, 9), and when man is guilty of "intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind..." (Col. 2:18). If God invokes the either/or principle, let us abide by it; if he does not, let us not bind it upon ourselves or on others.