Watchman Magazine

Proposition 2: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.

With this affirmative, my part of the debate comes to a close and judgment is passed to the readers. Please consider all the material carefully in the light of the scriptures and render a verdict on the evidence. The full debate, without additional material, is to be printed in book form as per our agreement. No new material should be introduced in the final negative.

My Third Affirmative will establish from Generic Authority that the scriptures permit elders to make decisions in the realm of unstated options (judgments), arising from specific commands.

• Continue reading

Proposition 2: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.

The Problem Grows: When elders privately decide all matters of collective and individual judgment for others (2A, ¶ 19), the plane has landed in Boston. We’re told elders may decide whether a member needs circumcision (1st Debate, 2N, ¶ 7). If the saint disagrees, they cite Heb 13:17 and decide for him (2A, ¶ 19). Folks, where does it stop? Compared to involuntary genital surgery, deciding what house you may buy is trivial. But there is no scripture to stop such things once you accept the Affirmative position.

• Continue reading

Proposition 2: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.

My first affirmative showed that the definitions of scriptural terms (bishops, elders, etc.) permitted elders to "exercise the oversight" (1 Pet. 5:3), thereby empowering them to make private decisions on behalf of the congregation. Now we will prove in a scripture study that elders actually did make decisions "before and without" calling together the whole congregation.

Arguments: 1) Acts 4:34-37. From the beginning, decisions were made privately (not secretly, as Vance charges): this is not "new" doctrine. Disciples brought gifts to the apostles "and they distributed to each as anyone had need." This "apostolic example" showed male leadership making private decisions about who the needy were, how much each received and how long they were to receive it, without congregational meetings. Vance says they sinned!

• Continue reading

Proposition 2: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.

Introduction. As before, my articles represent my own views and not those of any church, eldership, or other saints. Quotes from Tom’s material are italicized, as are Greek words.

The Problem. Many are stuck between the false choice that elders either privately decide all matters of judgment, or else they have no authority or function at all. Since the latter is wrong, many are driven to the former. But there is a third way — the Bible way. In the Bible, elders perform authoritative spiritual leadership by calling and presiding over assemblies, teaching the flock, rebuking sinners, convicting false teachers, correcting the erring, counseling, visiting and lifting up the weak, leading in prayer, admonishing (warning), and showing less mature saints how to get to heaven. Both of the extremes described above have bad consequences. The first ("elders privately decide everything") led to many of the disastrous consequences of the Boston Movement. The latter ("elders are just older saints with no leadership authority") is associated with a breakdown of the meaning and purpose of the local church. The Affirmative position accepts the first extreme in its zeal to avoid the second. The Negative denies both extremes in favor of the Bible pattern.

• Continue reading

Proposition 2: The Scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation.

Proposition: "Resolved: The scriptures teach that the elders of a local church are authorized to assemble privately to make decisions in matters of judgment for the local church before and without calling together the whole congregation."

Definitions: "The scriptures," the 66 books of the Bible. "Teach," instruct by commands, approved examples or divine implications. "Elders," men who are scripturally authorized and appointed (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1) over each local church (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2). "Local church," the congregation in a given locality in its corporate entity (Phil. 1:1). "Authorized," empowered, permitted. "To assemble," meet in their eldership capacity (Acts 20:17). "Privately," (Gk: idios) "pertaining to one’s own; to do one’s own business (1 Thes. 4:11), apart (Mt. 24:3)" (Thayer, p. 296-7). "To make decisions," come to a conclusion. "In matters of judgment," distinct from matters of faith. "For the local church," represent, act on behalf of, in the interest of the local congregation. "Before," in advance of. "And without," lacking, in the absence of. "Calling together," summoning, requesting. "The whole congregation," the ekklesia.

• Continue reading

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

The responsibility of the negative in a debate is to follow the affirmative and answer his arguments. I have done this and Vance’s proposition has failed. My three affirmatives will follow in a privately printed book which can be obtained from GOT.

Fellowship: Vance labels as sinful the practice of elders making decisions. Will he fellowship what he considers sinful? His views will divide brethren in local churches.

Leadership & Authority: Collectivities (congregations, families, etc.) require decision-making to reach a common mind, whether by elders or church votes. Leadership and authority are inherent in decisions. Evangelists and Bible class teachers have no authority but elders do (1 Pet. 5:3). This oversight includes private decision-making (Acts 6, 11, 15, etc.). I refuse to debate Luther Blackmon or any other than Vance. But if Christ has "all authority" (Matt. 28:18) without delegating any, explain why resisting authorities (magistrates, fathers, husbands, elders) is to resist God (Rom. 13:1-5; Eph. 6:4; 5:22; Acts 14:23).

• Continue reading

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

Fellowship. Had I wanted to debate fellowship, I would have put it in the proposition.

Leadership & Authority. The argument that leadership requires private decision-making for others is wrong. Many leaders (e.g. evangelists, Bible class teachers) don’t privately decide collective activity. Negative assumes leaders privately decide everything, and since elders are leaders, they must be an exception to the pattern of including the whole church. He must prove this assumption. He has already denied it by granting that spiritual leadership doesn’t necessarily infer private decision-making in collective judgment (Titus 2:15).

• Continue reading

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

My worst fears are being realized in that, as the debate advances, Vance is progressing deeper into error, affirming a position with dreadful consequences of feminine equality and denial of eldership oversight which some will accept. The negative requires that I answer his material yet not allow him to side-track me into debating other men or affirming a non-existent "GOT" position. I fear he confuses criticism of a public position with persecution (Matt. 5:11).

• Continue reading

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

Observations: 1. Tom agrees Acts 6 and 15 both show a church deciding a matter of judgment (Q. 1). But Connie Adams, Guardian of Truth 3/3/94 p. 4, said "In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand." 2. Tom agrees women were present in some business meetings in the NT (Q. 1). But Mike Willis, GT 3/18/93 p. 185, said "the desire of women to be present at these meetings" is "a usurpation of the authority God gave to men." Bobby Holmes, GT 12/2/93 p. 723, said "The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in I Timothy 2:12…" (ital. in orig.). I commend his courage in breaking with GT on these issues. Perhaps he will receive the blessings of Matt 5:11, as I have.

• Continue reading

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural "pattern" a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

• Continue reading

On Women in Business Meetings

This debate initially appeared in Guardian of Truth magazine in 1994.  It is reprinted here with the permission of the authors.

Proposition 1:  The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).

Proposition: “The scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).” I ask each reader to join me in affirming this proposition.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my articles are my own and are not intended to represent in any way the views of the elders or members of my congregation.

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: This rejoinder of Fox’s article is the final one of the exchange (as per the editorial policy of Watchman Magazine).  The reader is encouraged to read the initial Editorial, written by Stan Cox, and Fox’s review.

Introduction

This review of brother Fox’s article, “Versions, Reverence, Modernism, Phariseeism & Authority” is intended to offer a Biblical analysis of his material.  I have met brother Fox and know him to be a man of dedicated faith.  I have no personal grudge or animosity toward him, and ask you to give his article as well as this one a fair hearing.  I would ask you to please read his article before proceeding with this one so that you are familiar with his material and lines of reasoning.  Then, with an open Bible and a ready mind, give attention to the things that are spoken to see whether they are of God (Acts 17:11).

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: This review of the editor’s October editorial entitled Binding Archaisms is printed here with the permission of the author.  A rejoinder penned by Joe R. Price can also be found in this issue of Watchman Magazine.

Not A Writer

I must apologize for things such as wordiness, poor sentence structure, and etc. as I do not consider myself a writer.  Writing is not my “cup of tea” – however, after some have took upon themselves to “coach” with the writings of those who must be uninformed or unlearned; I feel compelled to put some thoughts in writing concerning, versions, (or in some cases perversions) of the Bible; reverence, modernism, phariseeism and authority.  Liberal, modernistic, and sectarian preachers often write showing their ignorance of things that concern spiritual concepts.  Sometimes I am amazed at what some, who call themselves brethren, write and print that shows immediately either their lack of study, misunderstanding or failure to consider all the facts.  Their arguments are “shallow” to say the least and I , not being a writer, had much rather contend with these errors and mis-statements orally.  However, please carefully consider the following words and ideas.

• Continue reading

The Debate

In this issue of Watchman there appears a debate between Tom M. Roberts and Vance E. Trefethen which was originally published  in Guardian of Truth magazine in November 1994.  The debate is reprinted with the permission of both authors, and we are gratified to have had a part in making it available in electronic format.

In a recent email to me, brother Roberts indicated that the debate came about in response to material brother Trefethen had published in a booklet entitled “Confusion or Consensus.” In that booklet he affirmed “There is no pattern for men-only business meetings and a clear pattern for congregational (men and women) decision-making assemblies” (p. 12).

• Continue reading

What is wrong with the church of Christ?

If you say, “Nothing, it is the Lord’s church, and I am satisfied with what the Bible reveals about it,” you might be in a minority position. Many are ready to change the work, worship and structure of the church of Christ, including its identity as the “church of Christ.” Are you aware of what is happening?

We have been through decades in which many have sought to change the Lord’s church into something more tolerant and imitative of denominational theology. The exclusiveness of truth and those characteristics that identify God’s people from those of the denominational world are being eroded in many places. We see the evidence of it in the Tampa Bay area and around the nation. Consider some of the issues that the Lord’s people are facing:

• Continue reading

A few weeks ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled "that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." On a 4-3 decision, four judges have taken it upon themselves to require the recognition of homosexual marriage as equally valid and deserving the same benefits as a marriage between a man and a woman. Their opinion is available to the public as a 75-page document. It is a textbook study of sophistry and the effects of institutionalized amorality. When one reads the whole ruling, it becomes clear how the pieces of our moral decline all fit together. Thanks to four judges overruling the origin of marriage, its legal definition for hundreds of years in English common law and common sense, we now face the very real possibility that "same sex marriages" may soon have the force of law to validate their acceptability. With this decision, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has arrived at the end many have warned was coming — an attempt to form a fully amoral basis for law and ethics.

• Continue reading

Since 1995, I have understood Bob Owen put matters of sin in Romans 14.  That year I received tapes of the sermons he preached on fellowship and Romans 14 at Concord, NC.  It seemed obvious he justified ongoing fellowship with those in sin, including men like Homer Hailey.  I understood this because, in the question and answer period, he said, "And there are some people who have been very critical of brother Hailey and I agree with those people who are critical of him on the Bible teaching with regard to divorce and remarriage.  But I differ with them on their interpretation and application of the fellowship issue" ("We Differ, Can We Fellowship?" Feb. 19, 1995.  Concord, NC).  The complete sermon transcript is available at:

• http://soundteaching.org/fellowship/owen3.htm.

On September 9, I was invited to Bryan, TX, to talk to brother Owen.  A member of the Twin Cities Church of Christ invited Lanny Parish (preacher at Pioneer Park,  Nacogdoches, TX), Wayne Moody (preacher at Twin Cities, Bryan, TX), and myself to talk to brother Owen.  Others were present as well.  After about two hours of discussion, I still understand brother Owen believes Romans 14 includes matters of sin.  However, I believe I have a better understanding of why he does.

• Continue reading

(Article written by Bobby L. Graham, Guardian of Truth, May 4, 1989)

About thirty years ago at the Holt-Wallace Debate in Florence, Alabama, brother G.A. Dunn remarked to this writer’s father that most problems that had come about among the Lord’s people related to money.  Whether his judgment was precisely correct or not, experience indicates his remark apropos. The variety of problems involving money in local churches and among different local churches has included disdain for the very idea of a local-church treasury, reluctance to use the money collected, and looseness in the use of church funds.

A Local Church Treasury

The first congregation in Jerusalem had a treasury under the control of the apostles. Acts 4:32-5:10 demonstrates that generous saints funded the physical assistance of their brethren’s daily needs. The funds likely never made it to the bank, but a fund was initiated and maintained for an indefinite period of time for the expeditious meeting of needs.

• Continue reading

We have all witnessed a sad rise in the instances of teenage and unwed motherhood in our lives. The decline in respect for the sanctity of marriage coupled with a widespread parental refusal to instill sexual self-discipline in children has turned America into a vast daycare center, in which children are literally having children of their own. Moreover, the demise of respect for the gift of sex has been met with an equal loss of respect for the gift of life. The unborn who are unwanted because they were conceived at a time deemed inconvenient to his parents can be destroyed in the womb almost as easily as a wart can be removed.

The Bible condemns the hands that shed innocent blood — those who commit murder — who offered the children to idols, and in our age, those who abort the most innocent of all, the unborn (Prov. 6:12-19). Since the slaughter of the unborn was legalized in 1973, almost 40 million innocent babies have had their lives snuffed out.

• Continue reading