|
|
By Holmes, Bobby, on August 1st, 2004
"In all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility" (Titus 2:7).
"Who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain’" (Hebrews 8:5).
It is clear from the reading of these verses that God has a pattern He expects to be observed. What does the word pattern mean then? It is defined by Mr. Henry Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, in the following manner. "…an example… the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made…" (pg. 632). In our every day language that simply means that God has a way in which He wants things done and demands of us to follow the pattern He has given in His Word. The Lord says to follow the pattern! He has not only given patterns in both Old Testament and New Testament, but has also shown that His wrath comes upon those who do not follow it. It does not matter whether we may understand why the Lord has instructed something to be done! It is His pattern and without question must be followed or we suffer His wrath upon us. Please note the following regarding the thinking of man and that of God. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us study.
Continue reading » A Pattern
By Cox, Stan, on April 1st, 2004
In our last article on authority, we documented several "digressions" which resulted from a lack of understanding of how Bible authority is established. The three general apostasies we mentioned were: 1) The establishment of the apostate church (Catholicism); 2) The embracing of human creeds in the Protestant Reformation; and 3) The apostasy in the late 1800′s which led to the establishment of the Christian Church denomination.
In the more recent past God’s people have been troubled by digression. In the 1940′s and 1950′s issues arose in the church, which led to division among God’s people. The digression again came because men either lacked respect for or understanding of the authority of Christ. In this case the digression surrounded the work and organization of the local congregation, and the sufficiency of the church to do the work assigned it by God.
Continue reading » The Simple Gospel: Institutionalism – An Abuse of Authority
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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.
Root of the Problem: Eph 4 says elders bring people to “the unity of the faith.” But many see elders as a board of directors whose job is balancing a check-book, buying supplies, and managing property. Nothing to do with “faith” at all. If you had to work a full-time job and then run a business after-hours, you wouldn’t have time to teach, study, pray or visit much either. This is why you hear so many complaints about preachers doing the work of elders. What a sad waste of the talents of many good men, and what a loss to a congregation.
The work of elders is much more important. They can make the difference between saints falling away or getting to heaven. They are too busy teaching, studying, praying, visiting, rebuking, encouraging, and counseling to privately decide all matters of judgment. The spiritual leaders (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) in Eph 4:11 lead in “the faith.” Do they “make decisions” as they lead? In some limited ways. Evangelists decide how to present a lesson to convert the sinner. Teachers decide what topics to present in class. Do evangelists and teachers privately decide matters of judgment for the church? No, leadership in the faith isn’t private decision-making in collective judgment. Why can’t we see the same for elders?
Continue reading » Third Negative
By Roberts, Tom, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Third Affirmative
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Second Negative
By Roberts, Tom, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Second Affirmative
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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 » First Negative
By Roberts, Tom, on December 1st, 2003
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 » First Affirmative
By Roberts, Tom, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Third Negative
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Third Affirmative
By Roberts, Tom, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Second Negative
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Second Affirmative
By Trefethen, Vance, on December 1st, 2003
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 » First Affirmative
By Price, Joe, on December 1st, 2003
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 » A Review of: Versions, Reverence, Modernism, Phariseeism & Authority by Richard Fox
By Fox, Richard, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Versions, Reverence, Modernism, Phariseeism and Authority
By Cox, Stan, on December 1st, 2003
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 » Editorial: Issues in this Issue
By Cox, Stan, on December 1st, 2003
Consider the following scenario. A parent gives a child a ten dollar bill, and tells him to go into the store and buy a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread. The child returns to the car with the milk, the bread, some change, and a candy bar. The parent tells the child, “I didn’t say you could get a candy bar!”, and the child replies, “You didn’t say I couldn’t!”
The child’s statement is true, but he quickly learns that the parent’s silence on the matter did not constitute permission to go ahead and buy the candy bar. From this example, we understand the principle that silence is not permissive.
The same is true with the word of God. Though it is a common sentiment expressed by religious people today, the idea that “if God has not explicitly condemned a practice He allows it”, is without merit. In fact, not only does the logic in our example refute such a concept of authority, the scriptures explicitly deny the concept as well. This we will soon show.
Continue reading » The Simple Gospel: The Silence of Scripture
By Reed, Dennis, on October 1st, 2003
(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)
To speak of a departure from the Divine hermeneutics is a somewhat sophisticated way of saying that someone has deliberately chosen to no longer be bound by the authority of God’s Word. It is simply a choice to not abide in the teaching of Christ (2 John 9-11) (John 8:31-32).
For the more than fifty years that I have sought to preach the gospel, we have always clearly understood the principles of Divine hermeneutics and how God absolutely expects us to understand, teach, and be obedient to His inspired Word, just as it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit. We have always recognized that understanding these Divine principles of interpretation has never really been the problem! The true and real problem has been the unwillingness on the part of so very many, including our own brethren, to believe, accept, and make application of those principles! We therefore have those among us who simply do not want to accept what God has spoken and who desire to substitute their own will in the place of God’s Will. Without hesitation or reservation, I would therefore affirm that the problem can and will be defined and evidenced by what we want to hear, what we want to believe, and what we want to do! It is an effort in futility for anyone to “beat around the bush” or to “whistle past the graveyard” in seeking justification for such willful rejection of God’s righteousness. The time has arrived for us to encounter, in a head on battle, this blatant and willful disregard for God’s commandments. As we encounter this digression, we must be certain that we have clothed ourselves with “the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:10-18). It is a sad reality that we have far too many “soldiers” among us who are content to throw away the “sword of the Spirit” as they hide in the bushes or behind the trees, while denying that a battle is even taking place! They are absolutely useless when it comes time to “fight the good fight of the faith” (1 Timothy 6:12) (2 Timothy 4:7), and their often encountered attitude of arrogance, insolence, and disdain for those fighting the battle is an absolute betrayal of the Master’s cause. We would be most wise to consider the words of Philippians 3:17-19, “Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them that so walk even as ye have us for an ensample. For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is perdition, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”
Continue reading » Passivism
By Smith, Jeff, on October 1st, 2003
(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)
While the old Bible hermeneutics acknowledges that God communicated his will to man through explicit commands, approved examples and necessary implications, a new hermeneutics makes light of all three by establishing an imaginary distinction in scripture between gospel and doctrine.
Essentially, the gospel/doctrine distinction has historically held that the gospel consists of a very limited set of facts about Jesus which are preached to the lost and which they can believe to the saving of their souls. Doctrine, on the other hand, is taught those already saved by the gospel. It is the product of the epistles, which is then filtered down to modern men through cultural and theological biases, creating an individually held standard that must not be imposed upon those of a conflicting mindset. The gospel is never preached to the saved and doctrine is never taught the lost when this distinction is obeyed.
Continue reading » A Gospel/Doctrine Distinction
By Gibson, Marc, on October 1st, 2003
(A Departure from the Divine Hermeneutics)
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
It is no small task to define Modernism, even though the movement and philosophy has been around for some time. Various descriptions and definitions can be found in the abundance of sources on the subject. The problem is that modernistic thought has manifested itself in so many different contexts; therefore, it is hard to give one encompassing definition. Yet, we must try to identify the key facets of modernism so that we can identify it when it does manifest itself.
Continue reading » Modernism
|
|
Comments are closed 
