A series of short articles called “The Plague of Patternism,” written by Edward Fudge, came recently into the hands of this writer. Reading it brought a fuller explanation of the antipathy of Fudge toward a Biblical pattern, as he referred to it in the language of the Scriptures as a plague. At least he consistently spoke of it, because he also seemed to concur with the sentiment of others whom he quoted, as they called their escape from patternism a delivery from Egyptian Bondage. He also got in another “jab” at patternism in his reference to it as a peculiarity, something of an anomaly in religious circles.
Approximately fifteen years ago this writer received a request from an editor of a journal published by brethren that he submit an article dealing with “pattern theology.” After considering this request, I decided not to write the article. It wasn’t because I did not believe in a pattern that I did not write the article, nor was it some personal objection to the journal or the editor that kept me from doing so. I simply did not fully comprehend at that time all that was involved in the term I was to define and describe; perhaps I had not then read widely enough to understand what brethren were beginning to write against the practice of adhering to a pattern. Soon I was to see precisely what some were saying and writing about this entire matter! Now it is quite the rule for such progressives as these three anti-patternists to think “outside the box”; but it has always been so among those unwilling to abide in the teaching of Christ, who have progressed beyond the teaching (2 John 9). For this reason Paul warned young Timothy concerning those unwilling to endure sound teaching, thus turning aside from truth to fables (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Anti-patternists did not originate in the late Twentieth Century. Mark it down, brethren: When anyone turns away from truth, what he turns to is always a fable!
Plague-Germ-Prison
Though he is not the first to write about this matter, Fudge certainly is correct in his assessment of patternism as a “peculiarity,” because such a view of the Scriptures is not usually found among religious people; truly it is a departure from the religious norm. In this attitude toward the need to adhere to the apostolic pattern, he had plenty of company, including others who once, like Fudge, gave at least lip service to the need for a pattern. Dallas Burdette referred to “pattern theology” as the germ which causes division among God’s people, particularly in conjunction with the emphasis on a set way of worshiping on the first day of the week (Oddities in Pattern Theology). Rubel Shelly, another erstwhile patternist, berated the idea of using Acts of the Apostles as a pattern as making it into a prison.
There you have it, a veritable stream of unbelief flowing from the uninspired pens of men who once had enough faith in the veracity and authority of the Scriptures that they accepted God’s rule over human life through those Scriptures. Is it not still true that humans cannot direct their own steps (Jer. 10:23)? Is it not still accurate to state that human wisdom is foolishness with God, and man’s thoughts and ways as much lower than God’s as the earth is lower than the heavens (1 Cor. 1:18-31; Isa. 55:8-9)? Is it not always true that men must not think beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6)? Is faith in God, faith in Christ, and trust in the writings of the Bible not still essential for one seeking to please God (Heb. 11:6)? Does not faith in God still require that we follow the leading of God through what He has said (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11)? Will it not remain true even in the judgment of the last day that all, even those who have rejected them, will be judged by the words spoken by Jesus (John 12:48)? Does that sound like patternism or anti-patternism?
The Pleasure of Following the Divine Way
How in the world then can anyone submit to divine wisdom or think “within the box” of divine revelation without holding to the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13)? Not all teaching is sound (healthful, nutritious, hygienic), but all sound teaching must be our authoritative guide. Paul’s writings to Timothy and Titus make this last statement very clear and easy to prove.
This matter is the first and last discussed in Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy (1:3; 6:20). Notice the frequent references to “sound doctrine” in these letters to preachers:
1. 1 Tim. 1:10 – Sound doctrine is assumed in this passage as the divine standard of lawful conduct.
2. 1 Tim. 6:3 – Sound doctrine here is the doctrine “according to godliness,” that which manifests devotion to believing and obeying God; to teach otherwise reflects selfish pride and encourages a “Pandora’s box” of evils in teaching, practice, and life.
3. 2 Tim. 1:13 – The doctrine that was apostolic in source and Timothy was required to adhere to, is here styled sound doctrine.
4. 2 Tim. 4:3 – Sound doctrine is often viewed as intolerable by many, resulting in their turn to fables. (Anything to which one resorts when he leaves truth is fiction, pure and simple, nothing more, and nothing less!)
5. Tit. 1:9 – Sound doctrine is the message taught to elders for their employment to exhort and to convict those contradicting apostolic teaching.
6. Tit. 2:1 – In contrast to the vain talkers of chapter one, Titus was required to teach what befitted sound doctrine. What one sincerely believes does not qualify, even in an age when “anything goes.”
7. Tit. 2:8 – Besides teaching others to behave themselves according to sound doctrine (2:1-7), Titus must also behave himself in an exemplary way, so the opponent might be unable to prove any charge against him.
The Spirit also called attention to some trustworthy statements in these letters and mandated their acceptance in each context noted (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 3:8).
Apostolic prohibition of other teaching/requirement of its use in dealing with the gainsayer also establishes the necessity of sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; Tit. 1:9).
One attempting to eliminate the idea of a pattern from New Testament teaching must first cut out of the Bible Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus. They teach too much about a pattern, teaching it, speaking it, holding to it, and not departing from it, for the anti-pattern nonsense to stand. One who loves the Lord must love what the Lord has taught. One who loves what the Lord has taught will view God’s will (law) “as the apple of his eye,” as Proverbs 7:2 says. Love for the words of the Lord is not the problem identified by Fudge as a plague and an anomaly, but rather an affinity for something else. Men who have been fed on Ketcherside and nurtured by Garrett always turn out this way. On the other hand, those fed on Jesus Christ and nurtured by Peter and Paul turn out loving the law of God, delighting in His testimonies, and rejoicing in the instructions of the Bible. Which is with you, brother or sister?
The Role of Patterns in God’s Dealings with Men
The statements earlier quoted and the broader writings of these progressives and others leave the impression that God had a pattern only in the Mosaic Law, of which books like Exodus and Leviticus were a part. Not having any such book as these in the New Testament, Fudge claims that the New Testament has no pattern. In other words, God’s pattern would be limited to such literature as that found in Leviticus or Exodus. Let’s examine that contention.
When God gave Noah the plan for constructing the ark in Genesis 6-9, did he state that plan in terms like the ones found in Exodus or Leviticus? No, but He did reveal a plan, which Noah was required to observe. He also commended Noah for his adherence to the pattern divinely given (Gen. 6:22; 7:5; Heb. 11:7). What about the offering of sacrifice by Abel, whose offering was acceptable while that of Cain was unacceptable (Gen. 4:1-8; Heb. 11:4)? The Genesis record contains no such legislation as that found in Exodus or Leviticus, though Abel’s faith makes it imperative to conclude that God gave sufficient instruction about Abel’s task (Rom. 10:17).
Moving to the New Testament, the section where such a pattern is disclaimed by progressives, let us stop first at the Great Commission. Does it contain a pattern for the apostles in their work of preaching the gospel to the world? What about a pattern for those hearing the preaching, in their response? Did the statement of Jesus, as found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Luke 24, provide instruction for the hearers to follow; or did the Lord have to put it in the same form as He did in the Old Testament Law before the people were required to obey it? Is instruction from God the same as a divine pattern? Remember that even Old Testament patterns did not always come from writings like Exodus and Leviticus. Let me here state something that all must remember: It is a serious breach of the divine-human relationship for any human being to insist that God must follow human terms or conditions in any matter! God is free to approach such matters according to His own will and way, is He not? When God directs humans to obey Him in any matter, by means of a simple command, an example of apostolic teaching or practice, or even a necessary conclusion (one demanded by the other facts present), it becomes a pattern for us to follow, though it might not be in the form of legislation like that of the Old Testament. (This current article is not an analysis of this CENI-S––Command, Example, Necessary Inference––tool of interpreting the Scriptures nor of the prohibitive nature of divine silence, though I am willing to defend both. The sole design of this article is to deal with the fact of a divine pattern reflected in the New Testament Scriptures.)
In the Acts of the Apostles, as the Lord’s twelve men were executing the Great Commission, did they present a binding pattern concerning salvation through Jesus Christ? I do not mean did they state such in some legal form, as in Exodus and Leviticus. By now, I believe that Fudge and his associates would have to back off their earlier insistence that a New Testament pattern be like the two OT books. As the apostles taught people in different locations at varying times, did they provide essential conditions of obedience: (a) in their statement that salvation is available only in Christ, (b) in their direction that people believe in Jesus Christ, (c) in their instruction that they also repent, (d) in the Acts examples of people believing in Christ, repenting of their sins, confessing their faith in the Lord Jesus, and being baptized into Christ––apart from legal-form instruction being given in that passage, (e) in the constant occurrence of gospel preaching in all cases of conversion to Christ, is teaching shown to be necessary? (f) in the constant element of baptism in all such examples of conversion, is baptism a necessary practice for one to be saved? These questions concerning matters taught in Acts become highly relevant as we attempt to discern a pattern, though it is not stated in the format some would expect, based on their writings. The larger question remains: Has God mandated that humans obey Him in certain matters, when he provided instruction in the form of statements, conditional promises, commands, hortatory statements, approved examples, and necessary inferences/conclusions?
A Challenge to Any Objector
It would be interesting to hear from some who differ on these matters. In fact, I challenge some to respond to these simple questions:
1. Is a conditional promise one way that God sometimes used to state conditions of human obedience? If so, did He here bind obedience by means of a pattern?
2. Have you ever learned anything from the Scriptures apart from direct statement (sometimes in the form of command, promise, exhortation, etc.), approved example, or necessary inference? If you have, clearly state what you learned and how you learned it.
3. Have you ever learned anything in any field of learning (geography, geology, spelling, literature, basket-weaving, diesel mechanics, basketball, medicine, landscaping, gardening, or law) that you did not learn by means of statement/command, example, or necessary inference? Please specify what it was and how you learned it differently. Please specify what it was and how you learned it differently.
Obedience Demands a Pattern
This writer contends that the nature of divine revelation, being a making known or an uncovering of God’s mind (thinking), requires a response of faith in every man. Without this response of trust in God, what good could any man realize from the revelation? To continue the course of faith, given its nature, would it not dictate a course of obedience in man’s life? The matter comes down to the question of obedience to God. Is each human required to obey God (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46; Rom. 6:17; Heb. 5:9)? How could one obey, unless God revealed a pattern for that obedience? How could anyone know what constitutes obedience apart from some means of discerning God’s will? Why would some insist on commands being the only way for God to direct people to do His will, when Jesus Christ clearly utilized other means to accomplish the same end (approved example of God’s interaction with Abraham in Exodus 3; the expectation that His hearers draw the proper necessary conclusion that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being alive in spirit, could look for a resurrected body, without which the spirit would have no use, in Matt. 22:31-33)? Jesus’ Sadducee audience understood His import and drew the proper conclusion, as seen in their astonishment at his doctrine in verse 33. Who now would deny that necessary inference is a means employed by the Lord to teach people His will? Who would deny that example is a proper way to teach what God wants people to know or to do?
Pattern Demands Discernment/Understanding
Friend, if God uses such means to teach people, then it becomes the responsibility of people to learn how to use the divine means to respond to God’s teaching! Instead of criticizing such means used by God and men in teaching others, would it not befit the humble position which humans occupy to accept such as His way and learn better how to obey Him? The problem with too many of us is that we think we know better than God. Our arrogance is appalling. It shows readily in the epithets like “plague,” “germ,” and “prison” hurled at the idea of patterns. Humans must learn from the Lord, and it is not the role of learners to question God’s means or ways! In matters important to life, such as sewing, house construction, electrical engineering, and machine-shop work, even human patterns occupy a critically important place. Human patterns are subject to change by humans, but divine patterns must never be changed by humans. Why did God place curbs and restrictions around His Word (add not, subtract not, substitute not, think not beyond what is written), if He did not intend it to provide abiding patterns for people to observe?
Patterns Not Observed
In the practical world of religious teaching and practice, it follows that various groups resort to different governmental/organizational schemes (papal, episcopal, district or synodical, congregational, one-man pastor, congregational pastors/elders), because they all do not follow the divine pattern of local-church independence. The means of becoming members of various religious groups (faith alone, subscribing to some human creed, allegiance to a church covenant, faith in Christ, and obedience to Him alone) vary for the same reason. Denominational division is the result of a failure to consider the divine pattern significant enough to follow it, not from the insistence that all honor the Lord by obeying His Word. God has always made such a demand of people. Is He responsible for division? Did the Lord encourage division when He revealed His law-pattern to Israel? There were always some who disobeyed, even as today. Was it God who created and encouraged this division between the obedient and the disobedient then? According to some, God did wrong! This must be the correct conclusion to draw, because objectors insist that it is the use of patterns in the New Testament that has led to division. Why would patterns be divisive in one instance but not in the other instance? A clear answer to this challenging question might help to resolve the difference between those who decry patterns as plague, germ, or prison and those who seek to observe them as a pleasure.
May God bless and use this article, written plainly but out of a spirit of love for God and concern for men. May we humbly admit our need for divine direction. May we adjust our thinking to conform to God’s thinking. May we all concede that we can never improve on God’s way.
bobbylgraham@pclnet.net