Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

(The letter below was written to answer the questions of a young, Catholic man who wanted to know if baptism was immersion or sprinkling.) 

Thank you for your kind letter. I am so happy to hear from you! I have appreciated the way you have listened and studied. I pray that you will continue to “search the Scriptures” and abide by what you find therein. It is not my word versus the word of some other man. It is not that the word of one church is above that of another church. No, the question is, “What saith the Scriptures?” What does the Bible teach?

With that in mind, let me simply direct you to some Scriptures with respect to scriptural, New Testament baptism. 

1. When Jesus was baptized, he “went up straightway out of the water” (Matt. 3:16). Does that sound like he had water sprinkled on his face or dabbed on his forehead? If not, what does it sound like? In what action does one come “up . . . out of the water”?
2. When John the Baptist was baptizing folks, he baptized at a certain place, “because there was much water there” (John 3:23). Does that sound like a reason one might use if he were sprinkling a few drops of water on people? Would one need “much water” if he were immersing people?  
3.  Look at the language of Acts 8:36-39 — two men came “unto” the water (v. 36). In verse 38, two men “went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,” the man being baptized. Daniel, when one is sprinkled or has water dabbed on his face, do both the baptizer and the one being baptized go “down into the water”?  Further, in verse 39, after the man was baptized, both men came “up out of the water.” Again, is this what happens when one is sprinkled? Or, is this what happens when men are immersed? 
4. In Romans 6:4-6, the Bible says we are “buried with him by baptism.” Note the word, “buried.” What does that indicate — sprinkling or immersion? Too, the passage speaks of being “planted” and “raised up.” Does that sound like sprinkling or immersion — which? 
5.  Colossians 2:12 speaks of being “buried with him in baptism.” It also speaks of being “risen” or raised with him. Again, observe the terms, “buried,” and “risen.” Does that best describe what occurs when one is sprinkled or when one is immersed? 
6. Before Saul of Tarsus was baptized, he had been praying (Acts 9:11). When Ananias was sent to him, he said, “Arise, and be baptized” (Acts 22:16). Daniel, if Saul was simply to have water sprinkled or dabbed on his head and face, would he have need to “arise”? Could he have simply stayed in his prayer posture and received sprinkling?  However, if he were going to be immersed in water (“buried”), would he have to “arise” from his prayer position in order to be baptized? See the point? If we saw a man kneeling in prayer, we could sprinkle him without telling him to “arise,” could we not? However, if he were to be immersed, if he were going to have to come unto the water, go down into it, be baptized, and then come up out of it, he would have to get up or “arise” from his position of prayer, would he not? 

You will note, Daniel, that I have not told you what to think. Nor have I told you what I think. I have simply taken you to the word of God, to that word which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). I have let the Scriptures speak. You have seen what the truth is with respect to the action of baptism. 

When one knows the truth, he needs to obey it. He needs to do what God would have him do. I urge you to study, but when you see what is right, and when you know the truth, then you need to obey it. Once you believe and repent of your sins, once you are willing to confess Christ, then you need to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If I can help you in any way, if I can answer any question, do not hesitate to ask. 

Take care, Daniel. Let me hear from you again with respect to the material presented above. Sincerely, Larry  

(Addendum: Daniel was baptized immediately after receiving this reply!) 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521 LarryHafley@compuserve.com

By Walton Weaver

Jesus was in Caesarea Philippi when he announced to his disciples that he would build his church (Matt. 16:13, 18). The coming of the kingdom, or the building of the Lord’s house, had long before been a subject about which the prophets had spoken (Dan. 2:44; Isa. 2:3-4). The time for the coming of the kingdom, however, was drawing near in Jesus’ time. Both John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, and Jesus spoke of it as being “at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus told his disciples that some of them would not experience death until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mark 9:1).

This means that the kingdom promised by the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself would come within the lifetime of some of Jesus’ disciples. The kingdom that was drawing near was just another way of describing the church. Jesus had used the terms interchangeably in Matthew 16:18-19. After saying he would build his “church” in verse 18 he went on in the next verse to tell Peter he would give him the keys of the “kingdom.”

“The Promise of the Father”

Just prior to Jesus’ ascension back into heaven he gave instructions to his disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for “the promise of the Father” (Luke 24:46-49). This “promise of the Father” was the promise Jesus had made to his disciples that he would send the Spirit to them as a “Comforter” (Helper). A careful look at this promise in connection with Jesus’ statement that they were to “tarry  . . . in the city of Jerusalem . . . until ye be endued with power from on high ” will prove quite rewarding in helping us understand “the beginning” which we are looking at in this study. Note the following things about this promise to be endued with power:

Endued With Power — When? Two statement made by Jesus just before he returned to heaven point specifically to the time when these disciples were to be endued with power from on high. In Acts 1:5 Jesus shows it would not be long until they would be endued with this power, for he says, “not many days hence.” In verse 8 of this same chapter of Acts they would receive this power “after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” If we can discover exactly when the Holy Spirit came upon them, and we can demonstrate that it was not “many days hence,” or many days from the time Jesus made this statement to them, we can know for sure when they were “endued with” the “power” Jesus promised them.

Endued With Power — Where? Jesus is also very specific about where these disciples would be when they were “endued with power from on high.” In Luke 24:49 he gave specific instruction that they were to “tarry . . . in the city of Jerusalem.” Not just a city, but the city — the city of Jerusalem. The place is stated again by Luke’s account in Acts 1:4 where he reports that Jesus “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father . . . which . . . ye have heard of me.” Jerusalem was the place where they were to be endued with power from on high. This is where they were to receive the promise of the Father.

Endued With Power — Why? Why did they need to receive this power from the Holy Spirit, as they had been promised? The power would be given to them when the Spirit came, but why did they need to be endued with this power? Jesus says that the Spirit would be sent to them to “guide you into all truth” and “to shew you things to come” (John 16:13). He would teach them “all things” and enable them to “remember” the things he had said to them (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit, whom Jesus would send to them would “testify of me,” Jesus said, and they themselves would also “bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27).

Endued With Power — How? Acts 1:5 specifically states that this promise of the Father would be fulfilled, and these men would be endued with power from on high, by being “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Acts 1:8 shows that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place when the Spirit had “come upon” them. When did the Spirit come upon them? To get the answer to this question we must now go to Acts 2:1-4. Please read these verses at this time.

Acts 2, A Fulfillment

Acts 2:1-4. A reading of the first four verses of Acts 2 should convince any honest reader that the kind of things we have been reading in the closing verses of Luke 24 and the first few verses of Acts 1 are finding their fulfillment here. The events recorded in this chapter are taking place “not many days hence.” Jesus had ascended into heaven only ten days before this day of Pentecost which is introduced to us in Acts 2:1. Pentecost means “fiftieth,” and the feast of Pentecost came on the fiftieth day after the Sabbath of the Passover week (Lev. 16:15-16). After Jesus was raised from the dead he made appearances to his disciples for a period of forty days before he ascended back into heaven (Acts 1:3). This would leave about ten days between his ascension and this day of Pentecost. So, indeed, it was not “many days hence” before the events of this first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection transpired. This puts these events within the “time frame” stated by Jesus for his disciples to be “endued with power from on high.”

Acts 2:1 says that “they were all with one accord in one place.” “They” who? The antecedent for this plural pronoun is the word “apostles” in the last verse of chapter one. We conclude therefore that it is the apostles who are being described here, and it was the apostles who were “filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (v. 4). Remember that “the promise of the Father” was the promise that the Spirit would be sent as a Helper to lead and guide these apostles into all truth. These men were “filled with the Spirit,” language that very much sounds like what was promised when they were told they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. The fact that they “spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance” is an indication that the Spirit is now revealing to them the “truth” Jesus had promised he would lead them into when he came to them. They were indeed being “endued with power from on high” as the Spirit had fallen upon them and as a result of having been filled by the Spirit they were speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance. Peter later said in describing the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius that he “fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). He used the same language that Jesus had used when he said, “John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16 with Acts 1:5).

In other words, when we look at the terms used it becomes obvious that what is happening on Pentecost is a fulfillment of what Jesus had told his disciples. They were at the right place, Jerusalem; it was the right time, “not many days hence”; the Spirit was doing the thing promised, “leading them into all truth”; the Spirit did his work in them in the way they were told it would happen, they were “baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 2:14-36. In verse 16 Peter shows that the work of the Spirit on this occasion is a beginning of the fulfillment of what had been promised by Joel in Joel 2:28f. As he begins to explain what has happened by this outpouring of the Spirit, he says, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” and then in verses 17-21 gives us the words of the prophet. He gives a description of Jesus’ mighty works, how he was delivered over into their own hands and as wicked men they had crucified and slain him, but God had raised up from the dead in accordance with words spoken before by David (vv. 22-31). The apostles were all witness of Christ’s resurrection from the dead (v. 32). This resurrected Christ had ascended and was now at the right hand of God exalted (v. 33). From God’s right hand he is to rule until all his enemies are made his footstool (vv. 34-35). All the house of Israel should be assured of this one fact: “God has made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v. 36).

Acts 2:37-38. Upon hearing this sermon, many in Peter’s audience were convinced. They were “pricked in their heart” and wanted to know what they must do (v. 37). Peter’s answer that they must “repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins,” takes one back to Jesus’ promise that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). This “beginning at Jerusalem” is similar to Peter’s reference back to Pentecost as “the beginning,” which we saw earlier (Acts 11:15). It was several years after Pentecost before the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit took place upon the Gentiles; the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy only “began” with the events of Pentecost. The same would be true for this promise concerning repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ. This message was first preached to the Jews on Pentecost (“beginning at Jerusalem”), but it would eventually be made known “for all nations” when Peter preached the gospel for the first time to Gentiles when he preached to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11).

Acts 2:41, 47. Some 3,000 of those present were baptized on that day. These were the ones who “gladly received  his word” (v. 41). These were added to the number of the saved. The last part of verse 41 says, “and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” After the day of Pentecost, the practice was the same. Verse 47 says that as men were being saved “the Lord added (them) to the church.” This was done on a daily basis because at that time people were being saved each and every day.

Acts 2:41 and 47 is the first time in our New Testament that the church is spoken of as being here. All references to the church or the kingdom that had been made before, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament, pointed forward, or to the future. This is the reason you may have heard it preached many times that all hands before Pentecost point forward to something yet to come, but after the day of Pentecost all hands point backward toward Pentecost expressing the fact that the church has come. In other words, the church is spoken of a present reality from Acts 2 forward. It is referred to often throughout the rest of the book of Acts and in Paul’s epistles. Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9), he is the Savior of it (Eph. 5:23), and he is the head of it (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18). The saved have been translated into it (Col. 1:13). Christ now reigns as king in his kingdom (Acts 2:29ff; Rev. 1:5-6). He must reign until the last enemy, death, has been destroyed (1 Cor. 15:24-26). John was in the kingdom (Rev. 1:9).

Added to the Church

The expression “added to the church” is significant, especially in view of the many misconceptions people have today regarding church membership. It is true that most modern translations do not include the word “church” in this verse. The American Standard Version has replaced the word “church” with the word “them” (“added to them”), and then it gives as an alternate rendering the word “together” (“added together”). The New American Standard Bible renders this part of verse 47, “And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” In other words, as people were being saved they were being added to the number of those who were already saved, which of course is the same thing as the church. What is the church? The body of the saved. The church is those who have been purchased by the Lord, because he “purchased the church with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). As one is saved he is added to the number of the disciples, or the church of the Lord.

Who Were Added? But if we are asked, exactly who were added to the number of the disciples, or to those who already make up the body of the saved, the answer is not hard to find. Verse 47 says it is “the saved” who are added. “Who are the saved?” you ask. According to verses 37, 38, and 41, the saved are the penitent, baptized believers. No guesswork is required here.

How Added? How were these people added to the church, or the number of the disciples? Acts 2:47 says, “the Lord added them to the number.” Again, there is no guesswork here. These people did not become members of the Lord’s church by “joining” the church. We “join” a local congregation, but to get into the Lord’s church, the body of the saved throughout the world — the church Jesus said he would build (Matt. 16:18), the body, the church, over which he serves as head (Eph. 1:22-23), and the church which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28) — he must be added to it by the Lord. Neither did they become members by a “vote” of approval on the part of the members of a local church. The Lord adds one to the church as he is saved.

Which Church? To which church did the Lord add these people as they were being saved? He added them to the only church there was at that time. He added them to his church. All others came later, and they are the churches of men. The Lord never added any person to a church founded by man. Such churches are apostate churches. Paul warned about these kinds of departures from the truth some time before they began to develop (Acts 20:29ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1ff.). The Lord only adds people to the church he promised to build (Matt. 16:18), and the one he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

What was done to make Christians in Acts 2 can be done today and with the same results. The simple gospel must be preached (Acts 2:22-36). People must hear the gospel, believe in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). As they are saved the Lord will add them to his church (Acts 2:47). He won’t put you in the wrong church. As people are being saved he is adding them to his church. That’s the way it was then, and that’s the way it is now.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032

By John C. Robertson

While most of the book of Leviticus relates the law of God given to Moses on Sinai, there is an incident of history that takes place wherein is a valuable lesson. There was a son of an Israelitish woman whose father was an Egyptian that “strove” (Lev. 24:10) with an Israelite man. During this striving, “the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses” (Lev. 24:11). Moses, being judge of the people (Exod. 18:13), conferred with God on the matter. The Lord’s judgment is recorded in Leviticus 24:14: “Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.” This man paid a high price for his foul mouth, he lost his life.

There are two valuable lessons to be learned from the son of an Israelitish woman: 1. The incident is an illustration of God’s view towards a foul mouth. The Lord hates a foul mouth. In Proverbs 8:13 Solomon records “The fear of Jehovah is to hate evil: Pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the perverse mouth, do I hate.”  If God hates the sin of using foul language so should the Christian.
  
An area of danger that exists among brethren today that seems to be avoided is the subject of our sanctification. The Christian is one who has separated himself from the cares of this world; however, with many brethren this is hardly noticed. Christians today like to dress like the world, talk like the world, and be entertained by the world. Teenagers are participating in revelry, attending concerts, going to see “R” rated movies all under the guise of “I don’t let it affect me.” God’s people today need to be reminded of Isaiah’s pronouncement of woe in 5:20: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter . . .” The Lord’s people are a people called to be separate from the world (2 Cor. 6:17). Christians are to have their senses exercised to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14). Parents, teenagers, and children ought to be offended upon hearing such foul language instead of saying “it doesn’t affect me.” 

2. The second lesson we learn from the son of the Israelitish woman of Leviticus 24 is that we should detest a foul mouth. When we understand God’s view of cursing and sin, we too shall detest it rather than be entertained by it (Deut. 7:26). I underlined the phrase “let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head” (Lev. 24:14) in my Bible. On the day of atonement the priest would lay their hands on the “scapegoat” thereby symbolically transferring the sins of the people to the innocent animal. The laying on of the hands in this passage is in like manner significant. “The hearers or witnesses were to throw off from themselves the blasphemy which they had heard, and return it upon the head of the blasphemer, for him to expiate” (Keil and Delitzsch, 623). Does that not tell us how careful we ought to be as to what we allow into our ears? 

Entertainment is not wrong; however, it can be fatal to us if we chose worldly entertainment. If I choose to let filth enter into my mind, I have sinned. I have lost my sanctification. David said, “I will set no base thing before mine eyes” (Ps. 101:3). Why is it that Christians not only set base things before their eyes but they too have “no problem” with the foul mouths that exist today? Brethren, it ought to cause us great indignation when we hear the name of our Lord cursed. It ought to anger us (Eph. 4:26). 

A fatal mistake was made by the son of the Israelitish woman in the book of Leviticus. A high price was paid for his foul mouth. He lost his life. Shall we loose our souls over a desire to be entertained by the filthy language being used today in movies and stand up comedians? Is entertainment that important? I hope not. May we ever learn to hate sin as God hates sin and therein we shall find a peace that far surpasses any entertainment that can be experienced on this earth.

3816 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 jcrobertson1@juno.com

By Mike Willis

In this final article, we intend to look at the work of Paul in providing us examples for how one should conduct himself in his treatment of false teachers and in regard to church autonomy. We are doing so in order that we can follow “apostolic example” in dealing with error today. Some brethren wish to undermine the binding force of apostolic example by limiting certain conduct in addressing false teachers and false teaching to the apostles and by denying that uninspired men have the right to so address such matters.

Paul’s Conduct in Dealing With False Teachers

1. Elymas. One of the earliest works that Paul did in the first missionary journey was his opposition to Elymas who was trying to prevent Sergius Paulus from obeying the gospel. The Scriptures record Paul’s words,

Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand (Acts 13:9-11).

We have previously identified that God gave to the apostles the ability to work miracles, which cannot be duplicated today. Having acknowledged that, we still consider Paul’s method in addressing this false teacher. Is the only way that one may know that one is perverting the rights ways of the Lord, a child of the Devil, and an enemy of all righteousness through inspiration? Of course not! Jesus instructed men to identify false teachers by their fruits (Matt. 7:16). Can we follow an apostolic example in addressing false teachers? If exposing false teachers as Paul did is sinful, one must ask, “Was Paul allowed to sin because he was an apostle?”

2. The controversy over circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses (Acts 15; Gal. 2). Paul participated in the conflict that arose in the church over whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved. The issue was forced by some from Jerusalem who came to Antioch insisting that Gentiles had to be circumcised, to whom Paul refused to yield because a principle of the gospel was at stake (Gal. 2:4-5). Paul contended with these men (Acts 15:2). However, the writer never condemned the Judaizers from Jerusalem for violating local church autonomy. (Some today would lead one to believe that any brother who engaged in such contention was less than he ought to be as a gospel preacher.) The brethren debated the issue and God revealed his will to men  through command, example and necessary inference.

Were Paul and the other apostles the only ones allowed to contend with such men? Is one guilty of sin when he does what Paul did? Did his being an apostle give him the right to sin? 

3.Controversy at Corinth. The conflict at Corinth forced Paul to engage in spiritual “war” with his enemies, although he refused to resort to the use of carnal weapons (2 Cor. 3:3-4). The charges and counter charges are evident in these words:

That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise (2 Cor. 10:9-12).

He described his opponents in no uncertain terms:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

Is Paul the only one allowed to make such assessments? Are we today not allowed to characterize the pope of Rome as a “false apostle”? If it is sinful to so label the pope, did Paul’s being an apostle justify his “sin” in doing the same thing?

4. The Judaizers at Galatia. Paul marveled that the Judaizers had such a rapid impact on the churches in the area in turning men away from the grace of God to a system of legal salvation (Gal. 1:6-10). He charged that these men had “bewitched” the churches (Gal. 3:1) and he called upon the churches to break fellowship with these Judaizers (Gal. 4:21-5:12). He said these harsh words about the Judaizers who tried to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, “I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (Gal. 5:12). Were a gospel preacher to say something similar to that today, his own brethren would condemn him. Can we do what the apostles did? Can we follow the apostles’ example? Can we call upon churches to break fellowship with teachers of false doctrine in imitation of the apostle Paul?

5. The Judaizers at Philippi. Paul warned the brethren, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision” (Phil. 3:2). He furthermore described these brethren saying, “(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)” (Phil. 3:18-19). Every false doctrine condemns the truth which saves our soul and thus false teachers are enemies of the cross of Christ. For this reason we can and must expose and refute every false doctrine and identify and reprove those who teach such things.

 One should also notice that “concision” (Phil. 3:2) and the “circumcision” (Tit. 1:10) are used as labels very similarly to how the terms “liberal,” “modernist,” “pre-  millennialist,” “unity-in-diversity advocates,” “A.D. 70 advocates,” and “one covenant brethren” are used today. Some today accuse others of sin when they use the label “liberal” to describe a brother. Yet, Paul used the “label” “concision” to describe those at Philippi. Was he permitted to “sin” because he was an apostle? The answer seems obvious: Brethren have bound some personal judgments on others as if they were “law and gospel.”

6. The Gnostics at Colossae. Paul warned the brethren, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). He described their apostasy (Col. 2:18-23), showing how their false doctrine was an indictment of the all-sufficiency of Christ for salvation.

7. The Threat at Thessalonica. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul warned brethren of a “falling away” that had the potential of leading them also into apostasy. He described the nature and work of the “man of sin” (2:4) and foretold his destruction at the Lord’s second coming. He also warned that those brethren who did not have the love of the truth were threatened by these false teachers (2:10-12). 

8. Paul’s Instructions to Timothy. In the two books addressed to Timothy, Paul exhorted the young preacher to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). Doing that work included teaching men not to turn aside to other doctrines (1 Tim. 1:3). Paul specifically identified Alexander and Hymenaeus as two who had made shipwreck of the faith and had to be delivered to Satan (1 Tim. 1:19-20). He warned Timothy of a coming apostasy that would include in its doctrines forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Was he warning Timothy about “trends of a new apostasy”? He admonished Timothy not to turn aside to “oppositions of science falsely so called” and other profane and vain babblings (1 Tim. 6:20). He told Timothy that Phygellus and Hermogenes had turned away from him (2 Tim. 1:15). He told him that Hymenaeus and Philetus had erred from the truth teaching that the resurrection had already passed (2 Tim. 2:17-18). He described the conduct of wicked men who would come in the perilous times that lay ahead for the brethren (2 Tim. 3:1-9) and instructed him to turn away from such men (2 Tim. 3:5). He told him of the apostasy of Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), the damage that Alexander the coppersmith did to him (2 Tim. 4:14), and other threats to the faith.

9. Paul’s Instructions to Titus. Paul told Titus to teach elders to stop the mouths of false teachers (1:10-11) and told him to rebuke such men sharply (1:13) so that men may be sound in the faith. He told him to avoid foolish questions that engender strife and contention. He instructed, “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him” (Tit. 3:10, NIV).

From this study of Paul’s conduct toward false teachers, we derive these conclusions: (a) The gospel preacher has the moral responsibility to resist false doctrine. Preaching a “positive” message does not sufficiently address the false doctrines and false teachers that come among us. (b) The false doctrines of men need to be addressed specifically and directly. (c) On some occasions, the false teachers need to be directly confronted, exposed by name, and their false doctrines challenged. Human judgment must be used as to when this should be done, but one can certainly see that one is not guilty of sin for following an apostle’s example in so resisting false teachers and false teaching.

Paul’s Conduct With Reference to Local Church Autonomy

This material is presented to help correct mistaken ideas about church autonomy. Unless one takes the position that the first century church was a brotherhood of churches over which the apostles served as officers, one may be forced to re-think some modern concepts about local church autonomy currently circulating among us, such as that the autonomy of the local church is violated by sharing information (like Chloe did at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1:11), by a preacher sending teaching to a church of which he is not a member (as Paul did to Corinth, not only in his canonical letters, but also in his non-canonical letters, see 1 Cor. 5:9), by addressing in public teaching dangerous problems that are confronting local churches, etc. We do not believe that the apostles had a divine right to commit sin — that is, to violate church autonomy. We do not believe that they were officers in a brotherhood of churches. Consequently, what the first century saints did with divine approval can be done today with divine approval. Let’s consider some of Paul’s actions.

1. Working With the Churches at Lystra, Iconium, etc. The text says, “And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed” (Acts 14:21-23). Were I to visit the churches where I have previously preached and offer to help them to appoint elders in every congregation, I would firmly and politely be told to mind my own business and move on because that congregation is an autonomous church. Did Paul violate the autonomy of these churches?
2. The Church at Corinth. Years after Paul labored at Corinth, he received word through the household of Chloe of several problems in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:11). Did Chloe sin by so communicating this information to Paul? Did Paul sin by involving himself in the work of a local church of which he was not a member in addressing their problems? The Scriptures do not condemn either Chloe or Paul! Paul addressed the church at Corinth, giving them specific information about how to address the problem of divisions at Corinth (1 Cor. 1-4), the fornicator who was living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5), the problem of brethren going to law with one another (1 Cor. 6:1-8), problems about divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7), problems related to eating meats and attending banquets in idols’ temples (1 Cor. 8-10), the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:16-34), spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12-14), the problem of some among them who denied the resurrection (1 Cor. 15), etc. He expressed his intentions to come to them to address these problems and told them that their conduct would determine whether he came with a rod or with love (1 Cor. 4:21). Were a gospel preacher to send teaching instructions to a church of which he is not a member today, citing for them what the Bible teaches on any subject, he may be subjected to severe criticism for injecting himself into problems that were not his own and violating the autonomy of the local church!
3. The Churches of Galatia. Paul addressed the churches of an entire Roman province when he addressed the several churches of Galatia. (Were one to do the same today, some would charge him with believing in a brotherhood of churches, an association that was unscriptural.) He lamented the influence of the false teachers in the region and then instructed the churches that they should remove the leaven of their influence from their midst (4:21-5:12). Were one to do the same today, some would say that he was violating the autonomy of the local church.
4. The Church at Philippi. Paul instructed the church to help Euodias and Syntyche, two women in conflict with each other, come to the same mind (4:2-3). Was he intruding into the matters pertaining to the local church when he so wrote? Could a brother do the same thing as Paul did today?
5. The Church at Colossae. Paul instructed that church to read his letter to the church, cause it to be read at Laodi  cea, and to read his letter to the church at Laodicea to the brethren at Colossae (4:16). Was he intruding into their autonomy when he so wrote?
6. The Church at Thessalonica. When Paul warned the church at Thessalonica about a coming apostasy, was he violating their autonomy (2 Thess. 2:1-12)? Did he violate their autonomy when he commanded them to withdraw from the disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6)?
7. Timothy. Paul sent the evangelist Timothy to Ephesus with this charge: “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do” (1 Tim. 1:3-4). What impact would a gospel preacher sending another gospel preacher to a given congregation with such specific instructions have on brethren today? Would we send him away telling him to mind his own business and respect the autonomy of the local church, or if we know him to be a faithful brother, would we be willing to give a fair hearing to what he had to say?
8. Titus. Paul wrote, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Tit. 1:5). Would one gospel preacher send another gospel preacher to a given church with specific instructions to help them ordain elders in that local church? If so, how would it be received?

Were the apostles authorized to sin — to violate the autonomy of local churches? Or have we become so sensitive about the autonomy of local churches that we condemn men who do much less than what the New Testament gives examples of the apostles doing? Some among us condemn men for violating the autonomy of local churches when (a) they warn churches about apostasies that are developing (2 Thess. 2; 1 Tim. 4); (b) have communication with members of a church about problems in that church (1 Cor. 1:11), (c) preach about false teaching, specifically mentioning the false teachers who are threatening churches (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17), (d) suggest Bible solutions to problems and how to handle false teaching/false teachers (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 4:21-5:12). Indeed, brethren do have mistaken ideas about the autonomy of the local church when they become so righteous that they condemn as sinful that which is authorized by apostolic example!

“You’re not an apostle,” is being used to undermine the legitimate work of gospel preachers who are addressing congregational problems today. The Lord himself charged men to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). There is not a man living who has the right to limit or countermand the Lord’s charge by appealing to some mistaken concept of the autonomy of the local church. 

The charge to preach the gospel still protects the autonomy of the local church, just as it did in Paul’s day. When Paul instructed the church, yes, even commanded the church, to withdraw from the Corinthian fornicator, that congregation still exercised its autonomy in deciding whether or not to obey that divinely revealed commandment. When preachers preach on subjects of relevance for churches facing problems today, the autonomy of the local church is not violated. Those saints still have their autonomous power to decide whether or not to obey the Lord’s commandments. A person’s and a church’s autonomy is not violated by preaching to them.

Conclusion

Jesus spoke of the Pharisees who honored the prophets but were guilty of the very sins that led to the death of the prophets (Matt. 23:34). There are those among us who honor the apostles, but whose attitudes toward those who walk in the footsteps of the apostles is such that their conduct confirms that they would dishonor those very same men were they among us today.

Let others do what they will, but I do not intend to let someone’s misunderstanding of the apostleship stop me from obeying the Lord’s command to preach the gospel to every creature. I will preach what I perceive to be God’s Word to any and every individual whom I have opportunity to teach, without regard to which local church he may be a member of. If that violates someone’s mistaken concept of the autonomy of the local church, so be it. I am under a greater charge, that of the Savior himself who said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com