Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

I have before me a pamphlet written by Brother Athens Clay Pullias entitled Where There Is No Pattern. Brother Pullias contends there is no revealed pattern for us to follow in the matters that have divided the church in the last twenty years. An entire generation of Gods children has been raised on such teaching. The result is the attitude expressed by J. P. Sanders, graduate of Abilene Christian College, who flatly declared concerning the Bible, “Nowhere, nowhere, do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be.” (Restoration Review, March 1967, p. 51) This leads to a vital and timely question: Is there a divine pattern for the church?

We must surely realize our need for such a pattern. No reputable contractor would attempt to construct a building without a blueprint. Even the most talented seamstress realizes the need for a pattern. This is because the tasks they undertake are difficult. Of how much more infinite difficulty is the task of the church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth”? (1Timothy 3:15)

Indeed, concerning mans entire relationship to God, Jeremiah could cry in all truth, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). You need divine guidance.

And we can know assuredly there is such a pattern. Paul commanded young Timothy: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1: 13). The word “form ” means “an example, pattern . . . the pattern to be placed before one to be held fast and copied, model . . . “” (Thayer) This is a plain declaration that there is a pattern. This form, according to the inspired writer, consists of “words, which thou hast heard of me.” These are apostolic words. But, the apostles words are Gods words, received by revelation from the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:9-13) These words were written down by the apostles and constitute the New Testament, which we can read and understand. (Eph. 3:1-6) The term “sound” is defined thus: “to be well, to be in good health  true and incorrupt doctrine.” (Thayer) These are words that are conducive to spiritual health. Being the words of God, they are true. (John 17:17) But we dare not corrupt them.

If one were to add a pinch of arsenic to wholesome wheat flour, death would result. If one adds a pinch of opinion to the wholesome apostolic words, damnation will result. (Gal. 1: 6-9) Thus, the divine blueprint for the church consists of the sum total of everything the New Testament says about the church, nothing more or less. Equipped with this pattern, we “may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17, ASV)

The aged apostle enjoined an obligation to this pattern. He commanded Timothy to “hold fast” the form. The words “hold fast” mean to “keep,” “retain ” or “be consistent with.” Under the Old Covenant, if one brought into service to God that which was unauthorized, punishment was swift and severe. (e.g. Lev. 10: 1-2) Under the New Testament we must “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (by His authority, Col. 3:17) lest we be without God (2 Jno. 9-11) and thus lose our hope of life eternal. (Rev. 22:18-19)

Indeed, there is a divine pattern for the church, the New Testament. Will you not lay aside human opinion and by faith be conformed to the divine pattern ? -Pruett and Lobit

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 13
January 18, 1973

By Bill Reeves

One of Max Kings “big guns” is Rom. 4:13. “According to Paul, a promise was given to Abraham that he and his seed would inherit a world.” A-33 . . . he did not look for inheritance in the Jewish world, but rather the Christian world . . . This truth is manifest in Heb. 11:8-16.” A-34 “This city he looked for, which hath foundations was the – heavenly Jerusalem – Heb. 12:22. or the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. 4:26). This is the new heaven and earth promised to Abraham and his seed, of which the Jewish world (old heaven and earth) was a forerunner. The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3:13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13).” A35

To this King adds Matt. 5:17,18, making Jesus say that the “heaven and earth” of that passage refers to the passing away of Judaism in A. D. 70, at which time “all things would be accomplished.” Also, the “heaven and earth” of Matt. 24:35 apply to the “Jewish world” (as he calls it for convenience sake  oh, how he plays with words!) to pass away in A. D. 70. He sees the word “world” in Rom. 4:13, and so he gets “earth” out of Matt. Ch. 5 and Ch. 24, “land,” “country,” and “city” out of Heb. 11 and 12, and “world” out of Eph. 3:21 (KJV!), and runs them all together into his fanciful theory. Lets analyze these texts.

(1) Rom. 4:13. The Greek word here for “world” is kosmos. We do not read in Genesis of a promise stated in this style, but the context of Rom. 4 makes it clear that the reference is to his becoming the father of many nations in a spiritual sense. See especially vv. 16-18. See Gal. 3:29. The faith of the gospel is for all the world (Phil. 1:27; Mk. 16:15). Abraham, then, inherited the world as his spiritual children, for in his seed (Christ) all the world can be blessed, and the church is made up of all nations. Paul did not say that Abraham would inherit “a world.” Thats Kings lingo. Abraham inherited the world as Jesus inherited the nations (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 1: 2). Abraham was made a father of many nations in that he was the father of the faithful, of those with faith in Christ. They were spiritual progenitors. Thats why Gal. 3:29 is so!

(2) Matt. 5:17,18. There is no “world” (kosmos) in this text. Jesus did not say that heaven and earth (Greek, GE) would pass away when all things were accomplished. King sees the word “earth,” which is somewhat suggestive of “world,” and away he runs with it! What does a context matter to him? Jesus is saying that his purpose in coming to the earth was not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Furthermore, he says, until that is accomplished it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or one title of the law or prophets to fall. See Lk. 16: 17. Or, to put it another way, as long as heaven and earth stood, that law would be fulfilled without the least particle of it going unfulfilled. He came to fulfill it, and fulfill it he would, and heaven and earth would not pass away first! If the law was not fulfilled till A.D. 70, Christians were under it until then, and Paul says, “no” (Rom. 6:14).

(3) Matt. 24:35, Here Jesus speaks, not, as King does, of a “world” (kosmos), but of the same earth (GE) as in 5:18. The physical heaven and earth are temporary; they shall pass away (Kings spiritualizing to the contrary. He says that he does not know “what the destiny of this physical world is that were living in”), but Christs declarations are not temporary, but are absolute of fulfillment, irrespective of time and temporal things. That is Christs point, but King plays with the word “earth,” and equates it with his “world” of Rom. 4:13.

(4) Matt. 5:5 is also cited by King and referred to his “Christian world” of A. D. 70. He says, “The residence of Gods people today is in the new earth promised, which is just as spiritual as everything that belongs in it. Of this earth and this inheritance, Jesus spake in Matt. 5:5…” A-26 Jesus is speaking of no such invention! The 37th Psalm (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) shows that the expression “inherit the earth” means to benefit from its physical blessings. The beatitudes refer to a specific class of people and to what benefits they have because they are that class of people.

(5) Heb. 11:8-16. The Hebrew writer was no “A.D. 70 Advocate.” He tells us to follow Abraham in seeking for a “city” (residence) which is heavenly. (King wishes it said: “spiritual!”). Here (on this earth and in this life) we do not have an “abiding city,” or

permanent residence. We seek after the one that is to come. (Heb. 13:14). It is in the “Fathers house,” in. 14: 2. King equates the word “city” (of Heb. 11:10, 16) with “heavenly Jerusalem,” which is his perfect state of things as of A. D. 70. King is the only authority for that! The Hebrew writer is contrasting a heavenly country with the earthly one in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived as strangers and sojourners. One was on earth; the other in heaven. Thats where Peter says that the eternal inheritance is reserved “in heaven” (I Pet. 1:4).

(6) Heb. 12:22. “The tense of the verb are come shows that he was speaking of things that were transpiring at the time he wrote the Hebrew letter.” “But ye are come … present tense! And we have the new world today.” Brother King needs to check the Greek text; it is not present tense, but what is even worse for him the perfect tense! They had already arrived at that “city” (the heavenly Jerusalem) at the time the Hebrew writer wrote! “Are come” is not present tense; if present tense, it would read “are coming,” and that is precisely what King advocates: that something was presently coming and would arrive in A. D. 70! The Hebrew writer used the perfect tense, as he did in v. 18, and tells the Hebrews that they had already arrived and were there. The perfect tense in the Greek emphasizes action in the past with present consequences. The Hebrew Christians did not pertain to the Old Covenant, but they did (already) to the New! Thats the point of the inspired writer. King plays with words and makes “are come” are coming, and hopes we will not see the difference. Paul made the brethren come to the “city,” and King makes the “city” come (just a little later on) to the Hebrew brethren. Berrys Interlinear, as does the NASV, reads: “you have come,” which is the clearest way to express the perfect tense in English.

Heb. 12:22 is present perfect tense, and, by contrast, in. 14:3; 2 Tim. 4:18; and 2 Pet. 1: 11 are future. How King would like for the four texts to all be in the same tense!

(7) Gal. 4:26. The Jerusalem of this passage, as that of Heb. 12:22, are the same and refer to the New Covenant. Of course Christians had arrived, having arrived at the New Covenant of Christ. Of course perfection was there found (Heb. 10: 13). Thats where they pertained. To go back to the Old Covenant would have been apostasy and perdition. Thats the inspired writers point. But King would like for Gal. 4:26 and Heb. 12:22 to say “new heavens and new earth,” which phrase applies to the redeemed as viewed in heaven and in eternity, but not upon this earth. The New Testament views the saved as the kingdom of heaven now, on earth, and pertaining to the heavenly Jerusalem, and it also views the saved throughout eternity as the heavenly or eternal kingdom. King rejects this N.T. concept completely!

(8) 2 Pet. 3:13. Future tense, Brother King! The Hebrew Christians were already arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem City, but were looking forward to “new heavens and a new earth.”

(9) Heb. 8:13. King says: “He nailed it to the cross to this extent: that he came to fulfill it and when he died upon the cross he did that and then Heb. 8:13; it took some forty years before the whole thing was completed.” “The New Testament saints, born of Abrahams spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3: 13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. (Heb. 8:13).” A-35 King cites Ps. 102:25-28, and says, ” Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: does not this figure of speech sound familiar? See again Heb. 8:13; Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Could Paul and David be talking about the same event? The author believes so.” A-41 (Heb. 8:13). The words ready to vanish away are very significant in this passage, showing that the old dispensation continued several years after the cross. Its final end came with the fall of Jerusalem … and this event marked the passing of heaven and earth.” A-184, 185 “This natural body, receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then to wax old and decay (Heb. 8:13), became a nursery or seed-body for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual body by means of the gospel. Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity, that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Pauls statement, It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. ” A-200

The word “decayeth” (KJV of Heb. 8:13) is imperative to Kings argument. He cannot use Berry here, or the ASV or NASV. They do not say “decay,” and his fanciful theory needs a putrifying body for a period of time. But there is no decaying process of a dead body anywhere in the Greek word of this text, or in the context. Notice the Greek text here: to de palaioumenon kai geraskon. Berry gives this literal word-for-word translation: “But that which grows old and aged.” The ASV says: “But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged.” The NASV reads: “But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old.” Palaioumenon, according to Thayers Greek Lexicon, means, “to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated,” and the second Greek word under consideration, geraskon, means, “to fail from age, be obsolescent.” The Hebrew writer does not say that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old, but that whatever (neuter) is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear! Thats his point; such is true of anything like that. It is a statement of general application. Thats why the neuter is used: “that which,” or “whatever.” And, theres no decaying in the word!

Now, notice Ps. 102:25-27. There is no direct reference at all in Heb. 8: 13 to this passage. There is a similar phrase there, and King jumps on it to make a play on words! The phrase “wax old” in Ps. 102:26, in the Septuagint (Greek version of the O.T.), is from the first of the two words noted above, meaning become old, or grow old. No “decaying” in Psa. 102 nor in Heb. 8! Even the KJV, in Psa. 102, does not say “decay” for the same word which appears in Heb. 8:13.

The Hebrew writer indicates that God considered the Old Covenant as obsolete in Jeremiahs time! When did God say that He would make a new covenant? Back in Jeremiahs time! What did God do to the first covenant when He said that? He made it old. What about anything old and obsolete? It is near to disappearing. This is what Heb. 8:13 is talking about! “When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of the abrogation of the old.” (Vincent Is Word Studies in the N. T., p. 1135).

The Hebrew brethren would be foolish to abandon the New Covenant for one done away! The Jews for six centuries knew, from Jer. 31: 3 ff, that the Old Covenant was in the aging process, and therefore would be abrogated in time. King gives the Law a “decaying” process six centuries too late! -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 9-11
January 18, 1973

By C.G. (Colly) Caldwell, III

The ground on which the subjectivist most often chooses to defend his cause is the question of fellowship. “To whom may a Christian deny fellowship?” he asks. Those among churches of Christ are answering their own question by saying that they can deny fellowship to no one who has come into Christ through scriptural baptism. Almost without exception their major proof-text is Romans 14. The appeal is that we all differ on some things and since that is true we should agree to disagree on all points of difference (except perhaps on the deity of Jesus) and fellowship each other in spite of our doctrinal problems.

First, the philosophy called “unity in diversity” in matters upon which God has revealed his mind is not only unscriptural: It is anti-scriptural (1 Cor. 1:10). What the subjectivist is really arguing is that it is all right to differ with God. That is why I have called the fellowship issue a “smokescreen.” Suppose we do agree to fellowship all baptized persons. Does that mean that all baptized persons are right with God, walking in the light? If not, we are walking with those in darkness. If so, Gods word on any point other than the deity of Jesus is not worth the snap of your finger, certainly not worth contending for earnestly (Jude 3). Now get in mind what the subjectivist is doing. He is not really arguing for fellowship. He is arguing against a strong stand on the word of God. He will “scream and holler” (no, probably he will smile, fold his hands, say that he loves me and in a whisper affirm) that he is not, but that is exactly the whole point of the whole thing!

Romans 14

Now, let us look at that proof-text, Romans 14. It is a great chapter and at first hearing the position on it sounds wonderful. One question, however, brings the picture into focus: “On what kind of difference does Paul tell brethren they may disagree.” (See also 2 Cor. 8; 10: 14-11 :1)? I affirm that Paul is talking: (1) about matters of personal scruple (that is, matters that clearly affect the Christian personally and which may be participated in without involving any other Christian), and (2) about matters which both the weaker brother and the stronger brother ought to understand are left by God to personal application at the individuals own discretion.

The point of the passage is stated in verse three. First, “Let not him that eateth set as nought him that eateth not.” The instruction given here is to the stronger brother who knows that he can eat privately without religious significance and not sin. His attitude toward his weaker brother (who, regardless of weakness in personal strength on this point, is stringently trying to follow Gods revealed will and thus will not do anything which bothers his conscience) is one of love and good will, not condemnation. You will note that the weaker brother has not violated Gods will nor has he presumed to do anything apart from Gods word.

“. . . And let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” This is the instruction to the weaker brother who will not eat meat which has been offered to idols at all. Why, because he strongly believes it is wrong to eat any meat offered to idols? No, he knows that “God hath received” the man who eats and he knows that God does not receive the man who continues in sin. Do not let the subjectivist dodge here by saying that God received this stronger brother when he was baptized. Paul is not talking about his reception upon the basis of baptism. He is talking about acceptance of both men regarding the matter of eating meat. The stronger brother eats and God accepts him in it.

Why then does this weaker brother not eat? He does not eat because, in spite of Gods granting him the liberty to eat, he cannot without compunction of conscience bring himself to eat. The Lord says that he does not sin if he refuses to eat so he does not eat. Nothing is involved but an innocent personal privilege. Paul is not speaking on a point which affects the work or worship of the collectivity. If he were the man would be expressly prohibited from interjecting his views into the affairs of the church (Col. 2:20-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Matt. 15:1-6).

God also, however, tells him not to judge the man who does eat. Why, because God desires that he not firmly takes a stand on a point of faith? No, God never asked any man to overlook sin, compromise truth, or fellowship men in darkness. If so Jesus and the apostles failed to set the proper example for they did not condone sin or fail to judge the sinner who would not recognize the word of God and turn from his evil. Why then must he not judge the man who eats? Look at the text . . .” For God hath received him.” Even the weaker brother is to do what he does because he recognized Gods wishes in the matter. Why receive the other man? Because God says that He has received him and approved his action and thus the weaker brother must receive him too.

The subjectivist identifies the “weaker brother” in this passage with one who has not come to know Gods will and thus acts (or does not act as the case may be) in the matter at hand apart from Gods revelation. That is not the case. Paul has told him what God says about his freedom to eat meat or not to eat. He understands that. He is not refusing to accept Gods word. He may be overly cautious but he has committed no presumptuous act. If he had, and not turned from it, God would not have received him, and I take it that he, too, is received by God since God told the stronger brother not to judge him either. Suppose for example that this brother began to eat meat as a religious act of worship. Would Pauls instruction be the same? Certainly not. The man would then be in sin and that is a different matter altogether (1 Cor. 10:20-22).

Scriptural Disagreement: The Rule

On what then may we scripturally disagree. Answer: (1) on those matters on which God has not revealed his mind and (2) on matters of personal concern left by God to the judgment of individual Christians to be determined within the framework of personal spiritual strength and private circumstance. It is true that we should be patient, considering one anothers shortcomings (especially on difficult points of scriptural study) in the application of these guidelines to the subject of fellowship. But to add to these guidelines the realm of revealed New Testament authority and precedent which involves collective action is to leave the question of fellowship and to affirm allegiance with the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:8-12). Again, the fellowship issue is a smokescreen. It is designed to hide the marriage ceremony of the subjectivist (divorced without cause from the word of God) to worldly, human rationalism.

One more time and we will conclude this series. Who is the subjectivist? He is the man who rejects strong responsibility to an objective written standard, the New Testament. He exalts personal elements in experience and feeling (his own and others) as ultimate criteria on which to judge whether a man is in relationship with God. He refuses to challenge those subjective standards with the objective word of God. His preaching leads to the abandonment of real conviction (except perhaps on the topic of his subjectivism). He is a dangerous man because he does not properly love the revealed truth of God (though he, like the cultists, professes strongly his allegiance to the Bible). He is a vulnerable man because he is open game for theological liberalism and skepticism. Be aware of him. Study his doctrines and philosophy. Study the truth. Pray for wisdom to be able to overcome the subtle, lying, workings of Satan (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 7-8
January 18, 1973

By Cecil Willis

(Editors Note: Recently I spoke in Texas on the subject of Cooperation. Reuel Lemmons, editor of the FIRM FOUNDATION, responded to my remarks. Following is a copy of what I said on that occasion. I did my best to present the truth on the subject, and to expose the various errors promulgated on cooperation.)

The controversy surrounding the subject of church cooperation did not originate among Churches of Christ in the last two or three decades. The imminent historian, Earl West, said: “The question of how congregations may cooperate in their work and still maintain their independence is not only one of the oldest to come from the restoration movement but the most enduring.” (The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, p. 133.) This subject constantly has been before the brotherhood for well over one hundred years.

In 1855 Tolbert Fanning said: “In establishing The Gospel Advocate, I determined, by the help of the Lord, to give the subject of Cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been brought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation, before we can labor to each others advantage, or to the honor of God.” (Gospel Advocate, Oct. 1855, p. 110.) The issue is still before us, and hence these discussions this day.

Definition

The word “cooperation” is a key word in this controversy, yet the exact word is not found in either the King James Version or the American Standard Version. The word “cooperation” consists of two parts, “co” meaning “together or with,” and “operation” which mean “a working.” Thus when we speak of “cooperation,” we mean “a working together of two or more units in the production of a common effect or the achievement of a common purpose.

Websters New International Dictionary (The Merriam Series) defines “cooperation” as “act of cooperation: joint operation; concurrent effort or labor. ” The terms “joint operation” and “concurrent effort or labor” are significant, for they aptly describe the two basic kinds of congregational cooperation that have been proposed among Churches of Christ. One of these kinds of cooperation is found in the New Testament; the other kind is lawless, and hence sinful (I Jno. 3:4).

In “joint operation,” the congregations involved pool their resources into a common treasury, and then centralize the control of the pooled treasury. Sometimes the pooling has been done in a human institution (such as the missionary society), sometimes in the hands of one man who came to be called “a one-man missionary society,” and sometimes in the hands of a large church, which has come to be called a “sponsoring church.” But in all “Joint operations, inevitably there are the pooling of resources and the centralization of control.

In the other type of cooperation, there is “concurrent effort or labor.” This aptly describes the type of congregational cooperation to be found in the New Testament. Several congregations may work together for a common goal; they may act simultaneously. Hence, the action is concurrent, but they nevertheless act independently. There is neither pooling of resources nor centralization of control.

Some brethren, who are ignorant of both Bible teaching and dictionary definitions, would deny that independent but concurrent action on the part of congregations is congregational cooperation at all. Thus some refer to those of us who advocate independent but concurrent action as “Anti-cooperationists.” On this point, H. Leo Boles said:

“To operate means to work, and to cooperate means to work together to the same end. There can be no working together of churches without the churches themselves working. Churches that do not work cannot work together; churches that do not operate cannot cooperate. Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches nevertheless are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission. It seems that we ought to see this that we ought to recognize this fundamental truth. This is the only church cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. ” (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 28, 1932, p. 114.)

Brother Bill Humble, now Dean of Abilene Christian College was my Church History professor at Florida Christian College in the early 1950s, and a good teacher he was too, I might add. Brother Humble said: “Lipscomb believed that when churches worked under the same divine laws, they were cooperating with one another and with God, though separated by thousands of miles.” (Preceptor, March, 1955, p. 15.) Brother Humble in 1953 was editing a section in the Preceptor, which he called “Restoration and Reaction.” In this column, he re-printed some articles on “Congregational Cooperation” which had been written by Earl West, and which also appeared in the Gospel Advocate and Gospel Guardian. In commending these articles by West, Brother Humble said: “. . . Earl West . . . is, in my estimation, the outstanding student of restoration history in the church today . . We believe that the Advocate has rendered a valuable service to the brotherhood in presenting these articles . . . ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

In this series of articles, Brother West said:

“The third type of congregational cooperation is more difficult to describe. . . . The chief promoter was David Lipscomb. It was the belief that the congregations of the Lord, in their individual and local and scriptural way was true cooperative work…. Lipscomb was convicted that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord are necessarily cooperating. Their work is cooperative. ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

Later in this series Brother West said:

“When ten thousand local congregations, all following the same divine laws, all working earnestly to save souls, each in Christian love caring for its own needy-when congregations do this, they are necessarily cooperating for all are doing the work God intended and in the way God intended. Not being able to see any human machinery, they may be unconscious of cooperating, but churches functioning are necessarily and unavoidably cooperating. (Preceptor, July, 1953, p. 17.)

A few months earlier, Brother West had said: They dont have to pool their money. They dont have to put it under the oversight of a designated central church. . . . What do you mean by cooperation, anyway? It is simply working together by the same set of rules.” (Sermon delivered at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, May, 1953.)

I have gone to some length to show that independent but concurrent action is recognized by the dictionary as a legitimate usage of the word “cooperation,” and also to show that historically this fact has been recognized by the most imminent historians among us. Thus one is betraying an ignorance of the usage of the word “cooperation” when he refers to those of us who believe in independent but concurrent action by congregations as “Anti-cooperationists.”

New Testament Teaching

Let us now come to a discussion of some of the New Testament teaching pertinent to this discussion on congregational cooperation. The New Testament compares the church to the Tabernacle and to the Temple of the Old Testament. The Tabernacle was built according to a pattern designed by God (Ex. 29:1-9; 25:40; 27:8). The Hebrews writer states that Christ is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (Heb. 8:2). The Hebrews writer further states that Christ serves in “the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb. 9: 11).

But the Lords church is also likened unto the Old Testament Temple (See Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16). However, God charged Solomon to follow the “pattern” in erecting the Temple (See 1 Chron. 28:9-19). I, therefore, at this point appropriate the lengthy but well-chosen words of Brother Humble, as he wrote regarding the divine pattern:

“It is inconceivable that God would lavish such care upon the tabernacle and temple and not bestow at least equal care upon the church, particularly when we consider the fact that they were temporary and the church permanent, they were physical and the church spiritual, and that they were of little worth compared with the blood-purchased church of the Lord. . . . The tabernacle is a type (shadow) of the church; therefore since there is a pattern for the tabernacle, there must have been a pattern for the church! Alexander Campbell once argued in a discussion of worship that where there is no order, there can be no disorder; and this same principle could be extended to prove that God has a pattern for every essential characteristic of the New Testament church. Where there is no pattern, there can be no violation of the pattern  Though discussions become heated, the very fact that discussions are being carried on indicates that we still believe in the necessity of determining just what the pattern requires. If the time ever comes that we assume the it makes no difference attitude and discussions cease, complete harmony might result; but the peace would not be worth the price. Our cause would be lost…. A century ago brethren were involved in controversy regarding the missionary society; they were asking one another whether such an organization was included in the pattern. Though the world laughed and though division came, brethren were determined to follow the plan, and follow it they did! Today another generation of likeminded brethren are again discussing the question of how to do missionary work. Instead of accusing one another of being antimissionary or pro-society, would it not be better to dedicate ourselves anew to answering the question, What does the blue-print say? – and this without bitterness, malice, and hate?” (Preceptor, Oct., 1953, pp. 10, 11.)

I submit to you once more the premise advanced by Brother Alexander Campbell: if there is no divine order, then there can be no disorder! If the New Testament supplies no information as to how congregations cooperated, then any type of congregational cooperation, from the missionary society on up, or down, would be acceptable. Let us therefore take a hurried look at what is taught in the New Testament regarding how congregations worked together. I propose that the following abbreviated points summarize what the New Testament teaches regarding how churches cooperated.

1. Churches helped each other in time of emergency by contributing directly to the church or churches, which needed relief. (Rom. 15: 26; 1 Cor. 16: 1-4.) There were needy saints in Jerusalem, and churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia sent to their relief. See also Acts 11: 27-30 for the record of Antiochs relief sent to the Judean churches.

2. Many churches contributed to one church in time of need. (2 Cor. 8, 9.) Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia were provinces, and the churches of these provinces sent to Jerusalem to relieve the need of the destitute saints there.

3. Each church made up its own “bounty,” selected its own “messengers,” and sent its “bounty” by its “messengers” directly to the church in need. (2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:26.) Paul mentioned that “whomsoever ye shall approve” should “carry your bounty unto Jerusalem.”

4. A church with “power” (ability) gave to a church in “want” in order to produce mutual freedom from want, or as Paul put it, “equality.” (2 Cor. 8:13-15.) The only time one can read about one church sending funds to another church for any purpose at all was to relieve the physical “want” of members of the church to which the funds were sent.

5. Individuals, not churches, served as messengers. (1 Cor. 16:1-4.)

6. Messengers served only in the capacity of delivering the contribution from the contributing church to the intended recipient. (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16-1-4; Phil. 4:10-18.)

7. Several churches assisted in supporting an evangelist, each communicating directly with him. (Phil. 4:10-18; 2 Cor. 11:8.) As J. C. McQuiddy phrased it, “The Scriptures establish clearly that in New Testament times the church communicated directly with the missionary in the field.” (Gospel Advocate, March 17, 1910, pp. 328, 329.) He also cited Phil. 4:15-17 to prove his affirmation, even as I have done.

So far as I am able to ascertain, anything more than what has just been recited, which is taught by man on the subject of cooperation, emanates from human wisdom, rather than

from the Wisdom that is from above. From the teaching of scriptures, we affirm that all congregations were independent, equal, and autonomous. (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Phil. 1: 1; 1 Pet. 5: 1-4.) Secular history verifies these points. Mosheim said: “All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other…. it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, p. 72). Other historians, such as Lyman Coleman, agree with the testimony of Mosheim.

(To be concluded next week)

 

“Were You Successful?”

Paul K. Williams

Transvaal, Republic of South Africa

Charles Goodall returned home after going on a personal call. His wife said, “Were you successful?” The prospect had not been baptized, but Charles replied, “Yes, I was successful.” He had been successful in doing what the Lord commanded. He had preached the gospel to the man.

Our measurement of success is often by the wrong yardstick. Of course we want to baptize people, but not everyone who is taught will obey. The “failure rate” of Jesus was phenomenal. By far the majority of the ones He taught were not converted. And He does not expect us to baptize every one we teach. He counts us a success when we teach the gospel, whether we baptize the ones taught or not. But we must teach.

“When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:18-19).

Every time you teach someone the gospel, you are successful in carrying out the command of Jesus. Every time you sit at home watching television when you could be teaching someone, you are a failure! This is an urgent business. Your soul is at stake as well as the souls of those creatures who have never heard the gospel.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 3-6
January 18, 1973