Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

When a new theory is being advocated, its proponents don’t always look down the road to see the end result of what they are advocating. If an argument seems to meet the present need, that is enough. It is when someone carries the matter a step farther that we often see the consequences. When this occurs it is nearly always too late to go back and undo the damage. On no other theory has this been more true than the doctrine of no patternism.

The Work of the Church

In seeking to justify church support of human institutions from the treasury, some institutional brethren have said there is no pattern regarding the benevolent work of the church. A tract widely circulated in the 50’s and 60’s advocated this. The author “proved” his point by simply omitting all the Scriptures which deal with the church’s benevolent work. In 1976 I had a written debate with an institutional brother who argued that there is no pattern for the evangelistic work of the church.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for the work of the church, we must answer “no.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has said on the subject. A church cared for its own under its own oversight (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16). No mention is made of a man-made benevolent organization that is separate and apart from the congregation, and which solicits and receives funds from numerous churches and oversees the work. The church was its own benevolent society. On some occasions churches sent to needy saints in other Places (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

In evangelism, churches sent wages to a preacher (2 Cor. 11:9). There is no example of one church sending to another church that did not have a benevolent need. The modern “sponsoring church” in which large, wealthy churches solicit from others to support their projects was unheard of.

The Worship of the Church

In “justifying” the use of musical instruments in worship, some brethren in the Independent Christian Church have said there is no pattern to the worship of the church. ” Worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it. . . There is no such thing as ‘acts of worship'” (Given O. Blakely, Blakely-Highers Debate). Thus, instruments are used. If there is no pattern to follow when we worship, then brother Blakely is right in saying there is no wrong way to do it. Of course this would allow tongue-speaking, burning incense, the rosary, “holy water,” wearing clergy garb, hamburgers and coke on the Lord’s table, and religious dancing. And who could deny that those who handle snakes in worship are every bit as sincere as those in the ICC? Snakes would have to be permitted in worship for if “there is no pattern,” then truly, “there is no wrong way to do it. ” (Nor would there be any wrong way to do the work of the church.)

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for five acts of worship in the assembly, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has said on the subject of worship. Primarily he has revealed that when Christians came together to worship, they sang (1 Cor., 14:15f; Col. 3:16), prayed (1 Cor. 14:15f), ate the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-34; Acts 20:7), gave of their means (1 Cor. 16:1,2), and preached and studied (Acts 20:7; 2:42).

The Plan of Salvation

Many modern denominations have difficulty giving a specific answer when asked, “What is God’s plan of salvation?” The reply is usually a nebulous “acceptance” of Jesus. When asked how one does this, we are told that we must “rely” on him. When asked how one relies on him, we are told by “receiving” him. But how does one receive him? By “accepting” him! On and on the cycle goes in which one is never told any absolutes about God’s plan. Some have also said that sprinkling and pouring are just as pleasing as immersion for baptism (Methodist Discipline, p. 545). In other words, there is no pattern for baptism.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern or plan for salvation in five steps, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has revealed on the subject. Primarily, he has revealed that one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believe the gospel (Rom. 10:10), repent (Acts 3:19), confess (Rom. 10:10b), be immersed in water (Acts 22:16; 8:38; 1 Pet. 3:21), and be faithful (Rev. 2:10).

“No Pattern” In Morality?

Advocates of the New Morality” says there is no pattern in the Scriptures regarding one’s moral behavior. Outside of the fact that we should do the “loving thing,” it is pretty well up to you how you conduct yourself. There are no absolutes, for they would constitute the dreaded pattern. There may be circumstances that would justify stealing, lying, adultery, etc. What the Bible means is “Thou shalt not commit adultery -ordinarily! ” It just depends on the situation. Joseph Fletcher, theological father of the modern movement, “plains it all in his book, The New Morality and Situation Ethics.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for morality, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has revealed on the subject.

Conclusion

And so it goes. But before we complete our look at. this pattern of digression, let us consider a quote worth repeating from a most unexpected source:

Restoration assumes patternism. If there was no pattern to lose there is none to restore. The very validity of the Restoration principle rests upon the preclusion that God wanted certain things certain ways, and men have ignored what God wanted. What is it that we are going to restore? Is it not the restoring of doing Bible things in Bible ways? It seems to me that if this principle is ignored then we have no real reason for trying to restore anything.

. . . Is God a God who deals in patterns? He did with Noah. He did with Moses in the building of the tabernacle. Unless he changes his nature he still deals in patterns with us. His patterns must be respected.

We must go to pattern theology for our very concept of the church. . . . Everything we read in the Scriptures enforces the pattern concept. . . . Redemption follows a pattern or it doesn’t. Worship follows a pattern or it doesn’t. Church government follows a pattern or it doesn’t. The Christian life follows a pattern or it doesn’t. If there is no pattern then one way to be saved is as good as another, one may worship anyway he pleases, govern the church any way he chooses and live any kind of life he wishes to live.

If we assume such a thing as pattern theology, or even admit to the existence of patterns, we are forced to accept limitations, for patterns limit. They restrict to both right and left. This forces us to accept God’s authority in areas of silence as well as in areas of revelation (Reuel Lemmons, One Body, Symmer/88, p. 4).

Already some have crossed from the “no pattern” in the work of the church to “no pattern” in the worship. And some have crossed from “no pattern” in the worship to “no pattern” in the plan of salvation. Walking down steps is easier than walking up. The next step is a little easier. Remember, the college president who wrote “Where There Is No Pattern” eventually left the faith and joined a denomination. It is becoming more and more difficult to put on the brakes. Brethren, where will it all end?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 705, 727
December 1, 1988

By Aude McKee

I. Last issue we covered these points in Protestant history:

A. Ulrich Zwingli responsible for the origin of the Reformed Church. The Congregational Christian Church and the Evangelical and Reformed Church have merged to form the United Church of Christ.

B. Zwingli and Luther held opposing views regarding the authority of the Bible:

1. Luther – anything acceptable that is not specifically forbidden.

2. Zwingli – everything rejected that is not expressly enjoined.

C. John Calvin and his disciple, John Knox, responsible for the origin of the Presbyterian Church in Switzerland and Scotland.

II. Today we begin a study of the origin and doctrines of the larger religious bodies in this nation.

Discussion:

I. The Origin of the Baptist Church.

A. Baptist people are not agreed as to when the Baptist Church started.

1. Back about the beginning of the century, Baptists were generally agreed that the Baptist Church was started by John the Baptist in the wilderness of Judea. In 1902, a Baptist preacher by the name of J.N. Hall affirmed this position in a debate with A.G. Freed at Corinth, Mississippi.

2. Most are now saying that it began during Christ’s personal ministry.

a. Hazel, KY, Baptist wrote recently saying that Mark 3:13-14 is the beginning.

b. H. Boyce Taylor, Sr., in Why Be A Baptist (p. 15), says: “John the Baptist prepared the material and the Lord organized the first Baptist Church during His personal ministry here upon earth.”

c. On page 17, Mr. Taylor says: “In Luke 6:12-16, after an all night of prayer, Jesus called His disciples unto Him and chose 12, whom He named apostles. They were called out from others. That is what ekkiesia means, ‘the called out.’ They were chosen to be with Him (Mk. 3:14).”

(1) Observe, however, that Mark 3:13-14 and Luke 6:12-16 are parallel passages to Matt. 10:1-15.

(2) Some time after this, Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16: 18). In Matt. 16, the church had not yet been built!

3. There are some Baptists who claim that there is an unbroken chain of Baptist Churches from the apostles till now (see The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll).

B. Baptist scholars, however, readily admit that the Baptist Church cannot be traced back of the 17th century.

1. “The first regularly organized Baptist Church of which we possess any account is dated from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, who had been a clergyman in the Church of England” (Benedict’s History of the Baptists. p. 304).

2. “The word ‘Baptists’ as a descriptive name of a body of Christians, was first used in English literature, so far as is now known, in the year 1644. For the fact that the name Baptist comes into use at this time and in this way, but one satisfactory explanation has been proposed: it was at this time that English churches first held, practiced, and avowed those principles ever since associated with that name” (Vedder’s Short History of the Baptists, p. 3).

3. “A history of Baptist Churches going further back than the early years of the 17th century would, therefore, in the present state of knowledge, be in the highest degree unscientific. The very attempt to write such a history new would be a confession of gross ignorance, either of the facts known, or of the methods of historical research and the principles of historical criticism, or both” (Ibid., p. 5).

C. John Smyth and Baptist beginnings.

1. Smyth was a member of, and a preacher in, the English Separatist movement.

2. Persecution drove many Separatists to Holland, including Smyth and Thomas Helwys (1606).

3. Among other things, Smyth believed in separation of church and state and he rejected infant baptism.

4. The Separatists had trouble and in 1608 Smyth, Helwys and about 36 others began a new group.

5. “A refugee congregation of English dissenters settled in Amsterdam about 1607 and soon came under the influence of the Mennonites. From them they learned the biblical doctrine of believer’s baptism. As a result, a Baptist congregation was established under the leadership of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys about 1608” (From a Baptist tract, Who Are The Baptists?, by Robert Torbet).

6. In beginning this new group, Smyth “baptized” himself and the others by effusion (sprinkling).

7. In 1611, Helwys returned to England and organized the Ist Baptist Church on English soil (A General Baptist Church).

a. In 1633, the Particular Baptist (Calvinistic) Church was organized.

b. In 1640, this English Church split and adopted immersion “as the mode of baptism.”

c. The name “Baptist” as a denominational title was first used in 1644 and was adopted then only by those who immersed.

D. The Baptist Church in America.

1. Roger Williams came to America in 1631 as a Separatist minister. He contended for the separation of church and state.

2. Persecution arose and he was banished from Massachusetts in 1636 and settled in Providence, R.I.

3. In 1639, a Particular Baptist Church was organized by Eziekel Holiman, baptizing Williams and Williams baptizing Holliman and about a dozen others.

4. At first Williams affirmed that they were nearer the “apostolic norm” than others, but later he became doubtful, withdrew, and remained a “seeker” the rest of his life.

E. The Baptist Church has been beset by numerous divisions. There are perhaps as many as 20 different groups in America.

1. General, Particular, Christian Unity, Free Will, Primitive, Missionary.

2. Independent, Seventh Day, Two Seed in the Spirit, Northern, Southern, etc.

3. In view of the divisions among Baptists, all Baptists will not agree on the doctrinal points listed below.

II. Baptist Doctrines.

A. Original Sin (infants are born depraved).

1. “We believe that by the fall of Adam, all of his posterity are conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity, so that every thought and every imagination of the heart is only evil continually” (Articles of Faith, #3, First Baptist Church, Murray, KY).

2. Certain bodily ills may be inherited but our souls are not affected by sin.

3. Our souls (spirits) are from God; not from our earthly parents (see Zech. 12:1; Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).

4. Man “inherits” the penalty for Adam’s sin, not the guilt. All men die physically, must contend with weeds, and woman is subject to man and must bear children in sorrow (Gen. 3:16-19).

B. Baptism.

1. Baptism is not essential to salvation.

a. “Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogma of ‘baptismal regeneration’; but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to membership in the church which is his body” (The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, by Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., p. 20, Note 8).

b. See Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-41; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Pet. 3:21. c. Note that baptism is essential to obedience but not essential to salvation. Therefore (by Baptist teaching) obedience is not essential to salvation (see Heb. 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 4:17; Matt. 7:21-27; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

2. Baptism is essential to membership in the Baptist Church (see quote above).

a. If baptism is essential to being in the Baptist Church but not essential to salvation, then being in the Baptist Church is not essential salvation!

b. Being in the church the Lord built is essential. In fact, being in the church and being saved are one and the same (Acts 2:47; 5:14; 20:28; Eph. 5:22-27).

3. Baptism must be administered by a Baptist preacher.

a. “We believe that no person has a right to administer the ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) but such as are regenerated, baptized, called of God to the work, and set apart by ordination, with the laying on of the hands of a presbytery” (Articles of Faith, #10, First Baptist Church, Murray, KY).

b. Where does the New Testament give qualifications for the one doing the baptizing?

c. Were Ananias (Acts 9:10-18), Philip (Acts 8:26-39), etc., Baptist preachers or gospel preachers?

4. Congregational approval by voting on all candidates for baptism.

a. “It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now it is different; and while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons. The churches therefore have candidates come before them, make their statement, give their ‘experience’ and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members. And while they cannot become members without baptism, yet it is the vote of the body which admits them to its fellowship on receiving baptism” (Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, by Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., p. 22).

b. There is no command, necessary inference, or apostolic example for such a practice.

c. See Acts 8:26-39. When the Eunuch asked to be baptized did Philip say that such would have to wait until he could be voted on?

C. Impossibility of Apostasy.

1. “We believe that the saints shall persevere in grace, and never fall finally away” (Article of Faith, #6, First Baptist Church, Murray, KY).

2. “Baptists believe that if a man is once saved, he is always saved” (Why Be A Baptist?, by H. Boyce Taylor, Sr., p. 13).

a. This is another of Calvin’s teachings. This doctrine came out of the Reformation and not the Bible.

b. Read Heb. 3:12,19; 6:4-6; 10:26-3 1; Gal. 5:1-4; 1 Cor. 9:26-27; 10:12; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 2 Pet. 2:1-3,20-22; Gal. 5:19-21.

D. Congregational Government of a Pastor and Deacons.

1. “Baptists assert that the officers of a church are two, – and of right, can be no more, – pastor and deacons” (Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, by Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., p. 146).

2. In the church described in the New Testament, each local congregation had a plurality of elders and deacons (see Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; Phil. 1:1).

3. The Greek word for “pastor” in the New Testament is poimen and is translated “pastor” and “shepherd” (see Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:2).

E. Conventions and Associations, Intercongregational and Intracongregational organizations, church colleges and Hospitals, Missionary and Benevolent Societies.

1. The New Testament knows nothing of anything smaller than, larger than, or other than the local congregation so far as a functioning unit is concerned.

2. Can you imagine Noah tying a half-dozen small boats on behind the ark – thus demonstrating his lack of confidence in the all-sufficiency of the ark God designed?

3. Read Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:12; 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8; 2 Cor. 11:7-9; Phil. 1:5; 4:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 6:1-6; 11:17-30.

F. Church Sponsored Recreation, Entertainment, Meals, Church owned and operated Youth Camps (see 1 Cor. 11:20-22,33-34; Eph. 4:12; 1 Pet. 2:5).

G. Youth churches, Choirs to sing to the congregation, Instrumental Music in Worship (see Acts 2:37-47; 5:14; Phil. 1:1; Heb. 2:12; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

H. Lord’s Supper.

1. Closed Communion.

a. ‘Baptists believe in closed communion. Jesus Himself was a close communionist. He did not invite His mother, or the man in whose house He instituted the Lord’s Supper to be present at that supper. How could you have closer communion than that?” (Why Be A Baptist, by H. Boyce Taylor, Sr., p. 13).

b. Read 1 Cor. 11:20-30. “Let a man examine himself.”

2. Frequency and time of observance.

a. “As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As to the supper our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month” (The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, by Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., p. 20, note 5).

b. Acts 20:7.

c. This passage answers both questions:

(1) When? “On the first day of the week.”

(2) How often? “On the first day of the week.

(3) Each week has only one first day, but each week has one.

Conclusion:

1. In the days of the apostles, people were taught the gospel without addition or subtraction. When they obeyed it from the heart they became free from sin and were added to the church by the Lord (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 22:16; 2:47; 18:8).

2. As obedient believers they were simply called Christians (Acts 11:26; 2:47; 18:8).

3. They were never voted on; never joined any denomination.

4. They were just members of the family of God, which is the church (1 Tim. 3:15).

5. Our plea is that you come to Jesus in the same humble, obedient way today.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 21, pp. 650-652
November 3, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

The suggestions offered here on making arrangements for a public debate do not come from an expert and are not absolute. They are meant to encourage and to equip some younger men who may become involved in public debate so that they will not make the mistakes I made.

For instance, my first public debate was with J. Watts, a “Full Gospel” or pentecostal-holiness preacher, 16-17 May 1969 at the Wooley Springs Church of Christ between Athens and Ardmore, Alabama. The subject was miracles. He brought few of his people to hear the discussion and walked out during one of my speeches on the second night, as he muttered, “This isn’t doing a bit of good. ” Though he had promised we would have two nights on instrumental music at his meeting place, we never got another word from him on it. The arrangements should have provided for the first debate to be at Mr. Watts church before his own audience. If there was no second debate, his people still would have been exposed to the truth. There would have been more incentive for the second debate if he had not yet appeared before our brethren in our meetinghouse.

Mr. Watts was eminently right about one thing: debating does false doctrine no good. The false teacher will soon learn this unpleasant lesson and will want to avoid further controversy. We must take that into account when we make the arrangements and construct them so as to give him some incentive to complete the discussion. We want to make it difficult and embarrassing for our opponent to discontinue the discussion. If we hope to have more than one debate, it is well to get him to sign several propositions before the first debate occurs. Then during the first debate, make repeated references to the other signed propositions and commend the opponent’s willingness to debate. Mr. Watts would have had far more incentive to debate again if I could have stood in his meeting place before his people with his signature on the next proposition.

Mr. Watts is to be commended for his willingness to engage in open study. He has already signed another proposition which says, ” . . . ” This shows him to be a man of courage and conviction. Such a man can be expected to keep his word and we look forward to having him speak before our brethren. Mr. Watts is not like these spineless preachers who run and hide from public discussion.

That speech was never made before Mr. Watts’ people because the first debate was not held in the best location and other important details were missing in the arrangements.

Helpful comments on good debating can be found in school textbooks on speech, logic, and debating. Hedge’s Rules of Logic is worth reading. His “Rules of Controversy” or “Rules of Debate” are included and explained in that book, and are briefly stated below. James D. Bales has provided a wealth of helpful information on various aspects of debating in such books as The Sufficiency of the Scriptures (Searcy, Ark.: Bales Bookstore, n.d.), Soils and Seeds of Sectarianism (Kansas City, Mo.: Old Paths Book Club, 1947; reprint Shreveport, La.: Lambert’s Book House, ii.d.), Christian, Contend For Thy Cause (Delight, Ark., Gospel Light Publ. Co., n.d.), and Jesus, The Master Respondent (Shreveport, La.: Lambert’s Book House, 1970). There is no better way to study debating than by reading debates in the Bible, in other books, and in journals; by attending debates and listening to them on tape; or by studying with such experienced debaters as Elmer Moore, A.C. Grider, Weldon Warnock, J.T. Smith and Larry Hafley.

In making arrangements for a debate, an agreement should be signed by each disputant, spelling out the responsibilities of the speakers, the moderators, and the audience. A sample “Agreement” is provided below. Notice that the format of the discussion is included. Some people may prefer four 30 minute speeches or some other arrangement, rather than the one given here. It is not necessary to read the agreement to the audience. If an infraction occurs, the pertinent section can be read publicly. A sample “Announcement” briefly explaining the roles of the speakers and of the audience is also provided. Notice that it precludes the audience participation used by some false teachers in an effort to disrupt the logical and intelligent process of debate. Proper arrangements contribute to successful and fruitful discussions.

Agreement Signed By Each Speaker

I. Responsibilities of the Speakers.

A. We agree to engage in honorable discussion of the matters specified in the propositions signed. Therefore, we shall adhere to the honorable standards of public discussion known as “Hedge’s Rules of Debate”:

Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.

Rule 2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for the truth, with himself, and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided.

Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged.

Rule 5. No one has a right to accuse his adversary of indirect motives.

Rule 6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.

Rule 7. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.

Rule 8. That in the final negative no new matter shall be introduced.

B. We agree in all matters relating to this discussion to conduct ourselves as gentlemen, in keeping with the “golden rule” of Jesus – each shall treat the other as he wishes to be treated (Luke 6:31).

C. The dates, times, and places shall be mutually agreed upon by the speakers.

D. The format of discussion for each proposition shall be:

25 min., lst Affirmative Speech

25 min., 1st Negative Speech

25 min., 2nd Affirmative Speech

25 min., 2nd or Final Negative Speech

10 min., Summary Speech by Affirmative Speaker (no new material to be presented)

10 min., Summary Speech by Negative Speaker (no new material to be presented)

E. No new material may be introduced in the Final Negative Speech of each proposition.

II. Responsibilities of the Moderators.

A. The speakers agree that each of us shall select our own moderator.

B. Each moderator shall be responsible to:

1. See that the speakers observe Hedge’s rules of debate and the “golden rule” of Jesus during the discussion.

2. See that the audience is orderly.

3. Keep the time for his own speaker.

C. In the event of a point of order:

1. The moderator alone shall call the point of order.

2. The two moderators alone shall have the floor until they agree upon the solution.

3. The speaker’s time will be held during a point of order, and shall resume when he continues his speech.

III. Responsibilities of the Audience.

A. The audience should give respectful attention to both speakers.

B. The audience should make no demonstration, either favorable or unfavorable.

C. The audience should avoid getting into heated discussion on the grounds before and after each session.

IV. It is agreed that the moderator of each affirmative speaker will read the appended “Announcement to Audience” and the proposition to be affirmed, before the discussion of each proposition commences.

Signatures of both participants

Announcement To Audience

1. Jesus said, “. . all things whatsoever ye would that men should to do you, do ye even so to them” (Matt. 7:12). The speakers have agreed to abide by that principle. We request that everyone in the audience will abide by it as wen in your conduct toward the speakers and other people who are attending the debate.

2. If you have never attended a religious debate, you should understand that each speaker is expected to be bold and forceful, both in presenting his own material and in testing the arguments of his opponent. Just because a speaker is vigorous in making a point, this does not mean that he is bitter or unkind. Jesus is the perfect example of love, yet he was often pointed and even severe in his speech (see for instance Matt. chapters 21-23). People who believe they have the truth are not afraid for it to be examined and will not be offended by the process of examination-in public debate.

3. The debaters have been selected because of their outstanding ability to represent their respective positions. The moderators are responsible to insure decorum on the part of everyone here, to rise to a point of order if necessary, and to settle any such dispute. The audience is here to listen and to learn.

Please listen quietly and respectfully, not only to the speaker you support but to both disputants. Remember that they are eminently qualified to present their material without any help from the audience. If you must call out from the audience to help the man you support, it means he is not adequate to do the job himself and needs some propping up. If you want to debate one of the disputants, you need to make your own arrangements at some other time and should not interrupt the present debate in order to try your hand at it.

To avoid any appearance of our audience getting out of order or attempting to prop up these excellent speakers, we ask that you do not speak out in the assembly to indicate approval or disapproval. Do not interrupt the disputants or the audience by speaking out in any fashion.

4. Let the debaters do the debating. Come every night so that you can hear them out fully. You may wish to exchange addresses and phone numbers with people you meet if you are interested in further study on the subject at hand. But please do not get into heated arguments with people you meet Ion the grounds here.

Signed By Disputants

Signed By Moderators

Guardian of Truth XXXII:21, pp. 654-655
November 3, 1988

By Mark Mayberry

The word “Armageddon” appears only in Revelation 16:16. It is described as the rallying-place of the kings of the whole world who, led by the unclean spirits issuing from the mouth of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, assemble there for “the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. ” The battle of Armageddon is anticipated in Revelation 16:13-16 but is not fought until Revelation 19:11-21.

The Battle of Armageddon is the source of much sensational speculation. The far-fetched views and misconceptions which people have on this subject are truly amazing to consider. Much of the problem lies with the advocates of the false system of Premillennialism. They teach that a universal war will soon take place among the nations of the world, and the final, catastrophic battle of that war will occur on the plains of Megiddo. The battle described in Revelation is viewed literally. It will be a bloody holocaust such as the world has never known. It is argued that conflicts are now developing that will lead to Armageddon. It supposedly will take place after the 7 years of tribulation, and just before the second advent of Christ. How does their teaching harmonize with the Scriptures?

Armageddon Defined

The word Armageddon is derived from the Hebrew Har-Magedon, which means the “Mountain of Megiddo.” The city of Megiddo lay in north central Palestine. It was strategically located on the southern rim of the Plain of Jezreel. This valley, also known as the Plain of Esdraelon, was some 20 miles long by 6 miles wide. A major highway linking Egypt and Mesopotamia went through this area. Because of its location, Megiddo became an important military outpost. It is often described in the Bible as a military stronghold (Josh. 12:2 1; 17:11; Jdg. 1:27; 5:19; 2 Kgs. 9:27; 23:29; etc.)

Actually, there was no literal mountain named “Megiddo.” The reference is either to the mountains that were near the town of Megiddo, or possibly to the large mound of the city itself. “The fact that the tell of Megiddo was about 70 feet high in John’s day, and was in the vicinity of Carmel Range, justifies the use of Heb. har, used loosely in the Old Testament for ‘hill’ and ‘hill country’ (BDB, p. 249; cf. Josh. 10:40; 11:16, RSV)” (New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “HarMagedon”).

The Symbolism of Names and Places

A place can become symbolic because of some historical event with which it is associated. For example, all are familiar with the saying, “He met his Waterloo!” Waterloo was a small town in central Belgium where Napoleon was finally defeated in 1815. The expression has come to represent a disastrous defeat.

Consider the words “Remember the Alamo!” In that battle, a small group of men stood bravely against impossible odds. That small mission in San Antonio represents the spirit of courage and sacrifice, and is a proud part of the heritage of Texas.

So it is with the plain of Megiddo or “Armageddon.” It was the scene of so many decisive battles, that it came to stand for battle itself. “These low hills around Megiddo, with their outlook over the plain of Esdraelon, have witnessed perhaps a greater number of bloody encounters than have ever stained a like area of the world’s surface” (ISBE, s.v. “Har-Magedon”).

Megiddo had been the scene of never-to-be forgotten battles. It was famous for two great victories. Here Deborah and Barak overthrew Sisera and the army of the Canaanites (Jdg. 4:15; 5:19-21). Against overwhelming odds, Gideon and his 300 here defeated the Midianites (Jdg. 6-7). It was famous for two great disasters. Here wicked King Saul, who had been rejected by God, was defeated by the Philistines (1 Sam. 31). Later, Josiah was killed here when he tried to prevent Pharaoh Necho of Egypt from going to the aid of Assyria (2 Kgs. 23:29-30; 2 Chron. 35:22). To the Jewish mind, Megiddo was a place of great slaughter and represented God’s terrible judgment upon the wicked. Thus Armageddon became a poetic expression for terrible and decisive conflict.

Its Significance In the Book of Revelation

What is the message of Revelation when it speaks of the battle of Armageddon? This book was written during a time of severe and widespread persecution. The Christian movement appeared to be on the brink of extinction. This was an hour of desperate need. John wrote in order to reassure disciples that the forces of evil would be completely overthrown and Christianity would triumph victoriously. The Book of Revelation is a message of victory. The Greek word nikao – translated “overcome,” isconquer,” or “victory” – is found 28 times in the New Testament, and 17 of these are in Revelation.

John wrote concerning things that would “shortly come to pass.” Those who take a futuristic and literal interpretation of Revelation fail to grasp the true message of the book. No interpretation of the book as a whole or this battle in particular can have any significance unless it has application to those first century saints to whom the book was addressed.

Revelation is an apocalyptic book, filled with signs, visions, and highly symbolic language. Any interpretation of this book that seeks to literalize its images is doomed to absolute failure. This is the cardinal sin of the Premillennialism. Those who would interpret Armageddon literally are very selective in their approach. The context speaks of three frogs, a great red dragon, a sea beast, and an earth beast. If one expects a literal battle, he should expect the army to be headed bfthree frogs. Both figures are symbolic; neither is literal. There is no reason for making one literal and the other symbolic. If we make the battle literal, why not the other symbols as well?

The context speaks of God pouring out his wrath upon the evil forces that opposed the early church. Even though all the forces of evil be gathered together as one in their conflict against God, they will be overwhelmed by his decisive and unrelenting judgment. Using the figure of Armageddon, the apostle John is not referring to any particular locality. Ultimately, Armageddon cannot be located on the maps of the earth; its geographical location is unimportant.

In the Book of Revelation, the battle of Armageddon represents the decisive conflict between good and evil. It symbolizes occasions when righteousness and evil are engaged in deadly combat. However strong the forces of evil may appear, and however hopeless therighteous may seem, God will ultimately win the victory!

How comforting this message must have been to those early Christians who were suffering under the heavy hand of the evil Roman empire. The whole thrust of the Apocalypse is to assure the saints of this victory, and to exhort them to avoid compromising with error. Rome was the evil force at that time, but the principle is timeless. God and his cause will be victorious in the end!

Let us never forget that we are at war with Satan and his forces (Eph. 6:11-17; 1 Pet. 5:8-9). We must earnestly contend for the faith (1 Tim. 6:12; Jude 3). The battle will be fierce, but we have the assurance that victory is ours. Ultimately, spiritual evil will be overthrown by the great power of the Almighty God (1 Jn. 5:4; Rev. 20:10-15).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 675-676
November 17, 1988