Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Over the years I have been preaching in Danville (this is my ninth) I have received numerous inquiries about our “special training classes.” It is evident that, although we have advertised in various periodicals (magazines and newspapers, secular and religious) and many brethren are aware of what these classes are, many other brethren remain unaware of what the classes consist of and what they are designed to accomplish. A few brethren consider us a “seminary” or some “unscriptural arrangement,” or a “brotherhood power center” or some other vague threat to the faith. I write this article not so much to allay the fears of the few quoted above brethren generally about what this program is all about.

Like many other congregations (may they multiply), the Danville church has for many years used a young man during the summer, or occasionally for an entire year, to work with the local preacher in what might be called an “apprentice” capacity so that he might learn how to do the work of an evangelist. In 1976, after several years of such a summertime or year-long training period for various young preachers, one of the deacons of the church (who now serves as an elder) suggested that we try a year-long program designed to serve five or six young men rather than one at a time.

At the urging of the congregation, one of the elders, Kelly Ellis, took early retirement from the school system where he had served about thirty years as a teacher and guidance counselor. Supported by the church, he and the local preacher, Royce Chandler, began such a training program. After some slight alterations, the program continued when this author moved to Danville in 1979.

All the teachers in this program have had sound educational credentials (Master’s degree and beyond); Kelly Ellis and Steve Wolfgang have about thirty-five and twenty years, respectively, of preaching experience. Although the church has employed other men (Bob Crawley and David Eakin, for example) to teach when needed, the bulk of the teaching is done by the local preacher and by brother Ellis, still an elder in the Danville church. Gospel preachers who come to Danville for meetings are asked to prepare special material to present in the day classes; in the last few years, the students have been able to study with men such as Ed Harrell, Paul Earnhart, Robert Turner, John Clark, Bob Owen, Bill Cavender, Donnie Rader, and others.

Classes meet for three hours each day (9 a.m. to noon), Monday through Friday, during each of the three “trimesters” into which the school year is divided from Labor Day to Thanksgiving, December 1 to March 1 and March 1 to Memorial Day (with breaks or vacations weeks at appropriate times). In each trimester, students study three different courses with each teacher – thus, six courses per trimester, 18 courses per year, totally 36 different courses if the student remains for the entire curriculum.

In this manner, a student who enrolls for two years receives a course in every biblical book (some are grouped together – for example, Minor Prophets, Wisdom Literature, Synoptic Gospels, etc.) as well as courses in Denominational Doctrines, Sermon Preparation & Delivery, Church History, Bible History & Geography, Evidences, and a course in “Doctrinal Issues” in which debates on topics such as Premillennialism, the Charismatic Movement, Instrumental Music, Institutionalism, Divorce and Remarriage, and other issues are read and discussed. Of course, as one might expect, there are many occasions for informal discussions on various issues or problems which arise from time to time, ranging from evolution to some brother’s position on the date of Revelation to how to deal with a wayward brother or sister (just to cite some examples).

There is no tuition charge for these classes; students provide for their own housing, meals, and personal expenses; students’ textbook costs are about $50 per trimester (the church library is available to students as well).

One advantage to the classes in Danville is that there are a good number of smaller churches within easy driving distance who do not have “regular,” or “full-time” preachers and who will often request one or more students to preach for them at various times, thus providing ample opportunities for students to put into practice what they are learning in class.

Since 1973, more than sixty young men have enrolled in these courses. Several are them are “local,” having lived most of their lives in the Danville area. But they have also come from Canada (5 students), from Chile, Mexico, and twenty states, from New York to California, Michigan to Florida.

Of course, not all of these students have stayed the entire two years – some of them have discovered that preaching does not suit them. (That is probably as useful a lesson for them – and for churches – as anything they might learn in class.) Some of them came with no intentions of ever preaching; they simply wanted to learn more about the Scriptures in order to be better able to serve in whatever way they could. One man in his thirties drove a number of miles from his home for the express purpose of better preparing himself for the possibility of serving as an elder at some future time. I have heard any number of young men say they were “preparing themselves to preach” but how many men have you heard express the desire or pursue an active plan to prepare themselves to serve as shepherds of a local flock of God’s people?

More than thirty of these students, however, are now in full-time preaching work. They are preaching the gospel in West Germany, in Canada, in Central and South America, and in 13 of the United States.

Criticisms

Occasionally some concerned preaching brother will express to me some reservations about the kind of classes we have here. I cannot respond to them in detail here, but I would like to consider some of the most frequently mentioned concerns.

Most of the critics of this program seem to be concerned that it might be an unscriptural arrangement of some sort (specifically, questions have been raised about whether other congregations are involved in this work, or whether by accepting students who have been members of other congregations we violate principles of congregational autonomy). Other concerns expressed to us are that such a program might wield too much influence, or seeks to be some “brotherhood power center,” as one critic put it.

First, let me state plainly that this program is the work of one local congregation, overseen by its elders. It accepts no funds from other congregations, nor does it charge the students who come for the teaching imparted to them. The teaching is done by the elders here (one in particular, though other elders have spoken to the classes at various times), and the local preacher who works with the Danville church. No other congregation participates in this work in any way. In the few instances where we have used teachers who were not members of this congregation, we have paid them for their services, just as we do those preachers who come here to preach in gospel meetings. We would oppose any unscriptural co-operation of churches as quickly and as vocally as our most outspoken critics.

Some have charged that by the act of accepting students who come from other places that we are “dependent on other churches” for students. There are several responses to such fuzzy thinking. First, what do these students (or the churches from which they may come) give to the Danville church? The truth is, the congregation at Danville does the giving – teaching free of charge – and the students are the recipients. Second, if the concept mentioned above is true, then are congregations which allow non-members to attend their gospel meetings for the purpose of teaching them “dependent” upon other churches, or denominations, or the world, by so doing? If not, why not?

But the most critical issue here is that such thinking’ betrays a diocesan concept which is almost breathtakingly Roman Catholic. Scripture certainly nowhere teaches that a Christian is to be limited in study and/or training to the locality where they happened to obey the gospel. The truth is, the students who come to Danville do so as individuals and not as the representatives of some congregation. Again, we would oppose unscriptural concepts in this regard as quickly as anybody else – including some of our critics.

What about Danville’s program as a “center of influence”? Obviously, it might become just such a thing, despite our best efforts to prevent it. Of course, the same potential criticism could be made about congregations which conduct widely-advertised “lectureships,” or preachers who hold many meetings, travel widely, and/or edit journals which circulate among the brethren. Most thoughtful brethren recognize, however, that the potential abuse of something which is right in itself is not a legitimate reason for condemnation. We have attempted to be conscientious about encouraging those who have studied here to go out and start their own such programs, especially those in foreign countries, rather than simply encouraging others to come to Danville. It would be marvelous if every congregation offered similar opportunities for Bible study, and churches should be encouraged to do so.

What does it take for a congregation to do this work? First, it takes a membership which is committed to such a task. Because of the demands of teaching, the local preacher may not always be able to do all of the constant “visiting” or other activities that some congregations, due to a denominational concept of the evangelist as “pastor,” impose on the local preacher. A congregation which takes seriously the work of an evangelist as preacher and teacher of the Word is the first prerequisite.

Second, it takes an eldership committed to the work. This program would not have begun or continued to exist without the services and commitment of Kelly Ellis, who not only helped plan and design the program, but took early retirement (foregoing three of the bestpaying years a school-teacher can expect) in order to devote himself fully to this program. This type program is not one which could be undertaken by the local preacher or any one man. At least two are necessary in order to do the job properly. In like manner, it requires the dedication and commitment of not just one elder, but the entire plurality of overseers. Danville is fortunate to have had such a group through the years.

Third, it takes a preacher who is capable of doing such a job. This means not only one who can perform in the classroom (in addition to all the other tasks expected of him in other congregational duties), but who can relate to the emotional and spiritual needs of six or eight young men each year – taking time to work with them in a variety of ways as circumstances develop or the occasion arises. It also means being able to share their interests and engage in some occasional relaxation and/or recreational activities with them – be it bowling, softball, basketball, or whatever. It can be a draining job – emotionally, spiritually, even physically – which requires the preacher to have the committed support of his family, the elders, and the membership of the congregation.

But as one who has been privileged to work in such an environment for the better part of a decade, I can attest that it is worth whatever tribulation, anguish, or “hassle” such a program may bring. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks in such an arrangement, and, as with most teaching assignments, I believe it is the teacher Who can benefit most of all.

It is my wish that this brief explanation will impart information about the Danville church’s “special training classes,” and answer some basic questions sometimes asked about it. But above all, it is my prayer that other congregations may be encouraged to develop or extend their efforts, to the extent of their opportunities and abilities, to encourage other young men to preach the gospel. It does not necessarily need to be a program similar to the one in Danville. There are many expedient ways to do the job. But do it we must. Truly, the fields are white for harvest, and the laborers far too few (John 4:35; Luke 10:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 2, pp. 48-50
January 21, 1988

By Mike Willis

Brother Irven Lee has repeatedly cited the example of Lois and Eunice rearing Timothy as a godly child in the midst of great ungodliness. He reminded us that Christian parents should not despair; we can still have a godly family during an ungodly age. The success of Eunice is magnified by the remembrance that her husband was not a believer (Acts 16:3).

The Advantage of Godly Parents

We who have been privileged to be reared by faithful Christians have much for which to be thankful. “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). Unfortunately, some children of godly parents rebel against God and speak derogatorily about their godly parents. “A fool despiseth his father’s instruction” (Prov. 15:5). Wishing to avert responsibility for their choice to disobey God (every individual has free moral agency), these renegades against God try to lay the blame for their ungodliness at the feet of their righteous parents. They say, “I don’t go to church now because mother and daddy made me go when I was little.” Rather than depreciating their parents in my eyes by such a comment, these ungodly children have complimented their parents. Even as their parents taught them the value of education and cleanliness against their childish protests, they also had the wisdom to teach them to worship God. They should thank their parents for this instruction instead of condemning them.

Here are some benefits which I have personally received from having been reared by godly parents:

1. A stable home environment. My father and mother never divorced one another and tore us children apart in trying to win our affection. We could depend upon our home being together throughout our childhood. We were not thrown around to uncles and aunts who did not want us; we were not put in homes to be raised at government expense.

2. An atmosphere of love. We knew we were loved by our parents. We never witnessed child abuse, either physical or verbal. Being the sixth of seven children, I would probably have been aborted by many of today’s mothers. However, my parents never made me feel unwanted or unloved.

3. An honorable name. Though my parents were never wealthy, the community always respected them as honorable people. “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather than silver and gold” (Prov. 22:1).

4. Training for living. My parents taught me to work, even enjoying much of it while I was doing it. They taught us how to manage money, how to get alone with others, industriousness, and other virtues which enable one to succeed in life.

5. Religious training. My parents also taught us to distinguish right from wrong. They emphasized the role of the Bible in determining right and wrong and then taught us the Bible. How privileged I am to have been reared by Christians who introduced me to Christ, taught me the plan of salvation, showed me the New Testament church, exposed immorality and sinful behavior, exemplified biblical teachings about marriage, etc.

I thank my God in heaven for having been raised by Godfearing parents. May I never blame my failures upon them!

Mistakes Some Parents Make

Not all parents have the same success in rearing godly children. Indeed, some godly parents have children who turn out to be rebellious and disobedient to God. They have done their jobs as parents but the children, sometime under peer influence or something else, choose to live a different lifestyle.

There are some occasions when parents’ mistakes are obvious and result in “provoking children to wrath” (Eph. 6:4) or otherwise making the children unprepared for life. Here are some mistakes which parents make:

1. Too much guidance. Some parents smother their children with too much guidance. Their children are never able to make a decision of their own; they are never allowed to make a mistake and learn from their mistake by suffering its consequences. These children will be immature.

2. Threatening. Some parents take a dictatorial attitude toward child-rearing (“So long as you are under my roof . . .” ). The parents have the right to manage their home according to their best judgment and the children need to recognize this; however, when this becomes the primary means of controlling behavior, the child decides that he will live like he pleases when he turns eighteen. I have seen several families whose children attended worship faithfully until they turned eighteen and then the children left home and became wild.

3. Teaching children to put other things before Christ. I have witnessed parents inadvertently teaching their children that school work, ball games, recreational activities and jobs takes precedence over the demands of Christ on one’s life. This is done by parents who allow their children to miss worship in order to attend these events. Children are brought up believing that they should attend worship if nothing else is scheduled for that evening.

4. Unfair comparisons. Some children are driven to despair and deep-seated anger by constant comparisons with others. Not all children have the same abilities. When one with little math ability is compared to a sibling who excels in math, he may work to his best potential and never achieve the same level of excellence. As parents, we need to give children room to be themselves, encouraging them to reach their own potential, not someone else’s potential.

There are many other ways that we fail as parents. Our children cannot expect perfect parents anymore than parents can expect perfect children. Where affection and love predominate, our failures can be forgiven and heal (1 Pet. 4:8).

Some Biblical Admonitions For Parents

The Bible teaches parents how to be successful. Here are some of its instructions:

1. Teach your children the Bible. “For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments” (Psa. 78:5-7; cf. Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:14,15).

2. Provide a good example to your children. Christians should manifest an “unfeigned faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). Children are able to detect the slightest hypocrisy. Parents who drink cannot successfully teach their children to avoid, strong drink; parents who have a “live-in” boyfriend/girlfriend cannot teach their children to “flee fornication.” You cannot hide what you are from your children. They know whether or not you curse, drink, smoke, steal, etc.

3. Show them the right priorities. Jesus taught us to “seek . . . first the kingdom of God” (Matt. 6:33), putting our obligations to God above our obligations to anyone else (Lk. 14:26). My children will see me give up personal pleasures in order to serve God, if I truly put Christ first in my life. They will see sacrificial giving on the first day of the week, attendance at worship services even when it is not convenient, helping with work days at the building, and many other forms of service which indicate to them how important the Lord is in my life.

4. Lead them to Christ. The parent should teach his child how to be saved, discuss the Devil’s efforts to keep him from being saved, and otherwise direct him toward the salvation which Christ revealed to mankind. If I see the necessity of talking to my friends about Jesus, I should also see the necessity of talking to my children about eternal life.

Conclusion

The impact of a Christian’s life is enhanced by faithful children. Our efforts to teach the world will carry greater weight when our families demonstrate by their lives the truths which we affirm. May God help every parent among us to rear God-fearing children.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 3, pp. 66, 86
February 4, 1988

By Don Givens

As faithful preachers of the Words of everlasting life, we must know God’s truth, experience it in our own daily lives, and conscientiously share it with others. Our listeners must receive the truth, apply it, and be changed by it.

In order to accomplish this task of “speaking as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), we must diligently learn how best to communicate the truth to others.

As the preacher grows spiritually, so his preaching will grow, and so the church will grow. It is not enough to have the authority of the Word behind the sermon; one must also give evidence of the power of a life lived under the authority of that Word, else we be hypocrites. A preacher who is not willing to preach to himself as he speaks; will not long get a hearing from others.

In our gospel preaching, we will seek to honor the Lord, not glorify ourselves or try to show people how learned or clever we are.

The purpose of preaching is not simply to discuss a subject, but to achieve an object. A genuine sermon involves not only explanation but application as well. A preacher must not be satisfied merely to instruct the mind; he must also stir the heart and motivate the will of people to personally obey God’s truth.

An outline of a sermon is not a message any more than a recipe is a meal, or a blueprint is the building. What a sick man needs is beneficial medicine, not a lecture on better health. Therefore, in our preaching the good outline, let us be certain that the solution of Christ shines clearly through. Do not lay a foundation for a skyscraper, and then proceed to build a chicken coop on it. Be sure you know what the precise aim of your lesson is, and that the audience sees it vividly.

God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) but sometimes preachers are. Whether the audience detects each sub-point or minor division is not that important, but the preacher must know where he is going and how to get there. Once your theme is announced and introduced, stick with it and develop it. Propagandists often depend on “glittering generalities, 9′ but preachers of the gospel must be precise and specific. There is power and authority in precision.

The effective minister of the Word uses his words the way a craftsman uses the correct tools. We must strive to use the right words for the right job; not simply to appear erudite, but to help people understand, comprehend, and obey.

“The preacher sought to find the right words and to write words of truth correctly” (Eccl. 12:10). So must we. Clear preaching begins with clear thinking. Give yourself much time to think through the text, the purpose, and the development of the sermon. Study diligently, outline carefully, illustrate appropriately, and deliver the lesson sincerely. Avoid fuzzy thinking and aim for precision.

Never assume that your listeners know more about spiritual things than they really do. Spiritual and biblical illiteracy abound.

Good preachers own waste baskets and use them. They realize that not every “good idea” can or should be worked into the sermon, lest the lesson become a clutter of unrelated thoughts. Better that the audience get a hold of one or two meaty truths and put them to good use, than that they become lost in a maze of sermonic material and have no spiritual perception to show for it.

After finishing your preparatory work, step back from it and ask yourself: “So what?” What difference will this make in anybody’s life if this sermon is preached? If your response is hazy, go back to the drawing board. Are you preaching because you just have to say something, or because you truly have something to say?

If the purpose of gospel preaching is to save souls and edify those saved (and it is), then the preacher is an impertinent thief who uses the pulpit to show off his “eloquence” or merely to entertain his hearers. Somewhat like John the Baptist, the preacher must “decrease” while the Word of God “increases.” Preach the message, not for the salvation of your sermon, but for the salvation of lost souls. Do hot just try to preach “great sermons,” rather strive to magnify a Great Savior.

Wisdom is not born of complexity; it is born of simplicity. Do not “muddy” the message. Let the truth of the Bible shine clearly through your sermon. Stand not in front of the cross, but behind it. “God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14).

In proclaiming the one faith, each preacher must still “be himself.” Do not mimic nor copy someone else, no matter how much you admire him. Plagiarism has been defined as the lowest form of larceny and the highest form of compliment. The faithful preacher will milk a great many cows, but he will make his own butter. Mark Twain was.,correct when he said: “Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew no man had said it before him.”

Be yourself, but be your best self. Be true to God’s Word, be true to others; that is the best kind of originality.

It is not enough for the gospel preacher to love the truth; he must also love the people to whom he speaks (2 Tim. 2:24-26). The door of approach is more easily opened to people when they know how much you care for their souls, and. it is often quickly shut if they can only see that you are concerned with how much you know.

Preacher, remember that God’s Word is never wasted (Isa. 55:11). It shall always glorify him. You may never see the harvest, but someone else will, and God will be glorified. His Word shall not return to him void. People, dying in sin, need the gospel. Give it to them. Do not obscure the message. Do not apologize for it. Do not think that you can have better manners than the apostles. Preach boldly, with love in your heart (Eph. 4:15) and have the spirit of Christ.

Finally, my fellow preacher, do not think that the work of preaching will do honor to you – but rather that you must and will do honor to the work of preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 2, pp. 50-51
January 21, 1988

By Garreth L. Clair

The title of this article is taken from a book by Leroy Garrett, titled “The Stone Campbell Movement” which I have recently read carefully. The book is called a history of the reformation movement (not restoration movement). From the documented cases within the book of statements attributed to both Stone and the Campbells it would seem that the author hoped to tone down the concept of restoration patternism as he considers it divisive and exclusive. I hope to address the concept of Leroy Garrett and others who consider the concept of restoration and patternism to be divisive and unacceptable to the promoters of unity

Unity is surely desirable among all saints because of the prayer of our Lord for it (John 17:20,21), and for the peace and happy disposition that it could bring to all religious people. Unity is not an impossibility; it may be attained on the basis of what God says about its attainment. Unity cannot be attained on the basis of feelings, what the reformers have said, upon the conditions set forth by the restorationsts, or formulas worked out in Tulsa or in Joplin. Men may have no effect upon the attainment of unity any further than they may deviate from the revealed truth; indeed, they may form some kind of union but to attain unity they must not proceed any less, any further, or suggest any thing else than that which the Lord has authorized to accomplish that aim. While unity seekers may find an acceptable formula to everyone concerned in that most desirable aspiration, the, only formula acceptable to God is, to unify upon that which he has already revealed once for all time (Jude 3). Those who seek for unity must recognize that those of us who are considered to be patternists (the Bible being that pattern) are also interested in unity on that basis, the pattern.

Restoration Patternism,

To accuse those of us who make up the church of Christ of being by nature exclusivists is, I believe an accurate description of us. Indeed, we are convinced that the Scriptures reveal a pattern for the salvation of the lost. That pattern contains a list of five items. The five items in God’s pattern for the salvation of the alien are (1) hearing (Rom. 10: 17), (2) believing (Mk. 16:15,16), (3) repenting of all past sin (Acts 2:38), (4) confessing with the mouth Christ as Lord (Rom. 10:9, 10; Matt. 16:16), and (5) baptism for remission of sin (Acts 2:38; etc.). We are convinced that only those who comply with these conditions from God’s book will have their sins remitted. If this concept is divisive who has made it divisive? We did not. It is our sincere desire to see all men everywhere follow this pattern to the saving of their soul from sin. Is that divisive?

This concept of salvation from sin is only divisive to that one who refuses to comply with the conditions that God has set forth in his book of authority. No doubt there are a number of abstract and unsound concepts that may deprive one of reason and contribute to an outright refusal to come to God’s pattern and be saved, yet if one will consider and accept the conditions of pardon, then unity on this point exists between him and me. I would be willing to accept anyone in fellowship who can show from the Divine pattern another way to be saved from sin. I have searched the Scriptures nearly 27 years for another way; there is only the one pattern that we have shown. The pattern for salvation from sins is so clear to one who will search the cases of conversion in the book of Acts, rightly divide them (2 Tim. 2:15), and apply the conditions toward himself and be saved. Then fellowship may exist between that one and all others who have done likewise.

Because many refuse to follow the biblical pattern in order to be saved from past sin, should we loosen the concept contained in God’s Word to include them in the group that God considers saved? I think not. Because I insist upon compliance with the commands of Scripture for all, does that make me divisive? If that is to be deduced from my actions, I plead that it is totally unreasonable from a scriptural p6nt of view. I plead that it is unreasonable based upon past occurrences revealed to us regarding God’s attitude toward those who failed to comply with his instructions. Notice please the following:

1. In the Old Testament:

A. Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:9,17; 3:1-24). Adam and Eve knew that God had required obedience. They disobeyed, brought death upon the whole family of mankind, and were cast out of paradise (Eden).

B. Cain offers an unacceptable sacrifice and then kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:3-16). Cain knew that God required a blood sacrifice and ignored it, bringing himself then to kill his brother and cause God to curse him.

C. Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain (Gen. 19:23-30). Sin was again dealt with by God. Sodomy was not approved by God and the sinners received their just due.

D. Aaron’s golden calf (Exod. 32:1-32:35). The people knew that God only should be worshiped. They refused to recognize God as God, thereby many were destroyed.

E. Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1; Num. 3:1-5). The two sons of Aaron knew that God had given instructions on everything that pertained to the tabernacle worship but they departed from divine instruction and died.

From these Old Testament examples and many others we are made aware of God’s attitude toward following his patterns. It is apparent that long before Leroy Garrett and his friends were born God required that man follow the Divine pattern. The insistence of God that men follow his pattern predated the American restoration movement by several thousand years.

II. In the New Testament:

A. Christ tempted by the Devil (Matt. 4:1-11). Jesus referred the Devil to the Divine pattern in each of the temptations thusly saying, “it is written.”

B. Peter and John’s position (Acts 4:18-20). Peter and John were threatened by the authorities and told not to teach any further concerning Christ. They presented to the rulers the fact that they had no choice but to reject their order and continue to serve God according to the pattern.

C. Ananias and Sapphira his wife (Acts 5:1-11). Apparently these two people were aware of God’s law, yet they rejected the law and were destroyed.

D. Stephen (Acts 6:9-7:60). Stephen knew God’s attitude toward rejection of the pattern, yet he defended it to his last breath.

E. Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48). Cornelius was one of the pious unimmersed, yet he was not saved from sin. He had not complied with the Divine Pattern. After he had complied with the pattern, he was saved and was accepted into the fellowship of God.

F. God’s rejection of all who follow the law of Moses (Romans). God has no regard for those who follow a law (even though he at one time approved it) that has been abrogated or one contrary to the pattern now binding.

G. Man cannot reject the Divine pattern today and hope to be saved from sin (Heb. 2:14).

H. How can we possibly escape condemnation, having testimony of so many who did comply with the Divine pattern and were thereby made acceptable (Heb. 11:1-40; 12:1,2)?

God required that all men comply with his conditions as far back as the early New Testament era as we have documented. Can the concept of compliance today be accurately described as divisive and those of us who insist upon that compliance be justly condemned as pattern followers, etc.?

In the scheme of revelation patterns may be found the Divine pattern for salvation of the alien. Those of us who desire to please God have no other choice but to so teach, insist, and defend that proposition. If those of our religious neighbors castigate us for this and call us all matter of venom, that still does not change the truth of God’s instruction to us or to them. To suggest that by absolutely abiding within the pattern there can be no unity with the denominations and that position itself is divisive we admit, yet is that such an hindrance to biblical unity? Surely our friends in the Christian Church, the Disciples Church, the Baptist Church, etc. have no greater desire for unity than we do, but our insistence on following the pattern is none the less divisive and God intended it to be so to all who will not conform thereto. We are concerned, we want unity, we will unify with any and all who will accept the Divine pattern, and a beginning place might well be the surrender of the denominational forms of faith only and a compliance with the Divine pattern on salvation from sin.

When in the previous paragraph we suggested that compliance with the Divine pattern on the plan of salvation might be a starting point, we did not imply that the accepted ideas found in denominational circles regarding faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are acceptable to us or to God. I simply imply that the Divine pattern gives the formula for salvation from sin with the right understanding of each item, as baptism (according to the Divine pattern) is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21), a burial in and a coming out of the water (Rom. 6:14; Acts 8:36-39), places one in covenant relationship with Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), and that there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Any person who is not thusly baptized is not in fellowship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit and therefore may not be fellowshipped by me. Since, in reality my fellowship is with the Godhead conditioned upon my faithful obedience to the pattern, any fellowship I may have with others is incidental to that fellowship with man. As we have defined baptism, so must we insist upon the proper attitudes, motives, mode, etc., with regard to the other actions contained in God’s pattern for the salvation of the alien.

In concluding this article, to the charge that the church of Christ preachers (at least this one) teach patternism, that the compliance to the Divine pattern causes division (i.e. causes some to reject us), I readily admit. To the charge that Stone and the Campbells with others of the restoration period began the concept, that there can be no unity where patternism (an appeal to the Divine pattern) exists, that those of us who insist upon following the pattern are divisive, this I deny.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 2, pp. 42-43
January 21, 1988