Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Thomas

During October 25, 26, 28 and 29, 1982 a public debate was conducted in the circuit courtroom of the Pike county courthouse in Pikeville, Kentucky between Olan Hicks of Searcy, Arkansas and Rick King of Cromona, Kentucky. Joe Mattney of Richlands, Virginia served as moderator for brother Hicks and I served for brother King.

The first two nights King affirmed the following proposition: “The scriptures teach that the one who puts away his mate and marries another, except for fornication, continues to commit adultery as long as he lives with the second mate.” The last two nights Hicks affirmed: “The scriptures teach that couples who commit adultery by unscripturally divorcing and remarrying, may be forgiven of that adultery without separating.”

Observations

This discussion was held in an area which has been disturbed for sometime over the issue of divorce and remarriage. Brother Hicks’ approach to the question was novel to most who attended; yet he has lectured widely, written several booklets and had engaged in at least two prior debates on this subject. It appeared to many that he entered this discussion underestimating his opponent, who as a young man was engaging in only his second debate.

Since the discussion, reports have been received of those who have been strengthened in their opposition to unscriptural divorce and remarriage. A few, including area preachers, have changed their views and are now standing opposed to such marriages. Some who were responsible for brother Hicks’ part in the debate have openly expressed their dissatisfaction with his efforts. On the other hand, nothing but praise has been heard for brother King’s thorough preparation and powerful presentation.

Arguments

Rick’s main argument was that in a scriptural marriage “God joins the man and his wife together in a covenant relationship witnessed by Him” (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17). This covenant, he insisted, “binds them to one another as long as they live” (Rom. 7:2, 3), “God joins,” he said, “and only God can release. We read that He releases one from the bond by reason of marital unfaithfulness by one’s mate (Mt. 19:9).” He then concluded that the Bible reveals no other cause for which God releases one from “the marriage bond.”

Olan charged that Rick’s position was the same as the “Catholic sacrament theory.” He demanded the Scripture where any apostle ever required the unscripturally married to separate. Rick responded that repentance called for giving up an adulterous relationship (Acts 26:20). He also stated that polygamists and homosexuals could not continue with such illicit mates, yet there is no specific incident of their being told to separate.

Hicks contended that the relationship of those unscripturally divorced and remarried was not wrong although it was entered by sin. He insisted that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 had nothing to do with a sex act. According to him, to “divorce” and “remarry” constituted “adultery.” When Rick persisted in calling for one lexicographer who gave such a definition of “adultery” he read Thayer’s secondary meaning (p. 417) where the word for “adulteress” is used figuratively in James 4:4. Rick pointed out that even in the figurative use, the literal meaning is under consideration, i.e. “unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.” He also showed from Hicks’ writings that he did not really know himself where the sin is, as he one time wrote: “He does not sin if he marries” and again “marrying is where the sin is.” Furthermore, Hicks stated that “divorce is a sin” yet wrote that it was not.

Hicks claimed that Paul gave “100 percent of men and 100 percent of women” the right to marry (1 Cor. 7:2). He charged that to forbid marriage is to teach “the doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). He argued that Paul allowed all divorced people to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27, 28); yet he also insisted that Jesus said the two acts – divorce and remarriage – were adultery (Mt. 19:9). King pointed out that Hicks’ position was unclear and contradictory throughout.

On Romans chapter seven Hicks claimed that Paul was talking to those under the law of Moses, which did not allow women to divorce their husbands. King stated that it was the law of her husband to which she was bound (Rom. 7:2). He explained that Paul was showing how the Jews were now free from the law to be married to Christ, since they had died to the law, just as a wife is free to marry again when her husband dies. Hicks said that “the law did not die and it did not commit adultery.” He asserted that the Jews were divorced from the law and married to Christ. Rick charged Hicks with teaching that Christ came in and broke up the marriage of the Jews to the law and stole away the law’s bride.

This is not intended as a full review of the debate but only to give a brief overview. If you wish copies of the tapes send four quality 120 minute blank tapes to Rick King, Box 185, Cromona, KY 41810. I suggest that you send plenty of stamps along to cover postage.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 137
March 3, 1983

By Dorval L. McClister

Introduction

Christ is the chief shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4) over the saints with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Elders In Every Church

The eldership of the local church is always a subject of discussion. Problems arise, decisions must be made, and the elders are the men upon whom much responsibility rests in trying to solve problems, uphold truth, and keep unity among those who comprise the local congregation.

These articles are designed as an aid in the study of selecting elders and in getting acquainted with their work and their problems. I have chosen this title, SHEPHERD STAFFS, simply because the contents of the book relate primarily to the work of elders. As a preacher and as one who also serves as an elder, I have experienced the difference between preaching a sermon directed toward a particular problem and the literal application of the sermon to the problem. Experience is a great teacher. Serving as a preacher may not make you a better elder, but serving as an elder will make you a better preacher.

I have not written this material as a source of advice to elders or anyone else, nor as a source of infallible information upon the subjects discussed. However, as elders of the church there comes a time when both sides of a matter must be weighed carefully and on the bottom line a decision made. If something can be gleaned from these pages which will give you a better understanding of the topics discussed, then the effort will have accomplished its purpose.

What Is An Elder?

The word elder carries a dual meaning in the New Testament Scriptures. The word may have reference primarily to an older person, hence an elder or older. The word is also used. to designate a special work or function of certain men within the church. The Greek word presburteros is the word from which we get the word elder, or the idea of an older person, one advanced in age. These were the heads, rulers, and leaders of the tribes and families of Israel portrayed in the Old Testament (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1). This concept is carried over into the New Testament in such passages as 1 Timothy 5:17. The work of an elder in the church in described by another word, episkopos, and is translated “bishop” in 1 Timothy 3:1, and “overseer” in Acts 20:28. The word “bishop” is not a title, but rather describes the work as that of an overseer. A plurality of men is required by the New Testament Scriptures to oversee the local congregation. Paul ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and instructed Titus to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The work of elders is also described as the work of shepherds or pastors (Eph. 4:11). These are not titles of preachers, nor do they describe the work of an evangelist. Elders are older men who have the abilities (qualifications) to oversee, lead, guide, and shepherd the local church. In the New Testament church Christ is the chief shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4) over the saints with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Elders In Every Church

The church at Philippi was complete in its organization, being comprised of saints, bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). There is something seriously lacking in a local congregation which does not produce men who are qualified to serve as elders. This may be due to a lack of teaching and preaching on the subject, or in some cases men who have the qualifications just do not desire the office of a bishop. They are often reluctant to take the position of leadership because they fear the usual criticisms that are heaped upon the elders, or they may have seen godly elders abused and slandered by members of the church. It does require a great amount of courage to stand up against error, apathy, hypocrisy, unbelief, and every other evil that enters in among God’s people. But a strong, united eldership can conquer these foes and maintain the doctrinal and moral purity that is required within the church. If you meet the qualifications for serving as an elder, let it be known that you desire the work and that you are willing to give your strength and your talents in this service. If there are no elders in the local church where you worship, then begin to encourage men of the congregation to strive for this important work.

Authority Of Elders

The eldership of a local congregation is not a legislative body. Elders make no laws. The New Testament is the law of the Lord in the church, and elders are required to carry out or apply that law without addition to it or subtraction from it. Yet some have reached the conclusion that elders serve only as .examples for others and have no right to make scriptural demands that require others to comply. The Hebrew writer says, “Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account” (Heb. 13:17). Peter says, “Feed (shepherd or pastor) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof . . .” (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders have the authority to rule and take the oversight. Elders are authorized overseers (Acts 20:28) of the local church, and members are to submit to elders in the application of God’s Law. The authority of elders is the authority to demand compliance to the laws of Christ within the church. Elders may become corrupt and abuse their responsibilities, and in such cases they are to be rebuked before all (1 Tim. 5:20). Sermons dealing with the relationship of the elders to the flock ought to be preached often, and members of the church ought to understand that elders have the authority to demand that they conduct themselves as is becoming the gospel of Christ.

It also must be pointed out that elders oversee only the flock of God which is among them (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders of the local church have no say in any matters which involve another congregation. Their rule and oversight begins and ends with the local congregation. When congregations enter into cooperations by combining their resources and functioning through a sponsoring church arrangement, and where elders of one congregation oversee the work of other congregations, then there are elders over elders and results in the formation of an unscriptural organization. This is the erroneous foundation upon which all sponsoring church type of organizations rests. Elders have no biblical authority to form sponsoring church organizations in which funds from other congregations are collected and spent at the discretion of the elders of one church. The sponsoring church arrangement simply places many congregations under the oversight of one eldership, and the elders of a local congregation ought to have sufficient wisdom to see the unscriptural scheme and reject it.

Selecting Men To Serve

Men are to be selected from within the congregation to serve as elders. This is a place and a work designed for men, not women, as the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 clearly show. It is not the intent of this discussion to enter into lengthy definitions of all the qualifications set forth in these passages. You may read these passages and determine the characteristics demanded. However, based upon my personal experience, I would like to discuss some thoughts which I believe to be important and which are sometimes overlooked in the selection of men who are to serve as elders.

How Old?

One such thought has to do with the question of how old one should be before he is to be considered as elder material. Here is where the idea of elder, or older, comes into focus. While the New Testament does not set a definite age, it does imply the exclusion of younger men. The idea of elder, or older men, implies wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual maturity and stability. Sometimes a man is considered or expresses his desire for the work of an elder because he has children who have been baptized. He may be a man of thirty-five who has been a member for ten or fifteen years and has a twelve year old son and a ten year old daughter. During the past year the son and daughter were baptized, so now he has believing children. The conclusion is often stated that if a man is old enough to have believing children, then he is old enough to serve as an elder. This, I believe, requires some serious thought. We must realize that the crucial test in raising children is that period between the ages of 12 and 17. It will be during this period when his ability to rule his own house will be seen.

Another thing to notice with younger men is, although having young children who have been baptized, does he show laxity with his children? Are they allowed to miss services of the church to attend ball games, social functions, camping trips, etc.? These thoughts are not set forth as picking with a fine-toothed comb, but rather to cause those who select men to serve as elders to look for stability and spiritual wisdom in the one selected. A man of thirty-five may qualify to serve, but a fifty year old man will present a much broader view of his life, convictions, and ability to serve than a man much younger.

Not Covetous

A covetous man is not fit in character to serve as an elder. Not covetous of course means not a lover of material things, but the word has an application in many realms.’A man may covet power, position, esteem, and opportunity. Some men seek power and position as a boss, and a man who holds such a position in the secular world will often make a poor elder. He will have a tendency to be harsh and demanding and will become dominant unless checked occasionally. Another characteristic of covetousness is stinginess. If a man is stingy with his own money in regards to the needs of himself and of his family, he will probably be the same in regards to the money in the treasury. If he has a good job and a big bank account and hates the idea of spending his money, it will be difficult for him to spend freely the money collected for preaching the gospel and assisting needy saints. He will have a tendency toward maintaining a big bank account at all times and will panic when the funds get below a thousand dollars.

Does The Man Have Time To Be An Elder?

This is an important question cause being an elder in the church requires much time. ~ he must work six or seven days each week (and all the overtime also) he will not have the time to serve as an elder. He may be sufficiently qualified in the other areas, but if he does not have the time to perform the work he will be useless as an elder. Take this thought into consideration before you announce your desire for the work and office of a bishop.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 135-136
March 3, 1983

By John W. Hedge

I once engaged a lady in conversation who denied the existence of God but who, as she expressed it, “worshiped the god of nature”. I observed that she used the word “creation” several times as she talked with me about her “god of nature.” Finally, I got her “flagged down” in her high praise of her “god of nature” to where I could ask a question about her repeated use of this word. The question was, “Can you have a creation without first having a creator?” I could see by the twitching of her face that she was stunned; but rallied with a smile saying, “Oh, I use that word with reference to nature,” to which I replied, “Yes, yes, I understand that you used it with reference to the god of nature which you worship, but my question still has not been answered. If nature is a “creation” who created nature?

Then I closed in for a little frank talk with this university graduate. I said, “Lady, you have been drinking too far down the stream of learning and the stream has become contaminated. You may not know it, but your class of nature worshipers is mentioned in the Bible. In the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the church of Rome, he speaks of a class who would become infidels simply because they did not like to retain a knowledge of God, “worshipers of the creation, more than the Creator who is blessed forever more” (Rom. 1:18-28). This lady tried to cast aside the truth I tried to teach her by saying, “I just don’t see it as you do – so you go your way of thinking and believing and I’ll go mine.” But I have an idea that what I taught her on that occasion stuck in her mind and ever afterwards. She was not as strong in worshiping her “god of nature” as she had been previously. In God’s creation as seen in the natural realm and, of which we are all a part in this world, everything bespeaks the fact of the existence of a Creator. Only the fool says in his heart, in order to shirk responsibility to God, “there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). But I wonder if there is any difference in God’s sight between the fool who says in his heart there is no God, and the man who avows his faith in God and yet lives as through there is no God. What about all ye who claim to believe in God?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 134
March 3, 1983

By Steve Wallace

With the giving of the Great Commission, the early disciples, as well as all Christians, received their marching orders. It is a commission to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). Of course, it is the gospel of Christ that is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” Those who are lost in sin throughout the world cannot “come to the Father” without submitting to the Son (Jn. 14:6). The conditions which Jesus gave for salvation in Mark 16:16 are both belief and baptism.

As we have the early disciples for our example, let us “follow” them in seeking acceptable soil for the gospel seed to be sown in. We find the first instance of the commission being executed in Acts 2. Having heard the gospel preached the people asked the question, “What shall we do?” (v. 38). Taken in light of the conditions laid down in Mark 16:16, two things were necessary: (1) understanding; (2) positive reaction. One could not believe what he did not understand; nor would one be baptized if he did not react positively to the gospel message. So really we have three categories of people under consideration: (1) those who would both understand and react positively; (2) those who could not understand; (3) those who could understand but would not react positively. Let us briefly consider the latter two.

Those who contend that infants are fit subjects for baptism need to keep the divine order, i.e. belief before baptism, in mind. The argument made by some, that what Jesus said in Matt. 19:14 (“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me”) authorizes infant baptism misses the point of the verse entirely. The Lord went on to say, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” denoting the present innocent condition of little children. One must first be lost to be in need of salvation. The gospel is the divinely ordained means of saving the lost. In order to be scripturally baptized, one must first believe. That is, he must first understand before being able to positively react to the requirements the Lord has placed upon him. An infant cannot do this. Those who would find infants in the accounts of the household conversions in the book of Acts are not only guilty of presuming beyond the realms of divine revelation, they must also circumvent the order for salvation of believing first and then being baptized.

Let us now consider those who could understand but would not react positively. There were many people who heard the gospel preached by the early disciples who did not react positively. Some need to hear the gospel more than once (Acts 17:32). Some need to be studied with privately (Acts 18:26). It is necessary that a Christian not maximize the importance of one soul and minimize others. They are all the same in the sight of the Lord. The idea that we simply “must” convert one who is a member of our family or a close friend often ignores more fertile soil at the expense of what is often a wayside hearer. There are people in this world, perhaps representing the majority, who have no interest in their spiritual state (2 Cor. 4:3-4). People who are guilty of following religious traditions (Matt. 15:8-9) and those whose hearts have become hardened by sin (Matt. 7:6) are many times unwilling to make any change in obedience to the gospel. The Lord realized this and clearly shows what our reaction should be to such people (Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17-18; Acts 13:46).

Let us go forth preaching the gospel to the good and honest hearts round about us. Let us not be found seeking to baptize those who are incapable of believing. We ought also strive to be perceptive enough to realize when to turn from those who are unwilling to submit to our Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 134
March 3, 1983