Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The October 1994 issue of The Spiritual Sword featured an article by editor Alan E. Highers entitled “Who Are We?” The article introduced the issue, which was devoted to that theme. It was designed to show that the church of Christ is not a denomination, but is a Christ-centered, peculiar, Bible-believing people. This is a good issue of the journal. Brother Highers lamented that a significant change had occurred because members were “leaving the church” to become members of various denominations. In a former time, members rarely “left the church” to join a denomination.

Why? It was because members of the church at the time were nearly all grounded in the faith. They knew what was wrong with denominations, even if they did not always live up to what they knew was right. They might become unfaithful, but they could not bring themselves to join some religious institution they could not find in the Bible. A large percentage of the members never fell away at all. They were faithful members of the body of Christ all of their lives.

In this day, of course, it is not uncommon to hear about members leaving the church and uniting with a denomination. The change may be because of business interest, social advantage, marital harmony, or life style. In any case, their action represents a lack of understanding about the nature and identity of the church. We are reaping the harvest of twenty-five years of non-distinctive preaching. Many of our young people no longer know the difference between the church of the New Testament and the ecclesiastical kingdoms built by men (1).

From what I can read in the journals and books circulating among our liberal brethren, I conclude that the “winds of change” are blowing. These destructive winds have swept the larger churches and nearly all of the institutions supported by our liberal brethren into the “new hermeneutic” movement. A movement away from “legalism” to more grace oriented preaching is advocated. The new hermeneutic brethren are calling for “cruciform” preaching which is defined as preaching Christ rather than the distinctive features of the New Testament church.

Brother Highers attributes these problems to 25 years of non-distinctive preaching. That would mean that non-distinctive preaching began in the 1960s. Our readers may recall brother Dick Blackford’s October 21, 1993 article in Guardian of Truth which laid the blame for liberalism at the feet of those who introduced the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, hospitals, old folks homes, etc.), and church sponsored recreational activities. Brother Highers protested brother Blackford’s assessment and wrote “A Response” which was published in the November 4, 1993 issue. Despite his protest, the fact remains that institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and church sponsored recreation were all part of the same movement as non-distinctive preaching.

The Herald of Truth shows were one of the chief examples of non-distinctive preaching (see Memphis Meeting With Representatives of the Herald of Truth, September 10, 1973, p. ii).

I remember contrasting the bulletins which I received from liberal churches with those published among us in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Liberal church bulletins were usually filled with positive, feel good articles. What they wrote was not contrary to the word of God, but they just did not teach the fundamentals to show men the difference between divinely revealed and humanly devised religion. This seed has been planted for twenty-five years and now the harvest is coming. Our more conservative liberal brethren refer to their more liberal children as “the new hermeneutic” brethren.

Brother Highers related a conversation he had with one of these brethren:

Some time ago a preacher/editor said to me: “Our young people are not buying the old arguments against instrumental music.” I replied: “No, our young people are not hearing the old arguments against instrumental mu-sic.” Some of them are soft on the issue of instrumental music  not because they have rejected what they have been taught, but because they have never been taught at all. They do not understand the principles involved. They have never heard the old arguments relating to Bible authority, speaking where the Bible speaks, and remaining silent where the Bible is silent. They have grown up in “socialized” churches where the youth program was strong, but the teaching program was weak. They have majored on minors and minored on majors. They studied Bible school literature that never dealt with distinctive differences with denominationalism because the literature was produced by denominational publishers in the first place and merely adapted for brotherhood use. They were never exposed to “book, chapter, and verse” preaching. Some of them grew up on a style of preaching in which the favorite text was “what is wrong with the church.” The old preachers, the old ways, and the old message, so dear to many of us, became to them an object of scorn and laughter, as they were incited to mirth by a new breed of preachers and youth specialists. It is little wonder that some have abandoned the church in our day!

The liberalism that brother Highers helped to defend in debate has progressed to its logical conclusion. He does not like its product, but he is unwilling to renounce what gave it birth.

Must The Lesson Be Repeated For Us?

Non-distinctive preaching has caught the attention of a new generation of preachers among us. They are enamored with the writings of Swindoll, Lucado, Dobson, Smalling, and other popular Evangelical writers who have little Bible exegesis in their lessons. They too have quit preaching sermons that contrast the organization, names, work, conditions for membership, etc. of the Lord’s church with that of the denominations of men. The believe that such preaching is caustic and will drive away the good, honest and sincere visitors to the services. Church bulletins are full of “feel good” articles but contain little to distinguish the Lord’s church from denominationalism. Preachers use less and less Scripture in their lessons; sermons are preached that are full of stories that make you feel warm inside. And the members love to have it so (cf. Jer. 5:31).

Do you think that the same kind of preaching will produce a different fruit among us? If so, why? If there is not a significant change in the soft preaching that is afraid to call the names of denominations and false teachers among us from the pulpit, young people will grow up not being able to distinguish revealed religion from unrevealed religion. Soft preaching prepares the soil for apostasy. When something is introduced into local churches that needs to be rooted out and exposed, those who have welcomed soft preaching in their pulpits are not willing to tolerate the kind of preaching that is necessary to root out the error and withdraw from the men who are teaching it. Instead, those influenced by soft preaching coddle the false teachers who are traitors to the gospel and castigate and belittle as “guardians of the orthodoxy,” “watchdogs,” and “shoot first and check later sheriffs” those Bible preachers who are calling for the false teacher to repent. The reception the false teacher receives will make him feel comfortable to stay and continue to spread his heresy among the churches.

We take no pleasure in witnessing the movement away from the truth among our liberal brethren. We fear that its influence has and is spreading among us. Let us not bury our heads in the sand, pretending that this can never happen among us. Rather, let us demand “book, chapter, and verse” preaching from the pulpits. Let us demand that revealed and unrevealed religion be contrasted. Let us encourage godly brethren who are willing to bear the blunt of criticism for exposing the false teachers among us and not take pot shots at them. Some brethren shoot their soldiers  those who sacrificially defend the truth against the onslaught of error. Men who say they “agree with what you say” proceed to take pot shots at the soldiers wielding the sword to defend the truth, but these same men coddle the traitors to truth. Yes, we wound and kill our heroes!

Some Distinctives of the Gospel

Let me suggest some distinctives of the gospel:

1. God’s people are distinctive in their love, which serves others while stressing obedience to God (John 13:35; 14:15; 15:14; 1 John 5:1-3).

2. God’s people are distinctive in insisting on the inspiration of the Bible and on the authority of the Bible pattern of teaching (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1:13).

3. God’s people are distinctive in proclaiming the grace of God as to the provision of salvation and the necessity of obedient faith as to the reception of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 1:5,16).

4. God’s people are distinctive in living in the world without living like the world (Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 5:19-23).

5. God’s people are distinctive in preaching Christ and him crucified in all of its fulness, including all the facts, commands, and promises of the gospel; including the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; including faith, repentance, and baptism; and including the work, worship and organization of the local church (1 Cor. 2:2; Acts 20:20,24-27).

6. God’s people are distinctive in pleading for unity in religion on the basis of the restoration of New Testament Christianity (John 17:17-21; 1 Cor. 1:10).

7. God’s people are distinctive in upholding the same principles of morality which were originally taught in apostolic doctrine (Tit. 2:11-14). They will avoid the tendency to become conformed to this world in such matters as abortion, drinking, drugs, easy divorce and remarriage, and such like things.

Each of these distinctives of the gospel, and all others, require standing for what is revealed and standing against any departure from divine revelation. Distinctive preaching involves upholding truth by exposing error at times, including specific false doctrines and false teachers (2 Tim. 2:16-18).

Can we fare any better than our liberal brethren if we depart from distinctive preaching?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 2
November 17, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

It does not appear to me that as many are obeying the gospel in this nation as was the case a few years ago. This is not because there is less preaching and teaching. In some cases there may be a shortage of personal evangelism. But I do not believe this is the primary reason. Many are not even saving their own children. In place after place we go for gospel meetings, we meet parents who are concerned for the salvation of their own teenagers. They may come to every service, sit quietly, act friendly and remain unsaved.

Why is this? They are like the wayside soil the Lord described. “Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Lk. 8:12). They do not believe! That is it, pure and simple. If they believe they would obey the Lord. Now, there may be varied reasons as to why they do not believe and there may be several ways the devil takes away the word before they can believe and be saved.

1. The devil may take away the word by Godless education. Can any sane observer deny that strong efforts have been made, with measured success, to keep the concept of God and his word out of our public schools? Reverence for the true God has been replaced by the worship of man himself. That is what humanism does. “Man is the measure of himself” we are told. God is left out of the study -of origins. Text books written by unbelievers sing the praises of evolution. Social sciences deal with human relations in terms of secular values. Sex education must not “moralize.” One fifteenyear-old in Oregon told me that he regarded his sex education course as a study in how to commit fornication without getting someone pregnant or contracting AIDS. There is a deadly combination between Planned Parenthood and the public schools. Marriage is presented as an alternative lifestyle, no better, or worse, than just living together, or than homosexuality. Moral judgments are based on respect for divine law.

Children who spend several years in a climate of education away from God and his word, surrounded by peers whose home training is vastly different, and where there are fears for basic safety, have to be affected by all of this. A constant diet of dealing with issues ranging from pre-marital sex to ecology (the new religion) to abortion to capital punishment, without any guidelines except what feels, or seems right, is calculated to generate unbelief. There may be other factors, but folks, I firmly believe this is a big part of why your teenager does not believe in the Lord or his word. They are being educated away from it, not toward it.

2. The devil takes away the word by Godless entertainment. The standard fare on nightly television, not to mention MTV, videos which feature gore, sex, vulgarity and profanity are not calculated to make your children virtuous. What kind of music are they listening to by the hour? What does it say? Who are their heroes? Are they movie stars, TV stars, rock or country musicians, sports figures? “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Our young people, nor the older as well, will never be better than what they (or we) think about. What is programmed into the heart has a direct bearing on character. The devil understands well that there is a certain appeal, a titillation in the very nature of the things we have been describing here. The stronger the interest in these becomes, the weaker spiritual interests will be.

3. The devil takes away the word by family destruction. The devil has never found a more useful tool for his work than the destruction of families. Roles and relationships are disrupted. Trust is destroyed. There is a relationship in a child’s respect for his or her father and respect for the Heavenly Father. When earthly fathers abuse that role, they are helping the devil take away the word from the hearts of the young lest they should believe and be saved. And what of those instances where children have never even known who their father is? Divorce unsettles the lives of children for the rest of their days. Where parental trust is weakened, lack of trust in God will not be far behind.

4. The devil takes away the word by hypocrisy in the lives of those who claim to follow the Lord. Children who grow up in an atmosphere where there is constant turmoil, malice, scheming and backbiting in the church will attend as long as they have to but when the time comes that they can make a choice, they will be gone. They know a hypocrite when they see one. In some congregations, whole generations of young people have been lost for this very reason. Not only do they have poor choices of heroes in their secular world, often they look in vain for them in the spiritual realm. They come to see religion as a front for people who don’t believe what they profess any more than they do.

As a preacher of the gospel, I am delighted when I see a young person obey the gospel. I don’t see that happen much any more. It is so refreshing when that does occur. The problem of wayside soil is not limited to the young. There are older people whose hearts are hard and unreceptive. The devil is adept at snatching away the word from their hearts as well, lest they should believe and be saved.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). When we scatter the seed of the gospel on wayside soil, it will not produce a harvest. It just seems to me that I am finding more of that kind of ground than ever before.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 3-4
November 17, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. . . . We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 Jn. 4:1, 6).

The “spirit of error” is the teacher of error; the “spirit of truth” is the teacher of truth. There is a “mystery of iniquity,” a spirit of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7). There is a “spirit of fear,” and a spirit of love and power (2 Tim. 1:7). In John’s day, “the spirit of error” occupied a body of false doctrine, a system of error. The body that the spirit of error occupied was the body or system which said that Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:2, 3). In essence, the spirit found a form, a body, to inhabit.

Paul referred to “seducing spirits” who led “some” to “depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). These spirits found a body, a system of error. That body was in the form of “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:3). Again, the spirit had a body. It had an agent through which it could act. The spirit of error will speak “perverse things” (Acts 20:30). The “perverse things” represent the body, the agent of the spirit of error.

The Lord Jesus “loved righteousness, and hated iniquity” (Heb. 1:9). A man may hate righteousness and love iniquity (2 Thess. 2:10). That spirit will find a body to indwell. It will take a form, a substance. It will not remain a bodiless spirit  “The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways” (Prov. 14:14). The “heart” represents the spirit; the “ways” represents the body. If the heart is overwhelmed, it will find a body of dissipation (Prov. 4:23; Lk. 21:34).

Have you ever seen a mischievous child? While you observe him, he is doing nothing objectionable, but you can see the mischief in his eyes. His little, daring spirit of rebellion will find an activity, a body, through which he can carry out his mischievous spirit’s designs.

Spirits of the Past

In 1 Samuel 8, the spirit of error rejected God as King (cf. I Sam. 10:19). The bodily form this spirit took was, “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Rebellious spirits will find their bodies.

When Uzziah’s “heart was lifted up,” the spirit of errorwas present. It, too, needed a body, a form of expression. It was not long in coming. He “went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense” which only the sons of Aaron were consecrated to do. Arrogantly, he rebuffed the protests of eighty-one “valiant men” who protested his usurpation of divine authority. As a result, this once mighty king died the despised death of a discarded leper (2 Chron. 26:16-21).

In the first century, the spirit of the error of Judaism inhabited and enlivened the body of circumcision. Obviously, other bodies of error were encompassed, but circumcision was the most prominent agent of this spirit of error (Gal. 2:3; 4:10; 5:1-4).

In the nineteenth century, a spirit of lawlessness found a body of error. The spirit lost respect for and trust in the authority of Scripture. It craved the acceptance of religious society at large and sought the inventions of human wisdom and the glory of human institutions and organizations. That spirit’s body was in the form of mechanical instruments of music in worship and missionary societies in work. The spirit found its body, its agent. Typically, unclean spirits find others more wicked than themselves. Thus, the last state of the body of digression is worse than the first (cf. Matt. 12:43-45; 21:33-43). Truly, “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse” (2 Tim. 3:13). Their ravenous “word will eat as doth a” cancerous gangrene; “a little leaven” will leaven the whole lump.

In the twentieth century, the spirit of speculation found the body of premillennialism. The spirit of mysticism adopted the body of Pentecostalism. The spirit of the religio-social gospel found the body of denominational-ism, complete with reliance on and alliance with sponsoring church arrangements and other benevolent and missionary organizations. Every high thing that exalts itself against the word of God, every spirit of human imagination, finds its body, its particular shape and form of expression. When the spirit of lust conceives, it brings forth its baby, sin. The infant of evil then truly can say to lust, “a body halt thou prepared me.”

The Spirit’s Search For A Body

As history and Scripture shows, there is no such thing as a benign spirit. They are all insidious, sinister, and nefarious. Further, these spirits will not remain bodiless; they will find a body to advance their agenda. It is better to slay the spirit of error before it fashions a body. However, it is also more difficult to identify and locate the spirit until it finds a body. It is like trying to pick up a piece of mercury. So, what are the warning signs that alert us to the fact that a spirit of error is seeking a body?

Signs That A Spirit Of Error Is Seeking A Body:

1. Cordiality is equated with spirituality. “Good words and fair speeches” are often the tools of those who are devoid of truth. When we assume that broad smiles and a lovely, winsome personality, oozing with wit and charm, are the marks of strong faith in Christ, we may easily be led into error (Rom. 16:17, 18). Have we forgotten what Jesus said? How do wolves appear? Do they present their teeth and fangs with snarling growls? No, they come as meek and timid sheep (Matt. 7:15). “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14, 15). The spirit of error is seeking a body when we equate a man’s warm and friendly ways with spiritual maturity. When we defend a man’s compromise of the truth because we are blinded by his gracious manner, an evil spirit is looking for a body! We must “learn . . . not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

2. Loss of militance . A loss of militance in prosecuting sin and error is a sure sign that a spirit of error is searching for a body. The language of Scripture is full of military metaphors  “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”; “fight”; “war”; “wrestle”; “weapons of our war-fare”; “pulling down of strong holds” (Eph. 6:12; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3; 2 Cor. 10:3-5). When earnest, sincere and honest discussion is criticized and condemned, when open Bible studies on controversial issues are disdained and dismissed as “dog fights,” a spirit of error is afoot. Brother Roy Cogdill told me that in the 1930’s and 40’s, there were some churches that were uncomfortable when he cracked down on denominational error by specifically naming and identifying it. He said that some who did not accept the premillennial errors of the day nonetheless did not appreciate it when he directly indicted and convicted both the advocates and the doctrines of premillennialism. Of those churches possessed by this lack of militance, brother Cogdill said he could not think of one that did not go with the liberal, institutional movement of the 1950’s and 60’s. In other words, the passive spirit of error was hunting for a body, and it found it!

3. Little emphasis on Bible authority. The terms, “mote hunter,” “legalist,” “Pharisee,” and “brotherhood watch-dog” are generally used as slurs by those who de-emphasize the need for scriptural authority. The disembodied spirit of error does not overtly deny the need for divine authority. Rather, he points to it as a cause of trouble, while maintaining his allegiance to the “principles” of the word of God.

I have received two reports that it has been argued that Cain’s problem was not that he offered an unauthorized sacrifice, but that he “had a `bad’ attitude.” It has beenargued that his sacrifice would have been accepted if his heart had been right, but Cain’s “works were evil,” not his attitude (1 In. 3:12). “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice (not a more excellent attitude) than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). Since “faith cometh by hearing,” Abel’s offering came from what God authorized (Rom. 10:17). Cain’s offering was not “by faith”; it did not come from hearing what God said. For that reason, it was rejected. When the spirit of error begins to excuse departures from the authority of the word of God, it is looking for a body!

4. Preaching without specific application. When Nathan confronted David with a story about a rich man who killed a poor man’s lamb, “David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man” (2 Sam. 12:5). However, David’s guilt was not brought home until “Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.”

Observe the specific, personal application of apostolic preaching: (a) “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36; cf. 3:13-15); (b) “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Acts 17:23); “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:3) (c) “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ. . . . 0 foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you. . . Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” (Gal. 1:6; 3:1; 5:7)

Since we are to imitate the apostles in our preaching, should it not also be direct and specific (Phil. 4:9; 1 Pet. 4:11)? Friendships and personal relationships often stifle and silence a preacher from doing his duty. When this is done, the spirit of error will soon find a body.

5. The language of Ashdod. When brethren use the speech of denominational religion, the spirit of error is shopping for a body. “Receive Christ as your personal Savior” is an example. What does it mean? Yes, we do “receive Christ Jesus” (Jn. 1:11, 12; Col. 2:6). But, we do not receive him until we have “received the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Still, some say that the first century disciples “surrendered, not to a plan of salvation, but to a Savior.” The truth is that they did not “surrender” to the Savior until they “surrendered” to the plan of salvation (Heb. 5:8, 9; Rom. 6:17, 18). They did not “receive” Christ until they believed and obeyed the gospel (Jn. 6:44, 45, 63, 68; 8:30-32, 47, 51). “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41; 8:12-14; 10:48; 11:1).

What is the purpose of using denominational language to describe the process of conversion and spiritual relation-ships? It is “trendy”; it gives off an air of modern sophistication; it promotes the spirit of error’s search for a body.

6. Soft on worldliness. The spirit of error criticizes those who boldly preach against specific forms of worldliness. The spirit of error will not confront and condemn social drinking, gambling, and immodest dress. Why? Too many members are drinking and dancing, “playing the lotto,”and going to picnics in shorts and halter tops, that is why! Rather than risk being fired, the preacher pulls back and condones worldliness by his silence. Watch for a body of error to appear where this is the case (2 Tim. 3:1-13).

Sadly, those who refuse to stand against worldliness are the very ones who extol the virtues of “loving God” and of being “tolerant” rather than “judgmental.” They say they are preachers, not “policemen.” The Holy Spirit says that “the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:16). No matter how much we protest, if the spirit of worldliness has invaded our hearts and lives, the love of God is not in us.

Conclusion

Do you recognize one or more of these signs among God’s people today? If so, it ought to tell you something. Shortly, the spirit of error will engulf a body of false doctrine. Presently, it is an intangible element that creates doubt of the truth. The spirit of error is not sure; it is not certain; its preaching is not clear and distinct. It leaves room for vacillation and compromise with worldly living and denominational doctrines. It parades under the guise of love and fellowship and denounces nothing except that which calls attention to its masquerade. The spirits of error cited above are spots in your spiritual feasts of genuine, Bible love. They feast with you without fear, for they have not yet been completely unmasked and ex-posed. In time, in bodily form, they will be known. Pray that you will not be one of their unwitting victims. With feigned words of emotional piety, with the pleasing tones of sectarian scholarship, they will seek to make merchandise of you. “And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (Matt. 13:37).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 5-7
November 17, 1994

By Tom Roberts

With this affirmative, my part of the debate comes to a close and judgment is passed to the readers. Please consider all the material carefully in the light of the Scriptures and render a verdict on the evidence. The full debate, without additional material, is to be printed in book form as per our agreement. No new material should be introduced in the final negative.

My Third Affirmative will establish from Generic Authority that the Scriptures permit elders to make decisions in the realm of unstated options (judgments), arising from specific commands.

Generic Authority: Non-class brethren confuse generic authority for specific when they demand specific authority for Bible classes, disallowing generic authority. They, like Vance, do not understand authority. It is axiomatic that every specific command of God to do a thing carries with it the generic authority to perform that command by choosing unstated options: when, how, how much, etc. Generic authority is no less authoritative, deriving its force from God’s specifics. Specifics are stated; generics are unstated; both are authorized. Examples abound: (1) Noah used gopher wood (specific) but the tools he used were unstated options (Gen. 4:14-22). Tools, essential to obey the command, were authorized as private judgments. (2) “Sing,” is God’s specific choice; unstated options (private judgments) are song books, etc. A song leader decides privately which songs to sing, how many, etc. by generic authority. (3) Deacons “serve tables” (specific function), but are allowed unstated options concerning the care of tables: how much, how often, etc. (4) Elders are specifically commanded to “feed,” “exercise the over-sight,” “superintend,” and “rule,” but generically authorized to make decisions between unstated options: who, how much, how often, etc. Examples: elders have the right to decide when to discipline a member, how much time longsuffering requires, how often gospel meetings should be held, what subjects are needed, how long should the meeting last, etc. Wise elders ask for advice (Prov. 11:14), but they make the final decision. Notice carefully: private decisions by elders in matters of judgment are authorized by both specific, stated authority (affirmatives one and two) and generic, unstated authority. When Vance demands specific authority for each and every unstated option that elders decide (1000’s of details), he demands that which cannot be supplied even for congregational decision-making: specific authority for generic options! Deacons could not decide how many loaves of bread to take to a needy family; song leaders could not choose their songs, parents could not decide how to raise their children, and elders could not make any decisions about tending the flock. Generic authority gives elders, deacons, husbands, wives, parents, etc. these options!

Answers to Vance’s Second Negative: The Problem Grows: Eldership oversight no more promotes Boston/ Crossroads than it does popery, but women’s equal voting (which he has avowed) surely promotes feminism. Vance’s indelicate language re: circumcision (“involuntary genital surgery”) belittles the Law and accuses Paul and the elders of mutilation (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). But note that a private judgment decision was made! The proposition stands.

An Interesting Debate: Vance accuses that I contradict myself or ignore his arguments. He has been answered but it is needless to respond to quibbles. Space prohibits repetition of my arguments. Please refer to previous affirmatives as well as complete citations of scholars (Thayer, etc.) for accuracy.

The Debate is About: I do not use “head” and “overseer” interchanageably, though some reference works do (i.e., Thayer). Smokescreens will not hide efforts to promote democracy and women’s equality instead of eldership over-sight.

Authority: Context: Fathers, magistrates and elders have authority in their sphere (Eph. 5:23; Rom. 13:1f; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). Vance allows fathers and magistrates to make decisions but denies it to elders, thus unequal in his application of authority. Scope: Jesus and Authority: Human authority is limited as far, but no farther, than God intended. Wives cannot reject husband’s authority; citizens cannot reject government’s authority; churches cannot reject elders’ authority (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). However tired of it he may be, Vance is branded as denying authority to elders when he gives women equal voting and gives to the congregation the authority that God gives to the elders. It is not congregational oversight (democracy, voting) but eldership oversight! Where is the verse that says to the congregation: “Exercise the oversight” ?

Word Study: Presbuteros, Episkopos, Pastor: These words were studied in my first affirmative adequately. Can “overseers” oversee? Evangelists have “authority,” but not eldership authority. Non-elders (even bachelors) can watch on behalf of souls (Heb. 12:14-15), but not with the qualifications and appointment of elders. Feed: Can pastors decide matters about feeding the flock? If not, they are figureheads and not pastors. Appoint: Different people are appointed to different tasks (deacons, for example), but elders are appointed to do the work of overseeing. Rule (proistemi): When people learn to “maintain” good works, can they choose unstated options about which good works they maintain (Tit. 3:14-15)? “Rule” allows choice!

“Silent as the tomb” on 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “General approbation” is not “voting.” Vance has dodged voting and its implication to oversight and equality. One person, one vote denies 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and destroys subjection. It proves how far in principle his theory will go.

Hegeomai (leaders, chief men): Heb. 13:7, 17: I responded clearly to his use of hgeomai but deny that “men who speak the word” (evangelists) have oversight, as do elders.

Scriptures: (Please compare my second affirmative.) Acts 4:34-37: Verse 35 states, “and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (NKJV). The apostles (males) made decisions about the distribution. Acts 6:1-6: The judgment decision that it would be seven (not six or eight) was made by the apostles before and without the congregation. Only one example is needed to prove my proposition. Acts 9:26-28: Paul assayed to join himself to the “disciples” in Jerusalem and the apostles decided to receive him (apostolic example of deciding for the church). The apostles (12 men) decided not only for 5000 but for disciples of all ages (Phil. 4:9). Acts 11:27-30: I did not attribute “expediently” or “inexpediently” to Thayer, but to the word “rightly.” Context decides whether things “done rightly” implies judgment or doctrine. I have cited Acts 11:30 three times where the funds went to the elders (not the congregation) for distribution (judgment decisions). Vance implies they sin if they distribute the funds. Acts 13:1-3: A matter of judgment, not doctrine (when Saul and Barnabas would depart); the Holy Spirit himself used the prophets and teachers (males) as agents for the church in sending them out. Vance ignores that the church acts through agency, contending that the whole church must always be involved 100% of the time. Acts 15:6; 16:4; 21:25; Gal. 2:1-10: Vance has trouble with textual exegesis. There were private meetings in which decisions were made about matters of judgment before and without calling the congregation together. Titus’ circumcision was a matter of judgment (1 Cor. 7:19) having the potential of affecting the whole church (Gal. 2:4) in a matter of “liberty.” Acts 21:15-26: The elders met with Paul in a private meeting about an explosive judgmental matter that was about to consume the church and Vance says that it has no bearing on the proposition. This meeting was before the congregation met (vv. 20, 22), arriving at a decision of private judgment (re: customs, v. 21) to keep the entire church at peace. It describes my proposition.

“Private (not secret)”: Vance’s use of “secret” regarding elders’ meetings implied something sinister or clandestine (other synonyms for secret). They are private in the sense of agency, the part acting for the whole (Acts 11:30). The Ephesian elders’ meeting with Paul was private but not “clandestine” (Acts 20:170. “Vance says they sinned.” If sin is not charged, why this debate? His book states myposition to be “without divine authority,” in violation of “the pattern,” etc. Are you agitating brethren about a personal opinion (Rom. 14:13, 22)?

Answers to Clarified 1A Questions: This is imporant. Vance admitted that elders have a right to meetprivately, hold secret deliberations, and make decisions before and without calling together the whole congregation, including the women, in matters of faith. A deeper study of the passages in Acts and Galatians will convince him that they also made private decisions in matters of judgment. He has yielded most of his objections, with only one left to be resolved: judgment decisions. These affirmatives prove it: NT elders made choice in judgment matters.

Answers to 2A Questions: (1) The apostles chose seven men “without” and “before” the assembly and informed the assembly after their judgment decision. (2) Fellowship can be limited in the universal church (2 In. 9-11). If elders sin (1 Tim. 5:19-20) when they make private judgment decisions for the local church, charges should be made against them. That certainly creates a test of fellowship. (3) and (4). He refused to answer! These questions were asked to show inconsistency between doctrine and practice. Paul did that (Rom. 2:10. Vance is feeling the heat or he would have answered. The consequence of his doctrine demands that he charge elders with sin who practice what he condemns; a divisive doctrine. He has taught others not to participate in that which he practices. (5) If elders must have permission from the congregation every time they make a decision, the congregation is the overseer; they don’t need elders. Your threat about emergencies, 100 orphans and the dry church building makes me wonder if you believe the Lord is cruel because he put the care of orphans upon individuals (Jas. 1:27) and not the congregations. The liberals talked about one “poor little orphan” on the door step of the building and you talk about 100. Faithful Christians wouldn’t have to practice institutionalism to take care of 1 or 100 orphans. How would you handle them?

Questions: (1) Yes. Yes, but with deference to the mature men. (2) Yes, deacons can decide matters of their province (Acts 6:3). (3) No, the eldership should act as a body. (4) The church in Jerusalem had meetings and made decisions under male leadership without the whole church being together (see scripture study, aff. 2). (5) It is not scriptural to vote in the Lord’s church. A survey is not a vote, else “polls” might elect the next president instead of the ballot box. No, it is not settled by a survey.

Conclusion: I commend Brother Trefethen for his willingness to debate this issue and a conscientious effort has been made to answer every argument. But a divisive and dangerous doctrine is disturbing the peace and harmony of the Lord’s people and should be rejected. Godly women do not seek equality with men. Faithful churches submit to the Lord’s plan for eldership oversight. There is little doubt that Vance, because of training and sentiment, will embrace the extremes to which his principle will ultimately lead, but others will do so. He has opened a gate that cannot be closed. May God help us not to reflect the rebellion of our age.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 19-20
November 17, 1994