Truth Magazine

By Jamie Hinds

The debate over the necessity of baptism for salvation has raged for centuries. The bottom line seems to be, though, that baptism is  according to the simple reading and understanding of the Scriptures  absolutely essential to our eternal salvation.

The Lord himself said, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). To many, this verse is clear and very much to the point  if we believe and have been baptized, we will be saved. Yet, it has been argued by faithless men and women that one can be saved by believing only, that baptism is a mere sign of an inward feeling. Such is not only unscriptural, it is an open attack upon the authority of Christ given to him by God. Too, it is a demonstration of a heart that does not believe in God’s omniscience or in his ability to communicate accurately his will to his creation (2 Pet. 1:3).

According to the gospel of Luke, “And when all the people and the tax gatherers heard (Jesus’ preaching), they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John” (Lk. 7:29-30). How did the people and the tax-gatherers acknowledge God’s justice? By being baptized according to John’s baptism. And being baptized according to the baptism of John. I believe Luke 7:29-30 is parallel in application to Mark 16:16.

For “he who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be damned.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 4
September 1, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).” I ask each reader to join me in affirming this proposition.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my articles are my own and are net intended to represent in any way the views of the elders or members of my home congregation.

Definitions: “The Scriptures”  the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach”  instruct by command, example, or necessary inference. “Pattern”  “anything proposed for or worthy of imitation” (Webster College Dictionary 5th Ed.). “Decision-making in matters of congregational judgment ”  actions of a local church that involve (1) choosing between several scripturally authorized courses of collective action by selecting the one most advantageous under that congregation’s circumstances; or (2) making a determination in some matter affecting the congregation that God has left to human reasoning to figure out, while following whatever inspired principles may govern the matter in general; distinguished from “matters of faith,” which are doctrines and principles decided by Deity. “Include”  “to take in or comprise as a part of the whole” (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary). “Whole church (including women)”  all the male and female members of a local ekklesia, or congregation, of Christians. “Under male leadership”  subject to the instruction, teaching, presiding or chairmanship over a group by one or more male Christians, as is commonly practiced by male adult Bible class teachers and male song-leaders. “All local churches (both with and without elders)”  every congregation of Christians, regardless of whether they have pastors (or bishops, or presbyters, all of which are synonymous with elders).

What this debate is not about: (1) It is not about Feminism. We both oppose the evil influence of Feminism on the church and the family. (2) It is not about women serving as preachers or bishops. I object to such violations of God’s plan for women. (3) It is not about whether churches should have elders or whether elders have leadership, oversight, or responsibility in the local church. (4) It is not about whether elders or a few Christians may ever meet privately to discuss the work of the local church. I’ve met privately many times with fellow-Christians, elders, and family members to talk about the work of the local church, and the Bible contains approved examples of such private meetings.

What this debate is about: This debate is about what constitutes the Bible pattern for congregational decision-making in matters of judgment and whether private meetings have authority to make decisions in matters of judgment and bind them on the congregation at large. It will be accompanied by another debate, which I will publish along with this one in a single volume, in which Tom will affirm that matters of judgment may be decided privately without the whole congregation.

Some believe elders may, should, or must decide some or all congregational matters privately. (The qualifiers are supplied because all who believe in private decision-making don’t agree on all the particulars.) And some teach that churches without elders should have men only business meetings as a “substitute” for elders to privately make decisions in matters of judgment for the whole church. There are lots of other private methods of decision-making churches might want to use as well. But any system of decision-making proposed for any local church must stand or fall solely on the basis of whether it is authorized in the Bible. If the NT shows churches making decisions privately by elders or men’s business meetings or some other private method, then churches should follow that pattern, to the exclusion of all other methods. But if the NT shows that churches always decided matters of judgment by involving the whole church under male leadership, then that is the pattern churches today should follow to the exclusion of all others.

Arguments: 1. Acts 6:1-6. It is a matter of divinely revealed faith that males should lead congregational work, and a matter of faith as to their qualifications. It is a matter of judgment to select which particular males meet the qualification and should be appointed to do the work. The easiest way to handle this would have been for the apostles to hold a private meeting and decide everything for the congregation. Instead, they followed a more cumbersome course of action and “called the multitude of the disciples” together to handle the matter. The Apostles explicitly avoided the most “expedient” method in favor of involving the whole church. Anyone who would have prohibited women from attending this meeting would have been encouraging the women to violate the Apostles’ command. It is disturbing that some may prohibit women from doing what the Apostles command women to do (cf. Rom. 10:2).

“And the saying pleased the whole multitude” (6:5) shows the presence of the whole church. “. . . And they chose Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus. . .” (6:5). The antecedent of “they” is the whole multitude, which is synonymous with the “whole church” of my proposition. “They chose … [7 men]” meets the definition of decision-making among scripturally authorized alternatives. The inspired men gave the qualifications, while the whole church exercised judgment in choosing men who met the qualifications. The whole church was called together, the whole church agreed to appoint men, and the whole church chose the men, all under male leadership (the Apostles, with 7 other males selected as leaders over the benevolent work), in a congregation where no elders are mentioned. Acts 6:1-6 meets all the requirements of my proposition for a church without elders.

2. Acts 15:12-27. There are two types of “decisions” in this chapter. Peter said, “God made choice” (15:7) about the Gentiles hearing the Gospel. Acts 15:28-29 shows that the Holy Spirit revealed what doctrines were binding on the Gentiles. None of the deliberations or activities in Acts 15 could have changed God’s decision. None of our meetings or discussions today can change anything God has decided, either.

But Acts 15:12-27 shows a congregational decision made by the Jerusalem church about communicating a message to the church at Antioch. Acts 15:12 says “the multitude” was present for the discussion of the doctrinal matter of faith concerning Gentile salvation, and the con-text continues with the issue of communication with the Antioch church. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren” (15:22, KJV).

The Holy Spirit did not send or choose the men. The church handled it as a matter of judgment. “22. It seemed good (edoxee), `it was voted’  the Greek word being that regularly used for taking a decision in assembly” (The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9, p. 205). “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas” (NIV).

Acts 15 shows that “the multitude” (15:12), “the apostles and elders with the whole church” (15:22), “having assembled with one accord” (15:27), decided to send chosen men, and made the choice of Judas and Silas as the particular men (15:22). The process of decision-making included the whole church under male leadership (Apostles and elders, with two males selected as messengers/leaders), meeting all the requirements of my proposition for a church with elders.

3. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. This passage uses the second meaning of “matters of judgment” given earlier. God has decided that sexual immorality, covetousness, etc., are sinful and that Christians who practice them should be purged out of a local church. The decision we make is a judgment about whether someone is practicing these sins and has reached the point of needing to have this passage invoked upon them. A church must make judgments about erring members: “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Cor. 5:12) How does a church make this judgment?

“In the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4-5). Who gathers together? They are “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), which was made up of male and female members (cf. 1 Cor. 7:15-16). We must infer that this takes place under male leadership from 1 Timothy 2:11,12, which would regulate the conduct of the men and women. Paul said the things he wrote were for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 12). Therefore, decision-making in a matter of judgment must include the whole church (1 Cor. 5:4), including women, under male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (1 Cor. 1:2).

4. Matthew 18:15-17. This is similar to 1 Corinthians 5 because it requires a church to render judgment in the matter of a sinning member, but in this case one accused of sinning personally against a fellow-saint. Christians must follow the steps Jesus gave to resolve the matter privately. If the accused doesn’t hear the individual, or the witnesses, it becomes an issue for “the church.” We’ve all studied the meaning of ekklesia, “church,” for many years. Ekklesia refers to an assembly or congregation, and this passage teaches that decision-making in matters of congregational judgment involves the whole church (ekklesia) including women (because women are part of the ekklesia) under the male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (because Jesus has authority to command all saints to observe this, cf. Matt. 28:16), with or without elders.

Questions for Tom: (1) Can a church ever decide a matter of judgment by including the whole church under male leadership? If so, what passage authorizes it? (2) Is there a pattern for decision-making in churches without elders? (3) Are elders limited by command, example, and necessary inference in the way they lead a church? (4) Is there any example of elders in a NT church deciding a matter of judgment without including the whole church? (5) Does ekklesia ever refer to a private meeting of elders or male-Christians-only in the NT? (6) Does any Scripture authorize any unqualified men to act as “substitutes” for elders?

Conclusions: I used to believe and practice private decision-making. I changed because of two facts: (1) The New Testament gives a clear pattern of decision-making in matters of judgment: the whole church under male leader-ship; (2) No command, example, or inference shows a church handling matters of congregational judgment any other way. Four cases command or exemplify the method of decision-making I affirm. No passage teaches anyone to make decisions without involving the whole church. Please join me in affirming that we must follow the inspired pattern in all that we do in service to God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 14-15
August 18, 1994

By Carl McMurray

And it came about while He said these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice, and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which you nursed.”

But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it” (Lk. 11:27-28).

Sometimes it just seems like human nature to set our priorities in a different order from the way God intends them to be. The woman above probably thought she was paying the Lord a great compliment when she praised his mother. I have heard compliments along the same line as this myself. Her intentions, without a doubt, were sincere and honorable. The fact is, however, that she was focused in the wrong area.

People today have not changed. We still are in constant danger of doing the same thing. In spite of this plain passage, the Catholic church is still trying to “bless” Jesus by worshipping his mother rather than by listening to his words and following his instructions. Many more try to honor his birthday yearly, which is not even mentioned in Scripture, while they ignore Bible instruction to honor his death weekly by eating the Lord’s supper. The Bible says “sing” and make the melody in your heart, so men spend thousands on musical instruments and split churches over “playing” which God’s word never teaches Christians to do. The Scriptures show us God’s plan in getting the gospel out into the world while every congregation re-mains completely autonomous and self-sufficient. So men think they will honor God by ignoring that pattern and tying churches together into denominations, associations, or sponsoring church arrangements. When will we learn the lesson of Luke 11? The way to honor Jesus and compliment our Lord is to be obedient! Just doing what he says brings glory to him and blessings to us.

Which do you think is more important? To be the “winner” in a Bible discussion, or having truth come to the light (even if it is being stated by the other person)? Is it better to create a strong and pure “image” of righteousness, answering every possible accusation with righteous indignation, or to admit it when we fall prey to the sin of pride, anger, envy, covetousness, grumbling, etc.? Which will do our spirits more good? Which would the Lord be more pleased with? Would it be better to keep quiet and keep peace in the church and allow men to continue in their sin, or speak up and hurt feelings while defending the kingdom and Christ’s righteousness? Is it better to stay quiet and allow unqualified men to take positions of leadership in the church where their influence can be magnified, thus not drawing their wrath, or is it more important to uphold God’s description of godly leaders and oppose compromise with his standard?

I’m afraid that there are possibly many areas in which we need Jesus to say the same thing to us that he said to the woman in Luke 11. We think that we are serving him, or praising him, or defending him and the truth is that our focus is off. We cannot defend the gospel with sarcasm or a hateful attitude. We cannot restore a brother in sin by speaking evil of him. We cannot “persuade” and “reason with” people the way the apostle did by cramming truth down their throats with an “I’m all right and you’re all wet” attitude. And we cannot compromise or ignore one part of God’s word so that we can say that we have fulfilled another part.

We need to make God’s priorities our priorities. Whatever he says is important. Don’t step off to the side and think that we can praise God in any way we please. Praise him by obedience and start with the most difficult one to instruct  self! We are not “blessed” because we pick part of God’s word, from here or there, and choose to do that part. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hear (all?) the word of God, and observe it (all?).” He will bless your efforts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 9
August 18, 1994

By Tom Roberts

My worst fears are being realized in that, as the debate advances, Vance is progressing deeper into error, affirming a position with dreadful consequences of feminine equality and denial of eldership oversight which some will accept. The negative requires that I answer his material yet not allow him to side-track me into debating other men or affirming a non-existent GOT position. I fear he confuses criticism of a public position with persecution (Matt. 5:11).

Observations. Congregational participation under male leadership is our practice in most assemblies and does not contradict elder oversight or allow women equal authority in decision-making. Vance grants women decision-making authority without admitting leadership. Conversely, he speaks of elders having leadership without making decisions. But decision-making is a form of leadership and elders who decide nothing are figureheads and not leaders.

Pattern continents: I do not misrepresent his test of fellowship since he advocates a “pattern” (his book, pp. 24, 26, etc.), and any alternative is “as foreign to the New Testament as is instrumental music” (p. 107, quoting Lynn Trapp). As with music, he has drawn a line. Acts 15 the sole pattern? My affirmative will show passages in addition to Acts 15.

Authority of Elders Comments: If evangelists are to “speak with all authority,” but make no decisions, is this true of elders? No, evangelists and elders occupy separate functions and elders are specifically charged to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). His reference to GOT [4/21/94] is a misapplication. The author denied anyone the right to “enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ.” I agree. The church is not a democracy but a spiritual body with Christ as its head and the law of Christ is eldership oversight, not consensus! Though not in his proposition, consensus is taught repeatedly in his book and is the heart of this debate. Now he has gone beyond consensus and specifically endorsed church voting instead of eldership oversight. One person/one vote is a subversion of truth! Every voting person has an absolutely equal voice. Vance denies believing in feminism but a church vote knows no gender, acknowledges no maturity, and respects no sub-mission. Voting changes female participation to female leadership and female majority gives women control of the church. He cannot give women the vote in one breath and deny them leadership with the next. Subjection does not exist in the ballot box. Consensus might include persuasion but voting is raw majority rule, removes women from their subjection to men (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and the congregation from submission to elders (Heb. 13:7, 17). Once the principle of female leadership is introduced, the door cannot be shut. Others will allow co-teaching in Bible classes, women serving the table or preaching.

What A. Campbell said about voting is as irrelevant as what he said about the missionary society and wrong in both cases. The “casting lots” of Acts 1:6 decided nothing but indicated God’s choice (1:24). Vance’s quote on Acts 15:22 is misleading. Thayer says of “seemed good”: “1. To be of opinion, think, suppose… 3.b. it seemed good to, pleased, me; I determined” (p. 154). It is also used in Acts 15:28 and his “interpretation” would reduce the Holy Spirit to a vote no greater than that of the youngest female member! Compare its use in Acts 14:23: did Paul and Barnabas “vote” or “appoint” elders? Vine explains that stretching forth the hand “is not to be taken in its literal sense . . . . since it is said of God, Acts 10:41,” and adds: “It is also said of those who were appointed (not by voting, but with general approbation) . . . 2 Cor. 8:19” (Vine, p. 69).

Private Decision Comments: Acts 6. He asserted it is “without divine authority” for private decisions to be made without the whole church. But my negative cited seven private decisions of the apostles, and his assertion changes nothing.

Acts 15; Galatians 2. Private meetings with elders and other men took place as specifically stated (Acts 15:2, 6; Gal. 2:2). Decisions were made for the whole church regarding matters of judgment: to accept Paul in fellow-ship (Gal. 2:9; Acts 9:26-28); spheres of service (Paul to Gentiles; Peter to the Jews); that Titus would not be circumcised (indifferent to God, 1 Cor. 7:19, but with congregational implications, Gal. 2:4-5). So Galatians 2:9 doesn’t backfire on me. Elders cannot alter the plan of salvation (Acts 15:70, but they can oppose false teachers, support truth and decide in areas of judgment.

1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Congregational action in chapter 5 does not negate the private decisions in chapter 6. There, individual judgmental matters having congregational implications were decided by one or more. Personal disputes should be handled by wise men in the church and not the heathen (6:1). Using hyperbole, Paul asked if there is not even one “among you” (the church, v. 5) who could “judge between his brethren.” The wisest in the church ought to be the elders who “judge” (decide) disputed matters between members so that it does not destroy the whole congregation.

Acts 11:27-30. It is understood that the money that came to the needy churches from the messengers, Paul and Barnabas, was sent and received for benevolence. A decision by a receiving eldership to buy a “new meeting tent” would have been sinful. Vance missed the point. The elders, having received the money for benevolence, yet had to make decisions: who was to receive it; how much was each to receive; how long was it to be given, etc.

Male leadership in absence of elders. His syllogism is faulty since he shifts terms from A to B. “Male leadership” is not the same as “men and women in decision-making.” He assumed what he failed to prove.

Scandalous Matters, Sensitive Matters. The whole church can be involved in discipline without requiring that every member (babes in Christ, weak in faith, young in age) know the sordid details. Consideration by mature elders is not the same as baring it to those whose faith might be destroyed. “Fornication” before the church is one thing; the shocking evidence that proves fornication is another. Benevolence can also be sensitive. The church should be aware of the needs of brethren without financial disclosure that would discourage and embarrass those in need. A wise eldership can avoid congregational problems by privately dealing with scandalous and sensitive information.

Past questions: (1) See material on voting above. (2) Since Vance accepts that an “agency” acting is the same as the church acting, he needs to tell us what is wrong with an eldership acting “for, or on behalf of the congregation. In Acts 6, the seven men acted “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation caring for the needy saints. In Acts 11:27-30, the eldership received the funds “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation receiving the funds. He accepts agency provided “the congregation has asked an `agency’ to act on its behalf.” But God has commanded agency: eldership oversight. Let the reader choose: “Tend to the flock of God which is among you, (arriving at consensus), (counting the ballots), (giving women equal authority) or (exercising the oversight).” (3)

Vance said “No,” that a majority of women cannot rule over a minority of men. But he approves of voting and each vote counts. A majority of women who vote outnumber a minority of men who vote. Why is that not overturning the decision of men? Why is that church not controlled by women? (4) Vance accepts that deacons can “decide the multitudes of decisions” about buying supplies for the church. But why are deacons qualified to make decisions “before and without calling together the whole congregation” and elders are not? If deacons are “appointed” (Acts 6:2) and elders are “appointed” (Acts 14:23), why are deacons empowered to make decisions, and elders not empowered? The qualifications relate each to the work to be done. (5) Vance described a stalemate in consensus when “leaders disagree with the multitude.” Exactly! Every collectively must have a mechanism for avoiding stalemates. In a democracy, voting provides it; in the home, it is husbands (Eph. 5:23); in the church, elders are appointed to make decisions for the collectivity.

Vance’s Questions: (1) A “rump meeting” of a few rebels is an unauthorized meeting and violates 1 Peter 5:5b, among others. Elderships have authorized meetings (1 Pet. 5:2). (2) Jesus has been given “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and as law-giver has ordained elders be appointed to “oversee” and “shepherd” the collectivity. Vance under-stands this with deacons but objects to it with elders. (3) Yes. (4) I did not concede that women are authorized to attend business meetings. Acts 6, etc., authorizes congregational meetings in which women are present under male leadership. In these assemblies, women may participate short of assuming decision-making authority. God has placed women in subjection under men (1 Tim. 2:11-15) but Vance’s voting would make them equal. Men do not prohibit women from doing any authorized activity.

Questions for Vance: (1) What passages permit deacons the right to make decisions on behalf of the congregation but prohibit elders from making decisions? (2) How can a woman vote her conscience yet remain in subjection when she disagrees with her husband and the elders? (3) Does voting give women leadership authority? (4) Can a woman co-teach a Bible class in the church so long as she is under subjection to her male co-teacher?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 21-22
August 18, 1994