Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The statement of our title appears only a few tunes in the Bible. Achan, Saul, David and the wandering, squandering son all said, “I have sinned” (Josh. 7:20; 1 Sam. 15:24; 2 Sam. 12:13; Lk. 15:18). How often have you said it? Perhaps, like myself, you have not said it often enough. Even when we know we are wrong, even when we see our errors, we still find it difficult to say, “I have sinned.” It is easier to say, “Well, I was mistaken, or “I should have known better.” Somehow, we just cannot find a way to simply acknowledge, have sinned.”

How much happier would your home be if you would say, “Honey, I have sinned, and I am sorry for treating you the way I did. Will you please forgive me?

Children, how much more pleas-ant would life be if you were to go to your dear mother and father and say, “Mom and Dad, I have sinned against you in what I did, and I am sorry, Will you please forgive me?”

Many families and many relationships could be restored if we would all repent and confess that I have sinned.” Broken homes, embittered hearts and divided brethren could again be united in sweet love aid fellowship if some soul would, simply say, “I have sinned.” “Lord, as it I?”

Ultimately, all sin is against God, as the texts that cc parry our topic indicate. I must say t the Lord “I have sinned” If you know you need to do so, why not do it now? You will never be more loving and lovable than when you say, “I have sinned.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 13
August 18, 1994

By Mickey Galloway

In referring to the backbone of the church I have in mind the firmness, the moral courage, the stand for the truth, the spine of the church itself. There are certain “straws” that we should be alarmed about because they are breaking the church’s back. What are some of these “straws”?

Sin Is Ignored

Worldliness is not rebuked and lukewarmness is prevalent. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the Corinthians because fornication was among them and they were not alarmed. The apostle Paul tells them, “And ye are puffed up and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you” (1 Cor. 5:2). Lukewarmness is not to be tolerated. God certainly will not tolerate it. Revelation 3:16 says concerning the church at Laodicea, “So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

Lack of Conviction

Men either act from conviction, because they believe a thing with all their heart, or from convenience, because a thing is as easy to do as not to do and there is an advantage to be gained from doing it. Why do you attend the assemblies? Is it because you want to worship God (cf. John 4:24; Psa.122:1)? Is it a matter of conviction (cf. Heb. 10:24,25) or are other things more appealing because they are more convenient? Have you obeyed the gospel from the heart (Rom. 6:17) or have you not found a convenient time?

Conviction is illustrated in the decision of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as they spoke to king Nebuchadnezzar. When asked if “it is of purpose . . . that ye serve not my god nor worship the golden image which I have set up,” these brave young men responded, “. . . Be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” These were determined to do what is right regardless of the consequences. May the Lord increase their kind.

Changes in Preaching

Efforts are being made to change our preaching, re-model the gospel and modernize the church. I was in the audience when a young man spoke disparagingly of those who would preach on such things as “adultery, instrumental music and institutionalism.” This young man stated that “these things are not relevant to salvation anyway.”

Others have stated “that God does not expect us to be completely, doctrinally correct.” Statements such as these emphatically illustrate the truthfulness of the apostle Paul’s statement to Timothy, “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lust; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.”

What Is the Cause of Such Dangerous Tendencies?

Certainly the cause can be attributed to any number of things. Possibly it is success which makes it easy to outgrow our plea for simple New Testament Christianity. Maybe it is that we have less opposition. Once it was hard to be a Christian because of great hardships and persecutions which apparently strengthened the early church (Rom. 5:3-5). There is little indoctrination and that is certain to result in tragic consequences. The church is filled with people who know little about the doctrine of Christ and thus fail to abide in his doctrine (2 Jn. 9). Maybe compromise with our religious neighbors in attitudes toward doctrine and morality has shared in causing these modern trends within the church.

What Is the Solution?

The solution is greater respect for the authority of the Scriptures and more firmness in practicing New Testament Christianity. Consider: Jude 3; Ephesians 4:14,15; Titus 1:13,14; Galatians 1:6-9. From these it is evident that truth is fixed, unalterable and unchangeable. Preaching truth is certain to disturb some. Paul asked the Galatians, “So then am I become you enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16) Genesis 1:1 disturbs the atheist. Exodus 20:3 disturbs the heathen. Hebrews 11:6 disturbs the moralists. Yet Paul told Timothy to preach the word (2 Tim. 4:2). Paul commanded the Ephesians to “stand” (Eph. 6:13,14). One cannot stand for something and not stand against some-thing, for truth stands against error.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the past. Apostasy soon came in the first century church as was prophesied (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:3,4). What has happened can happen again if we allow too many worldly straws to collect on the backbone of the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 8
August 18, 1994

By Karl Diestelkamp

It has been many, many years since we, in the greater Chicago land area, have had an opportunity to attend a debate between brethren occupying different positions in reference to the benevolent work of the church. David Padfield of Zion, Illinois, met Mac Deaver of Wellington, Texas, June 20, 21, 23 and 24, in debate, with the first two nights held in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Schaumburg church and the 23rd Street church in Zion challenged Padfield for the debate and endorsed Deaver. The Lewis Avenue church in Zion endorsed Padfield and provided the meeting house for the last two nights.

Attendance was 176, 125, 183 and 147 for the four nights with by far the greater number of those attending being from non-institutional churches. The debaters and those who came to hear manifested courtesy and a good spirit demonstrating that debates can provide a wholesome atmosphere for study of subjects on which brethren disagree.

The first two nights Deaver’s affirmative proposition was, “The Scriptures teach that a local church may grant benevolent aid to alien sinners.” His main support for his proposition was expressed in the following syllogism:

1. “All things that the individual can do because he is a Christian are things the church can do.” (Some-times expressed as “on the peculiar grounds of being a Christian.” K.D.)

2. “Helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing that the individual can do because he is a Christian.”

3. “Therefore, helping deserving needy non-saints is a thing the church can do.”

When Padfield pressed him to give Scripture for his first premise and to list some things which “the individual does on the peculiar grounds he is a Christian” that the church can also do, Deaver’s response was: “It is axiomatic” or self evident and he made no effort to establish this first premise from Scripture or that it is truly “axiomatic.”

Deaver stated: “It is wrong for the church to render benevolent aid to saints only,” and introduced Matthew 5:43-48, claiming the church is to “practice a higher ethic than the world” and demonstrate that we are “sons of God” by helping the non-saint. During the course of the debate he would say, “If I can help him (a non-saint, K.D.), you can help him, and we can help him,” implying that the “we” is the church. When Padfield argued that Matthew 5 did not involve the church treasury, Deaver asked where the church treasury was “excluded” or how did Padfield “get the treasury out of Matthew 5.” Since Deaver claimed the church was in Matthew 5, it was his responsibility to show that the church treasury was “included” in the passage, but he did not do so. Rather, he asked Padfield where the individual’s “billfold” was in Matthew 5.

Another telling admission was made by Deaver when Padfield asked him to identify what he meant when he used the word “church.” Deaver said:

He wanted me to identify the church. It doesn’t matter if I mean the church local (like the church at Laodicea), the church regional (the churches of Galatia), the church universal (the brotherhood), the church ethnic (the churches of the Gentiles), congregational collective (the churches of Christ). It doesn’t matter what I mean. I mean that whatever an individual can do upon the peculiar grounds that he’s a Christian, the church can do, the brotherhood can do, the regional churches can do it, the local church can do it, groups of churches can do it, the ethnic churches can do it. It doesn’t matter.

Padfield pointed out that following Deaver’s argument would allow for activating of the universal church, yet the New Testament gives no pattern or machinery by which the universal church may function.

Ignoring the context of James 1:27, Deaver made an emotional appeal by asking, “Can the church practice pure and undefiled religion?” Padfield responded by showing that “religion” is something possessed and practiced by the individual, not by the church in its collective sense. Deaver then charged that Padfield was saying the church could not practice pure and undefiled religion, even though he had not established that James 1:27 was speaking of “the local church” as his proposition demanded. Padfield showed three things not found in James 1:27: 1. the local church. 2. The local church treasury. 3. The local church contributing to the needy. He also showed from the context that James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 were instructions to individuals.

Deaver argued for “benevolence as a vehicle for evangelism,” and de-fended church support of a clinic in Africa to provide opportunity to teach the gospel to those non-saints who were aided. When Padfield pressed him in regard to “church of Christ hospitals” being built in this country like “Baptist hospitals,” Deaver asked, “Can the church hand out Band-Aids?” Padfield pointed out that hospitals do much more than pass out band aids.

Deaver contended that the “widow indeed” of 1 Timothy 5:3,5,16 is not necessarily a saint (Christian), but rather, may simply be a woman who has nowhere else to turn but unto God. He made a distinction between her and the woman of verse 9 who may be “enrolled” or “taken into the number.” Padfield argued that the text says she “trusts in God” and “prays night and day” which shows that she is a saint.

Several times Deaver said, “Every precisely worded question is either true or false.” He would then proceed to submit a number of questions which he insisted Padfield should answer “true” or “false” without any qualification. However the questions were not asked in a context where anyone could know how he was defining the words used, such as “church.” When Padfield answered with more than a “true” or “false” Deaver complained that the answer was not what he had asked for.

Padfield’s affirmative proposition for the last two nights was, “The Scriptures teach that the exclusive New Testament pattern for the benevolent work of the local church from its treasury is the relief of needy saints.” He used 1 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Timothy 5:16; Matt. 18:15 and Acts 5:2-4 to show the difference between individuals and the church. He used charts to show the New Testament pattern of funds of local churches used to aid saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32-35; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1,12,13; 1 Tim. 5:2-16) and illustrating that there is no instruction for, or example of, the local church assisting non-saints.

Deaver dismissed most of Padfield’s first affirmative speech by saying he agreed with most of what he had said. He admitted that all of the passage cited constituted “part of the pattern” but that there was more to the pattern and suggested that James 1:27; Galatians 6:10 and Matthew 5 were part of the pattern for the church to act in behalf of non-saints. He introduced 2 Corinthians 9:13 with less than three minutes remaining in his speech be-fore Padfield’s last speech of the debate but failed to establish that “unto all” includes “non-saints.” Padfield chided him for waiting so late in the debate to introduce his complicated argument that used seven overhead charts and knowing that Padfield would not have time to fully respond in his very last speech.

Padfield showed that by non-saints not being included in the revealed pattern where the local church is clearly involved in benevolent work, they (non-saints) are thus excluded from assistance by the local church. He illustrated this by showing that mechanical instruments of music, Fri-day observance of the Lord’s supper and pizza and Pepsi as elements for the Lord’s supper are excluded be-cause they are not part of what is revealed. Padfield pointed out that “music” in worship is “limited” to the kind that is revealed (authorized) and just so also benevolence by the local church is “limited” to the kind that is revealed  always, and in every case, to “needy saints” or “brethren.” Padfield demonstrated that while the text does not say “sing only,” it only says “sing” and though the text does not say “saints only,” it only says saints when the church treasury is involved.

Interest was high and I believe considerable good will come from this debate. If only more brethren would be willing to put their questionable doctrines to the test of an honorable discussion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 12-13
August 18, 1994

By Vance E. Trefethen

Observations: 1. Tom agrees Acts 6 and 15 both show a church deciding a matter of judgment (Q. 1). But Connie Adams (Guardian of Truth [3/3/94] p. 4) said, “In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand.” 2. Tom agrees women were present in some business meetings in the NT (Q. 1). But Mike Willis (GOT [3/18/ 93], p. 185) said, “The desire of women to be present at these meetings” is “a usurpation of the authority God gave to men.” Bobby Holmes (GOT [12/2/93], p. 723) said, “The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in 1 Timothy 2:12. . .” (ital. in orig.).

I commend his courage in breaking with GOT on these issues. Perhaps he will receive the blessings of Matthew 5:11, as I have.

Arguments: Tom’s responses are in italics, and mine follow in regular type.

Makes his pattern a test of fellowship. There is no “test of fellowship” to be found in my proposition or in anything I’ve written on this topic. Please don’t misrepresent me. Jesus decides fellowship in the universal church; local churches handle fellowship for themselves.

“Pattern should reflect a binding quality.” You can’t get much more binding than “that is the pattern churches should follow  to the exclusion of all others” (1st Aff. 6 6).

He says Acts 15 is the only pattern in his book, but then adds other passages. (1) We aren’t debating the format of my book. (2) The quote was taken out of context. It was showing the sole example of how elders lead decision-making, not the cases where elders aren’t specifically mentioned (Acts 6, 1 Cor. 5, etc.), which are covered elsewhere in the book.

“Elders become mere figureheads with no authority to decide any matter.” (1) This confuses “authority” with “private decision-making in matters of judgment.” Titus was to “speak, exhort, and reprove with all authority” (Tit. 2:15). The evangelist doesn’t decide matters of judgment for the church (does he?). “Authority” doesn’t require secret decision-making, else the preacher is an “eviscerated” “mere figurehead.”

Do elders have authority to privately make decisions that bind the whole church? “The elders of the local church … are subject to Christ, the head of the church (Col. 1:18). Therefore, elders do not, and cannot enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ which are revealed in the

Scriptures” (GOT [4/21/94], p. 244). Amen.

“Consensus is not found in the scriptures!” (1) The word isn’t in my proposition either! (2) The concept is taught in Acts 6:5; 15:22; 15:25; 1 Corinthians 1:10. (3) “Leadership” and “authority” don’t occur in the NT with regard to elders. Do elders have neither?

Including women leads to women overriding men, women preachers, etc. (1) If so, why does he teach that women may be included on some occasions, per Acts 6 and 15 (Q. 1)? Won’t the women in Tom’s meetings want to become preachers too? (2) Anyone “overriding” others (male or female) in matters of judgment violates 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-3; Acts 6:5 and Acts 15:22. (3) Abuses don’t disprove the practice. Baptism is often abused (sprinkling, infants), but it is still the right thing to do, if we avoid the abuses. (4) Some believe having women participating in mixed Bible classes is a dangerous step toward feminism. Should we forbid it?

“Elders have no oversight in consensus.” This confuses “oversight” with “private decision-making.” They have no “private decision-making” in the Bible pattern, but lots of “oversight.” I challenge for a lexicon defining “oversight” as “private decision-making without congregational involvement.”

Acts 6  the Apostles privately decided everything. (1) All the features he gave came after “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them. . .” (Acts 6:2). Was it “private” (Tom) or did it include “the multitude” (Luke)? (2) My proposition says the pattern must “include (comprise as part of the whole) the whole church.” Since he says Acts 6 teaches the whole church is authorized to be included (Q. 1), he admits they were included. (3) Can elders decide whether men or women will serve as leaders over benevolence? Wow  I teach it’s a matter of faith that men (not women) are leaders, but Tom says it’s a judgment for elders to make privately. Do elders today privately decide the qualifications of deacons? I don’t think he believes this argument. (4) Since the Apostles “called the multitude,” I submit that refusal to call the multitude violates the “traditions of the apostles.” I believe we should do it the way the Apostles did it. Tom says we don’t have to. That, in a nutshell, is the debate.

His pattern calls for decisions with no private meetings, but they had them in:

Galatians 2:2: “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute. . .” Where’s the decision in a matter of judgment here? Paul’s gospel was divine inspiration, not congregational judgment.

Galatians 2:9: To get a private decision for the church, one must cut off Paul in mid-sentence: “James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. . .” He stopped here, but read on: “. . . that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (Gal. 2:9). Who are “we” and “they”? Was the whole church commanded to go to the circumcision or the Gentiles? The “fellow-ship” was in preaching the gospel, with an agreement to go to different audiences  but it says nothing about binding this evangelistic “decision” on the church. Galatians 2:9 will backfire on Tom. Only three men met with Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2:9  out of at least 14 “apostles and elders” (12 apostles + at least 2 elders). Either a tiny minority (3/14) of elders or men make decisions for the church without the other elders or men: or Galatians 2:9 is not congregational decision-making, but private action by individuals. Which?

Acts 15:6. (1) This is a decision about what Gentiles must do to be saved. Do elders today have the right to privately decide what the plan of salvation is? (2) The “multitude” was included in the context (Acts 15:12).

1 Corinthians 5 includes the whole church, but 1 Corinthians 6 shows private decisions for the church. (1) I’m glad we agree 1 Corinthians 5 involves the whole church. (2) 1 Corinthians 6 isn’t about “matters of congregational judgment.” It settles a matter while still a private dispute, like the first two steps of Matthew 18. (3) 1 Corinthians 6:5 also backfires. Yes, an elder could be the “one wise man” who settles a dispute privately between two saints. Then what? Does the church now change some collective action? Can one elder privately decide things for the whole church without involving the other elders? I don’t think he believes this.

Vance will learn some things are too scandalous to be done collectively. (1) More scandalous than fornication that’s not even named among the heathens (1 Cor. 5:1)? (2) Where in the NT will I “learn” this? (3) If it causes the weak to stumble, why did God command it?

“Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.” The first sentence is my pattern for a church with elders, so the second is wrong. I’m glad we agree that Matthew 18 includes the whole church.

Vance musts see contradiction between “male leader-ship” and “decision-making women.” (1) If Tom could see the difference between “leadership” and “excluding every one from participating,” this debate would be over. If these were synonymous, elders could never include other men or the whole church. But Tom agrees they should, at least sometimes. (2) “Decision-making women” privately deciding things are just as wrong as men who do so. In the Bible, the whole church participates  not women (or men) deciding things and forcing them on everyone.

Acts 11:27-30 shows private decisions by elders. (1) The decision is in 11:29. “And in proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined [arizo] to send money for (“unto,” “towards”) benevolence. If the elders who received it had decided to spend it on a new meeting tent, they would have betrayed the generosity of the donors. (2) Where in Acts 11 are the decisions made privately by elders? Don’t just say “it is inferred”  show what phrase infers it and the specific decisions made, and show that they were made without including the whole church. Book, chapter, and verse, please. (3) Handling money doesn’t mean “privately deciding” things. Paul and Barnabas handled the money, but they didn’t privately decide anything, did they?

“In the absence of elders, male leadership prevails” (Answer to my Q. 2). Notice:

A. “Male leadership prevails” in the absence of elders (Q. 2).

B. A church with no elders included men and women in decision-making in the NT (Q. 1).

C. Therefore: including the whole church in decision-making doesn’t violate male leadership.

He must give up the arguments about feminism, women usurping authority, etc.

Answers to First Negative Questions: (1) Yes, and I’m willing to modify the negative remarks on “voting” I made in my book, in the interest of honesty and searching for truth. I found the scholarly quote on Acts 15:22 recently while preparing for this debate (is there any negative reply?). See also 2 Corinthians 8:19, where “chosen” means selected by a vote or show of hands (Thayer, p. 668; Strong, p. 77). “Voting,” as radical feminist Alexander Campbell (1835) said when he taught the whole church must be included, means any expression of opinion, whether raising the hand, saying “yes” or “no,” etc. Churches with secret decision-making have such voting all the time, among those allowed to participate. (2) Yes to both, provided the scriptures authorize it and the congregation has asked an “agency” to act on its behalf. (3) No. (4) They can’t. One group “overturning” another in matters of judgment is wrong, regardless of gender. (5) “Buying supplies”  the whole church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6. “Financial information” was discussed in Acts 6 among the whole church, which is how they knew certain widows were needy. “Hearing complaints”  see above on 1 Corinthians 6. “Investigating . . .” isn’t “private decision-making.” If you find out someone is sinning, you haven’t made a decision for the church. (6) If the leaders disagree with the multitude, there is no consensus yet.

Questions for Tom: (1) GOT [4/7/94], p. 206 criticized a “rump meeting” of a few men who privately decided to change a church bank account to prevent fraud by others, without including the rest of the men or women. What Scripture did they violate? (2) Where in the NT does “authority” refer to the right to privately decide matters of collective judgment? (3) When elders include the whole church in decision-making, do they lose “authority” or “oversight”? (4) Since women are authorized to attend meetings (1 A A. 1), by what authority could the men decide to exclude them? What other authorized activities may men prohibit women from doing?

Summary: We agree that all four cases I gave show the whole church included in matters of congregational judgment. Tom’s “exceptions” either deal with matters of faith, individual action, say nothing about private decisions by elders, or show the inclusion of the whole church. When-ever matters of collective judgment were handled in the NT, the whole church was included. Please join me in affirming that we should follow the Bible pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 18-20
August 18, 1994