Truth Magazine

First Negative

This debate is about “unity in diversity.” Ron Tate says that we can and must be united upon the “core gospel” (the essentials of faith), but that we can differ on doctrinal matters. His argument is that we can be united even though we differ on matters of worship (instrumental music) and the work and organization of the church, etc.

No Scripture Given

Mr. Tate agreed to affirm a proposition that said, “The Scriptures teach …” Yet, he made no appeal to the Bible to prove his proposition. I realize that he cited a few passages in telling us what he thinks the “core gospel” involves. But not even one passage was cited to support his “unity in diversity” concept. We will be watching for some Scripture in his next affirmative.

Tate’s Distinction in “Core Gospel” and “Doctrine”

He defines the “core gospel” as the “essentials” of faith, “clear, specific statements in the Scriptures” and “essential matters of faith to which we must hold.” To speak of “essential matters of faith” implies that there are matters of faith that are not essential. Would Mr. Tate care to tell us which matters of faith are non-essential? Which matters of faith are not the ones “to which we must hold”? He identifies six points in the “core gospel”:

Tate’s Core Gospel

Acceptance of:

1. Authority and existence of God (Heb. 11:6).

2. Deity and lordship of Christ (Jn. 14:6).

3. Scriptures as infallible, inspired & complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

4. Church as entity for which Christ died . . . (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23).

5. The importance of immersion (John 3:5; Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:17).

6. Faithfulness as a way of life (Matt. 16:24; 1 Cor. 4:2).

How did he determine what fits into the “core gospel” and what does not? Is this all there is to the “core gospel”? What about faith in the Holy Spirit? What about the virgin birth? What about the resurrection of Christ from the dead? What about the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead in the end of time (I Cor. 15)? What about worship offered to God? What about the work and organization of the church? What about God’s law concerning divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9)? What about homosexuality? What about the question of whether the church can have a Pope? I would be interested in knowing not only where he places these, but also how he determines where they go.

“Doctrinal matters” he defines as “those areas that are not addressed by specific commands.” He calls this area “matters of opinion.” We can differ here and still be united we are told.

I wonder about the doctrine of the virgin birth or the doctrine of the resurrection of all the dead? Are these “doctrinal matters”? What about elements for the Lord’s supper? It that a “doctrinal matter”?

To the contrary, the Bible teaches that we must be united on doctrinal matters and they are essential. John wrote, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Fathe and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). Paul said that we must all “speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Paul thought it essential to hold not only to the six elements of Tate’s “core gospel” but also the “words in this epistle” saying those who do not obey the words of that epistle are not to be fellowshipped (2 ‘Mess. 3:14).

When Mr. Tate makes a distinction in essential matters of faith (“core gospel”) and non-essential matters of faith (“doctrinal matters”) he puts himself in the place of God to tell us what is important and what is not. Jesus warned the one who “breaks (annuls  NASV; relaxes  RSV; from Greek luoword for looseMatt. 18:18) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so …” (Matt. 5:19). Mr. Tate is taking it on himself to loose some of God’s instructions. There is but one lawgiver (Jas. 4:12).

Mr. Tate wrote, “It is important to note that the men who began what we know as the Restoration Movement disagreed quite strongly among themselves over certain issues. However, in spite of this disagreement they did not divide.” Can we disagree and not divide over the issue of the “pious unimmersed”? Can we disagree and not divide over Baptist baptism? Can we disagree and not divide over the issue of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures? Some use this same reasoning to say that we can disagree and not divide over the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Different Heremeneutical Approaches

Mr. Tate points out that those in the churches of Christ have followed the heremeneutics which calls for command, approved example or necessary inference, while the Independent Christian Churches subscribe to a different one. Theirs calls for obedience to direct commands, under-standing what is non-scriptural (what is not mentioned) and what is anti-scriptural (what is prohibited). He mixes apples and oranges under his list of things that are “non-scriptural.” He lists instrumental music (which is an addition to the word  being a different kind of music) along with song books and communion sets (which are aids to carrying out the commands of God).

In Acts 15 when the matter of the necessity of circumcision was discussed, the answer was proven by a heremeneutics that Mr. Tate says came from man. Peter argued from the conversion of Cornelius and necessarily infered that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised (vv. 7-11; cf. Acts 11:18). Paul and Bamabas argued from the example of God working through them among the Gentiles which was approved by the miracles (v. 12). James con-tended that a direct statement from God proved the same thing (v. 13-21).

We are chided for elevating this hermeneutics to the level of Scripture. Yet, that is exactly what he has done with his hermeneutics as he applies it to the proposition. That says that we can’t understand the Bible alike. If we cannot, how can we understand the six elements in the “core gospel” alike?

Approved Examples

Tate asks, “Are people today required to imitate the actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament?” Paul said, “Be followers of me…” (1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16). “Be followers of me … ” (1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16). The same writer said, “join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17) and “The things which you … saw in me do …” (Phil. 4:9). See also Hebrews 6:12. If examples are not binding, then the Lord’s Supper could not be limited to the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

There Must Be Diversity

Mr. Tate tells us that “Mindless cloning is out of the qustion.” Yet, he thinks that there must be “mindless cloning” on the six elements of the “core gospel.” ” He says it is “ludicrous” to suggest giving up matters of disagreement. Yet, he does not think it “ludicrous” to ask others to give up those matters that do not harmonize with his “core gospel.” Is “mindless cloning” out of the question on homosexuality or the question of a Pope?

All will agree that there will be some differences among those who are in fellowship with one another (Rom. 14). The question is concerning the type of diversity. Will there be diversity in matters of indifference (matters which do not involve sin) or in doctrinal matters? That’s what this discussion is about. How would our friend deal with the issue of sprinkling?

Questions for Mr. Tate Us

1. What is the Scripture from which you base your argument of unity in diversity?

2. How do you determine that acceptance of Christ’s Deity is an essential matter of faith and how we worship God is not?

3. What is the criteria for deciding whether the questions of homosexuality and divorce and remarriage will go under the “core gospel” or “doctrinal matters”?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 18-19
October 7, 1993

By Lowell Blasingame

For years a basic difference between the preaching of the gospel preachers and denominational preachers has been our plea for a restoration of the church of the New Testament while they have taught that every man has the right to the church of his choice. We have insisted that by speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where it is silent and by contending that scriptural authority is necessary for all that is taught and practiced in religion, we can restore the church of the New Testament.

Now a group of brethren are telling us that we have gone about our preaching in a wrong way and have antagonized and alienated our religious neighbors by this approach to the Scriptures. They tell us that we need a new set of rules or hermeneutics for applying and interpreting the Scriptures. ACU Press has released a book, The Cruciform Church, written by C. Leonard Allen, in which the restoration plea is ridiculed as one of the conceits of our time and we are told that we cannot return to the beginning and start all over again (Introduction, p. x).

Advocates of the new hermeneutics ridicule the plea for restoration by asking which church of the first century we want to restore, Laodecia with its indifference, or Corinth with its immorality, etc. Their conclusion seems to be that since these failed to be ideal that there is no pattern worthy of restoration. I agree that these churches were lacking in some things but suppose they heed the instructions given for correcting these faults, will they then become examples worthy of our emulation? Besides, there are some who received no censure. How about choosing the church at Smyrna or Philadelphia (Rev. 2-3) or the church at Philippi?

The assumption that corruption in a church in the first century eliminates an ideal for restoration is ridiculous. Shall we also assume that since false gospels were taught in the fast century by Judaizers and Gnostics (Gal. 1:6-8) that we cannot sweep away the past and restore the true gospel of the first century? Is this another of the great conceits of our time to suppose that we can do this?

Is our plea for a restoration of the church of the first century a valid plea? I affirm that it is and do so for the following reasons.

First, the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. Matthew called it “the word of the kingdom” (Mau. 13:19) while Luke identifies it as “the seed” (Lk. 8:11). An irrevocable law of God says that a seed produces after its kind (Gen. 1:11). As long as a seed has life, it will produce the same kind of plant as that from which it came. And, if all of these plants are lost, the possibility of their being restored remains as long as their seed exists. Exactly the same is true regarding the kingdom or church of our Lord. Preaching the word produced the Lord’s church during the first century and as long as we have the word (seed), we have the potential for the restoration of the church. If not, why not? Why will it not make the same thing of those who believe and obey it today as it did 1990 or more years ago?

Second, the New Testament is a “form” of doctrine or of sound words (Rom. 6:17; 2 Tim. 1:13). The word hupotuposis, used in 2 Timothy 1:13 also occurs in I Timothy 1:16 and is there translated “pattern.” The New Testament is a form, a pattern or blueprint of what God wants his people individually and collectively to be. As Moses was forbidden to alter the pattern of the tabernacle (Heb. 8:5), we are forbidden to make changes in the teaching of Christ (I Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Cor. 4:6). Inasmuch as the New Testament is a pattern showing how to start a local church, what its organizational structure is, its mission and its worship, it follows that as long as we have a New Testament, we have the blueprint for restoring the church of the first century.

I do not know what kind of dress Martha Washington wore when her husband became the first president of our country. But I know that, if a seamstress has the material and pattern from which it was made, she can today make one exactly like it. As long as these exist, the dress can be restored. Equally as well, using the same material and following the same pattern today will restore the church of the first century.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 10
October 21, 1993

By Joe R. Price

It is often called “The Lord’s Prayer” because it was spoken by Jesus. But, a more appropriate description would be “The Model Prayer,” since it was spoken by Jesus to his disciples upon their request to “teach us to pray” (Lk.1 l : l ff). The model set forth by Jesus is as follows:

Our Father who art in heaven. Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, soon earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen (Matt. 6:9-13).

J.W. McGarvey called this prayer “a model of matter, arrangements and expression.” The German theologian Helmut Thielicke described it as “great things and small things; spiritual things and material things; inward things and out-ward things  there is nothing that is not included in this prayer.” Truly, this prayer is a model of sincerity, simplicity and faith.

A Blueprint For Prayer

The importance of this prayer is found in the words which directly precede it in Matthew’s account: “After this manner therefore pray ye” (Matt. 6:9a). Jesus has put us under commandment to learn to pray from this blueprint he left us. By emulating this prayer when we pray, we will be communicating with God in the most effective way possible. People pray in all sorts of ways. We can have confidence that our prayers are honorable and honored by our heavenly Father when we pray to him in the Christ-approved way. Consider a brief outline of this prayer which may help us increase our understanding of how to pattern our prayers after this Model Prayer.

1. First, we should know that prayer is a matter of invoking God’s hearing and help (v. 9b). So, Jesus says to acknowledge this when we pray  “Our Father.” It is the Christian who is blessed with this unique relationship with God. God has bestowed upon us his love that we should be called his children (1 Jn. 3:1-2; Jn. 1:12). Prayer is given to God’s children to talk with their Heavenly Father! Our prayers must always give honor to God as our Provider, Protector and Sustainer (2 Cor. 6:18).

2. It is equally needful to exhibit reverent regard for our Heavenly Father  “Who art in heaven” (v. 9b). While we (as the children of God) love him, we must never be irreverent toward him. “… God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (Eccl. 5:2). As someone has said: “The familiarity of love must not forget the reverence due to holiness.”

Once we have invoked God’s hearing and help in our prayers, our attention should be given to petitioning God about himself and man’s response to him (v. 9c-10). Specifically.

a. That God’s name be hallowed (treated as holy): Hallowed be thy name. The glory of God should be in view when we pray. Not only should we acknowledge his holiness (Rev. 4:8), we should also pray that all men everywhere may revere him. “And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee” (Psa.9:10).

b. That God’s kingdom come: Thy kingdom come. This element of prayer anticipates as well as announces the rule of God in the lives of men. God’s kingdom has come (Mk. 1:15; 9:1; Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4), and is identified as Christ’s church. Yet. there are billions who have not subjected them-selves to the rule which God exercises through his Son. That the lost might obey the rule of God in their lives must be our constant prayer.

c. That God’s will be done: Thy will be done. God’s children long for the purposes of God to be fully realized in every corner of this universe! As God’s will is done in heaven (completely, cheerfully and immediately), it is our prayer that things may be soon earth. We help matters when we conform ourselves to the will of God (Matt. 26:39; 9:36-38; Rom. 12:2).

4. We should petition God about ourselves (vv. 11-13):

a. Our physical provisions  Give us this day our daily bread. The things needful for life come from God (Matt. 6:31-32).

b. Our need for pardon  Forgive us our debts. We can never pay the debt we owe God due to our sin (Matt. 18:21-27). We must seek his mercy while understanding that our forgiveness is related to our own mercifulness (Matt. 18:28-35).

c. Our protection  Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41; 1 Cor. 10:13). We must be sober and watchful as we pray for strength and wisdom to withstand temptations (Eph. 6:18; 1 Pet. 5:8).

5. We should approach God with adoration (v. 13). Our prayers must pay homage to the majesty and grandeur of God. Sovereign rule, might, and honor belong to him (Rev. 4:10-11). A recognition of the position and attributes of God always has a place in the prayers which we lay before him.

Jesus teaches us sincerity, simplicity and faith through this “Model Prayer.” As we pray, let us remember this order: God, others and ourselves. Prayer is powerful when prayed to the All-Powerful God (v. 15) who is “our Father who art in heaven.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 22
October 7, 1993

By Lewis Willis

CBS MORNING NEWS (4-2-92), conducted an inter-view based on the findings of a new report. The report found that 91% of Americans believe that religion is important. However, 63% reject moral absolutes for their lives. “Moral absolutes” are the statements in the Scriptures which say we must or must not do certain things.

What Americans want to do is make moral decisions about right or wrong, basing that decision on the situation or the circumstance which they encounter. This is what was called “situation ethics” in the 1960s. “Situation ethics” gave America that terrible time when everything seemed to come apart. All moral values were expelled, and people did anything they decided they wanted to do. Rebellion against every form of authority was rampant. Any established norm for human conduct was openly, and sometimes violently, opposed. Sexual freedoms were demanded and the world came to know American hippi-ism. Dirty, long-haired, idle youth roamed the country, making a nuisance of themselves. The drug scene was dumped on America by these rebels, and we still struggle with the burden. Every institution  government, home and family, social, educational, economic  came under the ridicule of people who wanted to do their own thing, without any rules governing or restricting their conduct.

I think it was hoped that, when these people grew up, they would abandon this approach to life. It is safe to say that most of them have cut their hair and started wearing decent clothes. However, the results of this study indicate that most of them held on to their rebellious spirit where moral rules are concerned. They still do not want some-body to tell them that it is wrong to lie, steal, cheat, commit fornication, etc. They refuse any system that tells them they must do certain things that are required of them by the Word of God, such as worshiping, serving, contributing to the betterment of society, etc. Joseph Fletcher, in his 1966 book, Situation Ethics, called these things “iron-clad do’s and don’ts” which people rejected. Anything that pre-vented people from doing whatever they wanted to do was totally unacceptable. It appears that that situation has not changed. Is it any wonder that our nation is in the mess it is in today?

The Bible tells us that there is a way to determine what we should do. It even tells us that there are “rules” by which we must all live. Obviously, the American people do not know this, or they do not accept it. Nonetheless, the Word of God still says, ” let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:16). We will never reach our potential, until we decide to live by the law of God!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 21
October 7, 1993