Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

We are to teach and admonish one another, but each one of us must constantly examine and re-examine himself to be sure that he is abiding in the gospel of Christ. Some brethren at Corinth who were under the influence of false teaching set themselves up to challenge the apostle Paul and to test him by the standard of a carnal mind. The false teachers judged Paul harshly for such things as changing his travel plans, not accepting financial support from Corinth while preaching there, and an apparent lack of polish in his personal appearance or presentation as a speaker.

Those who tested Paul by means of such tangents and side issues conveniently overlooked the decisive facts which proved Paul was a genuine apostle of Christ. It was Paul who had revealed the gospel to the Corinthians and taught them from the beginning (1 Cor. 4:15). He proved the message was not his own but was sent from God by producing signs, wonders, and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). In contrast to the sleight-of-hand methods, dishonest maneuvers, and carnal manipulations practiced by the false teachers, Paul had been scrupulously honest and sincere, open and above aboard, both in his method of teaching and manner of life (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 8:21). The false teachers were great braggarts and trusted in their own shrewdness, whereas Paul openly acknowledged his weakness in the flesh and his utter dependence on the strength of the Lord (2 Cor. 10:12; 12:7-10).

Paul turned the tables on those who so meticulously questioned and tested him when he suggested that it was high time they tested themselves. No matter how awkward and unsophisticated they might think Paul to be, they had best be sure they could pass the test of truth in the sight of the Lord.

Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor. 13:3,5,7-8).

If we fail the test of truth, we destroy ourselves rather than the truth, and Christ is not in us. To demand of other a thorough investigation when we ourselves are failing the test of truth and right is to be counterfeit or reprobate in the faith.

Testing the Tester, Examining the Examiner

The Examiner edited by Charles Holt has been long and loud in challenging and testing brethren on a wide range of issues. While we are willing to be tested concerning anything we preach and practice, it is high time the peculiar views advocated by The Examiner be tested. This special issue of the Guardian of Truth is devoted to the theme “Examining the Examiner.”

We have repeatedly received requests that we make some material available analyzing the doctrines of Charles Holt and The Examiner. A brother in Missouri called to say this error was causing serious trouble in his area. A young preacher in Florida asked for some material because members of the church there are being infected with these errors. Recently a church in Texas was suddenly flooded with copies of The Examiner. Those who are pushing and pressing the peculiar positions of The Examiner are creating doubt and confusion rather than strength and stability.

The first issue of The Examiner said, “The Examiner is scheduled for a five-year life-span. . . . If it should last that long, it will then cease” (Jan. 1986, p. 2). As the paper nears the end of its fifth year, Charles Holt pleads with “the readers to provide the finances necessary to keep it going and growing in circulation. . . . We ask and we hope to receive adequate funds to continue and enlarge this valuable work” (July 1990, p. 28). While we do not want to overreact to this menace, neither do we believe that dangerous error will just go away if we ignore it. Our aim is to examine The Examiner in the light of Scripture. We want to be fair and objective, to speak the truth in love, and to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

We have every confidence that the power of truth will overcome the doubt and confusion generated by The Examiner. Competent preachers have been chosen to outline key truths taught in God’s Word in contrast to key errors propagated by The Examiner. We shall emphasize the importance of speaking the truth in love and the imperative of Bible teaching on the local church, including the eldership, the assembly, and the treasury. The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. will be examined, along with the false concept of unity-in-diversity advocated in The Examiner. The claim of non-sectarian faith and the charge of institutional religion will be considered. The pernicious effects of The Examiner will be discussed, including worldliness, ship-wrecks of the faith, misguided writers, and the fruits of unsound teaching.

Truth In Love, Not Traditionalism

Satan tries to intimidate and silence those who fight error with such charges as “nothing but a preacher’s fight,” “traditionalism,” “a political machine,” and “trying to run the brotherhood.” Error flatters itself with the false claim of “independent thought,” implying that faithful men are blind tradition-mongers. Each writer who has participated in this issue of the Guardian of Truth is an independent student of God’s Word and makes his appeal to that Word rather than to human traditions. There has been no effort on the part of any of these men to create or exercise a brotherhoodwide power, mechanism, or machine of any kind.

Brother James W. Adams closes his keynote article on “Speaking the Truth in Love” with these worcis, ‘What I have written are solely my sentiments . . . . I wisit to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.” Every faithful teacher, every contributor to this series shares that ground. Each writer stands before God alone with an open Bible in an effort to learn and to teach accurately what the Bible says. Wherein they stand united, it is not because of human collaboration or traditionalism but because we can and must understand the Bible alike. As our readers study this material, let them in like manner present themselves before God with wa open Bible in a sincere desire to learn the truth without allegiance to any man, paper, or human brotherhood.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 577, 607
October 4, 1990

By James W. Adams

“Speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

It is evident, even to a casual reader of our text, that the increase of the body of Christ numerically by persons being saved and added to it by the Lord, as well as the spiritual perfection of those thus saved and added, are to be accomplished instrumentally through “speaking the truth in love.” It is quite as evident that the “truth” thus referred to is “the gospel” (Eph. 1:13). It is also clear that this “truth” or “gospel” included the ethical behavior of Christians as well as a revelation of the acts of God in redemption, hence is to be equated with the “doctrine of Christ” (Tit. 2:10). Therefore, all efforts to make arbitrary distinctions between gospel and doctrine are purely gratuitous and have no foundation in the Scriptures. This is manifest from the amount of ethical instruction contained in the letter to the Ephesians (chapters 4,5,6).

The text also reveals that it is not enough to “speak the truth,” as important as that is, but that it must be spoken “in love.” We dare not disregard either aspect of this inspired edict. The expression “the truth” has to do with the content of our teaching. The expression “in love” has to do with motive and manner.

I have been asked to write on this topic in an issue of the Guardian of Truth dedicated to an examination of the teaching and practice of my long-time friend, co-worker in days gone by, and brother in the Lord, Charles A. Holt. I do so reluctantly, for I have long ago given up any hope of effecting a change in our brother’s teaching and practice. I have for almost twenty-five years deplored, dealt with (in the “pulpit” and the “press” and face to face conversations) brother Holt’s vagaries along with those of others who have been aligned with him, but to no avail. I have for a long time now only dealt with the views and practices of these brethren where their influence seems to be creating, or has the possibility of creating, strife and division among brethren and churches. In my judgment, they are more of a sometimes troublesome nuisance rather than a real threat to the churches and the truth.

I am convinced that their views relative to the Lord’s ekk1esia (“church”) contain within their bosom the germ of their own demise. Someone has correctly (when properly defined) noted: “No movement in history has ever succeeded until it has become institutionalized.” This is but to say that no movement which does not result in an organic manifestation of some sort is ephemeral. It is nebulous. It clouds the atmosphere for a moment and disappears as suddenly as and as certainly as it appears. Holt’s errors are not new, as is the case with most false doctrine. Others have held similar views in days past. They were tested and discarded because they are neither rational nor scriptural. Holt’s, Jennings’, and the views of others of like nature will suffer the same fate.

“Speaking In Love”

“Love” in this text is from the Greek agape. To practice this grace, one must always seek the highest good of its object. What is the object in our text, It is the truth? If so, we should speak the truth so as to promote its highest interests. Is it Christ? If so, we must speak the truth always in a manner that pleases him and best promotes his purposes. Is it the person being taught? If so, we must teach the truth so as to promote his highest good. I am persuaded that we must do all three. We must speak the truth in love of Christ, the truth, and the persons whom we address, and we must speak the truth in a manner calculated to promote the highest interests of all three.

One of the chief complaints of brother Holt and his colleagues is that they are never understood and always misrepresented. This charge challenges the intelligence and sincerity of all those who disagree with the published concepts of these brethren and dare to publish their protestations. It is a charge that is arrogant, sinfully judgmental, and palpably false. If one desires for others to speak in love concerning him and his views, he is obligated thus to speak himself. It is a fact easily documented that brother Holt presents his views invariably with scathing denunciations of churches, his brethren generally, and particularly, elders and other preachers. He deliberately magnifies abuses, espouses moot and questionable exegeses of Scripture, scornfully denounces what he calls “traditional Church of Christ positions,” attributes base monetary motivation to preachers who are fully supported by the churches in their work, and scornfully ridicules the professed undenominational status of “churches of Christ.” My files abound with documentation of such. It would take a master magician to equate his approach to these matters with “speaking the truth in love.”

I have no difficulty with brother Holt and those who travel his road doctrinally, so long as they hold their views as personal convictions and do not press them to the disruption and division of the churches. It is the sad truth however that they have never learned the difference between “express” and “press.” The mere expression of their convictions (assuming them to be honestly held) is not the problem. It is the agitation of their views, their pressing for their acceptance, their sense of mission and evangelistic fervor with regard to their propagation, and the consequent strife, division, and broken fellowship which they engender. I have had the sad expreience of following brother Holt where he has labored and propagated his views. The strife, heartache, open division, and totally “unChristlike” dispositions of his supporters and converts to his views which I found in these places are of themselves sufficient evidence of the error of his concepts and the manner of their promulgation. In a word, the attitudes of his converts to his position are the best commentary on the character of his position. J. C. Hare perceptively observes: “To form a correct judgment concerning the tendency of any doctrine we should look rather at the forms it bears in the disciples, than in the teacher, for he only made it, they are made by it.”

Some General Observations

It probably was only a male chauvinist who said, “A woman never believes she loses an argument, because she always knows she is misunderstood.” Brother Holt seemingly believes he is victorious in every confrontation over his views, because he knows he is, as before noted, never understood and always misrepresented.

Brother Holt has an iconoclastic fixation. He is forever tilting at spiritual windmills which he mistakes for giant aberrations from Divine truth. Sad to say, like Cervantes’ ” Don Quixote, ” he has a lot of good ” Sancho Panzas ” who do not see things as he does, but who loyally try to protect him from his indiscretions. They excuse his activities on the ground that “he is saying a lot of things that need to be said” (they do not specify). In the words of an old proverb, we answer, “He buys honey too dearly who licks it from thorns.”

That our brother possesses many fine qualities, much ability, and preaches needed truth on many subjects is not denied. However, I agree with Charming who wrote: “The consistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associations. False theories though held by the greatest and best of men, and though not thoroughly believed, have wrought much evil.” It remains true, as Thoreau wrote: “No imposition is too great for the credulity of men.” Therefore, we cannot safely tolerate the pressing of erroneous concepts and practices, however innocuous they may seem at the time, for the most insignificant aberrations have in time become the occasion of great evil.

Our brother has overshot Jerusalem and landed in Babylon doctrinally. If he practices his teaching, his movement will either die or become an organic monster. Movements launched on a plea for the freedom of absolute individualism and repudiation of all organization, as is Holt’s invariably cease to be individual and become organically autocratic and tyrannical the moment they are soundly established. Yet, as Franklin P. Jones said relative to matters political, “There’s nothing wrong with extremists that trying to reason with them won’t aggravate.” Hence, I close pessimistically relative to any hope that what we say will affect for good him who is the object of our remarks.

Conclusion

What I have written are solely my sentiments. Others who write in this issue are not expected necessarily to endorse all said, nor should they be held accountable, but I want it said, and I will defend it if necessary. Furthermore, though I know not what others will say in this issue, I wish to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 578, 606-607
October 4, 1990

By Steve Springer

In Acts 26, Luke records a familiar scene of Paul testifying before King Agrippa regarding the accusations made against him by the Jews. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this section of Scripture but I would like to examine the characteristics of those who are present.

1. King Agrippa is described as one who is a pompous dresser (25:23). He was one who was familiar with Jewish customs and beliefs (26:3). He seemed to be a fair man in his judgment of Paul’s case. He let Paul speak on his own behalf. He also did not “play the crowd” with his rulings. Agrippa did not appear to be a man of wickedness and deceit as have been many of those in authority throughout history.

2. Festus was a newly appointed public official; he appears to be a true politician. He was willing to do the Jews a pleasure (25:9), even if an innocent man had to die. He wanted to take Paul to Jerusalem to be judged. Jerusalem was where the “heart and core” of Paul’s accusers dwelt. Festus was a scheming politician.

3. Paul was a man appointed by Christ to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (26:17). He had zeal in doing God’s work. He told of his experiences in persecuting Christians, bringing them into bondage. He told of his determination to put Christians in prison, not only in Jerusalem, but also in other cities as well. He also implied that he had been in high standings with the chief priests (26:12). When Paul saw the risen Christ, he realized he was wrong in his works (26:19), and had a repentant heart.

As Paul testified in his defense, he told of his past and why the Jews now were against him. He simply believed what had been taught about the coming Messiah by the prophets of old. As he spoke, Festus, the politician, interrupted and told Paul that he was crazy for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was the only one in the room who believed in Jesus, which was filled mostly with Jews and/or those of Jewish persuasion. Note the reply from Paul (Acts 26:25-27), “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; But speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely; For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in corner.” Showing his conviction and zeal, Paul states that he is not crazy and knew what he is saying. Paul then asked Agrippa to answer whether or not he believed the prophets. Not waiting for Agrippa’s reply, Paul said, “I know you do.” Agrippa’s well known response was, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (26:28).

What if, when Festus told Paul he was “beside himself” and did not know what he was saying, Paul had not replied? What if Paul just thought to himself that Agrippa will not believe me just as everyone else in this room does not? What if Paul had decided to say only the things necessary to save his own life? What if Paul had thought that Agrippa was already religious enough or that he was involved with a false religion as were the others in the room and deserved their spiritual fate?

If Paul had not said what he did in verses 1-27, Agrippa would not have been “almost persuaded.” Paul’s deep faith in God and burning desire to convert the lost motivated him to convert the lost, even trying to convert the lost officials who were judging his case. The intensity of his faith in Christ was felt by King Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” on that occasion.

If a person tries to set a piece of wood on fire, he needs to have a strong enough flame that a sprinkle or two of rain will not put it out. If the fire burns strongly enough, it will not only withstand the rain but also catch the wood on fire. What about our fire of faith? Is it strong enough that we do not have to bring it in when it begins to sprinkle a little bit? Can it withstand the “sprinkle” of criticism by fellow workers, rejection by those strangers to whom we speak about Jesus, and abuse by those unbelieving scorners? If not we need to strengthen our fire for the Lord.

Paul exhorted Christians to persevere with these words: “Finally brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph. 6:10-13).

On many occasions, Paul’s preaching resulted in someone’s salvation. Although his preaching did not convert King Agrippa, it did not release Paul from responsibility for his soul (see Ezek. 3:17-19). King Agrippa faces judgment as one who heard, but rejected, the word of God’s grace. Paul faces judgment free from the blood of King Agrippa. But, what would Paul’s condition have been if he had said nothing? And, what is our condition when we say nothing to our family, friends, and work associates whom we see every day?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 558
September 20, 1990

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Examiner does not oppose a treasury. With regularity it urges its readers to send their contributions to the Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. so its spiritual work of speaking and printing their message may continue. They tell their adherents that much good work will fail to be done if they do not give more (5:1, p. 32). The Examiner does oppose a treasury. The writers attack with regularity the concept of a local body of saints maintaining a treasury collected on the first day of the week, administered by the overseers of that group, and used for evangelism, edification, and benevolence.

I have read several articles in The Examiner, most of them by my friend and brother, Dusty Owens, and heard Stanley Morris speak on this subject at the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa, Nov. 4, 1989. Brother Morris was introduced as the “principal translator” of The Simple English Bible. Rather than deal with each point made by these brethren, I think it the part of wisdom to set forth a positive case for the local ekklesia treasury. I sincerely and confidently believe that this material adequately answers the contentions of The Examiner.

Other articles in this series will deal with the teaching of The Examiner about the local church. Rather than use the word church, I have chosen to transliterate the Greek word ekklesia. This is the word translated church in so many English versions of the Bible.

Guiding Principles

The reader should keep in mind certain principles as he reads this article. This writer does not oppose a group of saints (ekklesia) in a given locality meeting in someone’s house. In the New Testament an ekklesia did frequently meet in someone’s house (Rom. 16:3,23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2; et.al.). We understand that individual saints may, even must, use their funds to help others in benevolence (Matt. 5:43-48; 25:35-40; Lk. 10:30-36; Acts 4:36-37; 9:36,39; 20:34-35; 1 Cor. 16:15-16; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5;16; 6:18; Heb. 13:15-16; Jas. 1:26-27; 2:15-18; 1 Jn. 3:17-18). Individual saints may also use their funds or their facilities – which also cost money – for the support of gospel preachers (Gal. 6:6; 3 Jn. 5-8; Rom. 16:1-2; Acts 16:15; 21:10). The example of some brethren from Corinth seems to belong in this category (1 Cor. 16:17).

Much of the case against the common treasury, made by Owens and Morris, is the abuse which they see rampant in the “Churches of Christ.” We would agree with them that this practice is sometimes abused as other divinely ordered things are abused. The home, the state, and the ekklesia of Christ have often been made into something other than that which God intended. When we see the abuse we should correct it rather than discard the concept. The brethren associated with The Examiner are not the only ones who love the truth and they are not the only ones who are sincere in their belief and practice.

The Treasury in the New Testament

Saints in New Testament times did give a portion of their funds into a common treasury, Incidentally, Jesus and his disciples had a treasury and Judas served as the treasurer, at least for a time (Jn. 12:6). We ha ve records of various women contributing to the support of Jesus and the apostolic band (Lk. 8:1-3). Sometimes the funds got low (Jn. 6:5-7). Groups of people act as one through appointed workers or through their common funds. Let us look now to the New Testament examples of a treasury.

1. The saints at Jerusalem had a treasury. To care for the needy, saints at Jerusalem sold their property and brought the proceeds of the sales and laid them at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-35). In this case we have a treasury and treasurers. Luke singles out the example of Barnabas. He sold his land and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36-37). In contrast to the good example of Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira sold property and pretended to be bringing the whole amount. You know the story. The funds they brought were laid at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:2). This account states that even after the property was sold the income remained under the control of the owners. The account implies that they no longer had control after they laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:4).

Even churches with apostles have problems! As the disciples grew, one ethnic element among them perceived that their widows were being neglected in the daily serving of food (Acts 6:1-6). This was a group activity and must have involved the use of funds. The congregation was instructed to select seven men to look after the need. Since the apostles could not leave the ministry of the word and prayer, it is reasonable to conclude that the oversight of the treasury may have been passed, at least in part, to these men.

We might wish for more information about the activities of the ekklesia in Jerusalem, but we must be content with what we have. The book of Acts includes no record of the expansion of the word throughout Judea. Later, however, we read of saints at Lydda (Acts 9:32). Luke refers to the brethren dwelling in Judea (Acts 11:29). Paul affirms the existence of ekklesiais (plural of ekklesia) in Judea and informs us that his work extended throughout all Judea (Gal. 1:22; Acts 26:20). To know the truth one must read everything God has said. The book of Acts was written when ekklesiais were in existence through the Roman empire. Other references from Acts and the epistles will help us to fill out our knowledge of the activities of the saints of that period.

2. The Antioch contribution for Judea. When the Christians at Syrian Antioch were informed that a great famine would leave the brethren of Judea in need, “each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren” there (Acts 11:2730). The Greek text says they determined to “send” (Greek: pempsai). The NASB has added “a contribution.” The KJV, NKJV, and ASV use the term relief. The NIV has “to provide help.” The Simple English Bible, which is highly praised by The Examiner movement, states that “the followers of Jesus decided that they would all try to help.” This same version renders verse 30 as follows: “They gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul. Then Barnabas and Saul brought it to the elders in Jerusalem. “Their use of italics for “in Jerusalem” shows that they were supplying the phrase. They have missed it on this one, but the focus of this article does not allow further discussion.

Brother Charles Holt gave me a much-appreciated copy of The Simple English Bible during the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa (Nov. 4, 1989). The SEB states that the believers “gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul.” Even without the looseness of this paraphrased translation, we can state that the money went into a common fund (treasury) either before it was given to Barnabas and Saul or at the time it was given to them. It is also clear that the elders “dwelling in Judea” received the funds. There was a treasury in Antioch and a treasury (or treasuries) in Judea.

3. The ekklesia at Philippi had a treasury. Paul commends the saints at Philippi because, at a certain crucial point in his ministry, they were the only ekklesia to have fellowship with him in “giving and receiving” (Phil. 4:15-16). This ekklesia had a treasury; otherwise they could not have sent funds to Paul more than once. No group, of any sort, can long operate as one without a common fund (treasury). The only way an ekklesia, like the one at Philippi, can send as a unit is from its treasury.

4. Ekklesiais sent wages to Paulfor preaching. Paul told the ekklesia at Corinth that he robbed “other congregations, taking pay from them, to help you” (2 Cor. 11:8, SEB). This passages has been used effectively in the past to show that a preacher of the gospel may receive wages. The Greek term opsonion is used of pay, wages, or salary (see Lk. 3:14; 1 Cor. 9:7; BAGD, 602). Paul had earlier taught the brethren that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). These congregations could not send wages to Paul unless they had a treasury from which to send it.

5. The ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1-4). Many questions have been raised about the instructions in this verse. Did the Corinthian ekklesia have a treasury? Did the saints contribute to this treasury each first day of the week? Does this text provide authority for a congregational treasury today? May the collected funds be used for purposes other than benevolence?

Many commentators see the crux of the issue in the phrase “put aside and save” (NASB) or “lay by him in store” (ASV) (Greek: par’ heautoi titheto thesaurizon). Many scholars believe that the laying by or putting aside is to be at home. Others see the context favoring a treasury common with other disciples. Aside from this point, I believe the passage shows that the ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury. Let us look at some of the other terms in the passage.

Collection (Greek: logeia). This word is used only twice in the New Testament, but Deissmann has shown that it was commonly used in Egypt and in Asia Minor “of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc., as St. Paul uses it of his collection of money for the ‘saints’ at Jerusalem” (Light From the Ancient East, 104-107; Bible Studies, 142-144). Paul insisted that the saints put aside funds from their prosperity on the first day of the week so no collection would be necessary when he arrived. If the funds were at home, it would still be necessary to make a collection when he arrived. If there was no group collection, how would Paul know a year later that they had not collected much? See 2 Corinthians 8:10.

That the collection at Corinth involved a group treasury is indicated by the fact that the brethren were able to approve men to take these funds to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3). This shows that a local ekk1esia could make its own decisions (autonomous) regarding the use of its funds.

First day of every week. This is the earliest reference in the New Testament to the first day of the week as a day of meeting for Christians. We know that the disciples at Troas gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7). The habitual practice of assembling with other saints is mentioned in Hebrews 10:25. The saints at Corinth came together as an ekk1esia to eat the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:18ff). The theological reason for such a meeting on the first day of the week is built on the resurrection of Christ on that day. A strong case also can be made for the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10 being the first day of the week.

There is no logical reason for individual disciples putting aside funds in their home each first day of the week, when they regularly gathered in an assembly on that day. The fact that they did assemble on that day would provide adequate reason for them to pool their funds on that day. Could it not be that the phrase “by him” (par’heauto) emphasizes the individual’s decision according to his prosperity?

Paul had given the same order or direction to the ekklesiais of Galatia. The epistle from which we are quoting is addressed to the ekkIesia of God which is at Corinth and to “all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). Paul taught the same in every ekk1esia (1 Cor. 4:17). This causes us to expect, and to find, uniformity of practice among the ekkiesiais of the New Testament.

The late W. Curtis Porter prepared a written discussion with A.N. Dugger of the Church of God (Seventh Day) which was published as The Porter-Dugger Debate. Dugger’s sabbatarian theology caused him to deny the existence of a common treasury in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and to deny that the meal of Acts 20:7 was the Lord’s supper. Brother Porter set forth in a clear, logical fashion the case for the first day of the week as a day of worship for the people of God. Brethren who are enthralled with the individualistic views of The Examiner would do well to study this debate.

Miscellaneous Questions

Who Controls the Treasury? The apostles were in charge of the treasury in Acts 4 and 5. The funds from Antioch were sent to the elders in Judea (Acts 11:30). The brethren at Corinth were able to decide about the use of their funds (I Cor. 16:3).

For what may the funds be used? 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is the only passage which tells us the day on which the collection is to be taken, but it is not the only passage which states the use for the funds. We have already shown above that the brethren at Philippi and other brethren of Macedonia had a treasury from which they supported gospel preachers. I am willing to affirm that anything for which the ekk1esia is obligated may be taken from the first day of the week collection.

Conclusion

If we depart from the information revealed in the New Testament about the activities of the ekklesiais, then we are left to our own human wisdom to devise a plan of work and worship. This, my brethren, is dangerous ground. It is exactly the ground on which so many of the articles in The Examiner are built. Brethren, we plead with you to reconsider.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 586-588
October 4, 1990