Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
October 29, 1959
NUMBER 25, PAGE 1,8b-14a

Some New Testament Examples Analyzed

Roy E. Cogdill, Nacogdoches, Texas

(This is the ninth article written in review of the book, "We Be Brethren" written by J. D. Thomas, Professor of Bible, Abilene, Texas.)

The two articles preceding this dealt with some things that need to be kept in mind in the study and understanding of the force of New Testament examples. We want in this article to examine the way our Brother Thomas deals with New Testament examples in his book.

Brother Thomas claims to have evolved a rule which he calls a "Pattern Principle For Examples" that he thinks is the solution to all problems concerning whether or not a New Testament example is binding upon us today. We have already pointed out that his "pattern principle" which he so highly touts actually contributes nothing to the solution of the problem. He treats Bible examples just like he treats the distinction between "Essential and Optional" matters in Bible teaching. He puts the "wavy line" of distinction where it arbitrarily suits him and in his use of examples he arbitrarily designates one as binding and another as not binding and expects the rest of us to accept his judgment on the matter. However, we do not have any confidence in his judgment and are unwilling therefore to accept it. The rest of us think that we can understand the Bible just as well as our learned professor and are, therefore, not willing for him to sit in judgment on whether or not an example is binding.

Modernists have treated the recorded facts of the Bible in this fashion through the years. They tell us we are not to accept the story of Jonah and the big fish, Noah and the flood, etc., as factual. They say these things did not really happen in the Old Testament but are allegories and are to be understood as such. They classify the miracles of Jesus the same way. They say that Jesus did not actually turn water into wine, still the tempest, feed the 5,000, etc. These are just allegories. They think with their superior intellectual training they are able to discern for the rest of us what should be believed and not believed of the facts recorded in the scriptures.

Sectarians have always taken the same attitude toward the commandments of our Lord. They go through the scriptures and list what they consider as "essential and non-essential" commandments. This distinction, of course, is made by their own arbitrary judgment. We have never been able to learn how they think they are able to find out when God meant what he said and when he didn't, if he didn't.

Now, our brother Thomas comes along and wants to sit in judgment on the examples of the New Testament and by his superior ability and training select those that are binding and eliminate those that are not binding. Moreover, his selection as evidenced in his book is completely arbitrary for the most part. We contend that he is no more licensed to classify the examples for us than is the outright modernist at liberty to classify the facts, or the sectarian or denominationalist at liberty to sit in judgment on God's commands in the same manner. In fact, all three attitudes are essentially and fundamentally the same.

In some way our brother can see a binding example in seventeen incidents, largely involving individuals instead of church action, and he lists them for us. He can see the binding pattern in all of them "without any command" (page 64-70) though every one of them rested upon a command which is implied in the example itself and is supported by what the Bible otherwise teaches. The fact is that the heading of this section is completely wrong. There is positive Bible teaching for every one of the incidents setting forth the action demonstrated as obligatory upon the part of Christians. You can examine them for yourself and see that such is the case. Without the "rule of unity" Brother Thomas would not have known that these examples were binding except by his own arbitrary judgment governed by his own will and wisdom. It does appear that when a man is able to see so much from so little in some cases, he could see more from so much in other cases.

But let us look at his treatment of Acts 20:7 in detail. Concerning this example which has proven so troublesome to our "institutional advocates" brother Thomas says further:

"Let us illustrate:

A church in Texas has a regular meeting on Wednesday night, and if a visiting preacher should come to town on Monday morning, he might "tarry" three days until the BRETHREN came together on Wednesday night to pray. But the Wednesday night meeting of the Texas church, although regular, is not a service required by God, but is completely optional on the part of the local elders, and they might have chosen some other night, as Thursday. The point is, to see the parallel, there is nothing in the Acts 20:7 context to prove that the first-day-of-the-week meeting was not just an optional meeting, just like the Wednesday night prayer service. And even if churches were required to assemble "sometime" to partake of the Supper, what is there in the Acts 20:7 context to prove that there might not be a permissible "local option" for which day of the week — with Troas using the first day, Ephesus the second, and Thessalonica the fifth, et cetera? In this case the required pattern would not be, "take it on the first day only" but it would be "take it once a week, but you can choose any day desired by the local congregation." There is nothing in the Acts 20:7 context alone that proves that any pattern involved might not be of the latter type.

"This, then is the reason why some good brethren have concluded against the establishment of pattern authority by examples alone. They at present do not really see any binding authority of any kind for having an exclusive day to partake of the supper. And those who have been ridiculing them have either not seen the exact problem or else have ignored it, and it calls for an answer". (page 95)

We disagree with our brother in his diagnosis of this case. The trouble with these brethren who "at present do not really see any binding authority of any kind for having an exclusive day to partake of the supper" is that they are not willing to accept the binding force of any New Testament church example. They disallow the "rules of interpretation" (hypotheses to our professor) which they have always accepted and followed, such as "the rule of harmony," because it is necessary for them to escape the force of those examples of New Testament church action that set the "pattern" of cooperation by their teaching. These examples destroy the "pattern" which our "institutional" brethren worship and they will not have it. And if brother Thomas followed the same course with reference to Acts 20:7 that he follows with reference to Phil. 4:15-18, II Cor. 11:7-8, Acts 11:27-30, II Cor. 8, 9, he would stand with them and be unable to condemn by New Testament teaching the observance of the Lord's Supper on Thursday night before good Friday.

The whole fact is, as our learned professor should know, there is no other information in the New Testament whatever about when to observe the Lord's Supper or how often to do it. Our brother is utterly impotent in trying to establish either by any other "context" in the New Testament. It rests upon a commandment, to be sure, as far as the observance of the supper is concerned, for Jesus said "Do this in memory of me", but how can he prove a commandment to observe it "only on the first day of the week" and show that it is not a "local option" as he calls it? In absolutely no way at all except by the "pattern" set by this example in Acts 20:7. He must either accept the binding force of this example or be unable to teach the truth about this important part of Christian worship. And if he admits the binding force of this example — alone — then he is unable, honestly, to get away from the force of those which he is so interested in disallowing. Even he can see that if Acts 20:7, "context alone" establishes an exclusive day for the observance of the Lord's Supper, then Phil. 4:1518 establishes "exclusively" the "pattern" for sending directly to the preacher. We can find more scripture to support the latter than our brother can produce for the former aside from the "context". This is why he labors so hard in his "ring around the rosey" fashion of reasoning to accept one and eliminate the other. We insist that he can do so only by his own arbitrary judgment and he is not the authority in such matters.

This attitude toward Acts 20:7 was never taken by any of the brethren until they wanted to escape the force of some other examples of church action in the New Testament. This was the "necessity" that became the "mother" of all this confusion about examples anyway. Brethren came to so idolize their human institutions that they surrender the Bible teaching about the Lord's supper in order to escape the force and effect of other examples in New Testament teaching. If brother Thomas could find the same kind of an example of the church meeting on Wednesday night that Acts 20:7 furnishes for observing the Lord's supper on the first day of the week — supported by the Lord's command, apostolic approval, and of their meeting only on Wednesday night to pray, he would have a comparison. Until he does there isn't any. One is in the New Testament and the other is not.

In his "Excursus: When Observe the Lord's Supper?" we find what he thinks is the solution to this problem that has gone "unanswered", according to him, by those who have been "ridiculing others", whoever they are. He gives us a diagram of how he arrived at this solution.

For the sake of convenience we will use straight lines instead of circular lines in our reproduction of

Chart Goes Here

Acts 20:7 I Cor. 11:20-26

I Cor. 16:1-2 Heb. 10:25

We do not know why our brother's "solution" to this problem required that he go to all this trouble to establish that the church must assemble on the first day of the week to break bread. It is unfortunate that he had to appeal to collateral teaching in New Testament scriptures to establish that this example is binding. That means that in spite of his discounting the importance of the "rule of unity" as it applies to examples, he had to use it! Brother Thomas, you should leave out your criticism of that rule in any further editions of your book or else leave out your appeal to it.

What does Heb. 10:25 teach about breaking bread on the first day of the week? Nothing at all! It does not even mention either the first day of the week or breaking bread' I Cor. 16:1-2 teaches absolutely nothing about breaking bread on the first day of the week! It does not even mention breaking bread! I Cor. 11:20-26 does not mention the first day of the week! Yet our brother considered it necessary to give an exegesis on all three of these passages in order to establish that Acts 20:7 is a binding example or "pattern". Suppose we had only the Lord's command when he instituted the supper (Luke 22:19-20) and the example of the church under apostolic approval carrying out that command in Acts 20:7. How would brother Thomas make out his case? He did not want to surrender the Lord's Supper in its observance only on the first day of the week and yet he did not want to grant that the example of when it was observed under apostolic supervision and with apostolic approval was sufficient to bind it on us. That was his predicament and is the answer to why he went to such a great length to try to make out his case with proof texts that do not even mention what he was trying to establish. These brethren have to diminish the power of the examples of the New Testament church in executing the will of the Lord under apostolic direction or they are in serious trouble and they know it. But he makes further appeal to:

"The pattern for partaking of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week exclusively, which these four contexts have established, is also confirmed by:

(a) Revelation 1:10 — "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."

(b) Colossians 2:16.17 — "Let no man judge you in respect of ______________.

(c) The unanimous testimony of early church history."

But again neither of the passages he quotes in this further effort to strengthen his "solution" say anything about what he is trying to prove. His appeal to early church history we suppose is "profane" or uninspired history. We can't see how that would mean anything to him when "divine" history exemplifying the matter means so little to him. With this much latitude in scriptural proof to support an example, we will take the two examples he rules out by his own authority, arbitrarily, that are applicable to these problems of "cooperation" and strengthen our case considerably. But he wants us to stand on the example "alone" without any collateral proof. Why don't he do that on Acts 20:7! Is he the only one that has the right to go to other New Testament teaching to show that the "pattern" of a New Testament example is binding? Will he let us also go to "the unanimous testimony of early church history" to show that the early church practiced what is recorded in New Testament history and when those practices were corrupted and the organization of the Lord's church perverted by a "bishop" extending his authority to the work of another congregation, apostasy had already set in? We can abundantly show that it was so.

There are two things outstanding: 1) it takes a tremendous lot of testimony to establish some things from New Testament examples, and 2) some New Testament examples our brother rules out in spite of all the supporting testimony that can be produced. Let us see:

"3. A third instance of an example that is clearly optional, as the contextual matter shows, but which has been declared a pattern, to the detriment of the Cause we represent, is found in two passages, both of which are used for the same pattern:

Phil. 4:15, 16 — And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only;

II Cor. 11:8 — I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you;

The pattern that some BRETHREN feel is established by these passages is that "churches sending money to a preacher are required to send it to him directly." The real point for our consideration is that neither one of them has any contextual indication whatever that churches were required to send money directly to the preacher. These passages, therefore, indicate only that it is an optional choice, and we should remember that before an example can be binding it must show conclusive evidence, proving that it does bind. Ways of sending money to a preacher are optional and we must not make binding what God hasn't The fact of getting money to a preacher is important, but how many hands it goes through in getting to him or whose hands they are, are purely incidental and in no sense binding. This case is another where men have been making laws for God". (Pages 73-74.)

It is amazing that when these brethren try to get away from the Lord's truth they run head on into the Missionary Society. What would be wrong with a church sending money through a missionary society, Brother Thomas? You couldn't tell us to save your life, now could you? If it is purely an optional matter as to how the church sends to a preacher, then it would be just as well to send it through a missionary society as any other way. If not, why not? It would be interesting to see our brother deal with it.

Of course he would say that "Where the Society functions it dominates and controls (in mission activity) the local congregations which comprise its membership, and the "local autonomy" pattern is definitely replaced". (Page 35)

But the Missionary Society says that is not so! They deny that they are a "form of church government" as our brother alleges and deny, as we shall see in a later article, that they exercise any control over the churches.

They deny these allegations just as the Herald of Truth and Boles Home, Inc., deny that they are "forms of church government" and as such exercise control over the churches affiliated with them in their work. But we will go into the parallel with the missionary society and our brother's attitude toward it in another article. The point now is, if the abuses are ruled out and the principle of the missionary society in its very existence, is not wrong because of its nature and the fact that there is no authority for its existence, then it would be an expedient way of sending money to a preacher in the minds of many and Brother Thomas, from the quotation above, would be unable to condemn it. This he has to admit and does admit in this language:

"Now to illustrate: The Missionary Society, in relation to the required pattern, "Go Preach", could be classified as an optional expedient, or as an "aid", (a Box OE type matter), as it is indeed considered by those who use it. The fact is, however, that the requirement "Go Preach" is not the only pattern requirement to which the Missionary Society has relation. The other pattern which it is involved with is in the area of church government, and which stipulates that each congregation is to have its own bishops and deacons, and the exclusive type of church government required is "local autonomy." To this latter pattern the Missionary Society is related as an excluded specific, a Box "ES" type matter on the Standard Authority Diagram, since it is by its nature a clear-cut violation of the local church's autonomy. ****** This means, then that the use of the Missionary Society is excluded and sinful, since it clearly involves an alternate or substitute form of church government. Where the Society functions it dominates and controls (in mission activity) the local congregations which comprise its membership, and the "local autonomy" pattern is definitely replaced".

Our brother was careful to charge that the "Missionary Society" controls the local congregations in missionary activity. To what extent, Brother Thomas? The churches voluntarily affiliate with it. The churches determine what amount of money they will contribute to its activities. The churches themselves can withdraw from it whenever they are ready. The churches surrender no control over their local affairs in any other work. They select their own local teachers and preachers, and determine their own program of work. The Missionary Society controls nothing but the money the congregation chooses to send to it and what shall be done with it in the way of mission work. Exactly the same thing is true of the Herald of Truth. When a church contributes a sum of money to the Herald of Truth, that sum of money is completely controlled and the work done with it is completely controlled by the Herald of Truth in exactly the same way the mission society controls the contributions made to it. That cannot be denied successfully. It is established by the testimony of the Highland Elders themselves. Their control of all funds contributed is "exclusive". Their control over the program — where it shall go and who shall do the preaching, is exclusive, if they have told the truth. The Herald of Truth and the sponsoring church type of "cooperation" control the "activity" — missionary or radio — of the contributing churches in exactly the same way that the Missionary Society does. They stand condemned together and for the same reason. There is no authority for either of them.

But let us try the brother's diagram on the example he undertakes to rule out, viz.,

Chart Goes Here

Phil. 4:15-18.

Mark 16:15-16.

I Tim. 3:15.

I Peter 5.1-3.

Here we give Phil. 4:15-18 the same treatment that our brother gives Acts 20:7. Let us see if it is not so His contention is that the context of Acts 20:7 alone does not establish an authoritative pattern for observing the Lord's Supper only on the first day of the week. BUT by bringing in related passages he is able to understand and show that the sum-total of New Testament teaching is that the Lord's Supper can scripturally and rightly be observed only on the first day of the week. Let us see how this applies to the example of Phil. 4:15-18. If related passages can be the means of establishing the authoritative pattern of Acts 20:7, then surely the same method can be used to establish the pattern in Phil. 4:15-18.

1. Mark 16:15-16. Here we have the command to "Go Preach". It was and is the will of the Lord that the world be evangelized with the gospel of Christ. That is as much our obligation in our generation as it was the obligation of Christians in the first century. If it be doubted that the great commission be applicable to us today, then a multitude of other passages would establish that it is the obligation of the church today to affect the same work as that authorized in the commission.

2. I Tim. 3:15 teaches that the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth". Many other related passages would easily establish that the primary mission of the church in all ages is to teach and preach the Gospel.

3. I Cor. 9:1-18 gives us a series of arguments by the pen of Paul guided by the Spirit of God to the effect that the church — the church of God at Corinth — a local church — is under obligation to support — pay wages not as benevolence — those who devote their time and talent to teaching and preaching the gospel. Divine providence caused Paul not to accept it from Corinth for a reason that is apparent in the Second Corinthian letter — protection against the lying charges of false teachers. But he had the right to it and that cannot be denied.

4. I Peter 5:1-3 teaches us that in this matter of supporting a preacher to preach the gospel the elders of the local church are to have the oversight as in all the other work of that church of which they are elders. This teaching also can be abundantly supported in New Testament passages other than this one.

5. II Cor. 11:8-9 teaches us that while Paul was at Corinth foregoing the right to the support of the Corinthians to which he was entitled, he did receive what he needed to sustain him in that work from "other churches". This shows that a church has the right to support a preacher wherever he goes to preach and not just in their own locality. It also shows that when it is needful or necessary or expedient a number of churches can contribute at the same time to the support of the same man in the same place. They did do it in the case of Paul at Corinth. Their contributions were made in this instance not to enable the church at Corinth to do a big work which they were not able to do but to enable the preacher to preach. It was a matter of "supplying that which was lacking" or taking care of the preacher's "want" and that was the extent of the contribution made.

6. Phil. 4:15-18 teaches us that the church at Philippi, situated in Macedonia, was one of the churches that supplied Paul's need while at Corinth. (II Cor. 11:9.) It also tells us how they sent it to him. Both passages emphasize that they sent it to Paul. Phil. 2:25 tells us that Epaphroditus, was their "messenger, and he that ministered to my wants". This "method" is in complete harmony and unity with everything else the New Testament teaches.

The Philippian church had bishops. (Phil. 1:1.) The bishops had the oversight, if they were faithful (I Peter 5:1-3), of the resources of the church. They taught and directed the contributions of the members into the treasury of the church. They had the responsibility of the distribution of these resources and their use in accomplishing the purposes of God. They had supported Paul constantly from their beginning as a church. (Phil 1:3-5.) They selected their own messenger — Epaphroditus, an individual member of the church, to carry the contribution to Paul.

What part of that "pattern" does Brother Thomas have the right to rule out? If he can dismiss the "direct method of sending" — that is, by the church that makes up the money sending directly to the preacher whom they support — then he can dismiss all of the rest. This is not an incidental matter or "optional" as he claims. It is of the essence of "local autonomy". It is the only way the bishops of a local church can control their own resources and program of work and without that control they do not have "local autonomy". If surrendering their money to a Missionary Society gives the Society control over their missionary activity, then surrendering their money to a benevolent society gives that benevolent society control over their benevolent activity. And surrendering their money for radio preaching or mission work to a "sponsoring church" would surrender the control over their radio preaching and mission work likewise. If not, why not?

But let us further demonstrate that if Brother Thomas had been as fair with this New Testament example as he was with Acts 20:7 he would have had to accept it as just as binding as the example of breaking bread. The "institutional advocates" seem to like syllogisms in their reasoning so let us formulate a few.

I.

1. "Authoritative patterns" can be established by:

New Testament teaching only in "Required matters". (major premise)

2. A local church supporting preachers to preach the gospel is a "required Matter". (minor premise)

3. Therefore New Testament teaching concerning a local church supporting a preacher constitutes an "authoritative pattern" concerning a "required matter." (conclusion)

II.

1. New Testament examples teach whatever they exemplify concerning required matters. (major premise)

2. New Testament examples exemplify how local churches supported gospel preachers in New Testament days. (minor premise)

3. Therefore New Testament examples teach how local churches supported preachers to preach the gospel. (conclusion)

(I learned how to do this in high school debating-not from Tom Warren or J. D. Thomas.)

III.

1. Whatever New Testament precepts, approved examples, or necessary inferences teach concerning "required matters" is authorized.

2. New Testament examples teach that local churches under the supervision of their own bishops supported Paul in his work of preaching by sending directly to Paul.

3. Therefore New Testament examples authorize a local church to send directly to the support of a preacher.

IV.

1. Whatever New Testament precepts, approved examples, or necessary inferences do not teach concerning "required matters" is unauthorized.

2. No New Testament precepts, approved examples or necessary inferences teach that any local church ever sent to the support of a preacher through another church.

3. Therefore one church sending to the support of a preacher through another church is unauthorized in New Testament teaching.

We have not used syllogisms since high school debating but they come in handy when your opponent likes them. Brother Thomas gives us one on Phil. 4:15-18 and we want to look at it. It follows:

"Major Premise: Any New Testament example that does not imply an underlying command which would require specific actions or attitudes of the exemplary characters, establishes no pattern whatsoever, and serves only to illustrate matters that are purely optional for people today. (See page VI)

Minor Premise: The context of the example of cooperation between the church at Philippi and the Apostle Paul, of Phil. 4:15-18, does not imply an underlying command which would require the church to send money to Paul only "directly" (i.e., through its own messengers, as vs. "indirectly" — through another church treasury).

Conclusion: The example of cooperation between the church at Philippi and Paul, of Phil. 4:1518, establishes no pattern whatever, which would require churches to send to gospel preachers only "directly", and the example serves therefore, only to illustrate matters that are purely optional for people of today."

Now in order for a syllogism to be correct in logic it must not only be correct in form but the conclusion is not so unless the major and minor premises are both true. The trouble with our brother here is that he wants to let his own statement of his minor premise be conclusive in the matter. We are not willing to let it be. This is the disputed ground and he is under obligation to establish his premise by the teaching of the word of God. His arbitrary ruling on it will not stand. There is no collateral New Testament teaching to sustain his minor premise. On the other hand there is much collateral teaching to sustain that the opposite is true. We have shown that from several passages of scriptures in the diagram and discussion already given in this article.

Whenever our brother comes across a New Testament example of church activity that would rule out what he practices, he always pronounces that it is concerning "optional" rather than "required matters". How did he find that out? How does he learn from Acts 20:7 that the Lord's supper can be taken only on the first day of the week? How would he prove that the fact that they met on the first day of the week to break bread was not purely "optional"? Now if he will apply the same method to the example of Philippi sending to Paul his support to preach the gospel, he will have the answer to all his problems.

But we take another look at his treatment of examples:

"2. Another optional example that has been made into a law by some BRETHREN is that determined from several passages, but best represented by II Cor. 8:13-15:

For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality: as it is written, He that gathereth much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack.

(Acts 11:27-30; I Cor. 16:1-4 and Romans 15:25-28 are also used in this connection)

This example is that of church cooperation; where one church sends to another some help for benevolent purposes, and in this particular circumstance the receiving church is a distressed area and unable to meet all the demands. These BRETHERN add up these facts, and then they claim that this example establishes a pattern, namely, that "The only way one church can help another in benevolent matters is in an emergency, and it must be a "rich church" helping a poor one." Such a pattern would be rather cumbersome, as it would require a perfect audit of the financial strength of each congregation. (If the auditor made a mistake, somebody would sin.)" (Pages 71-Para. 4-72)

We break into the quotation here to make a few observations. We do not know where brother Thomas found the "quotation" in the above paragraph. It did not come from "Walking By Faith" or anything else we have written. Some one may have said it but many, if not the most of us who oppose human institutions doing the work of the church, would not endorse the statement "it must be a rich church helping a poor one". We do not know of anyone who makes that contention. It is a false charge so far as we are concerned and yet it is charged upon us all. Brother Thomas should quit capitalizing and emphasizing "BRETHREN" and "WE BE BRETHREN" until he can treat his brethren fair enough to correctly represent them at least. Such piety is pure hypocrisy until it is genuine and when it is, it will not allow such unfair treatment.

We supposed that every one knew that the part the Macedonian brethren had in helping the Jerusalem saints was "How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves praying with us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints". (II Cor. 8:2-4.) I do not know where brother Thomas found the above quotation. Surely he found it somewhere. He was not fair enough to tell us. But he had no business charging all who disagree with him with it. He should correct it.

What then is the contention? Here it is: There is no New Testament teaching that one church should or ever did send a contribution to another church unless the receiving church was in need! Now, BRETHREN, find the exception to that in the New Testament and you will set a lot of us right!

But if the example called for a "rich church helping a poor church" Brother Thomas would not respect it for he does not respect what it does call for. He files his objection to the comparative strength of the two churches on the basis that it would call for an audit and a perfect audit at that! Now isn't that impressive? Brother Thomas, if an audit happened to be necessary to do what God said, would you be willing to make one or like Jeroboam of old would you say "It is too far to go down to Jerusalem". This is on a par with his comment on Philippi sending directly to Paul and his contention concerning the unmistakable fact that they did but that if their doing so is a pattern for us, it is "to the detriment of the Cause we represent". Well if doing anything just like the church did it in the New Testament is a detriment to the "Cause we represent", it is because we represent the wrong cause and that is evident in Brother Thomas' case.

We continue our brother's comment on the example of II Cor. 8:

"Realizing that some examples are optional and some are binding, we are also conscious of the fact that when we decide that a particular example is binding, there must be clear, conclusive evidence that such is true".

Our author is mixed up on this point. He needs to put the shoe on his own foot and recognize that "when we decide that a particular example is (not) binding, there must be clear, conclusive evidence that such is true". If there is to be any presumption it would logically and rightfully lie in favor of the example found in New Testament teaching. Even our brother should admit this.

But hear him further:

"In the above passage, II Cor. 8:13-16, there is nothing whatever to indicate that any exemplary person thought or that we are to think, that the only way these churches could scripturally cooperate was in the way outlined in this supposed pattern. The argument that Paul was making as he outlined this instruction was for the purpose of motivating them to liberality. There is not the slightest hint of a required binding pattern of how cooperation must be done. All of the details of this instance are merely incidental and establish no pattern whatever." (Page 72).

Now, brother Thomas, how did you find that out? Why he merely decides it by his own superior wisdom and enters the decree and expects that to be satisfactory to the rest of us. How can we know that it is not binding on us today? Why our learned professor who teaches Bible in the Department of Bible in Abilene College tells us that it isn't! But that doesn't settle it with us!

He reasons further in the next paragraph that this instance of II Cor. 8 is just an illustration of an optional way of carrying out Gal. 6:10. We will have to contest that point too, brother! In addition to the fact that Gal. 6:10 is instruction to the individual Christian, which we will deal with at another time, Gal. 6:10 sets forth an obligation to "do good unto all men" and this contribution in II Cor. 8 was for the "Saints" in Jerusalem peculiarly as the context abundantly shows. If our brother is as careless in his use and application of scripture in trying to teach his classes in Abilene College as he is in his book, he is doing much harm in his mishandling of the Word of God before young students who do not know better than to swallow what he says. The churches making this contribution were not sending to the relief of the whole populace in Jerusalem but only to the Saints. They were not carrying out Gal. 6:10, brother Thomas, unless they were unable to help both and had made the choice in favor of the "saints".

But he further tries to reason about this contribution in this fashion:

"There is another reason it is out of the question to count II Cor. 8:13-15 as establishing a pattern of the type suggested. If it should establish a pattern, required (Box "SP" type) authority, specifying how Cooperation of this type must be done; then Cooperation itself, which would be the generic to such specific, and which would have to be diagrammed in Box "GP" of the Standard Diagram of Authority, would itself also be a required thing and not optional. But we all recognize that Cooperation is optional — we do not have to cooperate to please God." (Page 73)

Here again we would have to dissent. Over and over our professor repeats that cooperation is not necessary. According to this he thinks that it is not even necessary when it is needed. That we are willing to deny. He is at point blank variance with even some of the champions of his own cause. Guy Woods argues that cooperation is absolutely necessary to fulfilling the Great Commission of our Lord and no one church can do its duty and meet the obligation without cooperation. Brother Woods, of course, isn't a school man "trained in logic" and is not therefore one of the "trained thinkers" of our brother's class. He might be right about some things though and our brother wrong. They need to get together.

But for our enlightenment, let us make the same diagram of this example, not confining it to the specific verses mentioned and quoted by our brother but taking the whole incident and the teaching of the New Testament relative to it and see what it looks like. I don't know why he didn't give this example the same treatment that he gave Acts 20:7 when he tried to solve that "problem". Maybe he thought this one was too big to solve.

Chart Goes Here

1. From II Cor. 8, 9 we learn of the instructions given by Paul to the church at Corinth concerning the contribution for the poor saints in Jerusalem. This was unquestionably and undeniably the action of the church. (1 Cor. 16:1.) More than that it is unquestionably the action of one church cooperating with another church. In fact, it is an example of many churches cooperating in relieving the saints in Jerusalem. They were in need. Those who were not destitute in the Jerusalem church could not provide sufficiently for those who were in need. They were not relieved of the responsibility to do what they could but like a man sometimes gets to the point through adversity that he cannot provide for his family, the Jerusalem church was not able to take care of its own. The churches of Macedonia, Galatia, and Achaia came to their rescue and supplied their "want". Here there was a "need". (II Cor. 8:14; II Cor. 9:12.) That "need" required help and sending that help was COOPERATION between churches.

Paul further referred to this matter in writing to Rome and points out in this passage that these Christians were under obligation to come to the rescue of the "poor saints in Jerusalem" because from them the Gospel had gone forth to the Gentile nations. (Rom. 15:25-27.)

2. Moreover this was the will and commandment of the Lord and His apostles. (Gal. 2:10.) Paul and Barnabas were instructed or reminded to "remember the poor" as they went out to the Gentile world to preach. Jesus had laid down the principle, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" and Paul reminded the Ephesians of that. (Acts 20:35.)

3. I Cor. 16:1-4. As Paul had given order to the churches of Galatia, so he gave order to the Corinthian church as to how to raise the money with which to carry out this work. They were to make it up by individually contributing on the first day of the week into a common treasury so that it might be ready.

We learn further from this passage and also II Cor. 8:19-23 that the churches chose their own messengers and that those messengers were individuals. Sometimes on this point brethren, as did Brother Thomas in his book, (page 78) argue that if personal messengers are a part of the required pattern then we could not use the United States Mail. That is a powerful contention! I suppose when it is sent by United States Mail it is not sent by personal messenger but through the agency of another church!

Acts 11:27-30. This passage definitely tells us to whom such relief was sent when another church was in need. They sent it to "the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul. Those elders had charge of the distribution of this relief among the poor saints. There were "elders in every church" in God's order for his church on earth.' Brother Woods got ridiculous enough at Birmingham to ask if the elders of the church had to receive it then how could you send to a church and how would it be distributed where there are no elders? The answer to such a silly question is, of course, that that church without elders would receive the relief and distribute it exactly as they carried on the rest of their work without elders and if they couldn't receive help because they had no elders then they couldn't function in any other respect without elders.

Brother Thomas, to his own amusement, attacks this example as not being an example of church action. He argues that those of us who recognize the difference between individual Christian duty and church or congregational duty and activity are "legalists" and says that such is "downright amusing" when we claim that Acts 11:2730 is an example of a church sending for the text says "disciples". (page 174). Now the amusing thing about that would be for our brother to tell us if this fund made up by the contributions of individual disciples became a part of the treasury of the church at Antioch? Or was it still an individual fund after it was contributed into a "common fund"? Were Paul and Barnabas the representatives of the church at Antioch in delivering this fund, or the messengers of the individual disciples who contributed it? More than that, when the "disciples" at Troas met on the first day of the week to break bread, did that constitute church action? If so, how do you know — the church isn't mentioned in the passage? This is just another ridiculous dodge and it is "downright amusing" how perfectly crude some of the dodges of these smart men can be. Grant to them for the sake of clarifying the point that this was not a church sending — it still is an example of churches receiving for it was placed in the hands of elders! Then the contribution to Jerusalem some fifteen years later (I Cor. 16:1-4; II Cor. 8 and 9) was an example of churches sending so our information is complete anyway.

5. Then we learn that whether a church is sending or receiving, its work is in charge of its elders locally. (I Pet. 5:1-4. Acts 20:28. Heb. 13:17.)

Now what part of this is unnecessary and not required today? Our learned professor has the same right to mark it all out that he has to mark any of it out. We should permit him to mark out none but stand upon the word of God and do his work in the church in the way that we know to be right and that cannot be wrong.

The whole problem he is struggling with is how to determine what is incidental in the example. He argues elsewhere (page 79) that if single occurrence examples are binding in any case then the example of selecting seven men to serve tables in Acts 6:1-6 would bind upon us today that we select seven and seven men only to serve tables now. Yet he reasons from Phil. 4:15-18 that the "direct sending" is purely an optional matter and not required. Surely his legs are "unequal" in reasoning and therefore he must be lame. Why would the one example bind the number seven and the other not bind the manner of sending directly to the preacher?

He rules on the incidental and the essential matters in New Testament examples exactly like he rules on them in his "wavy line chart" just as it suits him and his purpose. But with all of his qualifications and outstanding attainments, he is no priest to "interpret" the word of God for anybody and those who will let a mere man, however smart they may think he is, determine such matters for them have too little respect for the word of God.

The difference between Brother Thomas and the "institutional advocates" and the rest of us is that we can find examples of New Testament churches practicing what we practice and preach in these matters and those examples are supported by collateral teaching in New Testament scriptures but they cannot find what they preach and practice either in New Testament example or taught in the New Testament otherwise. When Brother Thomas produces, however trivial and incidental and optional he may think it to be, an example that demonstrates or "illustrates" the indirect method of supporting a preacher by a church of the New Testament day, he can settle the problem and restore the unity he says he is down on his knees praying for. So, Brother Thomas, get up off your knees long enough to produce the passage whether precept, necessary inference, or example of even "optional matters" where one church ever sent to any work through another church and "We Can Be Brethren" indeed!

We have called attention in these articles before now to the fact that if two or more coordinate practices belong in the optional field, either all of them must be found in the New Testament, or none of them must be found there and the Bible teaches nothing about the matter at all leaving the choice entirely up to men. If one is taught in the Bible and the other or others are not found there, and yet they are just as acceptable as what is found there, then what the Bible does not teach is just as authoritative as what the Bible does teach! If not, why not?

In spite of the great invention concerning examples our brother claims for himself, he has actually contributed nothing to the solution of the force of New Testament examples, for if he is not permitted to rule on the essential and non-essential part of the example as to even its details by his own arbitrary judgment, then he must still determine what is essential and what is optional! The only way he can determine that is by what the Bible teaches. Bible teaching determines what is essential and what is non-essential and that is all that will do so.