Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
July 28, 1982
NUMBER 12, PAGE 2

The New "Either --- Or" Theory

Harold P. Savely

I have answered by private correspondence an inquiry by a preaching friend as to my rebuttal to some erroneous teachings written in an article of Gospel Advocate, January 25, 1962, "The 'Exclusively individual' Theory," by Ed Sanders. In the article Brother Sanders sought to teach general church benevolence to the world and saints alike, using, or I should say misusing, Gal. 6:1-10 and James 1:27 as proof (?).

My original intentions were to share some of my observations of the article's error with readers of this medium. However, the February 1, 1962, copy of The Gospel Guardian came out with a very commendable article about the Galatian passage, by Cecil B. Douthitt. I recommend that Brother Sanders and the rest of us restudy the disputed Galatians passage in our Bibles, and read Brother Douthitt's genteel exposition of many of its fine teachings.

The Douthitt article will not be attempted to be improved upon by this writing. However, one argument advanced by many brethren, as voiced by Brother Sanders, may deserve a rejoinder. Let us read the argument in Brother Sander's words:

"The argument urged in support of this theory that the contexts in which Gal. 6:10 and James 1:27 appear are individual, and exclusively so. This is supposed to eliminate these verses from consideration in determining the duty of the church. Whether the argument deserves to be heard depends upon how well it bears examination by scripture and logic.

"The argument contradicts an express statement of scripture. Paul said the letter was addressed `unto the churches of Galatia.' (Gal. 1:2) To deny the statement of the author is incredible."

Certainly no one should wish to be charged with being "incredible" enough to deny anything inspiration has to say on any subject. We ought to determine, however, who will stand "credible" with the truths actually taught in the passages under discussion.

Often the degree of weakness of one's position may be determined by the type of defense he makes of his position. I am made to wonder how long Brother Sanders and his like persuasion would actually stand with his defense tactics of Galatians 6:1-10, based on the "logic" (?) he displayed in connection with verse 2, and accept all conclusions and consequences. His theory advanced is that the whole of the particles of an epistle must necessarily be subscribed to by church action if the salutation were originally subscribed to churches. Such a puerile premise may be easily detected when its ultimate consequences are made manifest.

In the same article the writer sought to list James 1:27 to teach church action, arguing that else the church could not practice pure and undefiled religion. If an epistle addressed to churches causes each portion of it, such as Gal. 6:10, to be church action, how may one read church action into James 1:27 at all as it is addressed to no church, but to "twelve tribes scattered abroad?" A poor rule will work but one way. The writer must give up his contentions in at least one of two places. His reasoning for church action in Gal. 6: 10, based upon verse 2, would completely eliminate his claims for church action in James 1:27 Which passage should he wish to now salvage for his lost cause?

The epistles of Romans, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are addressed to "saints." Am I to understand by this new rule for "rightly dividing the word of truth" (?) that no injunction in the above named epistles may be obeyed by churches?

The Hebrew epistle is anonymously written by inspiration in absence of salutation. Under this new rule of thumb are we left in the dark as to whether or not all of its passages may be applied to any individual or church? or must each passage apply to both individuals and churches at all times? then, how would we determine?

1 & 2 Peter, James, 1 & 2 John and Jude each is addressed to collective individuals. May no passage of them be certainly understood to admonish either a church or single individual, since a group is addressed?

1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and 3 John are each addressed to one individual. Are no passages within applicable to any church at any time?

Both of the Thessalonian epistles and the book of Galatians are addressed to churches. May no single passage in either be applied to an individual? Does even Galatians 3:27, need to be understood as a teaching that churches must be "baptized into Christ"?, else one might argue that if not, no church could "put on Christ." You must remember, Galatians 1:2 is addressed to churches!

The Corinthian epistles are addressed to the "church of God at Corinth," and those within it "called to be saints." As both the church, and its saints are mentioned in the salutation, are there no exclusive directions given to either? or contrawise, does this make the church the saint and the saint the church? If the saint is the church and the church the saint, where goes the argument that Gal. 6:10 must be a church ordinance inasmuch as it was addressed to churches?

To answer these questions is but to refute the absurdities and follies of those laboring to substantiate and defend a position about which Christ neither legislated nor authorizes. A good old fashioned lesson in critical contextual and textual exegesis of the scriptures is much needed for our times.

— Dimmit Texas