All Must Be Consistent
Expertness in the so-called "rules" of logic isn't necessary to being able to read and understand the word of God and knowing how to consistently apply it. I know that I cannot point out the errors of denominationalism while practicing what amounts to the same and be consistent in practice. I know that should a brother question a practice in which I engage, calling upon me to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21), that he would be within proper Christian behavior; in fact, he would be obeying the same scripture to "hold fast that which is good." I know that if either of us is practicing, in some way, the same thing we condemn in the other that we are "judging" one another in a way condemned in God's word (Rom. 2:1-11). "Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest doest the same things." I know that in this there is no respect of persons with God (v. 11). I know that God's judgment shall be according to the "truth" (v. 2). I know that the word of God is "truth." I know that none shall escape the judgment of God (v. 3). I know that should I refuse to humble myself under this principle, should I refuse to conform to the instructions of God ONLY, that I would be dangerously close, at least, to "despising" the "riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering" from a "hardness" and "impenitent heart," and would "treasure up" to myself "wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds" (verses 3-6).
Should a brother question that which I practice, and especially if it is designed to require others to participate in it, calling upon me to "prove" the authority of God's word for the thing involved, WHAT SHOULD I DO? If such authority exists in the New Testament, certainly I could prove it! If there is not approval and authority for it in the New Testament, IT IS NOT APPROVED OF GOD. Should I ignore my obligation to "prove" the practice or "program," whatever it may be, and, instead, attempt to justify the "program" by "cross-accusing" others of "doing the same things," I shall condemn myself. That much I know. Would it not be evident that I was unable to "prove" my own actions? Should I persist in such, I would certainly be guilty of "causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine" (Rom. 16:17). In which case, other brethren could not escape the doing of their duty, commanded by God, to "mark" and "avoid" me — ibid. Though it may be true that he who questions my practice is himself guilty of multiplied transgression, that fact would not relieve me of my obligation to "prove" what I practice to be authorized by God. Brethren, have I stated anything so far in this article except that which all of us know to be in perfect accord with God's word? Does not "judgment" depend upon our conforming to that word?
Those who plead for support of programs wherein the work that God commands the church to do is to be done through something other than the local church, or through some other local church, should be able to prow that God has authorized such a program. Such "proof' must come from the New Testament ALONE. Moreover it must be by the "handling aright" of the word of God There must be no intentional or unintentional "walking it craftiness, nor handling of the word of God deceitfully," but "manifestation of the truth," thus "commending" themselves "to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2). Nothing short of such "proof" will make it possible for me to participate in such programs in any way. It is evident that such proof is lacking. Nothing like such is exampled in the New Testament; nothing like such is commanded in the New Testament; no combination of actual teachings of the New Testament necessarily and clearly infers such to be approved. All efforts to show proof from the New Testament have fallen far short of doing so. Again, if such proof could have been found, those brethren who try to defend the "programs" would never have resorted to "cross-accusation" for they most surely know that accusing the other fellow of the same thing will not determine whether it is scriptural.
Those of us who occasionally write for the Gospel Guardian, and the Gospel Guardian owners and editors, may, or may not, be the same kind of "cooperative" that we are protesting against; but that would in no way prove that the "sponsored cooperatives" of others have God's approval. If, in writing this article, it could be shown that I am participating in a "cooperative" which violates the word of God, the only proper thing for me to do would be to repent of such and pray God to forgive. If the activities of the brethren at Lufkin constitute an unscriptural "cooperative," let it be shown that they may cease. But let it NOT be shown in any attempt to justify some other thing that needs the authority of God's word, the only proper authority to justify its existence. Otherwise ugliness and chaos is the inevitable result. Let us pray that we all shall "humble" ourselves "under the mighty hand of God," for God it is "who will render to every man according to his deeds."