LectureshipIssue.comTRUTH MAGAZINE LECTURESHIP - PART 2Exegesis
of 1 Timothy 3:15
By Gene Frost |
|
“These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but
if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in
the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground
of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:14-15) The significance of 1 Timothy 3:15—the church as the pillar and ground of the truth—is the basis of Tom Robert’s lecture. It is the title of his lecture: “The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” While we disagree as to the significance of the word “church”—whether reference is to the universal church or to the local church—there are areas of agreement which we need to note before addressing our differences. Common
Ground Before presenting an exegesis of the text, let us establish common ground. We agree that … (1) It is essential that we differentiate between the universal church and the local church. Roberts: “A misunderstanding of the church universal permits egregious practices to arise which will never be addressed until a distinction is made between that and the local church.” (271) Also we agree that … (2) The word “church” is used in two senses: the universal church and the local church. These are separate entities. The universal church is composed of all saints in every place and in all time; it is not composed of local churches.
Roberts says that it is a
misconception to think “that the universal church of Christ is composed of a
collectivity of all local churches.” (268) This is important because some brethren speak of “congregations of the church” (a tautology). A congregation is a local church; hence, “congregations of the church” is equal to “churches of the church,” which is to say that “local churches” (plural) are “of,” belong to or compose the church (singular). This would necessitate a universal church composed of local churches. (3) The local church is active and functional, with organization and purpose.
Roberts (referencing
chart): “Local church is (the) only functioning unit (Phil. 1:1).” (271) (4) The universal church has no function, no organization; “church” in this sense relates to relationship.
Roberts: “The
church universal has no earthly headquarters, treasury, collective work, or
structure.” (268) “It
is impossible to activate the universal church. All such efforts are futile and
self-serving.” (271) Since the universal church relates to all who are saved by the Lord (relationship), it exists without reference to time or location. It includes all saints, the dead as well as the living — those who lived in time past, who are presently alive, and who shall be in the future. The universal church cannot act. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth … But
which church fulfills this role? Is it the local church, or the church universal? In his prepared speech, as published in the lectureship book, Tom is swift to argue against the conclusion that it is the local church.
Roberts: “May I suggest that
we need to think again if we think it is any local congregation?”
(266) He reasons that it could not be the church at Laodicea, or Pergamos, or Corinth. These churches had problems, which the Lord addresses. It could not be any church where the membership is less than perfect, or as expressed by Tom, in contrasting local churches with what he describes as “ideal,” would be considered inferior to the perfect model.
“On the other hand, Jesus had no local church in mind when He promised
to ‘build my church’ (Matt. 16:18). This is the divine body of Christ of
which Jesus is the head (Eph. 1:22-23) and will forever be the ideal which
correctly represents the revealed truth of the gospel.”
(266-267) See the contrast? Tom concludes that Paul, in 1 Timothy 3, refers to the ideal church which is free from error or fault and which truly, or accurately, represents the ideal model, or rather is the perfect church. He clearly states that he believes that “church” in 1 Tim. 3:15 is the universal church:
“Whether or not one agrees with my assessment of the pillar and ground
of truth being the church universal and not any given local church, the effect
is the same.” (267) But notice that he does not ask if that role, as a pillar and ground, relates to “church” universally, or to “church” locally (inclusive of all congregations). If the latter, then churches all over the world are ordained and have the responsibility of spreading God’s word and defending against every assault upon the truth and upon Christ and saints everywhere. However, Tom actually asks, “Is it any given local church, or the church universal?” (266) Note the word “given,” which means a specified church. Did God ordain one specific church (at a specified time and place) to have this foregoing responsibility? Tom wants to know if God specified a local church, such as the church at Laodicea, or at Pergamos, or at Thyatira, or at Corinth, churches he mentions in discussing the point. He contrasts the church universal (all saved souls worldwide and throughout time), as God designed it, with some particular local congregation of saints. However, his comparison is not parallel. He shifts from a category, or classification, to the specific. Notice carefully his description of each. The universal church is described as God ordained it to be, the body of all the redeemed in all the earth throughout time: “the ‘end’ (purpose) of God’s plan,” “forever the ideal”—the conception of it in its absolute perfection. (266-267) Tom Roberts compares this church in perfection to the local church, not according to its ordained model of perfection, but according to its practical existence of imperfect component parts. Man does not always live up to the standard of conduct imposed by God. Because the Lord addresses these failures on the part of some members, Tom Roberts rejects all local churches as being a pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), i.e. as incapable of supporting and defending the truth. The fallacy of this reasoning is popularly known as comparing apples with oranges. If the universal church as a perfect model is to be compared to the local church, then let it be with the perfect model of the local church. That Tom shifts from the model, ideal local churches, is detected by his inclusion of the word “given.” This is a shift from “ideal, perfect as found in the model” to the “practical, imperfect as found in human frailty.” This identifies the fallacy of his reasoning. If we allow Tom to set the parameters by adding “a given,” then we have permitted a begging of the question and are trapped in an obviously untenable position of having to refute what we have granted. Remember his reference to the truism? “If you let your opponent define the terms he will always defeat you.” |
|
|---|
|
Does not our erring brother realize that the opposite conclusion can be reached by reversing his definitions relative to the ideal (perfect model) local church and the practical (with imperfect members)? The local church, as God ordained, is perfect. Now compare it with the universal church in a given specified time and place. Was the church universal a pillar and ground of truth at the very time the Lord addressed the local churches in Laodicea, Pergamos, Thyatira, and Corinth? These very members of these local churches, who had fallen short of the ideal, were at the same time members of the church universal. Could they, as the universal church, be a pillar and ground of truth when God was ready to spew members thereof out of his mouth? When some were teaching the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans? When an immoral “Jezebel” was encouraging their sexual immorality? Or, would it be, as Tom says of the local church with these problems, that Jesus had no specificity of a universal church in mind when He wrote how men (or Timothy) ought to behave themselves (or himself) in the church of the living God, thus relating to the functional church? |
|
|
The mission of each and every local church is to advance the cause of Christ, by putting forth the truth to the salvation of souls, and to defending against the encroachment of error. The local church, as God ordained and designed it, is perfect. With those whom I have fellowshipped before, this has been common ground; only of late is this perfection of churches of Christ being denied by the likes of Tom Roberts, and others of the Guardian of Truth supporters. Over the years, numerous articles have been written in defense of the perfection of the church. Cecil Willis wrote the following in 1960:
“We believe that we can show from the scriptures that the church as God
intended it is perfect. …
“(1) The church was built according to a perfect pattern. …
“(2) The church was built by a perfect builder. …
“(3) Perfect preparation was made for the building of the church. …
“(4) Nothing was spared by God in bringing the church into existence.
… But the divine church needed divine guidance. So God endowed certain men
(apostles, prophets, etc.) with inspired messages. …
“(5) A perfect Head was provided for the perfect body. …
“(6) A perfect law was given to guide the perfect body, this law of
course coming from the Head of the body. The law guiding the church is said to
be ‘perfect’ (I Cor. 13.8; Jas. 1 :25; Jno. 14:26; 16:13; Jude 3; 2 Tim.
3:16, 17). …
“(7) This perfect body is the "fulness" of Christ (Eph.
1:23). …
“(8) God intends that His church be comprised of perfect members.
‘But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy’ (I Pet. 1:15,
16). However, the word ‘human’ implies frailty. The stones that comprise
God's spiritual house are not completely perfect. We must ever strive in that
direction. Any imperfections and weaknesses that now characterize the church
stem from the stones, rather than from the Foundation or the Builder. The church
has two sides: a divine side, and a human side. On the divine side, the church
is as good as an infinite God could make it. Here it needs no amendments or
remodeling. However, people comprise the church. Therefore, on the human side we
must constantly labor that we might more perfectly radiate His glory in our
lives. …
“(9) …the church has a perfect mission. It is authorized to engage in
evangelism, edification, and benevolence. The perfect law given by the perfect
Head stops with these activities. The members must not presume to speak for the
Head, and to go beyond to engage in other projects. … “(10) The perfect church perfectly discharged its mission in New Testament times (Col. 1 :23; Acts 6:1-6; 2 Cor. 8, 9; Eph. 4:12-16). This point we shall more carefully develop in later articles, as we shall discuss the All-Sufficiency of the church in Evangelism, Edification and Benevolence.” (Cecil Willis, Truth Magazine, July, 1960.) These
same points are repeated in an article by Mike Willis, in Truth
Magazine, February 15, 1979; and again in the Guardian
of Truth magazine, April 6, 1989. This position relative to the nature of
the church should be well known by Christians today, including supporters of
Truth Magazine and the Guardian of Truth foundation. So prevalent were articles
concerning the perfection and all-sufficiency
of the Lord’s church during the Institutional conflict of the
1950-1960’s,—and I suspect, if the truth be known, reiterated by Tom Roberts
himself—that I am surprised by what appears now to be a rescision of the past. We might observe, from the quotation above, that the “church” under consideration is functional: with organization, and members with human frailties, engaged in evangelism, edification, and benevolence, wholly adequate to fulfill its mission. It is complete, perfect, in spite of the fact that its members are constantly in various stages of growth, including some within its fellowship with serious moral and doctrinal problems. The weaknesses within the membership do not negate the need of the church to teach, nor does it defeat its efforts to do so. Examine
the Context By examining the context of 1 Timothy 3, we should be able to discern whether the Holy Spirit’s reference to “church” is local or universal. In his prepared speech, as published in their lectureship book, Tom is swift to argue against the conclusion that it is the local church. Let the reader note that Tom does not present the church in 1 Timothy 3:15 as upholding and defending the truth in a metaphor of pillar and ground. This is function! The universal church has no function, no mission, and no organization to enable it to propagate and defend assaults against the truth. The universal church relates to relationship of the Lord and His saints, and not to function. We mutually agree that it is the local church which is functional, and therefore exhibits its character. Tom says that the universal church can only “represent” and “enhance” the truth. What we know about the universal church, we learn from the Scriptures. We do not see its form—it consists of souls, and is beyond our scrutiny. Nor do we see its role—it has no function. Tom acknowledges that what we “see” (understand or comprehend) comes from “the truth contained in the Bible.” (266)
“When men fully understand the plan of redemption, they will come to
see Jesus and the body of Christ as the ‘end’ (purpose) of God’s plan
(Gal. 3:23-27).” (266) Tom has it backwards when he says that the universal church, just by its existence, evidences and exemplifies the revealed truth, which it also enhances.
“The church,
by its existence,
by its unity, by its divinity, evidences and exemplifies the truth contained in
the Bible. It enhances the truth and supports the truth by its very
existence.” (266) Neither translation nor lexicographer translates stulos (pillar) and hedraioma (ground) of the truth as evidences and exemplifies, or to enhance. Remember Tom’s’ warning: “If you let your opponent define the terms he will always defeat you.” He should know. Why else does he substitute his definitions? Even so, let’s test them. What does he mean? To “evidence” is “to indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.” To “exemplify” means “to illustrate by example.” Tom is saying that the very existence of the universal church—a spiritual body of the saved throughout the centuries, without form or function—proves the truthfulness of the Bible and is an example of its truthfulness. Question: to whom does this spiritual body of the saved—in which no one believes except those who accept the truthfulness of the Scriptures—prove, or illustrate by its unseen presence, the truthfulness of the Bible? The opposite is true. It is God’s word that proves the existence of a universal church. Remember, as Tom says, it is “when men fully understand the plan of redemption,” that “they will come to see Jesus and the body of Christ as the ‘end’ (purpose) of God’s plan.” Also Tom is in reverse when he says of the universal church:
“It enhances the truth and supports the truth by its very existence.”
The very opposite is true. The existence of the
universal church, even the fact that there is a universal church, is supported
by the truth. The truth is not “increased in value, beauty, or reputation”
by what is unseen and inactive. I appreciate the existence, the importance, and
the glory of the universal church by its revelation in the Scriptures. Why
does Roberts put his spin on the text of 1 Tim. 3:15? In order to legitimize the existence of a human society, or foundation, in assuming the role and prerogatives of the churches of Christ, Tom must prove that Paul’s reference is to the universal church. Otherwise, if it is the local church, and it is activated as a pillar and ground of the truth, then there is no warrant for the Guardian of Truth Foundation to assume a mirror role of the church, to function as a pillar and ground of the truth. If God’s appointment of the church is sufficient to function in the role of a pillar and ground, then there is no need for another organization to function in the same role. Not only so, but in addition to being a needless body, the Foundation is counter-productive. It siphons funds and energy that otherwise would go into a promotion of the church and the propagation of the truth. It robs the glory that belongs to the church, and gives power and honor to a human institution. In that the promotion and operation of the Foundation is divisive, it is productive of evil. While they claim the opposition to the human institution is the source of contention, it cannot be disputed that, if there was no human institution vying for the attention and support of the brotherhood of disciples, there could be no contention. Note further, contending that the church of 1 Tim. 3:15 is the universal church puts Tom and the Foundation in a bind. To argue that the universal church is the reference in 1 Tim. 3:15 is to claim that the universal church is to function, that it has a role in the support of truth, in its dissemination and defense. This is a contradiction of his statement that “it is impossible to activate the universal church.” (271) By this he shows a confused mind. In fact, he is not far into his prepared lecture (published by the GOT Foundation) when he says that the “missionary society was supported by a collectivity of churches, thus activating the universal church.” (274) “Impossible,” but they did! And to compound his problem: how could the actions of a collectivity of churches be an activation of the universal church if the church isn’t composed of churches? (See points (2) and (4) under “Common Ground.”) The confusion mounts as we turn to his oral presentation in Bowling Green. About that later.
A True
Exegesis We reference 1 Timothy 3:15 to show that God ordained the local church to function as the pillar and ground of the truth. The word “pillar” (stulos) is used “of a local church as to its responsibility, in a collective capacity, to maintain the doctrines of faith by teaching and practice” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words). “Ground” (hedraioma) refers to “a support, bulwark, stay (from hedraios, stedfast, firm; from hedra, a seat).” (Vine, op. cit.) The local church—every member—has the responsibility of upholding the truth in the community and throughout the world through faithfulness of life and by personally teaching friends and neighbors, plus fellowshipping those who will carry it afar. The church is the guardian and defender of truth, a support sure and stedfast, uncompromising. (Cf.: Brotherhood Societies, pages 138-139.)
“These things write I unto
thee … that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house
of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth.” The subject is: that one may know how to conduct himself in the church. To “conduct” (anastrepho, Greek text), is to behave oneself, “indicating one’s manner of life and character” (Vine). It is a verb, used of human conduct, to “act, behave, conduct oneself, or live in the sense of the practice of certain principles … always with the kind of behavior more exactly described” (Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon; Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker). This is action required of one who is in the church. “These things” are matters Paul has presently written. Contextually, this would include instructions concerning the qualifications, character, and work of bishop (elders) and deacons, and the conduct of their wives. This is instruction as to how they should function in the church. This function involves activity. We, of course, have no “universal church” elders. Tom apparently concurs with this definition of functioning, in that he enumerates specific acts that he suggests would be included, among which are: teaching and exhorting, and submission to sound doctrine; praising God and prayer; waging a good warfare; women’s subjection and modesty; appointing of elders and deacons; etc. These are activities or practices “in the church,” which of course is the local church. Remember …
“The church universal has no earthly headquarters, treasury, collective
work, or structure.” (268) I can find no other conclusion than the fact that the “church” of 1 Tim. 3:15 is the local church, with its structure of “saints,” in a given location and at a specific time, “with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). The universal church encompasses the saved without respect to time or place, i.e. all who have been saved from the beginning, to the present time, and who may yet be saved—saints both living and dead—are in the church. Church in the universal sense is descriptive of relationship; only the local church has organization, function, and mission. Only when we understand how the word “church” is used with respect to persons redeemed in Christ, can we avoid the “misconceptions” which lead to efforts to activate a living portion of the universal church in time (which is a great distortion), and establish collectivities other than the church to function as pillars and grounds of the truth. Is
Tom Standing Alone, Or Is He Reversing Himself? To add to the perception of confusion, we call attention to what Tom Roberts said in his oral presentation, as versus his prepared presentation, published in their lectureship book. After reading the prepared speech, we talked to Tom about the misrepresentations of what we believe. I sent him the primary source material of what I believe. I don’t know if it was the result of reading the material, or for some other reason, but I do know that he did not make correction, nor did he apologize for what he wrote in their lectureship book. However, in his oral presentation, he apparently left his prepared speech and, in so doing, he made some telling statements. We have noted that in his prepared material—and sadly this is what most people will see and read, as it is in a book which the Guardian of Truth Foundation will promote, rather than the recordings of his speech—he strongly affirmed that the church in 1 Tim. 3:15 is the universal church, and argued that it could not be the local church. However, the first thing that he addresses in his speech in Bowling Green is 1 Tim. 3:15. He comments:
“A local church may be the pillar and ground of the truth.” This is quite a shift from the prepared speech. Why the shift? Is it because of what his opponents have written? Or is it because he is in conflict with people of his own party? Here is what some of them have said.
Dan King: “The local
church must be active in evangelism of the lost (Acts 11:22; Phil. 4:15-16; 1
Tim. 3:15; Eph. 4:12; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Thess. 1:8).” (WHAR 65)
Ron Halbrook: “…God did not
design or equip the church to educate people in secular subjects (1
Tim. 3:15-16).”
“…none of these efforts is a substitute for the daily ongoing
responsibility of each and every local church to press forward in doing
its own work through its own organization as ‘the pillar and ground of the
truth.’ (1 Tim. 3:15).” (Truth
magazine, September 16, 2004)
Johnie Edwards: “We all need
to learn ‘how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God’ (1
Tim. 3:15).” (Searching the
Scriptures, April 1989)
Weldon E. Warnock: (After
quoting 1 Tim. 3:15) “W.E. Vine says ‘pillar’ is used
metaphorically ‘of a local church as to its responsibility, in a
collective capacity, to maintain the doctrines of the faith by teaching and
practice.” (Searching the Scriptures, November 1989)
Dick Blackford: “Paul taught
the same (2 Tim. 2:2). He taught that the local church is ‘the pillar
and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).” (Searching
the Scriptures, January 1992)
Connie W. Adams: “The church
is the ‘pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15) but it is not
the pillar or support of youth camps functioning as missionary societies. The
only unit through which ‘church’ work may be done is the local church.”
(Searching the Scriptures, May 1991)
Donnie V. Rader: “As a local
church, we must set our goal to become like the local church that God
approves (Rev. 2-3). … We must strive to be active and carry the gospel to
others (1 Tim. 3:15).” (Searching
the Scriptures, November 1992) Tom goes further in his oral presentation, even to abandon his “evidence” and “exemplify” definitions of pillar and ground, now to say:
We “understand that the local church may be the pillar and ground of
the truth as it stands firm for the gospel of Christ… // Thus, the Lord’s
church provides support for the truth, is the bulwark that provides defense
against every attack. I am impressed with the fact that small churches of
Christ around the world still exist today.” Here he references the local church as being the pillar and ground of the truth. However, in the same context, where we have placed the slashes (//) in the quotation above, he says,
“So, in Matt. 16:18, the phrase ‘my church’ is used in that universal
sense. We also see that in Ephesians 3, in the universal sense, as we
see Paul affirming that he was going to make all men see the manifold wisdom of
God, made known by the church. I don’t believe that is talking about the
church in its preaching capacity, but by the very existence of God. The
church makes known the manifold wisdom of God in the eternal purpose of God in
Christ Jesus. I believe this to be the sense in which Paul is using it in 1
Tim. 3:15, the pillar and ground of the truth…” Now the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth is again the universal church. He vacillates between the church local and the church universal. The man is confused. He reminds me of the preacher who misread Acts 18:24, that Apollos was an eloquent man, and stated that “Apollos was an elephant man,” which he explained meant he had big feet. Someone spoke out from the audience, “It says eloquent!” He rejoined, “That’s what I am saying, He was a good talker with big feet.” One member of the congregation turned to another, “I like this new preacher. He can explain it no matter how you read it!” Tom Roberts can read 1 Tim. 3:15 as the universal church and again as the local church, back and forth … and no matter, he can explain it either way! Sorry, we don’t buy it; he can’t have it both ways! And it gets worse. Distinguishing
Individual and Collective Action Tom Roberts’ confusion is further demonstrated when he comments on individual action and collective action. He has difficulty in understanding a simple explanation of individual action as versus joint action. His confusion is manifested when he reviews the following statement, which we wrote in a study of “The Individual and The Church”:
“A failure to properly distinguish between individual action and joint
action has been a constant source of confusion in the churches of Christ and
detrimental to its peace and harmony. For the sake of clarity, we define individual
action as
conduct involving solely the volition of the individual or individuals involved.
When several individuals are involved, the action is concurrent
as
distinguished from independent
action
when the individual acts alone. By
joint action we
mean action in which individuals cooperate, each acquiescing his own volition in
favor of the collective will. It also may be called collective
action, a
term we prefer and will use henceforth in this study.” (Gene Frost, Gospel
Anchor,
October 1977). An example of this confusion Individual Action
Certainly individuals may act together. We
defined “individual action as conduct involving solely the volition of
the individual or individuals involved.” (“Individuals” is
plural, meaning more than just one alone!) The volition
of those involved, whether it is one or more, is “the act or an
instance of making a conscious choice or decision.” (American
Heritage Dictionary.) That is, two or more, of their own volition, may pray
together, study together, and teach together without losing any individuality in
the association. This is a decision that each one makes. Each remains
independent in control of his personal participation. The volition of none is
surrendered to the others, even though they share in the action undertaken. They
may decide to act concurrently, to meet in a certain place and time to study
together, or engage in other activity. When Tom Roberts says that we believe or
teach that …
“it is sinful
for
brethren to arrange a situation in which prayer, singing, and Bible teaching
takes place outside of the local church. We are told that such spiritual action
is solely and only the work of the local church” (285) … please understand that he misrepresents us. We say no such thing! He says, “we are told...” Who told him this prevarication? I know of no one who believes such nonsense. He even quotes me as saying otherwise. Contrary to his representation, not only have I stated, I even cited, on the very page from which he quoted, an example of concurrent individual action of individuals:
“The volition of none is surrendered to the others, even though they
share in the action undertaken. An excellent example of concurrent action is
found in the teaching endeavor of Paul and Barnabas with others, including John
Mark. There was no organization involved, no head or authority to whom the
others submitted, and no treasury belonging to the association. There was only
an expression of willingness to labor together in a relationship where each was
independent in control of his own funds.” (BroSoc 4) This material Tom Roberts had before him (he quotes from it) when he wrote his intended speech, and again the same material is in my letter of June 6, prior to his speaking in Bowling Green. What he wrote and spoke are misrepresentations, deliberately made with the text before him, which stated to the contrary. This is inexcusable. I have a hard time understanding how a man can read what someone has written, even quoting him, and then go before an audience to charge him with believing and teaching to the contrary, all the while professing to be honest. I am filled, not with wonder, but with disgust. Following the discussion of what individual action is, I defined collective action (otherwise known as joint action). Collective Action “In collective action, the individual acquiesces his personal will in favor of the collective will, to submit to the authority and directions of others. Involved is a commitment or agreement to work together to accomplish a particular goal, an accepted submission to authority that governs or directs the collectivity, and the formation of a treasury that finances the functioning of the collectivity.”
Several years ago, Donnie Rader tried to help
others to recognize the distinction between concurrent and collective
action. He published an
illustration he received from Raymond Harville. It is worth repeating.
“When three farmers plow a field with each man having a mule and a
turning plow, these men are cooperating to accomplish the same goal—plowing
the field. Even though they are cooperating, each mule is working independent of
the others. Now, suppose that with double trees and single trees they tie all
three mules together to the same plow. They are still cooperating, but each mule
has lost his independence. “Two of the farmers have surrendered control to the
other. In one case the mules are functioning concurrently and in the other they
are working jointly or collectively.” — Searching
the Scriptures,
October, 1991, page 4. The Lord’s Collectivity and the Collectivity of Men
Agreement to belong, accepting authority of
oversight, and a common treasury, together describe an organized body. It may be
a church, a religious society, a business company, a foundation, etc. Tom
understands this. He says of human organizations:
“They are a collectivity. They have presidents, they have secretaries,
they have other officers, they are organized, they are incorporated…”
(Roberts’ oral Lecture) In application, may several individuals get together to sing, or to pray, or to study with no corporate organization involved? Yes, that is “individual action” concurrently. What if they form an organization, and the same individuals join with others as members, to function together under the oversight and directions of its officers? This would be “collective action.” This is descriptive of the Guardian of Truth Foundation and its lectureship program. The Foundation likes to present itself as being simply a group of individual Christians working together. (“We are a group of Christians aspiring to teach the word of God…”) The lectureship is presented as Christians meeting together to study the Bible. (“Though we may act as a ‘group,’ it is still in the individual realm…”) However, what they state is a “group” is actually an organization, engaged in joint action. The lectureship in Bowling Green is not “individual action.” Tom, with other speakers, did not decide independently of each other to go to Bowling Green, and then decide what they would speak about and for how long, and on what day. The Guardian of Truth Foundation decided to conduct the lectureship. The Foundation chose the dates and times for each lecture. The Foundation leased the facilities where the lectures would be given. The Foundation selected the theme of the series, and the individual topics. The Foundation selected the speakers. The Foundation conducted the “2009 Truth Magazine Lectures.” The lectureship resulted from collective action by the Foundation. Question: could any local congregation have conducted a like lectureship? The answer obviously is “yes,” only that Lord’s church would be honored instead of the humanly devised, established, and operated, human society. Which is the Lord’s choice? (Eph. 3:21) I answered:
“In His consummate wisdom, God saw the need to bring His children
together in collective action for worship and service. This collectivity is the
local church.” (BroSoc 5) Roberts
Accuses Us of Denying All Together Activity We have clearly shown the difference between Christians meeting together to sing, pray, and study, as individuals acting concurrently, but independently, and Christians joined together in a collective activity, as an organization. Although he knows better, he told the audience in Bowling Green that …
“What’s being said is that when we get together as a group, we are
not supposed to sing because that competes with the church.” Of course, he doesn’t define “group.” As several individuals exercising their individual right, there is no problem. But, as an organized body that assumes the right to exercise the prerogatives of the church, this group would have no authority to function. To relate his statement to individual action, as something we oppose, is wrong. He knows that we object to what is a misrepresentation. He admits it:
“Now they are going to yell ‘misrepresentation.’ But I am going to
tell you, you can’t represent those brethren without misrepresenting them.”
(Oral Lecture.) This too is a misrepresentation. The only way Tom’s accusation could be said of anyone is if that person is self-contradicting, affirming what he denies. Unexpectedly, Tom Roberts himself has furnished us with a perfect example of doing this. First, he affirmed that “church” in 1 Tim. 3:15 was the universal church (in the lectureship book); then he said that it was the local church (in his oral presentation). It cannot be both in the same passage, represented by one and the same word. One time, by “church,” he means the universal church; the next time, the same word in the same sentence, means the local church, first the one and then the other! You see, on the subject of the church in 1 Tim. 3:15, you cannot represent him without misrepresenting him. Now for him to say that he cannot represent us without misrepresenting us, he must prove his charge. Where have we denied what we affirmed or affirmed what we denied? Tom, it may sound clever to deflect our charge against you with a counter-charge, but even then you misrepresent us! What we need, instead of clever spins, is the Scripture that authorizes the Guardian of Truth Foundation in its dual role as a business enterprise and as an evangelistic and worship society. And if Tom, or anyone else loyal to the Foundation, had it, they would have produced it years ago! What Tom and the Guardian of Truth party fail to comprehend is the very point I made in the article he quotes: “A failure to properly distinguish between individual action and joint action has been a constant source of confusion in the churches of Christ and detrimental to its peace and harmony.” (BroSoc 4) Tom completely ignores the distinction, and foments confusion. We see this further, as he looks outside of Scripture to try to build a case for the Foundation and its activities, Building His Case: the English Dictionary In the New Testament, we read of individual action and of collective action (in the church). We read of no other collective action authorized by God, wherein Christians may worship and disseminate the gospel of Christ. We can only conclude that the only collectivity of God’s people, authorized of God for worship and service in the gospel, is the local church. It is an expression of the wisdom of God and man cannot improve upon it. (Eph. 3:10) It is folly to substitute for it or augment it. It is all-sufficient to do all that God has given His people to do in collective action. Also, we can only conclude that it is with disrespect for God’s authority that one would go outside of Scriptures to “find” some justification to establish and maintain a human society endowed with the same prerogatives He gave to the church. Even to attempt it, knowing that there is no command or statement for the creation of a human religious body, and no example that God has done so, and no necessary inference that we may presume to do it, is folly. Yet Tom Roberts thinks he has found “collective action” of individuals in addition to the church, not in Scripture, but in a definition found in the English dictionary. As stated, we read in the New Testament of individual action and collective action. By individual, a noun, we mean: “a single human being, as distinguished from a group,” such as the church. As an adjective, in this case modifying “action,” we mean “pertaining to or peculiar to a single person or thing.” (American College Dictionary) The word “individual” is not used in the King James Version of the Bible; neither in the ASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, NLV, YLT. It is used only once in the NKJV, and twice in the NASB, all three translations of ekastos, “each (one), every (man, one, woman).” Therefore, we refer to “individual,” not in the framework of a Bible text, but by accommodation in order to clearly delineate between the roles of a person and a collectivity, as taught in the Scriptures.
Now, we come to the most bizarre treatment of a
dictionary that I have ever heard. Tom Roberts attaches a definition to individual
which obscures any distinctive meaning. He uses individual in a broad range of meaning, from a single person to a
group of persons, and complains that when I use individual to mean a single
human being, as distinguished from a group, that I have limited its meaning. He
claims that the English dictionary defines individual “to include a ‘set,’
or a ‘group,’” including a business organization. Upon reading his
reasoning and reference to the dictionary, I was appalled. The man doesn’t know how to use a dictionary! Let us first establish his argument with quotations from his lecture, and then we will show his abuse of the dictionary. (Underlines are added for emphasis.)
“… brother
Frost uses a dictionary to give a very limited definition to
‘individual action’ and then judges everything according to this limited
definition. The confusion comes from the fact that the dictionary does not stop
where brother Frost stops. … Brother Frost wants to limit an individual as
one person while the dictionary recognizes that individual may include a
‘set,’
or a ‘group.’
(285-286)
“You can speak of the individuals in the individual realm as a set, or
a group. His definition does not
include that. Thus, he is going to bind on us his definition.” (Roberts’
oral Lecture)
“And so what he [referring to this writer] has done has excluded
that definition where an individual realm can participate with others in a
group or set and still be considered working in the individual realm.
That’s what is not being allowed today. So the issue stated, Frost’s
definition is an individual, an individual is one person only. Has to be one
person alone. If you have joint action, it’s a collectivity, and a
collectivity is sinful if it competes with the church. The dictionary says
that an individual may be a set, or a group, and you are still acting as
individuals when you use that arrangement. Stated another way, the church is
a collective, which I would agree with, in which worship and service in the
kingdom is accomplished. That’s absolutely true. But it is not only the
church, as his definition is, because an individual may worship and have
service in the kingdom as well. And we are being told that we cannot do
that as an individual working with others. Stated another way, you have got the
church as a collective, worshipping in service in the kingdom, but the
individual, according to the right and proper definition is a family, is
a set, or a group, in the individual realm. They could do that. A
business could be a set, or a group, and they could teach as a set or a group
and not compete with the local church.” (Roberts’ oral Lecture)
“Frost’s faulty definition of individual, and you can find
that on page 285 and 286 of the lecture book. He gives his definition. And
basically he allows only individual action as individual alone, simply an
individual with no one else participating, or the church collectivity. And he
sees the individual with others competing with the local church.” (Roberts’
oral Lecture)
“May individuals form groups to worship and teach without
competing with the local church? That’s the question before us this morning.
The issue stated again by bro. Gene Frost, ‘The church is the only
collectivity of God’s people ordained and authorized of God for worship and
service in the gospel.’ While agreeing that the church is sufficient to do
what God has assigned for it to do, he misses the point. And the point is that the
individual as well is authorized by God to works and worship, or service in
the gospel. And that’s where I want to build my case this morning.”
(Roberts’ oral Lecture)
“It is possible to have group
action
or action of a set,
while still operating in the realm of the individual.”
(286)
“We believe and teach that in addition to the work performed by
a local church, individuals also have a responsibility to teach, pray,
sing, edify, and practice benevolence. Though we may act as a “group,”
it is still in the individual realm and does not compete with or
contradict the work of any local church.” (286) Of course, he knows that I believe and teach that individuals, as well as the church, are authorized by God to teach and worship. Individuals may do this independently or concurrently. However, we do not mean the same thing by “individual.” What Tom means by “individual” is not limited to a single human being, although the very dictionary he uses, the American College Dictionary defines “individual” (noun) as “a single human being, as distinguished from a group.” Tom, in his oral presentation, refers to this as a “faulty definition.” Rather, he defines “individual” as a plurality of persons organized into a group, such as the Foundation. When he says “the individual as well (as the church) is authorized by God,” he means the organized group. However, no reputable dictionary defines individual (a singular noun) to mean “a set, or a group.”
Actually, what we have here, in these
statements from his Roberts’ oral Lecture, is the Roberts’
definition argument in brief, by which we can easily detect its fallacy. To
find authority for a human organization to work and worship, he states that God
has authorized both the church and the individual, which the reader normally
will assume that authorized individual to be the person of a Christian. Once it
is granted that the individual has the authority, he shifts the definition of
individual from the “single person
individual to his imaginary group
individual. He uses the same word to meaning both a “single person” and
a “group” of persons. This is deceptive, and logically fallacious. By
the sleight of hand”—rather by
the duplicity of tongue—he is able to “claim” authority for human
organizations to form and function in the propagation of the gospel and in
conducting public worship. And this without
a single Scripture! The subtlety
of equivocation makes it all the more deceptive. We cannot say that Tom Roberts
did not try!
Roberts’ accompanying chart contrasts our difference (286). One is what
the dictionary actually says; the other is a fraudulent representation. |
Tom Robert’s definition, which he falsely claims is in the American College Dictionary, is easily refuted. Next, we will publish and examine the full text of the dictionary to show exactly how he has mishandled it. First, the validity of a definition can be tested by replacing the controverted term with the definition. If a definition, in the place of the word (in our case “individual”), makes sense, it may or may not be the correct definition. However, if the definition makes no sense or is non sequitur, then the definition is definitely incorrect. The sentence where Tom applies his definition, and ostensibly derived it, is the illustration of the use of “individual”: —a
set of individual coffee cups. The subject is “cups,” modified by individual, which is an adjective descriptive of them, as the dictionary says, “of which each is different or of a different design from the others.” The dictionary uses individual to emphasize the uniqueness of each cup: being the only one of its kind in the set. Test the definition: a set of (unique) coffee cups; or a set of (differently designed) cups; or a set of cups (each is one of a kind). The cups are unique, each of a different design. Make sense? Tom Roberts says, individual refers to the “set,” and means “a set, or a group,” which are nouns. He makes a set of ( replace individual: a set / group) of coffee cups. Thus “a set of a set of coffee cups” illustrates how “each (cup) is different or of a different design from others.” Make sense? Who can say otherwise than no? The exchange of definition for the term (individual) demonstrates that the definition (of individual) is incorrect. Two things wrong with Tom’s definition: (1) it changes an adjective into a noun. What is supposed to describe (which is what “individual” is to do in the sentence) becomes a substantive (what it is). (2) In keeping with its function as an adjective, “individual” makes no sense in Tom’s definition. Checking
His Reference: the American College Dictionary We are going to look at the American College Dictionary, in which Tom claims that we are going to find that … 1. The word “individual” is not limited to one person, a single human being, as distinguished from a group. 2. A set or a group, of human beings or inanimate objects, may be referred to as an “individual.” 3. The group, which makes up the “individual,” acts in the “individual realm,” or “realm of the individual.” 4. A group, organized to worship and teach, is by definition an individual, which God authorizes to work and worship, or do service in the gospel, as well as the church. His claim is bewildering in that the dictionary does not say one thing about an individual realm, or even use the word realm. It does not define “individual” as a set or a group. In fact, it does not support anything that Tom attributes to it. He cites parts of his definition from the dictionary. Following is the complete section under “individual” in the American College Dictionary: |
|
in-di-vid-u-al
… adj. 1. single, particular; separate. 2 existing as a distinct, indivisible entity, or considered as such:
individual members. 3.
pertaining or peculiar to a single person or thing; individual
tastes. 4. intended for the use
of one person only: individual portions. 5.
distinguished by peculiar and marked characteristics; exhibiting individuality: a
highly individual style. 6. of
which each is different or of a different design from the others: a
set of individual coffee cups. —n.
7. a single human being, as
distinguished from a group. 8. a person: a strange
individual. 9. a distinct,
indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance or item. 10.
a group considered as a unit. 11. Biol.
a. a single or simple organism
capable of independent existence. b.
a member of a compound organism or colony, as one of the distinct elements or
zooids, which make up a compound hydrozoan, so sometimes (when a whole plant or
tree is regarded as a colony or compound organism) a single shoot or bud. [ME,
t. ML: m.s. individualis, der. L individuus
indivisible] —Syn. 7. see person. First, we need to recognize that words in any English dictionary are defined according to the accepted uses at the time of publication, hence the need to continually revise a dictionary to reflect uses that may lately have come into existence. (To study the evolution of meanings, one needs to consult an etymological dictionary.) The meanings reflect the use of words in customary conversations within the culture of English-speaking societies. In other words, they do not assume the meaning of a foreign language by reason of its being translated into English, nor do foreign languages assume English connotations by reason of the use of the English word. For one to insist that a modern dictionary definition must be applied to the English translation used, and thereby insist that this is the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew text it renders is foolish. For example, an English definition today will define “baptism” as “the ceremony or sacrament of admitting a person into Christianity or a specific Christian church by dipping him in water or pouring or sprinkling water on him, as a symbol of washing away sin and of spiritual purification.” Is the meaning of baptism, as used in Scripture, to be found in the modern English definition? No, yet this is the treatment Tom gives to “individual,” plus adding his own spin to the definition. And, unlike baptism, he does not even reference “individual” in a Bible translation. Theologians who have substituted sprinkling for immersion will love Tom’s exegesis! Even so, liberal theologians in the church are pleased to publish and distribute his definition and application of individual! Following the diacritical markings of pronunciation, a dictionary usually states the part of speech to which a word belongs. Notice in the American College Dictionary, cited above, that following the word “individual,” and the pronunciation aid, is the abbreviation adj., for adjective, which shows that the definitions following are adjectival uses of the word. There are six entries (1 to 6). Just prior to the 7th entry is the abbreviation –n., for noun, which shows that the following definitions (7 to 11) are nominal. Following the identification of the parts of speech, the dictionary defines the word. The American College Dictionary states in its introductory pages that: “Central or common meanings are put first. By using different kinds of type, we have been able to distinguish clearly between main and secondary entries and between definitions and illustrative phrases.” (p. xx) This is common with the many published dictionaries on the market. In the American College Dictionary, following the definition of “individual,” there is a colon, followed by an illustrative use, which is printed in italics. (Does this sound familiar? I remember being taught how to use a dictionary in my early school years. Just curious, I just recently talked to three beginning sixth-graders and inquired if they had been taught any library science in school. They assured me that they had, as early as the fourth grade, maybe some in the third grade. They knew about the parts of speech; the distinction between the definition of a word and the illustration of its use. They knew about the colon, its significance. They related how they used the dictionary constantly, in research, in using computers, etc. This is why I am embarrassed for Tom, that either he never learned how to use a dictionary, or, more likely, his zeal to defend the Guardian of Truth Foundation and join others in coming to the aid of their party leaders, blinded him against giving it serious thought. In any case, it is an embarrassment to him and to the Foundation which approved and published his lecture.) Adjectives are words which are used to limit or qualify a noun or other substantive. The adjective definition of individual is descriptive of what is “1. single; particular; separate.” This is the basal meaning of the word. Individual is used of what is 2. “existing as a distinct, indivisible entity, or considered as such:”—this definition is followed with an example of this use. Note the colon (:), which is a punctuation mark, used in this instance, to introduce the example. Illustrative of the definition of a distinct, indivisible entity, are “individual members”; each member is single and separate. 3. An example of “individual,” meaning “pertaining or peculiar to a single person or thing:” is when one may speak of “individual tastes,” each one’s taste is separate and distinct from others. 4. “Individual” may be used of what is intended for the use of one person only; example: “individual portions,” the portion of each one is separate and distinct from that of others; 5. “Individual” is used to “distinguish (something) by peculiar and marked characteristics” or “exhibiting individuality” as one might comment that it is “a highly individual style,” i.e. the style is separate and distinct from other styles; 6. One may use “individual” to express something “of which each is different or of a different design from the others,” an example of which is “a set of individual coffee cups,” i.e. the coffee cups are each and every one separate and distinct from the others. It is this example of the use of “individual” that Tom quotes and uses to draw his conclusion that individual might include a set or group. Note that he does not draw his definition from the dictionary’s definition, but from an example as to how the word may be used. He must have thought that the illustration was part of the definition. Even so, he misuses the example, which has individual modifying the cups and not the set. The illustration does not say that the “set” is individual, but that the “cups” are individual: “individual coffee cups.” The concern of the illustration is not to give emphasis to the fact that there were many cups, but to focus attention on the cups, each and everyone, as being different from one another. I have seen a set of such individual cups. I recall a lady who had a set of State Cups, representing the States of the Nation. Each cup had the name of a state, with the state flower, inscribed upon it. She collected cups from states she visited to add to her collection (set of cups). The cups were individual; not that the set was individual, which makes no sense, or was in a “realm of the individual,” which also is nonsensical. Oh, to what ends one will go to make his point! Tom foolishly tries to redirect “individual” from describing differences among the cups to somehow describe some kind of differences of the set … differences from what? “Differences among cups” is understandable, but “differences among a set” makes no sense. He converts the use of “individual” as an adjective, and makes it a noun. With Tom, “individual” does not describe anything, the cups or the set … it is the set! He now says that “individual is a ‘set,’ or a ‘group’.” Remember, he said, “the individual, according to the right and proper definition is a family, is a set, or a group, in the individual realm.” Notice, however, that “set” and “group” are nouns. So that what is an adjective in the dictionary, Tom converts into a noun! In fact, when Tom gives his definition of individual as a group, he finds “group” in the use of individual as a noun: “7. A single human being, as distinguished from a group.” He does not leave it as a set of inanimate things, as individual cups, but now individual persons. A rather convoluted journey, but he ends up with what he sought: an individual is a plurality of persons … now we have the Foundation! The wish is the father of the conclusion, not the dictionary. In shifting from its adjectival use and definition to make it a noun, he commits yet another fallacy, that of equivocation—using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. Continuing our look at the definition of individual in the dictionary, the next item is: “—n. 7.,” as follows. The noun definition of individual is basally “7. A single human being, as distinguished from a group.” Its synonym is person. Person and Individual are terms applied to human beings. “Person is the most general and common word: the average person. Individual views a person (rarely a thing) as standing alone or as a single member of a group: (the characteristics of the individual)…” The noun may also be used to represent “10. A group considered as a unit.” Tom thinks that anything we can call a unit we may call an “individual.” This is not what the definition says. Not when we understand what a “unit” is, namely “a group regarded as a distinct entity within a larger group. An illustration: Boy Scouts are enrolled in troops, and in each troop there are patrols. Even though the patrols belong to the troop, they are individual. “Patrol” is a unit of “troop.” As we compare Tom Roberts’ argument about the word “individual” and the dictionary definition, there is no connect. He makes statements about what the dictionary supposedly says when it does not. What he says simply is not so. It says nothing about an extended meaning, which one can cut off, or limit, before and without utilizing the full coverage. “Individual” is not listed as a plural noun, representing a group, more (not limited) than one. It gives no definition of individual as “a set or group of persons,” or anything equivalent to that. It makes no mention of an “individual realm” or “realm of the individual,” much less a definition of it. It makes no reference to a human organization, especially one that is supposedly authorized by God, in defining the meaning of “individual.” In examining what Tom’s claims is said with the actual text of the dictionary, it is easy to see where Tom mixes the adjectival use of “individual” with its use as a noun; puts his own personal spin on the examples; and extrapolates conclusions which the dictionary neither gives nor supports.
“And basically he allows only individual action as individual alone,
simply an individual with no one else participating, or the church collectivity.
And he sees the individual with others competing with the local church.
“The American College Dictionary on page 618, says of the
individual”—I want you to really pay attention to this definition. “That
is, ‘that of which each is different, or of a different design from the
others: a set, a set of individual coffee cups; a group considered as a unit.’
That’s in the individual realm. You can speak of the individuals in the
individual realm as a set, or a group. His definition does not include that.”
(Roberts’ oral Lecture) In the definition of “individual,” he takes the first part from the adjective “individual,” and the latter part from the noun “individual.” Also, he confuses a plurality of individuals acting together concurrently, independently, with a plurality as part of an organization, jointly. Yes, an individual may participate with others concurrently. And, yes, jointly in a collective … not of his own choice, but as appointed by God in the church. Since we have the divine instituted, which is all-sufficient, there is no need, nor authority, for an inferior body instituted by men. This is a concept that seems to elude Tom Roberts. On this subject, he hasn’t a clue! Tom Roberts’ dictionary argument is undoubtedly the wildest use of a dictionary I have ever seen. In a sense, I sympathize with him for what must be a cause of great embarrassment. More than that, I feel a sense of indignation toward his “friends,” some of whom surely read his manuscript before it was submitted to be printed. Why did they not correct him? And why allow this dictionary fiasco to be presented? And even more so, the Foundation, who no doubt were more than willing for him to squander my time and energy to refute “foolish and unlearned” arguments (2 Tim. 2:23), at his expense of being publicly humiliated. This should be a warning to others not to lean too heavily upon the Foundation, knowing that their interest is first for the Foundation, before the welfare of their supporters. Other
Fallacious Arguments Other arguments presented by Tom are repetitious of previous exchanges. Since they offer nothing new to a study of the institutional issue, we will not waste the reader’s time to beat a dead horse. A principal argument with supporters of the Foundation is what they refer to as … Sommerism This is not really an argument; it is a tactic of demonizing the opposition. It has been answered time and again, only to be ignored by our adversaries. The only reason that it is brought forth over and again is, as suggested by those who have made a study of the techniques of slander, not that it is valid, or even worthy of consideration, but by the constant slinging of mud, it is hoped that some of it will stick. The design is to so malign the opposition that he will be given no hearing; the very mention of his name will cause others to turn away. My refutations are a matter of record: Brotherhood Societies, pages 109-124; We Have A Right Answered, pages 9-10, 14, 48-56, They Have No Right, pages 43-61. It is sad that those whose practices we challenge as being unscriptural, resort to slander rather than to Scripture as their “defense.” Of course, false teaching, misrepresentations, and name-calling can never defend truth; truth is its own defense. Yet I know that some who read this article will not have the interest, and some will not have the spirit of fairness which demands that both parties be heard, to review the above references, so I will simply point out that the use of Daniel Sommer’s name (“Sommerism”) has ever been the weapon of those who have attempted to promote unscriptural innovations in the church. Brethren, who stood fast for Bible authority, were first called “Sommer brethren” in 1892. Again, in the 1950s when liberals sought church support for colleges and benevolent societies, opponents were called “Sommerites.” And now, again, in this day, men of liberal persuasion seek to justify human foundations, claiming to have the prerogatives of churches of Christ, enabling them to support the propagation of the gospel, and to conduct brotherhood gospel meetings, we who protest are called “Sommerites.” Of course there is no correlation between what we believe and what distinguished Daniel Sommer. Every doctrine that we teach, that one may claim for Sommer, is a Bible doctrine. Whereas every doctrine peculiar to Sommer, we reject. But interestingly enough, they are accepted and practiced by the name callers themselves. We have identified teaching and practices identified as peculiar to Sommer, which we reject, but which are practices of the Guardian of Truth Foundation. Does this make them “Sommerites”? No, their guilt is not by association but in their practice. Dispense with name-calling. We need no such carnal weapon to promote the truth and to counter error. But if guilt is by association, as they aver, it is they, not we, who are followers of Sommer. When brethren were being called “Sommerites” in the 1950s, C.E.W. Dorris recalled a answer written by David Lipscomb in an earlier time. With the following reference, I will move on. “What Is Sommerism?”By C.E.W. Dorris
“It is no
strange thing to see in some of our religious journals, now and then, where some
good brethren are accusing other good brethren of teaching Sommerism. It seems
that many don’t understand what Sommerism is. Probably editors that publish
such, don't know what it is and are practicing it and don't know it. Sommerism
is of such a nature that it can be either taught or practiced. One can either
teach or practice it just as he chooses. It is just as bad to practice it as it
is to teach it. Suppose we allow David Lipscomb to tell us what constitutes real
Sommerism.” Lipscomb’s article, “Difficulties And Differences Among Brethren,” set forth Scripture principles of conduct, as to how differences are to be settled fairly. He stated:
“I have been near the end of my earthly journey for some time. I have
by good brethren and sisters been complimented for the good I have done them and
others. This good has come from holding the Gospel Advocate open to discuss the
evils of introducing into the church things not required by God. Evil has seemed
to grow out of this by the failure to treat the subject as God directs. If these
evils are not discussed, we disobey God and leave evil to run riot in the
churches. Evil will grow up in the churches, and the failure to expose it is to
invite the evil.” He cited an incidence where he was misrepresented, and the journal in which it was published refused to publish his response.
“They declined to publish my article, and published an explanation of
their own. This is the exact equivalent of two persons going into court in a
lawsuit or into a church trial and one of them insisting he shall tell both
sides, and the other’s mouth be stopped. A man who adopts this policy cannot
be fair and just.” He cited another case, as an example, where several brethren wrote an article to correct an unjust report, but they, too, were refused. This kind of treatment he considered unfair, and ceased to read the journals who made it their practice to publish only the one side.
“Brother Sommer, of the Octographic Review, adopted this policy some
years ago, the only example of it I had ever known avowed among disciples. I
ceased to read his paper, and we get along so peaceably.” C.E.W. Dorris closed his article, published in The Preceptor, July 1957:
“Lipscomb reveals in no uncertain terms, what real Sommerism is, at its
highest peak. It is a policy and that policy is, not to publish both sides of an
issue. So when we see an editor who has adopted Sommer's policy of not
publishing both sides, we know that he is practicing real Sommerism. Sommer's
policy caused Lipscomb to cease reading his paper. If he was living today, I
wonder if he would be reading his Old Reliable?” The Guardian of Truth Foundation, publisher of Truth Magazine, accuses others of teaching “Sommerism.” But Dorris says, the real Sommerites are not those who may be viewed as teaching similarly to what Sommer taught, but who indeed endorse and engage in the same practice. The Foundation, in this respect, are practicing Sommerites! Do you not think it is time to stop this childishness, and devilishness, of trying to justify unscriptural practices by calling opponents “Sommerites”? Or, should those of us who are opposed to the Foundation’s actual practice of Sommer’s error start applying the label to the actual practioners? Roberts’
“Bible Facts” Basis For the Foundation Toward the last of his presentation, Tom Roberts presents what he refers to as “Bible facts to provide a Bible basis for our actions.” Please note: he has no Bible authority— a command or statement, or an approved example, or a necessary inference—but claims to have “Bible facts” that will serve as a Bible basis on which to support the decisions and actions of the Foundation. This, he avers will “show clearly” that their work is “imminently” (Tom means eminently) scriptural.” I would that it were imminent—impending, about to occur, or soon—to be scriptural, but I can see no sign of repentance or correction. Nevertheless, let us look at these “Bible facts,” which Tom views as clearly showing the work of the Foundation to be outstanding, as towering above the work of others, in Scriptural fidelity. However, even before looking at his facts, we know they cannot be more “scriptural” than what God authorizes in Scriptures: the church, which He established, and the work of the church, which He ordained. Tom’s mission is to show that the church is not exclusive, but that God has provided authority for other collectivities. He writes, “One need only to provide Bible authority for one other collectivity to teach the Bible.” No, if it can be shown that God has provided authority for another religious collectivity to do the work of the local church, to conduct public worship and evangelize the world, it will only prove that God has given authority for two religious bodies to evangelize the world and to engage in public worship. This would not prove that the Foundation can assume this right. Still, he and the Guardian of Truth party would have to find authority for their human organization and system to assume the prerogatives of the churches of Christ to operate in mirror fashion. Finding authority for another divinely approved body would prove that God has two divine institutions; it would not grant men the right to establish organizations of their own, to “write their own creed” (a right the Foundation claims for itself; see under “Truth Foundation Collectivity,” page 288 in the lecture book), conduct their own worship after the N.T. pattern, and to function as a pillar and ground of the truth. The “first group that operates outside the local church,” which he lists, is … The
Synagogue Interesting that the “Bible basis” for the Guardian of Truth Foundation is found in the ancient meeting places of the Jews, the synagogue! A place is the scriptural basis for a present-day religious organization possessing the prerogatives of the church! Really? This demonstrates the desperation of the Foundation to find some semblance of divine approval. The word synagogue is derived from the Greek word sunagoge, i.e. “an assembly,” and in the LXX “is found once in the Authorized Version of Ps. 74:8, where the margin of Revised Version has ‘places of assembly.’” Tom says this “is probably correct; for while the origin of synagogues is unknown, it may well be supposed that buildings or tents for the accommodation of worshippers may have existed in the land from an early time, and thus the system of synagogues would be gradually developed.” (295) This basis of “Bible facts” is uncertain; it is a foundation of probability, what is admittedly unknown, what is supposed, or what may be. It doesn’t sound like anything factual. It certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in what it supposedly supports. What the Foundation presents, without hesitation or reservation, is that …
“there is no divine commandment approved example, or necessary
inference that the synagogue existed prior to the completion of the Old
Testament.” (296) This is the basis for the Guardian of Truth Foundation that they offer: it does not exist and function by reason of a command or statement, or by an example, or necessary inference. Tom Roberts is in step with Daniel King and Mike Willis. They have no authority, yet they claim to have a right…!
We have refuted all of this before. Tom now has
the primary source of documentation. For a fuller discussion, we suggest that he
read from the following references: We Have A Right Answered 119, 125-129; They Have No Right, 70-102. Perhaps this will help him to understand
the issue. School
of Tyrannus Tom Roberts introduces the “school of Tyrannus” to address the question: “is it a sin for brethren to teach the Bible in a college?” He fails to define what he means by “brethren,” whether this is generic for one or more, or does he mean an organized body? Is “in a college” a reference to a place, such as an auditorium or a classroom, or does it refer to one teaching as a member of the teaching staff of a college? By relating his question to the school of Tyrannus, in Acts 19:9, without qualifying it, he alludes to the fact that it could be any of the alternatives or combinations thereof? I’m not going to waste my time by addressing every possible scenario, nor does Tom. In fact, there is precious little about the school of which he can be certain. Tom admits that he knows little about the organization or its purpose … in fact he knows nothing about these things. He talks about what is possible—that is not certainty. Could Paul have rented space/rooms—how can we answer his question? We don’t know if there was any space for rent. Yet he asks, “Can not the Truth Foundation also rent rooms …?” Sounds as though he knows that Paul also rented space. But no, actually Tom does not know! He says he doubts if Paul was part of the paid staff…what staff? There is no mention in the Scriptures of a staff. Was Tyrannus the sole proprietor or owner, or was he an appointed president of an education system, with many disciplines and head professors under him? We don’t know. Tom doesn’t doubt (is just undecided); he does not know! Yet what Tom does not know he uses as the basis upon which he justifies the Guardian of Truth Foundation and its lectureship.
What we do know from the text is that Paul
taught in a place, identified as the school of Tyrannus, and this over an
extended period of time. From this, Tom asks if the Truth Foundation may rent
rooms and invite people to come study the Bible? There is nothing in the text
about a human foundation or of rental property. What Paul did, as a disciple of
Christ, does not in any way correspond to
what a human organization may do. The relationship of Paul in the teaching
arrangement with those whom he taught does not correspond to an organizational program where the teacher,
the subject, the study period, and the time are all determined by the
organization. After first expressing doubt, Tom states that “Paul taught the Bible in a school,” and assumes that this means he rented the room and invited people to come to study because he asks, “Can the Truth Foundation not also” (as did Paul) “rent rooms in a school/college today and teach the Bible?” He concludes, “if we use the legitimate definition found in a dictionary, where is the sin?” So he finds his authority, not in the example of Paul in Acts 19, but in a flawed and distorted “dictionary definition,” which we have already debunked! He invokes his “group individual” (an oxymoron), which exists only in his mind Roberts’
Real Estate Company The more he looks for authority for the Guardian of Truth Foundation’s actions, the weaker the argument. Leaving any Bible reference, he turns to his own practice. He seeks to convince us that by what he does, he finds authority for the Foundation to assume the prerogatives of the churches of Christ. He refers to his real estate business. He asks a series of questions:
“Since,
as a Christian, I want to include opportunities to teach wherever I am, would it
be scriptural for me to have a tract rack in my real estate office and give away
tracts? Yes. “Teach” is generic, embracing unspecified methods and arrangements. Distribution of the printed page is an authorized specific. (2 Tim. 2:24.)
Would it be scriptural for me to invite my co-workers and friends to meet
with me every day at lunch and have a Bible study? Yes. (2 Tim. 2:2.)
If my real estate company succeeded and made a profit, would it be
scriptural for me to take part of my money and send it to a gospel preacher
(Acts 5:4)? Yes, as you say, it is your money. (Gal. 6:6)
Mind now, that the real estate is an organized business, it is
incorporated, and I might even have partners who are Christians as well. Does
this make it a collectivity which competes with the church? How could it? How could a profit-making business compete with the church, which is not a business operation? One is an economic enterprise engaged for profit, and the other a spiritual body engaged in spiritual activities as appointed by God. They are not in competition. In order for a company to compete with the church, it would have to assume an additional role, and engage in the same activities as the church. If it solicited funds with which to disseminate the gospel, and if it conducted public worship services, it would imitate the role of the church. If it claimed to have a right to exercise the prerogatives of the church, it would be an encroachment upon the church. If it became an optional arrangement with the church, through which Christians could propagate the gospel and worship God, it would compete with the church for the time, energy, and funds which could otherwise support the church to the same end. I can justify the role of the church with Scripture. Can anyone justify a business functioning in a dual role, assuming the prerogatives God gave the church? This is the issue. We have called for the Scripture for over thirty years, and there has been no attempt to supply it. Why not? Simple. There is no authority for an organization, not the church, to function as the church!
Is the church the only collectivity which can teach the Bible? Would
teaching the Bible make my real estate company a missionary society? Yes. The “missionary society” historically functioned in the propagation of the gospel and also as a business, in publishing and selling books to be used in worship. The reason Tom asks these questions is that he has never read the exchange I had with Daniel King and Mike Willis. Dan King raised a false issue, and fought a straw man. Tom Roberts has made the same arguments. As to what the real issue is, we have constantly kept this before the readers who are interested in hearing both sides of the issue. Tom has no clue. We have opposed the Guardian of Truth Foundation in its dual role for the same reason we have opposed the missionary societies. It, as the Society in its inception, is an individually supported missionary society. Tom inserts a note in his lecture:
“Please
note that no one I know has ever called this a “individually supported
missionary society” except brother Frost.” (300) There are many things about this issue that Tom does not know or understand. Sadly, he has not kept himself informed. He spouts arguments made years ago, which were answered. I will attempt to help him once again. In the King-Willis book, We Have A Right, Mike Willis wrote:
“The issue with him is that another collectivity has been formed which
is designed to function religiously. Let us remember that Jesus organized an individually
supported "missionary society" (using brother Frost's terminology)
in Luke 8:1-3.” I have charged the Guardian of Truth Foundation with being an individually supported missionary society. Using the same terminology, Mike Willis claims that this is what Jesus organized, in Luke 8:1-3. Noah’s
Other Boat Again Tom Roberts makes an argument based on what he doesn’t know. He tells us that “Noah could have had a fleet of boats,” but, of course, he admits, “I don’t know that Noah had another boat.” So Tom doesn’t reference an actual situation, but he makes an analogy with what could be, i.e. Noah “could have had” another boat. And the point he wants to make is that another boat would not have impeded his obedience to God. His application: individual enterprise is generically authorized in the Scriptures (Eph. 4:28) and does not violate corporate work (the church). So Noah could have had another boat without “violating any precept concerning the ark of gopher wood” just as one may own a business without violating the church. Tom fails to complete the analogy. Noah’s Ark represents the church. Noah’s other Boat represents the Foundation. To complete the analogy, Noah’s other Boat is able to provide everything that characterizes the Ark, just as the Foundation can do everything the church can do, i.e. propagate the gospel, edify the saints, conduct public worship. The foundation thus becomes optional in most respects with the church. Now the question is, Could Noah have built another Boat besides the Ark, and used it as optional with the Ark? The church was established by the Lord as His pillar and ground of truth, by which the lost could be reached and in which worship to God could be offered. Could another Boat have been as effective with the Ark, as is the Foundation with the church? Could Noah have argued that his Boat was as effective in reaching the lost as the Ark, that in many ways it was an optional means? I have no doubt that had Noah had built another Boat to float alongside the Ark, with the very first crashing wave of the sea, it would been inundated. With the Ark, what need would there have been for another Boat? Likewise, with the church, what need have we for the Foundation? Luke
8:1-3 A favorite analogy of Mike Willis has been his “Jesus Group” of Luke 8:1-3.
“And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and
village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the
twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits
and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and
Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which
ministered unto him of their substance.” From the inspired text, this relationship of certain women who ministered to Jesus of their own private means or resources is simple enough. What the supporters of the Foundation read into it is rather amazing. From a simple narrative about Jesus, along with the twelve, being helped financially by a few women as He traveled from place to place, they create a human society with the intent it should be a pattern for Christians throughout the age to create their own societies to operate alongside the churches that He established. I summarized their spin on the text in We Have A Right Answered:
“They allege that Jesus intended for His
relationship with His disciples to be an example for us: to create and maintain
human foundations and societies, which Jesus did not create, and for these
foundations to function without Him as their head— they have their own
head (president) and hierarchy. They want us to think that Jesus set an example
that would allow every Christian to form his own group and be the head of it.
Unlike His churches, over which He ordained qualified men to serve as overseers
to see that things are done rightly, observing the restrictions and limitations
He set, the foundation may appoint men who would be unqualified to be
overseers in the Lord’s churches, meeting only human standards. The treasuries
of the churches are funded by individuals who are members of each local church,
while the foundation is unrestricted as to the source of its income, as long as
it is honest and honorable, and this includes solicitation from every Christian
on earth.” (We Have A Right Answered
94-95) This argument was answered, and remains unrefuted. (See Brotherhood Societies 20-22, 26, 32, 70-73, 78, 91-92, 141; We Have A Right Answered 85-95, 107-110; They Have No Right 40-41, 68, 90, 125-126, 170, 184.) This is important and interesting reading, especially in light of the fact that Tom Roberts says, “So far, the only answer that has been made to this Scripture [Luke 8:1-3] is to ridicule it.” (36) He has no clue. In
Closing In a review of the lecture by Tom Roberts, it is obvious that neither he nor his mentors know whereof they speak; when, so obviously, he is ignorant of what we believe and practice; when that which he attributes to us is nothing more than malicious gossip we have heard before; when he makes statements with no references for verification; when his comments demonstrate that he is clueless of the issue, and is ill prepared to discuss it, and where errors and misrepresentations abound; we find it difficult to cut off our response. To expose and respond to every erroneous or fallacious statement would be an endless endeavor. However, we believe that sufficient has been written, and this review needs to come to a close. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contend for the integrity and glorious presence of churches of Christ against the onslaughts of institutionalism. We see no need to heed anything further short of a notice of Tom’s repentance before God and an apology to all who have suffered his slander. We have responded to Daniel King and Mike Willis (the two books they now have redacted into one volume); to John Isaac Edwards (the exchange in Gospel Truths magazine); to Tom O’Neal (the treatise entitled, “Gene Frost’s and J.T. Smith’s Human Institutions”); and now to Tom Roberts’ lecture in the 2009 Truth Magazine Lectureship. Their defense goes from bad to worse. How much further down the chain of incompetents can they pass this sputtering torch? Released: September 8, 2009. |