For some time we have been hearing the argument that the Bible doesn't contain a pattern of faith and practice. I recently encountered an article which clearly reveals where the above argument has logically taken people. I liked what someone said about the type of articles and books that are being written by those who claim that the Bible isn't a pattern. In reference to a book entitled The Church in Transition, George S. Benson wrote, 'The author is wrong on so many things that one wonders what else he is wrong on.' (The Church In Transition To What? James D. Bales p. 1) The following are quotations from the article which I would like to address. A complete copy of the article can be obtained by simply asking.

1. 'Patternism cannot deliver what is seemed to have promised: a united church.'

His argument is that trying to pattern ourselves after the first century church has failed because such hasn't brought complete unity among those who profess to be Christians. Like many today, the above writer seems to be under the impression that all must be sacrificed-including the truth for some sort of unity among all professed believers. But such didn't even exist in apostolic times. There were professed believers that the apostles weren't about to have fellowship with (Galatians 2:4-5; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Romans 16:17). The preaching of the apostles didn't produce a united brotherhood in the first century, so should be abandon the teachings of the apostles in our own time? (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

1. II. 'twentieth century churches of Christ are hardly replicas of the first century churches'.

The typical arguments are made: They had spiritual gifts and we don't (but we aren't supposed to have them-1 Corinthians 13:8-10). He says, 'We buy and sell land and church houses. We have song books and baptisteries and disposable communion cups.' Such comments reveal that this man, as many who write along the same theme as he is writing, do not understand what they are attacking ('even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions' 1 Tim. 1:7). Authority, Divine permission for the church to own property is found in Hebrews 10:25. Song books are authorized by the command to sing in Ephesians 5:19. Baptisteries and communion cups are authorized by the commands which govern baptism Mark 16:16 and the Lord's Supper 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. And some of his arguments constitute terrible uses of Scripture. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:21 he claims that the word 'drunk' necessarily infers (yes, he must use a necessarily inference now and then himself) that the Corinthians were authorized to use wine during the Lord's Supper. But contextually, the word 'drunk' in this verse must mean glutted with food and regular beverages. Because opposite of a'hungry' condition is not a state of intoxication. And if this word really meant drunkenness then the opposite would have been 'and one is sober'. In addition, such a twisting of the verse would have Paul recommending to the Corinthians to get drunk at home (1 Corinthians 11:22 'What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?') Someone noted, 'We'd hardly think he would be suggesting that they get "stoned" at home.' (1 Corinthians, McGuiggan p. 158) He complains that the New Testament Church had paid elders who evangelized, but we more often have paid evangelists who are elders (1 Timothy 5:17-18). I fail to see the difference between an elder who preaches a lot and a preacher who is an elder?

Points To Note:

Let the reader pause and reflect for a moment: 1. The people making the above arguments can see a pattern in the Scriptures! They can see that elders who labor in the word are to be paid, or the Church can support widows indeed or elders that persist in sin are to be rebuked publicly (1 Tim. 5:20). 2. But their basic argument is, 'We (which can only really include the congregations they know about) aren't doing these things, therefore our deficiencies liberate us.' It is the old argument, 'We are doing lots of things which we don't have any scripture for, therefore, we can do more things that we don't have any scripture for.' I fail to see how sinning in one area liberates us to sin in other areas. The Corinthians were failing to follow the pattern of church discipline, the pattern for the Lord's Supper, the pattern for the use of spiritual gifts, the pattern for how to resolve disputes between brethren….did that allow them to disregard all other scriptural patterns? In each instance, God brought them back to the pattern (1 Corinthians 5:4-5; 6:5; 11:23-26; 12-14). 2. The ironic thing about all of this is that these men who ridicule the idea of command, example and necessary inference, typically resort to commands, examples and necessarily inferences as they try to establish their points. The above writer cites 'examples' and 'commands' that he doesn't believe "we" are fully implementing. He tries to draw a necessarily inference from 1 Corinthians 11:21. In a previous lesson, a writer tried to argue that Rahab's deception means that lying isn't wrong in all circumstances. But he had to use an 'example'! What a wonderful way to study the Bible, 'let's try to find examples or commands which contradict other examples and commands.'

1. III. 'Acts 15 shows that the Jewish Church and the Pauline Church did not share the same steps in the plan of salvation'.

I guess he would try to argue that Acts 15:9 is teaching salvation by faith-only. But a couple of verses later Peter says, 'But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are' (15:11). The above is an old, really bad denominational argument that Jews had to be baptized to become Christians, but Gentiles only had to believe. And yet, Peter commanded the Gentiles in Acts 10 to be baptized (Acts 10:47-48). Paul stressed baptism to congregations that contained many members from a Gentile background (Ephesians 2:4-6; 4:5 'one baptism' (are some of the things mentioned in Ephesians 4:4-6 "optional" for Jewish or Gentile believers?); Colossians 2:12-13; Romans 6:1-5). And then, anyone who has read the Great Commission, understands that hearing, faith, and baptism are conditions for salvation to those in every culture (Mark 16:15-16).

1. IV. 'Surely the style and mood of worship in such a Jewish Christian synagogue-church differed from the unstructured worship in a Gentile Christian church like Corinth (1 Cor. 14:26-33).'

His argument is that James 2:2 infers that Jewish Christians continued to worship in the style of the Jewish synagogue, in fact continued to worship in a synagogue building, because the word translated in the NASV 'assembly' is also a word which can be translated 'synagogue' (see your side reference). Actually the word literally means a gathering together, assembly or congregation of some kind. And was even used of secular assemblies or any gathering for public purposes. Even the denominational translators understood that James wasn't saying that these Christians were meeting in a synagogue. He says, 'Or exactly how was it again that the synagogue leaders were able to sell their Jewish peers (now that everybody was also Christian) on the necessity of packing away the instruments, removing the Torah, disregarding the Sabbath….' He seems to be arguing that Christians from a Jewish background worshipped in their congregations with instrumental music, observed the Sabbath Day and so on, and that was fine with God. He is presenting all these arguments in the attempt to prove that there was absolutely no uniformity between the congregations that existed in the New Testament. He even argues that while Philippi had elders and deacons (Philippians 1:1), such doesn't mean that any other congregation had to follow that pattern in leadership or organizational structure. Points To Note: 1. But Paul argued that uniformity was to exist (1 Corinthians 14:33 'as in all the churches of the saints'; 11:16; 7:17 'thus I direct in all the churches'; 4:17'just as I teach everywhere in every church'. 2. If the above writer is right then he has succeeded in establishing a Christianity in which the New Testament is nothing more than a book of suggestions, or in which you can ignore certain commands, because you are of a different race. Gentiles must not practice religious circumcision, or Sabbath keeping, but Jews can (Galatians 5:1-4; Colossians 2:16). Jews must be baptized, but Gentiles don't (1 Peter 3:21). He wonders how Jews who became Christians convinced other Jewish Christians to give up the Sabbath and so on? Well, here is a better question for him. How did Gentiles who became Christians persuade their fellow Gentile brethren to give up their idolatry, temple prostitution, and eating blood? If Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath, then could Gentile Christians continue to commit religious fornication and worship their idols? The answer to both questions is easy-they were converted! (1 Thess. 1:9). And concerning his contention that Jewish Christians continued to observe the rites of Judaism the above writer needs to read the books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews.

V. 'we cannot unanimously distinguish faith from opinion for the very reason that God never told us how to make that distinction.'

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for not seeing the different between faith and human opinion (Matthew 15:1-9). 'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' (Matthew 21:25). Isn't Jesus expecting these men to answer this question? Was John's baptism a matter of faith or a matter of human opinion? Was it mandatory or optional? God expected Timothy to be able to distinguish between matters of faith and matters of human opinion (1 Tim. 1:3-4,6; 4:6-7; 2 Timothy 2:15-16). What the above man is really saying is that it is impossible to distinguish between the Word of God and the opinions of men, between what could be truth and what might be error (Hebrews 5:14). Hence, we can't really be sure if we do know the truth, therefore we can't be sure if we are saved or not (John 8:31-32). At this point they will usually argue that 'grace' will take care of everything. But how do they know if they have the correct understanding of grace, especially if we can't tell the difference between faith and opinion?

1. VI. 'our fundamental concept of the Bible as a single authoritative volume would have been absolutely alien to Paul and the early church..Paul's words were comprehensible only when Christianity understood itself to be free from a written law and subject only to the living Spirit…The early church was Spirit-driven and not book-driven.'

Points to Note: 1. But the living-Spirit gave the books! (John 16:13; Ephesians 3:3-4) 2. The New Testament, which is written and it is the law of God, is what the Spirit gave the church. The New Testament was to replace the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 13:10). 3. Therefore, the congregation which today doesn't abide by the teachings of the New Testament is not 'Spirit-driven'. 3. He says, 'Is this to advocate the overthrow of the Bible? No' But that statement is too little, too late. If as he claims: A. We can't tell the difference between faith and opinion-even with the Bible. B. How Christians were instructed to do things, has no binding authority upon us today. C. What Paul say to the Corinthians or any other congregation for that matter, only applied 'to those people in that situation'. D. And that the only law we are under is the law of love, but 'The law of love is fixed, but what LOVE MEANS must always be circumstantially conditioned.' Which means that even the law of Love is not really that fixed. For all practical purposes this writer and others like him are saying that if you feel like you are obeying God, then you are. If you feel like you are loving Christ and others in this situation, then you are. The article closes with the following piece of double-talk, 'is to understand him (Paul) to mean that he was not under any written law, but he knew he was subject to the moral law and lordship of Christ.' But where is this moral law and lordship of Christ found? Where is it defined and explained? How do I know if I am in harmony with it? Can anyone say 'New Testament'?