"To testify the gospel of the grace of God." Acts 20:24
**PUBLISHED AS A MISSION PROJECT OF PILGRIMS HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH**
BRO. CAMP RESPONDS TO BRO. JOE WILSON’S LATEST LETTER
A WORD OF EXPLANATION TO THE READER
Apparently, it is not clear to some the exact position that Bro. Wilson is taking in this discussion. Therefore, the seriousness of this matter is not apparent to all.
Bro. Joe believes and is arguing that in each and every instance in which a new church is established, there absolutely must be the vote of a "mother" church to start that specific church or it is not a true church.
Bro. Joe has further argued that any church started without the vote of a "mother" church is born out of "spiritual adultery" which would make it a "bastard church" and unqualified to do any of the Lord’s work.
According to Bro. Joe’s position, many churches in America were born of spiritual adultery and very few, if any churches, could prove they are without an adulterous link which would make them an illegitimate, unscriptural organization. This would impugn every thing they have done as a church. It would involve them in bogus baptisms. It would invalidate every mission effort they had undertaken. It would render spurious every observance of the Lord’s Supper. It would make every pastor they have had a spiritual adulterer. It would mean every dime every member had ever given through the church was given to support perpetual spiritual adultery. It would mean that the worship of the members of this body had been rejected by God because rendered through and as a part of a "bastard" organization.
According to Bro. Joe’s position, any church in your lineage that was started without the vote of a "mother church, be it 100 years ago or 1,000 ago, renders your church unscriptural and without authority to operate as a church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Can any prove there is no such "adulterous link" in the lineage of your church? Can Bro. Joe prove the church of which he is a member is without an "adulterous link" in its past? Can he prove that the church which Baptized him has a pure link-chain lineage back to Christ? If he can’t prove these two things, he cannot even be sure his congregation or the one which baptized him, are true churches, based on his position.
I could go on but this shows the seriousness of this discussion. And it shows why I am pressing Bro. Joe for Scripture which clearly mandates or illustrates his position. Thus far, he has failed to produce.
Dear Bro. Joe,
Greetings in the name of Christ.
Bro. Joe, do you believe there are secret teachings of Jesus and the apostles which are not recorded in the Bible but are, nevertheless, binding as law? For instance, you have already admitted you cannot cite a single passage of Scripture where a "mother" church voted to start a "daughter" church. In the opening letter of this discussion I asked you, "Can you cite chapter and verse where any church mentioned in the New Testament ever voted to start a specific church at a specific place at a specific time?" You answered candidly and correctly, "No, I cannot cite chapter and verse where any church mentioned in the New Testament ever voted to start a specific church at a specific place."
In light of that answer and your continued insistence that there MUST be a vote of a "mother" church or "SPIRITUAL ADULTERY" is committed by all involved in the organization of a church where there is not the vote of a "mother" church, I must conclude that you believe there are some secret teachings of Christ and the Apostles which have been revealed to you and not to me.
Bro. Joe, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that it is wrong for a church to vote to start another church. Baptists have always had various traditions which they followed. The error arises when traditions are gradually aggrandized in importance until they are elevated to the status of law. To give the tradition of churches voting to start churches the rank of infallible law is to assume that there are secret teachings of Christ and the Apostles which the Holy Spirit did not include in the New Testament; teachings that, though not included in the canon of Scripture, are as binding as the clear-cut teachings of the inspired record. Otherwise, why would you admit you cannot cite Scripture where such action was taken but still insist it must be done or those involved are committing spiritual adultery?
To insist that something is essential that you admit you cannot find mandated or exemplified in Scripture is not consistent with what Baptists have always believed. The fact that it is not there, clearly shows it is a tradition which you have elevated to equality with Divine mandate and example.
To superimpose tradition upon the word of God and try to make all conform to it in each and every case, and charge them with "SPIRITUAL ADULTERY" if they do not conform is to assume an authority not given to churches or preachers in the word of God. Since you admit you cannot cite Scripture for this practice that you make a law that is as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians, then one must assume that there are some SECRET teachings that have been revealed to some and not all. You have some "new light" that Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and the church at Antioch did not have.
Let me also say, Bro. Joe, I have never been involved in the organization of a Baptist Church in which there was not the vote of another church for starting it. At one time I held that was the way to start a church although I did not unchurch any started otherwise nor charge with "spiritual adultery" any who did not conform to that AS YOU DO. It is not the tradition that I am contesting in these articles. It is your elevation of tradition to such rank of law that to violate it is "spiritual adultery" that I reject. You are not God, nor an inspired messenger of God, and until you can produce Scripture which gives an example of such action, and Scripture which declares those who do not conform are guilty of spiritual adultery, you ought to cease and desist from destroying churches, impugning every baptism they have administered, and charging all involved in the organization with spiritual adultery. You take too much on yourself, My Brother!
Bro. Joe, I know many brethren who believe as you do, but, you are the only Brother whom I have heard elevate that practice to the level of such sacred law that the breaking thereof was spiritual adultery. Such elevation is even more unacceptable when you admit there is no example of it found in the Bible.
As John Bunyan said, "Wherefore see thou have the word for what thou dost." He further declared, "There must be the word for the authorising of what thou dost."
I also like what C. C. Carroll said in an article called Baptists Aren’t Protestants. The message appeared in the September 2, 1979, issue of The Baptist Examiner. He said,
"Baptists have always from the earliest days appealed directly to the New Testament as their authority for the form, power and purpose of church organizations.
"Scriptures give the church pattern. Baptists contend that there can be no proper standard for the Bible-believer of what constitutes the church other than that set forth in Scriptures. They claim that the Scriptures themselves determine in principle the laws that govern the church of Christ throughout all ages until the Lord shall come again. In conformity to this principle they insist that the church is not a legislative body. What it shall do and the power by which it shall live and act are truths of divine revelation. Its nature and the methods by which its life is replenished and strengthened are revealed in the Scriptures alone. Also it has the promise that the Spirit of Christ, in response to the constant prayers of the church for guidance, will guide it and give it power and wisdom to do the work for which it was established. Thus it is an executive body, equipped and empowered by God to carry out His will for it in its witness in the world to the Gospel of Christ."
I fully agree with the following statement, made by Bro. Milburn Cockrell, "As always, the best way to find the answer to any question is to look into the Bible. The Holy Book is to be the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. No practice in religion can be valid unless it is authorized by the New Testament" (TBE, July 21, 1979, P. 1). How careful we ought to be to abide by this last part of Bro. Cockrell’s statement, "No practice in religion can be valid unless it is authorized by the New Testament."
To insist that something is sacrosanct, inviolable law while admitting you cannot cite example or command for it in the word of God is to assume that you have received light directly from God which some of us haven’t. That is more Pentecostal than Baptistic.
I am glad you have finally gotten away, albeit very briefly, from your book of I Think, I Feel, and It Just Seems To Me, and have, at last, introduced a couple of passages of Scripture into this discussion. It was like pulling teeth to get you to do so, but at last it happened. The tenor of the first paragraph of your letter shows your reluctance to get into a SCRIPTURAL discussion. You seem much more inclined to appeal to "Thus Sayeth Joe Wilson" than "Thus Saith The Lord."
It should be noted, however, that you did not give your application of these verses until the third and final page of your letter. There you wrote, "A few words concerning the Scriptures I quoted at the beginning of this letter. Matthew 16:18 teaches church perpetuity. Matthew 28:18-20 teaches church authority in properly doing the Lord's work. This surely includes starting churches. The two together certainly show that Scriptural church perpetuity involves link-chain succession."
A few words indeed! Bro. Joe, in all that you have written you have used only two Scriptures to support what you say and the totality of your application of those two verses is found in the paragraph above. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "A few words concerning the Scriptures I quoted at the beginning of this letter." You have said very little about the word of God in this entire discussion. Frankly, I have been disappointed in this, as have others. I thought you would mount a more Biblical exposition of your position than you have. "A few words" is all we have gotten.
You rightly applied Matthew 16:18. If you will recall, I introduced this verse early on in this discussion. I used it two times in the May issue of the paper showing that it established church perpetuity.
I also introduced Matthew 28:18-19 in the discussion as another Scripture which assures church perpetuity. Of course, Bro. Joe, you have responded to absolutely none of my Scriptural arguments. I have shown how the church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas and how they came back several months later to rehearse before the church all that God had done with them. You never responded to any of that. You have totally ignored it. It is pertinent to this discussion of The Scriptural Requirements for Starting a True Church.
Bro. Joe, you wrote in this last letter, "Matthew 28:18-20 teaches church authority in properly doing the Lord's work."
This passage says, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20).
It is agreed by most commentators that the word power used by Jesus means authority. I doubt you will dispute this. I believe, however, that you misread the verse. Jesus said, "All power (authority) is given unto ME in heaven and in earth." I read it several times and every time I read it, it said the same thing. Bro. Joe. He did not say to them, "All power (authority) is given unto you." The authority claimed in this verse is the authority of Christ. He is the One with all authority commanding his servants who are to obey him and do as he has commanded. He commanded them to go and make disciples. Then he commanded them to baptize "them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is by the authority of these three—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—that they were to baptize them. In this passage the authority that is discussed is the authority of Christ, the Son of Man and Mediator—authority given to him by the Father. Then the authority of the Divine Trinity in baptism is set forth.
Admittedly, even servants must have authority commensurate with that which they are commanded to do. It is clear from these verses, however, that all that was done was to be done by the authority of Jesus as Mediator and the Trinity of the Godhead. Is it not true that Divine authority is under discussion here, not church authority? Even the baptism administered must be administered in the name of, or by the authority of, the blessed Trinity. The church does not baptize in its own name; it baptizes in the name of, or by the authority of the three Persons of the Godhead.
Bro. Joe, you will really tax your imagination and ours if you see in these two passages you have finally introduced, the Biblical mandate for your "mother" church voting to start churches. You say that these two verses are all you need to establish your assumed position, i. e.; a "mother" church must, in every instance, vote to start a church or all involved are guilty of spiritual adultery. There are many sound Old Landmarkers who will disagree with you.
You said, "The two together certainly show that Scriptural church perpetuity involves link-chain succession."
Bro. Joe, there is not a word about link-chain succession in those verses. There is a promise of perpetuity of the Lord’s churches through the administration of Scriptural baptism and consistent teaching of the doctrines of the word of God. But, there is not a word about churches voting to start churches. Not a word. You are interpreting these verses from your ideas on how churches are to be started. You are using the eisegetical method of interpretation rather than the exegetical. My Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives this definition of "eisegesis": "The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas." You are reasoning deductively instead of inductively. No student of Scripture should ever reason from his practices to Scripture and wrest Scripture or "embellish" Scripture to make it fit his practice and doctrine, as you have here. Rather, we must reason from Scripture and adjust our practice accordingly. You believe a "mother" church must vote to start a church or it is not a true church and those organizing it are committing spiritual adultery. Since you believe these things, you reason from them back to the Word of God and try to make God’s word, which you finally reluctantly quote, fit your ideas. That is poor hermeneutics, Bro. Joe.
Bro. Joe, do Baptist churches receive their authority horizontally from one church to the other? Or do we get our authority vertically, from Jesus Christ and the blessed Trinity? Since all authority was given to him in heaven and in earth, must not each church receive its authority from him? Where is Scripture that teaches that authority is passed horizontally, i. e.; from one church to another? When Jesus gave authority to the church to do the work, did he relinquish his headship and authority to that church so that she could redelegate it to another church and another church, ad infinitum? I read in the first chapter of Colossians that he is still head of his churches. He has not relinquished his authority. It is still HIS prerogative to empower and give authority to each of his local, visible bodies of Scripturally baptized believers who have covenanted together in church relationship. In fact, he is the Head and the Saviour of the church. Ephesians 5:23 Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. And, churches are to be subject to Christ for he is the one with all authority. Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. If I understand this verse, the church’s subjection to Christ is an example of the wives’ subjection to their husbands—in every thing.
Again, I read Matthew 28:18-20 and it is Christ who is claiming all authority" and is commanding his church to go forth and do his work. It is by his authority that we go. It is by the authority of the Divine Trinity that we baptize, teach and organize churches.
It was by the authority of the Holy Spirit that Antioch sent forth Paul and Barnabas. Acts 13:2 The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. It was by the authority of the Holy Spirit that they went forth. Acts 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed.
It was by the authority of the Lord that Paul went to Macedonia to preach the gospel and work and organize churches. Acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. I can imagine Paul saying to the Lord, "Lord, I will go to Macedonia if I can get authority from my "mother" church at Antioch to do so. I can’t go until Antioch votes for me to go." Notice, Bro. Joe, there is not the slightest indication that Paul contacted the church at Antioch to get authority to go into Macedonia. He had Divine authority to go and the church had sent him forth to do the work to which God had called him.
It was the Lord who sent Peter to the household of Cornelius to preach the gospel to them. Acts 10:19-20 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. 20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. Acts 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house.
Some, using your method of eisegesis rather than exegesis, argue that he was sent with authority from the church at Jerusalem. Apparently, the church at Jerusalem knew this was coming up before he left Jerusalem for Joppa. That is the only way they could have voted for him to go to Caesarea to the house of Cornelius. He went from Joppa, on the Mediterranean Coast, about 55 kilometers from Jerusalem and there is no way he could have communicated with Jerusalem in the short time he had. The Lord was still in the process of convincing him he must go when the men sent by Cornelius appeared. Why, Bro. Joe, when he got back to Jerusalem Peter was called on the carpet for baptizing and fellowshipping with those Gentiles. He was not specifically sent there by the church at Jerusalem; he was sent there by the Holy Spirit. I do not doubt that the spiritually minded members of the church were behind Peter in his actions and in agreement with it. But the church did not vote for him to go to Cornelius, preach the gospel to him and his family, and then baptize them. Six brethren went from Joppa with him but there is only slight evidence (Acts 10:47) to indicate they were members of the church at Jerusalem, though they were doubtless members of some then existent church. Had not all saved members of all the churches received the Holy Ghost? Yes, there were other churches in Judaea and the surrounding territory at that time. Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.
And, Bro. Joe, it was the Spirit who sent Philip to preach to the Ethiopian eunuch. Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. Imagine what the Holy Spirit would have said to Philip if he had said, "I can’t go preach to this man and baptize him if he is saved without getting the church to vote on it." I have no doubt that the spiritually minded members of the church at Jerusalem were fully behind him and in agreement with what he did, but there was no vote of the church commissioning him to go preach to the eunuch and baptize him.
It was the Holy Spirit who directed the work of Paul. Acts 16:6-7 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. Notice, Bro. Joe, it was not the church at Antioch that voted they could not go into Asia or Bithynia. It was the Holy Spirit. The church at Antioch did not even know of their intention and effort to do so until they returned and reported to the church all that the Lord had done with them.
Bro. Joe, in our entire discussion, you have said much about church authority and nothing about Divine authority. You have only reluctantly used Scripture in the discussion. Even then you made no mention of the authority of Christ or the authority of the Trinity which is what is set forth in those verses.
I am reminded of a debate I had with a Pentecostal preacher in Stuttgart, Arkansas, over 30 years ago. He would not give any Scripture to back up his arguments. I begged him to back up what he said with Scripture. Pentecostals are not accustomed to backing up what they say with Scripture as most Baptists are. They go on feelings, experiences, and what some leading sister in the church thinks. When he finally gave a Scripture he said something to the effect, "You want Scripture. So there, I have given Scripture." He then went off on his feelings, thinking, and what seemed to him to be right. He said, "I presume" so many times that it was sickening. "I presume this to be so; I think this is so; I just feel this is so; I believe this is so."
Speaking of spiritual adultery, Bro. Joe, would you say that Bro. John Gilpin was a spiritual adulterer? I have before me the minutes of a church that was started by a group of Baptists who were from several Baptist churches under the guidance of a Baptist preacher. There was no "mother" church that voted to start this church. The thing that is interesting is that Bro. John Gilpin participated in the organizational service and prayed the closing prayer. Would you say Bro. Gilpin and the others participating in this church organization committed spiritual adultery? (If necessary, I have permission to print the minutes of this organizational service and name the church, if any question the authenticity or truthfulness of my statement. It is a well-known Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Church.)
Bro. Gilpin also apparently believed that Paul and Barnabas made their entire missionary journey without conferring back with Antioch. I have just recently been given a stack of old Baptist Examiners. The third one I picked up to peruse had a sermon by Bro. Gilpin called Paul’s Life and Teachings. In that sermon he gives the following concerning Paul’s first missionary journey.
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2).
"Who sent them out as missionaries? It was the church. When he came back home, to whom did Paul give his report? Did he go to a mission board and tell the mission board about what all he had accomplished? Notice:
"And then sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had GATHERED THE CHURCH together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:26, 27).
"Beloved, it was the church that sent them out, and when Paul got back home, he got the church together and gave a report as to what had been done." (John Gilpin, The Baptist Examiner, October 27, 1979, P. 6).
It is evident from Bro. Gilpin’s words here that he believed those churches organized by Paul and Barnabas were organized without a vote of the church at Antioch. Only when they returned did the church get a report of "what had been done."
Dr. J. M. Pendleton held the same position concerning the missionary endeavors of Paul and his co-workers. He wrote, ". . . the church in Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas, who made a long journey, performed much labor, returned, and reported to the church ‘all that God had done with them.’ They ‘gathered the church together’ before they gave an account of their labors (see Acts 13:1-3. 14: 26,27 )" (The Baptist Examiner, October 28, 1978, P. 8).
Bro. James Hobbs recently said in an e-mail, ". . . Antioch which was directed by the Lord to send out missionaries who organized churches and went back to Antioch and reported to them. Now brethren THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION that this is the way it is to be done."
Bro. Joe, do you have evidence that mine, Bro. Gilpin’s, Bro. James Hobbs, and J. M. Pendleton’s account of this mission work of Paul and Barnabas was wrong? Do you have evidence that before organizing any of those churches they conferred back with Antioch and had them to vote on each church organized? If you do, I will print that information and humbly confess that I am wrong and there must be a vote by a "mother" church each and every time a church is organized. All you have to do is produce the Biblical evidence and I assure you I will always bow to the authority of God’s word. Now is that not simple and you will have converted a Brother? Just produce the Biblical example.
Let me echo what Bro. Cockrell wrote in 1979. "The Holy Book is to be the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. No practice in religion can be valid unless it is authorized by the New Testament." So, my Brother, just produce the Biblical example or Divine mandate for what you affirm is essential, and I will bow to the authority of God’s word.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: My response to Bro. Joe’s letter and his position in general will be continued next month. However, I have decided to include the entire response for the benefit of the readers of our Web Page. It continues below.).
BRO. CAMP RESPONDS TO BRO. JOE WILSON’S LATEST LETTER
(Continued from Last Issue)
BRO. CAMP RESPONDS TO BRO. JOE WILSON’S LATEST LETTER
(Continued from Last Issue)
Bro. Joe, I reiterate, you contend that those involved in starting a church without the vote of a "mother" church commit spiritual adultery. Of course, you have NEVER quoted a Scripture to support that. It is your own self-conceived doctrine. Or is it some "light" you have received that others have not? In the Scriptures, we are not left in doubt as to what is spiritual adultery. It is always associated with idolatry. Israel did many things wrong, but were only accused of spiritual adultery when it involved the worship and services of idols. Israel was married to God and when she worshipped other gods, she was guilty of spiritual adultery. In the New Testament, the old Whore of Babylon, is charged with committing spiritual fornication and causing others to do so. As you know she is called that because of her idolatry. There is no doubt about what is spiritual adultery and you cannot make starting a church without the vote of a mother church spiritual adultery except in your own imagination. I implore you to produce Scripture which declares it spiritual adultery. I (as well as the readers) am waiting.
Your charge of spiritual adultery against each and every church that is organized without the vote of a "mother" church is without Scriptural foundation. You cannot cite Scripture for it if your life were dependent on your doing so. It is apparently some of the "new light" you have received. When you preach and write that something is spiritual adultery without being able to back it up with Scripture, you are guilty of adding to the word of God. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
I know that I am saying a good deal about this matter of spiritual adultery as you define it in relation to starting churches. Spiritual adultery is a most serious offense when actually committed, Bro. Joe. You cannot just nonchalantly charge folks with spiritual adultery without giving Scripture to support that charge. If you have Scripture for it, you should have given it to us. As Zedekiah secretly asked Jeremiah, I ask you openly, "Is there any word from the LORD" that supports your contention? (Jeremiah 37:17). It is a grave and serious thing to charge someone with spiritual adultery in this matter when you apparently have no Scripture for your accusation. If you had Scripture, surely you would gladly have given it.
Speaking of your so-called "mother" church I like what Bro. Wayne Cox had to say on that matter. "Back when I was a young preacher boy I used to read II John and reach the conclusion that the ‘elect lady,’ was a church, until one time I finally came face to face with the inevitable fact that, although the church is spoken of in the feminine gender, a church is NOT a MOTHER. A church cannot produce children; she doesn't have children at all; therefore, this epistle cannot refer to a church, but refers to a consecrated woman and her children. The last verse refers to her sister and her children" (Marred Vessels, Wayne Cox, P. 187) (Editor’s note: The emphasis in this quotation is that of Bro. Cox.).
Bro. Joe, you complain that I quote from many sources. What is wrong with that? It is very true that I have quoted considerably more Scripture from considerably more inspired writers in support of what I have said than you have. Are you antagonistic toward the use of Scripture in a discussion of The Scriptural Requirements For Starting A True Church? Are you hostile to my use of Scripture to support what I believe about the Scriptural Requirements For Starting A True Church? You complain because you have not and cannot back up your position with clear-cut commands or examples from the Word of God. The problem is I can show that when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth from the church at Antioch to the work to which God had called them, they went forth, made disciples, baptized those disciples, taught them and they were organized into New Testament Churches without ever having a vote from Antioch on any of the several churches they established.
And why are you agitated and complaining because I quote several reputable Baptists, both living and dead, in support of the position I hold? I have even quoted men with whom I was not in full agreement. For instance, I do not believe that a group of unbaptized people can constitute a church and it be Scriptural though I have quoted some who believe that to show the fact they did not believe a linked-chain succession such as you teach was essential in the establishment of churches. I do not believe churches spring forth from the ground, or that they are formed spontaneously, as some teach. I believe there is an informal succession of Baptist Churches from the time of Christ to the present through the ordinance of Scriptural baptisms and through doctrinal consistency and agreement.
Is your unhappiness with my quotations because you cannot find any reputable Baptist historians and theologians who will support what you advocate? Can you quote as many as three reputable Baptist writers of the past who have said that there must always, in every case, be a vote by a "mother" church to start a new church? Bro. Joe, can you quote as many as two or three reputable Baptist men of the past who wrote that it is spiritual adultery to establish a church without the vote of a "mother" church? Can you even quote one reputable Baptist of the past who supports this latter contention?
You don’t want to use Scripture to support what you believe and have reluctantly only used two passages. You don’t want to quote men. Is it because you can’t find any who support your contention? You don’t want me to quote Scripture in support of what I believe. You have refused to answer even one Scripture I have presented.
Bro. Joe, I do not have the audacity to think that all that it takes to settle this issue is for me to set forth what I think. Nor, do I believe that you are so infallible in what you say that our readers and I should just accept it because Elder Joe Wilson said it. I give proof and I want proof. Do you?
You complain because I quote many sources which includes Scripture. I would remind you, Bro. Joe, that Jesus and the Apostles generously saturated their preaching with quotations of Scripture. In his temptation, Jesus met every temptation of Satan with "It is written . . . ." Consider Peter’s sermon on the first Pentecost after the crucifixion (Acts 2). See how often he drew from Old Testament sources in that sermon. He quoted Joel. He quoted David more than once. Consider also Stephen’s sermon just before he was slain. See how many times he quotes Scripture. He referred extensively to the writing of Moses and referred to the prophets. And, remember all those Scriptures cited by Paul in Roman 8-11, as well as other places. Biblical writing and Biblical preaching are characteristically interspersed and permeated with Scripture. In fact, that’s what makes Biblical preaching and writing. I seem to remember, also, that Paul sometimes quoted uninspired writers. Titus 1:12-13 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Uninspired men may say things that are true and may be used as Paul used the saying of a prophet of the Cretians. No one should construe Paul’s use of these words from a Cretian prophet to mean that he believed all the man wrote. These writings, however, should never replace supercede, or be superimposed upon the inspired Word of God.
Again you are confused about the issue we are discussing, Bro. Joe. It is true you wrote and asked that question—"Do you believe that, in order for a church to be a true church, it has to be started (authority of "mother" church) by another true church? But, that is not the question under discussion. This public discussion began when I wrote an open letter to you "CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STARTING A TRUE CHURCH." That is what this discussion has been about—The SCRIPTURAL Requirements For Starting A True Church. With your reluctance to quote Scripture, I can understand why you would have liked to get away from this issue and dictate the route the discussion has taken.
Bro. Joe, I have repeatedly referred to the Book of Acts. When Paul and Barnabas were sent forth and recommended to the grace of God to do the work which God had called them to do, they had every scintilla of church authority they needed. What is even more important is, they had Divine authority being sent forth by the Holy Ghost! They went to the places to which God led them; they preached, made disciples, baptized those disciples. These baptized disciples were then constituted into churches. Then these missionaries retraced their steps and ordained elders in those churches. Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. After at least nine months (some estimate much longer), they returned to Antioch. Acts 14:26-27 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
I have shown you that Bro. Gilpin held that this method of mission work was Scriptural, even though they made their journey and did all they did before the church knew what occurred on that journey. He wrote,
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2).
"Who sent them out as missionaries? It was the church. When he came back home, to whom did Paul give his report? Did he go to a mission board and tell the mission board about what all he had accomplished? Notice:
"And then sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had GATHERED THE CHURCH together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" (Acts 14:26, 27).
"Beloved, it was the church that sent them out, and when Paul got back home, he got the church together and gave a report as to what had been done." (John Gilpin, The Baptist Examiner, October 27, 1979, P. 6).
I have shown you earlier how one renowned Landmarker, Eld. J. M. Pendleton agrees with my interpretation of the work of Antioch and their missionaries, Paul and Barnabas. He wrote, ". . . the church in Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas, who made a long journey, performed much labor, returned, and reported to the church ‘all that God had done with them.’ They ‘gathered the church together’ before they gave an account of their labors (see Acts 13:1-3. 14: 26, 27)" (The Baptist Examiner, October 28, 1978, P. 8).
I have also shown you what Eld. James Hobbs recently wrote of the Antiochian work with Paul and Barnabas. He wrote, ". . . Antioch which was directed by the Lord to send out missionaries who organized churches and went back to Antioch and reported to them. Now brethren THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION that this is the way it is to be done."
I have just received the June, 1997, issue of Nothing But the Truth. In that, Bro. John Pruitt has written an open letter to me. In that letter, he discussed the Antiochian mission work. He said, "I would like to point out one last thing. In Acts 13 where Paul and Barnabas, as you mentioned in your open letter, in verse four, the Bible states, ‘So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed unto Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.’ But Brother, I notice that in verse three that it also says, "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on then they sent them away." So, even though the Holy Ghost sent then forth, the church sent them away. Now, from where I stand, that looks like church authority. Therefore churches which the apostles. Barnabas and Paul helped organize, were LINKED to the church at Antioch."
It appears to me that Bro. John is saying that Paul and Barnabas helped organize churches that were linked to Antioch because it was Antioch that sent them forth. If I understand what he is saying, I fully agree with this kind of informal link of churches. Bro. John quotes Acts 13:3, "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on then they sent them away." The antecedent of the plural pronoun they is found in the list of brethren in the church. I have no doubt they acted in full corroboration with the church in this matter. Bro. John does not affirm that Antioch voted on each and every church organized by Paul and Barnabas. But, he affirms that they were linked to Antioch because Antioch was the sending congregation. With that kind of link I can fully agree and have repeatedly affirmed.
Another well-known Landmarker, J. R. Graves, said, "No unbaptized man ever had any authority to originate baptism, or a church . . . Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no churches, no ministers, and no Christian societies." And, it was the contention of this Landmarker, J. R. Graves, that a group of Scripturally baptized believers could constitute themselves into a church. But, Bro. Joe, there would still be a link because Scriptural baptism and doctrinal agreement form a link just as the sending forth by Antioch formed a link between her and the churches organized with the assistance of Paul and Barnabas.
It is not the practice of a church voting to start specific churches with which I disagree. I have never disagreed with that. It is your insistence (as well as others) that in each and every case there must be a vote or spiritual adultery is committed by all involved. It is obvious that Antioch did not vote on every church and with this these brethren whom I have quoted agree, apparently.
As I said before, Bro. Joe, it is irrefutably apparent that during this first missionary journey these missionaries had not kept in contact with the church at Antioch. It is equally evident that the church only learned of what God had done with them when they returned and rehearsed it before the church. My Brother, during this trip churches had been established, for, as I just pointed out, they ordained elders in those churches before returning to Antioch and telling them about it. Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
Bro. Joe, do you find fault with the work of Barnabas and Paul? Paul’s subsequent missionary journeys followed much the same pattern. Acts 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. If the Bible is truly the all-sufficient rule for faith and practice, we do not need to imagine or presume that Antioch voted on each individual church started under the leadership of these God-sent missionaries. We have what we need. And we have a Biblical pattern to follow. If more were needed it would be there. Or, maybe Paul was not only a spiritual adulterer, but was also a liar when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Bro. Joe, I believe the Antiochian pattern of mission work was and is the Biblical pattern. Apparently, Bro. John Gilpin did also. J. M. Pendleton did also. Apparently Bro. James Hobbs and Bro. John Pruitt do also. Apparently, you do not for you have refused to deal with the matter. The missionaries, Paul and Barnabas, received their authority directly from God and were sent forth with the blessings and commendation of the church behind them. If you find in the book of Acts your "mother" church and votes to establish each and every one of the churches mentioned there, you will find it in some version other than the King James Version which I have before me as I write. You will have to rationalize it in from your doctrine. You will have to use eisegesis instead of exegesis to find it. It is not in the inspired record in Acts. If it is, all you have to do is to give me chapter and verse and I will print it in bold and large print in the next issue. As God is my witness, Bro. Joe, if you can show that Antioch voted on each and every church started on the missionary journeys of Paul, you will have converted this brother. Don’t try to prove it by eisegesis; prove it with an exegesis of Acts 13-14. You do not even have to bother with the second and third journey. Just the first journey will do.
Will you do it? Can you do it? Or will you just ignore the Biblical record and the Antiochian pattern as you have been, thus far?
You complain that I have ignored some of your arguments. I PLEAD GUILTY. Have you not ignored EVERY Scriptural argument that I have advanced? Have you replied to a single Biblical argument I have made? I have gone back and read what I have written and I have not ignored nearly as much as you have. You say, "You cannot have church authority in starting a church without also having link chain succession." And you hold, do you not, that the only way link-chain succession can be accomplished is by a "mother" church voting to start a "daughter" church. I did not ignore that. I pointed out that that is your opinion Bro. Joe. That is not Biblical law. If it is, show where it is commanded or exemplified in Scripture. I do not need to defend myself for you have not set forth a SCRIPTURAL offense which shows THE SCRIPTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STARTING A TRUE CHURCH. The only way to show the scriptural requirements for starting a true church is to show from Scripture how it was done.
And since you complain about my ignoring things you wrote, how about these questions that I placed at the end of my last correspondence?
Can you, Bro. Joe, show from Scripture where Paul and Barnabas corresponded with the church at Antioch having them to vote on the baptisms they administered and the churches they organized?
Can you explain why it was necessary that Paul and Barnabas tell the church what had happened on their first journey, if the church had been voting on their baptisms and church organizations?
Can you explain why the church did not know the Lord had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles if the church had been voting on their baptisms and church organizations?
Acts 14:26-27 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
Those questions are based on the word of God and can be given a Scriptural answer. They are very relevant to the subject of our discussion, The Scriptural Requirements For Starting a True Church. What did you say about them? ( )Nothing, absolutely nothing! This is just a little of what you have ignored. If I were to print again all that you have ignored it would fill this issue of this paper, perhaps more. Is it acceptable for you to ignore what I write by not for me to ignore what you write? Don’t charge me with ignoring something you have advanced until you have answered my questions and disproved my interpretation of Acts 13-14 and other Scriptures.
Bro. Joe, you think you have me cornered again. I will leave that to the reader. You say you have proven that I do not believe in church authority. I may not answer your questions exactly as you want. I am not infallible. Are you? But I do believe in church authority. Our differences on this matter is: First, where churches get their authority—I say they get it from God; you say they get it from their "mother." Second, we differ on the mechanics of how church authority MUST be exercised in the starting of new churches—you say no church authority can ever be exercised without a vote of the church. I showed you that is not true but you ignored it totally. You ignored it even though you brought the matter up. According to what you have written, you believe that if EVEN ONE church was started with the help of Paul and Barnabas without a vote of the Antioch congregation to start that specific church, it was started without church authority and was the fruit of spiritual adultery. Yet, my Brother, you admit you cannot show even one instance in all the New Testament where one church voted to start another church.
Of the two verses of Scripture you have finally introduced you wrote, "The two together certainly show that Scriptural church perpetuity involves link-chain succession." To the minds of some, they doubtless do. To the minds of others, they do not. I repeat, as I understand your definition of "link-chain succession" you mean that there must be, in every single instance, the vote of a "mother church" to establish a specific church if that church is to be a true church.
I freely declare that both these passages teach church perpetuity. I read and re-read them but I can see nothing about a vote of your "mother" church in them. You say Matt. 28:18-20 teaches Scriptural church authority. I hear Christ saying that he is the One with all authority and when they make disciples and baptize them they are to do that by the authority of the Holy Trinity. I see church obligation, church responsibility, and church obedience here. I see no indication that Christ is redelegating his authority to the church. Nor do I see the Trinity redelegating their authority to the church. All you have mentioned that you see in this passage is CHURCH authority. How readest thou thusly?
I have already stated that authority commensurate with the responsibility given is implied and therefore church authority may be implied here. But, it is only by implication; nothing is said about any authority but that of Christ and the three Persons of the Godhead.
It has become abundantly evident that you do not fully believe in Biblical authority, Christ’s authority, or the authority of the Divine Trinity. Though you have written a considerable amount of material, here is the totality of your use of Scripture.
"You have complained repeatedly about my not quoting Scripture. I now quote two.
‘And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt.16:16). "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen’ (Matt. 28:18-20). Please do not accuse me again of not giving Scripture. I consider these all the Scripture needed for the subject we are to supposed to be discussing."
"A few words concerning the Scriptures I quoted at the beginning of this letter. Matthew 16:18 teaches church perpetuity. Matthew 28:18-20 teaches church authority in properly doing the Lord's work. This surely includes starting churches. The two together certainly show that Scriptural church perpetuity involves link-chain succession."
Surely, in a discussion of The Scriptural Requirements For Starting a True Church you should have been able to mount a more Biblical line of argument. Your failure is a glaring admission you could not find Scripture that truly supported your contention that there must be a vote by a church to start each and every church that is started. There is also a glaring failure on your part to support your contention that the absence of a vote in any instance involves all concerned in such an organization in spiritual adultery.
As to the addendum to your letter, you set up a hypothetical case that could have a thousand different ramifications. I refuse to answer such a vague, ambiguous, hypothetical question. Moreover, questions of a Scriptural nature are not to be decided on the possible consequences. For instance, would you start using grape juice in the Lord’s Supper because some converted alcoholic might fall of the wagon from drinking the small amount of wine used in the Lord’s Supper? Would you sprinkle some person because they fear to have their head put under water because they get strangled every time they do so and might drown?
You say you already know what my answer will be. Regardless of what I say, you will still believe what you want to believe. It is apparent that if I disagree with you one iota on how church authority is exercised you will still say I do not believe in church authority. Say on. It is not true. You apparently consider yourself infallible on this point; and, therefore, you accuse all who disagree with you of advocating and committing "spiritual adultery."
I plan, in the not too distant future, to publish a message on The Biblical Authority of True Churches. It will show that I do believe in church authority. But, it will not satisfy you because I will only advocate authority that is clearly set forth by example or declaration in the Word of God. I have no "secret" revelations which I will superimpose upon the Word and declare as inviolable, sacrosanct, sacred, and with no shadow of variation.
Bro. Joe, if you wish to respond to this, do so. But, there are three criterion that will be essential if this discussion continues in this paper.
First, you must give us Scripture that commands or shows by example that churches in the New Testament voted to start specific churches. Or you must admit that you have superimposed this doctrine upon the Word of God by eisegesis and deduction.
Second, you must cite Scripture that clearly shows that all who are involved in starting a church without the vote of a "mother" church are guilty of spiritual adultery. Or you can just admit that you said that without having any Scripture to support it; you can just admit it was declared without Biblical authority.
Third, you must deal with Acts 13-14 (which I have repeatedly cited and which you have repeatedly ignored) and show that those churches were started as you teach they must be started. You must show that in each and every case, Antioch voted to start the specific church at the specific place. Or you could charge the church at Antioch, the missionaries, the churches established, and all involved in that work with spiritual adultery. Of course, you would have to include the Holy Spirit in your charge, since he directed their work.
If you cannot or will not meet these three criterion for continuing this discussion, I see no point in going on with it. I await your response and trust it will meet the criterion laid down for continuing.
If you cannot meet these three criterion, this discussion is ended.
Brotherly in Christ,
Wayne Camp
Return to Index Page for Past Issues of The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator
Return to CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH HOME PAGE
.gif){kind=small}
Send mail to rwcamp@gpp-5grace.com
Last updated on Friday, March 04, 2011