Florida College Articles #1 Thru #5
1. The Family
Argument
2. The
Publishing Company Argument
3. The Service
Organization Argument
4. The Meeting At My House Argument
5. The School of Tyrannus & Synagogue Argument
THE "FAMILY" ARGUMENT
By Bob W.
Lovelace
When
men practice something first and seek to establish authority for their practice
afterwards, when challenged, they often use the scriptures in such a way that
it is evident that they do not have authority for what they practice. We've
seen this repeatedly over the years as some have offered "the family
argument" in order to bolster their willingness to build human
organizations for worship and evangelism.
God planned the local church so that it is
completely sufficient to accomplish all God authorizes Christians to do as an
organization, with no need or authority for them to build "human"
religious organizations. Efforts of men (Christians) to plan and activate some
other "human" organization to do the same things God authorized the
church to do are very presumptuous. God's ways are not man's ways, nor His
thoughts man's thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9). The local church is God's organization
for Christians to work through in particular locales: Acts 14:23; Phil.1:1.
Through the local church they can accomplish the work God gave them to do both
in the area contiguous to their local work and abroad.
No church's work is limited strictly to the
community contiguous to it. The elder's oversight can include the support of
preaching of the Gospel elsewhere wherever they have opportunity (Philippians
1:5; 4:15-16). The church at Philippi is known for its work abroad in the
support of the Gospel. It had a "universal" work in the sense that it
could support the preaching of the Gospel anywhere in the world where the
opportunity presented itself. Does that mean the church "universal"
was organized to do that? No! The burden of proof lies with those Christians
who presumptuously choose to build and work through "human" religious
organizations. One supposed "proof" is the "family". The
argument often goes something like this:
To argue that the local church is the only religious organization is not
true. The home or family is as well. The family is mandated to teach the
Gospel, Eph. 6:1-4; mandated to do benevolent work, I Tim. 5:16. It is by
divine definition a corporate unit, Matt. 19:5-6. So look! There is another
organization besides the local church for evangelism. If we have the
"family" and the family is not a challenge to the all-sufficiency of
the local church then why can't we have the "College" and it not be a
challenge as well? Or why can't we have the "Foundation" and it not
be a challenge either?
According to Ephesians 6:1-4 which do we
have here? 1. Do we have instruction given to fathers who are Christians? 2. Do
we have instruction given to a "human" organization formed by
Christians to provide teaching and worship for our children? Note also that the
mandate in I Tim. 5:16 is "any man or woman that believeth."
One would be "bats" to say that we
have #2 above, i.e. "instruction given to a 'human organization' formed by
Christians." The truth is we have instruction here to
"individuals" (fathers) to train their children. The truth is that
the mandate in I Tim. 5:16 is "any man or woman that believeth." With
regards to a passage addressing the "individual" one would certainly
be "twisting" the scriptures to use such that pertains to the
"individual" Christian as authorizing Christians to build a human
organization. If the
"individual" teaching authorizes Christians to build a "human
organization" (individually supported)
for teaching and worship, and it is simply to be construed as individuals teaching, then
why doesn't the "local church" teaching authorize the building of a
"human organization" (church supported) which is to be construed as
just local churches teaching?
We can go even further. It would be
presumptuous to say that either of these (the family or the local church)
authorizes or corresponds to a "human organization." Why? For the
simple reason that the "family" unit is a "divine"
institution (Matt. 19:5-6). Also the "local church" is a
"divine" institution (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Both are divine
institutions! God authorizing a "divine" organization is "not"
authority for building a "human" religious organization.
If the "family" (Divine
organization) authorizes Christians to build a "human organization"
for teaching and worship (family supported), and the "human
organization" is just to be construed as the "family teaching"
then why doesn't the "local church" (Divine organization) authorize
Christians to build a "human organization" for teaching and worship
(church supported), and the "human organization" is just to be
construed as the "church teaching"?
Some seem to think if you admit that the
family is a divine collectivity and operates as "God ordained" the
family to operate, then you have to agree with them to let "their" human
organization operate in another realm than the local church. Such is ludicrous!
Look at the logical conclusion. Where does
that stop?
1. Family (Divine
organization) ---> Teaches, Provides
Worship,
THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE
2. College (Human organization)
---> Teaches, Provides Worship,
THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE
3. Foundation (Human
organization) ---> Teaches,
THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE
4. Another Kind of
"Human Organization" ---> Teaches, Provides Worship,
THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE
5. Another Kind of
"Human Organization"----> Teaches, Provides Worship, Supports
Local Churches.
THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE
Etc., etc., etc.
If you want your children working in
someone's World Wide Evangelistic Society someday just keep that kind of
thinking up!
A word of warning: The aim of the
"family argument" in years gone by has been to destroy any pattern in
doing the Lord's work. And that is exactly what it is accomplishing. It seeks
to make the "local church" (Divine organization) just one of many tools
(organizations) Christians may build and through which Christians may work in
worship, teaching, and evangelism.
You need to make up your mind. Many
Christians prefer to stay in limbo on this for convenience sake. To do so is to
make arguments like the "family" argument which contributes nothing
to helping saints preserve the New Testament patterns, and it only lends
support to successive steps in building "other kinds" of
"human" organizations for teaching and worship.
You ought to be wise enough to see that in
this digression. Remember what the Liberals did with the "family"
argument. It is not a new argument. It is an old Liberal argument! It led them
to church supported human institutions built to do the work of the Lord. It is
leading us in another direction to individually supported missionary societies.
A LIST OF FALLACIES:
1. The
"individual" teaching and worshipping authorizes Christians to build
a "human religious organization" (individually supported) for
teaching and worship, and it is simply to be construed as individuals
teaching and worshipping.
2. The "local
church" teaching authorizes the building of a "human religious
organization" (church supported) which is to be construed as just local
churches teaching.
3. The "family" (a
Divine organization) authorizes Christians to build a "human
organization" for teaching and worship (family supported), and the
"human organization" is just to be construed as the "family
teaching".
4. The "local
church" (a Divine organization) authorizes Christians to build a
"human organization" for teaching and worship (church supported), and
the "human organization" is just to be construed as the "church
teaching".
5. To say that the other
(not Divine) "human" organization Christians build functions in a
"dual role," i.e. it was built and exists as an organization that
functions in both secular and religious work, therefore that (a "dual
role") makes it OK.
THE PUBLISHING COMPANY ARGUMENT
By Bob W.
Lovelace
For some time now a response in favor of
Christians building human religious organizations has been to refer to a Book
Store. Some say, "Well, if you purchase a book from a company that
Christians have built that sells religious books, Bibles, etc. then you've
given your consent to man's right to build human religious organizations."
This is not something I made up. This is what some say. In their mind a Book
Store that sells religious books is justification for building human religious
organizations that provide for worship, edification, and evangelism.
But let’s start with the publishing company
that produces a product for sale. The "income" for the company comes
from the sale of the product not from contributions. The motive is profit. The
purpose is "profit." It ought to be obvious that a "missionary
society" or a "religious society" is not the same as an economic
enterprise. If the publishing company produces a product for sale that is
religious in nature such as Bibles, books, tracts --- that does not change the
fact that it is an economic enterprise and not a religious organization. God
did not assign the church the responsibility of publishing Bibles for profit.
We've been warned in such analogies not to
confuse "motive" with "mission." Two men may have good
motives in wanting to establish a business, viz., to publish Bibles or tracts
---they may be motivated by a love of truth. That doesn't make it a religious
organization whose mission is to teach the Gospel the same as the church. For
example, Zondervan publishes Bibles and sells them for profit. It is not the
product but the "nature" of the organization, its mission or stated
purpose, its means of support, its organization, etc. that determines whether
it is a secular institution or a
"religious" organization.
However, should the organization that sells
the product for a profit incorporate "other things" into its
structure that are "religious" then it would become more than just a
publishing company. What would you have if Zondervan established a treasury and
asked for donations out of which to publish tracts and distribute them, have a
national television program, establish a teaching program, build the Zondervan
chapel for worship in a particular locale, and out of which to support
preachers? You'd have a Missionary Society pure and simple! If it had
individuals contributing for that purpose, even while it was still selling
books for the other purpose, then its "dual role" makes it a
"missionary society." Should Christians donate to their treasury? No,
every dime they "donate" should be given to the Lord's church, God's
missionary society for the teaching of the Gospel. If Christians donate for
that purpose then they depreciate the church, God's missionary society.
Can the church buy tracts from a publishing company?
Yes. As a business, a company sells its product to the customer and the
customer "oversees" its use. Either an individual or a church may
purchase material for teaching. In either case the purchaser has
"control" and oversees the use of the product. However, should the
company seek individual and or church contributions to the company, the company
then using the contributions to produce, purchase, and disseminate teaching
then the company functions in the role of a teaching society. Then what you have
is a "missionary society" functioning under the name of
"publishing company."
Obviously the same thing goes for a Book
Store. Again, when one "buys" a book, tract, etc. from a Book Store
they do such on the "outside", i.e. they make the purchase and retain
control over its use. The "purchaser" certainly isn't in the same
category as the "owners" or "workers" attached with the
organization when he makes his purchase. Are the "workers" in the
publishing house buying the product? The "workers" in a Book Store
are not "buying" the book, I am. The workers are a part of the
organization. It is wrong to equate the "purchaser" of the book with
the role of the "owners" and "workers".
I stand amazed at times when some want
"my" purchase of material to equate with them "belonging
to" or "bringing themselves into" a human "organization" that is
"religious" in nature and their participating in the
"religious" aspects of that human organization; or to equate with
their willingness to build a human organization for worship, edification and
evangelism.
Since this argument is to
justify the College let’s talk about the College functioning in a dual role
which it most certainly does function in.
In times past some have chosen to separate out class room instruction
when "paid" for as being a "role" which would define the
nature of the organization as different the role of the church in propagating
the Gospel, therefore acceptable. They say what makes it acceptable is the
"class room" as part of an academic program wherein religious
subjects (New Testament teaching on the church in all of its aspects) are
presented "solely" as academia, i.e. the subject matter is
academically oriented, and no different than presenting other religious subject matter -- for example on the tenants
of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Such presents the idea that "instruction"
paid for is not "edification" but rather "academia". Some
feel justified in this. They admit though that it would be wrong if Florida
College was designed to propagate the “subject” (Gospel) for then it would
occupy the role the Church does. They admit that if Florida College is a
"dual purpose collectivity," i.e. an educational institution
"and a missionary society supported by individuals" then Florida
College is wrong. Calling "a missionary society" a
"college" no more makes it right than calling it a foundation or
publishing company!
The "dual role" applies to Florida
College as to any other organization. The same thing can be said for the
College that is said for the Foundation or Publishing Company: if Florida
College is a "dual purpose collectivity," i.e. an educational
institution "and a religious society supported by individuals" then
Florida College is wrong. Calling "a missionary society" a
"college" no more makes it right than calling it a foundation or
publishing company.
When one looks closely at the "stated
purpose" or "design" of the organization and "sees"
with eyes wide open that it does function in the "religious" realm then
honesty demands disapproval. When a College establishes an agenda that includes
a mandatory chapel service then worship paid for is "still" worship.
Who can argue that worship is not "worship" just because it is
"paid for"? While some
brethren choose to separate "class room" instruction when paid for
from "edification" and "instruction" not paid for, one
thing's for sure --- "devotion" is an act of worship! "Devotional" at F.C. is a religious
exercise.
The truth is that F.C. is a
"religious" organization and it does function in a
"dual-role."
Here it is right from
their own Florida College 1996-1997 Catalog:
"Chapel Attendance
Because of the devotional (emph. mine, B.L.) aspects of the daily assembly, the
College hopes that each student will consider this the high point (emph. mine, B.L.) of the work day. Also in this assembly
both students and teachers present programs of varying nature for the
edification and entertainment of the assembly.
In this assembly both students and teachers
receive inspiration which tends to unify all personnel into one big family.
Usually consisting of two periods, the first is devoted to congregational
singing, Scripture reading, prayer, and a brief devotional
talk (bold emph. mine, B.L.), and the second to
varied programs. ...Attendance at these exercises is required (emph. mine, B.L.) and a daily record of attendance is kept.
... ."
2. The “Philosophy” of
this organization:
“It stresses the necessity
of one’s growing in spiritual understanding without becoming warped in thinking
or sectarian in practice (emph. mine, B.L.).” (ibid, pg. 21)
NOTE: This is not just
“academics” folks! I'd say that goes somewhat beyond mere "academics”
wouldn't you?
3. Add the Florida College
Lectureship which contains gospel preaching.
Will Florida College say:
1. They never teach the
Bible for the purpose of propagating the Gospel? How many teachers there say
that?
2. They do not accept
contributions because they are a "religious" organization?
3. They are not a dual
purpose collectivity?
THE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
ARGUMENT
By Bob W.
Lovelace
For a long time now some of our brethren have
tried to justify Christians building and then individually supporting colleges
where the Bible is taught, and where edification and worship is provided, by
describing the institution as a "service organization."
Not long ago I received a letter from a
brother who argued from Acts 5 (Ananias & Sapphira)
that Christians had the right to support an organization other than the church,
built by Christians, that would provide his children with worship and
edification. He denied the church could support such an organization, but
contended that individuals could. He first "assumed" that Christians
had the right to build human religious organizations, and then cited Acts 5:4
as his authority for individuals to support the organizations. He felt Acts 5 permitted him to do as he
wished with his own money! “Giving” as
taught in Acts 5 is not authority for doing that which is not authorized for
Christians in God's word.
Peter's statement "While it remained,
was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own
control?" cannot be made "more of" than is there. Some read this
and see their own personal "right" to do just about anything their
imaginations can dream up. This statement of Peter's is not "unlimited"
freedom to do what you wish with your own money that you control. Can you give
or donate to the Catholic Church? If the Pope asked you to donate to his church
would you argue that you could because it’s “my money to do with as I please”?
In Acts 5 what organization was Ananias and Sapphira contributing to? Were they contributing to a
"human" religious organization? If Acts 5 is to be used the way this
brother used it (and he's not the only one who uses it that way) then let him
and them find a human religious organization built by Christians being
supported by Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5!
Acts 5 (Ananias & Sapphira)
shows "individuals" acting not an organization acting. There is
nothing in the individual Christian’s responsibility to "give" to the
church that
authorizes
Christians first building, and then donating to a human religious organization.
Remember now we're talking about what Christians are authorized to do. We have
no control over what the world chooses to do, but for Christians to use their
"own money" to support human religious organizations built by
Christians you have to have authority from the Word of God for Christians to build
religious organizations other than the local church to begin with. The issue
before "us" today is not whether churches can support human religious
organizations. This has nothing to do with it. The issue is the right of God's
children to build human religious organizations when God gave them His
organization, the local church. The divine organization does not authorize the
human. The human depreciates the divine.
Oftentimes when one states that individuals
and churches may utilize human service organizations they simply mean that the
service is not in the realm of worship or edification. In other words it
doesn't do the work God gave the church to do. For example, the church can hire
(buy the services of) a plumbing company to come and fix its water line. And
the individual often has to do the same thing. The fact that the plumbing company
restored the water line which contributes to or enhances our opportunity to
assemble as a local church doesn't put the plumbing company in the work of the
church. Should Christians own the plumbing company that fixed the water line
for the church that doesn't put them into the work of the church either. Should Christians own the wood-working shop that
built the pews that we sit on when we assemble that doesn't put them in the
work of the church. The motive that the Christians
have who make up the plumbing company might and probably will be that they
desire to help the church restore its physical plant, and to see that it
operates efficiently. That "motive" doesn't change the mission of the
company from being a business to being both a business and a religious
organization.
Don't confuse motive with mission. The
purpose of a plumbing company is to make money. The end result of buying its
service might be that on occasion the church is benefited by using its
services. For some strange reason some seem to think if a company built by
Christians renders a service to a church such as construction work, plumbing,
etc., the end result being that the "church" operates or continues to
operate in the area of edification, worship and evangelism --- then that company
is operating in the same realm as the church. That "kind" of service
can be purchased anywhere. When Christians own companies and provide such
services that benefit even the church, that doesn't place them in a higher
category and make them a "religious" company whereas the agnostics
down the street who do the same thing are just a "company". Plumbing
companies, construction companies, loan companies, etc. are there to make a
profit. The church Christ built is not in the money making business.
However, there is something wrong with
Christians building an organization and incorporating the work of the church
into that organization. Motive aimed at being some benefit to the church is one
thing. Making the work of the church the actual operation of the organization
is quite another!
If Christians own a plumbing company, and
they decide that besides plumbing they'll have a chapel, provide worship,
edification and evangelism then they're no longer just in the plumbing business
are they? No, they're now a "religious" organization involved in the
work of the church. They aren't "like" the construction company that
builds for a profit or the plumbing company that plumbs for a profit. They're
"more" than those are.
Let's make the
organization that Christians build a College. At first let's make it only a
college that provides a secular education. One built by Christians. That's Ok.
What happens, though, when Christians desire that the College provides both a
secular education and edification, worship and evangelism? Is the argument that
it's "just a service organization" therefore it has the right to
exist valid? Has its "dual-role" changed anything with regards to its
scriptural right to exist? Because it has a legitimate role as a business
enterprise does not make Scriptural its dual-role which "now" has it
functioning as an organization that exists to teach and preach the gospel, and
provide for collective worship and edification. This is not like the individual
buying a book from a bookstore from the “outside,” or the individual buying the
plumbing service of the plumbing company (above). Both student and faculty are
on the "inside" so to speak and are a functioning part of a human
religious organization built by Christians. All students, faculty, and staff
answer to the organization's rules.
Two questions arise: 1. Where is the
"right" (authority) for Christians to build human religious
organizations when God gave His sufficient organization the church? 2. Where is the “need” for such as God gave His organization
for edification, collective worship, and evangelism?
Florida College is a religious organization
that has been built by and maintained by Christians. It does function in a
"dual-role" and is engaged in providing through the institution
itself collective worship and edification.
THE GATHERING AT MY HOUSE ARGUMENT
By Bob W.
Lovelace
Those who support Florida College will often
ask, “What’s the difference between what they do at Florida College and some
Christians gathering at my home after worship for singing, prayer and study?
There’s a world of difference between these
two “actions” and every Christians needs to learn about them. It seems that
most brethren have had little if no teaching on the difference between an
“individual” being commanded to and doing something, a “group” (two or more) of
individuals concurrently acting together to do something, and Christians
building an “organization” in order to do something. I believe that the lack of
teaching on this is directly related to the result it would have on exposing
the unscripturalness of human organizations brethren
desire to build and maintain that function in the religious realm.
There are different types of “action” that
can be identified in studying the worship and service of Christians as recorded
in the New Testament. For example, James 1:27 is addressed to the individual.
He is to practice pure and undefiled religion and keep “himself” unspotted from
the world.
At Christmas time one year I publicly
criticized the Salvation Army church organization for panhandling the community
for donations so that it, the Salvation Army Organization, could do benevolent
work. The Major here replied that they were fulfilling the “inasmuch as”
ministry of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25:40. Look closely at Matthew 25:40.
“Inasmuch as” who? It says “inasmuch as you” — the individual. Jesus isn’t
talking about “organizations” being judged based upon what the organization
did. And that passage isn’t a passage that authorizes an “organization” to do
anything. Nor is it authority for building human religious organizations. But
for him, like most today, what is said about “individual” responsibility is so
far as he is concerned authority for “organizational” action.
In some people’s mind a passage such as 2
Timothy 4:2 (or practically any other similar to it) becomes authority to build
a human religious organization for evangelism. Paul did not authorize Timothy
to build a human religious organization for teaching and evangelism. He told
“him” to preach the word.
At times our brethren will try to use
Ephesians 6:1-4 to justify Christians building human religious organizations.
Herein the argument and transfer of individual responsibility simply repeats
itself. Ephesians 6:1-4 is not instruction given to a human religious
organization built by Christians in order to teach our children. Simple!
Individual action may also
be “concurrent,” i.e. two or more may teach together, pray together, study
together and sing together without losing individuality in their association
together.
When Florida College advocates say “What’s
the difference in what Florida College does and some coming over to the house
after services Sunday night?” the correct reply is “concurrent individual
action” (two or more together) is not the same as “organizational” action.
Let’s look at this kind of action where you
do not have the “control” factor that you have in the organization. Just
because you find a “group” in the New Testament that does not mean you have
authority to build a human religious organization.
We find that sort of action in passages such
Acts 12:12 which shows “many gathered together praying.” Would anyone like to
say that is the same as building a human religious organization? Even Florida College admits to the difference
between the voluntary worship of individual Christians who choose to gather at
a particular locale for worship without answering to the
"organization," and worship provided by the organization itself.
From the Florida College Academic Planner
1996-1997 Student Handbook, pg.23, under Evening Devotions:
“On Sunday and Thursday evenings
from 9:30 to 10:00 students who WISH TO DO SO (emph. mine, B.L.) gather in Sutton hall,
the Recreation Room, or on the river bank for a period of singing, praying and
studying the Bible together. These periods are organized and conducted by
students voluntarily."
Another example from the scriptures would be
Aquila and Priscilla who heard Apollos and recognized
his lack of understanding. They studied together. (Acts 18:26) Apollos didn’t “buy” a service from them. He wasn’t a
student at the A&P Academy. Can a husband and wife teach others as they
taught Apollos without anyone thinking of building an
organization? Yes, my wife and I have done the same thing. Perhaps you and
yours too.
A great example of concurrent individual
action is Paul, Barnabas and John on Paul’s first journey. (Acts 13) John was
there to “assist” them. Did that make John Mark a part of the Paul &
Barnabas Evangelistic Society? No such concept is presented here. When they
came to Perga in Pamphylia
(Acts 13:13) John left them and returned to Jerusalem. John wasn’t “fired” by
an organization. He didn’t cease getting paid from an organizational treasury.
There is no evidence of a treasury belonging to the association. His leaving
violated no person’s or organization’s rule or
authority. Paul’s personal preference in this whole matter of John Mark
returning to Jerusalem had no bearing on John’s acceptability “in Christ.”
Later, Barnabas would choose to go with John while Paul chose Silas. (Acts
15:39) Even later Paul would commend John. (Col. 4:10-11) Often in the book of
Acts we read of Paul with some companions. Some don’t understand that you can
make the “group” as big as you want and still have concurrent individual
action. I know of gospel preachers in third world countries right now who
preach with co-workers who do so according to the New Testament patterns. Each
shares in the work, but each remains in control of his own personal
participation. When they seek support they don’t ask for the support to be sent
to the “treasury” for their organization. Each, individually, receives support
as they labor in preaching the gospel. Why are they doing it this way? Because
the Scriptures teach that! (Phil. 4:14; II Cor. 11:8)
What organization “did” Paul and those who
traveled with him establish? Paul and those who traveled with him in preaching
the Gospel established the local church (Acts 14:23). Paul spent three years at
Ephesus. (Acts 20:31) Did he have an evangelistic society then or did he do
what he did in Acts 9:28 and join himself to the church? Like I said, if you
want to do what Paul and Timothy did then do it! Did others buy a service from
Paul?
In the New Testament we find “individual”
duty and action, “concurrent individual action” in “groups,” and “collective organizational
action” through the local church. As the apostles and preachers went out to
spread the word the “organization” that was the product of their preaching and
teaching was the local church. (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1, et al.) The desire to
build, work through, and support human religious organizations is a reflection
upon God’s wisdom in giving the church.
View the local church as an organization.
That’s what it is. God gave it organization (Phil.1:1; Acts 14:23) thus
providing for the oversight necessary to accomplish its goal. It has a common
goal. There is a collective treasury. It has a common oversight. Member agree
to worship and work together. It disciplines unruly members. We find all of
these things.
Let’s identify these things:
1. There is an agreement
to worship and work together to accomplish a common goal. (Acts 9:26-29)
2. The individual places
himself as a part of the local church under a common oversight. (Phil.1:1; Acts
14:23)
3. The church
(collectively) can discipline those who are unruly. (I Cor. 5; 2 Th. 3:14) Each
church is responsible for those they accept into their fellowship (Acts
9:26-29) and for those they retain (I Cor. 5). We can see that the church is
not just a “togetherness” or “loose” structure of some kind. It is not just a
“congregating” i.e. coming together of individual Christians with no duties or
obligations to the whole. Each member surrenders volition to the collective
will. Members were not to forsake assembling themselves together. (Heb. 10:25)
4. Members were
responsible for contributing as God had blessed them thus enabling the church
to do its work. (Acts 4:34-37; I Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 9:5-7)
5. Its goal is to bring
the members to perfection through edification and worship, and to provide for
and support the teaching of the gospel at home and abroad (Eph. 3:14-19; I
Cor.11,14; Phil. 4:15-16).
The church local is the product of divine
wisdom. (I Tim.3; Eph. 4:8-16) There is but one place in the scriptures where
you find Christians organized like this and that is in the local church
organization! It is in the local church that we find “collective organizational
action.”
THE SCHOOL OF TYRANNUS & SYNAGOGUE ARGUMENTS
By Bob W.
Lovelace
As I bring to a close this series of
articles concerning Florida College it needs to be said that there are many now
who jump to unwarranted conclusions when they read about Paul and others going
into the synagogues to teach, or Paul in the School of Tyrannus.
In Acts 19:8 it says Paul “went into the
synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading
concerning the things of the kingdom of God.” When Paul spoke in the synagogue
did that mean he was a part of the Jewish “faith” there? The Jews weren’t
teaching the Gospel and conducting pure worship each Sabbath. If Christians
joined the Jews then Christians could join denominationalists. New Testament
worship wasn’t set aside so Christians could go join the Jews on the Sabbath day.
Christians must worship God in spirit and in truth. (Jo. 4:24) Paul was taking
advantage of the opportunity to teach the Gospel to the Jews. What he did made
them angry for the most part. They didn’t see him as “one” with them! A
preacher could go into a synagogue today and speak boldly about things
concerning the kingdom of God and do exactly what Paul did there.
In Acts 19:9 Paul “departed from them and
withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.”
From references to the synagogues, and this, some have concluded that Paul
“used” human religious organizations and human organizations that were not
religious. By “used” I mean some conclude that Paul taught the Gospel “through”
(as belonging to, being a part of) a human organization, and this allows
Christians to do the same today. From there they reason that Christians can
build human organizations for worship and edification through teaching. To
utilize a “place” that allows you to come and teach, or worship, is not
teaching and worshipping “through” i.e. as a part of the human organization
that might provide the place. Paul plus the Jews in the synagogue did not
constitute an “organization” (a body acting as one). Paul did not “join” a
false religion. There is a vast difference between meeting “in” a place
(geographic) and preaching “through” i.e. “by means of” and “as a part of”
(i.e. belonging to) a human organization! Christians met “in the Temple daily”
(Acts 2:46). They had no part (were not a part in any way) of a false religion
when there. The Jews still under Moses provided them a place to meet for a
while. The place was “gratis” and the opportunity taken advantage of. Could
Christians do the same today? Yes.
Likewise Paul taught “in the school of Tyrannus” for two years and many heard the Word. This does
not say that Paul was “employed” by the school of Tyrannus.
There is no evidence that Tyrannus was even alive.
There is nothing here that even suggests that Paul belonged to Tyrannus’ organization. This is what’s wrong with many
today. They read this and picture in their minds something like the “School of Tyrannus” with a Board of Directors, President, Staff, and
Paul employed and teaching as part of the faculty! I wonder why they get that picture? In fact there is no evidence that there is anything
here beyond a “place” where Paul was allowed to come and teach the Gospel.
Paul, an individual Christian, taught in the
school of Tyrannus. Read it ten times and you won’t
get any more than that. Put disciples there with Paul while he’s teaching and
that’s still all you’ve got. Paul says later to the Ephesian elders that when
he was in Ephesus he taught them “publicly” i.e. in public places. (Acts 20:20)
When you put all of these supposed
justifications for Christians building human religious organization together it
gets even more ridiculous. Supposedly there was Paul’s Evangelistic Society
teaching in Ephesus, while Paul himself is “one” with the School of Tyrannus. I suppose Paul deserted his evangelistic society
for two years to teach for the school of Tyrannus!
What organization were Christians a part of
in Ephesus that was responsible for worship and teaching? The church at
Ephesus. (Eph. 1:1; Rev. 2:1) When Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus did he
say, “You’re doing a great job there teaching through human organizations such
as the School of Tyrannus”?
In conclusion to this series of articles
something needs to be said about this oft repeated reply: “What is the
difference between Florida College and attending a State College?”
The “difference” is what is heralded by the
College and by those promoting the college. The “difference” is that it “is” an
organization built by Christians. The difference is that it is an organization
run by Christians. The difference is it is an organization built by Christians
the stated purpose of which is to provided worship and edification! The difference is
this organization’s aim is that those associated with it not be “sectarian” in
practice!
My daughter presently attends the University
of Arizona. Can you envision U.of A. telling her “Our
goal is that you, Sandy, grow spiritually and do not become sectarian in
practice”?
Consider what they say about their daily
Bible classes:
Daily Bible Classes
“The study of the Bible as the Word of God
and as our guide in daily living and faith is central to a college dedicated to
the education of the whole person. Not only are students at Florida College required
to attend an academic course in the Bible every day, but the study of biblical
principles is integrated into the total liberal arts curriculum." (Florida
College Academic Planner 1996 /1997 Student Handbook, pg.24)
Notice “here” the purpose of the Daily Bible
Class is bible study as our “guide in daily living and faith.” Daily living and
“faith” brethren! Maybe we missed something but isn’t “that” the purpose of
teaching the Bible as stated by Paul in Romans 10:17? By the apostle Peter in 2
Peter 1:3? Since when is teaching the bible for “daily living and faith” mere
academics? Now, if my daughter took a class in “religions” in a state college
do you suppose that the aim of that class would be “for daily living and
faith”? Is “for daily living and faith” teaching the Bible just as a “religious
topic” just like you’d teach about the Muslim religion, Buddhism, or the Mormon
religion, etc.? Obviously not! In the letter from the Director of Admissions
(referred to earlier) addressed to a young man about to graduate from high
school he says, “Our Bible classes are academic courses aimed at teaching
students to study the Bible for themselves. This ACADEMICALLY-RICH SPIRITUAL
EDUCATION (emph. mine, B.L.) will serve you all your
life.” What organization did God give
for Christians to teach the bible for “daily living and faith”?
Another quote: “Because of the devotional
aspects of the daily assembly, the College hopes that each student will
consider this the HIGH POINT of the work day.” (F.C. Cat. 1996-1997, pg. 37)
“Devotion” is worship. And some Christians say, “What’s the difference between
Florida College and a state college?” Christian friends, where’s your faith in
God’s ways when you don’t have the faith that the local church is a sufficient
organization to “serve” your children when they are away from home?
In conclusion I’m
compelled to say that what we suspected all along has really come to pass.
There are brethren now who “do” see the church as just “a” tool among other
“tools”; some are willing to promote the idea that Christians are free to build
human religious organizations to provide for worship and edification through
teaching the Gospel of Christ.