|
APPLICATION OF GENERIC PRINCIPLES By Fred Seavers You can email Fred Seavers at bfseavers@aol.com If it is just "APPLICATION of GENERIC PRINCIPLES" that matters - we have done a grave injustice to the Lord's church. In reading all of the back and forth over the marriage-divorce-remarriage controversy as of late, I have come to a conclusion. Before speaking of the doctrinal problems many have created through an allowance of brethren to teach error on such an important subject as this; I will first, of necessity, need to give a brief background of why I see the current "putting on of the blinders" as such a disappointment, and hypocrisy. From the years 1982-1985 I attended the Memphis School of Preaching in Memphis, Tennessee. Though this does not carry with it the long list of degrees that many preachers sport; it was six hours in class study and at least six hours out of class study five days a week for three years and a summer school; carrying with it the equivalent of a B.A. in religious studies. All we studied was the Bible, and Bible related subjects. Until needing to do such now for the points made in the following article, I have rarely mentioned this schooling to anybody, for I truly believe that when it comes to Gospel preaching, a man's formal education means little. His knowledge of the word, and his stand for the truth is what determines whether or not he is worth his salt as a preacher. While at the school, I studied under men who were vastly more conservative on morality, fellowship, and other attending thoughts than are some of my "Non-institutional" brethren. This experience is the very place where I gained my respect for the authority of the word that eventually caused me to rethink my position on these things while attending a debate between J.T. Smith, and Noel Merideth; and to come out of institutionalism. I sat at the feet of men such men as Robert Taylor; Garland Elkins; Guy Woods; Thomas Warren; et. al.; including the scholarly men at the school. Some I am sure would remember me, some would not. I lost a great many dear friends to hold the beliefs I now have on support of non-saints; orphan homes; and cooperative situations from the Lord's treasury. It is with this background, that I am thoroughly concerned about where many of my non-institutional brethren now stand. I am hearing words such as "generic;" "application;" "principles;" etc. used in ways that I never realized they applied. I have found out that we can apply such words to the idea that one may be remarried lawfully after having been divorced not for fornication. I have found that the person who is the innocent or unwilling party in the divorce can then mentally put away his or her mate for fornication upon the event of the previous divorcer's subsequent or past relationship with another. I have found that men that teach and support such can be considered as sound and in fellowship with God and the church; and that no issue should be made over such. I have found out that this is in the same category with the veil; the war question; non-religious participation in holidays; et. al. Now, let us examine the hypocrisy in such things from a former "very conservative," yet institutionalist's point of view. I was taught by my teachers, and personally preached for several years that church autonomy is a necessity. One church may not overstep the bounds of; nor interfere with the spending of; nor share in the spending of another churches treasury. I was taught that since a church could at any time withdraw it's money from the sponsoring church's endeavors; it was still the work of the local church sending the money. This being the case, how could it be overstepping the bounds of autonomy? It was only application of a generic principle – don't you see? I was taught, and personally preached, that one church can correct another church on doctrinal error, and may even mark and withdraw from those at another church: something many of the "sound(?)" brethren could stand to learn. I was taught, and personally preached, that the funding of colleges out of the church treasury is error, and churches that taught and upheld such would be lost. I was taught, and personally preached, that the Missionary Society was not a divine entity, and that there was no authority to spread the Gospel through such, and that those who did so would be lost. I was taught, and personally preached, that the church had no business participating in social affairs; secular events; or worldly endeavors such as gymnasiums; eating facilities; weddings or funerals at the church's expense; etc. On and on it goes. Now, let us make "application". We are taught that it is authorized, and even expected that local churches support the preaching of the Gospel. We are taught that a church can send a preacher; or send to a preacher; or support the local preacher. This is the authoritative premise or principle that the brethren with which I was associated also taught, and with which I presently agree. They openly opposed and refuted scripturally the concept of the local church's sending money to a preacher through such a non divine entity as the Missionary Society. They taught that the only authorized support from the local treasury for a preacher was through a local church; preferably overseen by elders. Their concept, and generic rendering of these principles found in these passages was correct. However, they saw no difference in a local church sending money directly to a preacher in the field, and sending it to another local, or "sponsoring church" which then forwarded the money to the preacher in the field. From their perspective it is no different from his check going to the post office, and being delivered through the hands of a postal worker. They simply make a different "APPLICATION" to an agreed upon principle. May I now accept them? One article I read conveniently covered it's "institutionalism" tracks on how we "apply principles left generic by God," by saying; "However, my hope is that this discussion [MDR f.s.] will not make us lose sight of the real battle we face and side-track us in needless division. In the institutional division, we did not allow the liberals to divert us from the real issue of who (the church or a benevolent society) to "the how" of caring for needy saints. It was wise of brethren then not to allow such a diversion from the overall issue. In the same way, let us not allow some to divert us from the real issue; namely, that one may sunder a marriage and remarry only for the cause of fornication." (Relegating God's Law to Second Place: Review of Efforts to bind Human Law: Gospel Anchor, July 11, 2001) Why is this overall issue different from the one in the fifties? Is it because this is now where our friendships and acquaintances lie? Why was it wrong for them to make their application to a generic principle; yet right for the same type of application to be made today concerning the principle of "Except for the cause of fornication," and "whosever shall marry her which hath been put away committeth adultery?" Brethren, I believe it would also be "wise" of the brethren not to allow this idea of application and generic principles to sidetrack us from the real issue in this new Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage discussion. It is error to say that a person can be divorced not for fornication, then remarry and be right. It is error to say that a wife can say nothing about divorcing her husband for known fornication, then months after he divorces her, "not for fornication," she can then divorce him for fornication. It is error to teach that one can divorce his wife not for fornication, and since God does not accept that as a scriptural divorce; she can subsequently, after the divorce not for fornication, put him away for fornication when he hooks up with another woman five years down the line. These things are wrong brethren! All of the scenarios and consistency arguments in the world cannot make them right. Let us not "allow such a diversion from the overall issue" (now referred to as application of generic principles) to cause us to overlook the fact that the cause is rendered before the initial divorce, and no subsequent puttings away are mentioned either mentally or civically. It was either for fornication before the initial divorce took place, or it was not. Now there is your principle according to Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; etc. The institutional brethren with whom I was as associated would not have tolerated such things without a fight. They would have left no room for "continued study" on a doctrine which has been around for such a good while. Just as were James Bales; Rubel Shelly and others; those holding the false doctrines would have been marked and avoided, Romans 16:17. So, can I now go back to my institutional brethren? After all, I have recently read from a debate we had with them, as well as in a tract by a well respected non-institutional preacher that the local church may support orphans out of the treasury, just so long as it is done under the oversight of an eldership, and not through "a man made institution." What about it brethren? I heard more sermons condemning immodesty, dancing, intolerance of false doctrine, etc., than is accepted in many "sound" churches. Can I go back? If not, why not. What if I recognize the arguments on who and how as just different applications of a generic principle? What if I feel they stand firm on the generic principle of preaching the Gospel, and paying preachers? What if I notice the support of orphans and non-saints as simply obeying an individual command to the members of the church, but for sake of convenience apply that to individual members doing it collectively, and sending it all at once so we can help more people? What about it brethren? And, what about the men now approving of those teaching this new error, even if they claim not to hold the error themselves? Did we help to destroy the Lord's cause, and drive the wedge over matters of option fifty years ago? Didn't they say, "Please don't destroy the Lord's work for binding a method that is a matter of option." How can some say that we were right in dividing over the issues fifty years ago; but we can see things differently in our own camp now? Dear reader, and brothers and sisters in Christ: Could it be that we have toyed with this issue long enough? Haven't we had our little exchanges in the papers long enough? Haven't we been longsuffering long enough over a false teaching now known to have been around for some time? Is it really time for an allowance of years for continued study; giving more time for people to spread this doctrine in isolated pockets around the nation while being considered sound? I already know from experience how many of our "liberal" brethren of a more conservative nature would have approached our current problem. My question for us is, "Where do the "Sound" brethren go from here?" |
|