|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir Chapter 5 - EMDA and Scripture When we ask for Scripture for EMDA the advocates reply to us much as did the Protestants to the Anabaptists. To escape from the Anabaptist argument, this Reformer cried out, “I know only too well that you keep calling ‘Scripture, Scripture!’ as you clamor for clear words to prove our point....But if Scripture taught us all things then there would be no need for the anointing to teach us all things.”[117] Two of the leading EMDA exponents have publicly admitted that EMDA is not spelled out in Scripture.[118] So far as I am concerned, these men have conceded the whole issue by their candid admission! But as they sometimes appeal to a few Scriptures in support of EMDA we will examine them. Acts 11 Did the church at You will find this idea often stated by those who hold EMDA. Bro
Cockrell says: “After a sufficient number were baptized the missionary acting
under the authority of the church at Actually, if this line of reasoning were valid, then the authority must have come from some other church, say in Tarsus, Damascus or elsewhere, via Paul, because Barnabas was at Antioch for some time, (vs 24), and still they were not called a church, until Barnabas returned from Tarsus with Paul! (Acts 11:26). Then, and only then, is the coveted term given to this group. We are told But how do these brethren know these things? Does the text say this? No! Does the context say this? No! Is there some other passage which says this? No! Well, then how do they know it? The answer is found in the maze of tradition! As a matter of fact, if we follow this method of reasoning , then
it necessarily follows that the church at The church at First, there is no such thing found in the NT. Not one case has ever been produced where one church constituted another with EMDA or with any other kind of authority! This is just tainted tradition. Second, this was not the case for the simple reason Third, when they learn of this church and they send Barnabas to go as far as Antioch, he is not given any authority to constitute an assembly, nor was there any need of such, and brethren who say this was the purpose of his being sent there are adding to the Word of God! The text says nothing of the kind, let honesty testify. Please read the passage carefully and prayerfully. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that
arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Please note what the text says Barnabas was sent to do. He was not
sent to constitute them into a church! Rather he was sent to go “as far
as”, not go and organize. “Go as far as”, not go and authorize!
And this is exactly what he did. And when he got to Fourth, it is high treason against the inspired Word of God to teach that Barnabas was given unstated authority, sent on an unassigned mission and instructed to do an unmentioned task in Acts 13:22, when the Scripture is as silent on this as it is on Purgatory! Fifth, it is an exegetical sham to say that he found no church at all in Antioch but only scripturally baptized disciples dangling, with no church capacity, no church fellowship, and who were unknowingly in need of organizational constitution via the mother-church at Jerusalem when Barnabas “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” that is, continue as they were! Sixth, it is, furthermore, an adding to the Word of God when
men say that Barnabas constituted Antioch a church without a single word in
Scripture to intimate there was any constitution in Acts 11, or that any such
authority was given to Barnabas. All of this is said without any evidence
whatsoever! It is quite evident that the This is the same method they use in Brooklyn at the Watchtower Society, by the Vatican in Rome and in Salt Lake City at Mormon headquarters to establish their heresies! This is how men make an invisible church or ordain women to the ministry. This is how they turn the wine into the actual blood of Christ and bread into His actual body. There are people who claim Scripture support for these errors just as do the advocates of EMDA for their theory. Those who handle Holy Scripture like this leave a blank check for heresy. Like begets like![126] Just because you veneer a tradition with the Baptist name does not make it Scriptural. Here is a powerful case of adding to Scripture to justify a tradition. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”[127] What Really Happened at Without scent or hint of authority, without suggesting superiority,
without elevating the status of the Jerusalem church in any way, on the one
hand, nor without insisting on any kind of inferiority, deficiency, or
subjection of the Antioch church on the other hand, without a single word about
a mother-church or authority to constitute but with the recognition of the full
church status of the Antiochian assembly, with perfect equality on every plane
and with joy in what the Lord had done there, the Scripture records what
Barnabas did when he got to Antioch. “Who, when he came, and had seen the
grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they
would cleave unto the Lord.”[128] Instead of authorizing, constituting, mothering, reconstituting, birthing, amending, baptizing, extending an arm, setting up a mission, changing, giving EMDA or anything of the kind, he exhorted the church to continue as they were! Read it again carefully: “Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” But if Barnabas found them as the advocates of EMDA claim, that is found them an unorganized group, without any church authority, without a covenant, without organization, without an elder, and without the Holy Spirit, how could he see the grace of God in them and exhort them to continue as they were? Instead of this text being a defense of EMDA it is a battering ram against it. It literally knocks their wall flat![129] Let the Scripture say what it wants to say! Acts 13 Another passage which is appealed to in support of EMDA is Acts13:1-4. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets
and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of
Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
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. And when they had
fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they,
being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto It is said with the utmost confidence that here the church sent forth Paul and Barnabas with the authority to preach, baptize and constitute churches. E.G. Cook said: In Acts 8:26 the angel of the Lord spoke directly to Philip but
in Acts 13:2 the Holy Spirit spoke to the church. Why the difference? In the
case of Philip he was to witness and to baptize an individual. We have no
record of Philip’s ever instituting a new church. But as a result of the Holy
Spirit’s telling the church at Antioch to send out Paul and Barnabas new
churches began to spring up throughout Asia, that is, the province of Asia, and
over in Europe. Acts 13:2 was not written for their sakes alone, but ours as
well. Here is specific, definite, concrete and undeniable proof that all these
churches were instituted through the authority of the Several brethren who hold to EMDA maintain that Acts 13 spells out church authority in the constitution of churches. They maintain, with Bro. Cook, that this passage teaches church action was in operation in sending out Paul and Barnabas. Is this the case? Let me give you the reasons why I do not believe this is correct. In the study of Scripture, we must recognize that: Exegesis is predicated on two fundamentals. First, it assumes that thought can be accurately conveyed in words, each of which, at least originally, had its own shade of meaning. Secondly, it assumes that the content of Scripture is of such superlative importance for man as to warrant the most painstaking effort to discover exactly what God seeks to impart through his word.[131] The church is mentioned in vs. 1, “Now there were in the church
that was at 1. The word church is not the nearest antecedent, which it
ordinarily would be if the pronoun refers to it. 2. The clause in the church
does not describe the action of the church but the named individuals who were
in the church. 3. Those ministering to the Lord and fasting are designated by
name and therefore it was not the whole church which ministered or fasted else
why call them by name? “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy
Ghost said”–said to whom? It seems clear to me that the Holy Spirit spoke to
those who were ministering and fasting, that is to those five men named. 4.
This sentence “And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away,” refers, I believe, to the three who remained,
namely Simeon, Lucius and Manaen, vs. 1. 5. Note also that these men are not
said to minister to the church but they “minister to the Lord.” This is the
kind of ministering that priests did in the 1] The Holy Spirit spoke directly to Peter.[133] 2] The angel of the Lord spoke directly to the apostles.[134] 3] The angel of the Lord spoke directly to Cornelius.[135] 4] The angel of the Lord released Peter from prison directly.
[136] 5] The Holy Spirit spoke directly to Philip.[137] 6] The Lord caught away Philip and placed him at Azotus[138] 7] The Lord spoke directly to Ananias sending him to Saul.[139] 8] The Holy Spirit spoke directly to the men who were fasting
and praying.[140] 9] Paul and Barnabas were expressly said to be sent by the Holy Spirit.[141] 10] Paul and Barnabas were directly forbidden by the Holy Spirit
to go into 11]The Holy Spirit spoke directly to Paul in a vision.[143] 12] Stephen saw the Lord standing on the right hand of God.[144] 13] The Lord spoke to Paul in a night vision encouraging him. [145] 14] The Holy Spirit spoke directly to Agabus concerning Paul.[146] 15] The Lord directly commissioned Paul to the ministry.[147] 16] The Lord directly warned Paul to get out of 17] The Lord appeared directly to Paul in the night to cheer
him.[149] 18] The angel of the Lord stood by Paul on the ship assuring him
and the others of safety.[150] Here we have several cases where the Lord dealt directly with his servants! Were all of these men members of one of the Lord’s churches? Were they laboring under the authority of a church? Were they subject to a church? I certainly believe they all were. Does this mean that in every one of these instances that the church authorized every thing they did? Not at all. The Scripture plainly says the Lord Himself, His Holy Spirit or His angel communicated with them, encouraged them; that He warned them, commissioned them and sent them to their work as He desired. We have to recognize this, if we adhere to the Scripture, no matter what supposed ramifications we may fear this will have on church authority. John Gill gives this comment on Acts 13:3: “...but this was a gesture and ceremony used among the Jews, when they wished any blessing or happiness to attend any persons; and so these prophets when they separated Paul and Barnabas from their company, and were parting from them, put their hands on them, and wished them all prosperity and success; could this be thought to be an ordination, as it cannot, since both of them were stated and authorised ministers of the word, and one of them an apostle long before this... to do the work they were called unto; not in an authoritative way, but in a friendly manner they parted with them and bid them farewell.” [151] Gill says that this was not the church who laid hands on these men and sent them forth but “these prophets...put their hands on them...” But suppose my position is incorrect. Suppose the action here in
Acts 13 was the action of the whole church, what then? Does this text then
teach EMDA? The text certainly does not say so! The only reason anyone contends
for this idea in this text is because the theory of EMDA demands it! If it was
the whole church which sent Paul and Barnabas forth, there is still nothing
here about EMDA. Some EMDA advocates also contend that Acts 13:3 was an ordination
service and that Paul and Barnabas were here ordained. But if this was an
ordination service for these two men the question then comes immediately[152]–how
could Barnabas constitute this church at Mark 13:34-37 This passage also has been appealed to in support of EMDA. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. 35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. Mark 13:34‑37. I believe the only reason this passage is appealed to by EMDA advocates is because it contains the word authority. They never quote Mt. 24:44–48 nor appeal to it for this purpose even though it is approximately parallel. But no matter what their reason for appealing to it, it will not serve their purposes but defeats their intent as the following will show. Bro Cockrell says: The interpretation of this parable is simple. The absent householder is Christ who took a far journey to Heaven at His ascension. His house is the New Testament church which He built while on earth (Matt. 16:28; I Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6). The servants are the members of His household (Eph. 2:19-22). The porter is the pastor who has the watch over souls (Heb. 13:17), and who is to especially watch for the return of Jesus Christ...[156] We note first of all this authority was not given to the house, as these brethren say, but to the servants! This is diametrically opposed to EMDA. Bro Cockrell goes on to say, He delegates His authority to the servants of His house, the New Testament church. The Master of the house placed the authority there and it cannot be transferred.” Note how Bro Cockrell transposes the servants of His house to the New Testament church! But there is nothing in the parable to support this transfer from the servants to a church! If it belongs to the servants, then it does not belong to the house. But if it belongs to the house, then it does not belong to the servants. As a matter of fact, this is the old mistake of trying to make a parable[157] go on all fours. The purpose of this parable is not to teach that authority is in the church, whether that idea is true or false. It is not to teach that one church must give authority for another whether true of false. It is not to teach that you must have an ordained elder to constitute a church. It is not to teach you can only get the Holy Spirit via church authority. These ideas are foreign to the NT in general and this parable in particular. The word authority in this parable, which has such a powerful attraction for EMDA minds, has nothing to do with the constitution of a church. Authority here simply means that the Son of Man has given every servant his work to do. The purpose of this parable is not to teach EMDA or that one house must get authority from another house or one church from another church! But the purpose is to teach us that as His servants we are to watch, to be in a state of readiness, laboring in our assigned places as we wait for the Lord’s return. This fact is emphasized when we remember the settled principle–parables were not given to teach doctrine. As Virkler says: ....orthodox expositors unanimously agree that no doctrine should be grounded on a parable as its primary or only source. The rationale for this principle is that clearer passages of Scripture are always used to clarify more obscure passages, never vice versa. Parables are by nature more obscure than doctrinal passages. Thus doctrine should be developed from the clear prose passages of Scripture and parables used to amplify or emphasize that doctrine.[158] Notice also that in order for this parable to have any weight for the purpose of EMDA it would necessitate the idea that no new household could be formed without the permission of a previously existing household! Thus each new household, before it could be formed, would have to get the permission of another household (the authority) in order to set up a new household! How many would like to stake the validity of their marriage upon the supposed necessity of one household granting authority to the next all through the ages back to Adam and Eve? Who can tell what was done a thousand years ago? We know this is not true to life. When those who are of age choose to do so, they marry and form a new household. Of course it is wise if children are counseled by their elders, and we rejoice to be asked to participate but we all know that these things are not essential![159] Every household, when it is so formed, is as much a household as any other. The same thing is true of churches. So appeal to this parable is made solely because of the word authority and it does not help the cause of EMDA but defeats it. Now we will turn to the mother church idea.
[117] Leonard Verduin, Reformers and Their Step Children, p. 204.
[118]
I refer to Bre Joe Wilson and Milburn Cockrell. Bro Wilson admitted this
doctrine is not spelled out in Scripture in a taped message.
[119] Milburn Cockrell. SCO. p. 35. [120] 7 Questions, p. 24. [121] Acts 18:12. [122] 1 Cor 1:2. [123] Re 2:1. [124] See Acts 11:19 with 8:1.
[125]
George W. McDaniel said: “Arriving there, he heartily approves the work as
being of the Lord. Not an alteration or amendment does he propose.” “ [126] This is a cliché by which the EMDA advocates lull their followers to sleep. Cf. Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark, p. 10. [127] Mt 15:9. [128] Acts 11:23. [129] II Kings 23:6. [130] 7 Questions. p. 26, Cf. also p. 11. [131] Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 204, Art. Exegesis. [132] He 8:2; 10:11. [133] Acts 10:19, 20: 11:12. Note. The church had no knowledge of Peter’s visit to Cornelius until after the fact, [Acts 11:1-3]. But when they learned of it, they did not throw a fit and cry “no authority” as brethren now do, but “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, ‘Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.’” [Acts 11:18]. It would be a good thing if EMDA brethren could hold their peace and learn what the Lord is doing, rather than to condemn without hearing the case! [134] Acts 5:19-20,29-32. [135] Acts 10:5. [136] Acts 12:7-11. [137] Acts 8:29. [138] Acts 8:39-40. [139] Acts 9:10-18. [140] Acts 13:2. [141] Acts 13:4. [142] Acts 16:7. [143] Acts 16:9-10. [144] Acts 7:55. [145] Acts 18:9-10. [146] Acts 21:10-11. [147] Acts 26:15-20. [148] Acts 22:18-21. [149] Acts 23:11. [150] Acts 27:22-23. [151] Gill’s Commentary, Acts 13:3. [152]I am indebted to a dear brother who first called my attention to this fact. [153] Cf. 7 Questions, p.21. [154] 7 Questions. p. 21, 27. Cf. Acts 8:14-17. [155]Cf. Chapter 3. [156] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 31. [157] I recognize this may not be a parable but merely an illustration, but the implication is the same either way. [158]Henry A. Virkler. Hermeneutics, p. 170.
[159]
My mother, on her dying bed told me, a young Marine, soon to ship out for duty
in the Far East, “When you find the girl you want to be your wife, you bring
her home and she will be my daughter, even if she is one of those girls from
the
|