a discussion between bill jackson and buff scott) jr
TRANSCRIPT
!
CHURCH CHRIST SECT?" -~.
A Discussion Between
BIll Jackson
and
Buff Scott) Jr.
'. :----•
"IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A SECT?"
The Jackson-Scott Debate dealing with
the
. Buff Scott "Hobby"
Participants:
I
Bill Jackson, gospel preacher
Buff Scott, Jr., "a former preacher"
A publication of the
SOUTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST
Home of:
THRUST Magazine - a quarterly . journal devoted to the refutation of denominational dogma. Jerry Moffit, editor. $3 per year--free to preachers
THE SOUTHWEST LECTURES - Held in April of each year and for the strengthening of the kingdom. Bill Jackson, director
SOUTHWEST SCHOOL OF BIBLE STUDIES
A two-year intensive study of the Bible designed to train preachers, elders, deacons, and other Christian workers. Tuition free, and VA approved. C. M. Horner, interim director
-W~ite fo~ fu~the~ information on these Southwest programs-
SOUTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST 8900 Manchaca Rd. AustlnJ Texas 78748
"
INTRODUCTORY
Shortly after the Firm Foundation changed authorship, brother
Buff Scott, Jr. wrote a number of us expressing his displeasure at
the new direction the paper would obviously be taking. Brother Scott,
who styles himself "a former preacher of the church of Christ," cur
rently pursues a hobby wherein he claims that Jesus built no church,
and that Jesus also currently heads no church. Scott boldly calls the
church of Christ "a sect."
We then engaged in some correspondence, resulting in the decision
to have a written debate, with each of us having the right to publish
the discussion. Here is that discussion, in its COMPLETE form. The
agreement was that after Scott's final negative, I would have a re
joinder. As explained by my note, inserted at that point in this
material, brother Scott's printing of the discussion excluded my
rejoinder.
The proposition under discussion: "Jesus Christ is the Head and
Founder of the religious group known as the 'church of Christ. III
Bill Jackson, in the affirmative
Buff Scott, Jr. in the denial
JACKSON'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I enter into this
discussion with brother Buff Scott, Jr. Brother Scott has said
that he is a "former member of the church of Christ," and thus I
want him to know that I bear nothing but good will toward him, and
beyond my presenting the truth of God as relates to the proposition,
I will also have fervent prayer for him and for his restoration
to faithfulness in the kingdom. In approaching the proposition,
even though the wording of it did not include the expression,
"The Bible teaches," I give full assurance that the Bible, and
the Bible alone, is the author~ty to which I will appeal. Brother
Scott has also given assurance that the Scriptures will be the
basis of his denials.
As is appropriate in all discussion, I now want to state the
proposition and such defining of terms as is necessary. The propo
sition is as follows: "Jesus Christ is the Head and Founder of
the reZigious group known as 'the church of Christ. ,,, By "Jesus
Christ" of course I mean Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior of the world,
whose life is recorded in Matthew through John, and whose message
to mankind is revealed by inspired writers throughout the New
Testament. By "Head" and "Founder" I mean that this Jesus estab
lished, set up, brought into being his church, and that he serves
as its Supreme Sovereign--the authority, the Ruler, the Governor,
the Shepherd, and the Judge. By "the religious group known as
the "church of Christ," I mean the group in which I hold membership,
known in the religious word as "the church of Christ," and identified
as the body of people wearing the Lord's name, as a body identified
-2-
by a designation found in Scripture, meeting together in local
congregations, and following the New Testament patterns of church
organization, work, worship, and teaching. I do not propose that
Jesus heads any other body, nor that he approves of any group's
operating in violation of his revealed will in the New Testament.
Therefore, Jesus did not bless any behavior and/or teaching contrary
to his revealed will, whether it be the divisions in Corinth, the
apostasy of the Galatians, or the Gnosticism among the Colossians
in the first century. Likewise, he does not bless misconduct by
any who wear his name, and propose to be Christians, in our own day_
Having taken a look at the proposition, I now propose New Testament
proof.
THE PROMISE OF JESUS' CHURCH
Throughout the Old Testament period, men were taught to look
forward to the coming of the One like unto Moses, who would bring
God's message to mankind (Deut. 18:18,19). Isaiah reminded that
this one would have the government upon his shouldemas he ruled
over his kingdom (Isa. 9:6,7), and both John and Jesus enter upon
their ministries preaching that this kingdom was then at hand (Matt.
3:2 and 4:17). We find that Jesus promised that kingdom in the
lifetime of his hearers (Mark 9:1), and further identified that
kingdom as being the church, the "e kkZesia," (Matt. 16:18,19).
That kingdom, or church, was promised with power (Hark 9:1 and
Luke 24:49), and that power came in Acts 2:1-4, and men obedient
to the preaching of the gospel on that occasion were added to the
church, the kingdom, by the Lord himself (Acts 2:47). Jesus the
-3-
Christ promised to build that church, and he did so, being announced
as the head of the body, the church (Eph. 1:22,23 and Col. 1:18).
We wonder if brother Scott is going to be so dangerously bold as to
deny that Jesus did establish his church, and that he then began
to serve as its Head?
The matter now left for us is in regard to the form of the church
on earth. The word "church" is the Greek word "ekklesia," denoting
"a calling out," and of course referring to a body of people. The
word certainly has application in more than a religious sense, but
our discussion centers on the word as used in the New Testament
sense relating to the peoplepf God, those "called out of darkness
and sin" to serve the Lord Christ, and thus those who form an
assembly. The very fact that these are God's own, and separate
from the world, constitutes reason for their being together in as
sembly to serve God. The word "church" is used in the world-wide
sense, as in Matthew 16:18. The word is also used in the sense of
saints within an area, such as a nation, or a province, as in
I Corinthians 16:1. The word is then used also in regard to a
local congregation, as the church at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2). We have
simply identified the way the word "church" is used in the New
Testament, and finally to note that the church existed in the local
assembly sense, in congregations, spelled out in such a fine way
in Philippians 1: I-saints,' bishops, and deacons. Obviously, the
need was for organization into local.congregations, and that we find
throughout the New Testament.
CAN, AND DOES, THE CHURCH EXIST TODAY?
No doubt the area of controversy between brother Scott and
-4-
myself centers in the area of the question, "Can the church exist
today?" The answering of that question will reveal the attitude
we hold toward the Bible, the Word of God. If we believe that the
Scriptures furnish us completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16,
17), and that·.Jesus' words form the basis of our being judged at the
last day (John 12:48), and the apostolic warning that if we go beyond
the doctrine of Christ the God above is no longer with us (2 John 9),
then the matter is simplified. We take the Bible as our authoritative
guide, and try in every possible way to duplicate what we find there
pertaining to the church, the family of God, and we will be the church
of Jesus Christ! In his great parable of the soils, our Lord had
pointed out that the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11), and thus
the seed being planted properly, the proper fruits will come forth. t
Based on these factors, we know that the church of the 'Lord can
exist in any century, in any nation, among any people, and that the
church can be maintained down through the ages of time left Ito tihis
old world. All that is needed is that men obey the Lord, and then
apply themselves to being, in worship, in life, in all actions,
just what the Lord requires from his word. When they meet in their
assemblies, there will be the church of God!
The remaining question is this: . "Does the church of the Lord
exist today?" We have seen the possibility of it being so by the
design and purpose of the word of God, so the answer cannot be "NO,"
based on the fact that such is impossible. Then, the correct answer
can be found merely by examining the varied religious systems of the
day, and using the Bible as the standard, and the marks of identity
-5-
set forth for the church in that volume, and one is then guided to
the truth. Clearly, the Lord intended that such examination take
place, for in the word the warnings are not only given that we examine
ourselves by the standard (2 Cor. 13:5), but that we examine false
systems and false teachers (I John 4:1). The purpose, to be sure,
is that we might see what is false, and then be able to clearly see
what is truth.
Regarding the church that Jesus built, the New Testament is
replete with the necessary identifying features whereby one can know
that the church of Christ does exist today. We suggest some of those
marks, or the pattern given us, are these: (1) The church of the
Lord is marked for us in terms of the organization of the local
congregations, with elders and deacons appointed in keeping with the
qualifications set forth in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. We have noted
that the whole organization of the church is set forth in Philippians
1:1. Taking this point first, one can begin to pinpoint Jesus'
church today. (2) Another mark of identity is that the church of the
Lord will surely wear the names, or designations, set forth in the
word. We find a number of these, whereby we can see the church
designated as belonging to God and the Christ, as in Romans 16:16;
I Corinthians 1:2; and I Timothy 3:15. The church of God will not
be wearing a name giving honor to man, man's system, man's doctrines!
(3) A third mark of identity is that the members of the church will
be found wearing the proper name set forth in the Bible, the name
"Christian." We find that spelled out for us in Acts 11:26 and 26:28,
and in I Peter 4:16. Again, it is inconceivable that God's chil
dren, members of Jesus' church, would be wearing a name giving honor
-6-
and glory to man or to the things of man. (4) Once more, a mark of
the church of Jesus is that his bOdy will be engaging in the pattern
of worship set forth in the New Testament, involving (a) Study of the
word--Acts 2:42, (b) Prayer--Acts 2:42, (c) Singing--Ephesians 5:19
and colossians 3:16, (d) Giving of means back into the Lord's work--
I Corinthians 16:2, and (e) Observing the Lord's Supper on the first
day of the week--Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 11:23-30. These marks
then are a pattern for us, and we will find Jesus' church abiding
faithfully by this pattern. That concept of pattern, wherein men
abide by the dictates of God, was stressed in the Old Testament re
garding the tabernacle (Ex. 25:9, 40) and the temple (I Chron. 28:11,
12,19), and is repeated for us in Hebrews 8:5. By following the
pattern, the church of the Lord can, and does, exist today, and by I
using that pattern as a guide, one can find i that church in our own
time. In view of the church ~f Christ, today, abiding by each and
everyone of these marks, it can then truthfully be stated that the
church of Christ, today, is that body of people founded by the Christ,
and over whom he serves today as Head.
Now, if not, why not? Those who didn't understand the church
in the first century were prone to call it a "sect" (Acts 28: 22) , I
but calling it so didn't make it so. Brother Scott is not in the
affirmative in these first exchanges, and his obligation is then to
show wherein I have not stated the matter truthfully by the Scriptures.
He is to follow me, point by point, and to show that I have erred
in the use of the Bible and in the conclusions drawn. He does not
believe that the church of Christ, of which I am a member (and
-7-
wherein he once held membership), is that body founded and headed
by the Lord. He must, in pressing his point, negate the matters
I have presented in this affirmative. We do not envy him the task,
and await the submission of his first negative. Again, it is a
pleasure to be engaging in this study with him.
SCOTT'S FIRST RESPONSE ,
INTRODUCTION: May God bless my "church of Christ" brothers,
anyway! I love them in spite of their spiritual paranoia. I can
identify with them for I was once one of them. Like my good brother
Jackson, at one time I too believed the IIchurch of Christ" was the
only true and divine institution upon the face of this earth. I
preached her on the sidewalks and from many pUlpits. I pressed her
upon others. I fought for her and debated those who spoke ill of her.
I strove to win converts to her ranks. I was totally sold on the
concept that Jesus purchased her with his blood and that other churches
could never make the same claim without inviting God's wrath. I felt
that King James' Romans 16:16 was pure gold! I equated the IIchurch
of Christ" with God's new reign and defied any man to show otherwise. !
Like my b~other, I used the same arguments, affirmed the same theol
ogy, advocated the same principles, and quoted the same scriptures.
I was even willing to shed my life's blood for this church.
So what in the world happeriecr?-· Why the radical change? Why
am I no longer willing to join hanas·with my "non-instrument ll
brothers and announce to the world that Jesus started the IIchurch
of Christ ll ? Why am I no longer willing to broadcast to my fellow
humans that God 's household includes only those believers whose
-8-
meetinghouses carry "Church of Christ tl over their doorposts and
whose advertisements bear the "church of Christ" insignia? Why am
I no longer willing to parrot the old partisan cliche that only
within "church of Christ" borders may salvation be found? Why am
I no longer willing to meet exclusively under the Church of Christ
flag and proclaim "church of Christ" ideology? Why am I no longer
willing to make instruments of music a test of brotherhood and a
condition of salvation?
Simply, I have been deprogrammed! Really. The event was not
supernatural or miraculous. As I studied the scriptures for myself,
the Holy Spirit of God operated upon my heart to alter my attitude
and change my course. It was a simple but serious procedure. The
only prerequisites were that I cast aside my sectarian shackles and
open my mind.
Did I leave Jesus when I left the "church of Christ"? Goodness,
no! He and I are closer now than ever before. Do I now believe in
universal salvation? Of course not. Do I now accept within the
brotherhood of God anyone and everyone? I do not. But I do accept
as part of the divine fraternity any of those whom God accepts. And
he accepts all of those who have experienced the new beginning and
have made Jesus Lord of their lives, regardless of whether or not
they have heard of the Church of Christ--or Church of God.
JACKSON'S PRESENTATION: For greater clarity, I have taken the
liberty of separating~rother Jackson's dissertation into four major
divisions.
1) The "church of Christ" is the kingdom (reign) foretold by
the prophets of old and heralded by John the immerser and Jesus the
-9-
Messiah.
2) The "church of Christ" can and does exist today.
3) When the seed, which is the word of God, is planted in the
hearts of men, "the proper fruit will come forth," namely the "church
of Christ."
4) The "church of Christ" can be identified by:
A. Organization.
B. Designation or proper name.
C. Proper pattern of worship.
Item one equates the "church of Christ" with the new reign. But
which "church of Christ" is the seat of controversy in this discussion?
There are a dozen or more "churches of Christ" within the "non
instrument" movement that have denominated themselves by this title.
They will not accept each other as "true" and "sound" churches. DOing
battle with each other is one of their common exercises. Each church
claims to be devoted to Jesus' prayer for unity as recorded in John
17:20-23. And each one alleges to be the "one body" spoken of in
Ephesians 4:4. Not one of them will admit to being defective or
counterfeit. They all cleave to "the truth that makes men free," or
so they say.
Would you conclude that something is wrong? Or is everything
right? Should we accuse Jesus of formulating and setting in motion
an arrangement that is torn by division and turbulence? Would our
Lord head a system that has divided and sub-divided into at least a
dozen splinters?
If Ephesians 4:4 can be desecrated by devising more than one
body of believers, what is to prevent multiple Gods, multiple Spirits,
multiple hopes, and multiple faiths? The "church of Christ" should
-10-
not complain when other religious parties form other gods and faiths.
My intention now is to demonstrate that brother Jackson's postu
lation concerning the "church of Christ" and God's new reign is not
only supposition but anti-scriptural as well. When I succeed in
invalidating his church/kingdom hypothesis, it will not be necessary
to deal at length with items 2,3, and 4. For it would be rather
foolish to deal in great detail with the seed of the kingdom or with
the kingdom's "proper name" and "pattern of worship" if she is not
synonymous with the "church of Christ.1I
Weare in agreement that Jesus ushered in a new reign. We agree
also that this new reign superseded and nullified the old reign under
Moses. Furthermore, we agree that this new reign began formally on
the first Pentecost following the resurrection and ascension of our
Messiah.
Then where is the disagreement? Simply that this new reign is
the "church of Christ." This is where the bone rubs.
I will clarify the issue even more. God, through his special
Son, set in motion a new community, a new reign, a new household, a
new commonwealth, a new priesthood, a new assembly, a new congrega
tion, a new Israel. This new arrangement or economy is not a sect,
not a religious party, not a "denomination," not a faction, and not
a cult. My brother and I agree that God's new community is far
superior to anyone or all of these.
Simply put, ahurahes are seats or religious parties. We know
assuredly that Jesus would never condemn religious parties' then es
tablish and head one of his own making. It is no secret that he
condemned the sects of his time. The "sect of the Pharisees" and
-11-
the "sect of the Sadducees" are two examples. Even Paul condemned
sectism or partyism when he placed it alongside murder and fornica
tion (Gal. 5:20). The NeUJ English Bible renders "party intrigues,"
and the Living Bible says that partisan religion is "the feeling
that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group."
I am inclined to believe that this strikes at the very core of it.
It seems, then, that a seat or religious party is any group
UJhiah alassifies all others UJrong and UJhose terms of admission and
terms ~r staying admitted are either partly or fully foreign to the
terms inaugurated by the King of kings and his speaiaZ envoys.
In other words, a sect or religious party is any group that practices
and promotes the party spirit. The "party spirit" is an attitude
which generates division and separation. Religious parties are the
end result. It would be amiss to claim that false teaching, of it
self, establishes the party spirit, for no person or body of believers
has reached a state of perfection in doctrine. James declares that
the man who makes no mistakes in what he says or teaches, is a per
fect man (James 3:2). The "church of Christ," of which brother Jack
son is a member, will not admit to teaching false doctrine, either
knowingly or unknowingly, whether in "small portions" or in "large
portions." This attitUde is directly oppo~ite to what the Holy
Spirit wrote through James.
But again, her attitude is partisan in that she considers every
one lost except those within her borders and behind her fences. Her
terms for remaining within her borders and behind her fences are
well known. The most obvious one is that her members must accept
the notion that she only is the "church" established by the Messiah.
-12-
Nor may her members retain their membership and believe that in
struments of music in her public assemblies are permissible. The
holy scriptures do not support any of these partisan ideas.
Jesus accused the sects of his time of not entering God's reign
themselves nor permitting anyone else to enter. It was not essential
to be a member of either party to receive God's grace. Nor is member
ship in the religious party known as the "church of Christ" essential
to divine deliverance. But let us deal more specifically with
Jackson's tenet that the "church of Christ" is God's new reign.
Please keep posted to the truth that should I dislodge his major
contention, everything else falls.
What occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts, chapter two? The
"church of Christ" teaches that she had her genesis on that occasion.
True, a great event was unveiled during the first festive period of
the Jews following Jesus' ascension, but we may surely rest our
oars that it was not the beginning of a "church"-any church,
whether Baptist, Methodist, Christian Church, Church of God, or
Church of Christ.
Then what did oaaup? God's new reign was ushered in! But why
not a ahupah? Did not Jesus say he would found his church (Matthew
l6:l8)? If yes, is it not Christ's church or the church of Christ?
The good news about Jesus was solving problems long before
organized religion and the contemporary church were introduced by
men. The stream flowing from the river of life was pure and tranquil
before religion and church contaminated it. God has been replaced
with religion and Jesus has been substituted with church.
-13-
When the Christian system made its appearance 2000 years ago,
there were no churches for converts to join. They associated them
selves with other believers of a common cause, thus forming congre
gations or communities. Sects sppang up in later years in the form
of churches ~hen sectarian leaders began to insist that others join
them or salvation could not be realized. The Roman Catholic order
became the first church, followed later by Protestant churches. The
Church of Christ (or "church of Christ") is younger than she thinks.
She became officially recognized as a church following Alexander
Campbell's efforts to "unite the Christians in all the sects." At
the time of her birth, she was 1900 years too late to be the arrange
ment started by Jesus and his special envoys.
True, when the seed is sown it will produce what it produced
2000 years ago. But inasmuch as the seed did not produce churches
then, it is not likely to yield churches now. The Greek eccZesia J
which is supposed to convey our English "church," does not. There
is absolutely nothing in eccZesia that delivers "church." A divine
right king forced "church" into our English versions when he
commanded his translators: "The old ecclesiastical words to be
kept; as the word church not to be translated congregation" (The
Christian Baptist, Volume II, Number 4, November 1,1824). The king
actually forbade his scholars to translate eaclesia. Apparently he
intended to continue his reign as head and king of The Established
Church of England, not a mere congregation or community!
However, it is not necessary that we deal at length with the
Greek language to determine the errors of King James and his trans
lators. In Acts 7:38 of his version, we find "church" under Moses.
-14-
"This is he~ that was in the church in the wilderness ... " The "church
of Christ" decrees that "the church" did not exist prior to the events
recorded in Acts 2. But here ~e have it under Moses! This cannot
be explained correctly without admitting that King James and his
scholars made a deZiberate mistake. Most other translators followed
suit by using "church" instead of congregation, community, or assembly.
In Hebrews 2:12 King James has "church" under the reign of David.
No tossing of the coin will relieve my churchly addicted brother of
these dilemmas. He must either admit that "the church" triumphed under
Moses and David or confess that Jesus is not the head and founder of
any church. Should he confess that Jesus did not found a church, the
conclusion follows that churches are sects or reZigious parties~ in
cluding the "church of Christ."
But another dilemma. When he confesses that Acts 7:38 and
Hebrews 2:12 are indeed mistranslations, or no translations at all,
he will at the same time be confessing that a mistranslation is apparent
in every instance where "church" is used, incZuding aZZ of the many
passages he introduced.
So what do we have? If Jesus is not the founder of "church,"
one or more, who is? Man. Jesus started his new reign or community.
Man started churches or religious parties. Jesus reigns over his
congregation or community. Man reigns over churches. Anyone who
gives himself to a church submits to a system of slavery. He is no
longer a free man. And should he refuse to given his all to the party,
he forfeits his membership,' thus demonstrating that he was indeed a
member of something in addition to what Jesus set in motion. But
-15-
since his membership (citizenship) is also in heaven, he has lost
nothing by being kicked out of the party! "But our aitisenship is
in heaven" (Philippians 3:20).
To summarize: Brother Jackson has attempted to equate the
"church of Christ" with God's new reign. I have shown that churches
are sects or religious parties and started many years after the new
arrangement began. I have shown that in the original manuscripts
"church" was never once used or referred to by Jesus or any of the
inspired writers. As the "church of Christ" cannot be God's new
reign, it follows that it is" nothing but a counterfeit copy. Further
more, it follows that the remainder of brother Jackson's project
collapses.
·JACKSON'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
At least brother Scott has given us more information concerning his apostasy
than we have concerning Hymenaeus and Alexander (I Tim. 1:20), but that still does
not negate my position. He states, concerning his apostasy, that he has been "de
programmed." Using his terminology, he was "progranuned" in the first place by
the Holy Spirit, who authored the instructions (2 Pet. 1:20,21), and gave the
instructions in words (I Cor. 2:13). We ask him now, WHO deprogranuned you? In
contrast to the Holy Spi1:::it, Paul warns that there are indeed "seducing spirits"
(I Tim. 4: 1) •
I had stated to brother Scott" that we needed to discuss the views we each
have concerning the Bible. This is certainly verified when he states that the
Holy Spirit operated on his heart and caused the change in his course. Imme
diately we know that this is at the base of all we might discuss, for I believe
-16-
1n tine Word as the' only authority, and brother Scott believes in the direct
operation of the Spirit upon his heart! He states that his leaving the church is
not a case of leaving Jesus, and yet inspiration states that the church is the
body of the Lord (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22,23). The apostle stressed the ONE doctrine
of the Lord (I Tim. 1:3), and John said that those who leave that doctrine no
longer have God with them (2 John 9). Brother Scott has fashioned a "dream-world,"
wherein he can turn away from the doctrine, and yet still tell himself that he
is in fellowship with God and the Christ. If any view on earth is sectarian, you,
brother Scott, have adopted it!
He poses the question, "whiah church of Christ?" Look once more at my first
affirmative, brother Scott, and you will see it is the church pictured on the pages
of the New Testament! The fact that divisions have taken place, to brother Scott,
means that Jesus has no church. He then is in the position of denying that the
church in Corinth, with considerable division, was the church of God (I Cor. 1:2).
Brother Scott would also then use the heresy in Colossae, the departures in Galatia,
and the Jezebel influence in Thyatira to deny that Jesus had churches there! Better
take it up with the Lord, brother Scott, since your controversy is with himl Brother
Scott rebukes the- church as being sectarian, in never admitting teaching wrong, and
then when wrong is evidenced, as in these New Testament cases, he takes that as
proof that the church is not of Jesus! It is not of Jesus if it doesn't admit wrong,
and then if it does admit wrong it also is not of Jesus! What a mass of contradic
tion in his views!
After wasting considerable space, he gets to the real basis of his views:
he opposes the rendering of the word "ekklesia" as "church. 1I He should be in
debate with some Bible translator, since he knows more than all the combined
scholarship giving us the standard translations, and more than Thayer (p. 196),
more than Bullinger (p. 153), more than Arndt & Gingrich (p. 240), more than
-17-
Liddell & Scott (p. 206) and more than Kittel (Theo. Diet., p. 502ff), etc. What
is so shocking is that when brother Scott endeavors to prove his point, he does so
by the N~ English BibZe, and the Living BibZe, the latter not even a translation,
but a paraphrase! So much for scholarship, then! Brother Scott gives us "the Scott
definition" of a sect, and then brands Jesus as a sectarian in that he condemned
all systems but his own (Matt. 15:13), and provided no other way to the Father but
through himself (John 14:6).
Again, by lithe Scott definition" of a "sect," Jesus is a sectarian in that he
provides terms of admission into salvation (faith, repentance, confession, and
baptism). Scott brands, it sectarianism, and Jesus called it obeying the will of the
Fatherl Brother Scott gave me assurance that he would base his articles on scrip-
ture, but he has provided no scripture authorizing the instrument of music (mechanical).
salvation without church membership, more than one church, or salvation outside the
church of the New Testament. Where are those passages, brother Scott? Didn't the
Living Bible, or the Holy Spirit, provide such?
Brother Scott, when he gets to his main point, gives us matters in the area of
"tweedle-clee, tweedle-dum." He doesn't like the word "church." and bases the point
of the debate on his preference, and yet he admits that Jesus did establish a
"system. reign, community, household, commonwealth, priesthood, assembly, congre
gation. and 'Israell til A rose by another name, brother Scott! All churches are
sects, by "the Scott definition," and therefore Jesus cannot have a church! But,
brother Scott, all churches are assemblies, and systems, and then it follows that
Jesus did not'found an assembly, a system? Tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. brother
Scott! Are you really that hard pressed for an argument?
Brother Scott abhors sectarianism, and then uses the sectarian argument on
Acts 7:38 and Beb. 2:12. Yet the very source materials I cited to him shows-that
the Lord had "an assembly" made up of his people Israel. and that Jesus was
-18-
prophesied as coming-to be among God's people, the called-out, God's assembly.
and indeed properly called also "the church." The church is seen as Christ's new
"ekklesia." as distinguished from the old (Moulton-Milligan, p. 195). This. in
keepillg with the basic idea of "ekklesia." as an assembly summoned by a herald.
Sources authoritative in language tell us that this is THE CHURCH!
Brother Scott then seeks to dislodge my contention that Jesus did indeed estab
lish his church. He does so by avoiding the word "church," but instead he speaks
of "the unveiling of an event" in Acts 2, of Jesus being replaced by church. and
of the Christian "system" making an appearance without any church being connected
with it. Again avoiding the word "church," (which we noticed is proper by the
language resources), he speaks of men "associating themselves together, forming
congregations or communities." Tweedle-d"ee and tweedle-dum, brother Scott. He
then launches into the origin of sects. and thus indicts the church of Christ as
being a sect because it uses the word "church." He gleefully thinks this is a
point favorable to his position when it is no more than the usual sectarian ploy of
selecting one word of several acceptable terms, and then using one in combatting the
others. The Jehovah's Witnesses -do the same with the word "soul." With his tech
nique, brother Scott would be just as successful in arguing that world religions
have their "saviors," and therefore are false in so-doing, and therefore the Chris
tian system is a false one. since it has a Savior!
While brother Scott dislikes the word "church," he has others he prefers to use
but all the while referring to the same body of people. Giving him freedom to use,
for example. the word "assembly," he still would be required to obey the-Lord.
founder and head of the "assembly." He would find that Jesus promised to build,
and did build, the "assembly." He would find that the Lord added to the "assembly"
when men were saved (Acts 2:47). He would find that the "assembly" is to be or
ganized with elders, deacons and members (Phil. 1:1). He would find that one
-19-
could not be a part of the "assembly" except through obedience to the gospel of
Christ (Mark 16:15,16; Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). He would find that those living
and walking disorderly are to be disfe110wshipped from the "assembly" (I Cor. 5:13;
2 Thess. 3:6,14). He would find that members of the "assembly" are to wear the
name Christian (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Pet. 4:16), He would find the "assembly" to
be designated by scriptural terms, honoring to God and Christ. He would find that
those following God are to be baptized into Christ, for remission of sins, and thus -'
added into the "assembly" (I Cor. 12:13). He would find that the "assembly" observes
the Lord's Supper each and every first day of the week (Acts 20:7). He would find
that the "assembly" worships God in song, and without addition of the mechanical
instruments of music into the worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 13:15). He would
find that any who refuse to abide by the doctrine of Christ no longer have God's
blessings upon them. and therefore would not be a part of the "assembly." And,
perhaps the~o~nt that would make brother Scott the unhappiest is that he would
find that Jesns' "assembly" is his body, the fullness of him that fi1leth all in
all (Eph. 1:22,23), and that there is just the ONE "assembly." More, he would be
reminded that Jesus promised that the Father would uproot all but Jesus' ONE assembly!
(Matt. 15: 13) •
My affirmative arguments stand. Brother Scott did not negate one point, but
rather moved out in his "mad" against the word "church" to engage 1n some "striving
about words" (2 Tim. 2:14), His view is that if there was ever any abuse of any
holy thing, then the thing could never have been holy at all. Brother Scott needs
to understand that the abuse of any thing is never an argument against the thing
itselfl We regret that he has left the body of Christ, and that he is wrapped
up in a hobby over the wDrd "church."
He obviously has moved over into some other fellowship-pardon me, "assemb1y"-
and I certainly do want him to identify that "system, reign, community. household.
commonwealth, priesthood, assembly, congregation and 'Israe1,n that he has found!
-20-
Please. brother Scott. tell us how it is designated, what name is worn. how it
is organized. what it says about doctrine. whom it disfellowships, what it does
about false doctrine, etc. Please be bold and tell us. brother Scott. for. after
all, the Holy Spirit led you to it. remember??? Be watching for it. dear reader!
The fact remains that we are to abide by the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16.17).
and fellowship is restricted thusly (2 John 9), The seed is the word (Luke 8:11).
and obedience to the word results in the church. the family of God. and we are
added thereto upon obedience (Acts 2:47). The scholarship of the world shows us
that the word "church" coveys the "assembly" of the Lord in the Christian age.
It is Scott against that scholarship, Scott against the standard translators. and
Scott is thus certainly not reliable in the matter of the "freedom" he advocates.
His arguments are those all apostates make as they turn to attack what· they have
turned from, with conscience tormenting them all the way! We urge men to obey
the gospel. and the Lord adds to his church! Scott should return!
SCOTT'S SECOND RESPD~SE
FACING THE ISSUE: Lest we become lost in a maze of confusion. permit me
to reintroduce the subscance of the matter under discussion.
The issue is whether- Of' IWL the ChW'.::h cf Chnst -is God's nelU reign. It has
been shown that churches are sects or religious parties. To stick our Lord with
a church. any church, 1S to stick him witn sectarianism. Jesus cannot be made
current head of the Church of Christ without making Moses former head. for King
James has a church under the old covenant. "This is he, that lUClS in the church
in the lUildemess lUith the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and tJJith
OUr' fathers: who received the lively oroacles to give unto us" (Acts 7:38).
Hebrews 2:12 also places a church under Moses.
-21-
Bill and his fellow travelers assert that the Church of Christ (or "church
of Christ") had her genesis in 33 A.D. But if a church existed under the reign
of Moses, she is much older than my brothers claim.
I would remind my good brother that Roman Catholicism became the first church.
Protestant churches ~ame many years later. The Church of Christ arose out of
Alexander Campbell's efforts to unite the Christians in all the sects. She is
1900 years too young to be God's new reign.
Campbell did not institute the Church of Christ. He commenced a ministry of
reformation and disavowed all shades of sectarianism. The separatist attitude and
rigid law system which later developed gave rise to this "denomination" or sect.
It is no secret that Jesus freed us from law slavery. It is not likely he would
abolish one law system and add another. Bill's "New Testament System" is as
inadequate as the old testament system. Neither is able to pardon and justify.
My Church of Christ brothers make the covenant of grace and love a covenant of law,
and use it as former Israel used the old covenant of law. If a man is looking for
"religion" in the Church of Christ, he will find an ample supply. But if he is
searching for a celestial relationship, he will come away empty handed. Church of
Christ leaders have become so engrossed in "religion" and organizational schemes,
they have lost sight of their "first love." Legalism has permeated this sect so
thoroughly that her membership is no longer capable of coping with loneliness,
depression, grief, financial collapse, or poverty. These were Jesus' prime targets.
The Church of Christ deals essentially with dogma and doctrine. She is defeated
and crushed when confronted with financial setbacks and frustration. I suggest
that if she refuses to reform, she ought to be declared spiritually insolvent and
relegated to some dark corner of partisan history. Like all sects, she will survive
only if she undergoes reform. Once reformation has run its course, she will cease
being a sect and become a concerned community and an evangelistic society.
-22-
Should the Church of Christ change to "Assembly of Christ," she would still
be a sect because of her separatist and divisive attitude. Today's Assembly of
God is yet another sect. A thorn by another name is still a thorn. Even proper
designations may be ecclesiastically abused. The name does not always determine
the game.
SCHOLARSHIP AND KING JAMES: Bill takes me to task for "knowing more than
all the combined scholarship who gave us the standard translations~" He referred,
of course, to my rejection of "church" in the KJV of the scriptures. If my good
brother will be tolerant of me, I will demonstrate why the KJV of the sacred docu
ments should be placed on a corner shelf in some ancient museum.
Not only did King James insist that the old ecclesiastical word II church ll be
incorporated into his version or translation, but he is also responsible for
"Easter" in Acts 12:7. He intended to cling to ecclesiastical holidays as well.
Brother Jackson will not accept King James' "Easter." He will tell us that
it should have been translated "Passover" instead. He is correct, of course. Is
he against scholarship, a shortcoming he ascribed to me? Furthermore, Bill claims
that baptize is not a translation, but rather a transZiteration, and that the
Greek baptisma (or baptizein) should have been rendered immerse, submerge, dip,
or plunge. He is, of course, correct again, But is he against scholarship, a
fault he ascribed to me?
King James virtually prohibited baptisma from being translated. IIBaptize"
and "baptism" were among lithe old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word
church, not to be translated congregation" (Alexander Campbell's Christian Baptist,
November 1, 1824). The king's translacors were not consistent. They were, in
fact, deliberately manipulative. John 13:26 reads: "Jesus answered, He it is, to
whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. "
-23-
The Greek baptisma is correctly translated "dipped." Why, then, did they
fail to translate it correctly wherever immersion in water is alluded to?
But again: "And he was clothed with a vestul"e dipped in blood" (Rev. 19:13).
Baptisma is correctly translated "dipped" in this passage. We cannot but question
the creditability {sic] of King James and his translators.
But here is more on "church" and King James. In chapter 19 of the book of
Acts, passages 32, 39, and 41, 'assembly" is translated. The Greek eccZesia cor-
rect1y delivers "assembly" in each passage. My concern is why the king's trans-
lators neglected to substitute "church" in these places, as they did elsewhere?
The reason for the discrepancy is evident. A riot and turbulent assembly are
indicated, not a "church service" or ecclesiastical meeting.
If ecclesia is delivered correctly here, it is delivered incorrectly wherever
"church" is found. There is no escaping this truth. The king's men were wild in
using "church." In the 37th passage they speak of "churches" being robbed I
"Temple" is the correct rendition.
I am asking brother Jackson to face reality by admitting that the KJV of the
scriptures is obsolete and inaccurate, and does not fairly represent the original ;
manuscripts.
One hundred years before the KJV made its reappearance, Tyndale issued his
translation of the sacred letters. He disregarded the "old ecclesiastical words" I
which the clergy esteemed sacred. He changed "charity" to Zove~ "church" to
congl"egation, "grace" to favol", "confeSSion" to knowZedge, and "penance" to I
l"epentance.
The clergy rejected Tyndale's translation under the pretext of its inaccuracy.
They wanted to cleave to the "old ecclesiastical words." Consequently, he was
condemned to death and executed as a heretic.
A note worthy of attention is that the Church of Christ clergy, like King
-24-
James, will not forsake "church," for to surrender "churcli" is to surrender the
party and an "old ecclesiastical word." Must we remind ourselves that the clergy
crucified Jesus (Matt. 27:20)? They fought change. And today's clergy fight
change and insist on keeping the "old ecclesiastical words" and sects. They will
"crucify" anyone who attempts to reform any part of their partisan platform. Church
of Christ clergy are not exempt.
Hugh J. Schonfield, the only Jew to ever translate the new covenant letters
from the Greek language (The Authentia New Testament" 1955), changed "church" to
aormrunity and "baptize" to irrunepse. Alexander Campbell (The Living Oroates" 1826)
refers to John the Baptist as "John the Immerser." Matthew 16:18 is made to read:
"On this rock I will build my congregation." Our English "church" is not found
in Campbell's translation.
While considering scholarship, is my brother against it because he rejects
King James' "Easter"? But please observe the inconsistency. He denounaes King
Jcones' "Eastep" because it does not have divine suppoPt. He aacepts King Jcones'
"chupch" ippespective of its lack of divine BUppoPt! What makes one right and the
other wrong?
The deliberate mistake made by King James and his scholars when they embodied
"church" into their translation has cose us dearly. For contemporary religions
have pounced upon this offence by creating and establishing sects and factions
under the guise of "church" until they have divided and sub-divided themselves out
of practical and impressive existence, The Church of Christ is among the worst
divided. Jesus stressed unity. My Church of Christ brothers practice division.
Yet they call themselves "the true church" and God's new reign.
A CLEAR PERSPECTIVE: Now, where does all of this bring us? Simply. that
the King Jcones translation contains many "old eccleSiastical words" and renderings
and cannot be relied upon for accuracy. In addition. we must conclude that Moses
-25-
did not head a church, Jesus did not head a church, and the apostles did not
perpetuate a church. Consequently, we must resolve that man started churches.
Bill is interested in knowing with whom or what I am in fellowship. I am
in fellowship with every born-again believer upon this earth. I meet with any of
those who can tolerate me! I will pray and sing and study with anyone who has
surrendered his life to Jesus. I hold no earthly membership. I will not be pigeon
holed by earthly standards.
Does God have a people? Yes. Is Jesus King of new Israel? Of course. Is
he Sbepherd of the sheep? Certainly. Does he head the body? He does. Does he
govern the new commonwealth? By all means. Does God have children in the Church
of Christ? Yes, and in other sects as well. He had children in the sect of the
Pharisees and in the sect of the Sadducees, but he opposed these. religious parties
and called the clergy who "pastored" them hypocrites, sons of hell, blind guides,
camel swallowers, dirty cups and dishes, whitewashed walls, unclean, and accused
them of being full of dead men's bones (Matthew, chapter 23).
God has children in Babylon (Rev. 18:4). They are told to "come out of her."
"Babylon" is synonymous with all sects, "denominations," cults, and religious
parties. The admonition is tantamount to surrendering all shades of sectarianism-
whether Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, Church of Christ, or Church or God.
It is not necessary to leave the ones we Lwe to abandon the "party spirit," as
the sectarian spirit is essentially a separatist and divisive attitude, In other
words, the "party spirit" of Galatians 5:20 (RSV) is an attitude which generates
division and separation. Religious pa"rt1E:S are the end result. We may differ,
as did the early believers, but we may not separate into parties or "faithful
churches." The Corinthian congregation was in the process of separating into
parties (I Cor. 1:11-13). If the partisan attitude had run its course, there
would have been a physical separation. However, Paul "nipped it in the bud."
-26-
I charge that the Church of Christ (or "church of Christ") is a religious party
that generates division and separation. Her lOo-year history confirms this charge.
"Come out of he!'~ my people J so that you will not share in he!' 8ins~ so that you
witt not receive any of her plagues" (Rev. 18: 4) •
~ING JESUS OR KING JAMES? It is sad that my Church of Christ brothers appear
to be more devoted to King James than to King Jesus. Not only do they base churchism
upon King James, but they try to restrict God to 16th century vernacular. Why do
you suppose all scripture, except for rare and special occasions, quoted in their
journals bears King James' insignia? Is God a respecter of dialects? Is he incapable
of speaking any other? Did his language become static after the 16th century? How
long will it take my brothers in the Church of Christ to learn that the KJV is
among the poorest translations? I charge that the King James dialect of the 16th
century is jargon in-c~~ardry 'society.
OTHER MATTERS: I must "not close withaut introducing other "reasbhs why the
Church of Christ cannot be God's new reign. Bill says she "ts"Gdd's~ew reign because
she has the right organization, the right designation or proper name, and the right
"pattern of worship." If Bill is wrong in any of t.hese creedal affirmations, the
Church of Christ falls alongside all other sects, according to his own theology,
He presented Philippians 1:1 to show that the early Christian community was
organized with elders, deacons, an4 members. I will lodge no "objections against
this divine arrangement. However, let it. be known that the Church of Christ has
added to this heavenly plan. The Southwest Church of Christ in Austin, Texas is
a prime example of how my brothers violate the very scriptures they claim to up
hold. This congregation is organized with elders, deacons, saints, and the
"minister." My good brother Jackson plays the part of special "minister" in this
congregation. He is not one of the "ordinary" ministers. He is a special priest,
a special servant, a special saint, a special member, and a special minister.
-27-
He even has a speaial "Minister's Study" or office, according to his church
bulletin. The- congregation's elders do not write the bulletin. Their speaial
mouthpiece writes it, namely my good brother Jackson. The elders do not deliver
messages routinely. Bill does. In other words, the elders are fulfilling their
ministry by proxy, the very opposite of divine legislation.
Since every believer is both a priest and minister, what would be wrong should
the elders decide to place on their meetinghouse and publish on their bulletin the
following information? BILL JACKSON, PRIEST. And inasmuch as every believer is a
saint, what about BILL JACKSON, SAINT? But again: As every born-again believer is
a Christian, what about BILL JACKSON, CHRISTIAN?
Was Timothy a special priest? Was Titus a special saint? Was Paul the
minister of a congregation? Or was he instead a minister among ministers, a priest
among priests, a saint among saints, and a believer among believers? Paul, Timot~y,
Titus and others were divinely assigned selective ministries, but none of these men
served any congregation as speaial minister. Nvt one of them served as a human
intermediary. Paul did, in fact, tell fellow believers to present themselves before
God (Rom. 12:1).
Today's Catholic Priest,Lutheran Pastor, and Church of Christ Minister perform
all of the congregation's major activities, very much like the priests of Israel
under the covenant of Moses. They went to God on behalf of the people, thu& por
traying a special priesthood made up of an elite group, This elite group consisted
of a number of special priests who were in subjection to a high priest. The
people approached God by proxy, or th(~ugh the intermediary of other humans.
Jesus died to free us from these rudimentary prinCiples and rituals. He be
came the Higr Priest (Heb. 4:14). Today we are God's "royal priesthood" or a
"kingdom of priests" (I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6). We go to God through his Son, our
High Priest, not through "priestly pastors" and "priestly ministers" who fleece
-28-
God's sheep by pulpiteering and executing a~ts of spiritual service for us.
The role of today's "pastor" or "minister" is totally foreign to the new
arrangement. When we hire and import a fellow priest to offer 'our services to
God, or to perform our ministry by proxy, we belittle the wisdom of', God.
But do the Catholic Priest, the LucheranPastor, and the Church of Christ
Minister go to God on our behalf? Well, who does the major part of teaching,
preaching, exhorting, admonishing, edifying, comforting, praying, visiting, show-
ing compassion, and exhibiting concern? Who is called upon to organize meetings,
programs, and conferences? Who is expected to speak for the people?
Let it' be fo~eve~ known that all of the early believeps shared in these
matters, not just an elite few. (Please refer to I Corinthians 14 and Romans
12: 4-8.) Their pastors were men advanced in age ("elders") who led and shepherded
by involving the whole flock. All members were participants, not mere spectators.
Their meetings were very much like our open classes today where everyone is en-
couraged to share.
It is ridiculously insane to deny that the Church of Christ has the "denomi-, .
national pastor system." This sect's professional pulpiteers obstruct spiritual
growth in that they discharge all of the body's major functions. Even the physical
body will die if its members are denied permission to exercise their various
roles, for activity strengthens and builds. Is it any different with a body of
people?
The Firrm Foundation said in a recent issue that "any religious body which
teaches that which is not taught in the New Testament is not the church which
Jesus built" (October 25, 1983, page 7). Here are a few of the many things
the Church of Christ teaches that are not supported by the new'testament scrip-
tures. (By the way, Bill is on the editorial staff of Firrm Foundation.)
1) A MAN MAY BE IMPORTED TO SERVE AS "MINISTER."
-29-
2) A CONGREGATION MAY COLLECT MONEY TO KEEP THE "MINISTER" AFLOAT AND TO
CONSTRUCT FANCY EDIFICES. The ancient order collected money only for evangelism
and the destitute. The alleviation of poverty was the rationale behind most
ancient contributions. In contrast, most all monies collected by the Church of
Christ go for real estate and to sustain a clergy caste. The early community
had neither real estate (ecclesiastical edifices) or clergy (professional pu1-
piteers). The Church of Christ has both!
3) THE "NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH" PRACTICED CONGREGATIONAL SINGING ONLY. SOLOS
WERE NOT PERMITTED. Wrong again. Paul told the Corinthians that "when you come
together each one has a hymn, a lesson ••• " (I Cor. 14:26). Those who were gifted
in these areas were to use their gifts. The messages ("lessons") were not to be
spoken congregationally and the hymns were not to be sung congregational1y.
Both we~e to be given in solo fashion. What was true of one was true of the other.
But not in Church of Christ circles. Is she ancient or recent? Is she old or
fresh? (NOTE: Both corporate and solo singing are permissible.)
The truth is, when the early believers came together it was not for the pur
pose of receiving encouragement from a paid functionary but to mutually stimulate
and strengthen one another. When this arrangement is set aside by substituting a
system which usurps the freedoms and prerogatives of God's new priesthood, digression
and stagnation result. Such is the case in the Church of Christ.
4) ONLY "FIVE ACTS OF WORSHIP" MAY BE SCRIPTURALLY PERFORMED "DURING THE
WORSHIP SERVICES." Th1s is a human creed of the deepest dye. If a brother is
meditating about God and his wonders in the corporate assembly, is he not wor
shipping? If I help a saint with arthritis take his coat off in the assembly,
am I not worshipping? Is it not true that every time I use one of God's gifts
to assist my fellow humans, in or out of the public assembly, I am worshipping
him? If my view is valid, there are seven "acts of worship" listed in Romans
12: 6-8.
-30-
And I could go on and on. I harbor no hate in my heart toward Bill and his
Church of Christ brothers. They are God's children in spite of the rabid partisanism
which has blinded them. I will continue loving them and to pray for their de-
livery from the "flesh pots of Egypt,lI It seems to me that if the Church of
Christ clergy backed off and bowed out, a new reformation would soon appear on the
horizon. But there can be no reformation as long as the rank and file membership
remains enslaved to "Egypt's Pharaohs. 1I I am, of course, referring to Church of
Christ IIminister," editors, and elders when 1 speak of "Pharaohs."
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY: Jesus did not found a church any more than Moses.
Churches were founded by man centuries after the Christian community was set in
motion. They are, therefore, sects or religious parties. To claim that Jesus
established a church is to claim that he established a sect. A sect is any re-
ligious group which classifies all other groups wrong and whose terms of admission
and terms for staying admitted are either partly or fully foreign envoys. A
group of believers may beaome what Jesus instituted by aasting aside all shades
of seatarianism and partisan reLigion and aaaepting and loving alZ of those whom
God aaaepts and loves, It is that simple. Membership in God's colony is estab-
lished by citizenship (Phil, 3:20). When a believer places hiS membership with
some church, he becomes a partisan believer. Citizenship in heaven is the onZy
membership required.
EXPLANATION PRIOR TO JACKSON'S REJOINDER
When brother Scott mailed his last negative to me, under date of December 25. 1983. he exceeded the five-pages per article we had agreed upon, He stated. "You wi1l~notice that .it is seven pages long. 1 was not able to include all of my material on five pages. I am asking that you make allowances by permitting me the extra two pages. In return, you may add two additional pages to your two-page rejoinder, if that should be your need and desire." I promptly gave permission for his having seven pages, on condit.ion that I could have those two extra rejoinder pages.
I mailed my rejoinder to him dated January 11, 1984. While my rejoinder is enroute to him, I receive a letter from him dated January 10th. stating that
-31-
"your rejoinder will not be included in the official publication." He then adds that he does intend to follow his negative with two additional articles written by him, and this follows with, "I am sorry I was unable to include all of my last response in five pages. But remember, 1 have taken no liberties that I have not granted you. And thanks for giving me permission to add the additional two pages," At the top of his letter he added this P.S.: "I have not received your rejoinder at the writing and mailing of this letter (it was enroute--WNJ). I don't want someone saying that 1 first it and then decided not to use it in the official publication."
When contacted on this turn of events, brother Scott writes, under date of January 17th: "You are, of course, correct in affirming that our discussion was not complete until your rejoinder arrived, But what does that have to do with my submitting your two exchanges and my two responses to my publisher prior to your rejoinder arriving? And especially since I had no plans of including the rejoinder in the official publication. 1I
It is obvious that brother Scott rushed to get the material published without my rejoinder, hastening to do so before it arrived. While he then did not see the rejoinder, he obviously knew the areas that would be covered, and did not want it published. Therefore, we now publiSh the rejoinder. that the reader may have the full discussion, and that he also may see just what brother Scott didn't want published!
Bill Jackson
JACKSON'S REJOINDER
While brother Scott reminds us that our subject was whether the church of
Christ is God's new reign, he spends the time in his last art::icle in a harangue
against the church, and dealing with such matters as law, grace, leadership. legalism.
dogma, finances, preachers. edifices, offices and church bulletins! That really
establishes his point, doesn't it? I had written. in the affirmative, and showed
the Old Testament prophecies pointing to Ne,~ Testament fulfillment in the church
of Jesus Christ. We gave the pa~sages :oncerning Jesu~' promise to build the church.
and his doing so, and as Head he now reigns over it. What did brother Scott say
in reply, and in dealing with the vers~s'? Nothing! The point in my affirmative
has been established, and Scott's failure to be successful within the Lord's
system is the failure of a man. not of the church!
We will now deal with some of the matters he has presented: (1) He states
that he has shown that churches are sects. Reader. he asserted that. but that
-32-
is not proof! He did not show, and cannot show, that Jesus' church is a sect.
(2) Of several synonyms, the Scott hobby is to accept them all except the word
"church," but is happy to use it when it serves his purposes in argument. (3)
By the Scott hobby, th~ claim is chat Jesus did not end one law system and estab
lish another. Hebrews 7:12 and 8:7 states otherwise, brother Scott. Your quarrel
is with the word of God. Better take it up with Christ, since you disagree with
him! (4) Brother Scottt forgets that I had referred to New Testament scholarship
in showing how he stood against all of it regarding the spurning of the word
"church." I indeed do reject the Scott hobby, as I reject all hobbies. I have
every reason to question Scott's scholarship when he proposes to tell us all
about "ekklesia," but is unable to see the differences in the "ekklesia" that was
Israel, the "ekklesia" that was the Ephesian mob, and the "ekklesia" that is the
church that Jesus built! (S) Brother Scott faults numerous translating of words,
and wants me on record as rejecting the King James translation as obsolete and
inaccurate. On the contrary, brother Scott, I have found the King James accurate
to an extremely high degree, and completely superior to every modern-speech trans
lation yet produced!
We contin~e: (6) Brother Scott admitted that Jesus heads the body. Notice
that, reader, and notice also that the New Testament identifies the body as the
church, and that Jesus serves as head over the church (Eph. 1:22,23 and Col. 1:18).
(7) The Scott hobby has God with children in all the sects, Once more, he is in
conflict with Jesus (Matt, 15:13) and with Paul (Eph. 4:4). Better take it up with
them, brother Scott, since your disagreement is with them! (8) Brother Scott
tries to indict the church of Christ as furthering a "party spirit," and yet he
endorses a system of sectarianism whereby the Lord is blessing men in worship,
service, loyalties, preachings and pra(..t:ices contnity to the New Te:>tament of
Christ! The Scott hobby is a loblolly of views amounting to men "doing their
..
..
-33-
own thing" with Jesus' blessings! (9) He charges that the church of Christ
generates division and separation. Brother Scott, you mean just as Jesus came
to cause division and separation by the teaching of the Father's will (Matt. 10:
34-38)1 Is that what you mean? In that regard, we must indeed plead, "Gui1tyl"
God's teaching has always caused division and separation as men made their re
sponse to it, either'obediently or disobediently!
And more: (10) Brother Scott charges a loyalty to King James rather than to
King Jesus. How thankful I am that a charge is not proof! No one is trying to
restrict God to speaking the English of 1611. But, it must be stated that in
so many instances the King James of 1611 has language superior to that found in
other translations, and certainly superior to the applications made in the Scott
hobby I (11) Brother Scott tries to deny Jesus' church by faulting our work at
Southwest, and the use of the expediencies of offices, phones, bulletins, etc.
May we remind him once more of the proposition, and of his promise to base his
remarks on the Scriptures? The Scott hobby is co brand me as a "special" func
tionary. The very man who speaks against sectarianism thinks in terms of "ordinary"
members and "special" members! It is en.Jugh to point out to him that one with
teaching or preaching assignments is no more "special" than a deacon who has some
assigned task that others may not be accomplishing! (12) Brother Scott accuses
the preachers as "fleecing the sheep." Once more, he 1s in conflict with Paul, as
in I Corinthians 9: 14 and 2 Corint:hians 11:8. Did Paul "fleece" the sheep, brother
Scott? Or, by the Scott hobby, are those mistranslatlons?
And again: (1$) Brother Scott ~ses the lSL Corinthian chapters on the exer
cise of spiritual gifts to set forth iaeas of the sort once advocated by Ketcherside
and Garrett. The Scott hobby has all the details on just how the speaking in the
early church was handled, but he also knows that the "psalms" delivered (1 Cor.
14:26) were SUNG and not READ! The only problem: He cannot prove this by the
..
..
-34-
Bible! He can only assert! The Scott hobby finds a pattern, apparently, for
bidding the church building a meeting house and owning property - yea, the Scott
rule allows no expediencies, especially when Scott desires to make an attack
against Jesus' church! (14) The Scott hobby desires to find other avenues of
worship, beyond the five I cited to him, and he chooses "meditation." Apparently
brother Scott does not allow "meditation" to be involved in the five avenues I
cited to him. But, he has to REACH for something whereby he can fault the church
of Christ. He REACHES, but he has no Scriptural proof on these other items of
worship!
The most accurate thing brother Scott presented was summed up in this: "I
could go on and on." He has asserted, and claimed, and charged and attacked, but
he did not prove by the Scriptures that Jesus built no church! In his attacks
against the church of Christ, he asserts, charges and mocks, but he does not prove!
He charges that brethren are enslaved by modern-day "Pharaohs," but does not
mention the harm to the truth done by Scott and other modern-day Hymenaeuses and
Alexanders (I Tim. 1:19,20). We remind that Lhe failures of Hymenaeus and Alexander,
and Buff Scott, in abiding within the Christian system are the failures of the
men, not the system!
And, by the way, did brother Scott inform us of the "assembly, congregation"
he has now found, since leaving the church of Christ, giving him all the "freedom"
he has desired? Did he tell us its name, location, etc? Did he tell us of the
body in which he now has a part, or is he leaving us (iith the picture of a
"maverick" wandering around among all the sects? We asked for that information,
brother Scott! Wonder why you didn't mention the name of the "true"(?) fellow
ship you have now· found?
Reader, be assured that we have nothing bUL gvod will toward arother Scott.
We are concerned about him as we are about all brethren who cease to abide by
-35-
the doctrine, and leave the church in seeking broader fellowship. We will be
praying for his return. We are very sorry that brother Scott has initiated a
hobby over the use of the word "church," and that he is in a position where he
denies Old Testament prophecies finding fulfillment in the New Testament church
of Jesus Christo ,
As the reader will notice, brother Scott did not even try to
fault the passages I used. Rather, he attacked the King James translation, and
then he attacked the church. His pOSition is the same, with certain individual
twists, as that of every hobbyist; the Scriptures do not provide for his hobby,
and he must make room for it some way, even at the expense of denying and attack-
ing truth! When he has written all, I am so glad that the truth still speaks of
Jesus' promise to build his CHURCH (Matt. 16:18), and that we are shown that the
CHURCH did come into existence (Acts 2:47). God is to be glorified IN THAT CHURCH!
(Eph. 3:21). Brother Scott's rantings cannot change it! We plead for, and pray
for, his return to the Lord!
A FINAL OBSERVATION
Brother Buff Scott thus becomes an example of one with obViOUS and consider-
able talents, but who has allowed himself to be enmeshed in hobbyism and liberalism.
Now he labors to destroy the faith he once preached. We are genuinely sorry this
is so, and even at this late date in his sojourn we would -hope that he can be
"snatched out of the fire." We urge that Christians Everywhere who read this be
concerned about this tragic misuse of talent and ability, and be praying that
Buff Scott will return to his Lord! We would have no greater joy than to
see this come to pass! (Bill Jackson)