Views: 24<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The material found in 2 Peter 1:1\u201311 is significant in helping the Christian understand his relationship both to God and to his fellow man.1<\/sup> Verse 4 expresses the consummation of all of God’s efforts for and among men\u2014that men might become partakers of His nature. Here is man at his zenith: not living on the animal level or merely on the civilized human level, but on the Divine level. Such an incomparable consideration is fraught with unparalleled implications.<\/span><\/p>\n Exposition of the Text<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n What does it mean to “become partakers of the divine nature”?2<\/sup> Koinonos<\/em>, translated “partakers,” occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, including its compound forms. This word indicates common sharing and participation between two or more beings in whatever element the context identifies, including both persons and things. It refers to partnership in business (Luke 15:10) and in the Lord’s work (2 Cor. 8:23). It refers to participation in evil (Mat. 23:30), in sufferings for Christ’s sake (Heb. 10:33), and in the glory that awaits the faithful (1 Pet. 5:1). It is rendered communion<\/em> in reference to demon worship (1 Cor, 10:18, 20). Thus our text says that we can participate and share in God’s nature in some way.<\/span><\/p>\n Divine<\/em>, built on theos<\/em>, is an adjective meaning “that which pertains to God.” It appears without the article in the Greek text and would literally read, “partakers of divine nature” rather than “the divine nature.”<\/span><\/p>\n Nature<\/em> is a word described by the lexicons as essence, native condition, natural characteristics. On this text, Thayer comments: “The holiness distinctive of the divine nature is especially referred to.”3<\/sup> It is obvious that man does not and cannot partake in the transcendent “omni-traits” of Deity. It is in God’s moral attributes that men have the privilege (and obligation) of sharing: “Ye shall be holy; for l am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16).<\/span><\/p>\n Is this sharing in God’s nature present or future? The apostle states that through God\u2019s precious and exceeding great promises we \u201cmay become partakers of the divine nature\u201d (2 Pet. 1:4). This language admittedly sounds futuristic in tense. However, …ye may become… <\/em>is an aorist imperative, rather than a future tense form of ginomai<\/em>, meaning “to become or be made anything.” The aorist is the simple past tense of the Greek and when used in the imperative mood, refers to action involved without reference to its duration or repetition. The future sound of the verb results from the basic meaning of the verb itself, rather than from its tense. Paul wrote the following parallel thought: “seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him<\/strong>\u201d (Col. 3:9\u201310, emp. DM).<\/span><\/p>\n It appears certain, therefore, that Peter is talking about a relationship into which these brethren had already come: “having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust,” the remainder of the verse reads. Escaping a lust-corrupted world to partake of God’s nature is but a description of repenting of sin, obeying the Gospel, and living as a child of God. This partaking of God\u2019s nature is one in which His people must continue to progress, as succeeding verses show (vv. 5\u201311). While we enjoy this fellowship in the holy nature of Deity in this life, there is obviously a sense in which we will partake of His nature more fully in the eternal realm: “Beloved, now are we children, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is” (1 John 3:2).<\/span><\/p>\n This partaking is the fulfillment of “precious and exceeding great promises.” The New Testament is liberally spiced with the word promise<\/em>. Of its approximately seventy occurrences, only once does it refer to a statement or action of man (Acts 23:21). All of the others are in reference to God’s promises to men. Peter seems here to envision all of the sweet blessings God has promised through the ages to those who serve Him, all of which are subsumed in John’s observation: “And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal” (1 John. 2:25). This partaking is fraught with the keen responsibility of diligent cultivation of those traits that will nourish the Divine element in us and also keep us free from a corrupt world. Each of the eight traits (the familiar \u201cChristian graces\u201d) (vv. 5\u20137), after the first one, is to be “supplied” out of its predecessor, rather than merely added to it. Supply <\/em>is a word relating to an abundance rather than to a minimum. Our attitude toward these traits is spiritually pivotal. Their cultivation will bring:<\/span><\/p>\n Neglect of these traits will bring spiritual myopia, allowing us to see only present and immediate things, causing spiritual amnesia whereby we forget even our redemption from sin (v. 9). Such neglect destroys our fellowship in God’s nature and condemns us eternally if we persist in those traits.<\/span><\/p>\n Application of the Text<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Having briefly expounded this context, let us now consider its relationship to the great theme of fellowship.<\/span><\/p>\n Definition and Frequency of the Word, Fellowship<\/em><\/strong>4<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Partakers <\/em>in 1 Peter 1:4 is very closely related to the word fellowship<\/em>, which is found fifteen times in the King James Version and seventeen times in the American Standard Version. It is most frequently translated from the Greek word koinonia<\/em>, of which koinonos <\/em>(\u201cpartakers,\u201d 1 Pet. 1:4) is a cognate. Kittel says: \u201cIt expresses a two- sided relation…. emphasis may be on either the giving or the receiving. It thus means, \u2018participation,\u2019 \u2018impartation,\u2019 \u2018fellowship.\u2019\u201d5<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Strong lists the following ideas conveyed by koinonia<\/em>: partnership, participation, social intercourse, pecuniary benefaction, to communicate, communion, contribution, distribution, fellowship.6<\/sup> Metoche<\/em>, a Greek synonym for koinonia<\/em>, is translated \u201cfellowship\u201d once (KJV, 2 Cor. 6:14). Both metoche <\/em>and koinonia <\/em>are found in the passage just cited. Both the KJV and the ASV render metoche <\/em>as \u201cfellowship\u201d and koinonia <\/em>as \u201ccommunion.\u201d Thus, it is clear that fellowship involves two or more persons or organizations participating, sharing, having communion, or having things in common. Of the seventeen occurrences of fellowship <\/em>in the ASV, one is from Luke, five are from John, and the remaining eleven are from Paul.<\/span><\/p>\n The subject of fellowship is also discussed in numerous passages that do not contain the word itself, but that nonetheless relate to the concept of fellowship. Kindred subjects are unity, withdrawal from and rejection of certain ones, \u201cchurch discipline,\u201d \u201creconciliation,\u201d and others, as we will demonstrate in the development of this subject.<\/span><\/p>\n Persons\/Congregations and Circumstances Involved <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Fellowship in the New Testament involves relationships between mankind and Deity (\u201cvertical\u201d) and between fellow human beings (\u201chorizontal\u201d). Faithful children of God have fellowship with God the Father (1 John 1:3), with the Son of God (1 Cor. 1:9; 1 John 1:3), and with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14; Phi. 2:1). One way in which the Lord\u2019s people may have fellowship with Christ is by undergoing suffering on His behalf (Phi. 3:10). Faithful children of God also have fellowship with one another only because and if <\/strong>they first have fellowship with Deity.<\/span><\/p>\n When men have the same father, they are brothers,7<\/sup> and when two or more people come to partake of the Divine nature, a fellowship is established between said participants. This fellowship is clearly conditional, as opposed to universal or capricious. As Peter indicates (2 Pet. 1:1\u20134), fellowship embraces those who have:<\/span><\/p>\n It should be manifest to even the simple-minded that the inclusive terms of this passage describe only a child of God, a Christian. This fellowship likewise obviously excludes those failing these qualifications, regardless of how pious they may look or the way they speak or act. The non-Christian does not partake of God’s nature; therefore, he has no fellowship with the saints, and the Christian can have no fellowship with him. Even to suggest that the Lord’s church bodily, or that saints individually, have any degree of spiritual fellowship with the unregenerate world of either infidelity or denominationalism is a form of infidelity itself. If some argue that this confines fellowship too narrowly, they should remember that God Almighty has done the confining through His Word.<\/span><\/p>\n Many years ago, while I was waiting for a haircut, a Methodist preacher, already in the barber\u2019s chair, asked me if we in the churches of Christ still believed we were the only ones going to Heaven. Before I could answer, my barber, a faithful brother, said, “He goes further than that; he doesn’t even believe all of his brethren will make it!” He spoke the truth. Not only do Christians not have any fellowship with non-Christians, even our fellowship with brethren is strictly conditional, as I will subsequently set forth. One can identify at least sixty-eight verses in the New Testament that relate directly to corrective discipline or to withdrawing and withholding fellowship from an impenitent brother. The brethren described in this large body of Scripture had\/have clearly ceased to partake of the Divine nature and were\/are no longer to be extended fellowship by the faithful.<\/span><\/p>\n Note the conditional statement of John in this regard: \u201cBut if we walk in the light as he [God] is in the light [i.e., if we are in fellowship with God], we have fellowship with one another\u201d (1 John 1:7). Paul described the acceptance and endorsement extended to him and Barnabas by James, Peter, and John\u2014men in fellowship with God\u2014as giving to them the \u201cthe right hands of fellowship\u201d (Gal. 2:9). John wrote what he did to the brethren in his first letter that they might have fellowship with him, and that they may know the way by which they had \u201cfellowship one with another\u201d (1 John 1:3, 7). While some brethren have suggested that the Lord\u2019s day contribution may be in view in Acts 2:42, I agree with Kittel that Luke\u2019s use of fellowship <\/em>here is likely a reference to the \u201cbrotherly concord\u201d that characterized those early saints in Jerusalem.8<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n One or more congregations may have fellowship with one or more individuals who are doing the Lord\u2019s work in some remote place. One way (certainly not the only way) in which this may be done is by financially supporting a preacher. Paul spoke of the Philippian Church\u2019s \u201cgiving and receiving\u201d involved in their support of him as having \u201cfellowship\u201d with him (Phi. 1:5; 4:15\u201316). Further, he understood that the fruit of his labors would accrue to their account to some degree because of their support of his work. Paul instructed the Galatian congregations to \u201ccommunicate\u201d (koinoneito<\/em>, i.e., to associate themselves with \u201c…in the way of aid and relief\u201d)9<\/sup> unto their teachers (Gal. 6:6).<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, one or more congregations may have fellowship with one or more other congregations in the Lord\u2019s work. One way (but again, not the only way) in which a congregation may have fellowship with another congregation is in financial support. Thus, when the church in Philippi sent support to Paul while he worked with the church in Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8\u20139), it was not only having fellowship with Paul, but also with the Corinthian Church. Likewise, when the church in Antioch sent relief to the churches (through their respective elders) in Judea, Antioch was extending \u201dfellowship\u201d to them in a very concrete way (Acts 11:27\u201330).<\/span><\/p>\n Attaining Fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Human fellowship with God has never been and is not now universal and \u201cautomatic.\u201d It is and has always been conditional and attainable only by complying with God\u2019s conditions. Man was in fellowship with God in the beginning, but he forfeited that fellowship when he sinned, and God cast him out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:9\u201324). Since then, with only the exception of the Son of God, men have sinned when they reached the \u201cage of accountability\u201d: \u201cFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God\u201d (Rom. 3:23). That is, all human beings who have lived have sinned <\/strong>(aorist tense, which looks back over the behavior of mankind through all human history) and all who now live also continue to sin <\/strong>(present tense, men now sin and continue to sin). The further implication is that this also describes the behavior of man until time is no more. Since God cannot abide sin in His presence, man could not be restored to fellowship with Him (reconciled) on his own because he could not attain to purity and sinlessness on his own. God has always required the offering of blood on the part of those who sought forgiveness of sins, which forgiveness is necessary if sinful men would attain fellowship with God (Heb. 9:22).<\/span><\/p>\n Consummate and final forgiveness could not be attained through the offering of the blood of bulls and goats, whether under the patriarchal or the Mosaic systems (Heb. 10:4). God\u2019s ultimate forgiveness of men required the ultimate sacrifice of the blood of a perfect man. None on earth could be found (Psa. 14:1; Rom. 3:10), so God, in His incomparable love for man, sent the Pre-existent Pre-incarnate Word to become incarnate as His Only Begotten Son in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 1:30\u201335; John 1:1\u20132, 14; 3:16; Gal. 4:4\u20135). This sinless Son (Heb. 4:15), Jesus, the Christ, offered His own blood, not for His own sins, but for the sins of sinful men (Heb. 9:23\u201328; 10:10, 12, 14). By His unblemished, unspotted blood we are redeemed from sin (1 Pet. 1:18\u201319). He made those once far off near, \u201cpreached peace,\u201d brought reconciliation to man with God in the one body, His church (Eph. 1:22\u201323), and made it possible for former strangers to God to be fellow-members of His household (2:13\u201319). He did all of this through the cross (i.e., the shedding of His blood) (v. 16).<\/span><\/p>\n Having paid the price which would enable man once more to attain fellowship with God, the Christ had every right to stipulate conditions upon which fellowship could be attained. He did so in the Gospel, the message of good news, which declares:<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, the Gospel \u201c…is the power of God unto salvation…\u201d (Rom. 1:16).<\/span><\/p>\n Reformers of the sixteenth century such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, reacting to damnable Roman Catholic dogma, foisted an equally horrible aberration of God\u2019s glorious plan for man\u2019s redemption upon the world. Curiously, they advocated that God\u2019s grace is unconditional and at the same time that man is saved solely by his faith (obviously, faith is a condition). Of course, if grace (thus fellowship with God) were unconditional, not even faith would be necessary, and unbelievers would be saved. Salvation would therefore be universal because God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; Tit. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9).<\/span><\/p>\n This heresy would stand exposed were there only one <\/strong>salvation-if <\/em>passage in the Gospel, but there are many (Mark 16:16; Luke 13:3, 5; John 3:5; 8:24; Acts 2:38; 17:30; 22:16; Heb. 5:9; et al.). It is a shame beyond description that some who were once faithful saints and strong for the Truth, including elders and deacons, have now taken up this perverse doctrine. Calvin, rather than the Christ, is the source of Rubel Shelly\u2019s infamous statement on this subject: \u201cIt is a scandalous and outrageous lie to teach that salvation arises from human activity. We do not contribute one whit to our salvation.\u201d10<\/sup> Numerous others who were once in fellowship with God have also echoed such \u201cgrace only\u201d sentiments.<\/span><\/p>\n Most certainly then, fellowship with God is conditional, and those conditions are set forth simply and understandably in the New Testament. Summarized, those conditions are as follows. Men must:<\/span><\/p>\n Upon obeying this grace-motivated (Tit. 2:11), mercy-filled (3:5), Heaven-sent (1 Pet. 1:12), blood-bought (2:18\u201319) plan of salvation, men are cleansed from their sins, not by works of their own righteousness, but by the perfect blood of Christ as they obey Him. Having their sins washed away in the blood of Christ in the act of baptism (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5), God the Father can\u2014and does\u2014receive them into His fellowship and that of His Son and the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n How does the church of the Lord relate to this grand plan and to man\u2019s attainment of fellowship with God? Note that all who obey the Lord\u2019s plan of salvation and are thus saved (and no others) are added by the Lord to the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47)\u2014the one Christ built (Mat. 16:18). Thus the church is composed of those (and no others) who have come into fellowship with the Godhead by having obeyed Christ\u2019s plan of salvation, being thereby cleansed by His blood. Of Christians (and no others) Paul wrote that \u201c…the Father… delivered us out the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love (Col. 1:12\u201313). Kingdom <\/em>is another term for the church (Mat. 16:18\u201319, 28; Heb. 12:23, 28). Only the kingdom (church) of Christ will be delivered safely up to the Father at the coming of Christ, implying its fellowship with God (1 Cor. 15:24). Christ will save only His church, His spiritual \u201cbody\u201d (Eph. 5:23). The church of Christ is the household (family) of God (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15), another figure which indicates that it is in fellowship with Him. To summarize, only those who have obeyed the Gospel plan of salvation\u2014and are thereby in the church\/kingdom of Christ\u2014 have attained fellowship with God. The church (and only the church) is the \u201cdepository\u201d of those who are saved and who have thus attained fellowship with God (Acts 2:47).<\/span><\/p>\n Maintaining Fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Men who have once known the blessed fellowship of God and His Son may so behave as to forfeit it. Thus not only must men attain <\/strong>fellowship with God; they must so live as to maintain <\/strong>it. In the context of describing our fellowship with God as \u201cwalking in the light,\u201d John wrote plainly: \u201cIf we say that we have fellowship with him [God] and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth\u201d (1 John 1:6). Once more, John Calvin made an egregious error at this juncture. His doctrine of perseverance of the saints (i.e., \u201conce in God\u2019s fellowship, always in God\u2019s fellowship\u201d) has misled multiplied millions (if not billions) over the four centuries since his time and even now holds tens of millions in its thrall of false security. In Calvin\u2019s system, once one has attained fellowship with God (i. e., salvation), he is irrevocably locked in; he can never believe, think, say, or do anything that will cause God to withdraw or cease it. As with the former heresy, so with this one, some of those who were once in fellowship with God have been infected by it and are teaching that God has an \u201cumbrella of grace\u201d whereby His children \u201cautomatically\u201d remain in His grace. However, the New Testament specifies various sins that will cause a child of God to forfeit his fellowship with God and be lost eternally if not repented of (1 Cor. 6:9\u201311; Gal. 5:19\u201321; Eph. 5:5; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n Withdrawing Fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The horizontal dimension of fellowship (fellowship between men) is determined by and dependent upon the vertical (fellowship between man and God). As set out above, only when (and not until) men become children of God, do they then (and only then) attain fellowship with other children of God. It follows that, when a person ceases to be in fellowship with God (i.e., is \u201cfallen away from grace\u201d [Gal. 5:4]), those still in God\u2019s fellowship cannot extend fellowship to such brethren. It therefore should come as no surprise that numerous passages command the Lord\u2019s faithful people to cease having fellowship with certain of their brethren and for a variety of reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n The reason faithful brethren cannot have fellowship with brethren who are disorderly is the same reason the church cannot have fellowship with those outside the church: Due to their sinful lives, neither alien sinners nor impenitent saints are in fellowship with God. Scripture demands that the faithful withdraw from and cease their fellowship with impenitent \u201cdisorderly\u201d brethren (Mat. 18:17; Rom. 16:17\u201318; 1 Cor. 5:4\u201311; Eph. 5:11; 2 The. 3:6, 14\u201315; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 3:10\u201311; 2 John 9\u201311).<\/span><\/p>\n Three major purposes are stated for such withdrawal action:<\/span><\/p>\n When these explicit instructions are compared with the current attitudes and actions among our brethren, a nauseous disappointment settles over those who love the purity of the Truth and the kingdom.<\/span><\/p>\n Liberalism and Fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Because of negligence among many brethren at this most basic point, the false teacher and the sinner have been allowed to flourish over the past few decades, creating a fellowship crisis. Administrators of universities founded and supported by brethren have defended and shielded professors who have taught egregious error to several thousands of our young people. Many of those thus trained have eagerly embraced and proclaimed the rank error they were taught and have increasingly filled brotherhood pulpits over the past few decades. Rather than reproving and dismissing such pulpiteers, elderships\/congregations have tolerated, encouraged, and supported them, creating a massive liberal malignancy in the body of Christ that has captured hundreds, if not thousands of congregations of spiritual Israel. A large percentage of members of the church are now represented by what one can accurately describe as \u201cThe<\/em> Christian Chronicle <\/em>element.\u201d This monthly tabloid, owned and published by Oklahoma Christian University, has for several years given extensive and very favorable publicity to all things liberal among brethren (including individuals, schools, congregations, and brotherhood projects).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 These folk, who still masquerade as God\u2019s people (and while hypocritically keeping \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d signs on their buildings), occupy the ironic and contradictory position of endorsing, preaching, and practicing the very doctrines and practices God has called us to fight. Such apostates are doing their utmost to forge a widespread union with the Independent Christian Church with no repentance on their part. This is in spite of the fact that, beginning more than a century ago, their efforts eventuated in a grievous division in the church by forcing unauthorized innovations upon congregations. For faithful disciples, John\u2019s description of the \u201canti-Christs\u201d of his day well fits these liberals of our day:<\/span><\/p>\n They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1 John 2:19).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A \u201cNew Approach\u201d to Fellowship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A new crisis involving fellowship has now arisen among a host of brethren who have<\/span><\/p>\n known, esteemed, and worked in close harmony with one another over many years\u2014in some cases, over decades\u2014all of whom once considered each other unquestionably doctrinally sound and faithful. These brethren for the most part had a history of staunchly standing together against the inroads of the blatant liberalism described earlier. They had for years quoted and correctly applied the several clarion passages concerning the limits of fellowship as they preached the Word (Rom. 16:17\u2013 18; 1 Cor. 5:1\u201313; Eph. 5:11; 1 John 1:6\u20137; 4:1; John 9\u201311; et al.). The crisis arose from the determination of certain ones of these brethren to support an institution that has admittedly produced much good material over many years. This institution suffered great damage in 2005 because of a scandal involving its long-time executive director, for which scandal he was dismissed.11<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Events surrounding the clamor to preserve the above-referenced institution in the face of the scandal have exposed a fatal weakness in many of these \u201csound\u201d brethren\u2014a weakness concerning the practice of Scriptural fellowship. Those bent on supporting and maintaining said institution found themselves on the horns of an uncomfortable dilemma. The newly appointed executive director of said institution brought with him some heavy doctrinal and practical baggage. (Some of his doctrinal errors and practices have been well-known and fully documented for several years, while others have come to light more recently.)12\u00a0<\/sup>Suddenly (and almost incredibly), those who felt compelled to lend their names to the effort to sustain the institution seemed to forget (at least in regard to the executive director of said institution) the many years some of them had faithfully preached on Biblical fellowship and the many New Testament passages on the subject in their memory banks.<\/span><\/p>\n While they have rightly opposed and refused all fellowship with the first-described liberal element over the years, in these recent events they have consciously abandoned that stance regarding this one brother and the institution he directs and represents. Rather than behaving toward and concerning him as the false teacher he is, they have been willing to embrace, defend, endorse, and continue to use the services of this brother, in spite of his errors. An error in doctrine or practice is usually not \u201clonely\u201d for very long. As the one unclean spirit sought and attracted seven others to join him (Mat. 12:43\u201345), just so, an initial compromise or error soon attracts other compromises and errors to accompany it. Not long after the institution referenced above felt its support base threatened and brethren compromised Biblical fellowship to prevent the occurrence of such, another institution\u2019s financial base was threatened. The director of this institution defused the threat by bowing to pressure from the threateners, which required further compromises by the director of said institution (and his associates) to do so.13<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Rationality demanded that, if one held the erring brother accountable for his errors, one could not support the institution of which he is the head. Contrariwise, one could not support the institution which he directs, without implicitly supporting him. Unfortunately, those who have been insistent on supporting the institution have not let rationality deter them. Many of us who have worked closely with so many of these brethren through the years have been \u201camazingly amazed\u201d as they have irrationally \u201crationalized\u201d endorsing, defending, and continuing to employ the talents of the brother in order to support and preserve his institution. They have simply chosen to disregard his history of impenitent error in doctrine and practice. So desperate have they been to defend this brother, they have issued a variety of absurd excuses for him and for their illicit fellowship with him, as the following list indicates:<\/span><\/p>\n Item number 10 above is indeed a bold declaration, and it implies even more than it explicitly states. It implies that the doctrine and practice are false, but it makes the judgment that it is just not \u201cfalse enough\u201d to warrant serious concern\u2014never mind that it strikes at the very heart of God\u2019s plan for congregational polity for His church. According to God\u2019s plan of \u201cchurch organization,\u201d only <\/strong>men who meet specific Scriptural qualifications are to serve as elders in His congregations (1 Tim. 3:1\u20137; Tit. 1:5\u20139). The practice of this error fundamentally alters the Lord\u2019s pattern concerning elders no less than the second-century departure from God\u2019s plan did, but it is \u201cnot worth dividing the church over.\u201d That first step led over the next few centuries to full-blown Romanism with all of its ungodly papal and hierarchical structure.<\/span><\/p>\n This unauthorized procedure makes of the local congregation little more than a mere voting constituency that has the power to select or deselect men as elders on more <\/strong>than God\u2019s Scriptural qualifications, but it is \u201cnot worth dividing the church over.\u201d The brother who implemented this plan has, among other things, added a new qualification to those given by the Holy Spirit, namely that a man must be \u201cperceived\u201d as a \u201cleader\u201d or he is not fit to serve as an elder, even if he meets all of God\u2019s qualifications, but this new qualification is \u201cnot worth dividing the church over\u201d15<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n A second implication of item number 10 above is the following: Those who continue to \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n