|
SUBJECT: 1 Timothy 5:19-21 …the rebuking of an elder.
QUESTION: Could you take me through this procedure and show
me how it might be wrongly used? I understand that it was
wrongly used in the case of Garner Ted Armstrong back in
1997.
ANSWER:
That is correct. It was wronging used in that instance.
In late 1997, when the Board and Ministerial Council of the
CGI tried to oust Mr. Armstrong, they offered only one verse
for their justification: 1 Timothy 5:19-21…
1 Timothy 5:19-21
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before
two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may
fear.
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the elect angels, that thou observe these things without
preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
Where in the Bible do you read anything about
disqualification of servants of God? Those qualifications
for ministers in the Bible (Timothy
and Titus) are for the CHOOSING of elders, NOT
the disqualification of same. Titus 1:5 says, “For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
city, as I had appointed thee.” I just don’t see Paul
telling Titus to use the same qualifications to disqualify a
person from the ministry. Do you have an example of anyone
in the Bible actually using these qualifications to put a
man down? Absolutely not!! There are reasons for this:
#1 A thing called REPENTANCE.
If there was no thing called repentance, then you would have
an argument but THANK GOD, there is.
Notice verse 20: it says that those elders that sin are to
be rebuked before all. Just what is this verse saying? For
you to be correct in your argument, you must be able to
fully understand and be justified by this verse.
In the 3rd letter of the Ministerial dated 7
December 1997, the three authors site this verse as their
authority for forcing Mr. Armstrong into retirement.
Look at what the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary says
about this verse:
Verse 20: Them that sin – whether presbyters or laymen.
Rebuke before all - publicly before the Church. Not until
this “rebuke” was disregarded was the offender to be
excommunicated (disfellowshipped).
~end of quote from JFB
Clearly we see this scripture is about an elder who has
sinned but not yet been brought to repentance. Mr.
Armstrong has clearly been rebuked---again and again. He
has not disregarded that rebuke. He has confessed and
openly repented of his sins.
Look at that verse again. If an elder has repented of a
sin, what need is there of open rebuke? If an elder is
disregarding the rebuke, clearly he is not repentant; he is
not allowing the Holy Spirit in him to rule his actions and
attitudes. Why would this person who sinned need to be
rebuked before the world; before outsiders? The
commentaries are clear about the fact that this rebuke was
to be just before the congregation and not the outside
world. So why was a repentant Mr. Armstrong rebuked (and
condemned) not only before the whole congregation
but before the whole world?
The ONLY scriptural support for disfellowshipping an elder
is when the minister fails to repent. The CGI failed in
their attempt to justify what they did. They failed to
justify going to the press and going on local Tyler
television to “rebuke” him. They failed to justify
condemning him on their Internet page which is seen by the
whole world.
It is those ministers in the CGI that have openly sinned,
gone against the Word of God and failed to repent.
Mr. Armstrong repented before the whole congregation on a
number of occasions and some of that was on video. By the
way, what happens when we repent?
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though
your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
This means that as far as God and Christ are concerned,
there is no sin to look at or talk about. So why are there
people standing before God talking about a long ago repented
of sin? I, for one, do not want to be standing before my
Christ trying to justify why I was talking about the sins of
others; sins that even God, the Father does not look at.
#2 Where in the Bible do you see men dishing out the
consequence of sin?
We all know that even when we are forgiven of sin, we still
have to pay the consequence of sin but this is never left to
men to force upon another. Did men keep Moses from entering
the Promised Land? Did men kill the first born of David by
Bathsheba? Did someone kill Ananias and Sapphira?
The head ministers at CGI continue to attempt to bring shame
upon Mr. Armstrong. They are acting as agents of
“consequence” but they have failed.
#3 The Bible and its scripture is designed to Raise man
up, not put him down.
You cannot use the qualifications of minister, which are
designed to raise a man up, to put him down. The
qualifications that Paul listed were designed to guide the
ministry at picking the best people they could. These men
that were picked and ordained were not having a problem at
the time they were chosen. You would not chose a man soon
angry (Titus 1: 7) or a
man with multiple wives (verse 6)
or was not able to exhort and convince the gainsayers (verse
9). Look at those qualifications very closely.
Notice verse 16:
“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny
him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good
work reprobate.”
This verse talks about men that would not qualify to be an
elder and clearly this is not talking about a humble,
repentant man that relies on Jesus Christ for his very
being. Further, for other than an elder that openly sins
and fails to repent (1 Timothy
5:19-21) how are you going to go about this
disqualification of the minister? Read those qualifications
again. Which ones do you have a problem with?
I ask again, where did Paul or Timothy or Titus use these
qualifications to disqualify after the ordination was done?
#4 Minor point but what the Council tried to do (at
first) was get Mr. Armstrong to “move to
retirement”.
What was the justification of that? Either you rebuke the
unrepentant elder or shut up. Clearly, they were trying to
prevent Mr. Armstrong from stopping their use of God’s Work
for personal gain. In other words, what they were doing
wrong (ousting Mr. Armstrong)
was not even being done correctly.
back to the top |