The New Testament Pattern

Speaker: Dennis Gruening
Date: November 22, 1998
Main Scripture Reference: 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

One of the more “popular” doctrines among some of the more liberal members of the churches of Christ these days is the idea that the New Testament does not contain any pattern for us to follow, that the New Testament and the rest of the Bible is only a “collection of love letters.” One of the major proponents of these ideas—and I hate to mention names, but sometimes you have to—is a man named Rubel Shelly. This is a man who, among others, was at one time a faithful Gospel preacher, but now teaches error in almost every possible way.

Well, Brother Curtis Cates quotes Shelly in his pamphlet, The Former Rubel Shelly Verses the Present Rubel Shelly,and he [brother Cates] says: “The present Rubel Shelly rejects the New Testament pattern. Shelly writes, ‘We reject rigid pattern theology. We are not to imitate slavishly everything the 1 st Century Christian church said and did. The Scripture certainly does not present an absolute blueprint for building a church.’ [Shelly and those like him say that] They abhor the idea of line-item theology, a set of doctrines, [what they say is] our tendency to find and bind rules, [and what they say is] a rigid pattern and pointless encumbrances.”

Cates goes on to say, “Of course, we know the Bible to be clear on the fact that thereISa pattern, and thatpattern is based upon theabsolute authority of God, Hebrews 8:4-6 [“For if He [Jesus] were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He [God] said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’    6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.”]; Acts 7, and verse 44 [“Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He [God] appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen…”]; Titus 2:7 [“…in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility…”] and others. And this pattern is understandable, and it is NOT obsolete.” [End of Brother Cates message.]

What I don’t understand is how someone who used to be a faithful Gospel preacher could come to such erroneous conclusions [as Rubel Shelly]. The New Testament is full of logical arguments, instructions and commandments which cannot be denied. And the New Testament frequently contradicts error in the clearest of terms.

Well, logical arguments are many times expressed in terms of “if…then” statements. In other words, if one thing is true, then something else is also true. The New Testament uses this kind of logic in many places, and the apostle Paul was probably the writer who used this form of argument most often.

One of the best examples of this is found in 1 Corinthians 15, beginning in verse 12, through verse 19. Paul wrote there, “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, [then] how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and [then] we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: Whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, [then] your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, [then] we are of all men most miserable.”

Well, if the Bible contains no set patterns of doctrine, how can we explain Paul’s argument here in 1 Corinthians? The brethren in Corinth were apparently faced with the teachings of those who believed that there was no resurrection of the dead, which is a doctrine which is taught by the Jewish sect of the Sadducees, Matthew 22, and verse 23; and Acts 23:7-8.

Paul maintained that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a fact and was a vital doctrine of the church, and that’s just what it was [and is]. Christ’s resurrection is the foundation stone of the Christian faith. But some, then, were preaching that there was no resurrection of the dead, and the Corinthians were apparently unaware of the seriousness of admitting the impossibility of that resurrection.

Well, let’s look at this absolutely logical argument which Paul used in refuting this false doctrine. Paul wrote, “Since you all became Christians based on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, how is it possible that some of you could say that there isn’t any resurrection from the dead?”

To the church at Corinth, Paul wrote, “If, as you believe, there is no resurrection from the dead, then the resurrection of Christ, upon which we base our faith, is a lie. He was not resurrected from the dead. Well, if Christ’s resurrection is a lie, then everything that we preach and everything which you believe is a lie also. Our preaching of Jesus and your faith in Jesus is worthless, and it’s vain, and it’s a total waste of time. Well, on top of this, if Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, then all who preach and teach the resurrection are liars; they are false witnesses of God, because we are preaching and teaching that God did something which He really didn’t do.”