An Exchange on the no Located Preacher teaching

An Exchange on the No Located Preacher teaching

A movement that has served as a detriment especially to churches of Christ is the no located preacher and mutual edification teaching. Before reading the subsequent exchange, I recommend you read, "The Located Preacher and his Work."

Don Martin to the list:

In the sixties and seventies, I did local work in the area where Charles Holt became famous for his teachings regarding the work of an evangelist. For seven years, I preached in the shadow of J. D. Hall of Jasper, Texas, who financed the propagation of the "no located preacher" doctrine. I say this to mention that I am very familiar with this teaching. Since Cheryl Rudd is a follower of Charles Holt, I deem the material to be timely. Below, is an excerpt from an article in Bible Truths titled, "The Local Preacher and his Work." I want to use this excerpt to prompt an exchange pertaining to the no located preacher and the mutual edification doctrine with any capable male on this list (read the full article in Bible Truths).

"...Located versus detached from local church view. There can admittedly be different types of preachers, having different goals. Paul expressed the desire to "not build on another man's foundation" (Rom. 15: 20). However, even Paul recognized, condoned, and assisted others in building on his foundation (I Cor. 3: 6 ff.). Paul also worked for years in given areas and was associated with local churches in these endeavors (Acts 18; 19). He even preached to these brethren (Acts 20: 20-27). It was Paul who reprimanded the church at Corinth for their failure to financially support preachers, as they should have (I Cor. 9: 6-14). Paul received support from other churches in order to preach to the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 11: 8). These biblical facts should suffice to prove that a preacher can be located, preach to the church, and be financially supported. However, there continue to be those who advocate the "mutual edification" doctrine (the members must teach one another without the presence of a preacher). One well-known advocate of mutual edification was Leroy Garrett. Garrett taught:

".The term evangelist is applied to those missionaries who like Philip the evangelist and Timothy traveled from place to place to bear glad tidings of Christ to unbelieving nations and individuals" (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19, 20. Garrett quotes from Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. 1, pg. 436).

There have also been modified views relative to the no located preacher position. One modified view is that a local church can have a located preacher providing there are no elders. Consider the teaching of Tolbert Fanning as stated by historian Earl West:

"The logical teachers, and overseers of the church were the elders. The elders were but the elderly men in the church. They 'kept house for the Lord,' and edified the saints. All the teaching was done by this group.." (The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1, pg. 342).

Involved in the no located position are a number of key words and terms. The proponents of this movement have given these words a special and almost esoteric meaning. "Preach" means to address non-Christians; therefore, one cannot "preach to the church," we are told (Bible Talk, January, 1953, pg. 51, Leroy Garrett). Notwithstanding, Paul charged Timothy to preach to the brethren at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 2-5). It is also evident that the church at Ephesus continued to have elders while Timothy worked with this church (see I Tim. 1: 3; 5: 17-20). We are told that one cannot teach the lost. Notwithstanding, we read of teaching (they were "taught") the lost (Acts 5: 20, 21, vs. 42). According to mutual edification proponents, the term "evangelist" only applies to one who travels and preaches to the lost (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19). However, the scriptures apply "evangelist" to a located preacher who preaches to the church (2 Tim. 4: 5, see vs. 1-4, I am not affirming that "evangelist" cannot also apply to one who teaches the lost, Acts 8: 5, 21: 8). There is also a misunderstanding of the word "feed," as used in I Peter 5: 2 (KJV). They contend that to feed means to teach and that elders are told to teach the local church. However, the Greek word for "feed" in I Peter 5: 2 is poimaino, to tend. The term "doctrine" must be rendered "teaching," according to the no located preacher people. "Doctrine" (didache) can and often does involve both the act of teaching and that which is taught (cp. Acts 5: 28, 13: 12).

The mutual edification concept as set forth by some. Make no mistake, the scriptures clearly teach mutual edification (Eph. 4: 16). Those who bind their view of mutual edification, though, inject their own thinking. We must remember that Paul sanctioned Apollos watering (edifying) the church at Corinth after Paul left (I Cor. 3: 6 ff.). If the located preacher arrangement had been a perversion, certainly Paul would have rebuked the Corinthian church and Apollos, but he did not! In the text to which allusion has been made relative to scriptural mutual edification, it will be observed that the "evangelist" is part of the edification arrangement (see Ephesians 4: 11-16). False mutual edification is not only foreign to the scriptures, it weakens local churches by having men function that are not qualified....."

Don Martin to the list:

There are several who have been posting under the subject line of, "The work of an evangelist" (there have been some good posts). I have been amazed at the lack of knowledge that sometimes prevails in local churches about such matters. There are actually two types of preachers seen in the scriptures: Those like Paul who sought to, "...preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation" who had men (ex. Apollos, Timothy) to follow him and work with the churches that he established, men who preached to, and served as the "men in the pulpit" for the churches, even in the apparent presence of elders (Rom. 15: 20; I Cor. 3: 6, 2 Tim. 1: 3, 4: 15). Paul, on different occasions, stayed for years preaching to the church and being supported while doing this (cp. 2 Cor. 11: 8). Paul also taught the lost (cp. Acts 20: 17ff.; 18: 1-7).

Some come along and argue: "Preach" means to address non-Christians; therefore, one cannot "preach to the church," (Bible Talk, January, 1953, pg. 51, Leroy Garrett). Notwithstanding, Paul charged Timothy to preach to the brethren at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 2-5). It is also evident that the church at Ephesus continued to have elders while Timothy worked with this church (see I Tim. 1: 3; 5: 17-20). We are told that one cannot teach the lost. Notwithstanding, we read of teaching (they were "taught") the lost (Acts 5: 20, 21, vs. 42). According to mutual edification proponents, the term "evangelist" only applies to one who travels and preaches to the lost (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19).

One on this list recently posted (notice the vestiges of the Garrett/Holt doctrine):

"It is not my desire to put anyone down. However, it is my desire to examine 'systems' that have developed since the death of the inspired apostles. The preacher system is such a one.

Jesus told His apostles to GO into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He said GO and the system today says COME. Come into our Church buildings and listen to our Pulpit Minister...who will teach you the gospel of our Lord. An evangelist GOES....a preacher STAYS.

Elders (older men) were given the job of living godly lives for the sheep to follow AND were to be apt to teach. They have in turn, turned the teaching of the sheep (they were among) to someone paid to do that for them. This is done as the Minister stands before the sheep. I don't believe 'standing before the sheep' was what even the Elders were told to do (except in a figurative way.) They are to know the scriptures so well that they can go to whom ever needs teaching on a given subject and teach that person. Teaching by Elders needs to be done to meet the needs of the person….where he is in his spiritual maturity. As a side note: The Elder is to know each sheep and know what he needs in the way of teaching. Also the sheep should know the Elders so well that they know if they are qualified to lead them. They should not simply be pictures on the wall or someone you shake hands with at Church. The sheep will desire to follow a godly man who has their welfare at heart and who loves them as he watches for their souls interest.

Today, however, in the formality of the Church institution people are hired to stay in a building and preach the gospel to those who already obeyed the gospel. An Evangelist is one who preaches the gospel of Christ."

Don Martin to the list:

The teachings of Leroy Garrett and, later, Charles Holt are still alive and well. In my last post, I stated the following, in quoting some of these people:

"Preach" means to address non-Christians; therefore, one cannot "preach to the church," we are told (Bible Talk, January, 1953, pg. 51, Leroy Garrett). Notwithstanding, Paul charged Timothy to preach to the brethren at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 2-5). It is also evident that the church at Ephesus continued to have elders while Timothy worked with this church (see I Tim. 1: 3; 5: 17-20). We are told that one cannot teach the lost. Notwithstanding, we read of teaching (they were "taught") the lost (Acts 5: 20, 21, vs. 42). According to mutual edification proponents, the term "evangelist" only applies to one who travels and preaches to the lost (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19).

Don continues:

I am reading on ______ (name of list) about the evangelist is not located with a local church and does not serve as the "pulpit man." The mutual edification (results in no edification) people consider all male (I wonder if Cheryl Rudd will limit this to males) members as "pulpit men." One text that I have presented to these people and have pressed for an answer has never been touched, top, side, or bottom. It is the text of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5, a text that defines "the work of an evangelist." Remember that Timothy was at Ephesus (a church that appears to still have elders) to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine" (I Tim. 1: 3). Please consider the text of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5:

1: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry" (2 Tim. 4: 1-5).

Notice that Paul charged Timothy to preach the word to the church (vs. 1-1-4). Timothy in a peculiar sense (compared to other males) had this charge.

I am aware of all the deflective arguments: "Does not say, 'Timothy only,'" "The church was in sin and the elders were involved in the sin; therefore, in this exceptional case, Timothy was thus charged," etc. Based on the text and circumstance of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5, I ask the following three questions:

1). Could Timothy preach the word to the church?
2). What is "the work of an evangelist," according to the context of 2 Timothy 4: 5?
3) How was Timothy to "make full proof of thy ministry?"

Thank you for any participation you exert in answering these questions.

Don Martin to the list:

In this post, I want to briefly number and subsequently comment on some of the cardinal and salient tenets of the Leroy Garrett/Charles Holt doctrine that appear in the below post, I have placed (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) at locations that announce a particular doctrine characteristic of the "no located preacher teaching."

Here again is the post made by Cheryl Rudd (I am not directly addressing Cheryl):

"It is not my desire to put anyone down. However, it is my desire to examine 'systems' that have developed since the death of the inspired apostles. (1) The preacher system is such a one.

Jesus told His apostles to GO into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He said GO and the (2) system today says COME. Come into our Church buildings and listen to our (3) Pulpit Minister...who will teach you the gospel of our Lord. (4) An evangelist GOES....a preacher STAYS.

Elders (older men) were given the job of living godly lives for the sheep to follow AND were to be apt to teach. (5) They have in turn, turned the teaching of the sheep (they were among) to someone paid to do that for them. This is done as the Minister stands before the sheep. I don't believe 'standing before the sheep' was what even the Elders were told to do (except in a figurative way.) They are to know the scriptures so well that they can go to whomever needs teaching on a given subject and teach that person. Teaching by Elders needs to be done to meet the needs of the person…where he is in his spiritual maturity. As a side note: The Elder is to know each sheep and know what he needs in the way of teaching. Also the sheep should know the Elders so well that they know if they are qualified to lead them. They should not simply be pictures on the wall or someone you shake hands with at Church. The sheep will desire to follow a godly man who has their welfare at heart and who loves them as he watches for their souls interest.

Today, however, in the formality of the Church institution people are hired to stay in a building and preach the gospel to those who already obeyed the gospel. (4) An Evangelist is one who preaches the gospel of Christ."

Don comments:

"(1) The preacher system is such a one." The no located preacher mindset talks about the "preacher system" in a very prejudicial way. I do agree that we do sometimes have a pastoral system similar to denominationalism. I also concede there are hirelings in the pulpits, in some cases. However, the teaching of Garrett wants to present some huge institutional monster that does not exist to the claimed extent and then attack it as being the static norm.

"(2)... system today says COME." Again, attack is made on the abuse. Every Christian is a teacher of others (cf. Phili. 2: 16, Acts 8: 1ff., I Tim. 4: 16). There are circumstances and preachers who may have the primary and even full time work of reaching the non-Christian and even going to areas where the gospel is not being preached at all (cp. Rom. 15: 20, in one sense, the Great Commission, the "go" charge, was fulfilled by about 56 A.D., Rom. 10: 18).

"Come into our Church buildings and listen to our (3) Pulpit Minister...who will teach you the gospel of our Lord." The system of mutual edification and no located preacher mocks the idea of a particular man whose peculiar job it is to preach from the pulpit. I do not know in what kind of building the Ephesians met (rented, owned, private dwelling), but I have no problem imagining a member at Ephesus saying, "come and listen to our preacher, Timothy, teach the gospel of our Lord." (2 Tim. 4: 1-5.)

"(4) An evangelist GOES....a preacher STAYS." Some preachers in the first century "went" to virgin fields to preach the gospel; others "stayed" and preached to the churches (Rom. 15: 20; I Cor. 3: 6, 2 Tim. 4: 1-5). Notwithstanding, the mutual edification doctrine says an evangelist MUST GO and that the preacher who STAYS is a hireling and constitutes the villainous "preacher system." The proponents of mutual edification arbitrarily teach that the "evangelist" must only "preach" to the non-Christian. This is precisely the apparent meaning of the not fully expressed following statement: "(4) An Evangelist is one who preaches the gospel of Christ."

"(5) They have in turn, turned the teaching of the sheep (they were among) to someone paid to do that for them. This is done as the Minister stands before the sheep." The contention of the "Charles Holt doctrine" is that a church that has elders is in sin (practicing the "preacher system") if they have an evangelist in the pulpit who regularly preachers to them. Yet, this is exactly what Paul commanded or charged Timothy to do. We know Timothy was told to PREACH THE WORD TO THE CHURCH at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 1-5). Timothy was to REGULARLY PREACH the word to the church (2 Tim. 4: 1-5, cp. I Tim. 1: 3). We also know that the church at Ephesus HAD ELDERS at the time of Acts 20. It is also apparent that the church continued to have elders when Timothy was preaching the word to
the church (I Tim. 5: 17-22).

Hence, the above quoted post is reflective of the following:

(1). A general false and slanderous charge regarding the "preacher system" and a deprecation of faithful men who have sacrificially given their lives to preaching the word as Timothy did.

(2). An arbitrary definition of "evangelist" and the binding of this inaccurate definition.

(3). A shallow understanding of the different kinds of preachers seen in the New Testament and a binding of one type to the exclusion of the other.

(4). A misunderstanding of how elders and those who are paid to preach can work together in a scriptural arrangement, each performing work that is complimentary to the other and, yet, work that also has peculiar characteristics (Acts 20: 17-28).

Don Martin to the list:

I have been checking my _____ (name of list) digests and so far, I have not seen any attempt to answer my three posed questions. There appear to be several on this list who have embraced the no located preacher; mutual edification position. I would like to see what you have to say about the below. Therefore, I shall post again the questions:

Please consider the text of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5:

Thank you for any participation you exert in answering these questions.

Don Martin to the list:

While I was waiting to see if my three questions were going to be addressed, I saw that Cheryl Rudd had a reply post to one of my posts regarding the work of the evangelist and the no located, mutual edification doctrine. I shall review parts of Cherly's post to share with the list (I am not debating Cheryl). If Cheryl wants to respectfully submit some relevant questions to me, I would be glad to address them. I do not believe it is wrong to correspond or study together. However, I am opposed to debating a woman and placing her in a position of violating I Timothy 2: 11, 12. Until Cherly "cleans up her act," I will not directly discuss differences with her. (Why do not some of you men on this list who believe as Cheryl does make some posts?)

Cheryl wrote:

Frankly, I am disappointed in what is written here. There is quite a bit of taking out of context and negative remarks against people with whom Don disagrees with.

Don replies:

I do not know what Cheryl means in the above. I have made some comments in posts that apply to people such as Cheryl and I have made some comments that are more general, dealing with some of the history and players of the located preacher teaching.

Cheryl remarked:

I don't know a whole lot about Garrett's teaching but if he can see the "huge institutional monster" that has engulfed God's people then he is right on target.

Don replies:

Since Leroy Garrett is a major player in our generation in the advancement of mutual edification/no located preacher, I have mentioned and quoted from Garrett. It seems Cheryl should know more about her co-advocates, especially one who has been so vocal through the years and has written on the subject.

Cheryl quotes me and then replies:

"Every Christian is a teacher of others (cf. Phili. 2: 16, Acts 8: 1ff., I Tim. 4: 16). There are circumstances and preachers who may have the primary and even full time work of reaching the non-Christian and even going to areas where the gospel is not being preached at all (cp. Rom. 15: 20, in one sense, the Great Commission, the 'go' charge, was fulfilled by about 56 A.D., Rom. 10: 18)."

Is Don saying here there is no longer a need to carry the gospel into the world? I know a man who says Americans should stay at home and leave places such as Germany alone. They can teach their own people. However, he does not believe in water baptism so should we have no evangelist going into foreign fields now?"

Don remarks:

I do not mean to be unkind, but I start the paragraph that Cheryl quoted and accused me of saying there no longer a need to carry the gospel into the world by saying: "Every Christian is a teacher of others (cf. Phili. 2: 16, Acts 8: 1ff., I Tim. 4: 16)." Cheryl and those of her persuasion argue that the evangelist must go to those not Christians and that there work is thus limited. All I said was that strictly speaking, the Great Commission was fulfilled by about 56 A.D. (Rom. 10: 18). Preachers and churches should decide where they want to preach. Such is there business, they have this liberty. However, the no located preacher advocates, such as Cheryl, demand and limit the work of the evangelist to preaching to those not Christians. The scriptures make no such limitation and exclusion (2 Tim. 4: 1-5).

Cheryl again quotes me and then responds:

"'Come into our Church buildings and listen to our... (3) Pulpit Minister...who will teach you the gospel of our Lord.' The system of mutual edification and no located preacher mocks the idea of a particular man whose peculiar job it is to preach from the pulpit."

It does not MOCK anything, but simply takes the Word as it is given to the first century...thus to us. Let me say that when there are get togethers by Christians there will be some who are more scriptural literate and they can be a great help in the interaction as experienced in/among the early Christians. I say "get togethers" because that is what the early Christians had as they encouraged and edified one another. There is not even a hint (nor an inkling) of the formal worship service that goes on today in the Church of Christ...and other groups in the religious world. That ALL came about after the death of the inspired writers.

Don comments:

I must admit that I have no idea as to the kind of "worship service" Cheryl is advocating in the immediately above statement. The public worship of the first century church was meant to be structured and formal as opposed to loose and casual (I Cor. 12; 14). There was often a supported preacher who addressed the members from the pulpit. This was peculiarly his responsibility (2 Tim. 4: 1-5).

Cheryl quotes me and then comments:

"I do not know in what kind of building the Ephesians met (rented, owned, private dwelling), but I have no problem imagining...."

Can this "imagining" be because Don is seeing the early gatherings through the eyes of the traditions today?

Don responds:

I am not sure as to how to intelligently respond to the above. We are not told in what kind of building the church at Ephesus met at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy. They initially met in the "synagogue" and then met for about two years in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19: 8, 9). Cheryl and those of the located preacher persuasion are so anti tradition that they often shamefully reject plain truths. All I said was, "I do not know in what kind of building the Ephesians met (rented, owned, private dwelling), but I have no problem imagining...."

Don Martin to the list:

In this post, I shall continue to review Cheryl's in which she advocates the no located preacher and mutual edification doctrine.

Consider Cheryl and observe her "close-mindedness (she first quotes me and then makes a statement):"

"...a member at Ephesus saying, 'come and listen to our preacher, Timothy, teach the gospel of our Lord' (2 Tim. 4: 1-5.)"

I doubt that Timothy, when talking to the unsaved stood still while they came to him. Nothing to indicate such.

Don observes:

Most of the proponents of the no located view cannot see the plain teaching of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5: Timothy was charged with preaching to the church at Ephesus. Cheryl cannot allow Timothy to be doing precisely what Paul charged him in the sight of God to do: preach the word to the church. Notice how Cheryl states: "I doubt that Timothy, when talking to the unsaved stood still while they came to him. Nothing to indicate such." The Mutual Edification Movement is based on a foundation of faulty definition. The evangelist is only one who "goes" and preaches to those who are not Christians. To have the evangelist preaching the word to the church, as Paul told the evangelist Timothy to do, is "binding and practicing human tradition" and promoting the villainous "preacher system."

Cheryl wrote:

There should not be a "preacher who stays" gets his living from the institution. Nothing such as that in scripture. Until the 3rd. century there were no paid preachers. The examples of Paul having his needs met did not mean even he...received a salary. Sure....whatever he needed was furnished by the saints from other groups of Christians in the spiritual community...not from a common treasury set up (to hold up) the institution run by an Eldership. Paul was not involved in ANY preacher system as we have today.

Don answers:

In an anterior post I stated: "There can admittedly be different types of preachers, having different goals. Paul expressed the desire to 'not build on another man's foundation' (Rom. 15: 20). However, even Paul recognized, condoned, and assisted others in building on his foundation (I Cor. 3: 6 ff.). Paul also worked for years in given areas and was associated with local churches in these endeavors (Acts 18; 19). He even preached to these brethren (Acts 20: 20-27). It was Paul who reprimanded the church at Corinth for their failure to financially support preachers as they should have (I Cor. 9: 6-14). Paul received support from other churches in order to preach to the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 11: 8). These biblical facts should suffice to prove that a preacher can be located, preach to the church, and be financially supported. However, there continue to be those who advocate the 'mutual edification' doctrine (the members must teach one another without the presence of a preacher). One well-known advocate of mutual edification was Leroy Garrett. Garrett taught:

'The term evangelist is applied to those missionaries who like Philip the evangelist and Timothy traveled from place to place to bear glad tidings of Christ to unbelieving nations and individuals" (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19, 20. Garrett quotes from Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. 1, pg. 436).

Notice that Cheryl has the same understanding of the evangelist and his work as does Garrett. Cheryl stated after quoting me:

"The proponents of mutual edification arbitrarily teach that the 'evangelist' must only 'preach' to the non-Christian."

True! Elders who are apt to teach and who live godly lives in front of those they are among, are the teachers of the sheep who need teaching at the time. However, we are all teachers of one another.

Don remarks:

Cheryl is consistent and forthright, I can see this based on the above. However, Cheryl herself is somewhat mixed up. If I understand her position, the "preacher" is not to preach to the church, the members are to "teach" each other. At one time she speaks thus and then on other occasions she talks about the elders are to do the teaching.

Cheryl continues:

Again, an evangelist does not stand and preach to the "choir." The idea of a "pulpit" goes against how the early Christians were taught to encourage and edify ONE ANOTHER. Nothing is said about one man standing before the sheep and doing all the edifying, especially with no one being allowed to comment or question such a person.....Actually, the sheep (regardless of age) are now taught to be quiet during the "sermon." Why? Because a MAN OF GOD is speaking. Baloney!

Don observes:

The no located preacher doctrine is conceptually different from what is presented in the scriptures relative to the local church, the public worship, and the work of evangelists, as evidenced in Cheryl's statements. Yes, there is sometimes the presence of bound tradition and sometimes tradition that is not bound, but serves expeditiously to effect New Testament worship. However, the proponents of the no located preacher position lash out at all tradition to the point of blatantly rejecting what is clearly seen in the scriptures. They cannot comment on such texts as 2 Timothy 4: 1-5 without totally coloring and altering the text to fit their preconceived ideas. The advocates of no located preacher are often beyond understanding, it appears. Consider Cheryl's next statement made after quoting me:

"Yet, this is exactly what Paul commanded or charged Timothy to do. We know Timothy was told to PREACH THE WORD TO THE CHURCH at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 1-5). Timothy was to REGULARLY PREACH the word to the church (2 Tim. 4: 1-5, cp. I Tim. 1: 3). We also know that the church at Ephesus HAD ELDERS at the time of Acts 20."

I don't get your drift here.

Again, Cheryl quotes me and comments:

"(3). A shallow understanding of the different kinds of preachers seen in the New Testament and a binding of one type to the exclusion of the other....."

I would be careful about saying the scriptures that don't fit tradition are shallow understanding.

Don amplifies:

To limit "evangelist" to one who only preaches to non-Christians in view of examples and the instances of Timothy who was told to do "the work of evangelist" and the work in the context is, "preaching the word" to the church involves a shallow understanding of different kinds of preachers and binding one type to the exclusion of the other...." (2 Tim. 4: 1-5).

I want to conclude this post by again agreeing that there are many preacher abuses today. There sometimes exists a "preacher system" that is pastoral and comparable to the denominational practice. However, abuses do not negate what is actually taught. The no located preacher people have been actuated out of abuse and bound tradition to the point that most of them are blind to what is clearly taught and exemplified in the New Testament.

Don Martin to the list:

It appears that those on this list who have embraced the no located preacher and mutual edification doctrine are willing to let this paid preacher do all the talking. Since I have not received an answer to my three questions on the text of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5, I will answer them myself. I do, though understand why no one has sought to provide the answers. There is no way one can reconcile the extreme teaching of the no located preacher and mutual edification doctrine with the teaching of Paul to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4. I shall at this time again insert the text and then answer the questions:

Answer: A salient and cardinal tenet of the no located preacher system is the adamant belief that the evangelist only preachers to non-Christians and to work with a church as is commonly done is a sin. Hear again representative Leroy Garrett: ".The term evangelist is applied to those missionaries who like Philip the evangelist and Timothy traveled from place to place to bear glad tidings of Christ to unbelieving nations and individuals" (Dehoff-Garrett Debate, pg. 19, 20. Garrett quotes from Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. 1, pg. 436).

However, it is perfectly plain that the work of an evangelist can and does involve preaching to the church in the case of Timothy. After charging Timothy to "preach the word," Paul says "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…." (vs. 2, 3). Hence, Timothy was to "preach the word" to the church, the church at Ephesus. Therefore, not only could Timothy preach to the church, but also he is solemnly charged to so do, a matter the no located preacher proponents say is a sin.

2). What is 'the work of an evangelist,' according to the context of 2 Timothy 4: 5?

Answer: In verse five Paul wrote, "…do the work of an evangelist…." According to the teaching of the no located preacher constituents, the work of an evangelist is preaching to non-Christians and must not involve preaching to the church. Hence, Paul would be telling Timothy, preach the word to the church and at the same time, telling Timothy, preach only to non-Christians. The truth of the matter is, in the context of 2 Timothy 4, the work of an evangelist is preaching to the church to attempt them to avoid apostasy.

3) How was Timothy to 'make full proof of thy ministry?"

Answer: Timothy was to make "full proof" of his ministry by preaching the word to the church. Yes, Timothy had this responsibility in a peculiar sense. The fact that he may or may not have been inspired is really irrelevant. If Timothy were inspired, he would continue to have the same responsibility of preaching the word to the church after the age of inspiration (cp. 2 Tim. 2: 15, 3: 15). The argument that there must have been some special and exceptional situation at Ephesus that placed Timothy in the position of preaching the word to the church is a quibble and unwarranted in view of the text of 2 Timothy 4: 1-5. Elders were present in the church at Ephesus at the time of Acts 20. There is every indication that they are also present at the time of the writing of First and Second Timothy (I Tim. 5: 17-25). Notwithstanding, Timothy was the "pulpit man" at Ephesus. Based on the teaching of the scriptures, it is also evident that he was or should have been financially supported in his work (cp. I Cor. 9: 6-14, 2 Cor. 11: 8). Please again succinctly consider the matter of Timothy: He preached to the church; he preached to the church in a peculiar way (he was not just one of the many men who equally "shared the pulpit"); and he preached to a church that appears to have had elders. The no located preacher and mutual edification people say this is a sin but the scriptures present it as God's will.

In closing, the no located preacher and mutual edification practice and belief cripples local churches and renders them stagnate. The teaching is turned over to any Tom, Dick, or Harry regardless of their lack of knowledge, experience, and skill. Capable preachers are barred from the pulpit and often an eighteen-year old boy shares pulpit duties with an eighty-year-old who suffers from debilitating mental diseases. Not only are capable men barred from the pulpit, but also they are viewed as hirelings and rejects among God's people. Ignorance and incompetence reign and too often constitute the spiritual climate. Chaos characterizes their "unstructured" worship services as they attempt to "avoid all tradition." The devil loves it and the gospel is curtained in these circumstances. In short, the doctrine of the no located preacher and mutual edification is a belief system of extremes and the attempt to avoid all tradition, which eventuates in something even worse: an atmosphere that fosters ignorance and retards learning! Envy and the spirit of competitiveness often prevail. Those who seek to advance this system are also often seen as individuals who glory in their ignorance and view themselves as "super religious," being vastly superior in their understandings. Alas, many of them of incapable of ever learning the truth (2 Tim. 3: 5, 7).