Don
Patton on Romans 14
Background
Stan
Cox
In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to explain the background surrounding the controversy regarding Don Patton's teaching on Romans 14. The comments are intended to explain the context of why individuals have taken exception to his teaching, and why his claims of misrepresentation are false. I freely admit that this is my (Stan Cox's) take on the controversy. The reader will have to examine the evidence to determine whether this commentary is factual. I am more than willing to allow such examination to take place. Note that all underlining and bold facing done in the following is for emphasis, and is mine, SC.
Importance of Information
Accusations have been made that Don Patton's exegesis of Romans 14 is false, and that he has made application of his principles by introducing in a 1990 sermon a list of 100 items which could, under certain circumstances, be tied to the practice of "reception", as he defines it in his exegesis of the chapter. Don has for several years now claimed that his views were misrepresented. These claims have been incessant, and have had the unhappy effect of convincing others that this is so. Unfortunately, many have concluded that lies have been told about Don without looking at the evidence. The transcripts which are found on this site have been available for a very long time. However, some may not have been aware of their availability and as such we now publish them in this form. It is important that anyone who wishes to determine the accuracy of the accusations against Don Patton read all of the information contained on this site. If after doing so you still have questions you feel I or others involved could answer, feel free to email me.
Accusing an individual of false teaching is a very serious thing. Such a charge is in itself too harsh a thing to be stomached by some who would call themselves Christian. Any dispute whatever is unacceptable to them, and in their mind those who do the accusing are on the face of it in the wrong. Of course, a simple examination of scripture shows that this is not so. Jesus made accusations against false teachers very often in his ministry, and the disciples of the first century took his lead in numerous instances.
Others find the "naming of names" to be unacceptable. To condemn false teaching in general is considered courageous, but to identify and quantify the false teacher is gauche, and exhibits a hateful demeanor in their estimation. I must take exception to this. It seems to me that the only way to expose false doctrine with any integrity at all is to be courageous enough to name the one espousing the doctrine, and then to (and this is of the utmost importance) document the charge with sufficient evidence as to establish the truthfulness of the charge. The reader will have to take the time to examine the evidence supplied, both in this summary, and in the transcripts to see if this has successfully been done.
The Events of the Controversy
In 1990 Don Patton preached a lesson at the Judson Road church in Longview, TX. The transcript of this lesson is contained in these documents, together with a retyped list of 100 items which appeared on a chart he introduced during the lesson.
In 1994 brother John West was engaging in a Bible study with a prisoner at a local jail. In the course of the conversation with this prisoner, it was revealed that Don Patton had also counseled the man, and that he had given a different answer to the man's question about the legitimacy of his marriage. (He had previously been divorced). John West was naturally concerned about this, and contacted Don Patton, and discussed with Don the situation. Don gave a copy of the outline he had preached at Judson Road and the chart for John's study. John became alarmed at what was being taught by Don, and contacted brother Bobby Holmes for advice in the matter. (Note: The following is a correction, posted January 21, 1999. After asking John West to read this background and check for accuracy, he informed me that Don had actually given him the chart of 100 items up to two months previous to John's conversation with the prisoner. John had been concerned at that time, and showed the chart to Bobby Holmes. The events with the prisoner later served to establish a real basis for their concerns. I post the original together with this correction to apologize for the inaccuracy, and to establish that we are in every way attempting to be fair and accurate in our recounting of these events.) Following is the partial recollection of brother Holmes regarding these initial events:
John West, who was then evangelist for the West Lake church in Mesquite, Texas, called me some six weeks before my presentation dealing with brother Don Patton's position on Romans 14, at the monthly preachers' study in Grand Prairie, Texas. He said he had had a discussion with Don the day before regarding the 14th chapter of Romans.
Both John and Don had been visiting with a prisoner in the Dallas County jail. The prisoner asked John about marriage-divorce and remarriage and stated he was the guilty party of fornication in a divorce. John told him that he had no right to remarry in that case. He (the prisoner) then stated that he had asked Don Patton the same thing and he had told him he could remarry. During the discussion, brother Patton gave John a copy of the sermon outline and a chart he had used when he preached on it. Brother West was quite disturbed about it for, according to the outline and chart, Romans 14 was said to teach that we are to fellowship those who differ with us in matters of doctrine as well as matters of personal judgment.
According to the chart (which contained mostly matters of personal liberty though some matters that had to do with the doctrine of Christ) and sermon outline, Christians are forbidden to withhold fellowship from a brother or sister even though the things they believe or engage in are contrary to the doctrine of Christ. This was supposed to be the answer for strife that comes between people of God who differ on things. John sent me the outline and chart and I was shocked at what I read and saw.
In the next preachers' study we had, I asked that the group consider a study of the meaning of Romans chapter 14 as there was some teaching going on by at least one brother that advocated that matters of sin can and should be included in the chapter. I was asked if I would be willing to present a study on the subject for the next month. I agreed to do so. Brother Patton was present in that meeting and afterward we all went out to eat lunch. It was during lunch that I made Don aware that I disagreed with him on the subject. We discussed it briefly and he said he would be present during my presentation.
There was to be a meeting at the South Austin church in Austin, Texas on the subject of Romans 14 beginning on Thursday. Tom Roberts, Larry Ray Hafley, Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne and Jerry Fite were the speakers. I asked Don if he would attend these studies. He told me he would be there, but did not show up. In the week before my presentation, I called Don and talked with him at length concerning MDR and particularly whether the guilty part could remarry. He would not give me an answer but, instead, said it would take awhile to explain his position. I asked him repeatedly to just answer the question. After giving up on getting an answer, I told him that he had already answered my question by not answering it. I told him I was going to present the material I had and was going to use his outline and chart and show it was false teaching.
These are the things that led up to the discussion that I had with Don in the regular preachers' study. Tom Roberts ultimately had a written debate with Don on the subject. Others had a very real part in these discussions along with private studies with Don. The material on these discussions as well as the debate are all available. (On this site, SC). Don has denied he taught error and accused those who have challenged him of misrepresenting him and lying but, the evidence is there for all to see. "Buy the Truth and sell it not."
Thank you,
Bobby R. Holmes
bholmes180@aol.com
From this narrative it can be seen that Don Patton was not ambushed at all (as has been claimed), but that he was aware of the differences these men had with him, and was either unwilling or unable to resolve those differences. As such, Bobby Holmes was well within scriptural guidelines to expose this teaching. Remember that Don had both preached his material publicly in 1990, and had used the material in an attempt to convince John West that their differences on the Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage Issue were of such a nature as to allow them to differ and place their difference in the realm of Romans 14.
The Charge of Misrepresentation
Brother Holmes, as he states above, accused Don of teaching false doctrine with regard to his exegesis of Romans 14. Of special concern was the chart of 100 items which Don introduced in his 1990 sermon. Many things on that chart are matters of personal liberty, and are of no consequence to God. Obviously, things such as the color of the carpet in a building, whistling, winking, coke (soft drinks), and coffee fall under a category of personal preference and liberty. However, also in the list of 100 was abortion, dancing, divorce, evolution, girly magazines (pornography), and social drinking. These things are sinful if practiced, and if it is held that they are acceptable to God, the doctrine thus held is false. It is not denied that the purpose of the chart was to demonstrate some of the many issues brethren have divided over in the past. That is not the issue. The issue is:
Did Don Patton refer to the list of 100 things as the type of differences which fall under the umbrella of Romans 14
In examining this issue, certain things must be kept in mind. The first is that words mean something. Perhaps an illustration will help here.
A preacher who preaches does so to be understood. If a preacher says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, and then someone comes along and accuses him of believing that baptism is not necessary for salvation, he can not (with integrity), claim misrepresentation. He can't begin to claim that he does not believe that, UNLESS he is willing to recant what he initially said, and correct it. He can't hold to the statement made in the sermon, and claim misrepresentation.
This point is fundamental to understanding Don Patton's claims of misrepresentation. Don has NEVER recanted any portion of his initial sermon. He has not said he did not mean what he said, he has not said he no longer believes it. He stands behind his sermon 100%! So, a careful examination of the transcript of the sermon will reveal whether or not Don has been misrepresented. I would encourage all readers to do two things. Read the transcript of the sermon in its entirety. Also, go to the page which features the chart, and read carefully the excerpts from the lesson which refer to the chart of 100 items. This way you can see for yourself whether Bobby Holmes, John West, Stan Cox and Tom Roberts have misrepresented Don Patton in their claim that he tied the chart of 100 items in with his exegesis of Romans 14.
A careful perusal of this material, and Don's later exegesis of the chapter will lead to a very important realization. 1) Don Patton is not being misrepresented. 2) The claims of misrepresentation are a smokescreen, and in reality the issue is more fundamental and more serious that what Don Patton would have you to believe.
The Real Issue
After Bobby Holmes' presentation at the Grand Prairie preachers' study on August 3, 1994, Don Patton had an initial opportunity to defend himself. You might note that in that defense, he was very appreciative of Bobby, and did not take offense at Bobby's words. At the following study, scheduled two weeks later, Don did not present his exegesis as he originally intended, but rather spent over 1 hour dealing with what he claimed were misrepresentations made by brother Holmes. The tape of this meeting is unintelligible, so a transcription of it is impossible.
Finally, on November 10, 1994 he gave an extended exegesis of Romans 14, and laid out what he believed the text to teach. This exegesis is eye-opening, to say the least, and all readers are encouraged to carefully read it. It reveals that Don Patton is teaching error, and this error, if put into practice would wreak havoc upon God's people. Note the following regarding this exegesis:
-
The claim that false doctrine is being taught is not one sided. Note that Don Patton states:
-
"I believe we are dealing with a very important
subject with very severe and far reaching consequences. And so
it deserves our careful and prayerful attention. I believe that very
conscientious efforts to make this chapter say what we really feel
like it ought to say are producing tragic results, and results
as we suggested that are far more reaching than many realize. I
think it has produced an inadequate defense, an inadequate barrier
against the apostasy that is threatening the church, that is very
real. Instead of being a barrier it has become in effect an open door,
and at the same time the forced interpretation has shut out some
the Lord has determined may stand.
I believe that consistent application of the alternative view to the one I hold, if consistently practiced would produce splinters without number."
In this quote Don Patton claims that those who hold the position that the context of Romans 14 contains room only for matters of indifference to God, (what he calls "the alternative view to the one I hold") are producing tragic consequences, providing an inadequate defense against apostasy, shutting out some who are acceptable to God, and when practicing what we preach, splintering the people of God. Obviously this issue is worthy of discussion. And if I were Don and believed that what he said is actually true, I would be exposing far and wide all men who teach such a doctrine which brings such ungodly consequences. -
Don Patton believes that sinful practices and false doctrines can, under certain circumstances, be placed in the context of Romans 14. In fact, he makes the claim that one of the scenarios in Romans 14, the observance of days, deals with a brother who is sinning because of unauthorized worship. Note the following quote:
Now as we look at the term "observe" here, and notice Thayers definition, "to regard a day, to reserve it as sacred, Romans 14:6." Here was a sacred day that they were observing. Now this is not one authorized in the doctrine of Christ, there would be no disputing. Now unless we think unauthorized worship before God is acceptable, this fellow was wrong.
Here is the fundamental issue, Don Patton believes that Romans 14, contextually, includes sinful things and false teaching. It is recognized that he puts limits on what can be received, but it is a fundamental departure from what the text actually teaches to put anything but authorized liberties in the context. -
Don Patton believes that the fellowship of Romans 14 does not have a time limitation. Notice the following quote from his exegesis:
-
Now the scope here is different, I believe from the scope in
Romans 14. The scope is much narrower in Romans 14 than it is here
with longsuffering. And we'll get to that narrower scope that's
specified in the chapter as we proceed. I think the time limitation
is wider, but the scopes are defined in each context. But both of
them involve receiving one who may not be right. Now, when we say without
time limitation over here, I think that concept has been
misunderstood by some. I don't think there is a time element
mentioned in the context here in Romans 14, and we are not to decide
how long. At the same time there are factors that would clearly
prove its not permanent, as its sometimes been represented. It is
terminated when rebellion is demonstrated, because the one in Romans
14 is to be conscientious and fully persuaded in his own mind. ....
It is terminated when false doctrine is being promoted, then it is no
longer an individual matter and this in Romans 14 pertains only to
the individual, between him and the Lord. Not like Hymenaeus and
Philetus overthrowing the faith of others. When congregations are
disrupted then we are not talking about the situation in Romans 14,
it would be terminated here. And so its not unlimited, permanent,
absolute by any means. Though I think the termination too often
comes with judgment of hearts. And that's not the kind of
termination that ought to be involved, obviously. And we need to
raise the question, when do we terminate?
- One who is in sin, and satisfies Don's criteria regarding the
limitations of Romans 14 is to be received.
- This reception does not have a time limit, and is to continue so
long as it does not involve others, and rebellion is not manifested
in the life or manner of the Christian in sin.
- We can not judge the heart of the individual, so as long as he maintains that he is sincere in his belief he is right, we are not allowed to terminate our association with that individual.
- One who is in sin, and satisfies Don's criteria regarding the
limitations of Romans 14 is to be received.
-
Don Patton believes that those who hold error on the Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage question should be received. Note again his quote from the exegesis:
Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage of course, is the really hot issue. And there its just as inconsistent because you can teach that no divorced person can remarry and you can still be on the inside with most brethren. And you can teach that you may divorce, but not remarry for an unscriptural cause, and still not be on...some do that, they don't draw lines there and you can teach you can separate as long as don't remarry and you're alright. They may disagree with you. But if you teach that one put away for fornication may remarry, that's not alright. And it may not be something your practicing, but just a conviction that you're holding, and you're in serious trouble. Because you got the wrong one. And one can teach baptism starts you fresh, you wash away your wives. That's just as wrong as some of these others up here. But brethren, I'm talking...I'm picturing here the inconsistency in the way brethren draw their own lines. Saying the unbeliever is not subject to the covenant until he becomes a believer. Alright, I think that's nonsense, like...but, here, adultery severs the relationship, Moyer position. That's all out, I mean you do that and your in bad shape. But, if you teach no reason for divorce at all...that's obviously wrong, I think. But I know brethren that hold that position that have never had lines drawn. The inconsistency is pervasive, and it says we need to know how to do this better. And what's happened is gerrymandered lines are drawn to include some in, and to exclude some out by how you draw the lines. By what everybody knows, and what everybody considers, and what everybody doesn't consider. And your consideration...now lets just be honest enough to look at the situation, and it doesn't look very pretty, very honorable.....Now you can teach you may separate, but no remarriage, without adultery; but if you teach adultery itself destroys the marriage then you're out, you've stepped over the wrong line. And here the red one's are the hot one's, and the green one's are the one's that are not...they're not going to draw fellowship. But, I'm talking about general practice. I'm not talking about what ought to be done. I'm talking about what is generally done. Now there are some hot heads that would write you a proposition on any of those things. But generally speaking, that's the way it works. I think that's sad. That's not the way God intended for it to be. That's not scriptural, not honorable.
Let's be clear in examining the above quote. Don Patton is not saying that to be consistent we need to withdraw from every individual we disagree with. In fact, in claiming that there was disagreement between some present, he was appreciative that they could maintain their fellowship. He said,
"When Ricky Jenkins and Jay Vincent were good enough to take me home here a few weeks ago, we had a very scholarly discussion. Facetiously, obviously. And we drove across town for about 45 minutes, about the various issues. And in that about 45 minutes, we learned of about 6 things that all three of us didn't agree on. Somebody among the three disagreed on at least six things. Now I'm not going to tell what it was...for some obvious reasons. And I don't think it would be different with any other's here, and if you're going to draw lines any time somebody differs with you on matters of faith there's not a one here gonna fellowship anybody else. Maybe not even your wife. And that's not right. We ought not to be afraid to study...learn some things other brethren don't know, and try to teach them. I think it produces a climate that discourages that. I think that if consistently practiced, the tragedy would be unspeakable. Splinters would be splintered by the hundreds. And maybe they're not practicing it now, but what they're preaching their students will practice. And some of them are practicing it, we can document that. What we need is what the passage was designed for, we need peace. We need the right kind of peace, but a workable, practical peace. Not with gerrymandered lines and absurd inconsistencies. We need a peace with invincibly powerful protection against apostasy. We need peace where the weak and mistaken, conscientious brethren can grow to maturity (unintelligible word). That kind of peace, and I think that's what the passage teaches, and that's what I believe about it.
So, what he is advocating, clearly, is the reception of those who differ with us on the subject of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.
The Proof is in the Application
There are two concrete examples which Don Patton used to illustrate the practical results of his treatment of Romans 14 with regard to the reception of Christians in sin. One example is actual, and dealt with a brother in sin in Florida. The other is a hypothetical situation, raised during the Q&A period following his exegesis. They serve to indicate the practical nature of his exegesis.
-
The Lascivious Brother. Don in discussions on this issue used the example of a brother in Florida who went to the beach and engaged in mixed swimming. While the entire scenario is not documented in any of the transcripts, a partial discussion of the situation is found in the Q&A following his exegesis. Don pointed out that the man was engaging in lascivious behavior, but since he was a Christian, his sin did not involve others, and he was sincere in his belief that this was not lascivious behavior, the proper thing to do was continue to receive him despite his sin. Don did not deny he was in sin, and that he was unrepentant. The church continued to receive the man, and eventually he came out of the sin. Eventually, he was appointed as an elder, and served admirably for many years until his death. Don takes this as a successful example of his practice. Note, however, the consequences of this example:
- This put the church into "reception" of an individual
who God did not accept into His fellowship.
- If the man never repented of the sin, the church would have to
maintain their reception of him, without any limitation as to time,
so long as he maintained his claims of sincerity.
- The church would have no right to judge his heart in this matter, and would have to accept his claims of sincerity at face value.
Can you imagine the consequences of this position?
- A man wants to drink socially, and so maintains that he is
sincere in his belief that social drinking is acceptable to God. He
will have to be received by the church.
- A man wants to gamble, and denies (sincerely) that
gambling is sinful. He denies being covetous, or greedy. He will have
to be received by the church.
- A man wants to work for a brewery, and maintains
(sincerely) that such is not sinful. He would have to be received by
the church.
- A woman wants to have an abortion. She believes murder to be sin. She recognizes in her heart that murder is sinful. But the question regarding abortion is, "is it murder"? She sincerely believes that it is not, that it is the simple removal of "fetal tissue", and there is no life. You give her all the arguements, but she (sincerely) maintains that she is not sinning. She will have to be received by the church.
These examples are in every way parallel to the one given by Don Patton, and the absurdity of his position is seen in this application.
- This put the church into "reception" of an individual
who God did not accept into His fellowship.
-
The Conscientious Idolater. During the Q&A period following Don Patton's exegesis of Romans 14, I had an opportunity to posit a hypothetical scenario to test Don's application of his principles. I asked Don about a practicing Catholic who is converted and becomes a Christian. This individual is a babe in Christ, and because of the influences he has left, still believes that it is acceptable to adore the images of the saints, as Catholics are wont to do. He knows that idolatry is wrong, but sincerely believes that this adoration of images does not constitute idolatry. I asked Don, based on his understanding of Romans 14, how should we deal with such a man? Understand that Don agreed with my contention that the man was practicing idolatry. So we have a sincere Christian, who is practicing a form of idolatry, how do we deal with him? Notice the following quote from the Q&A period, with the give and take from myself and Don Patton. The quote is given in its entirety for context:
Q: Stan Cox. Question unintelligible. A hypothetical scenario was set up concerning a former Catholic, converted to Christ, who still practiced idolatry in the worship of the image of saints, etc. This question was asked by me to see how Don would handle a situation that did not involve moral issues.
A: We're not trying to describe a brother that's right...that's...he's false, he's wrong. He was practicing the observance of a sacred day that was unauthorized, that was wrong. He was practicing that. And the command was to receive him, and quit setting him at naught, while you bring him to a standing position.
Now there may be a brother, and (unintelligible word or two) the Catholic's excluded because this is one that God's received. But there may be a brother who came out of Catholicism, like this brother who may have come out of Paganism, who still had some remnants in their conscience about meats, or idols in this case. And if there...as long as that's individual and he's practicing that himself, he's certainly wrong, but this is the conscientious brother like the one observing this holy day is wrong, he is, I think, to be received while we teach him. Now the conscientious brother is teachable, and will be. The Lord's promised, he will stand; as He promises he will know.Comment, Stan Cox: That's what I see as a problem though, as a practical application of the principle you are explaining, is that it will allow a number of practices, lasciviousness (unintelligible) practice, so long as the individual conscientiously believes that it is not an immoral practice.
A: Allow in the sense that we will not set him at naught, kick him out, draw the lines of fellowship while we are trying to teach him. As long as he's conscientious and doesn't...now I tell you, you get down to Florida, and I've spent a lot of time down there, there are a lot of our brethren who don't know that lesson. And it's worse there, believe it or not, than it is here. And in California its worse than that. And it's...they're not going to learn that overnight. These conscientious brethren want to do what's right, and they've grown up with this practice, and they have a hard time seeing that point.And just like these brethren who had come out of the heathenism, or the Judaism, they didn't learn that overnight. And that's what he's talking about, you give them time to be made to stand. You certainly don't condone, and you certainly don't let them alone, you do your best to teach them. And I think you can do a better job of teaching them that way, but while they're not affecting anyone else, and fully persuaded in their own mind, you give them time to grow.
Comment, Stan Cox: As I understand your position, that you say, "Give them time to...", that although the intimation is they will stand, that there is no time limit in Romans the 14th chapter. So ultimately, you would say that you maintain your relationship with them despite the fact that they never come to that understanding and...(interrupted by Don Patton).
A: And we may be, we may be mistaken when we conclude that he is fully persuaded and that he's conscientious. We can't tell that. But if it appears that we have to assume that, that's an obligation of love. We put the best construction...and we may be wrong. But our job is to assume that he is, and this is the way we treat him, and it's between him and the Lord. This is the Lord's servant, and the Lord will judge him, we can't see his heart.
Comment, Stan Cox: My contention would be however, that in practice, even if it is not seen as being immoral or false doctrine or whatever. If ultimately he is not convinced, that it is a further expression of love to discipline him, and to withdraw that fellowship from him, and mark him, because of that same reason. And I think that is one of the purposes of the discipline as practiced in the church.A: Well, if you've got a conscientious brother, who's fully persuaded. If he really believes, and is searching for truth, then this is the brother with the heart that's like it ought to be. Who has had a background for year and years, maybe out of heathenism, that doesn't understand the point that he needs to understand, maybe bowing down before an idol. That he doesn't think that's idolatry. Catholics do that, and it takes a while for some of them to see that. Sometimes with the pendulum swing going...they really have a hard time settling down on the truth on that with that kind of a background. I think disciplining that kind of an individual, well of course what I think about it is not relevant anyway. The question is what does this chapter tell us to do. And I believe that the specification involves someone who was observing a day which was unauthorized, it was wrong. And he was, we are told, not to set him at naught while we bring him to standing, as long as he is fully persuaded in his own mind. I think there is prima facia evidence that he isn't if he is committing lasciviousness, knowing of course that it is lasciviousness; if he is committing adultery, of course that gets the other parameter of the individual factor...but, just like the one who was observing this religious holy day, he is practicing this, he's wrong, but let's not set him at naught. And we may think we can express love by disciplining him for doing that, but the chapter says don't. And it does it while it maintains these parameters against apostasy. I think this is divine wisdom to produce peace. And they'll work.
Now when you see two brethren head to head, and here's him saying, Don't do that...Don't do that...I think we see peace is not just between him and God, it's between each other. For they were ready to shoot each other, one despising and the other judging, and that's to stop while you receive these brethren you think are wrong, is what he's saying here. But a very narrow definition of what would be involved there.
Again, we must note the consequences of Don Patton's position, as seen in the application above. And here it is very obvious that he maintains a position that is dangerous to the body of Christ.
- Idolatry is the exaltation of something to the position of deity.
In effect, it is the worship of another God.
- Don Patton maintains that we must receive an individual who is
worshipping another God!
- This reception is referred to as not "drawing the
lines of fellowship", and is to be maintained, as long as he is
"conscientious" in his practice.
- This treatment of the brother is based upon the exegesis Don made from Romans 14. Note again his quote: "And we may think we can express love by disciplining him for doing that, but the chapter says don't."
I consider it a simple thing to see that any position that would lead to such a consequence... That we must receive an individual without time restraint who is an idolater... is fundamentally flawed, and dangerous to the people of God.
- Idolatry is the exaltation of something to the position of deity.
In effect, it is the worship of another God.
Some Final Thoughts
The background information in this document is not intended to include a positive statement regarding what Romans 14 teaches. The reader should carefully study the Analytical Exegesis penned by Tom Roberts, on this site, to gain a good understanding of the truth as taught in that great book.
Nor is this document intended to be a thorough refutation of Don's exegesis. Although we mentioned some flaws, especially in regard to the absurdity of application, the fact remains that we have not dealt with the tortured exegesis which leads to these applications. We trust that a side by side comparison of his transcript with the exegesis of Tom Roberts, as mentioned above, will give sufficient information to allow the reader to see the fallacy of Don Patton's view.
There were several points that we intended to emphasize in this document:
-
That Don Patton's doctrine regarding Romans 14 needed to be reviewed.
- That those who did so acted appropriately, and with integrity.
- That Don Patton has not been misrepresented, as he has claimed.
- That Don Patton's doctrine is dangerous, and that in exposing it we are inoculating God's people against its leavening influence.
The Question and Answer period did not end the issue. It is significant to note that weeks earlier, a private discussion was held between Tom Roberts, Bobby Holmes, Don Patton, and several others where an unsuccessful attempt was made to reconcile the differences that existed. This meeting took place on September 14, 1994. As this was a private discussion, the individuals will have to be personally contacted if there is an interest in determining the substance of that discussion.
Later discussions on fellowship which directly involved Don Patton took place on the now defunct Markslist; between Stan Cox and Don Patton, and preliminary work was done to enable a further public airing of differences in another forum. Unfortunately, this did not come about. Additionally, Don Patton has received at least three different challenges to debate his position on Romans 14. He has not, to my knowledge, responded to any of the three challenges in any way. Regardless of any claims of misrepresentation it is obvious that Don's position differs greatly from other brethren, and should be defended publicly. Again, the truth need not fear investigation.
Finally, an exchange on the subject was held in the Guardian of Truth in the February 16, 1995 issue. This exchange is included on this site. Tom Roberts and Don Patton were the disputants. All readers are encouraged to carefully consider the articles.
If anything in this document is unclear, feel free to contact me at stan@soundteaching.org. I will try to answer any questions you may have. There are audio tapes of all of the transcripts which appear on this site. Additionally, the exegesis Don Patton gave in November of 1994 was videotaped. Don also supplied a 7 page outline (as he noted in his presentation) to all who were present. The outline Don used in his original 1990 sermon, and an actual photocopy of the chart of 100 items he used are in existence as well. However, this site was developed so that it would not be necessary to supply these other things. Please understand that our time and resources are limited. The internet is a wonderful (and much more expeditious) way to disseminate information such as this. If it is absolutely necessary that you receive further documentation, then please contact me with the request. I will do what I can, and if I am unable to fill the request, I will try to get others to do so. Please however, do not ask this of me unless absolutely necessary. Your help in this is greatly appreciated. Please understand that much time and effort has been expended in the transcription of these items, and the development of this material. I have other duties that are pressing.
Brotherly,
Stan Cox