Should We Stop Believing In Prayer and Providence?
Malcolm L. Hill

In the Gospel Journal February, 2004, issue we have the entire paper given to the study of the Holy Spirit. Those writing in this issue were, Dub McClish, David B. Watson, B. J. Clarke, Robert R Taylor, Jr., Terry M. Hightower, Daniel Denham, Jerry Moffitt, and Gary Summers. If one takes the view of these brethren, then he will find himself rejecting the real Biblical view of providence and prayer. Now these brethren say not so, but when followed to a logical end it is so. At a later date, and in another issue of the Living Oracles, I will prove that there is a close connection with the work of the Holy Spirit and prayer and providence.

I am listing in this issue of the Living Oracles, prayers that I have heard brethren pray through the years. If the brethren I have mentioned above are right, then these prayers mean nothing and should be dropped or discontinued. I want you to answer them yes or no.

1. Should we ask God to give us a safe journey when we travel? Does God in some way do this in a direct way along the line? YES NO
2. Should we pray to God for the preacher to say the right thing when he preaches? Does God help the preacher to say the right thing in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
3. Should we pray to God that He will help us convert a person to Christ? Does God help us convert a person to Christ in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
4. Should we pray for God to help us grow in Christ? Does God answer this prayer and does He help us to grow in Christ in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
5. Should we pray to God to give us strength when we are passing through some great trial? Does God answer this prayer in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
6. Should we pray for others to have strength while in the hospital and on their sick bed? Does God give us strength within somewhere along the line? YES NO
7. Should we pray for non-Christians to get well who might be in the hospital? Does God answer this prayer in any other way outside the doctors and medicine in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
8. Should we pray for the doctors who operate on us when in the hospital? Does God do anything in a direct way somewhere along the line outside of what the doctors and medication do for us? YES NO
9. Should we pray for God to help the rulers of earth rule? Does God help the rulers to rule by any other power outside of nature in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
10. Should we pray for God to give us wisdom? Does God do this in any other way than by reading and meditating? Does God help us in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
11. Should preachers pray for God to help them to deliver the sermon? Does God answer this prayer in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
12. Should we ask God to help war to cease? Does God answer this prayer in any way outside the law of nature and does God affect this in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
13. Should we pray for God’s will to be done? Does God do anything in a direct way somewhere along the line outside natural law to bring this about? YES NO
14. Do all things work together for good to those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose? Does God do anything in a direct way somewhere along the line to bring this about? YES NO
15. If we seek the kingdom first will God give us blessings? Does God give us these blessings by any other power than nature and does God bring this about in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
16. Is God asleep in heaven? If God is not asleep in heaven, does God have anything to do with the affairs of men on earth in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
17. Is it right and does it do any good for men to pray for rain? Does God have an affect on the coming of rain? Does God in a direct way bring this about somewhere along the line? YES NO
18. Should we pray for people to hear the Bible and understand it? Does God answer this prayer in a direct way somewhere along the line? YES NO
19. Does prayer help us only in a psychological way? Does God work in prayer somewhere along the line in a direct way? YES NO
20. Should we pray for God to help us find honest hearts searching for the truth? Does God answer this prayer in a direct way somewhere alone the line? YES NO
21. Should we pray for lawmakers to make laws in harmony with God’s will? Does God work in a direct way somewhere along the line to make this come about? YES NO
22. Should we pray that God will help to stop the killing of unborn babies? Does God work in a direct way somewhere along the line to make this take place? YES NO
23. Should we pray for men to be elected to government offices that will follow Bible rules better than those who will not? Does God work in direct way somewhere along the line to make this come about? YES NO
24. Should we pray to God to bless us in our business so we can give more to His cause? Does God work in a direct way somewhere along the line to bring this about? YES NO

Please understand when we talk about direct we are not talking about a miracle. Also, understand that supernatural does not mean a miracle. All of God’s work is supernatural. The forgiveness of sin is supernatural. God works in providence in a supernatural way. God answers prayer in a supernatural way. God is a spirit and thus works in the spirit realm, thus he never works in a natural way. We are not talking about God working through nature, but we are talking about the effect that God can have on nature to bring about His desired work. If God works on anything, it is in a supernatural. Way.

Another statement about the word “direct.” When we talk about God working in a direct way we are not talking about seeing the work done. When we say God works in a direct way we are not saying that we can see the work He is doing. The cutting part of an axe may cut down a tree but the man at the end of the axe handle has a direct effect on the cutting down of the tree. A bullet shot through the heart of a man may kill him, so, in a sense we may say that the man died of a bullet wound. But the man that had the gun in his hand and his finger on the trigger will go to prison. Why? Because he is directly connected with the murder. Even so, God is directly connected with many events which take place in this life. The days of miracles have ceased but God has not ceased to work in His own given way and in whatever He chooses.

EDITORIAL

There is not a man on earth that can explain how the soul of man dwells in the body. There is not a man on earth that can explain how the spirit of life works in the body. There is not a man on earth that can explain how God works through providence. I know of no one living or dead that can explain how God answers prayer. I do know that God works through prayer and providence because the Bible teaches this in many, many places. I do not have to know how God answers prayer and works in providence in order for God to do His work.

Brother Jerry Moffitt says he knows how God works in providence in his article in the February 2004, issue of the Gospel Journal on page 26. He cites Leviticus 25:21 and Deuteronomy 28:8 and says there is the answer. I have never seen such begging the question and beating the providence of the Lord around the bush in my life. These passages state that God will bless his righteous people but they say nothing about HOW GOD’S PROVIDENCE WORKS. Surely brother Moffitt can do better than this. As an editor of a journal, I would not let something like this be printed in the paper. This is a reproach to thinking people. Maybe Wesley Simons can help brother Moffitt with this since he knows how I should ask questions! Brother Moffitt and brother Simons go well together and brother McClish makes for them a very fine editor since his thinking is on the same level as theirs. My, my, my!!!

Get it, please, these fellows think it is time to draw the line of fellowship with reference to how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian. Notice what brother Dub McClish said in his editorial on page 5. “I am sometimes asked if this doctrine should be a fellowship issue. It not only SHOULD BE, IT MUST BE.” Are McClish and his brothers ready to draw the line of fellowship over how God works in prayer? Is McClish ready to draw the line of fellowship over how God works in providence? If they draw the line on how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian, then, they must draw the line on prayer and providence to be consistent.

If we can believe that God works through divine providence, and if we can believe that God answers prayer and still be in fellowship with each other on these matters, then why on God’s beautiful earth do we have trouble fellowshipping each other about how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian? When we get into the Holy Spirit doing miracles today and His giving us nudges and hints and things of this kind, then I am ready to take a good look. Guy Woods, Tom Warren, Gus Nichols, Franklin Camp, and a host of Bible men would not think about drawing the line of fellowship over how the Holy Spirit indwelled the Christian. But these Johnnies-come lately have decided to do so. All I can say is shame on them. I do not believe the brotherhood will go with them; at least I pray not.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Would Someone Tell Me?
Malcolm L. Hill

If someone works in providence today, and I have never met a member of the church that says otherwise, and such is done without it being a miracle, and if God answers prayers today and He does so without it being a miracle, then why get all upset and torn up over the Holy Spirit dwelling in His persons within the Christian? Could not the Holy Spirit dwell in a child of God in His persons without it being a miracle?

There are those among us today that are pressing to make the way the Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian a fellowship issue. Many of these brethren can practice open fellowship without any trouble and without blinking an eye but just do not tell them that the Holy Spirit dwells in you. And I find that these brethren who cause a stir over the way the Holy Spirit dwells in you, demand that you talk their language and say things like they say them.

The Word only brethren tell others to be quiet and stop pushing the issue of the Holy Spirit but they demand all the freedom in the world to say what they wish at anytime they wish about the Holy Spirit. We do not believe this to be fair nor proper. I personally wish everyone would hush so I could hush about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I am very frank to tell you that I do not know how the Holy Spirit dwells in me but I believe He does. I do not know how God answers prayer but I know he does. I do not know all about how God works in providence but I know He works through providence because the Bible tells me so.

It seems to me that some well-meaning brethren have stopped hunting and killing lions and have started hunting the ants. The old devil must be mighty happy about this. He wants to get us detoured and off the right road and put us on a circle road so we run and run but never come to an end. Some do not know where they are headed but seem to think they are making good time.

And why does Memphis School of Preaching keep on pushing how the Holy indwells the Christian? Could it be that they do so because this gives them an issue as a camouflage to cover up their blatant inconsistencies? The brotherhood in general does not know much about the Holy Spirit and how He works in the Christian. And it seems that brethren in general are afraid to discuss things about the Holy Spirit. So Memphis School of Preaching steps in and champions the cause for conservatives with reference to the Holy Spirit. They seem to say – don’t worry, we will save the church relative to this issue.

But take a good look at Memphis School of Preaching when it comes to Christian fellowship. On their 2004 lectures they have George Bailey who appeared on the Lake Tahoe lectures in April 2002 with the rankest of liberals like Paul Methvin, Willard Tate, Stan Williams, Mike Crowley and others. What has Curtis Cates and Garland Elkins said about this? Their entire faculty goes along with them in their unscriptural fellowship. On the 2004 lectures at Memphis School of Preaching is Wendell Winkler who invited liberals to be on the Faulkner Lectures when he was the head of the Bible Department at Faulkner. Brother Windell practices open fellowship – that is, he fellowships whomever he pleases. What have Garland and Curtis said about this?

They have Dub McClish on their 2004 lectures at Memphis School of Preaching and Brother McClish split the church of Christ at Pearl Street in Denton, Texas. But Cates and Elkins must make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. Such foolishness! They have David and Paul Sain on the program and they practice open fellowship. Robert Taylor, Jr., is on this year’s program at Memphis and he fellowships some who appeared on the Nashville Jubilee with such liberals as Steve Flatt, Rubel Shelly, F. LaGard Smith and a host of other false teachers and liberals. And what are Curtis Cates and Garland Elkins saying about this? You guessed it – nothing! They plainly disobey I John 1:7; II John 9-11; Eph. 5:11 and Rom. 16:17, but this does not seem to bother brother Curtis Cates and brother Garland Elkins.

Memphis School of Preaching holds Rex Turner, Jr., in high standing and sends their students there to finish their education. Curtis and Rex., Jr., are close friends and brother Cates uses brother Rex Turner, Jr., from time to time. But guess what, Rex Turner, Jr., had a Christian Church preacher on his teaching staff at Southern Christian University and this preacher called on women to lead in prayer in the classes he taught. But Cates and Elkins get all upset over how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian while at the same time what Rex Turner, Jr., did is not mentioned! If they have rebuked Turner for his wrong, then where is it? Let us see and hear it?

When I see Memphis School of Preaching Lectures I see hypocrisy stamped all over it. They need to repent and stop playing politics. They need to come out and tell brethren where they really stand instead of the façade of being the real thing. In word they teach the truth, but in practice they are very inconsistent. If anyone would like to meet me in a public discussion on anything I have written in this article, then I am ready but I will not hold my breath until it takes place. I would be willing to appear on the Memphis School of Preaching lectures and set forth things like I have presented in this article and would be glad to have an open forum afterwards. Or a standing invitation is extended to any of the Memphis School of Preaching faculty or staff to come to Tennessee Bible College and present their cause with an open forum afterwards. Will anything like this take place? We shall see. I have only touched the hem of the garment when it comes to Memphis School of Preaching. We have a brotherhood full of religious politics that needs to be given back to the devil.

Some True-False Questions on Prayer and Providence
Mac Deaver

1. The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as divine providence. T F
2. The Bible teaches that Christians have a right to pray to the Father. T F
3. The Bible teaches that Christians have a right to expect God to answer prayer according to His will. (I John 5:14, 15). T F
4. The Bible teaches that prayer in the life of a faithful; Christian never accomplishes anything (James 5:16). T F
5. Prayer to be effective must be a prayer of faith (James 1:5-8). T F
6. It is right for brethren to pray for sick non-Christians. T F
7. The Bible teaches that God can only answer the prayer in question #6 and thus help the sick only indirectly by arranging means and circumstances conducive to their improvement. T F
8. When God arranges means and circumstances to answer a prayer, he personally and directly arranges means and circumstances. T F
9. God can only, when answering prayer, work outside the person in whose behalf the prayer is uttered. T F
10. God can, when answering a prayer, work personally and directly within people who will be instrumental in helping the sick, but only indirectly with regard to the man in whose behalf the prayer is uttered. T F
11. God can, when answering a prayer, work only indirectly with regard to people who will be instrumental in helping the sick and thus only indirectly with regard to the man in whose behalf the prayer is uttered. T F
12. God can only, when answering a prayer, do so indirectly. T F
13. God never does anything directly when helping a person indirectly. TF
14. If God never does anything directly to a person in whose behalf a prayer is uttered, and God never does anything directly to answer the prayer indirectly, then God never does anything. T F
15. If God never does anything to answer a prayer, then prayer is useless. T F
16. There is at least one New Testament passage that teaches that God can only indirectly answer prayer. T F
17. There is at least one New Testament passage that teaches that God can only answer a prayer by affecting things outside a man’s body and never inside that man’s body. T F
18. If I pray for the sick, I must pray that God will do something outside that person that will eventually have the effect on the inside of that sick person. T F
19. God’s providence stops where a man’s body begins. T F
20. It is scriptural to pray for the sick indirectly only by praying for those who will help them (that is, the doctors, nurses, attendants) and not for the sick as such. T F
21. It is scriptural to pray only indirectly for those who will help the sick. T F
22. It is scriptural to pray only for indirect help for those who in some way will indirectly affect those who will finally directly help the sick. T F
23. It is scriptural to pray only for indirect help for those who in some way will indirectly affect those who will finally directly help the sick. T F
24. It is unscriptural to pray for direct help for anyone. T F
25. It is necessary to pray for indirect help for al involved with helping the sick in order to prevent our asking for miracles. T F
26. If God is “too close” to a direct answer to prayer, then we must claim miracles today. T F
27. The difference between God’s answering by miracles and God’s answering by providence is a matter of degree (that is, the degree of divine power granted). T F
28. The difference between God’s answering by miracles and God’s answering by providence is a matter of his proximity to the answer (direct or indirect). T F
29. If God answers a prayer only indirectly, the answer must be providential. T F
30. If God answers a prayer directly (at any point), the answer must be miraculous. T F
31. If God answers a prayer indirectly, his indirect answer is insufficient. T F
32. If God answers a prayer directly, his direct answer is too sufficient. T F
33. If God answers a prayer neither directly nor indirectly, he does not answer. T F
34. It is God’s use of direct means in affecting the answer to any prayer that would render the answer to the prayer a miracle. T F
35. If it is God’s use of direct means in affecting the answer to any prayer that renders the answer a miracle, then God cannot do anything directly at all in answering a prayer. T F
36. If God cannot do anything at all directly in answering a prayer, God cannot answer a prayer. T F
37. Since we know that God answers prayer, we know that God can do something directly with regard to that prayer. T F

What Did God Do?
Kerry Duke

“O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few” (Isa. 10:5-7).

God was at work in this event. Assyria was the rod of His anger, and He used that rod to punish His people. God sent Assyria against Jerusalem. He did not merely foresee what Assyria would do; He acted in the situation. The laws of nature did not run on their own and send the Assyrians to attack Jerusalem. God intervened. God did something to affect the decisions and actions of the Assyrian Empire. This intervention is not unusual. God “raised up” Pharoah (Exod. 9:16), but He did not raise him up to be king by telling Him to be the ruler of Egypt, for Pharoah was not a man that would listen to God (Exod. 5:2). Without a word of verbal revelation, God raised up Pharoah to be king. God works in the governments of the world, removing rulers and taking down rulers. “He putteth down one, and sitteth up another” (Psa. 75:7). He “removeth kinds, and sitteth up kings” (Dan. 2:21). The power of rulers is nothing compared to the power of God: “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket” (Isa. 40:15). God works to affect he course of nations. The book of Daniel is a monumental reminder that God is in charge of this universe, not man. “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and sitteth up over it the basest of men” (Dan. 4:17). The seemingly colossal changes in power from the Babylonians to the Persians to the Greeks and finally to the Romans were like petty squabbles before the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator. God foretold through Daniel when would become of these empires. God was involved in many of these changes in power. Human history records the Greek victory over the Persians; divine prophecy said that angels were at work in this shift of power (Dan. 10:13,20). The King’s rule is subject to the hand of God: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1).

God did something to bring about the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem. Assyria was God’s chastening rod just as Nebuchadnezzar was God’s servant (Jer. 25:9). God sent Assyria against Jerusalem, but Assyria did not know that God sent them (Isa. 10:7). God affected Assyria in such a way that they attacked Jerusalem, but His way of doing to was hidden from them. They did not know God was working through them. This means God sent the Assyrians without telling them to go. God delivered prophecy Isaiah about this attack, but this prophecy was not given to the Assyrian king. God thus moved one nation against another without moving the attackers through the word of special revelation. This also means God gave no miracle to the Assyrians to let them know that Jehovah wanted them to attack Jerusalem. He did not empower the Assyrian army with miraculous strength.

God did something in Isaiah 10. Whatever he did to send Assyria against Jerusalem, it was not the sending of a miracle or the teaching of His Word to the Assyrians. It is clear that what He did was hidden from human inspection. The very nature of miracles or of prophecies is that they are in a special way revelatory, that is, they make known the power of God in a striking and unusual way. The heavens declare the glory of God continually and universally (Psa. 19:1-4), but miracles brought added focus to the power of God. But God’s work in Isaiah 10 is not observable like nature or a miracle. The effects of this secret work of God were surely felt when the people of Jerusalem suffered. But unless Isaiah had pulled the curtain to show that God was working behind the scenes, they could not have known that God was at work in the Assyrian siege.

This hidden work of God is thus not in any way limited to a miraculous age in Bible history. Passages such as I Corinthians 13:8-13 show that miracles have ceased, but such verses have nothing to do with limiting the activity of God under consideration. This work of God is permanent while miracles were temporary.

It is also clear that the “laws” of nature operating on their own did not send the Assyrians against Jerusalem. The “laws” of nature are those observable processes and functions in the physical world that give regularity and some predictability to man so that he can meaningfully interact with it and use it for his good. Man can verify with his senses the “law” of gravity. Through his senses he can perceive that fire burns and that water nourishes. But the work of God we are considering cannot be examined with the senses. Thus it cannot be identified with or limited to the “laws” of nature. To say that “God sent the Assyrians, but He did so through the laws of nature” is meaningless and self-contradictory talk. If the laws of nature are open to human inspection but the work of God being considered is behind the scenes, then this work of God must be something other than the laws of nature.

The prophecy of Isaiah teaches that God works in a hidden way to influence men to act without seizing control of their will. Assyria accomplished the purpose of God without intending to do so. God sent Assyria, but Assyria “meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so” (v.7). God had in mind punishing the people of Jerusalem for their sins, but the Assyrians had in mind on thing: conquest. Jerusalem was just another city to plunder to the Assyrians (Isa. 10:9-11). How could the Assyrians have surrendered their free will to God when they did not even have God in mind in their actions? Yet God was behind their actions! God worked in some way to provide the opportunity and incentive for the Assyrians to attack, and He did so without sending them miraculous signs or verbal revelation, but the Assyrians made the final decision. Even when men saw or performed miracles, they retained their free will. Even the great miracles of Jesus did not remove the free will of those who witnessed them: “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him” (John 12:37). Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit, but this direct power of the Spirit did not remove his will. Peter sinned (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul was baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet he had to guard against sin (I Cor. 9:27). Their direct empowerment by the Sprit did not imply the impossibility of apostasy. Even less did God’s work in the lies of the Assyrians override their will.

God did something to send the Assyrians, and that something was not sending them a miracle or giving them His Word. Still less was it the ordinary, observable processes of nature. The Assyrians observed natural law, but so did other nations, and they did not attack Jerusalem. God influenced the Assyrians to act in some way other than miracles, the Word, or natural law, and yet He did so without their even being aware of His influence, much less the forfeiture of their free will. We call this something providence.

This one passage shows that God’s work in the world is not limited to the miracles of Bible times, the revelation of the Bible we now have, or the laws of nature which all men everywhere observe. There is something else at work, and this is the providence of God. How God does this work is none of our business. Only ignorance or arrogance will lead a man to claim otherwise. Our duty is to trust in Him. Our duty is to pray. It is foolish to deny this hidden work because we cannot explain it. If God influenced the Assyrians in a way that even they did not perceive, then who is so foolish as to deny that God helps Christians in the same concealed way?

Must We Stop Worshipping God?
Malcolm L. Hill

A few brethren have taken the view that the line of Christian fellowship must be drawn over HOW the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. Those pushing this issue are Dub McClish, Curtis Cates, Garland Elkins and some of their friends. Our opinion is that they have pushed a little too far this time. Should we divide over HOW God works in providence and prayer? These brethren would have to say so if they hold on to the view they have taken about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. If pushed to its logical conclusion, they must reject God’s providence and God answering prayer. If God does not work in providence and prayer, then we have no business praying for each item of worship in the assembly on the first day of the week. Let us show you what we are talking about.

1. We could not pray, for God does not work in prayer. We pray for God to help us worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). But if God does nothing, then there would be no need to pray. So, we must discontinue prayer in worship.
2. We could not sing songs like “Be with me, Lord, I cannot live without Thee, I dare not try to take one step alone.” This entire song is given to God’s providential care and keeping along with most of the songs we sing along this line. We must therefore stop singing in our worship services, these songs.
3. We could not pray for the preaching because the brethren often pray that the preacher will have a happy remembrance of what he has to say and that God will help him say it. So we must stop praying for the preacher.
4. We could not pray when we take the Lord’s Supper if God does not answer prayer because we pray when we take the Supper that God will HELP us take it in a most worthy way. How does this take place? Since we cannot explain this should we divide the church over it?
5. We could not pray when we give of our means on the first day of the week since we pray for God to help us give cheerfully and freely as well as liberally (II Cor. 9:6-7). Does God help us in some way to give cheerfully and liberally other than through the Bible? If it is the Bible only, then we should not pray but just read the Bible when we give.
6. Since God is not with us and in our midst today, then we should cease to have the worship assembly. But God is with us and yet unseen (Matt. 18:20; Matt. 28:20).

These brethren have pushed how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian too far this time. We are not ready at any time to make issues like this a test of Christian fellowship. This is extremism of the worst sort. We push for Bible balance in all things. We are not interested in Bible truth without fear, favor, or partiality.

An Old Issue Resurrected
Malcolm L. Hill

Another old issue is beginning to raise its head. There are those who again are pushing the false doctrine that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not a part of the New Testament. But why would a thing like this be brought forth again? Men teach doctrines like this because they are trying to get away from passages like Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32.

But are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John a part of the New Testament? Either they are a part of the New Testament or a part of the Old Testament. But they cannot be a part of the Old Testament since Jesus often told about what Moses said over against what he said. One example of this is found in Mathew 19:3-9. Please notice Matthew 19:7-9 in particular. Moses permitted them to put away their wives but Jesus said “I say unto you” (Matt. 19:9). Moses permitted one thing but Jesus said “I” am telling you something different, therefore, what Jesus taught here was not a part of Moses’ law but a part of the New Testament. Remember, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John must be a part of the New Testament; there can be no middle ground with reference to this.
In Matthew 18:15-17 we have Christ teaching about settling offences on a personal basis. The last step mentioned is, “tell it unto the church” (Matt. 18:17). But the church had not been established. Jesus was still preaching the “kingdom is at hand.” Christ was still saying, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). The church was not established until the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:47). Therefore Matthew 18:17 must be a part of the New Testament.

The plainest passage in all the Bible showing that what Christ taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is a part of the New Testament in Hebrews 2:3 where it is said, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the FIRST BEGAN TO BE SPOKEN BY THE LORD, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” This has reference to Jesus’ personal preaching during His life. He was the first to preach the New Testament and what He preached was confirmed by those that heard Him (the apostles and inspired men of the New Testament). Jesus started preaching the New Testament as we know it and the inspired men carried on the preaching of the gospel. So, what Jesus taught of His own will was the gospel or New Testament and what He cited from Moses’ law was Old Testament teaching! How much clearer could it be?