Debate Concluded

This debate has been brought to a close and it is the hope of all the participants that it has been of use to you.  All of the affirmative and negative articles for both proposition have been posted.  Feel free to contact the participants, David Garner at dgarner74@hotmail.com or Kurt G. Jones at kurtgjones@gmail.com, with any questions or concerns.

Fourth Negative, Proposition 2, By Kurt G. Jones

I am again thankful to have this final opportunity to defend what I believe to be the truth of the gospel regarding the issue of the church’s involvement in social and recreational activities.  I am thankful to brother Garner for his continued patience with me throughout this debate, as I have been late on articles more than one time.  He has been quite understanding and accommodating with me in this regard, and for that I am overly grateful.  As I write these pages I am preparing for a month long trip to the Philippines beginning in two days, also my wife just having given birth to our second son Phillip.   So I again apologize for my delay in writing but I do appreciate the opportunity to address the issue in this final article of the debate. 

I would like to take time also to thank those of you who have followed this debate.  I have received emails from various parts of the country from those who both agree and disagree with the position that I believe to be biblical. This is an encouragement to me, as it shows that there are people who are genuinely concerned with Bible study, and what the Bible authorizes the local church to do.    I also would like to thank the Guardian of Truth Foundation for their advertisement of the debate, as well as the members and Elders of the 9^th and Bliss church in Dumas, Texas for granting me time to study and make preparation for these articles, and for their tireless support of me during the course of this debate.  And finally, a special thanks is given to my good wife, Amber who has encourage me and been a help to me when my schedule included late nights, working through dinner, and other things which during the course of this study took her husband away from her for the cause of this work.  Her unending love and support for me is such that many times I feel as though I do too little for her. Solomon noted “he who finds a wife, finds a good thing and obtains favor From the Lord” (Proverbs 22:18).    Truly God has blessed me with a “virtuous woman,” and my heart rests safely in her (Proverbs 31:11). 

Books

As we began this discussion, David urged you the readers to read books by Thomas B. Warren, and Roy Deaver.   I would certainly encourage folks to read these books, and test them against the scriptures.  Further, I would encourage you to consider the material contained therein in the form of a polemic.  I would encourage the readers to read such books as “The Arlington Meeting,”   “The Porter-Deaver Debate,”  “The Cogdill-Woods Debate,” and “ The Willis-Inman Debate,”  which examine from both sides the authority for the church to employ human institutions to do the work of the church.  All of these books may be obtained from Truth Bookstore at www.truthbooks.net.  

Now let us turn our attention to David’s article. 

Context

In an effort to get out of his blunder regarding the fact that context does not determine the point David uses a nonsensical illustration.  We are not talking about tool sheds and pipe wrenches; we are talking about Bible study.   The point is this, (if I may use an illustration) when we see the church referenced in the scriptures, how do we determine if the context deals with the local or universal church?   The answer, we consider the context!  Who is being addressed.   The same is true regarding the individual and the church.   How do we determine if a passage of scripture is directed to the individual or the church? The answer is context, we consider who and why the passage was written.  Further, we consider other scriptural examples which are applicable. 

And David is correct, I was right on both page 141, and on page 103.  Just because a command is given to every member of the church, does not mean that the command was given to the church to be carried out by the church under the oversight of its elders.   It ain’t that hard folks!

Potlucks

I have never said, nor do I believe that it would be wrong to have a “potluck” on the grounds.  My argument in this debate, and always has been that it is wrong for the church to go beyond the authority of Christ to plan and/or oversee a social function such as a potluck for social purposes.  There is no command.  There is no example (to which David agrees) of the church in the new Testament planning a potluck for social purposes.  He has had eight articles in which to produce the scriptures that authorize his practice, and he has failed utterly and doing so!  Why?  Because such passages do not exist. 

“After Worship Services” Dodge

David attempts to fool you by trying to change the nature of the discussion.  We are not discussion meals “eaten after worship services.”  No one denies that Christians can and should eat together, the question is, where is the authority for the elders of the local church plan and oversee such an activity?   The closest thing brother Garner could come up with in his hodge-podge doctrine was  Euodia and Syntyche (c.f. Philippians 4:2-3) , wherein there was a call to restore these sister’s spiritual relationship.   That’s a far cry from the World’s longest hotdog!   The very idea, brother Garner!  We have continually asked, and to no avail, were are the scriptures?  As I predicted from the beginning, this debate will end without brother Garner providing such. 

1 Corinthans 11

The death knell to brother Garner’s doctrine is this passage of scripture beginning in verse 10 and following through the end of the chapter.  It openly condemns his practice.   David argued that  if we take the passage literally we must only eat in a “house.”  To which we noted that the apostle was not commanding that  the meals be eaten in the physical structure of the house, but rather in that God-ordained relationship of the “house.”   Let me give you an example, Paul noted to Timothy “ But if I am delayed, I write to you so that you may know how to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).  In this context,  the inspired apostle makes reference to “the house of God.”   Is he speaking of a physical structure?  No, he answers the question, the “house of God” is the Church of the living God.”    Now, in the same manner, 1 Corinthians 11:22 makes reference to the “houses” of individual Christians.  In both contexts the “house” is representative of the family.  In 1 Timothy, it represents the family of God.  In 1 Corinthians, it represents the families of individual Christians.   How do we know?  Because we take note of biblical examples of people  taking meals in places other than homes( John 6; Acts 20; etc.).     Yet, if he was speaking about eating in a physical house, how would that help brother Garner’s position?  It would still condemn what brother Garner advocates. 

The fact is the passage shows that it is a work of the home to provide for such social functions.  Further, as the apostle notes, those who disregard his command “despise the church of the living God…” (v.s. 22).   The question in this discussion is not about location, it never has been.  It is about going beyond the authority of the scriptures to do that which the Lord has not authorized. Namely being the church planning and overseeing a social function such as those brother Garner advocates.  

Brother Garner’s Questions

16.   The church is authorized to provide for a man and a woman kissing before an audience?   This is false, it is not the work of the church to provide such.  However, It is also not the church’s work to provide for a person to hug another to show excitement at a baptism or at a time when one is restored.  Yet, such displays of affection are an outpouring of joy and incidental to the  purpose for which the church assembled. 

17.  It is not even possible for Husband X to be spiritually edified while rendering due benevolence?   This is false, anytime we are obedient to the commands of God we will be edified spiritually.   However, there is no parallel here between this command, and the social meal sponsored by the local church.  The question is, is it the responsibility of the elders of the local church to oversee a couple’s marital bed?  The answer is “no”  and such is the same with social functions.  Is it the elders responsibility to oversee the social functions and relationships of individuals in the church?  The answer also is no.    Further, I have never argued that edification cannot, or does not take place when physical objects or actions are present.  This is another example of David’s attempt at misdirection. 

18.  What does exist in the context commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both the church and the individual) which does not apply to the command to “socialize”?   The answer involves to whom the command was given.   We have numerous biblical examples of Christians individually, apart from the church teaching (c.f. Acts 18:26; Acts 19:9, etc.).  Further, there is not a single example which shows the church engaging in social activities.  Further, I want to note an open lie that David has told in the section.  He wrote “ [Kurt] has said that something being addressed to the church is not the only criteria” (p. 148).  This is patently false, and I never said it!  What I said was that simply because a command is given to every individual in the Lord’s church, does not mean that it is to be carried out by the church, nor overseen by the elders.  You can review my answer on page 103. 

19.  What does not exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both ‘the church’ and ‘the individual’), that does exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “socialize” (which you claim only applies to the individual), that is the determining factor to let one know that the command applies to both the church and the individual?  Note my previous answer.  What does not exist is the application, and example of the local church providing for such social occasions. 

20. It would be sinful for ‘church G’ (a local church) to visit (collectively) a state-funded orphan’s home after worship services one Sunday, in order to “visit the orphans” (James 1:27). True.  It is not the work of the local church to oversee simply visiting (as the passage of James 1: 27 is directed to individual Christians: “keep oneself unspotted…”).  However if the church was engaged in teaching the truth to these orphans, this is certainly within the realm of teaching.  Note also that this does not undermine the responsibility of Christians to individual visit widows and orphans.  This is our responsibility, and thus should be dispensed.  It is sad when folks attempt to pawn their individual work off on the church!

James 1:27

Now note this point regarding David’s implication of James 1:27.   David implies indirectly that when one Christians sins, the whole church sins.  That, brother Garner, is nonsense!   Is it possible for Christians to come together and one defile himself and others not?  Absolutely!  For an example note 1 Corinthians 11:29.   Only the individual can spot himself with the world. 

Also, note David’s further attempt to confuse the minds of people.  We do not deny that the book of James is written to the church.  Yet, like the Corinthian letters, it contains commands that are to be carried out by the individual.  David has admitted this, he knows that the church does not engage in rendering due benevolence (1 Corinthians 7), yet the letter of 1 Corinthians is written to “ the church of God which is at Corinth” ( 1 Corinthians 1:2).     1 Corinthians 6 deals with brethren going to law with one another. This is another example of Paul’s instruction to the individual, in a letter that was written “to the Church of God.” 

Garner’s “Arbitrary” Doctrine

Brother Garner writes “…my position allows for arbitrariness…”(p. 149).  Yet earlier in this very article he wrote “I don’t follow somebody or something ‘just because.’ I need proof (1 Thess. 5:21).”  I wonder which one it is?   It is a poor rule that doesn’t run both ways.    David may be content with is arbitrary doctrine.  I shall continue to seek book, chapter, and verse for my practice.  I hope you will too!

Regarding Paul Maner

David accuses me of “double talk”  regarding our Brother.  The fact is, that is simply false.  I believe Paul to be honest, yet that does not mean that “hearsay” evidence is applicable to the discussion.  David previously noted that Paul said “B.C. Goodpasture ate social meals.”  That is irrelevant, and does not change the point of my chart.  My posting of the chart was to note what Goodpasture wrote and had published in the Gospel Advocate. It is a written record that anyone can look up and find.  What Paul said, (has honest and honorable as he is) is not a documentable source.   That was my point.  

More of Error’s Sophistry

Brother Garner gives a list of various sources that note that members of the church ate together.  Brother Garner, no one ever, not once in this debate, has denied that Christians ate together.  I do not deny it, I never have.  What I deny is that the scriptures give authorization for the church to plan, oversee, and make provision for such arrangements.  You have not shown that from the scriptures, and you cannot because it is not contained therein.  These readers aren’t going to fall for you sleight of hand, and your sophistry. 

“The Love Feast”

David has on more than one occasion in this discussion, attempted to accuse me of relying on scholars for my doctrine.  This was particularly true with reference to the charts by Christians who noted his practice is both new and denominational.  Then after all of that, he can with a straight face quote Pliny and Mattox to get his “love feast” doctrine.   O consistency, thou art a jewel!   The fact is, scholars do not agree on what the “love feasts” were.  There is no general agreement among scholars regarding them.  Some argue that it is the Lord’s Supper, others argue that they are common meals provided by individual members.  Guy N.Woods  writes this “ The love feasts were meals common to the apostolic age at which the saints met from social, charitable, and humanitarian reasons.  They appear to have had their origin in the practice of wealthier providing food for the poorer ones, and eating with them as a token of brotherliness” (Woods, Commentary on Jude , p.   395).     Whatever they were,  you cannot conclude by simply looking at the scriptures that they were social meals provided and overseen by the local church.  You get that from scholars, but not the Bible. 

Garner and “Fellowship”

Another example of the confusion of brother Garner’s doctrine is the conundrum that he has put himself in regarding the idea of “fellowship.” He notes that the Bible does not define a social meal as spiritual fellowship (p. 133). He is correct; the Bible not one time refers to people eating a common meal for social purposes as “fellowship”. Yet, I suppose Brother Garner is qualified to determine what fellowship is, outside of biblical teaching. I suppose that would make sense given his previous doctrine that men can decide whether or not it is “wise” to carry out the precepts of the gospel. Yet, though brother Garner realizes that the Bible does not define his practice as “fellowship” he believes it is fine to deem it as such ( p. 112,113), outside of Bible teaching!  The very idea!    I believe we should call Bible things by Bible names!  Should you readers not expect the same from brother Garner?  

A Synopsis

I have continually noted that we must have scriptural authority for the things which we say and do.  Brother Garner had eight articles, and never once could produce scriptural authority for his practice.  All we got was hodge-podge doctrine, misapplication of the scriptures, and name calling.     We wasted page after page writing about utterly and completely irrelevant topics such as parking lots, wall-paint, and weddings.  Folks, if we went fishing, I would imagine that we could have had a “red-herring” contest.  This debate was filled with them.   The point of a red-herring is to draw people’s attention away from the matter at hand, and focus it upon some sidebar discussion.   I suppose I will never understand fully why there was such a desire to redirect people’s minds from church-sponsored social meals.    Though I have a pretty good idea.

The basis for all of these discussion relied upon the premise that these things also were unauthorized.  The fact is, if they are unauthorized, we should stop them!  The fact that we might practice something unauthorized does not provide authority for some other unauthorized practice.   

Further, there were attempts at misdirection and word play.  Brother Garner repeatedly attempted to call his practice “eating after the worship service.”  But folks, you know and I know that was not the issue under discussion.  That was not the proposition that we signed.   I have never argued that Christians may not eat together after the assembly.  I encourage all to go back and read the proposition again.  It is clear that the topic at hand is not “eating after the worship service.”

A Plea For Bible Authority

Paul noted “and whatever you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:17).   Peter noted “if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11).   Brethren, there is no precept which authorized the local church to plan, provide for, or overseen social meals.   There is no example of the Lord’s church in the scriptures participating in such.  A fact that brother Garner admits (p. 133).   We can invent all the doctrines in the world to attempt to approve our practice.  The denominations do that all the time.    Yet if there is not scriptural authority for a practice, and we choose to attempt to manufacture authority, we do not “ speak as the oracles of God.”  We do things outside of “the name of Jesus Christ.”    

 Folks, the Bible is resoundingly silent regarding the church sponsoring social meals. Let us “be silent where the Bible is silent”

 In conclusion, let me quote the apostle Paul, one of the original “antis ” ( to use David’s term).  “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in or do you despise the church of the living God…” (1 Corinthians11:22)?

Fourth Affirmative, Proposition 2, By David Garner

Garner’s 4^th Affirmative/ 2^nd Proposition

The Sustainer of all mankind has seen fit to allow me time to live on this earth until now—and for that I am continually grateful. His blessings are bountiful and rich! May we always remember His will for our lives. Again, appreciation is expressed to Mark, Kurt and Jeff for their work in this discussion.

Regrets

I have to admit that I am a bit “let down” that Kurt hasn’t changed his position by now. Each time I send him my latest speech, I am hopeful that maybe I have said something in it that will cause him to think. I can’t read his heart, so I don’t know if he continues the debate because of pride or because I truly haven’t done a good enough job of convincing him. But one thing I am sure of is this: There is no middle ground to occupy between our positions. One of us is a false teacher. God already knows who it is, and now it is up to you (the reader) to determine who it is. My prayer is that you will check all the references that have been given for your study.

Kurt and “Context”

Imagine a father and his 7 year-old son are working on a project together. The father says, “Son, go to my tool shed and get me a pipe-wrench.” The son responds, “Daddy, how do I determine what a pipe-wrench is?” So the father says, “You determine what a pipe- wrench is by looking in my tool shed.” Question: did the father’s answer help the son determine what a pipe-wrench is? No. It only told him where he could find it. This is exactly what Kurt did when I asked him to give the criteria for determining what makes a command to be a “work of the church” (WOC). Kurt didn’t tell us what the criteria are; he only told us where we could find it.

What Kurt has done is to change the object he’s hiding behind. He’s still hiding—believe me, he is. Throughout this debate he used the phrase the “WOC,” but now

144

that he has been asked what criteria are necessary to determine a “WOC,” he goes and hides behind something else, “context.” Now that his “WOC” shield has been taken away from him, he goes and hides behind the “context” shield, all the while failing to give us all the criteria necessary to determine what makes something a “WOC.” Reader, do you see how that Kurt has not come out and boldly given us what we need to determine the “WOC?”

Someone may be saying, “I thought Kurt answered that the criteria for something being a ‘WOC’ was that “contextually it must be directed to the church” on page 141. And you would be right; he did answer it that way in question #14. The only problem is that his answer there contradicts his answer to #5 on page 103. On 141 he said something is a ‘WOC’ if it is directed to ‘the church;’ but on 103 he said something being directed to ‘all’ members (rather than just ‘some’) was not the only criteria to determine if it was a ‘WOC.’ Which time was he right?  Either all members equal “the church” or they don’t, Kurt. Which is it? Kurt said something becomes a ‘WOC’ when “contextually it” is “directed to the church” (141). But wouldn’t “all members” be “the church”? Yes. So why did he say that a command given to ‘all’ members was not the only criteria in one place, but then said it was in another? [Interestingly, Kurt admitted that the instruction for Christians to frequently socialize with other Christians is given to “all” Christians rather than just ‘some’ (#8; p.121).]

The point I’m making is that Kurt’s answer (that “context” alone determines if the command is directed to the church or individuals) is not enough information for us to precisely and repetitiously determine the difference between church and individual responsibility. For “context” to be the right answer, he needs to specify something within the context that allows us to determine whether the command is directed to the church or the individual only. He has not done that yet. He has failed to specify what (within the context) determines if something is directed to the church or the individual. Kurt, you have to tell me what makes the difference if you expect me to follow that doctrine. I don’t follow somebody or something “just because.” I need proof (1 Thess. 5:21). 

Kurt and “Potlucks”

Finally! What we’ve all been waiting for—Kurt’s latest blunder! In an effort to avoid

145

 one difficulty, Kurt falls headlong into another. Remember how I’ve been essentially begging Kurt to tell us which part of the Philippines work he “questioned the wisdom of?” He finally said he questioned the wisdom of the whole practice (143). Then, he said he believed “the ‘meal on the grounds’ practice of old, also was unwise. But this does not make it wrong, un-authorized, nor unscriptural.” That answer is so unbelievably bizarre because of an earlier admission from him. Earlier, Kurt said it would be sinful to have a potluck in the church building—even if the members provided the food (top; 50). So here’s the “pickle” Kurt is in: if it’s not wrong to have ‘dinner on the grounds,’ what makes it wrong to have a potluck ‘on the grounds?’ Is it because one is outside and the other inside? Where is that regulated in Scripture? Is it because they didn’t plan the ‘dinner-on-the-grounds’ of yesteryear? Whether you plan the meal or not makes no difference in determining if it is sinful or not—so that can’t be it. So what is the difference in a ‘potluck’ and a ‘meal on the grounds’ that makes one sinful but the other not sinful? Hopefully, Kurt will tell us.

I couldn’t believe it; but that’s the admission Kurt made on page 143. And then, as if the Philippines incident wasn’t a glaring enough blunder, Kurt, in this very same speech, said that 1 Corinthians 11:22 & 34 teach that “meals to quell hunger are to be eaten at home” (135; 143). Now Kurt, which is it, brother? Are meals to “quell hunger” (eaten after worship services) scriptural or unscriptural? Are they wrong or not wrong? Are they un-authorized or authorized? My guess is that rather than deal with this blunder, Kurt will charge me with not observing the “context,” or he will revert back to his WOC shield—maybe saying that the ‘meal on the grounds’ of old was not a WOC. Well folks, don’t let that fool you (if he does so). The crucial thing he needs to be explaining is how 1 Cor. 11 teaches that we should eat “meals to quell huger” at home, but then he turns right around (in the same breath almost) and says that the ‘dinner on the grounds’ practice isn’t wrong, un-authorized nor unscriptural.

Questions for Kurt

As on the first proposition, Kurt has once again decided to not provide me with the 5 questions that we agreed to answer. Why, I do not know; but I still have 5 that I want to ask him. Since I will not be able to respond to his answers (this being my last speech), in advance I have given the consequences of his answers to them. All the questions are designed to show the errors in Kurt’s position. Regardless of how he answers, he is stuck with a difficulty.

146

T/F       16. The church is authorized to provide for a man and woman kissing before an

            audience. [If so, what verse?].

If Kurt answers true, he contradicts himself, since he said that “the building, while in control of the local church, may only be used to expedite the commands of the Lord to the church.” (p.12; #5). There is no command for “the church” to get married, nor to marry anyone. If there is, where is it?

If he answers false, then he contradicts himself when he spoke of performing a wedding ceremony for a couple (p.117) that contained “no elements that were not authorized.” Also, if he answers false, then, by his actions (of performing a wedding in the past), he allowed the church to provide for that which, he says, the Bible does not authorize.

This question is significant because a wedding falls into the same category as a social meal (i.e., both are “social” events, both have things not specifically mentioned in Scripture, both have acts of “worship” at them, etc.). But Kurt decries one, and allows the other. Why?

   T/F    17. It is not even possible for “Husband X” (a Christian) to be spiritually edified             while rendering due benevolence (KJV; 1 Cor. 7:3) to his wife, “wife X.” [Note:      Wife X has wholly let herself go since the time the couple married—gaining all      kinds of weight, not grooming herself properly, etc. Basically, she is ugly to him now. But because husband X honors God’s law in 1 Cor. 7:2-5, he still shows her             the affection she needs; even though she grosses him out.]

If Kurt answers true, then he admits that there are times when Christians obey God, but are not spiritually edified for doing so. This is not true. Every time Christians obey God they are spiritually edified for doing so. Likewise, every time a Christian sins, they are spiritually weakened for doing so. 

If he answers false, then he admits that it is possible to receive spiritual edification while performing a physical act, involving physical objects. This admission is significant because he wasn’t willing to admit such with a social meal.

Why even ask this last question? I want Kurt to understand that spiritual edification can

147

 

take place even while one is doing physical things—if they are commands of God.

            18. What does exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both ‘the church’ and ‘the individual’), that does not exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “socialize” (which you claim only applies to the individual), that is the determining factor to let one know that the command applies to both the church and the individual?

I ask this question because I want to see if Kurt will add anything to the criteria he has already given (about something being a “WOC” if it is addressed to ‘the church’). On one occasion (#5; 103), he said that being addressed to ‘the church’ was not the only criteria necessary; later (#14; 141), he indicated that it was. Will he add any more criteria now?

            19. What does not exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “teach” (which applies to both ‘the church’ and ‘the individual’), that does exist, in the context of a passage commanding the responsibility to “socialize” (which you claim only applies to the individual), that is the determining factor to let one know that the command applies to both the church and the individual?

Again, I want to see if Kurt will add anything to his criteria. 

T/F       20. It would be sinful for ‘church G’ (a local church) to visit (collectively) a state-           funded orphan’s home after worship services one Sunday, in order to “visit the orphans” (James 1:27). [Note: the question pre-supposes that the orphan’s           home is right next door to the church building, and no type of monetary contribution or gift is given to the orphan’s home, and the visit is planned by         the elders of ‘church G,’ as one of their works.]

If Kurt answers true, he ignores the fact that the book of James was written to the whole church which was scattered abroad (James 1:1), so that he can hold to his belief that James 1:27 deals with the individual only (as he indicated on p. 139, top). Plus, if “keep oneself” (Ja. 1:27) means only individual Christians can visit orphans, then it likewise means that only individual Christians can keep themselves unspotted from the world! That would mean that when the church comes together they could (with God’s approval) defile themselves with worldly things. Nonsense?…Yes; but it’s the logical conclusion to Kurt’s “keep oneself”-means-individual-responsibility doctrine (Ja. 1:27).

If he answers false, he tacitly admits that his analysis of James 1:27 (top 139) is wrong.

148

On p. 139, he made the application that James 1:27 applied to individual Christians (but not ‘the church’) because of the phrase “keep oneself” within the verse. This is an error on Kurt’s part. Honest seekers of truth (who logically reason through Scriptures) will find that all antis make similar errors throughout the Bible in an effort to uphold their false doctrines regarding ‘saints only,’ and ‘no orphan homes.’   

Answering Kurt’s Contentions

1. Kurt makes mention of me arbitrarily excluding things (like concerts and recreational events) from the list of things that the church treasury may be used for (135); then he references my answers to #9 on p.103, and #4 on p. 93—as if these represent a contradiction. If Kurt would do the research, he could have seen that my answer to #9 (103) referenced my answer to #4 (93). My meaning was that I don’t think rock & roll concerts, nor country music concerts, should be paid for out of the treasury because they are entertainment-oriented rather than socially oriented. Not to mention, country music often leads to lascivious dancing.            But even if my answer is arbitrary, doesn’t Kurt see that my position allows for arbitrariness, while his position doesn’t? When I teach that “all commands of the gospel may be provided for from the treasury,” that means if some activity (or event) contains the fulfilling of a command of God, then it may be provided for. Sure, there may be socializing at a concert; but prudence dictates that we ask if the purpose of the concert is for socializing or entertainment (i.e., will a country music concert really foster relationships like social meals will?). I think concerts are for entertainment, hence I said the church shouldn’t provide for them.          But on the other hand, when Kurt teaches that only “some commands of the gospel may be provided for from the treasury,” he is under obligation to show which ones they are. There is no room for arbitrariness in his position; he must specify which ones can be provided for. This, he has not done. This, he will not do.

2. Kurt patted himself on the back for a moment in regards to what he thought I would answer about 1 Cor. 11:22 & 34 (135f.). Then he gave this nonsensical explanation about the Bible using the words “”house” and “home” to represent a relationship, not a physical location” (136). Even if the Bible does use the words “house” and “home” that way in some

149

 places, can Kurt prove it’s used that way here? So I guess what Kurt means is that when Paul said, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (1 Cor. 11:34), he really meant that you have to eat in a relationship. Is that right, Kurt? Are you saying that Christians are supposed to eat at a relationship, instead of a home? That’s nonsense! I don’t even understand any of your meaning from that section. Paul doesn’t condemn the church eating together after worship; he condemns their abuse of the Lord’s Supper (cf. “One” from 129f.).

3. Kurt does some more “double-talk” in referring to Paul Maner (136). First, he calls Paul “disreputable.” Then, in the same sentence, he says, “that is not to say that brother Maner is not trustworthy or faithful, it is simply that his “hearsay” evidence is not germane to the proceedings of this discussion” (136). Kurt, regardless of your convoluted jargon about Paul’s character, his “hearsay” evidence is just as germane to this discussion as the other brethren’s “hearsay” evidence is. Neither brethren Philips, Goodpasture, Hardeman, nor Decker are here to speak for themselves—so their evidence is “hearsay” too.      Not to be disrespectful to honorable brethren, Kurt, but let me say this: If any one of those men were alive today, I would make the same arguments to them that I am making to you. It is insignificant how “big” their names are in the brotherhood.

4. Kurt says the reason he quoted brethren Philips, Goodpasture, Hardeman and Decker was “to show that the position brother Garner advocates is new” (137). Perhaps Kurt would do well to read some books on church history. In Everett Ferguson’s Early Christians Speak, he writes, concerning the social meals of the 1^st and 2^nd centuries, “The Roman governor Pliny places Christians gathering for a common meal at a separate time from their “stated” religious assembly” (p.131). Continuing, Ferguson writes, “Apparently agape was used for the meal, and eucharist for the memorial of the Lord…the love feast continued to be an important social and religious function of the Christian community” (p.132). Later, he writes, “The love feast served functions of fellowship and charity for the early Christians. It was the social, convivial aspect which especially attracted many persons…” (p.133).

     It’s not just Ferguson either. Please observe what F.W. Mattox, in The Eternal Kingdom, wrote concerning 1^st century social meals: “After the conclusion of this ceremony [a reference

150

 to worship—DG] it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food; but it was ordinary and harmless food,” (p.36). Later (p. 52) he writes, “In the Jerusalem church, before the persecution began, it was customary for the Christians to have their regular meals together.” Also, “Out of the early custom of eating together grew the love feasts. This term applied to the meal that was eaten preceding the Lord’s Supper. The entire congregation brought their food to the place of worship and ate together a common meal. This custom varied and in some places the love feast followed the worship. The poor of the community were invited to share in the meal.” (p. 52). Kurt, if you wish to call an almost 2,000 year old practice “new,” go right ahead; but these meals have been around a long time!

5. Kurt says he still can’t find where I included “for social purposes” in my Constituent Element Argument (139). The only thing I know to tell him is to check the pagination on the pages he’s reading. Some of the page numbers got distorted on the different websites; but my hard copy has “for social purposes” in #2 on page 88 (five pages into my 1^st affirm.). It’s the page that starts with “It can be easily seen that….” at the top.

6. Kurt says calling a social meal a “fellowship meal” seems “somewhat deceptive” to him (141), because we allow non-Christians to eat with us, when, in fact, they are not in fellowship with us. That’s almost so ridiculous as to not even warrant a response! Kurt, since you view the worship assembly as “fellowship” (implied by #14; p.50), why would you ever invite a non-Christian to worship services, by that line of reasoning?!? I’m saying, if non-Christians attending “fellowship” meals is deceptive, wouldn’t it also be deceptive to invite them to worship services since we have fellowship in the assembly too? What proves too much, proves nothing!

7. I’ve never seen a better example of circular reasoning than Kurt’s answer to #13 (141). Please read his answer; and then observe that, in other words, he’s saying: if you define the “work of the church” to fall into only these 3 categories, then the Bible teaches it. Well, that’s the very thing I’ve been saying all along Kurt! The Bible doesn’t teach that, you do. You defined the work of the church into only 3 categories—not the Bible.

8. I spent a sizeable amount of page space last speech (p.127) showing that Kurt sanctions the church owning property, building parking lots and purchasing padded pews because he sees

151

 the authority for them (when in fact they fit in the same category as social meals. i.e., they help to fulfill a command that God has given.). He glazed over those examples by responding that “if these things are not authorized, then let us get rid of them!” That’s a standard response you get from Kurt when you bring up relevant examples that he doesn’t know how to answer. He says, “Well, let us get rid of them.” Folks, I’m here to tell you, that Kurt doesn’t have the slightest intention on getting rid of buildings, pews or parking lots. That’s mere verbiage on his part! If he believed those things were not authorized, he wouldn’t wait on “us” to get rid of them with him. Kurt, you don’t have to give those things up, brother. All you have to do is to open your mind and see that whoever the first anti was that taught you that social meals aren’t authorized had no idea what he was talking about. Just realize that he can’t remain consistent, and that you just happened to come into contact with him at a time when you didn’t know any better. It could happen to anybody, and frequently does. I beg you to leave anti-ism. The apostle Paul was no anti, Jesus was no anti, and none of us should be antis in the way I use the term in this debate. The only 1^st century anti that I can think of right now is Diotrephes (3 John 9-10).

Why the Social Meal is Authorized

            The proposition I affirmed is still true. I have already given several arguments to prove such. I will very briefly recount those and add one new one.

1. The Constituent Element Argument (see pp.86-91&128) remains intact—Kurt’s claim of me not including “for a social purpose” notwithstanding. Every element in the social meal is scriptural; hence, the social meal (as a whole) is scriptural.

2.  The social meal provides an opportunity to draw people to God’s dear Son, by providing the occasion to better acquaint them with Christian behavior and manners. Kurt misrepresented me by making it seem like I think this method could replace preaching (142). I never intended such! Nor will observing Christian behavior ever replace preaching; but it is another avenue by which people can be drawn to Christ (cf. 1 Peter 3:1-2).

152

3. The social meal is authorized because Christians have been given the general command to socialize with other Christians (Prov. 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 & 1 Cor. 15:33) without being given the specifics of ‘where,’ ‘when,’ or ‘how.’ This being so, Christians can socialize any time, place or manner that doesn’t violate some other command of God—1 Cor. 11:34 notwithstanding (143). Remember folks, a ‘meal on the grounds’ is not unscriptural (143).

4. Again, the social meal is scriptural because socializing is a ‘God-intended’ way for Christians to stay spiritually strong (#1; p.103). If God wants us to socialize to stay strong, anything that will foster socializing (and doesn’t break some other command of God) is authorized to be provided for.

And now, my last argument: Kurt said a command becomes a ‘work of the church’ when contextually it is given to ‘the church’ (p.141; #14). Well, let’s use his standard to show that social meals are authorized: he has admitted that 1 Cor. 15:33 is a passage that teaches God intends for Christians to frequently socialize (#1; p.103). So now the question becomes: who is 1 Cor. 15:33 given to? 1 Cor. 1:2 tells us, “To the church of God which is at Corinth,…” Nothing in 1 Cor. 15 indicates that this is for individuals only. There’s your command to the church, Kurt.                  Along the same lines, Rom. 14:19 says “…let us pursue…the things by which one may edify another.” [Remember: Kurt said socializing is a “God-intended” way of edifying (#1; p.103)] Since Paul used the plural “us,” he must be talking to “the church” rather than the individual. And what do you know! Paul said the Roman letter was written “To all who are in Rome…” (1:7). That sounds like “the church” to me.

Thanks

     Again, thanks are extended to all who have helped out in this effort—especially the wives of those who have spent long hours waiting on their husbands to finish their work on this.

     If Kurt should say something in his final speech that causes concern, and you would like to chat with me about it, then please feel free to email me at dgarner74@hotmail.com or call me at (707) 448-5085. God bless everyone who nobly searches the Scriptures to see if these things are so!

153

Third Negative, 2nd Proposition, By Kurt G. Jones

I am again thankful for the opportunity to deny the proposition under consideration. 

Predication Still  True

We have gone through the vast majority of this discussion, and have heard time and time again how brother Garner is going to show us the scriptures which support his doctrine.   He has yet to present them. All we have received is his hodge-podge doctrine, and acting like he doesn’t know the difference between the church and the individual.   He has only one article left.  Let us see if he will man up to the challenge.

Further, we have noticed that each time David gets stuck in his doctrine, he starts acting like he has no idea what the church is, or that there is a difference between the church collective and the individual. You would think at the Brown Trail seminary he went to they would have had a class on it.    He did the same thing during the first proposition when he acted as though he had no idea what the church was.    Yet we know that he knows there is a difference between the church and the individual, because he admitted such on page 41.  Brethren and friends, don’t be fooled by his seemingly clever attempt to get out of the force and logical conclusion of his false doctrine. 
 

Yes, Brother Garner, context does determine it.  You may consider context an “infinitely vague” (p. 124) way of determining the application of a passage,   yet most Bible students consider it a requirement for proper biblical understanding.  And yes, there are indeed commands that are given to both the church and individual.  We see these by both commands and examples.   Things such as singing, prayer, and teaching, biblically are done both by the church collective and by Christians in their individual capacities.    

Outrage?

David, when stuck with his doctrine that allows the church to build and maintain gyms and provide honeymoon suites, accuses me of trying to convince by “outrage.”   The fact is, this is simply a logical conclusion of his doctrine.  If the church can provide for one social function it can provide for all.  Now David admits this in his last article (p. 124)

Social vs. Recreational

Brother Garner has been pinned by the false doctrine he advocates, so he argues that we aren’t talking about “recreational” issues.   Brother Garner, I agree that not all social functions are recreational, yet every argument you can make regarding a church-sponsored social meal can be made with equal force for church sponsored recreation.  Thus, why they are not necessarily the same thing, they stand or fall on the same arguments.  And you can call it a “straw man”  all day, but it does not change that fact the logical explanation of your doctrine is that is social meals are authorized, so are  recreational activities,   including the concerts that you have arbitrarily excluded (p. 93, 113). 

1 Corinthinas 11

My predictions continue to come true.  I noted in my first negative that brother Garner would carry on about the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians 11, and I was right.  We do not disagree that their practice was perverting the Lord’s supper, and that they could not partake of it properly according to their current practice.  And David, we aren’t even talking about eating a social meal “after worship” (p. 129) we are talking about the church providing such meals.   Yet what David’s false position ignores completely is Paul’s solution to their problem  in verses 22 and 34.  Meals to quell hunger are to be eaten at home.  It is not the church’s role or function to provide such.   Kurt Jones did not say that, but rather one of the original “antis,” the apostle Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.    

David notes “If Kurt wants to take vss. 22 & 34 literally, as positive commands which forbid eating a social meal at the building, then the verses likewise mean that it would be sinful to eat at a restaurant or a friend or relative’s house on Sunday” (p. 129,130).    My friend, “ye do err not knowing the scriptures…” (Matthew 22:29).  We are talking about “eating at the building” but rather church-sponsored social meals.   The Bible uses the words “house” and “home” to represent a relationship, not a physical location.    Consider 1 Timothy 3:5.  As Paul was writing regarding the qualification of bishops, he noted “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?”   Brother Garner, what does Paul mean?  A man has to make sure the doors don’t creek, and the sinks drain properly if he is to be qualified to serve as an elder in the Lord’s church?    No, of course not, it means that he fulfills his God-given role in the relationship of the home properly. 

Supposed Misrepresentation.

When it was noted that David’s doctrine is new and contains no biblical example (which he admits p. 113).   We quoted just a few of the brethren who used to oppose the practice which Garner defends and advocates.  Rather than dealing with this issue,  David quotes a disreputable source (that is not to say brother Maner is not trustworthy or faithful, it is simply that his “hearsay” evidence is not germane to the proceedings of this discussion), and then accuses me of “misrepresenting the brethren I quoted (p. 133).   Brother Garner, I misrepresented no one!  I simply quoted what they wrote.  Perhaps brother Maner’s information is wrong, or perhaps Brother Goodpasture was horribly dishonest and inconsistent (which I do not believe or argue).  The fact is he, along with the other brethren quoted, has in various articles printed arguments against the very doctrine Brother Garner advocates and teaches, and David is unwilling to attempt to answer it lest he be further exposed.   Thus, we issue the charts again.  He has one final article, will he answer the force of the writing of these men?

Further, Brother Garner accuses me of using scholars to “prove [my] position” (p. 133).  Yet, the fact is, we have shown pretty clearly from the scriptures that God has given not command, example for the church to engage in the support of social meals and recreation.  Further, brother Garner agrees with this point (p. 113).   I quoted these preachers simply to show that the position brother Garner advocates is new, and faithful gospel preachers of old decried it as false and “denominational.”   We say a hearty “amen” to their biblical teaching on the matter. 

Distinguishing the Individual’s Responsibility, From the Church’s Responsibility.

The faithful gospel preacher, Roy Cogdill,  noted “ The failure to separate what the congregation as such, can do and what the individual Christian can do in the service of the Lord is the cause of much misunderstanding in the church today”   (Walking By Faith, p. 29).    This was true in the mid-twentieth century when the book was written, and it obviously is true among some churches of Christ today.   The Bible clearly shows a distinction between the church, and the individual when it comes to work that is to be done.   Paul noted one such example in 1 Timothy 5:16.  Further, brother Garner has agreed with this premise earlier in the discussion.   The same is noted in Matthew 18, when Christ notes individuals operating apart from the church, who may then be required to “tell it to the church”  (Matthew 18:15-17). 

The individual Christian has responsibilities in areas where the church does not.  For instance, The Christian has responsibilities to the government, home, community, business ventures in which he may be involved, and the church. 

The church is not the individual.  The church involves a group of Christians acting collectively as a local church within the bounds of the scriptural organization that God has given the church in His word.   The work of the church is overseen by the elders of a local church (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28).   These elders are given the responsibility to oversee the carrying out of God’s commands to the church. The term church is a collective term, similar to that of “flock” or “heard.”  Thus, while it is true that the work of the church is every members responsibility (Ephesians 4:16),  it does not follow that the church can do all that the individual can do.   One member is not the body (1 Corinthians 12:12,14).  Neither is one stone the whole building (2 Peter 2:5).   The local church is the collective of Christians in a locale working together within the scriptural organization. 

Some areas in which the Bible draws a distinction between individual and church action are seen in eating, benevolence, and discipline.

 In addition, there are some areas in which the church may not operate in the realm of the individual. 

Thus, it is clear that the Bible shows a difference and distinction between the church, and the individual Christian.  So how do we determine which commands are given to the church, and which are directed toward individuals?   We consider the context.  We look in the context and consider to whom was the precept directed.  For instance we consider such passages as James 1:27.  James writes “pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: visit the widows and orphans in their trouble, and keep oneself unspotted from the world.”   We note by the context of the passage (i.e. “keep oneself…”) that he is speaking to Christians in their individual capacities.     Further, we may note in 1 Corinthians 5: 4,5  Paul, in reference to corrective church discipline, notes “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit… deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh…”  Here we note the context of the chapter, and the passage and note that Paul is giving instruction for church action in verses 4 and 5.   

Still No “Social Purposes”

Brother Garner,   on page 130, seeks to question my honesty  and then in the same paragraph as that says that he as shown in his hodge-podge doctrine  that he has shown the “for social purposes”  in his argument.  Yet I have looked and still have not found it.   It must be like the cake that was taken in the last proposition, a figment of his imagination. 

Which Time Was David Right?

David’s doctrine has got him so mixed up that he meets himself coming back. We’re not sure which time David was right, maybe he can provide some clarification for us.  On page 125 David notes that he believe the treasury of the Lord’s church can be used “for all commands of the gospel (whether to the ‘church’ or the ‘individual’).”   Yet he has agreed that paying taxes is part of the gospel,  yet has said the church cannot provide tax preparation services free of charge ?  So can the church provide for all or some, brother Garner?    

Along the same lines, brother Garner argues that it is “not wise” for the church to provide for all the commands of the gospel (p. 126).  Thus, while it is scriptural for the church to provide consummation rooms, it might not be wise, according to Garner’ s doctrine.   But why would the same reasoning not apply to other commands?  What if a church deemed it “unwise” to have pulpit preaching, and decided to rather have the giving of testimonies from people’s seats?   What if a group of elders “reviewed the prospective command” to teach the lost,  and decided that they did not want to provide for it from the treasury?    Brethren and friends, this is what we have when we fail to follow the Bible example of the use of the Lord’s treasury.  Brother Garner has now invented a doctrine where the will of man supersedes the commands of God.  Welcome to denominationalism!

What a “Fellowship” or maybe What is “Fellowship?”

Another example of the confusion of brother Garner’s doctrine is the  conundrum that he has put himself in regarding the idea of “fellowship.”   He notes that the Bible does not define a social meal as spiritual fellowship (p.   133).   He is correct, the Bible not one time refers to people eating a common meal for social purposes as “fellowship”.      Yet, I suppose Brother Garner is qualified to determine what  fellowship is, outside of biblical teaching.  I suppose that would make sense given his previous doctrine that men can decide whether or not it is “wise” to carry out the precepts of the gospel.   Yet, though brother Garner realizes that the Bible does not define his practice as “fellowship” he believes it is fine to deem it as such ( p. 112,113),  outside of Bible teaching!   

Now, since apparently brother Garner believes himself to have the authority to determine spiritual matters outside of the Bible’s definition,  he also feels that he can determine who is involved in  the “fellowship” which he defines.   He first stated that only those non-christians that were not “openly hostile toward Christianity” (p. 23)   could partake of the meal,  then later he said that a practicing homosexual would be welcome if they visited the assembly the day of the social meal (p. 133).  Which time was he right?  

Further, he notes that it’s fellowship if it is Christians, but not if they are unbelievers (p. 45).  I wonder if this is a Bible principal, or if this is just another occasion where David’s authority determines when and what is fellowship apart from the Bible?   Further, if it is not “fellowship” with the unbeliever, why invite them to a “fellowship meal” (p. 112)?   Why not call it what it is, a social meal with Christians and unbelievers?  That seems somewhat deceptive to me.

David’s Questions

11. The church building, where the local church worships, may be used (with God’s approval) for a wedding. [Note: This question assumes that the church building in question is owned by the local church, and not just rented.]  This is true provided nothing unauthorized is done, as noted throughout this discussion. 

12. There is not even one directive in the New Testament that is given to both  the individual Christian and “the church” at the same time.  This is false, see  this article.

13. The Bible teaches (either explicitly or implicitly) that “the work of the  church” falls into only 3 categories. If true, please list where.  This is true in that every command for work that the church is to do is either  Edification, Evangelism, or Benevolence to saints.  See my first article.

   14. Please list all the requirements that any New Testament teaching must   meet before it fits into the category of being “the work of the church.”  [Note:  This question is asking for an objective standard that would apply to any N.T.   teaching, regardless of what it is.]   Note this article.   The critieria is that contextually it must be directed to the church. 

15. If only “some” of the commands of the gospel may be provided for from the  treasury, it is necessary to have an objective standard for determining which commands may be provided for from the treasury.  True, and that standard is biblical context. 

Again I Wonder

I wonder still whether or not David takes time to read these articles.    We have dealt with expedients all that way back in the first and second articles.  Yet again, he talks about church’s owning property, pews, and parking lots.    Brethren I turn your attention again to the first two articles, and reiterate my appeal that  if these things are not authorized, then let us get rid of them! 

David argues that a social meal authorized because  it “provides an opportunity to draw people to God’s Son, by providing them the occasion to observe Christian behavior. Sometimes people are initially drawn to Christ by observing a Christian’s behavior, rather than hearing a sermon” (p.129).  You know I was under the impression that “…it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).  Maybe Paul should have asked brother Garner, and then he would know that actually what saves people is eating sandwiches, pizza, fried chicken, and the “World’s longest hotdog”  with them.    The very idea!

David further argues that such meals are authorized “because Christians have been given the general command to socialize with other Christians (Prov. 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 & 1 Cor. 15:33)” (p. 129).   Yet what brother Garner ignores (as usual) is the context of those passages.  Yes, Christians in their individual capacities are commanded to have strong relationship one with another, yet there is no command, example, or necessary implication for the church to provide meals.  Yet whatever argument that could be made for David’s meal, could also be made for the concerts that he says the church may not provide for. Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!

David notes “Since this is the case, that God intends for Christians to stay spiritually strong by means of socializing with each other, anything that will foster that situation (and doesn’t violate some other command of God) is authorized to be provided for.”    The apostle Paul noted “do you not have houses to eat and drink in, or do you despise the church of the living God…? (1 Corinthians 11:22).   “ If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (1 Corinthians 11:24).    You know brother Garner, it looks like we’re making progress! Your  meal violates the a clear command. 

 

Some Interesting Notes

It is quite clear that brother Garner is feeling the heat of his false position.  He has resorted to ad- hominem attacks, such as name calling, and questioning my character.  This is a defense mechanism.  He cannot answer the arguments posted so he starts railing on about “anti’s and “anti-ism.”   This is a term not found in the Bible.  But, the concept is surely there.  We all should be “anti”  anti-sin!

Further, he carries on about me being “shady.”   Yet the fact is, I have answered his question, he just does not like the answer.  I believe the whole practice in the Philippines is unwise, just as I believe the “meal on the grounds” practice of old, also was unwise.  But this does not make it wrong, un-authorized, nor unscriptural. 

Conclusion

I apologize to the readers for the delay in this article.  I thank brother Garner for his patience and lenience with me regarding these issues.  We look forward to brother Garner’s last article.

Third Affirmative, 2nd Proposition, By David Garner

Garner’s 3^rd Affirmative/ 2^nd Proposition

     Again I am thankful to Jehovah for His bountiful gifts of care in my life-especially the gift of His Son, Jesus Christ. Also, I am grateful to Mark (and others) for helping me in this discussion. Kurt and Jeff are, likewise, much appreciated. May God continue to bless us all!

“The Work of the Church”

     Finally, I have been able to locate the weakness in Kurt’s armor. It has taken me a total of 6 whole speeches, but I believe this is finally it. See what you think, reader. What Kurt has been hiding behind in this debate is the phrase “the work of the church.” All one has to do is read his speeches to see that he talks much about “the work of the church.” But here’s the interesting thing: Kurt is COMPLETELY UNABLE to give us an objective criterion for determining what makes a New Testament command (or teaching) to be a “work of the church.”

     When asked if the only two criterion for something being a “work of the church” was that it 1) be addressed to “all” Christians, and 2) fit into his 3 or 4 category system-he answered FALSE (#6, p.121; #5, p.103). Well, if those aren’t the criterion, what are they? It can’t be the 3 or 4 category system alone, because he flip-flops on that. Kurt can’t give an objective set of criterion, because if he does, he will either condemn some practice he already engages in or have to include something he is opposed to. So he hides behind the term “the work of the church.”

     Kurt’s desire to protect his underbelly can be seen in his answer to #17 on page 71. When asked if the Bible gives a “clear, understandable and infallible method for determining which commands are directed to ‘the church’ (collectively) and which are directed only to individual Christians,” Kurt answered “True;” and then he gave the infinitely vague answer that “context” is what determines it! “Context,” Kurt?!? Come on…you can do better than that! To show the falsity of such an answer, let me ask Kurt one question: Is it even possible for a command in the New Testament to apply to both “the church” AND “individual Christians” at the same time? If so, “context” isn’t the right answer. I suspect that when we probe this idea a little deeper, we’re going to find that “what Kurt wants” is the real criteria.      Do you remember question #1 on page 11? There, Kurt said (in effect) that the Bible is not very specific concerning everything the church treasury may be used for. But he added that the Bible is clear on what areas the church

124

 may function in-then he reiterated his 3 or 4 category system. Well, we know his 3 or 4 system is subjective (hence, not a standard), don’t we, reader? If the Bible is clear on the “areas” that Kurt offered, why is there no agreement between Kurt (who holds there are only 3 areas) and those who hold that worship is a fourth area? Fact is, the Bible is not clear on these so-called areas of operation that Kurt (or someone else) invented.  

     My contention is that the church treasury may be used to help fulfill any (and all) of the commands of the gospel-either those directed to “individuals” or “the church.” Kurt’s contention, though, is that the church treasury may only be used to fulfill the commands that the Lord has given to “the church” collectively (#15, p.50f.). But when all is said and done, the commands that the Lord has given to “the church” is nothing more than what Kurt has decided the commands to “the church” are. Let Kurt give us an objective standard for determining what constitutes a “work of the church”-and when he does, he’ll cut himself out of a lot of things he already practices. I’m predicting that we will never see an objective standard regarding what determines something becoming a “work of the church” from Kurt. We’ll see though.

All, Some or None?

     So what’s the right answer? Is Garner correct in saying that the treasury may be used for any and all of the commands of the gospel (whether directed to ‘the church’ or ‘individual’), or is Kurt correct in saying that the treasury may only be used in fulfilling the commands that God gave to ‘the church’? In an effort to elucidate the point, let’s set the question into the 3 classes that logicians study things by: all, some or none. That is, the church treasury may be used for A) All, B) Some, or C) None of the commands of the gospel. If a person answers “All,” then whatever is a command of the gospel may be provided for out of the treasury. But, if a person answers “Some,” then, of necessity, there must be an objective standard for determining which commands may be provided for out of the treasury. Will Kurt dare to give us that objective standard (not some vague answer like “context”)? You know what…until Kurt is forthcoming with an objective standard, it would be reasonable for us to start reading this debate again (from the beginning), and everywhere Kurt wrote “the work of the church” just scratch that out and put “what I want” in its place. Because really, if Kurt fails to show us an objective standard of how to determine a work of the church, we are left with nothing except what Kurt wants. Finally, if a

125

 person answers “None,” then this person either hasn’t read the New Testament or they weren’t paying attention to what they were reading when they did read it.

Kurt’s “Argument From Outrage”

     In responding to my contention that the treasury may be used for any of the gospel commands, Kurt has shown that if such is true, then that would mean the treasury could be used to provide ‘consummation rooms’ for newly-weds. By pointing this out, he expects you to be so outraged at such a conclusion that you will automatically say, “David’s doctrine is false,” and investigate no further. But Kurt fails to mention, that I said I don’t think it would be “wise” (#5; p.109) to provide consummation rooms. You see, when one takes the position (as I have) that all commands of the gospel may be provided for from the treasury, that doesn’t mean that all commands of the gospel should be provided for from the treasury. Any prospective command to be provided for would certainly be reviewed by the elders, and then they would make a decision as to whether or not it would be provided for from the treasury.  Whereas, if one takes the position that only ’some’ commands may be provided for (as Kurt has) from the treasury, then they must give an objective standard to determine which commands may be provided for-but the Bible gives no such standard.

Social vs. Recreational

     Our friend (Kurt) can’t seem to get it out of his head that “social” doesn’t always include “recreational.” But I know the reason he continues to ‘confuse’ the two-because he realizes his points are weak when he strictly deals with the “social” aspect of it. So he adds the recreational elements into it. This is actually a fallacy of argumentation known as a “straw man.” What you do, in using the straw man, is distort your opponent’s actual position to something easier to attack, and then attack the distorted position instead of the actual position. This is what Kurt has done by adding park passes, gymnasiums, concerts, etc. into our discussion. I have not said that I believe it is a sin for the church to be involved in (and provide for) some of these things. What I have said is that I don’t think it is a “wise” use of the treasury to provide for these things.  

Things “not Mentioned” in the Bible

126

     Kurt gave a good speech last installment…very inspiring, no doubt!-especially at the end. In fact, one (who wishes to stick as close to the Scriptures as possible) might read his words, to the effect that we should “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” (p. 123), and say “Amen! Kurt is absolutely right!”-without realizing Kurt also allows some things that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Now, before Kurt ridicules me again, by saying “I wonder if David even reads my speeches,” let me say that I know Kurt has already gone over the matter of “general authority” and “expedients” (p. 4ff.). I know that he’s already said that if a thing is expedient to “the work of the church,” then it is authorized. But, inasmuch as Kurt won’t give us an objective standard to identify a “work of the church,” I have no other choice but to conclude that what it really boils down to is what Kurt wants-rather than any objective rule. Let me give some examples (and remind Kurt that I’m not saying these things aren’t authorized; I’m only using them as illustrations): 1) When we read the Bible, we see nothing about the church (collectively) “owning property.” But Kurt sees the authority for owning property in the fact that the church needs a place to meet. It is true that the church needs a place to meet, but where does one read about the church owning the property where the early disciples met? 2) When we read the Bible, we see nothing about the early church using its funds to “build a parking lot.” But Kurt sees the authority for the church to build a parking lot in the fact that it’s expedient to fulfilling the command for people to meet, since most people drive cars to the assembly today (p.24). It is true that the church needs a place to meet, but where does one read about the church purchasing a parking lot for individual Christians to park their cars? 3) When we read the Bible, we see nothing about the church using its funds to “purchase padded pews to sit on.” But Kurt sees the authority for the church to purchase pews in the fact that it’s expedient to fulfilling the command for people to meet. It is true that the church needs a place to meet, but where does one read about the church purchasing padded pews for the people to sit on? 

            You see, in these 3 examples there is no command, example or necessary inference for the church to purchase any of these items. But because Kurt sees the authority for them (i.e., that they would help to fulfill another command), then the treasury may be used to provide for them. But David’s not allowed to do that, you see! David doesn’t have the right to analyze the

 

127

 command for Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians, and then draw the conclusion that a social meal would help us fulfill that command. Kurt alone can make those kinds of decisions, but not David! [ßSarcasm] Reader, don’t be fooled by the “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” banner Kurt purports to be marching under.

     Kurt has been asking me all this time for the verse(s) of Scripture that teach that the social meal is authorized…trying to make it appear that since I can’t produce a verse(s) which specifically deals with the social meal that it isn’t authorized. But suppose now, for a moment, that I was an anti, of the stripe that doesn’t believe the church is authorized to own property, purchase parking lots, or buy pews for the members to sit on. And further suppose that I just kept pressing and pressing Kurt for the verse or verses that teach that the church is authorized to purchase those items. The only thing Kurt could do in a debate with such an anti is the same thing I am doing with him-which is bring up relevant points as to how those things help in the fulfilling of a command. There isn’t a thing in the world (principally speaking) that is different!

Why the Social Meal is Authorized

As I have done in my first and second affirmative speeches, I continue to affirm the proposition at hand: The Scriptures do authorize the local church to pay for a meal (from the treasury) for its members which is for social, rather than benevolent, purposes.

In the first place, the social meal is authorized because every element (5 total) in the social meal is Scriptural (p.86-91). It is Scriptural for the church to: 1) eat in the same building where worship is conducted-1^st century Christians worshipped in homes where eating would naturally take place; 2) engage in an occasion for a “social” purpose-Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 make clear that Christians are supposed to frequently socialize with other Christians; 3) plan occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians-an example of this is Philippians 4:2-3; 4) provide for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things-Jesus did this in his ministry, and as Kurt said in his thread on weddings (Myspace), the prayer before the social meal would “provide for teaching the lost and edifying the saints that are present;” 5) use the church treasury to support all parts of the gospel-if the church treasury can only be used to support “some” parts of the gospel, we are at

128

 

a total loss to know which ones, because there is no objective standard given in Scripture.

In the second place, the social meal is authorized because it provides an opportunity to draw people to God’s Son, by providing them the occasion to observe Christian behavior. Sometimes people are initially drawn to Christ by observing a Christian’s behavior, rather than hearing a sermon. Peter taught this great truth in 1 Peter 3:1-2-telling wives to behave in a Christian manner, so that their non-Christian husbands might be won to Christ that way. When we have a social meal, any non-Christians that may be present can certainly observe how Christians interact with each other, and learn the proper way to behave toward people.

In the third place, the social meal is authorized because Christians have been given the general command to socialize with other Christians (Prov. 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 & 1 Cor. 15:33), without being given the ‘where,’ ‘when,’ or ‘how.’ Since this is the case, Christians may socialize any place, time or manner which doesn’t violate some other command of God.

In the fourth place, the social meal is authorized because Christians socializing with each other is a ‘God-intended’ way for Christians to stay spiritually strong (#1; p.103). Since this is the case, that God intends for Christians to stay spiritually strong by means of socializing with each other , anything that will foster that situation (and doesn’t violate some other command of God) is authorized to be provided for.

Dealing with Kurt’s Contentions

One: Kurt misses the point from 1 Cor. 11:17-34 (p.114f.), saying this is a prohibition of social meals. Paul said when they came together, they couldn’t take the Lord’s Supper (L.S.) (20), because their practice differed so much from the original design of the L.S. that it wasn’t possible to take the L.S. under the conditions that prevailed. The abuses in Corinth were in the fact that: 1) they were mixing a common meal together with the L.S.; 2) some were being selfish with the food that they had (21f.); and 3) they failed to understand the proper nature and purpose of the L.S. Hence, Paul explains the proper method to take the L.S.(23-29). Paul didn’t condemn them for eating a ’social meal’ after worship-but for mixing a common meal together with the L.S. If Kurt wants to take vss. 22 & 34 literally, as positive commands which forbid eating a

129

 social meal at the building, then the verses likewise mean that it would be sinful to eat at a restaurant or a friend or relative’s house on Sunday. You would have to eat at your own home, according to that interpretation. Believe it, who can?!?

Two: Kurt calls the constituent element argument (CEA) my “hodge-podge doctrine.” He accuses me of pulling “things out of all manner of contexts and bind them together as though they are “constituent elements” when in fact there is absolutely no correlation of the elements.” (p.115). But you know what…this is identical to what Kurt did with weddings! He said, in effect, there’s singing, preaching, praying….therefore, weddings are authorized! Does he not see the parallels? Oh sure, Kurt says he never said “if there is some spiritual focus at an event, that then this gives authority for the church to provide for it” (p.100); but the fact that there are elements in a wedding which are not preaching, praying or singing (i.e., exchanging rings, saying wedding vows, a man and woman kissing before an audience) proves that is exactly what results from what Kurt argued-even if he didn’t “say it.” Remember, Kurt can use the CEA, but not David!

Three: Kurt claims he left out an essential element in his corn, water, sugar, & heat (CWaSH) illustration on purpose (p.115), but I question if that’s true or not. Nevertheless, he says the reason he did such was because I left out “for social purposes” from my CEA. But Kurt, you missed it brother! I didn’t leave out “for social purposes” (cf. #2, p.88).

Four: Kurt balks that I haven’t shown the church engaging “in sponsoring social activities” (p.116), saying this is a key element in my CEA. Again, let me point out that Kurt can’t show the church “sponsoring real-estate endeavors” (owning property), “sponsoring traffic-reducing efforts” (building parking lots) or “sponsoring comfort-enriching industries” (buying padded pews)…but he sees the need for it, so it’s authorized. Social meals are a hobby with Kurt…as can be seen in his hostile language to describe them (i.e., “wherein people gorge themselves on pizza, and fried chicken,” [top 116]). I’ve never seen people “gorging” on anything at a social meal. But I guess when someone has a ‘bur in their saddle’ already, they see what they want.    Reader, please turn and read #10 (p.121). I asked Kurt that question because he made it appear that the church is only authorized to teach “all” doctrines, whereas the church can only provide for  ”some” (top, 97). But he remains consistently arbitrary when he answered “The church must

130

teach the whole gospel, but it may only provide for things which it has authority to provide.” Oh, that’s really helpful Kurt…[ßsarcasm], but where is the objective standard that shows what the church has authority to provide for?? Here again we see Kurt dancing around out there in his ever-obscure, nebulous area of “the work of the church” (i.e., what the church may provide for).

Five: Kurt brings up the CPA “argument” again (116), asking if the church could provide CPA services free of charge. My answer is “no,” for the following reasons: 1.The gospel instruction is not to “file” taxes for other people-it’s to pay taxes (Rom. 13:7), hence there’s no parallel. A true parallel would be if the church paid someone to file her taxes. 2. A CPA firm is a different organization than the church (#6, p.109). When the church eats a social meal together, she doesn’t become a social club-she remains “the church” (fulfilling one of God’s directives).

Six: Kurt tries to cover his tracks on the weddings in the building issue (117), saying “I have said numerous times that if a wedding contains elements that are not authorized then I oppose them.” Later, he says of a wedding he performed, “There were no elements that were not authorized..” I’m a bit surprised that I have to even bring these things up to Kurt; but if I must, I must. First off, as Kurt charged me with leaving out a “social purpose” (115) from my CEA, he actually does leave out “for a marital purpose” from his CEA.  In the second place, are the elements of a man and a woman exchanging rings, kissing before an audience, and saying vows something that is authorized (implicitly or explicitly) for the church to provide for? Kissing, saying vows and exchanging rings are elements in a wedding, Kurt-now where is passage to support it? [Remember Kurt, I believe weddings are authorized too. I'm just showing that if you will apply the same standard to the social meal that you do to the weddings, then you'll okay the social meal].

Seven: Kurt makes a valiant attempt to cover himself in regards to “all commands are spiritual”(118), but still doesn’t meet the issue. He says, “Christians are commanded to work, and this has spiritual consequences if neglected, yet not every job is spiritual in nature.” I never said every job is spiritual in nature, Kurt. But your words fail to make this relevant point: If a Christian goes to work (even though his work involves physical, material objects, etc.), he will still be spiritually edified for the fact that he obeyed God by going to work. Likewise, when a Christian socializes with other Christians (even if the socializing includes physical objects like

131

 pizza or fried chicken), he will still be spiritually edified for the fact that he obeyed God-along with the strength that he receives from his fellow Christians’ words of encouragement.

Eight: Kurt complains because he says I’ve neglected context again (118f.). I guess he thinks the term “context” is like a janitor that comes and cleans up all his spills. Kurt, ‘context’ won’t solve your problem. Your problem is that you’ve embraced the inconsistent doctrine of anti-ism. I love you, brother; but I hate the anti in you-and that’s what I am trying my best to expose. Kurt uses his rote phrase to talk about “the work of the church” some more (top 119), then says, “There is a difference between the individual and the church (1 Tim. 5:16).” Remember reader, Kurt wants you to know there’s a difference in what the ‘individual Christian’ and ‘the church’ can do (#1; p.22), but he dare not give you the criterion for determining how to distinguish it.

What Kurt Has Not Answered

1. Kurt tries to distance himself from the 3 or 4 category “work of the church” doctrine (120). He makes it appear that I said (which I didn’t) that he claimed the Bible “states that the church’s work falls into 3 categories.” He calls on the “context janitor” again, but I’ll let the evidence speak for itself. Reader please read p. 7 & 26 to see how emphatic Kurt was about the Bible (not Gus Nichols) dividing the church’s work into 3 categories.

2. Kurt tries to say “potlucks” are not “the work of the church” (120), but we could never know that in any kind of an objective way-as Kurt hasn’t supplied a standard for us.

3. I was relatively sure Kurt was being shady (#6, p.76) with his illustration in the Philippines; but his dodge (#3, p.120) only confirms my first impression was correct. Instead of calling the “context janitor” this time, he says I misunderstood or misrepresented him. But, he still never told us what part of the situation in the Philippines he questioned the wisdom of. How sad! Sad, and shady….that’s the spirit of anti-ism, though.

4. Kurt attempts to escape his dilemma regarding weddings in the church building by saying, “I am opposed to the church providing for things that are not authorized.” But as I have already pointed out, there are elements in a wedding (kissing, rings, vows, etc.) that “the church” has no business providing for (if one uses Kurt’s standard of what’s authorized). And “no,” Kurt, this

132

 

 answer doesn’t cover number 8 from page 106.

5. In “answering” this one, Kurt once again falls back on the completely arbitrary phrase he uses so much, “the work of the church.” He even uses this rote phrase “so far as the command is to be carried out by the church, when functioning as the church (under the oversight of elders, and in the course of the church’s work” (119; 51), like it’s part of Scripture. It’s not. It’s part of anti-ism.

6. Oh look folks, here again Kurt dismisses a “social area” existing, because of….guess what??? That’s right….it’s not “the work of the church.” Can anyone see Kurt?….Nope, he’s hiding behind that phrase again! LOL!

Kurt’s Questions/My Answers

11. Y or N     It would be scriptural for a child of God to own, operate, or work in a Whiskey Distillery? No, because the purpose in a Whiskey Distillery is to make and spread whiskey for consumption.

12. Y or N     A practicing homosexual who is visiting in the assembly during the day of a church-sponsored social meal, may attend and eat the meal as a visitor among the members of the church? Yes, chances are (since he/she is visiting) I’m not going to know they are homosexual.

13. Y or N     The Bible defines a meal for social purposes as “fellowship”? No, but remember #14 (50). There, Kurt said spiritual fellowship takes place outside the assembly too.

14. Y or N     Teaching Christians to fulfill the requirements of 1 Cor. 7 is part of the gospel? Yes.

15. Y or N     Teaching Christians to pay their taxes is part of the gospel? Yes.

Conclusion

     Brother Paul D. Maner informed me that B.C. Goodpasture surely partook of fellowship meals. Since this is the case, Kurt has probably misrepresented brother Hardeman, Philips, and Decker as well. Kurt must be pretty desperate to go to “the scholars” for proof of his position-when he was the one who originally encouraged you (reader) not to base your belief on the “surmising of some scholars, regardless of how scholarly they may be” (p.10). Don’t forget to look for Kurt’s objective standard concerning what makes something a “work of the church.”

We look forward to Kurt’s next installment….

133

Second Negative, Proposition 2, by Kurt G. Jones

I am again thankful to have this opportunity to deny the proposition under discussion, and consider the truth of the scriptures.

Predictions Still True

We have noted in each speech that David would not produce a single scripture that shows the church engaged in the actions of which he is arguing in favor.  We heard during the first proposition about how he was going to show it when he got into the affirmative.  Yet, we are still waiting.  The fact is David admits that you cannot turn in the scriptures and find his proposition, so he created a hodge-podge doctrine in order to attempt to say that his practice is “implied” by the scriptures.  The very idea!  I know you the reader has not fallen for his sophistry. 

1 Corinthians 11

In the end of my first negative, I noted (primarily because I used so much of my space dealing with his hodge-podge doctrine) that David’s practice is condemned explicitly by the scriptures.  David doesn’t want to deal with it.  He tries to make deals and call the use of the scriptures a “red herring” (pg. 111).

Consider Paul’s writing in the chapter.   The church there had a couple of problems.  They did not eat the Lord’s Supper properly (vs. 20).  They abused the assembly of the church in that they came together “for the worse” (vs. 17).    They created a rift between themselves based upon a class distinction, they “shamed those who have nothing” (vs. 21, 22).   Paul corrected each of these problems.   One solution is found in verse 22.  Paul writes “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.”   Then, in verse 34 Paul writes “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment…”

PAGE 114

Here is the answer to their problem.  The Lord’s church is not authorized to provide meals that are not for benevolent purpose (c.f. Acts 6).  Those meals are to be eaten at home.  The church is to assemble together for spiritual purpose, not to eat common meals.

More On Garner’s Hodge-Podge Doctrine

We have clearly shown the fallacy of David’s use of the Constituent Elements argument.  I am beginning to wonder if David actually reads what I write, or if he just skims it for quotes.  In my first negative,  I wrote “As we begin this section, let me start by noting that I am not contending that a constituent element argument does not exist, nor that it is not true” (pg 95). Yet, David acts as though I do not believe in the validity of the argument itself.    I agree regarding the truth of the argument.  It is just that David’s use is not a proper use.  He attempts to pull things out of all manner of contexts and bind them together as though they are “constituent elements” when in fact there is absolutely no correlation of the elements.     Further, David does not have a complete situation.

I do thank you brother Garner, for doing exactly what I knew you would do on chart KGJ 11, which illustrates accurately your misuse of the argument.   In the chart I left out an essential element, just as David did in his misuse of the argument.    I left out the “drinking” you left out the “for social purposes.”  And you admit it in your response.  David writes “…there is no verse of Scripture that states my proposition explicitly…” (p. 108).    The problem is, David, there’s not a verse of scriptures that states it implicitly either!    The closest thing he has to a “social gathering” is trying to say that since Euodias and Syntyche had some problem (which effected their spiritual relationship), that the elders could plan occasion to work out their problem.   Brother Garner, there is a huge difference between elders dealing with the issues of these two ladies (whatever they may have been), and providing the “world’s largest hotdog”, a “fall

PAGE 115

festival,” a social meal wherein people gorge themselves on pizza, and fried chicken.  The very idea!

Further, David complains in two places that “Kurt always wants a little more” (p.108, 111).  David, all we want is you to provide all the elements in your constituent element argument.  The fact is that you know, I know, and the readers know that there is no command, example, or necessary inference, to show the church engaged in sponsoring social activities.  This is a key element in David’s hodge-podge doctrine, and he cannot produce it.

Regarding David’s feeble attempt to get rid of the implications of his error, he tries to diffuse the question about consummation rooms, and honeymoon suites by saying “the act of rendering due benevolence is a private matter, and should be kept secret between husband and wife…” (p. 108).  The fact is that David has continually argued that the church is to support the whole of the gospel.   Thus, all this business about to whom the command is given is irrelevant, the command for husbands and wives to render due benevolence is “part of the gospel!” Thus, according to David’s doctrine the church has authority to provide such rooms.  Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!  The same is true regarding the CPA Firm, let us take Garner’s objection out, and suppose the church offered the CPA services free of charge, is it then acceptable for the church to provide these services?  I mean after all the church is supposed to support the whole gospel, and paying taxes is part of the gospel (Romans 13:1-6).    If not, why not?

Goforth and Warren

David get’s his bristles up when anyone would dare question T.B. Warren’s doctrine.  David writes “Kurt starts out (p.94) by trying to cast aspersions on Brother Warren’s book…”  (p. 107).  No, brother Garner, I’m not trying to cast aspersions on the book.  The doctrine in the book does that on its own.  However, questioning the honesty of a man that I doubt you have ever met does

PAGE 116

seem extreme to me (p.107).   I’m not here to defend brother Goforth, and I have no personal allegiance to him.  Yet, to say  ” Warren would have ‘eaten his lunch’ in a debate” seems nothing short of ridiculous, seeing as how brother Goforth was not looking for a debate, he was looking to defend his practice.  It was just Warren’s book helped him see the error in it.   I do wonder if brother Goforth had spoken to Warren, would he have received a different answer than what was in the book?

David states, “I would be willing to debate…any..anti…” (p.107). Brother Garner, instead of throwing around big talk, why not focus on the “anti” you are not meeting now!

The Nonsensical Weddings Business

Again, I question if David even reads my responses.   I have said numerous times that if a wedding contains elements that are not authorized then I oppose them.  I said that in the context of the myspace forum (which David continually ignores), and a few times in the course of these discussion (which he also ignores).  So why is he asking me about ring bearers and groomsmen?    If a wedding contains such things then I oppose the use of the church’s resources for it!  I think of one wedding I preached.  It was a couple who had divorced without good cause, and wanted to be reconciled.  A small number came.  There were no elements that were not authorized elements.  We prayed, I taught a lesson on marriage and divorce, asked if they would follow God’s commands and that was the complete ceremony.   Oh, and yes, David, I knew I was using the Constituent Elements argument when I wrote it.

Let us just suppose for a moment that I am wrong regarding the wedding in the building, how in the world would my inconsistency (if I were inconsistent) provide authority for a social meal?  This really is no different than David’s “we have parking lots without authority” argument from the first part of the debate.  If there is not authority for a wedding in the building, then let us stop

PAGE 117

having them there, not attempt to use them for justification for some other unauthorized practice such as social meals, fall festivals, and 300 foot long hotdogs!  This is a diversion that David is attempting to take because he knows he cannot find his proposition in the scriptures, and even his hodge-podge doctrine has been exposed.

All Commands are Spiritual

Again, we find another place where I begin to question whether David reads my articles.   I wrote on page 71:

Christians are to be spiritual, but the child of God does have the responsibility to do things which are not “spiritual” in nature.  They are commanded to do so.  For instance, Christians are commanded to work (Ephesians 4:28) in order that he may “have something to give to him who has need.”  The Christian may work as a salesman, a physician, a bus driver, etc.  There is nothing inherently “spiritual” about some jobs Christians may have.  Yet, the command still exists to work.

David thinks he caught me because I said all of God’s commands were spiritual.   Yet the fact is this is no different than what I wrote on page 71.  Yes, God has commanded Christians to maintain a close relationship one with another.  Yet the means of doing so (i.e. a meal for social purposes, playing golf, going to concerts, taking road trips, etc.) are not spiritual in nature. There is nothing spiritual about eating pizza, or having a fall festival.   This is like the above example.  Christians are commanded to work, and this has spiritual consequences if neglected, yet not every job is spiritual in nature.    I am confounded to see that David cannot see the difference between spiritual and social, but I know the readers see it.

David’s Further Neglecting of Context (Don’t worry we’re used to it by now)

David writes “Remember #15, on p.50f.; there Kurt told us that when all the members of the congregation are given a command to fulfill, the money that is used from the treasury to fulfill

PAGE 118

that command is an authorized use of church funds” (p.108) As usual, he neglects key elements in what was written.  He has done this with biblical text, why should it be any different with non-inspired writing?   He neglected to include this phrase: “so far as the command is to be carried out by the church, when functioning as the church (under the oversight of elders, and in the course of the church’s work)…not all of God’s commands are to be carried out by the church, when functioning as the local church.” (p.51). There is a difference between the individual and the church (1 Tim. 5:16).

In this same context David further says, “The command for Christians to frequently socialize with each other is given to all Christians. Therefore, since all Christians are commanded to socialize with each other, whatever monies are used from the treasury to support the socializing of Christians is an authorized use of church funds” (p. 108).   This difference is the commands are not given to the church as a whole to be carried out by the church.  They are given to Christians in their individual capacities.  He understands it with Husbands and wives and with paying taxes. He just has a problem being consistent when it comes to Christians socializing.

Laughable Attempt and General Authority

We have shown clearly that David does not have all the elements in his hodge-podge doctrine. We have shown his inconsistency on consummation rooms and tax services.  We have answered his misrepresentations of the Biblical text and of my statements.  Now, we turn our attention to his hilariously feeble attempt to argue that social meals are authorized by general authority.

We will again use his faulty reasoning regarding tax services.   By David’s same argument the church can provide tax services.  Christians are commanded to pay taxes, (Romans 13:1-6). We have the command, but we don’t have the when or the how, so therefore the church may provide those services.  Now David says “there is no command to do tax work for others.” (p. 20)   So,

PAGE 119

we ask yet again, where is the command for the church to provide for social functions?    He has already noted that one does not exist, and that there is no example of his practice in the New Testament (p. 108,111; 113).

What Kurt Supposedly has not Answered

David does not give you readers much credit.  He writes, “I realize that…I am going to study these speeches with greater intensity than you (as the reader) are” (p. 104).  I have limited space, and I do not want to waste it by repeating things that have already been answered, simply because David does not like the answer.   Consider again, the following.

1. We dealt with this on page, 47-48 & 65. I have never argued that the Bible “states that it falls into three categories.” This was even the point on page 26.  Consider the context of the paragraph.    What I have stated during the debate is that Bible students, such as Gus Nichols, realize that the work of the church falls into those categories.
2. This was answered on page 50, 66, & 99. “It is not the work of the church to plan, oversee, or otherwise make provision for social meals. This is the point, not “eating in the building”
3. I have not dealt with this because it was asked in the final negative.    David either misunderstands, or misrepresents my statement.  The fact is, because I question the wisdom of a practice (and I question the wisdom of the whole practice) does not mean the practice is wrong.
4. This has been answered in my last affirmative, and in my first negative, and in this article (p.67; 99-100).  This actually is the same answer for his question 8.
5. This has been answered.  (p. 50)
6. This has been answered in this article as well as on page 71, and David has still been unable to show a “social  area.”
7. We dealt with this in my last article as well as in this one.  If the church’s mission is to uphold the whole gospel and husbands and wives rendering due benevolence is part of the gospel (1 Cor. 7), and paying taxes is part of the gospel (Rom 13), then why can the church not support these endeavors?  When David answers this, he will have his answer.

PAGE 120

David’s Questions

6. The only two criterions that a New Testament teaching must meet, in order for it to be considered a “work of the church,” is 1) that the teaching must be directed to” all” Christians (rather than just “some”), AND 2) it must fall into one of the 3 (or 4) categories that you offered on pages 8 and 26. This is false.

7. Everything that is announced from the pulpit (during the announcements), or in a church bulletin, automatically becomes a “work of the church.”  This is false.

8. The instruction for Christians to frequently socialize with other Christians is only given to “some” (rather than “all”) Christians. This is false

9. The local church is authorized to operate in a “financial” area (i.e., to pay her bills). This is false.  The church is to pay its bills, but the bills can only be incurred in doing work which is authorized.  Thus, it is not a “financial area” it is simply fulfilling the requirements of whatever authorized area wherein the bill is incurred.

10. The local church is only authorized to teach (but not provide for) any doctrine that is addressed to “all” Christians-rather than just “some.”  This is false.  The church must teach the whole gospel, but it may only provide for things which it has authority to provide.

David’s New Doctrine

David stated accurately, there is no scriptural example of his practice (p.113).  In fact, his practice was not even common among churches of Christ during the early and mid 1900’s.   It is an innovation that man has created, and that faithful gospel preachers used to vehemently decry.

David in this debate has argued that the church may sponsor pizza parties, hotdog feeds, fall festivals with fun games and fun food, and even the “world’s longest hotdog” (p. 62). David has argued that the church may build and maintain a gymnasium and send people to Disney World (p. 92-93).  Yet, he says that the church cannot provide for concerts wherein sin is not promoted (p. 93,10 )

PAGE 121

I wonder why these would not also be justified because “the prayer that is said before the [concert] ‘makes provision for teaching the lost and edifying the saints’” (p.62)?  And David wants to say I’m arbitrary?   Why will brother Garner not be consistent?       Yet, dear friends, it was not always this way.  There were no pizza parties in the scriptures, there were no church sponsored gyms, or trips to theme parks.  You don’t read of the church in Ephesus, Jerusalem, or anywhere else offering “The world’s largest hotdog.”   Consider the following.

H.M. Philips, in 1935 in the Gospel Advocate, noticed that the practice which David supports is borrowed from the denominations.  He notes that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, these may be the power of something, but it is not but not for salvation nor of God.” He further points out “if the gospel will not hold people for the Lord, then nothing else will.”

B.C. Goodpasture who served as editor of the Gospel Advocate, and with all forbearance and in view of unity called for a “yellow tag of quarantine” to be placed on the “antis” in December of 1954.  Yet, he notes this in his writing regarding the very thing brother Garner is advocating.  “…it would be good to remember Paul’s statement, ‘The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom 14:17).” Further he noted in 1948 “it is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world, or even for its own members… to do so is to pervert [the church's] mission.”  He continues, “If the church will discharge its duty in preaching the gospel, in edifying its members, and in helping the worthy poor, it will not have desire or the time to amuse and entertain.”

N.B. Hardemen writes regarding what brother Garner advocates “I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such was a part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any Scripture that even points in that direction.”

PAGE 122

Floyd Decker in “Why I left the Christian Church” noted as one of the reasons for his departure from that false church, “The Christian Church emphasizes society and the physical man by appealing to the carnal nature, with church carnivals, bands, plays, choruses, dramatics, church kitchens, church camps, and elaborate fellowship halls; the church of Christ does not (1 Cor. 10:7; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22,34).”    In 1944 Floyd Decker spoke about leaving the Christian church over some of the very things David is advocating.   Brother Decker could have easily have been speaking about many “churches of Christ” today.

There are many other examples which we could consider. Yet these show that David’s doctrine is a relatively new doctrine.  It is not seen in the scriptures (as brother Garner admits, p. 113), and it was not commonly practiced among churches of Christ even into the mid 1900’s.  Further, not only was it not generally practiced, it was decried and exposed as error by faithful Christians.

I realize that these were mere men, yet they were some of the most studious Bible students in the Lord’s church.   How is it that if social meals were authorized that these Bible students did not see it?  Why is it that for years when churches advocated these denominational practices, they were forthrightly decried by faithful brethren?   Perhaps they needed Brother Thomas. B. Warren, (as one whose teaching apparently is above Biblical scrutiny) to come and show them?

I noted when we began the debate, “There is a great temptation with this issue… to allow human wisdom, sophistry, and emotional appeal to reign. We should… put that away… and make our appeal to God’s…holy word.” (p. 1).  We cannot see David’s practice in the scriptures, which he admits (p. 113). In fact, the closest thing we find condemns his practice (1. Cor. 11:22, 34).  We should return to the “old paths” (Jeremiah 6:16), and like faithful Christians of old “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is Silent.”

PAGE 123

Second Affirmative, Proposition Two, by David Garner

Sincere thankfulness is offered to Jehovah for the magnificent blessings He has bestowed on my life-especially the ability (and opportunity) to have such free access to the BOOK, and books, which I have learned so much from. Thanks are also in order to Mark, Kurt and Jeff.

A Word on Debating

Folks, I am not an experienced debater, by anyone’s account. But I have read and absorbed some of the best debates that our great brotherhood has produced. I have at least 79 debates books in the library that Jehovah is letting me use; and another 20+ debates on software. Though I have not read all of them, I have read a good portion. And of the debates that I have read, there’s usually always a “telltale sign” that one of the debaters is ‘losing the debate,’ if you will. That sign (or indicator) is that he brushes over his opponent’s questions (and contentions) with little or no effort to really answer his opponent’s questions.

Now, I realize that I (being one of the disputants in this debate) am going to study these speeches with greater intensity than you (as the reader) are. The reason for this is because I have a lot more at stake in this discussion than you do. And since I do take such care to thoroughly research these speeches, and since I know you probably aren’t going to go over these speeches ‘with a fine-tooth-comb,’ then I have tried to make my findings (i.e., Kurt’s contradictions) as easy as possible for you (the reader) to see. I reference my findings in parentheses, in hopes that you will go back and check what I have said. I have done this in all of my speeches.

But Kurt, on the other hand, asks you (the reader) to, essentially, go back reread at least 42 pages of material (his 4 affirmative speeches)-in hopes that you will find the “supposed” answer he gave to a contradiction (or mistake) I caught him in. On page 102, Kurt writes, in effect, that he has already answered all my contentions, saying, “I encourage the reader to look back in the debate and find the answers that have been given” (p.102). Ahhh! How helpful Kurt has been in helping you to see his “answers,” by not referencing any page numbers or article numbers. He says, in not so many words, “You readers just go find the answers for

(104)

yourselves…they’re there alright! Just go find them!” Well Kurt-No, they are not there. And you haven’t answered all the difficulties that you’ve gotten yourself into during this discussion. If you had, I would dismiss them and they wouldn’t be an issue anymore. Kurt, these difficulties are not going away…and, again, the list is only growing.

What Kurt Has Not Answered

1. Where does the Bible say the “work of the church” boils down into 3 or 4 categories? Kurt flip-flops on this during our discussion: Affirming it (p.7f. and 26), then denying it (#2; p.65). What should we believe Kurt ?!? One thing I know for sure to believe…Kurt is one ’shifty’ fellow!

2. Kurt contradicts himself concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). He said the building can’t be used for a potluck (p.49f.), but he says it’s okay for the Philippine brethren to have potlucks-oh yeah…we can’t call it that. They’re “incidental meals”!-at their congregation. Kurt overlooks the fact that there would be a prayer said before a potluck which would provide for teaching the lost & edifying saints.

3. *A new one:* Kurt hasn’t yet answered what part of the situation in the Philippines did he “question the wisdom of”?  Please flip back to p.76 and read #6. Did Kurt really question the wisdom of the Philippine brethrens’ meeting times, or was it something else?

4. Why does Kurt authorize weddings (cultural, social events) to be provided for by the church, but denounces potlucks (cultural, social events) as sinful? Both of these cultural, social events would have expressions of worship in them-yet Kurt opposes one and authorizes the other. He says the church isn’t in the “socializing” business; but I guess, to him, we’re supposed to be in the “matrimony” business, eh?

5. Kurt admits to omitting “Christians socializing with each other” from his list (p.8-9) of ways that he said the church can receive spiritual edification. He said he did this because “Christians socializing with each other” isn’t a “work of the church” as he defines it. But who decides what a “work of the church” is??? Kurt does! Fact is, he omitted it because it was damaging to his case.

(105)

6. Kurt chides me for not showing that a “social area” exists in the “work of the church” (p.65; #2). How strange it is for Kurt to so chide me for this…when he has already admitted that Christians socializing with each other is a “God-intended” way for Christians to receive spiritual strength (see his answer to #1 on p. 103).

7. I won’t repeat it here, but the reader is encouraged to go back and read what was said in my #1 on page 58. Why won’t Kurt respond to this???

8. Likewise, the reader is encouraged to go and read my #2 on pages 58-60. That material is what Kurt hasn’t faced yet. He, from afar, says “it’s false,” but won’t get close enough to it to show us why it’s false. I certainly would like to know why it’s false. Reader, wouldn’t you?

A Damaging Piece of Information

Folks, the reason I wanted this discussion to go for 4 speeches, instead of the original 3 that Kurt proposed, is because the truth shines brighter over time. To illustrate, what may not be readily apparent to homicide investigators at the initial stages of an investigation, will eventually ‘come to light’ over time. The truth has nothing to fear in regards to time. So, in these speeches, I have (little by little) been able to get Kurt to admit things that are the proverbial “death knell” to his case. Notice the latest data: on page 103, Kurt admits that “Every part of the gospel is spiritual in nature.” Why is this significant? Because Kurt, back on pages 28 & 97, admitted that “Christians frequently socializing with other Christians is a part of the gospel.” So it goes like this: If every part of the gospel is “spiritual” in nature, and if Christians socializing with other Christians is a part of the gospel, then Christians socializing with each other is spiritual in nature! If this is not the correct conclusion from Kurt’s 2 admissions, then what is the correct conclusion? I’m not charging Kurt with believing this conclusion-just pointing to what the evidence demands.

Please remember that Kurt said “the local church has the responsibility in the scope of its work to provide avenues through which to edify the saints” (p.8). Well, since Christians socializing with each other is “spiritual” in nature (p.103; #3), and since Christians socializing with each other is a “God-intended” way of spiritual edification (p.103; #1), why would the

(106)

church not be authorized to provide for a social function? Once again…because Kurt said so!

Answering Kurt’s Contentions

1. Kurt starts out (p.94) by trying to cast aspersions on Brother Warren’s book, pointing to Wayne Goforth’s article about his sincere journey to know the truth about antis. Mr. Goforth said Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes was “wrong from the very first premise.” Well, I’m pretty sure that Goforth never told Brother Warren that…because Warren would have ‘eaten his lunch’ in a debate. But since Brother Warren isn’t here to defend himself, I would be willing to have a written debate with Goforth or any other anti on any one of the issues that were discussed in that book. I will stand right where Warren stood, with Warren’s statements. Kurt, Wayne Goforth is not the only “sincere Bible student” to go off into error after attending a sound school of preaching, you know?  Additionally, I don’t believe that Mr. Goforth couldn’t find anybody to discuss the issues with him, as he claimed in his article. I know Warren would have!

2. Next, Kurt tries to convince you that my constituent element argument (CEA) isn’t a valid argument, by giving you a false illustration (p.95). There are several things wrong with his Corn, Water, Sugar, and Heat (CWaSH) illustration. First, the reader should remember that illustrations don’t prove points-they only illustrate points. Second, the CWaSH illustration is not even parallel with my CEA-it deals with food, whereas the CEA deals with whether something is authorized by God or not. Thirdly, Kurt left out an essential element in his CWaSH illustration that he probably wanted you to just unconsciously accept: The drinking of alcohol. The drinking of the alcohol is what would make the situation sinful…not the process of making it. There is nothing inherently sinful about merely making alcohol-as alcohol has many valid uses. So, the CWaSH illustration proves nothing whatsoever. In fact, Kurt actually admits the validity of the constituent element model at the top of p.95; and he even uses it in arguing for weddings in the building (bottom of p.99).

3. On p.96, Kurt writes, “…what David needs to show is that the church provided the meals that were eaten, and that they were for a social purpose.” I would like to point out something that recently dawned on me while studying the life of Christ. The point is applicable here, and it is

(107)

this: People who are “bent” on not believing something ALWAYS require just a little bit more than you are able to provide. The rulers of Jesus’ day were this way-even though they saw his miracles and power, they still didn’t believe. The same is true of Kurt; Kurt knows that there is no verse of Scripture that states my proposition explicitly…and so he says “that’s what you have to show, David.” Well now…does Kurt follow his own rule? Not hardly! When asked for the authority to have a wedding at the building, Kurt started using the CEA. See the bottom of p.99 where Kurt shows the scriptural-ness of singing, praying, and preaching, thereby concluding that if these things are present, this gives the church the authority to provide for a wedding. Folks, that’s the CEA right there! And I wonder if Kurt even realized it. But now, suppose Kurt met someone of his persuasion who said, “Now Kurt, that’s just not good enough, brother. What you’ve got to show is a verse of Scripture where the church had a wedding in the church building. And until you do that, you are a liberal for believing you can have a wedding in the church building.” How would Kurt respond?            Remember, reader, Kurt is the one who said David “has to pull things from all kinds of different contexts and try to manipulate the text to get his doctrine” (p.96); but isn’t this the very thing Kurt has done in vying for church-building weddings??? More “special-pleading”….I wrote that in my 1^st speech, and now you’re seeing it.

4. Kurt tries to disperse with the second element of the CEA (members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose), by trying to make it appear that just because the Bible teaches something, that such doesn’t authorize the treasury to be used in the fulfilling of said teaching (p.96f.). We’ll deal with his preposterous examples in a moment; but let me point out that Kurt has already admitted something that ‘cuts his legs out from under him’ in this regard. Remember #15, on p.50f.; there Kurt told us that when all the members of the congregation are given a command to fulfill, the money that is used from the treasury to fulfill that command is an authorized use of church funds. Now, here is Kurt’s “Achilles’ heel”: The command for Christians to frequently socialize with each other is given to all Christians. Therefore, since all Christians are commanded to socialize with each other, whatever monies are used from the treasury to support the socializing of Christians is an authorized use of church funds. Again, I know that Kurt doesn’t believe this conclusion, but what other reasonable conclusion is there?

(108)

5. Further, on pages 97 &101, Kurt gives the silly example of the church providing a “consummation room” for a newly-wed couple, and seems to think that this “argument” nullifies my second element. He treats the two, socializing and rendering due benevolence, as if they are parallels. Well folks, they are not parallel instructions-therefore, there is no adequate comparing-it’s like comparing apples to oranges. Both fruit? Yes. Both the same kind of fruit? No.  The command for couples to render due benevolence is directed only to married Christians, whereas the command for Christians to socialize with each other is directed to all Christians. Further reasons that it wouldn’t be wise for the church to spend money on rooms for wedded couples to “render due benevolence” to each other include: 1) the act of rendering due benevolence is a private matter, and should be kept secret between husband and wife (the whole church doesn’t need to know when you go do that sort of thing); and 2) all the newly-wed couples I’ve ever known didn’t want to wait for the church treasurer to come down to the hotel and pay for the room. ROFLOL! They don’t need encouragement, Kurt!

6. Next, on pages 97 &101, Kurt asks why the command for Christians to pay their taxes doesn’t allow the church to open up a CPA firm. We’ve already addressed this in earlier speeches (cf. p.19 & 78, #12). But here’s something I haven’t mentioned about this “argument” yet: in his CPA firm illustration, the church actually becomes the organization (CPA firm) of the duty (pay taxes) that the members are told to perform. The whole church becomes a different organization, making money for filing people’s taxes, in his illustration. But, when the church performs the duty (of encouraging the socialization of the members) that they are told to perform, she still remains ‘just the church,’ nothing more nor less. She doesn’t become another organization altogether, making money in unauthorized ways, etc. So, this is the reason why Kurt’s CPA “argument” doesn’t ‘add up.’ LOL!

7. Next, Kurt finds fault with me not including the term “in the Lord” from Philippians 4:2-3 (p. 98). Really, this is just a quibble, though. It doesn’t matter if I included the term “in the Lord” or not. The spat, which Euodia and Syntyche where having, obviously wasn’t anything doctrinal-or else Paul would have chosen which woman had the truth. But Paul didn’t do that.  Kurt, any time there is a rift between Christians, it does affect their relationship with the Lord (Mt.

(109)

5:23ff.). So, why you even put that in your speech still baffles me.

8. Again, in trying to overthrow my ‘church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians’ element, Kurt says “Yes. The elders of the church may plan an occasion to deal with the spiritual issues….” Kurt, don’t you remember that Christians socializing with each other is a part of the gospel, and that every part of the gospel is “spiritual” in nature (p.103)?? Your admissions just meet you at every turn, don’t they?

9. Kurt says, “I have never said, nor do I believe that if “there is some spiritual focus at an event, that then this gives authority for the church to provide for it“” (p.100). If this is the truth, Kurt, then please tell us what you meant when you said that if there is praying, singing, preaching at a wedding, then this authorizes the church to provide for a wedding! Are you now saying that “exchanging rings” is spiritual? Are you now saying that “pronouncing wedding vows” is spiritual? Are you now saying that having two little ring-bearers standing up before the crowd, along with bridesmaids and groomsmen, is spiritual? If so, come on out and say it, brother! I welcome the day Kurt says these things are spiritual…and we’ll be waiting for him when he does. Now Kurt, do you really believe every part of a wedding is spiritual? Also, let me ask Kurt this: Just how many expressions of worship have to be present at wedding before it’s ‘legal’? I mean, you’ve said preaching, praying and singing must be present, right? But what if there was only preaching and praying, would that be authorized too? What Scriptures support your answer?

10. Kurt tries to smooth over his MONSTEROUS blunders in the Myspace forum, by encouraging you to go read those posts, while “considering the context.” (p.99). Well, let me add to what Kurt has encouraged you to do, by BEGGING you to please go read it, AND consider the context-in fact, you can find a link to that site at the top of page 77. Kurt, merely appealing to the readers’ unfamiliarity with the information on the Myspace forum, doesn’t wash clean your blunders. Help us to see where I supposedly misquoted, or mistook, something you said. Please!

11. Later, in an attempt to overthrow my ‘church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them’ element, Kurt says “For brother Garner’s attempt to make this argument work, he must show the church providing for the needs of people in order to teach them” (p.100).

(110)

Like I said before, folks, for those determined to not believe something, they ALWAYS require a little bit more than is possible. This is just another one of Kurt’s made-up rules.  Kurt already agrees that something doesn’t have to be stated directly within the text for it to be true. An act may have a dual purpose without that dual purpose being stated in the text. Notice Kurt’s answer to #18(p.71). When Jesus prayed for that food, He was thanking the Father for it, and He was teaching those present to pray for their food-even though the text doesn’t so state. So, no, Kurt, I don’t have to show the church providing for the needs of the people in order to teach them. All I have to do is show that the social meal is another opportunity for the church to teach. Kurt, are you now trying to legislate when the church can and can’t teach?          But here’s an interesting thing: why doesn’t Kurt level this same standard against having a wedding in the church building? That is, why doesn’t Kurt require of himself to find a passage of Scripture which shows the church providing for a wedding in order to teach the lost and edify the saints that may be present (with singing, praying and preaching)? You see, what proves too much, proves nothing, Kurt.

12. An interesting quote by Kurt says, “a meal for social purposes is not, nor can it be a meal for spiritual purposes” (p.102). Let me remind Kurt, again, that he admitted “the carrying out of the commands and precepts of the gospel are spiritual in nature.”(p.103; #3), and he also admitted that Christians socializing with each other is a part of the gospel (p.28). So, he’s wrong here on p.102-because a meal for social purposes, between Christians, CAN BE (and is) for ’spiritual’ purposes.

13. In somewhat of a sly manner, Kurt acts like he’s saved his most powerful weapon (1 Cor. 11:22,34), until last (p.103)-as if I should be shaking in my boots to discuss it! Well, I hadn’t even intended on using 1 Cor. 11, because my proposition doesn’t depend on it.  But I’ll make a deal with Kurt: I’ll discuss 1 Cor. 11 if he answers all of his blunders.           1 Cor. 11 contains nothing detrimental to my case. This is just another one of Kurt’s flashing neon red-herrings!

Reaffirming the CEA and 1 Peter 3:1-2 Argument

Having shown Kurt’s faulty reasoning with regard to: 1) the “consummation rooms,” and

(111)

2) the CPA firm, and 3) the CWaSH illustration; and adding to that 4) the fact that he uses (and admits the validity of) the Constituent Element Argument (CEA), I cannot but continue to maintain the truthfulness of the CEA from last speech (pp. 86-90). I count it as un-assailed and completely intact.        And inasmuch as a husband being drawn to Christ, by observing the behavior of his Christian wife, is a God-intended way (1 Pet. 3:1-2) of drawing people to Christ, the social meal is simply another opportunity for letting people observe our behavior, hence being taught more about Jesus, and is thus authorized. Nothing Kurt said in his speech overturns these arguments.

Argument #3

For my next argument, I wish to borrow a quote from Kurt’s first affirmative. Kurt wrote, “By general authority we mean that a thing, while authorized in scripture, is not specified. For instance, we know the command of Christ in Mark 16:15.   “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”  The general command is “go,”   but the “how” is not specified.   We may walk, ride a donkey, take a plane, drive a car, etc.  We know the “what” but the “how” has not been mentioned.  Further, from this same verse Jesus gives the command to “preach,” but the “how” is not specified. Preaching may be done in public, in private, with an interpreter, using a blackboard or projector, etc.” (p.4)  I have to say a hearty ‘AMEN’ to this quote. In fact, this is exactly all I’m contending for with the social meal. The general command is “Christians socialize with each other” (Prov. 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-26; 1 Cor. 15:33). So we know the “what” to do; but the “where” and “how” and “when” have not been specified. Therefore, since we have the command to “socialize” without the specifics of ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how,’ then any ‘place,’ ‘time,’ or ‘manner’ that doesn’t violate one of God’s other laws is authorized. The social meal fits right into this category-that is, it doesn’t violate any one of God’s other laws. Hence, it is Scriptural!

Kurt’s Questions / My Answers

6. Y or N   Since you say that our eating of the Lord’s Supper is spiritual fellowship (p. 92) Is a meal for social purposes also “spiritual fellowship” ? Yes.

7. Y or N   Have you ever referred to a church sponsored social meal as a “fellowship meal”? Yes.

8. Y or N   Paul was only condemning the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11? No.

(112)

9. Y or N  The church may provide for a country music concert, either by booking and paying for the band, or by paying for the tickets (this assumes that the music will not contain foul language, nor will it promote sin)? No; see my answer to #4 (p.93). Kurt still confuses “recreation” with “social.” What a pity!

10. Y or N There are scriptural examples of the church in the New Testament doing the very thing you are advocating, having meals for social purposes? No. But there are, likewise, no Scriptural examples of the church in the New Testament providing for a wedding, either!

A Concluding Observation

Again, I wish to borrow a quote from Kurt for this observation. In denouncing the social meal, Kurt wrote, “Oh, he may try to plug his social meal into one of these areas and say “its edification” or “its evangelism.”… But the fact is, it no more belongs in one of those areas than does instrumental music belong in worship, or sprinkling belong in baptism” (p.10). Kurt claims that the social meal doesn’t belong in the area of edification here; but do you remember his answer to #1 on page 103? In answering that question, Kurt admitted that Christians frequently socializing with other Christians is a “God-intended” way for them to stay spiritually strong. I want the reader to get the full impact of such an admission. Kurt is not merely saying that Christians socializing is a “good way” of staying spiritually strong. No, no, he takes it to the ultimate level, by saying that God intends for Christians to stay strong by socializing frequently with each other. So if his answer to the #1 T/F question is true, then why is a meal for a “social purpose” such a sin?

Kurt, all joking and sarcasm aside; I want you to know that I love you, as a brother in the Lord. I ask you to please think about these things seriously. I’m not trying to “pull the wool over anybody’s eyes,” I promise! And even though I do enjoy the mental challenge of a debate; and I would be lying if I said I didn’t like to win. (I mean really, who likes to lose at anything, right?) But you know what? In the halls of eternity, we can both be winners from the outcome of this debate. Please…there’s no shame in turning from an erroneous position. D.J. Whitten did it after spending about 2 years of oral and written debating with Roy H. Lanier (see the Whitten-Lanier Debate). I encourage you to repent of this position if you see you are wrong; It may just be the turning point for someone else too. I know you don’t want to lead people astray. Please, think about it.  I look forward to your next installment.

(113)

First Negative, Proposition 2, by Kurt G. Jones

Again, I would like to express my thankfulness to the Lord for his providence in sparing my life until this good day. I would like to thank David for his willingness to participate in such a discussion as this.   Further I would like to express my gratitude to brethren Ledbetter, and Bassett as moderators, and I would like to welcome brother Bassett as David’s moderator.  I have much appreciated his insight during my short association with him.  I trust that he will make a profitable addition to this effort.

Definitions

We see no problems with David’s definitions.

Predictions Still True

We heard all throughout David’s negatives during the previous proposition that he was going to present an affirmative case, and “give the scripture” when he was in the affirmative. We’re still waiting.  Instead, brother Garner turns to the supposed “constituent element” argument taken from Brother Warren’s book.   We shall autopsy that dead argument piece by piece as this article proceeds.

I have appreciated much of Brother Warren’s work, and I even appreciate the book which David cites.  Wayne Goforth, a MSOP and Freed-Hardeman graduate, in “Why I left the Institutional Church” credits  this book as one of reasons he left the liberal position.  He read the book at the encouragement of Guy N. Woods.    Brother Goforth writes “I knew Warren was real logical on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, Christian evidences, etc. so I figured this would settle it…I went through that book with a fine tooth comb, highlighted, marked, etc., and saw he was wrong from the very first premise!” (Goforth p. 36, http://www.biblestudyguide.org/ebooks/davidriggs/why-i-left.PDF)

PAGE 84

Brother Garner’s Hodge-Podge Doctrine .

As we begin this section, let me start by noting that I am not contending that a constituent element argument does not exist, nor that it is not true.  The problem is many, including brother Garner, have attempted to use the argument by pulling various elements from different contexts, and then trying to tie them together as though they are “constituent elements.” It is a hodge-podge doctrine.  Sometimes when you combine things that are not inherently wrong or sinful, they produce something that is.   Let me illustrate by considering the point from a simplified example.   Corn is good for food.  Further we consider the use of sugar, people use sugar for many things in cooking and baking; there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful concerning sugar.     The same is true of water.   Yet, if you combine these three “constituent elements”, and heat it up a little, you find yourself with whiskey.  Thus, according to David’s argument corn whiskey must be perfectly good and fine.   The fact is both David and I both know the Lord gives restrictions regarding the use of alcohol.   Yet all of the “constituent elements” are there, and you have produced something of which the Lord does not approve (at least in the sense of general use).

We understand that this is perhaps an over simplification, yet it illustrates the great flaw in pulling things from various contexts and attempting to bind them together as though there were “constituent elements.”

Let us consider Brother Garner’s supposed constituent elements from which he has ripped from various contexts and attempted to bind together in this hodge-podge doctrine of his.

“Eating at the church building”- David’s first element actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposition at hand.  We have repeatedly pointed out that the issue is not “eating at the building”

PAGE 85

and we took great pains to notice that simply because something happens incidentally to an authorized purpose, the incidental action does not provide authority (p. 7-8; chart KGJ4).  The fact is, a church-sponsored meal for social purposes is just as unauthorized if it is held at the park, or even one of the member’s homes.   The place is not the issue.

Let us continue to consider this point however.  David implies that since Christians met in homes, as well as ate in homes, then it must be okay to use the church building for a social meal ( p 88).

David is correct on one point; local churches did meet in homes.  We do not deny that people also ate in those homes.   Yet, what David needs to show is that the church provided the meals that were eaten, and that they were for social purpose.  This is something he cannot do.  He knows it, because as he admits you cannot open the Bible as see his proposition stated in explicit terms (p. 86).   If he could simply turn to a passage in context and show the church providing meals for social occasions, then the debate would be over.  The fact is folks, he has to pull things from all kinds of differing contexts and try to manipulate the text to get his doctrine. Then with a straight face, he has the nerve to try and say his position is implied by the text!  These readers are smart, David, and there not going to fall for that!

However, it is true that Christians did meet in homes, and also that eating did take place in those homes (as noted in Chart 12).   However, does David also know that other things took place in some of the same houses?

In houses of Christians, business was conducted, imprisonment took place, health care was rendered, slaves were owned, a government was run, etc.   Do these provide authority for church-sponsored business, church-sponsored hospitals, church-sponsored slave ownership, etc.?

‘Members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose”‘- The second supposed element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine we have considered previously during the debate.    I agree that

PAGE 86

teaching members of the Lord’s church to have a good “social” relationship is part of the Gospel.     Teaching people to pay their taxes is also part of the gospel (Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-6).   Teaching husbands and wives to render due benevolence one to another (1 Corinthians 7: 2-4), is also part of the gospel.   Teaching people that “bodily exercise profits a little…” (1 Timothy 4:8), is part of the gospel as well.  We have not questioned David as to whether the church may provide a honeymoon suit for married couples so as to encourage them to fulfill the command of 1 Corinthians 7.   However, David has already noted that he is opposed to the church providing tax services (p. 20).  Yet brother Garner has said it is not sinful for the local church build and maintain a gym if they are “meeting all of their other responsibilities” (p. 93).

Consider this point; David argues that since it is true that teaching Christians to have a strong social relationship is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide a social meal.   Is it also true that since teaching Christians to pay their taxes is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide tax services?  Is it also true that since teaching husbands and wives to render due benevolence is part of the gospel, thus the church may provide place and occasion for them to do so?  David writes, “Since socializing with other Christians is part of the gospel (p.28), and since the church should support the gospel (p.32), the church should support occasions that have a social purpose. If not, why not” (p. 88)?

Consider David’s argument.  Thus, since rendering due benevolence between husbands and wives is part of the gospel, and the church should support the gospel, the church should support occasions of rendering due benevolence.   Since paying taxes is part of the gospel, and the church should support the gospel, the church should support tax preparation services.  If not, why not?

PAGE 87

Here is the undesirable position David has put himself in with his hodge-podge doctrine.  In order to be consistant, he will have to say that teaching these things is no part of the gospel, or he will have to say that the church may provide consummation rooms and tax services.   

Euodias and Syntyche- The next element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine involves ladies mentioned in the letter to the Philippians (Philippians 4:2-3).  David uses the situation mentioned in the letter regarding the relationship with these women as justification for “the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians” (p. 88).  Brother Garner writes “the apostle Paul gave instruction to a “true companion” (NKJV), “true yokefellow” (KJV, ASV)… to help these 2 women to ‘be of the same mind’” (p. 88).   Yet David left three important words out of that context notice verse 3 the text says “…be of the same mind in the Lord” (emphasis mine, KGJ).  The nature of the rift between these ladies, effected their relationship “in the Lord.”    Further, David asks “Could the elders plan an occasion for the two of them to meet with the elders in order to talk (i.e. socialize) about things, so that their relationship could be made right, and thus strengthened” (p. 89)?   Yes.  The elders of the church may plan an occasion to deal with the spiritual issues regarding these ladies that they may be “of the same mind in the Lord.”  What the church may not do is provide an occasion for the whole church to come together and gorge themselves on pizza, fried chicken, and the “world’s largest hotdog.”   Yes, the elders may provide occasion for those who are not of “the same mind in the Lord”   to come together and discuss their spiritual condition.  But the church may not provide an occasion for its members to go to Disney World, play in the gym, or have “fun rides, fun food, and fun games.”   The very idea, brother Garner!  These readers know the difference, do you?

“The church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things.”-  We see another element of David’s hodge-podge doctrine.  I first want to note that this

PAGE 88

actually is not even considered in the proposition.   In fact, in regard to providing for the needs of men would be included in benevolence.   Yet, I do understand what David is saying here. Welcome to  “social gospel 101″ brethren and friends!

In the context of this section, we find more of David’s manufactured claims and arguments.   I have spent a good deal of time throughout this discussion pointing out, that the fact that some spiritual thought may happen incidentally at a social event, this does not provide authority for the church to provide the occasion for the event.  Yet David writes, “[Kurt] has already admitted that if there is some spiritual focus at an event, then this provides authority for the church to provide for it, since it would provide the occasion for ‘teaching the lost and edifying the saints that may be present‘ (See #2 p. 58-9; and note the link to the Myspace forum on ‘weddings in the church building’)” (p. 89-90).   I encourage the readers to read what I have written on the forum (which is informal) , and unlike David, consider the context.    Also note as I have also pointed out in this debate as well as on the myspace forum.  I wrote:

There is authority for it [wedding in the building] in as much as there is authority for the church to preach a sermon on marriage, pray, and to sing hymns.  I do not oppose a wedding if these are the elements of it. If it is contains solos, instrumental music, and other things for which there is no authority, then I oppose it (Myspace forum, Dec.19, 12:04 pm).  My point has always been the same, even in that forum.  Is it scriptural for the church to use its resources to have congregational singing?  Yes (Colossians 3:16).  Is it scriptural for the church to have public prayer?  Yes (Acts 4:24-31).   Is it scriptural for the church to have a lesson taught on marriage?  Yes (Acts 20:27; 1 Peter 4:11).  I do not oppose these because they are authorized.  If there are things that are not authorized in the service then I oppose the use of the church’s resources for them (p. 68 Emphasis mine KGJ).

PAGE 89

I do not support the local church using its resources for things that are not authorized.  Let me say it again, and hopefully David will read it really slowly and several times, and then let it sink in.  I do not support the local church using its resources for things that are not authorized! If a wedding has elements that are not congregational singing, public prayer, and biblical teaching on marriage, then I oppose the use of the meeting house for it.  I have never said, nor do I believe that if “there is some spiritual focus at an event, that then this gives authority for the church to provide for it.”  This is simply a figment of David’s imagination.

Now, concerning  the church providing for the necessities of men in order to teach them.  We have noted, and David understands it because he mentioned it.  That  “… even if Christ did[provide for the necessities of men in order to teach them], you would have an example of the Lord individually, and under the Law of Moses, providing such. Christ did numerous things under the Old Law that the church has no authority to practice” (p.72).  There are two issues in regard to this which brother Garner conveniently neglects.  1) Christ lived under the Law of Moses.   2). Christ was an individual, not a local church.  For brother Garner’s attempt to make this argument work, he must show the church providing for the needs of people in order to teach them.  Now brethren and friends, let’s just wait and see if he does it.  I predict he won’t, we’ll probably just get some more of Garner’s hodge-podge doctrine.

The church using its treasury to support all parts of the Gospel- The final element of Garner’s hogde-podge doctrine is a feeble attempt to argue that the church may use its treasury to support social meals.  He basically makes the same agreement as he did in the “members engaging in social functions” section.   David writes:

“So, since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and since a part of that gospel teaches that all Christians should socialize frequently with other

PAGE 90

Christians (p.28 bottom), then the church should support social functions that benefit the members. That support can come in the form of money or morale. Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support social functions which are purposed to strengthen relationships between Christians” (p.90).

Then we note again, since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and that gospel teaches that husbands and wives should render due benevolence to one another, then the church should support, consummation rooms, and honeymoon suites.  That support can come from the money or morale.

Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support consummation rooms and honeymoon suites which help Christians fulfill the command to render due benevolence.   Or, Since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and that gospel teaches that Christians should pay their taxes, then the church should support tax preparation and CPA services .  That support can come from the money or morale.  Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support tax and CPA services, which are purposed to help the Christian to fulfill the command to pay his taxes.  If not, why not, brother Garner?

Thus, we have dispensed with David’s hodge-podge doctrine.

“Wives Being Submissive to Husband’s” Argument

David is correct, 1 Peter 3 has absolutely nothing at all to do with the church’s provision of social functions.   It is a command given to individual Christians (not the church collective), and specifically to wives.   Now yes, we as Christians are to be examples to the lost (Matthew 5:16),  but this does not provide authority for the church to use its treasury to provide for social functions.  Consider David’s reasoning with the same arguments we have considered previously in the article.  If the church provided a consummation room for husbands and wives to fulfill the command of 1 Corinthians 7, then if the husband was not a Christian, he could learn that wives

PAGE 91

are to be submissive to their husbands, and that they are to render to them such benevolence.  Thus, perhaps it may help him to obey the gospel.    The same is true with tax preparation.  If the church provided tax-services, it would help to fulfill the command to pay taxes, and the lost could see by the Christians example of honesty, and submitting to the governing authorities. In doing so, they might be converted.

The fact is it is true that our example is to be seen by non-Christians.  Christians should live as beacons of light in a dark world (Matthew 5:13-16).  Yet, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the church using its treasury to provide for occasions that are social rather than spiritual. We have repeatedly noted that a meal for social purposes is not, nor can it be a meal for spiritual purposes.

What Kurt supposedly has not Answered

The fact is, all of these have been answered during the course of the debate.  It is just that David did not like the answer he got.  I don’t blame him, if I was in his position, and attempting to manufacture authority for something the Bible does not authorize, I would ignore answers as well.   I encourage the reader to look back in the debate and find the answers that have been given.

In David’s answer to my questions, he asks regarding the concert in question 4. ” Is this a real situation that would ever happen” (p. 93)?   Yes.  It happened, and I was a participant when I was in high school, and a member at the Mary Ellen & Harvester Church of Christ in Pampa, Texas.

PAGE 92

David’s Questions

T or F  1. In light of Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:33, it is safe to say that God intends for Christians to frequently socialize with other Christians  in order that they will stay spiritually strong. This is true.

T or F  2. It is okay for the preacher to bring his lunch and eat it at the building, and it is okay for the members to bring their lunch and eat it at the building; but it is sinful if you publicly mention, from the pulpit or in the bulletin, that this (All Christians eating lunch at the building) will be happening. This is false

T or F  3. Every part of the gospel is “spiritual” in nature. True, the carrying out of the commands and precepts of the gospel are spiritual in nature.  However some commands are given to the church and others to individual Christians.

T or F     4. The only things in this life that are “spiritual in nature” are the five acts of worship (singing, praying, preaching, taking the Lord’s supper and giving) that Christians engage in. This is false

T or F  5. The only criteria that a New Testament teaching must meet, in order for it to be considered a “work of the church,” is that the teaching must be directed to “all” Christians, rather than just “some.” This is false.

In Case Brother Garner Thinks I Forgot.

I went through my entire proposition without bringing up the passage that condemns David’s practice.   However, lest he think I do not know that 1 Corinthians 11:22,34 are in the Bible, they are.  Further, they condemn the very practice which David’s doctrine and practice support.   Paul writes ” What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?  Or do you despise the church of the living God…” (vs. 22).  Further, in the same context, Paul records “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home…” (vs. 34).   Now, David is going to say He is talking about the Lord’s Supper. But don’t worry; we’ll be ready for him when he writes it.    Actually there were three things Paul dealt with in the context.   We’ll get to that after Brother Garner talks about the Lord’s Supper awhile.

We eagerly anticipate brother Garner’s next article.

PAGE 93

First Affirmative, Proposition 2, by David Garner

Garner’s 1^st Affirmative/ 2^nd Proposition

It is only because God has been so good to me that I am even alive today to participate in this discussion. God has been so gracious to me; and for that, I am extremely grateful. I also would like to extend a hearty “thank you” to Mark Bassett (my new moderator) for helping me with this discussion. Mark is a genuine Christian and he has been a great encouragement to me as these speeches role on. Kurt and Jeff are, likewise, given a robust “thanks” for their work in this effort.

The Proposition for Discussion

The proposition for discussion is as follows: “The Scriptures do authorize the local church to pay for a meal (from the treasury) for its members which is for social, rather than benevolent, purposes.”

Definition of Terms

By “The Scriptures” I mean the 66 books of the Holy Bible-but primary emphasis in this debate is on the 27 books of the New Testament, since we are living under the New Covenant today. By “do authorize” I mean that a certain thing meets with God’s approval, rather than His disapproval. By “the local church” I mean a body of blood-bought Christians, that may diminish or increase with the passing of time, in a given community, who work and worship together in an organized fashion. In order to be “a church,” the local church does not have to be governed by elders; but having elders is the ideal way of doing things, and every church without elders should strive for them (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). By “to pay for a meal” I mean a meal composed of regular food-not the Lord’s Supper. By “from the treasury” I mean to convey that this meal is not being paid for by the individual members, but is rather being paid for out of the treasury of monies that are gathered each week during the collection. By “for its members” I mean that those who primarily would be benefited by the meal, that has been purchased with the church’s treasury, are the Christians who worship at that location-along with their children (who haven’t been baptized yet) and any visitors who may be present that day for the worship assembly. By “which is for social…purposes” I mean that the occasion is provided to encourage socialization of the members in that congregation-and possibly those who may be visiting, or have not yet become Christians. By “rather than benevolent [purposes]” I mean that the meal is not held for the purpose of providing food for those who are too poor to be able to purchase their own food. Hopefully these definitions are satisfactory with Kurt. If they are not, then I’m sure he will let me know about it in his speeches to follow.

How the Bible Teaches

Everything that the Bible teaches is taught in either one of two ways: 1) explicitly, or 2) implicitly. To my knowledge, there are no other possibilities.

Explicitly: To say that the Bible teaches something explicitly means that it teaches it in just so many words. Some examples of the Bible’s explicit teachings are as follows: A) The Bible teaches that Judas Iscariot hung himself. In Matthew 27:3-5 we read, “Then Judas, His betrayer…threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.” Really, there is no guess work here. It just comes out and explicitly says Judas hung himself. B) Also, the Bible teaches that husbands are to love their wives. In Ephesians 5:25 we read, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,…” Again, there is no uncertainty about the Bible’s teaching here-because what is taught is stated explicitly. Other examples include: Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, etc…

Implicitly: To say that the Bible teaches something implicitly means that the doctrine taught comes from the conjunction, and proper reasoning (drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence), of at least two other propositions. The outstanding debater and scholar, Thomas B. Warren, stated it like this in Logic and the Bible: “As to the matter of implication, to say, for example, that the conjunction of proposition A and proposition B imply proposition C is to say that it is impossible for both proposition A and proposition B to be true and proposition C to be false. Stated with logical precision, implication means: “to say ‘if proposition X is true then proposition Y is true,’ is logically equivalent to saying, ‘it is impossible for proposition X to be true and proposition Y to be false‘.” (p.1). Now that may sound a bit technical for some, but it really isn’t difficult at all-because we all do it everyday. It’s just that when it gets put into technical terminology like this, it may seem a little overwhelming. Here are some examples of implication: A) Suppose that I said to you (the reader), “all boys in California wear a red t-shirt on Friday.” And further suppose that I said, “Derek is a boy in California.” What do these two pieces of information imply? That Derek wears a red t-shirt on Friday, right? Right! This is simple stuff. B) Also, suppose that I said to you that “No dog in the world can speak French.” And further suppose that I tell you “Clark is a dog.” Now, regardless of anything else you may know about Clark, one thing you know for sure, from the two pieces of information, is that Clark cannot speak French! C) In a biblical context, implication works like this: the Bible teaches that Saul of Tarsus repented of his sins, right? Yes. But, how does it teach this? By implication! We have these two pieces of information: First, everybody must repent of their sins in order to become a Christian (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30f.); and secondly, Paul became a Christian (Acts 9:18). Even though the Bible doesn’t explicitly state “Paul repented of his sins,” we can know he did because every person must do so before becoming a Christian. See how easy the matter of implication is?

The reason I bring up the matter of explicit and implicit teaching is simple-it’s because the Bible only teaches that the church is authorized to pay for a “social meal” implicitly. By this, I mean that one cannot turn to any passage of Scripture and read the proposition I am affirming in this debate stated explicitly. But just because the Bible doesn’t teach my proposition explicitly, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t teach it at all.

It is my task, in the affirmative position, to prove my proposition with a sound argument. [Note: A sound argument is an argument that is valid (meaning: when the conclusion is necessitated by the premises-whether the premises are true or false), and has all true premises.] If I cannot prove my proposition with a sound argument, the only thing I will have proven is that I can’t prove my proposition-similar to (in fact, exactly like) what Kurt did in the first proposition.

Argument #1-The Constituent Element Argument

I do not attempt or try to take any credit for inventing (or “coming up with”) the principal involved in this argument. I acquired knowledge of this argument while reading Brother Warren’s book Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes. In fact, Brother Warren doesn’t take credit for the principal either. The principal involved is one that we all use to prove many points that we adhere to in religion. Brother Warren quotes Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. as saying, “…there is no other way to establish the identity of the primitive apostolic church. The wrong creed, the wrong doctrine, the wrong worship, the wrong organization and the wrong name could not possibly result in the right church. But the right creed, the right doctrine, the right worship, the right organization, and the right name, for a like reason, cannot be the wrong church.” Now what that means is simply this: when you prove all of the parts to be scriptural, then you have proven the whole thing to be scriptural. In other words, if you have 4 parts of a thing (each totaling 25% of the whole), which are made of pine wood, then the whole thing is made of pine wood. Likewise, if all the portions of a religious doctrine (or situation) are scriptural, then the whole thing is scriptural. As Brother Warren points out on pages 27 & 28, we use this principal to prove things like the identity of the church, the plan of salvation, our Bible classes being scriptural, the work of “located preachers” being scriptural, as well as what we do in a worship assembly. Now that you see the principal involved, let’s apply it to our situation in this debate-the social meal. Here is the argument set out in precise logical terminology:

Premise One: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are scriptural, are total situations which are scriptural.

Premise Two: The total situation described in my proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural.

Conclusion: Therefore, the total situation described in my proposition is a total situation which is scriptural.

That is the argument laid out in ‘bare bones’ fashion. Now, this is the argument with the “flesh” on it:

Premise One: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are scriptural, are total situations which are scriptural.

Premise Two: The total situation described by my proposition, involving 1) members of the church eating a meal at the church building, 2) members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose, 3) the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians, 4) the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things, and 5) the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural.

Conclusion: Therefore, the situation described by my proposition, involving 1) members of the church eating a meal at the church building, 2) members of the church engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose, 3) the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians, 4) the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things, and 5) the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel is a total situation which is scriptural.

It can be easily seen that premise one is nothing more than a technical way of saying what Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. said in the quote above. I don’t anticipate Kurt having a problem with premise one. So my burden in this argument is to prove that the elements (1-5) in premise two are actually scriptural. Once I do that, my proposition will be proven. Here goes…

1)      It is obvious from Kurt’s previous statements that he sees nothing wrong with the simple act of Christians eating food at the church building (See middle of p. 2; middle of p. 44 and the Myspace forum “Weddings in the church building.” Link on p.58). Since this is true, I will give little attention to proving that this one is scriptural. Kurt is correct in his statements to the effect that Christians can eat at the church building with God’s approval. This is verified in Scripture by the fact that many 1^st century brethren met for worship in their homes (1 Cor. 16:19)-where eating would have naturally taken place.

2)      Next we come to the ‘members engaging in an occasion for a “social” purpose‘ element. I don’t think there will be any disagreement between Kurt and I on this element of the argument either. You will remember that Kurt, on p. 28, admitted that “teaching Christians to socialize frequently with other Christians is part of the gospel.” It is very evident from passages such as Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 that Jehovah wants Christians to spend a lot of time socializing together-the purpose of this is so we won’t be influenced by “the world” to leave the paths of righteousness. Since socializing with other Christians is part of the gospel (p.28), and since the church should support the gospel (p.32), the church should support occasions that have a social purpose. If not, why not?

3)      Now we come to the element of ‘the church planning occasions that tend toward strengthening relationships between Christians.’ To prove this, all we need to do is turn and look at Philippians 4:2-3. There, the apostle Paul gave instruction to a “true companion” (NKJV), “true yokefellow” (KJV, ASV) (which many think refers to a certain individual, while others think it refers to the whole church at Philippi) to help these 2 women to “be of the same mind.” In other words, these women needed to have their relationship strengthened. Some rift separated them, and it needed to be gotten rid of. But whether the terms ‘companion/yokefellow’ refer to an individual, or ‘the church,’ in this passage is insignificant to the point at hand-because all Christians are supposed to be “peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9; James 3:18). So, the very fact that Paul gives instructions to help these women to mend/strengthen their relationship, demands that an occasion for such strengthening takes place. Therefore, providing occasions for members to strengthen their relationships with each other is a scriptural practice. Suppose, for instance, that two members of your congregation were fighting amongst themselves. Could the elders plan an occasion for the two of them to meet with the elders in order to talk (i.e. socialize) about things, so that their relationship could be made right, and thus strengthened? Absolutely! Now, if the elders can plan for two members to socialize and be strengthened thereby, why can the elders not plan for the whole church to come together and socialize, thus being strengthened in their Christian walk?     Here is an example of the power of socialization: I have been preaching at my present congregation for almost 3 years now. For the first two years, I would say that the members would stay after services and talk to each other for possibly 10-15 minutes, 20 minutes tops. About a year ago, we set a program in place, called “team dinners,” where 3 families are placed on a team for 3 months. Each month, the 3 families will meet at one of the family’s homes for dinner-and then rotate to another family’s home the next month, and so on. Since that program has been implemented, I can actually see an increase in warmness and friendships within the congregation. Now, when services are over, I can hardly get out of the building in less than 30 minutes. Sometimes people will stay around and talk even 40 minutes afterwards! This is phenomenal! I also know of Bible studies that have resulted from these occasions. The power of socialization! (cf. Proverbs 12:26; 13:20; 22:24-25 and 1 Cor. 15:33).

4)      Now, we focus our attention on the element of ‘the church providing for the physical necessities of men in order to teach them spiritual things.’ The fact of Jesus providing for the physical necessities of men so that He could teach them spiritual things is seen all throughout the gospel accounts. Matthew 14:14 pictures Jesus as providing physical healing for the sick, in order that he might teach them spiritual truths-i.e. that He is the Messiah (Jn. 20:30-31).  Now, I hope Kurt is not inclined to use the weak rebuttal to this element of our argument that “Jesus did that under the Old Law; therefore, this is no example for the church today.” Really, I’m almost sure Kurt won’t do that, because he has already admitted that if there is some spiritual focus at an event, then this provides authority for the church to provide for it, since it would provide the occasion for “teaching the lost and edifying the saints that may be present” (See #2 p. 58-9; and note the link to the Myspace forum on ‘weddings in the church building’). Well, there certainly is an opportunity to edify the saints and teach the lost at a potluck when the prayer is offered for the food. We edify and teach when the prayer is offered before the meal is eaten. In the act of praying, we do two things: 1) We show God we are thankful for our food, and 2) we teach others that they should be thankful for their food. I just know Kurt agrees with this (see Kurt’s answer to #18, p.71). So, yes, the church can provide for the physical necessities of men (food is a physical necessity) in order to teach them spiritual truths.

5)       Finally, we come to the last element in our argument, which deals with ‘the church treasury being used to support all parts of the gospel.’ Kurt is on record as saying that “The church’s mission is to support and uphold the truth of God, which is the Gospel of Christ” (p.32 top). Likewise, Kurt agrees that the church’s treasury is to be used to carry out the commands that God has given to the church (#15, p.50). So, since the church’s mission is to support the entire gospel, and since a part of that gospel teaches that all Christians should socialize frequently with other Christians (p.28 bottom), then the church should support social functions that benefit the members. That support can come in the form of money or morale. Thus, the church is authorized to use its funds to support social functions which are purposed to strengthen relationships between Christians.

Now, since I have proven all 5 of the elements in premise two to be scriptural, then the conclusion is necessitated-and my proposition stands as being proved. If Kurt wishes to overthrow this argument, he will have to do at least one of two things: He must either show that 1) I have failed to include a vital part of the argument into this actual argument; or 2) demonstrate that even one of these premises is false. *Notice* I didn’t say “assert,” or “claim,” that one of the premises is false-but instead, he must prove (or demonstrate) that it is false. Kurt, it will not meet the issue for you to just say, “We don’t see any command, necessary inference, or example of a social meal in the Bible…and therefore it is not authorized.” You know that you use the constituent element argument to prove things like the identity of the church, plan of salvation, etc… So it’s a valid method of proving a thing scriptural or not. Deal with it on the social meal level, please.

Argument #2

One night, while reading James D. Bales’ book The Case of Cornelius, this argument sort of “jumped off the page” at me. He wrote, “There are wives who are unable to influence their husbands with words, so, although they should not try to ‘nag’ their husbands into the kingdom, they should try to win them by their manner of life (1 Peter 3:1-3)” (p.12). You can imagine how that when I read that, I thought “Yes, that’s so true! I am going to use this as an argument in my debate with Kurt.” The point Peter is making in this passage really has nothing to do with social meals per se. But Peter includes something that is relevant to our discussion. Notice, Peter says, “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear” (1 Peter 3:1-2). So the point that Peter makes is that sometimes husbands are not initially drawn to Christ by “hearing a sermon” or “singing a spiritual song.” Some husbands become interested in Christianity by simply observing the behavior of their Christian wife. The sinner may observe the behavior of the Christian wife and be so impressed by it that he wants to display similar behavior.

Now, if this will work in the case of a husband with his wife (as the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write), is it also possible for it to work with a different relationship? Yes! It is completely possible for people (who are not married to a Christian) to observe the behavior of Christians and be initially drawn to Christ in that way. Please do not misunderstand me; the sinner must obey the Word (to be saved), but the initial drawing power comes from viewing the Word in action rather than hearing it in a sermon. But, “No,” says Kurt, “You can only draw people to Christ by preaching a sermon or studying the Bible with them.” [That's not an actual quote from Kurt; but it seems to characterize some of the sentiments he has expressed in the past.] Satan has many tools to draw people into his kingdom, is the Christian limited to only one method (i.e. studying the Bible)? Hardly! The lesson for us, in the Lord’s church, is to see and notice all of our avenues of evangelism, and then use them to the fullest.

So how does this passage tie in with the social meal issue? Because when the church provides the social meal from the church treasury, she is providing a situation (or occasion) whereby sinners (if there are any present) can observe the way that Christians interact with each other-lovingly calling each other “brother” or “sister,” being concerned for ill relatives, allowing their brother or sister in Christ to “go first” in the food-line, talking about how blessed they are in life, etc., etc., etc… Sinners may watch our behavior at social meals and be very impressed at that, when the sermon may have “gone in one ear and out the other” so to speak. Then, throughout the week, they may start thinking to themselves, “Those people at the church of Christ acted differently than average people. They seemed to care for each other. I think I’ll go back this Sunday and really listen to what the preacher has to say this time.” This is certainly an ideal scenario, but it has happened before where someone was initially drawn to Christ by observing Christians’ behavior. This is a God-authorized way of drawing people in (1 Peter 3:1-2), and we should use every avenue we can to draw people to the Lord-even if Kurt says we shouldn’t.

Kurt’s Questions/ My Answers

The following are the questions that Kurt has presented to me-along with my answers.

1. Y or N         Is the Communion we have with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16) spiritual fellowship? Yes. Even though we are less than Jesus, and not equals, we still are called His “brethren” in Hebrews 2:11. So, since we are called “brethren,” I would say it is spiritual “fellowship.”

2. Y or N         Is it sinful for the local church to use its resources to pay for members of the church to go to Disney World, or some other comparable theme park? I will assume the congregation in this question is meeting all of her other responsibilities of evangelizing the world, taking care of her properties, paying the preacher an adequate salary, etc., when I answer “No, it is not sinful.” It is a matter of opinion in such a congregation; and I personally wouldn’t think it to be a good use of funds. But really, what congregation does this? Is this not just a far-out hypothetical question that Kurt has posed to try and prejudice the mind? If Kurt wishes to debate “recreational” things, I’ll be glad to do so with a reworded proposition; but remember, reader, the word we are debating is “social,” not “recreational.” There is a difference.

3. Y or N         It would be sinful for the local church to use its collection to build and maintain a gymnasium for the recreational use of its members? Again, I assume the church in question is meeting all of her other responsibilities when I answer “No.” If the gymnasium can be used to God’s glory and the salvation of souls, then it is not sinful to build one. But, do I think this is the best use of the church’s funds? No.

4. Y or N         Would the fact that a person may think of a passage of Scripture during a rock and roll concert allow the church to provide tickets for, or sponsor in some other way, the concert? (This assumes that concert will not contain foul language, or promote other sin.) Is this a real situation that would ever happen? No, because rock and roll concerts are filled with sin and the promotion of it. My answer is “no,” the church should not be purchasing tickets to rock and roll concerts. Remember reader, we’re debating “social” occasions, not “recreational” occasions.

5. Y or N         The church may do all that Jesus did during his earthly ministry? The answer to this is “no.” Jesus lived under the Old Law, we live under the New Law. So, the details of what we can do are different than what Jesus did, but the principles remain the same.

What Kurt Has Not Answered

Even though I am now in the affirmative, we don’t want the readers to forget about the things from the first proposition that Kurt has not answered. Will he answer them this time??? [The reader is encouraged to turn back to page 80 and see my full explanation of his unanswered issues there. I don't have the room to expound on them here.]

1) Where does Bible say the church’s work boils down into 3 or 4 categories? 2) His contradiction concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). 3) The arbitrary rule he made up about expedients. 4) Why are weddings (cultural, social events) allowed in the church building, but potlucks (cultural, social events) not allowed in the building? 5) Why did Kurt ‘leave off’ possible ways of receiving spiritual edification from his list on pp.8-9? 6) Why does Kurt say a “social” area doesn’t exist in the church’s work? 7) See #1 p.58. 8) See #2 p.58ff.

We look forward to reading Kurt’s 1^st negative speech.

Fourth Negative, Proposition 1, by David Garner

Garner’s Fourth Negative/1st Proposition

     I am wholly indebted to the Ancient of Days for His beneficent working in my life. Though I certainly do not deserve it, I still bask in the warmth of His tender care. Also, thanks are still extended to Kurt, Jeff and Bart for their work in this discussion. 

An Interesting Observation

     Anyone who has read Kurt’s 4^th affirmative can see that he is not at all happy that I have included his quotes from the Myspace forum into our debate. I don’t know if he thinks it’s not fair, or if it’s because it’s so damaging to his case, or if it’s just that he realizes what a flop he made, or what. But here’s an interesting point: I emailed my 3^rd negative to Kurt on 12/28/08 at about 4:55 P.M. (California time). So, about 2 hours later (at 6:58), after reading my 3^rd negative, Kurt left a final post on the “Weddings in the church building” Myspace thread. He said that he knew he was going to regret posting there. His reason for saying that he regretted posting there was that it “Gave brother Garner a forum to discuss everything but what is actually being considered in the debate.” Now here’s the interesting thing: in his post on 12/15/08 @ 1:00 P.M., he wrote that the issue of weddings in the building was “so closely related to what I am currently debating” (Emp mine-DG). Isn’t it interesting, folks, how Kurt considers the issue of weddings in the church building to be “everything but what is actually being considered” when I introduce them into our debate, but thinks they are “so closely related” to the debate when he is contemplating publicly discussing it with other people? Hmmmmm.

     And, if he “knew” he was going to regret posting there, why did he? I don’t know if I will ever know the answer to that question. But I know one thing-I’m glad he did!

Answering Kurt’s Contentions

1.   Kurt still tries to shame me into the affirmative, making it seem that people may be lost if I don’t hurry up and make an affirmative argument. To me, it is insignificant that Kurt ascribes a motive (i.e. debating for the sake of debating) to my debating. Our friend must not understand the fact that in some situations TIMING is everything. Perhaps Jesus should have been reprimanded by Kurt for not ‘publishing’ his true identity sooner (Matt. 16:20; Mk. 7:36; 8:30; et. al.),

PAGE 74

because, after all, it is a good thing to tell people about God’s Son! Or why doesn’t Kurt give the gospel invitation at the beginning of his sermons?-since some non-Christian in the audience may keel over and croak before the sermon is over! The fact is, just like Jesus, I have a purpose in not addressing myself to my affirmative arguments yet-it’s called “laying the groundwork.” And once again, Kurt is guilty of the very thing he complained about me doing-telling me how to debate (p. 44).

2.   Kurt makes a HUGE error in saying that “I [Kurt--DG] have never said “the Bible says the church’s work falls into 3 or 4 categories.” (#2 p. 65). Now, I want to think the best of Kurt, I really do, but I was shocked when I read that. If the reader will please turn back and reread the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 7, you will see that that paragraph is in violent contradiction with Kurt’s statement here. (See also the top and middle of p. 26)

3.   Further, in discussing the 3 or 4 category system, (#2 p.65), Kurt says, “David has failed at showing there is a “social” area.” Now this is an incredible statement, folks-especially coming from a gospel preacher who has already implicitly agreed that ‘teaching Christians to frequently socialize with each other is part of the gospel’ (p. 28). I couldn’t believe all of these kinds of statements throughout his last speech. This is an astounding thing, folks-that a gospel preacher, as bright as Kurt is, would allow himself to get caught in such contradiction.

4.   Again, on page 65, Kurt writes, “The fact that a person may think of a passage of scripture while eating does not provide authority for the church to provide a social meal.” Why not, Kurt? I’m sure there would be a prayer said before the social meal, which would “make provision for teaching the lost…and edifying the saints who may be present” (p. 59).  Why doesn’t Kurt level the same claim against a wedding in the building (i.e. The fact that a person may think about God having ordained marriage (or sing a few hymns), while at a wedding, does not provide authority for the church to provide for a wedding.)? Arbitrary!

5.   On page 66, #5, Kurt gives a lengthy explanation for what happened in the Philippines-saying, in essence, that their situation is different than our potlucks because 1) they didn’t plan it; and 2) it wasn’t for a social purpose.

PAGE 75

My response to this is: They did plan it-because they brought the food. The food didn’t just miraculously appear! They bought it and brought it so they could eat it at the church building. [Let me take Kurt's position now, as if he were speaking to the elders in the Philippines]: ‘You know, if you guys were truly spiritually minded, you wouldn’t even take a break during the preaching. Didn’t you know that when you take a break, you’re tempting people to think about physical food?’ [Back to myself now]: And regarding the purpose for the food being eaten, what difference does it make what purpose the food is eaten for, so long as it’s not sinful? By this, I mean to say: if the church was having, say, a meal to celebrate the increase in the number of abortions performed in the USA from 1990 to 2000, then sure, that would be sinful. But since Kurt has already agreed that Christians socializing with other Christians is part of the gospel (p. 28), why object to it being for a “social” purpose?  

6.   The last paragraph of page 66 introduces what, I think, may be (I’m not sure) Kurt trying to cover up a mistake he made concerning the Philippines eating arrangement. Reader please see what I wrote (#5; p. 54) about Kurt being confused on the “incidental to the assembly” stuff. Kurt’s response to my charge, in his 4^th affirmative, was to say, in effect, that…just because I (Kurt) question the wisdom of a practice does not mean I can not do it in faith. But then he gave an illustration (about assembly times) that, to him, truly does deal with “matters of opinion.” The problem with his illustration is this: he doesn’t believe eating a potluck at the building is a “matter of opinion” (like assembly times are)-to him, it is sin (#11; p.49). So here’s how we can find out if Kurt is trying to be shady: we ask Kurt to please tell us what part of the situation in the Philippines did you “question the wisdom of“? Was it really the meeting time, or was it the fact that they were eating in the building, or something else?

7.   Kurt objects because I used the word “social” to characterize a wedding, when all he admitted to was a wedding being “cultural.” He writes, “Further, he [David-DG] attempts to say that the word cultural means social.” (p.67). Now I admit that all Kurt conceded to in the Myspace forum was that weddings are “cultural,” and I do not wish to put words in his mouth. But I did not ever say that the word

PAGE 76

‘cultural’ means ’social.’ A wedding is a cultural event, true. But some weddings are “social” events too-”characterized by friendly companionship or relations” (p.1), particularly the weddings where friends and family are invited (Jn. 2:1-11). The kind of wedding Kurt referred to in the Myspace forum was one where friends and family were invited. Anyone can reference that link http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=70517398&adTopicID=27&categoryID=0&IsSticky=0&groupID=107492026&Mytoken=6BCDF6D8-CD67-49D9-98C8A7799B5F487B173197282 and see that he was referring to a “social” type of wedding-even though he only spoke of it in terms of “cultural.” You don’t get out of your dilemma that easy, Kurt! And if Kurt wishes to bring up “switching words,” let’s do so! All throughout this debate we have seen Kurt use the term “recreation” to refer to a “social” gathering (top of 70). The term “recreation” does not necessarily include “social” (which is the term in our proposition), although it could include such in certain circumstances. A person may engage in “recreation” (biking, flying a kite, shooting hoops, etc.) without anyone else being present. But a person can not engage in a “social” event without someone else being present. Generally speaking, “recreation” involves some kind of entertainment, such as going camping, skiing, flying model airplanes, etc. But what Kurt wishes to do is to get you to believe that if a congregation can pay for a social meal, that means they must logically also pay for the teenagers’ lift tickets for skiing, park passes to Knott’s Berry Farm, for a church gymnasium, etc, etc, etc. That doesn’t logically follow. Kurt, please stop using “recreation” when you really mean “social.” It’s deceptive, and you’re above that. And please don’t misunderstand me, either. If a congregation wants to plan a ski trip for the youth, I don’t believe it is sinful to do so. I just think that since it’s “entertainment” oriented, that the youngsters should pay for their tickets instead of the church.

8.   Kurt, yet again, misunderstands something I wrote-and writes something that makes me look unbelievable and shifty. He writes that I said my words may have more than one meaning (p. 67&69). The reader is referred to my words (p. 56 #4) to see that I didn’t mean to say that I intentionally make my words to have

PAGE 77

several meanings. I certainly am not trying to be equivocal in this debate. What I meant (in #4 on p. 56) is that when different readers read something, they may take it different ways. Even though a writer only means one thing, his words can be taken differently than he intended. Kurt’s misunderstanding of my words here is a case in point. He took my words (p. 56) differently than I wanted him to.

9.   At the bottom of 67, Kurt ‘vents’ because I inserted his words from the Myspace forum-noting that it was an “informal discussion board.” What, Kurt, don’t you believe that Christians should always speak the truth-even when not speaking formally? Should we regard your words as less truthful because they were spoken “informally”?

10.   Kurt accuses me of pulling his words out of context (pp.67-68); but he gave not one instance where I did such. In fact, the reader is encouraged to remember how I offered the link to the Myspace forum (p.58), and even asked them go read Kurt’s words for their self (p.59), so as not to misrepresent Kurt. I deny pulling even one of Kurt’s words out of context. But if I did, I assure you that it was unintentional; and I apologize-asking Kurt’s forgiveness.

11.   He brings up 1 Corinthians 10:23, and says I teach that it doesn’t have a general application (p.69). Oh, I believe it has a general application, Kurt-just not the kind of general application you want it to have (i.e. arbitrarily choosing when you want something or don’t want it). Actually, Kurt is the one who doesn’t believe it has a general application. If Kurt was consistent with his “general application” doctrine, he would give up his job to pacify an anti-located-preacher brother, or drink from only one cup during the Lord’s Supper to appease an anti-multiple-container brother. And, Kurt doesn’t think he’s the “weaker brother” in opposing social meals being provided for by the church, so he understands the situation is different. Also, he won’t allow us to simply “teach him that social meals are okay.” So there is no parallel between our situation (in this debate) and what Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

12.   On #1, p. 70, Kurt reverts back to his “the church can’t run a tax service” argument again. That was taken care of and answered back in my first negative, when I asked Kurt where the command, necessary inference or example

PAGE78

is for Christians to do tax work for others (p.19). There is none, hence, no authority for the church to run a CPA firm.

13.   Under Kurt’s #2, p. 70, I was a little ‘let down’ to see that Kurt paid so little attention to his 2 latest blunders (p.58f.). I literally spent several hours gathering the information for those blunders (i.e. making sure the quotes were correct, and taking pains to avoid any misrepresentation); and for him to simply gloss over them (#2; p.70), with a ‘wave of the hand,’ only confirmed my belief that his words on the Myspace forum had “cooked his goose.” Kurt does not want to face those words, I know, because they are, in fact, so “closely related” to what we are debating here. And Kurt, those arguments are not going away. You don’t just get rid of them by saying that I “…pulled [your words-DG] out of their context;” (p.67f.). You have to show where I pulled your words out of context, if you want to prove that I did. I promise Kurt, and the readers, that I didn’t take his words out of context. Go read for yourself, please (p.58-60).

Kurt’s Answers to My Questions

            First, in answering #16 (p.71), Kurt missed the point of my question (apparent from his answer). In answering it, however, he stays ‘true to form’ in arbitrariness. He wrote, “The fact that there may be some spiritual focus at the game, incidentally, does not provide authority for the church from its resources to provide for the social function” (p.71). Oh really, Kurt?!? You said that the church could provide for a “cultural” event (baseball is cultural) in the case of a wedding at the building if there was some spiritual focus at the wedding (p.68 & Myspace forum). So we ask: why can the church provide for a wedding (which is cultural) if there is “some” spiritual focus at it, but cannot provide for a baseball game (which is cultural) when there is “some” spiritual focus at it too? Because Kurt said so! A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y. And before Kurt even brings it up in another speech, let me say, I am not arguing that the church should pay for baseball tickets. I am merely using this as a case in point to show the reader how capricious Kurt’s hermeneutics are when it comes to his hobby.

            In answer to #20 (p.72), Kurt defies common sense and the Bible by answering that Jesus never provided for the physical necessities of men so that he could teach them

PAGE 79

spiritual things. His answer contradicts Matthew 14:14, where Jesus, “being moved with compassion, healed their sick” (cf. Lk. 9:11).  Kurt, these men were physically sick and Jesus healed their “physical” malady so He could teach them a spiritual truth-namely, that He was the Messiah (cf. John 20:30-31). Kurt, I understand that the purpose of the miracle wasn’t primarily for the purpose of “providing for their physical necessities,” but that doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus did provide for man’s physical necessities to teach a much-needed, spiritual truth. When men saw the sign of healing, it was supposed to cause them to believe in His divinity (cf. Jn. 20:30f.)-which is a step in the direction of heaven (John 8:24). Likewise, the social meal is intended to strengthen Christian relationships-which, in turn, will help people to more easily live the faithful Christian life (cf. 1 Thess. 5:11).

A Word on Kurt’s Position

            Kurt says I have trouble answering legitimate arguments, thus I have to fabricate, invent and construct arguments, and then attribute them to him (p.67). Folks, I am well aware that Kurt does not believe the conclusions to some of the arguments that I have shown. Of course, he hasn’t gone about to show why they are false, though, has he? All he has done is to make unsubstantiated claims-’Oh, you’re making up false arguments, David;’ and ‘he’s pulling my quotes out of context’ (p.67). If the arguments are false, Kurt, help the people (and me) to see why they are false. If I’ve pulled your words out of context, show us where I have misrepresented you. That’s the way to debate!

What Kurt Has Not Answered

            We come now to the part of my speech where I show what Kurt has not adequately answered. Again, I admit that he has briefly mentioned some of these, but to “explain them away,” he has yet to do. The list is still growing.

1. Where does the Bible say (or imply) that the “work of the church” boils down into 3 or 4 categories? Kurt boldly affirmed that the Bible so taught (p.7f.), in his first and second speeches (p.26). Now, he’s singing a little different tune (#2; p.65). Which is it, Kurt? You can’t have it both ways-either stick with your original statements, or crawfish!

PAGE 80

2. His contradiction concerning the building being used for a potluck (p.20). He said the building may not be used for a “potluck” (p.49f.), but he approves of the Philippine brethren bringing their own lunch and eating it, at the building, while sharing with others. I don’t know about all of the readers, but that sounds an awful lot like a “potluck” to me. And does the fact that we announce ours during the announcements automatically make it a “work of the church,” as rigidly taught by Kurt? No. But even if I were to grant that it is a “work of the church,” Kurt has already admitted that Christians frequently socializing with other Christians is part of the gospel (p.28). And, a potluck at the building would have a prayer before the food is eaten-thus providing for “teaching the lost and edifying the saints” that are present.

3. The arbitrary rule that Kurt has made up about expedients. Kurt teaches that any and every little thing that may cause division can not be an expedient (p.6). But we have already shown that Kurt doesn’t agree with his own teaching. He considers the “located- preacher” system an expedient, yet this has caused division; and there are still brethren today who oppose it. Likewise, he knows multiple containers used for the fruit of the vine are expedients, yet this has caused division; and there are still those who drink from only one-cup as a matter of doctrine. So, folks, Kurt’s rule = no rule.

A Positive Note: I would like to thank Kurt for directing me to his definition of “the church” (#1; p.65). I overlooked that because it wasn’t in bold face type (as the other defined words were), and it was somewhat “implied” in his section ‘definitions’ (p.1).

4. Why are weddings (cultural, social events) allowed in the building, but potlucks (cultural, social events) not allowed in the building? Both of these cultural, social events would have “worship” present at them-yet Kurt opposes one and authorizes the other. Why?

5. Kurt admits to omitting possible ways of receiving spiritual edification from the list he gave (pp.8-9), in his answer to the #13 t/f question (p.50). In his 4^th speech, Kurt didn’t say a word about this. He tried to cover up this mistake (in his 3^rd speech) by saying there was no need to omit “socializing with someone” as a possible way of receiving spiritual edification, because, as he said, “it’s not a work of the church.” But who determined that?!? Kurt did. And even now, it seems like Kurt is trying to back out of his 3 or 4 category “works of the church” doctrine (p.65; #2). [Stay tuned, folks, Kurt may just repent after all.] Anyway, the directive for Christians to frequently socialize with each

PAGE 81

other is addressed to all Christians, hence the entire church. So why would Kurt fail to include that as an option on his list (p.8f.) if it is addressed to all Christians? Maybe he thinks the church should teach only part of the gospel to herself; or maybe his “standard” of ways for the church to edify herself (p.8-9) is faulty. Yep, that’s it!

6. Kurt chides me for not showing that a “social area” exists in “the work of the church” (p.65; #2). But again, this is a terribly strange comment coming from someone who admits that Christians should frequently socialize with each other (p.28). Why, Kurt?

7. I won’t repeat it here, but the reader is encouraged to go back and read what was said in my #1 on page 58. Kurt still has not answered that-and it will be impressive to see what he says when he does try to answer it, I assure you!

8. Likewise, the reader is encouraged to go and read my #2 on pages 58-60. That material is what Kurt hasn’t faced yet. He, from afar, says “it’s false,” but won’t get close enough to it to show us why it’s false. I certainly would like to know why it’s false. Reader, wouldn’t you?

Kurt’s Questions For Me

            Kurt chose not to present any questions to me during this last speech.

Conclusion

            Let me reaffirm what I said in my first negative, “I can show my friend’s position to be false if I can: 1. Show that he is guilty of the logical fallacy known as “special pleading.” 2. Show that he has arbitrarily chosen what “the work of the church” is. 3. Show that he makes arbitrary rules with regard to expedients. 4. Show that he has been guilty of giving “straw men” illustrations; and 5. Show that he is guilty of self-contradiction.” (p.14).

            With regard to #2, we have shown that Kurt’s 3 or 4 category system is man-made, hence, deficient as a standard for everyone. We are thankful he admitted this fact on page 65, #2. Now everyone can rest easier-knowing that they are not missing something in the Bible that Kurt said was there, but really isn’t.

PAGE 82

            With regard to #3, we have shown the falsity of his “if it causes division, it’s not an expedient” doctrine by showing that he doesn’t even believe it (i.e., one-cup & located preacher issue).

            With regard to #5, we have shown several instances where Kurt has contradicted himself and the Bible (see #1, p.58; see my last paragraph on p. 79; see #2, p. 58; et. al.).

            I am confident that the God of Heaven has helped me to assess Kurt’s arguments, and that He is pleased with my work. And even though I have used some sarcasm in these speeches, I hold no ill-will toward Kurt. In fact, I look up to Kurt for believing in his doctrine enough to put it to the test in a written debate. I only hope he will repent of his doctrine when he sees he is in error. I determined before this debate started, and I’ve even told some of my preacher friends this, that I will repent of my error if I get to the point where I am “stuck” in this debate. But, I can honestly say, I haven’t felt stuck yet.

            I, along with Kurt, want to thank those of you who are reading this discussion. If you study this debate and still have questions of me, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

And now-I move into the affirmative…

PAGE 83