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 4th 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 4th 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 4th speech, Kurt didn’t say a word about this. He tried to cover up this mistake (in his 3rd 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
