Fourth Affirmative, Proposition 2, By David Garner
Garner’s 4th Affirmative/ 2nd 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 1st and 2nd 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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
