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.
