Truth Magazine

By Roger Jackson

Brother Warnock is in a terrible bind! I knew that he had said too much for his own good when he said the church has an obligation to some orphans. He will not allow implicit authority for church support of orphans rejecting syllogisms with component parts and constituent elements in paragraph 4 and insisting on a direct statement in paragraph 2. They like to do this and then deny it. So the passage has to say “orphans,” “home,” and “church.” But the only passage in the Bible that says anything about orphans is James 1:27, and he says it does not authorize the church to do anything! That is why you can’t find the passage I asked him for – the one obligating the church to “some” orphans. Come clean brother, you don’t believe a word of it!

The only argument he has is that James 1:27 is addressed to the individual and therefore is exclusively individual. That is why he kept arguing about “himself” instead of what I argued about the construction. However, he cited Titus 3:1 to prove the church can obey the laws of the land. However, Titus 3:1 says, “Put them in mind. . . ” Brother Warnock, since when is “them” churches? How can you get the church into “them”? Does your James 1:27 rule not apply to Titus 3:1? Does it not apply to Ephesians 5:19’s “yourselves”? Tell us how you get the church into “yourselves” by your James 1:27 rule. Does your James 1:27 rule not apply to Colossians 3:16? Tell us how you get the church into “you,” “one another,” and “your.” Does your James 1:27 rule not apply to 1 Corinthians 14:26? Tell us how you get the church into “every one of you.” Or does your James 1:27 rule apply only to James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10? It looks like I was right when I said you brethren have a rule you will apply to only two passages. I believe the church is in every one of them, but you can’t and be consistent on your James 1:27 rule. I wish you had shown my principle wrong like I did yours instead of just saying you rejected it. I already knew that!

When brother Warnock cannot answer an argument he just changes it, creating a straw man, and tears it apart. Just try to find his answer to my construction argument on James 1:27. Happy hunting! He can answer it now since I do not have a response.

We have converted brother Warnock! He says the church can provide a house for 22 orphans. He also says the church can obey the laws of the land. In some states they would require that his house full of orphans be incorporated. He has a home with a board supported by the church with the only regulation being that it must be able to support it without any help from other congregations. Run that one by your third graders and even they can see you have lost this debate!

He says after I get the church into James 1:27 I then argue the church can’t do the work. Why, brother Warnock, the church’s work is “to visit,” i.e., benevolence. You are the one who has it operating a home with 22 orphans. Looks like we both agree another institution is necessary in the care of orphans. Did you put your 22 orphans in a church or a home? Welcome to my side of the issue!

Reading James 1:27 a la Warnock, it says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, for the individual Christian exclusively to visit every destitute person in the world and keep himself unspotted from the world.” However, Warnock would immediately violate his version by setting up an orphan home with 22 orphans in it and support it from the church treasury, allow it to form a board in compliance with the law and condemn others who do it as false teachers.

Warnock’s diagram is a false representation. I argue the right of the church to give to one work which employs a board not several works through one board. Please do not misrepresent me brother Warnock. Do you not believe the individual Christian may support an orphanage, widowage, or hospital? Does that mean the individual Christian can give to one board to do all of these for you? Quoting Warnock, “. . . a blockbuster of practicing individual religion by proxy.” Answer me without misrepresenting me.

I said brother Warnock was being deceptive when he said the church had a responsibility to some orphans. He cited that and I thought he was going to answer it, but instead he switched off and brought up an abuse but never gave an answer! Mike, this is exactly what I said he would do if “institutional” were included in the proposition. I am going to make a charge again because you have not answered it and I would like to see your answer in print. Brother Warnock does not believe the church can help an orphan because he is an orphan, but because he is a saint; hence his statement is pure deception. Why don’t you give us the passage (like you required of me) that says the church is responsible for some orphans? You can’t do it, can you? All that you could possibly do is give one that does not say the first thing about the church and orphans, but you have ruled that out rejecting syllogisms and such. Looks like we are in the same boat brother. We both have a church supported orphan home we say the Bible authorizes but only one passage that says anything about orphans – James 1:27. I have no trouble, but you do since you require “a passage” which has orphans, home and church in it and you reject James 1:27. You shot yourself in the foot brother!

My opponent continues to demonstrate his desperation by maintaining that a jail is a benevolent institution like a home, He had rather talk about hospitals, jails and widowages than orphans homes because he knows he has got one just like I have and every objection to mine scores equally against his. He referred to my “saints only” hospital, but in doing so again shows how he must change what I said to give any impression he is answering it because I said the owners must be Christians and the services free (benevolent). He switched to the patients. He scoffs at the idea that “the brethren’s hospitals” are not businesses. I know of one that is not. Mr. Webster also said a hospital could be, “1: a charitable institution for the needy, aged, young or infirmed” (Webster’s New Collegiate, p. 553). What if your 22 orphans, in your orphan home, got sick? Could you just treat them at home? Ever hear of a “field hospital”? A hospital may only be a place where medical care is administered, and every veteran knows it. Knollwood, to be consistent, would have to refuse to treat them since it would be operating a hospital. You never did deny that you could be forced to allow injured people to die in the streets during a natural disaster before you could allow them to be brought into your Knollwood building for treatment. If that is pure religion, you can have it. You’re hurting, brother Warnock, and we know it.

Brother Warnock says if the church has the same relationship to the government as the individual does then the church can do what the individual does. Bless your heart that is exactly what I have been trying to get you to see in the peculiarly religious point and now you have made my argument! The lights are on brother! When the individual and church share the same relationship to a work (done just because one is a Christian) what authorizes one to do it authorizes the other to do it. However, if it is special class legislation (to fathers, wives, servants, children, etc.) only the special class may do it. James 1:27 commands a work (visit) just because one is a Christian. May the church visit? May the individual visit? Who are the objects of this visiting? Orphans and widows! Reader, this is why he tried to get off on “himself” because he has some canned arguments on it but does not know what to do with “visit” as it relates to construction.

He does not believe the individual can discharge an obligation through the church, but lie cannot explain Galatians 6:6 in light of that law so he chose to misrepresent me again. He said the church paid him. But that did not fulfill Galatians 6:6. When are the brethren at Knollwood going to fulfill this individually addressed passage which you say cannot be fulfilled through the church? Talk about individual religion by proxy!

He says the “we” in Galatians 2 is Paul and Barnabas and gives a lesson in English to prove it. I already knew that. What I wanted to know is why the “we” went out and fulfilled that “we” command by using church treasuries? What does that do to your James 1:27 law? Is it not because the only passages you will apply your law to are James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10? It is a false doctrine that makes a special law for two passages. We have learned that it does not apply to Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, Titus 3:1 or 1 Corinthians 14:26. If the rule I go by is wrong show it like I have yours.

Weldon and Bullinger got “all kinds of afflicted” in “widows and orphans” so Weldon wants me to get “church” into “himself.” Have you forgotten, brother? You are the one who made that argument; my argument was on “visit” in the construction. However, I shall accommodate you by using the same process you did to get the church into the “them” of Titus 3:1. Just trot it out for us.

Weldon says James 1:27 does not allow the church to help orphans, but it is the only New Testament passage that mentions orphans. Since he requires that a passage mention orphans before it can be used to authorize support of orphans, what passage would he be forced to use to authorize the church’s obligation to “some orphans”? Right? James 1:27! That is why you cannot find the answer to my request for authority for his statement that the church is obligated to “some orphans.” He is hurting!

He says my syllogism is invalid because “institutional home” is undistributed in the premises. He obviously knows nothing about distribution. Copi says, “A proposition distributes a term if it refers to all members of the class designated by the term” (Copi, p. 183). The term “home” is generic, referring to every type of home, and appears in three of five premises. The syllogism is valid, the premises are true and the conclusion is demanded. We have a sound argument that proves the proposition.

Weldon finishes his insufficient negative with one last misrepresentation and an insult. He said attacking your opponent is a ploy used by denominationalists when they are being “taken to the cleaners.” If so, what does it indicate about Weldon Warnock now? Perhaps that is another rule that applies to everyone except Weldon Warnock.

Look at how he misrepresents me: He represented me correctly as saying being a good father is not peculiarly religious, then adds, “Since when is being a good father not a religious act?” Is that how you took me to the cleaners – by deliberately leaving out a word so you could answer the material? Shame on you! Reader, are you going to follow men who will do things like this? Why even atheists are good fathers. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious. Christian fathers are good fathers because of their relationship to the child and their relationship to God. I know of only one reason these brethren act as though they cannot understand that argument, viz., they can’t afford to understand it.

Readers, this is the best they can do! If this false doctrine they have in common could be defended Weldon Warnock would have done it. Can you honestly say brother Warnock has answered my material? I am satisfied you can and will see that he has not.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 340-341
June 4, 1992

By Ronnie J. Westmoreland

With the reading of such passages as Romans 4:3 (“For what saith the scriptures. Romans 11:4 (“But what saith the answer of God unto him? “) and other such Scriptures, it is easy to see why our attitude ought to be that of “give me the Bible” in everything and in every way.

It ought to be our longing and desire for two very basic reasons:

1. Because of what is accomplished by the Bible and only by the Bible. It is through the word of God (the Bible) that we learn of God’s plan for man in regard to salvation (Eph. 3:3,4; Jn. 17:17). When we read the truth as revealed unto man by God we learn that man needs God’s guidance in regard to all aspects of his life, including the salvation of his soul. It is the word of God that will give him the information he needs in order to accomplish this (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:18; 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:22). It is also through the word of God that the children of God are built-up and given an inheritance (Acts 20:32). It is easy to see that these things and many other such like things are found in the word of God, but what many fail or refuse to recognize is that they are not found elsewhere. Simply put you will not learn of salvation by reading Reader’s Digest or by watching the popular evening shows on television. It is any wonder why Paul told Timothy to study (2 Tim. 2:15)?

2. Because it is from God; it is God-given information (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is very easy to understand that the things God wanted us to know and the things that we need in order to be pleasing to him, he has provided through his word. It is also easy to understand that since it comes from God, it is without error and it is indestructible (Heb. 6:18; Tit. 1:2; Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:25; Isa. 40:8). Perhaps more importantly, it is by the word of God that we will be judged (Rev. 20:12; Jn. 12:48).

“Give me the Bible” ought to be our desire all of the time. However, many say “give me the Bible,” if or when it does not conflict with my feelings or experiences. In regard to the subject of salvation the Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Certainly no one would declare that, in order for one to be saved, feelings are not involved. The Bible very emphatically teaches that one must have faith (Heb. 11:6) in order to be pleasing to God. However, the Bible in no place teaches that feelings alone are any evidence of one’s salvation, neither is it an “experience of grace” that offers the correct evidence of pardon. One may ask, “When do we have evidence of pardon?” As Paul instructs in Romans 8:16,17, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified together.” It is when we have done those things that the word of God instructs us to do in order to render obedience and bring about the remission of our sins that we can know that we are the children of God. Regardless of “how we feel,” we are not a child of God until we hear (Rom. 10:17), believe (Heb. 11: 6), repent (Lk. 13:3,5), confess (Rom. 10:10), and are baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16; etc.).

Some will say give me the Bible as long as it does not conflict with my belief or practices, and yet the Bible says, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 8:24). Other passages such as Colossians 3:17, 2 John 9 and Matthew 28:18 teach us that we must have authority for the things that we do in work and worship. If we do not, we violate the commandments of God and therefore are not pleasing unto him because we have gone outside of his word. However, man oftentimes displays his disregard for God’s word by doing things that are contrary to his word. It is usually because man feel’s that what one does is not important as long as one is honest and sincere in what he does. Let me offer the following that appeared in the National and International Religious Report (Jan. 1, 1992). (I am not saying that all of the individuals that are members of these religious groups hold true to these statements; however this is what the spokesman in regard to their belief has proclaimed that they believe. If they do not hold to it, it is time for them to speak up or change their belief.) This report states, “A five volume Encyclopedia of Mormonism ($340) has been published by McMillan, edited by two Brigham Young University professors . . . The editors – Noel B. Reynolds (political science) and John W. Welch (law) – said their goal was to produce a scholarly comprehensive work designed to help both Mormons and non-Mormons understand the teachings and practices of the Mormon faith. However, there are some notable omissions in the encyclopedia, including details about ‘secret’ temple ceremonies that are closed to outsiders. These rites include proxy baptism for the dead and marriages of Mormon believers to deceased relatives. Both baptism and ‘celestial marriage’ are necessary steps for attaining godhood in the hereafter, Mormonism teaches.” The Bible very plainly teaches that we cannot add unto or take away from the word of God (Rev. 22:18,19; 2 Jn. 9; Deut. 4:2; etc.).

The report also stated, “The Church of England’s bishops apologized for past prejudice in the church toward homosexuals and said that lay Christians in loving and faithful samesex partnerships should be accepted by the community. “On page 7 is reported concerning the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America “Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith.” As its core, the document questions biblical passages concerning homosexuality and suggests that scriptural references to same-sex relations need to be re-interpreted in light of modern theories about sexual orientation. “We must distinguish between moral judgments regarding same-sex activity in biblical times and in our own time,” the report states. God’s word needs no up-dating because of modern times. It will endure forever and is meant for all eternity (1 Pet. 1:25).

The report also states, “Members of a 24-member United Methodist Church (UMC) panel could not agree on whether homosexuality is a sin. . . . The panel agreed that the biblical references to sexual practices should not be viewed as binding just because they are in the Bible.” Yet God’s word not only declares that such is sin, but those that do such things are “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:18-32) meaning that they will receive the wrath of God as long as they continue on that course.

Sad to say many brethren will say give me the Bible regarding the plan of salvation, the work and worship of the church, but not on the need of living the life of a Christian. “I want to hear the gospel preached and taught as long as I do have to be involved in bringing it about” is the silent declaration of many in the church today. “You can’t tell me how to live my life.” Perhaps to some degree that may be right, however God can and has! He also declared that one must live the life of a Christian in order to be pleasing to him and have the hope of heaven being their eternal abode (Gal. 2:20; Tit. 2:11,12; 2 Pet. 3: 11; Rev. 22:14; Acts 10:34,35).

It is easy to see that many times over men want the Bible, but they only want it if they feel that they can put conditions upon it or alter it in some manner to fit their own desires. It is also easy to see that we ought to say and must say (if heaven is to be our home), “Give me the Bible” – always, regardless and without reservations. We must learn to say, “Speak Lord and I will hear – command and I will obey” (and not just say, but do).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 355-356
June 18, 1992

By Mike Willis

In understanding the plea to restore the New Testament church one must first know what the New Testament church is. Some have belittled the idea of restoring the New Testament church by saying, “Which church of the New Testament do you wish to restore? The church at Jerusalem? Antioch? Corinth?” Here is how Rubel Shelly expressed it:

. . . What should the modern church be like? If you ask this question of members of churches of Christ someone will always reply, “The church today should be like the first century church we read about in the New Testament.” Sounds so simple. . . all we have to do . . . any body with one eye and half sense can go back and read what they were and did, set it down where you are . . . go back to our person to whom the question has been placed. . . you mean we should have open fornication and abuses of the Lord’s Supper like in Corinth? . . . (quoted in Behold The Pattern by Goebel Music 299).

Such a comment either has a total misconception of what restoring the Lord’s church means or it is intentionally dishonest for the sake of building prejudice against the restoration plea. The Lord will judge which is true.

We are quite willing to admit that the individual congregations of the New Testament were just as filled with imperfect people as are modern churches. We recognize the divisions at Corinth, the men at Thessalonica who quit work to await the Lord’s coming, the false teachers in the church at Ephesus, the Judaizers who worked among the Galatian churches, and other imperfections in the local congregations. The plea to restore the New Testament church does not ignore the sins committed by the Christians in these local congregations.

What Is The Church?

The word “church” (ekklesia) is used in three senses in the Scriptures: (a) The universal church which refers to all of the saved the world over (Matt. 16:18); (b) The local church which refers to the saved in a given locality who have bonded together to do the Lord’s work (1 Cor. 1:2); (c) The worship assembly (1 Cor. 14:4,5,12,19).

The church is composed only of Christians. Those who have believed the gospel and obeyed it (repenting, confessing Christ, and being baptized) are the only Christians the New Testament mentions (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 11:26). To speak of “Christians in all denominations” presupposes that men can become Christians in many different ways. To speak of the “unity of the church” to mean uniting “Christians in all denominations” is to speak the language of Ashdod, not the language of Scripture.

The Perfect Church

When the church was built by Christ (Matt. 16:18), it was built according to a divine blueprint. In the beginning, the New Testament church was taught just what the Lord revealed that it should be in its faith, doctrine, organization, government, unity, terms of fellowship, terms of admission, and worship.

Alexander Campbell wrote, “Had the founder of the Christian faith been defective in wisdom or benevolence, then his authority, his testimony, and his commandments, might be canvassed with as little ceremony as the discoveries and maxims of our compeers and contemporaries; then his religion might be improved, or reformed, or better adapted to existing circumstances. But as all Christians admit that he foresaw and anticipated all the events and revolutions in human history, and that the present state of things was as present to his mind as the circumstances that encompassed him in Judea, or in the judgment hall of Caiaphas; then he had wisdom and understanding perfectly adequate to institute, arrange, and adapt a system of things, suitable to all exigencies and emergencies of men and things, and that his philanthropy was not only unparalleled in the annals of the world, but absolutely perfect, and necessarily leading to, and resulting in, that institution of religion which was most beneficial to man in the present and future world. I say all these things being generally, if not universally agreed upon by all christians, then it follows, by the plainest and most certain consequence, that the institution of which he is the author and founder, can never be improved or reformed. The lives or conduct of his disciples may be reformed, but his religion cannot. The religion of Rome, or of England, or of Scotland may be reformed, but the religion of Jesus Christ never can. When we have found ourselves out of the way we may seek for the ancient paths, but we are rot at liberty to invent paths for our own feet. We should return to the Lord” (The Christian Baptist, revised by D. S. Burnet 133).

The New Testament church was indeed imperfect with reference to its members, but with reference to the following particulars it was perfect as it came from the hand of Jesus Christ:

1. Its faith. The faith of the New Testament church was faith in Jesus Christ. The church was built on the foundation confession that “thou art the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16-18). This is the foundation of the church and no other can be laid (1 Cor. 3:11). Will those who claim that there is no “pattern” for the New Testament also accept the position that there is no “pattern” for the foundation of the church?

2. Its doctrine. There is a divinely revealed body of doctrine for the church. It was called the “apostles’ doctrine” because the Lord promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them into all truth (Acts 2:42; Jn. 16:8). When this body of truth was revealed, the Lord added, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11). Paul warned, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). The doctrine of Christ was “once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) and departures from it are apostasies.

3. Its organization. The Lord revealed the organization of the church. He ordained that elders be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). The qualifications of these men are given in detail (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-9). Deacons also served the congregation (Phil. 1:1). Their qualifications likewise are revealed (1 Tim. 3:8-13). The New Testament reveals no aggregation of congregations into ecclesiastical structures with legislative authority or authority to do a “brotherhood” work.

4. Its government. The New Testament churches were locally autonomous. Elders were commanded to oversee the flock of God of which they were members (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). There was no grouping of churches together in one district to be overseen by a presiding bishop or priest, or even elders of a sponsoring church which functions on behalf of other churches and elderships.

5. Its unity. The early churches were united in Christ. The apostles would not tolerate a division of the church into Jewish churches and Gentiles churches; both were reconciled to God in one body (see Eph. 2:16). Threats to the unity of the church, whether external or internal, were opposed as the works of the devil (see the book of Galatians for the threat of the Judaizers for an example of external threat and the carnal brethren at Corinth for an example of an internal threat to the unity of the church.).

6. Its terms of fellowship. Fellowship was extended to any man judged to be in fellowship with Christ. Men were accepted into the fellowship of the local church when they obeyed the gospel and maintained that fellowship by persisting in obedience to the gospel. Faith in Christ and obedience to him were the only and sole tests of fellowship in the New Testament church.

7. Its terms of admission. Men were admitted into the New Testament church when they were saved from their sins (Acts 2:47). The Lord added the saved to his church. They were received into the local church when they had complied with the conditions of salvation.

8. Its worship. The New Testament church ” continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Singing was also a part of their corporate worship (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Heb. 2:12). Worship was conducted on the Lord’s day, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).

The Lord’s church is perfect in these particulars. God revealed a pattern to be followed in these areas and wherever departure from these patterns has occurred, a restoration of the primitive order is necessary.

By the plea to restore the apostolic church, we mean a clarion call for men to forsake their humanly devised worship, organization, terms of membership, etc. of their denominations and restore the New Testament pattern of faith and practice in all things.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 354, 374-375
June 18, 1992

By Weldon Warnock

After reading brother Jackson’s second affirmative, I wonder if he came to debate the issue or to browbeat Warnock? He employs the tactic of attacking your opponent, a ploy used by denominational preachers when they are being “taken to the cleaners” in a debate with a gospel preacher.

To keep our discussion in perspective, brother Jackson is affirming, “The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to an institutional home for orphans.” Thus far he has failed to find one single scripture that authorizes such. He won’t find a passage in his third affirmative either, because there is none.

It is interesting how my opponent goes about trying to establish authority for an institutional orphan’s home to receive money from the church. He labors hard to try to make James 1:27 “church action.” Then after he thinks he has gotten church action in the verse, he tells us the church can’t do what James 1:27 says, as it is not a home; so he pushes the church out and replaces it with an institutional home. You talk about stretching the word of God, ladies and gentlemen, that is it!

Reading James 1:27 ala Jackson, it says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, ‘For the institutional home to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep itself unspotted from the world.”‘ If brother Jackson would just take the verse for what it teaches that an individual Christian is to relieve orphans and widows and keep himself unspotted from the world, he wouldn’t need component parts, constituent elements and syllogisms to try to squeeze in the back door a benevolent institution. He says he never tried to make “himself” a church. What are you trying to make it?

Below is a diagram that sets forth clearly what is involved in brother Jackson’s proposition. He tells us that James 1:27 authorizes churches of Christ to subsidize a benevolent organization to provide for orphans.

If “visit” allows a church-supported orphanage, why does it not also allow a church-supported institution for widows, for the sick and for those in prison? W.E. Vine indicates that episkeptomai (visit) includes more than just orphans. As you can see from the chart, a board of directors, superintendent and helpers stand between the churches and the work done.

I am accused of practicing deception saying “the church may help orphans, when in reality he does not believe it can help any orphan on the basis of his being an orphan.” Brother Jackson’s arrangement is that local churches provide for orphans through institutional homes providing the orphans are not infants, not severely retarded and not grossly physically handicapped. Some years ago a six to eight weeks old baby girl was left on the steps of an orphanage operated by the brethren and the superintendent said, “The home is not equipped to care for children under three years old.” Brother Jackson’s operation makes James 1:27 a “pick and choose” religion.

Brother Jackson wants to know if I know the difference between a jail (penal institution) and a home (a benevolent institution)? Yes! The point is, however, does Jackson realize that if “visit” in James 1:27 can include a benevolent institution, it can include a penal institution in Matthew 25:43. If my opponent can’t see this, then I will have one of our third-graders who attends here at Knollwood explain it to him in my third negative.

We are finding out that brother Jackson does not oppose church-supported hospitals, providing they are operated by the brethren. He endorses a “saints only” hospital, while at the same time condemning the church contributing to a state or county hospital. There are people who are sick in the county hospital, too, brother Jackson, and in many places the hospitals are low on funds. They need equipment and supplies. Why won’t you help them? He says the church would be engaging in secular business if it gave money to such a hospital. The brethren’s hospital is not a secular business? Come on!

Mr. Webster defines hospital as “an institution where the ill or injured may receive medical, surgical, or psychiatric treatment, nursing, food and lodging, etc. during illness” (New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Second Edition). It is not just a place but an institution. This is what Jackson says that churches of Christ can maintain out of their treasuries. If a tornado hit in the area where brother Jackson preaches, the church there could not assist the injured in its building because the church is not a hospital, but it would have to set up a human institution to do the work and the church merely fund it.

Jackson’s hobby that he rides (he has a hobbyhorse) is that the church provides the money for benevolent care through human institutions. You see, friends, there is no bigger hobbyist, by the very definition of the word, than Roger Jackson. He throws around the terms “hobby” and “hobbyist” for the same reason Baptist preachers use “Campbellite,” to prejudice the minds of people. Brother Jackson, define “hobbyist,” using Webster, that includes me but excludes you.

We are asked to give the passage that authorizes the church to obey the laws of the land and to sing. The local church, the collectivity, in its God ordained functions is not subordinate to civil government. However, in fulfilling some of its obligations, there are incidentals and expediencies, like erecting a meetinghouse. In this area certain governmental codes would have to be met. But this is true of the electric ‘ gas, phone and water companies. Though we are not subordinate to utility companies, in the area of incidentals there are at times regulations we have to meet.

In Titus 3:1 Paul wrote, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” If the church has the same relationship the individual does to government, then the church could “be ready to every good work” (civic works), like having a voluntary fire committee for the community, a committee to handle blood donors, relief of war victims, city clean-up committee, etc., all under the elders of the church. What about it brother Jackson? As to singing I suggest Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:26.

Our brother wants to know if an individual obligation cannot be discharged collectively, then explain Galatians 6:6. He says, “Did your brethren pay you individually Sunday?” Galatians 6:6 has to do with individuals supporting preachers and if individuals arc to support preachers, then the church can’t, Jackson reasons. The truth is that both the individual and the church do it. The church paid me Sunday as the church or churches paid Paul (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). We will let the readers decide who is not getting the point.

Galatians 2:10 is reintroduced and brother Jackson asks, “If the ‘we’ of Galatians 2:10 can include ‘churches’ why cannot the ‘we’ in Galatians 6:10 include churches?” The 64we” in Galatians 2:10 is Paul and Barnabas. The “we” in Galatians 6:10 is individuals. The local church is not in either “we.” In grammar the pronoun is plural if the individuals of the group act as individuals. A pronoun which refers to a collective noun is singular if the group acts as a unit. In Galatians 6:10 it is “we” and “us,” individual acting. In 1 Timothy 5:16 the action is a unit – “that it (church) may relieve them that are widows indeed.” Simple, isn’t it?

Brother Jackson wants to know how I can get all the distressed people into “fatherless and widows” in James 1:27, but can’t get “church” into “himself” in the passage. The article to which he refers was a question about widowers; do widowers come within the purview of James 1:27? Here in part is what I wrote: “Actually, James 1:27 is a synecdoche, a figure of speech where the part is put for the whole. . . . E.W. Bullinger states that ‘widows and fatherless are put for all kinds of afflicted.”‘ Now, let’s see you get “church” in “himself.”

My opponent does not know what to do with the widows in James 1:27. If he applies the stipulations of 1 Timothy 5, he limits James 1:27 to saints because the widow indeed is one who is not only desolate, but trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayer night and day (1 Tim. 5:5; cf. v. 16). Brother Jackson, does James 1:27 include alien sinners? May the church help widows who are not Christians, based on James 1:27? Again, may I say that Jackson confuses “church’s widows” of 1 Timothy 5 with “individual’s widows” of James 1:27. James 1:27 would allow me to help any widow (friend, neighbor), but it does not allow the church to help out of its treasury. The church helps widows who are destitute and faithful to the Lord.

I can’t do anything about it if brother Jackson doesn’t like what I said about the word “home.” Obviously, he likes the word because it permits him to jump around from one meaning to another when it is convenient. He says, “If you do not believe a church can contribute to any home, why not discuss what you believe?” I am discussing what I believe in the negative of this debate. You agreed to the proposition you are affirming. If you don’t like it, then don’t debate it any more. The first century church helped saints; not homes.

No, I did not concede your point that “home” is implied in James 1:27 as “place” is implied in Hebrews 10:25. I did mention that brother Jackson’s position would permit a “Christian Builder’s Corporation” through which churches could build meeting houses. Of course, the board of directors would be members of the church brother Jackson and the corporation would be non-profit. You would go along with that, wouldn’t you? You did the hospital. Seemingly, brother Jackson loves human institutions through which the church may work.

In regard to a church providing a house, food, clothing for widows and orphans, he wants to know if they can make the house a little bigger and take in two? Then, 22? Yes, if they are the local church’s responsibility. But if we began taking them in from every place, we would be irresponsible and would have to start begging to provide for our magnified ambitions. Brother Jackson, is it acceptable to you for a church to take on a work it can’t pay for and then start bumming in order to meet the expenses?

Concerning his modus ponens syllogism, he wants me to prove it is invalid since I said it was invalid. Let me say that I was using the term “invalid” as it is commonly used. Certainly the word “validity” in logic does not convey the same meaning as “validity” in ordinary discourse. The ordinary usage encompasses both form and content while the technical usage is restricted to form alone.

But there is a rule that his syllogism violated, which rule is necessary for a valid syllogism, and that is: No term can be distributed in the conclusion which was not distributed in the premises. In his conclusion he injects “institutional home,” which is not found in his premises.

Brother Jackson introduces another syllogism in his second affirmative. He arbitrarily states his major premise. This is his homemade rule that he endeavors to foist upon us. I don’t accept your rule, brother. He can throw into his minor premise whatever he chooses and then rear back and declare in his conclusion that I have proven my proposition. Pretty handy, eh?

To try to squirm out of a difficulty, he eliminates being a father, provider, laborer, etc. as peculiarly religious acts. Since when is being a good father not a religious act? The laborer in Ephesians 4:28 has become a new man in verse 24. He works with his hands in order to give to him that needeth. This passage has nothing to do with religion? Who is Jackson kidding? We have as much right to put Ephesians 4:28 in Jackson’s minor premise as he does to put James 1:27 there.

In the closing segment of brother Jackson’s article, he chews his cud” again because he was afraid he had not told you enough times how inefficient Warnock was in his first negative. He seems to think that if he repeats it over and over you might, just might, believe it. We will leave it with you, the reader, as to who is weak, deceptive, evasive and inconsistent.

He wants to know how a man can have as many inconsistencies and blunders in five short pages and still expect people to believe he has the truth? Well, brother Jackson, you ought to know, if any man does, because you have had a lot of practice in working at it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 337-339
June 4, 1992