Truth Magazine

By Weldon Warnock

It was refreshing to read brother Jackson’s third affirmative without his thrashing Thrasher or exprobating Mr. Editor. Brother Thrasher must have done a better job on Jackson in their debate than we are led to believe in Jackson’s affirmative.

No, Warnock is not in a bind! Brother Jackson is just dreaming. He has been trying to get me into a bind, but his cords are like the seven green withes with which Delilah bound Samson, easily broken as a piece of string when it touches the fire (Judg. 16:7,9).

The church, indeed, has an obligation to some orphans. I said this in the Guardian of Truth article to which brother Jackson alluded. But Jackson conveniently overlooked what I said in the article, “If there are orphans who are Christians, then the church may relieve their needs.” This statement was made in the context of whom the church may relieve, viz., needy saints. The local church is to provide for its own (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32; 6:1-3; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26, etc.), and if some of them happen to be orphans, then, by all means, the church is to help. These are the passages, brother Jackson. Furthermore, I stated in my first negative that the local church “has a responsibility toward orphans if they are needy saints, or the responsibility of needy saints.”

Brother Jackson is a good one to talk about orphans’ care when the institutional homes operated by the brethren (the kind of home in his proposition) won’t even take a homeless child that is under three years old, severely retarded, psychologically unstable or extremely physically handicapped. Friends, this is the kind of religion that these institutional homes are practicing.

I was falsely charged with citing Titus 3:1 to prove the church can obey the laws of the land. The brother must have blurred vision. I said no such thing! What I did say was, “The local church, the collectivity, in its God ordained functions is not subordinate to civil government.” In that context, I cited Titus 3:1 and stated, “If (if, brother Jackson) 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, etc.” I was not affirming that the church is in Titus 3:1, but rather the text is individual in nature. I then asked, “What about it brother Jackson?” He observed the passover.

In reference to singing, Jackson maintains that Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:26 are individual (outside of the assembly), but the church is in them. Brother Guy Woods said in regard to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, “this is corporate (congregational) action” (Spiritual Sword, July, 1990, p. 35). Brother Alan Highers, who quoted brother Woods, argued the same thing. Brother G.C. Brewer was also quoted by brother Highers as saying that the instruction in these verses “cannot be followed by a man when he is in solitary confinement or is otherwise alone.” But Jackson says it is also individual. Can you obey Ephesians 5:19 when you are alone, brother Jackson?

Since Jackson contends that a human organization may handle the visiting of orphans for churches in James 1:27, would he allow a Singing Saints Society to take care of the singing for churches in Ephesians 5:19? He cannot logically oppose a society for singing since he endorses a society for visiting orphans and widows in James 1:27. Why is a human society through which churches work permissible in James 1:27, but not acceptable in Ephesians 5:19?

James 1:27 is the thrust of this discussion. I maintain it is individual in scope and does not include the local church. Brother Jackson says it involves the church, but the church cannot visit the orphans and widows (except send money) as it is not a home, so he drags into James 1:27 an institutional home through which the church works. Is he forgetting that the Jerusalem church in Acts 6:1-6 took care of their widows without a board of directors and superintendent? They had more than two or 22, but the local church did it. They provided for their indigent widows, and we may do the same, such as providing money, a house, food, clothing, etc. The church provides me a house and it doesn’t need a Preacher’s Aid Society to do it. The first century church aided people, needy saints, and not “homes.” This is the way we may take care of the two or 22. Brother Jackson sees an institutional home through which the church takes care of its widows and orphans.

Observe in Jackson’s third affirmative how he totally ignored what I said about the “church’s widow” in 1 Timothy 5 and the “individual’s widow” in James 1:27. He can’t answer it topside, edge or bottom. The widow in 1 Timothy 5 whom the church is to help is a faithful saint who is destitute. She “trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day” (v. 5). This is the same widow in v. 16 the church is to relieve. But James 1:27 is a different situation. The widow in James 1:27 might be my neighbor who is not a faithful saint as mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:5. Jackson, does James 1:27 only authorize the church to care for the kind of widow in 1 Timothy 5:5?

Looking at James 1:27 more closely, it states that pure and undefiled religion also entails keeping oneself unspotted from the world. I suppose that some brethren could establish an institution through which the church may send money to help men and women to overcome the world. We could call it the “Holy Development Home.” It seems to me if the first part of James 1:27 demands a human institution, the last part would, too.

Brother Jackson does not like my diagram in my second negative because it does not have enough human organizations in it with their board of directors. Of course, that is easy to fix by just adding an “S” to organization in the diagram. This would just make more of the same. There is not a whisker of difference between having one organization and several as all of them are without Bible authority through which churches work. But brother Jackson wants to be well represented, so he says, “Bring on the boards.” One cannot do all of the works for the church, but several can, he surmises, This is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard in my 38 years of preaching.

We are having trouble getting brother Jackson to understand that “visit” also includes visiting those in prison (Matt. 25:43). Actually, he does not know what to do with my argument on “visiting those in prison,” except to say that a jail is not a benevolent institution. Yet, Jesus teaches us to “visit those in prison.” If the church may fulfill its duties through a human institution in visiting orphans and widows, why can’t it work through a human institution to visit those in prison? Common sense teaches us it may. Christians imprisoned in ancient times bad to be visited and fed (cf. Heb. 10:33-34). Thus, we could have a Prison Relief Society through which churches visit.

So, we have, following the logic of Jackson’s argument, an institutional home for widows and orphans, a hospital for the sick, a penal society for prisoners, a type of monastery for the prevention of worldliness, a singing society for praising God in song, and a church builder’s corporation for erecting meetinghouses, providing they don’t put them all under one board and the institutions are operated by members of the church. Friends, when we embrace institutionalism, there seems to be no stopping place, with the result being the church entangled in the parasitic barnacles of human institutions.

Brother Jackson, if a disaster occurred in the front of the Knollwood building, we would call 911. What would you do in Alabama?

We are told by Jackson that he approves church contributions to a charitable hospital. This is strange in light of the fact that he endorses churches contributing to the Bible departments of “our” colleges, although they charge tuition and several dollars for each credit hour. Why does the hospital have to be charitable, but the college doesn’t? Oh, consistency, where art thou!

Marvin Vincent has some interesting comments on James 1:27. He says, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction “(Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736). Jackson’s religion for the church in James 1:27 is done by proxy through mere money.

My brother still has difficulty with Galatians 6:6. It is so simple that I am baffled at his perplexity. Paul simply states that individuals are to give to support the gospel. Many do this directly to the preacher. But, in 2 Corinthians 11:8 and Philippians 4:15-16, churches support preachers. Surely this is not too difficult for brother Jackson to see.

Jackson declares he already knows about the grammar in Galatians 2:10, 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16. Then, apply it and quit stuggling to get collective action into “we” and “us.”

We must again pay our respect to Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism as to its soundness. He says I know “nothing about distribution.” Of course, Jackson thinks he does. A fellow doesn’t have to know much to see that Jackson’s syllogism is fallacious. Basically, his conclusion or consequence does not logically follow from his premises. He did not have institutional home in his premises, but he has it in his conclusion. He attempts to dodge this falsity by saying “the term ‘home’ is generic, referring to every type of home, and appears in three of five premises.” Therefore, Jackson has every type of home in his premises. Every type would be a house, relationship, family, business (as funeral home), county and state home, Baptist home, one’s country, and even the grave. (Wonder if the church could have a burial society?) In this, Jackson didn’t shoot himself in the foot, as he thought I did, but he got himself right between the eyes. He knocked himself out of the bout. Jackson’s syllogism allows the church to contribute to any and every kind of home.

In a conversation with a professor of logic at the University of Dayton, he told me the syllogism of Jackson’s was what is called in logic, “informal fallacy.” He said it contained a subtle shift of meaning from the premises to the consequence or conclusion. This is quite revealing. I have said all along that Jackson shifts and changes his usage of “home,” depending on what his immediate need is. You had better quit using syllogisms brother Jackson; they get you into trouble. Who was it Jackson said knew nothing about distribution?

Briefly, I need to notice what Jackson says about being a father is not a “peculiarly religious act.” He says it is not peculiarly religious if it is not based on religion. He gave an atheist as an example. He said, “Why even atheists are good fathers. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” But this would be true with visiting widows and orphans. We could say, “Why even atheists help orphans and widows. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” Again, Jackson has knocked the props out from under himself. He has now eliminated James 1:27 from being peculiarly religious! This is the trouble one gets into when he arbitrarily sets up his own rule for religious activity. A Christian who is being a good father is doing a religious act. Is Jackson trying to tell us that a man who provides for his own (1 Tim. 5:8) and brings his children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) is not practicing religion?

James MacKnight correctly stated in regard to caring for orphans, “These, when they proceed for a regard to the welfare of society are termed virtuous actions; but when done from a regard to the will of God, and to promote his glory, they become pious actions, and make a chief part of true religion.” The atheist may act virtuously, but the Christian father practices pure religion from a regard to the will of God and his glory.

Little children who are homeless need our love and care. Thank God for those who open their hearts to provide for homeless children. The issue with me it not about visiting orphans, but rather who is to do the visiting.

I am confident I have shown brother Jackson’s position to be unscripturally founded and patently false. Consequently, it must be rejected and repudiated. May the Lord help us to always walk in truth and right.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 342-344
June 4, 1992

By Weldon Warnock

We appreciate brother Jackson’s willingness to enter into this written exchange on the proposition he has set forth.

The issue between us is not whether orphans must have care, or whether institutional orphan homes have a right to exist, but rather may churches of Christ contribute from their treasuries, scripturally, to institutional orphan homes? This is the crux of the issue. This is what brother Jackson is affirming.

Brother Jackson contends that “when the church has an obligation that obligation may be commanded of the individual and carried out collectively.” He uses Galatians 2:10, 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 and Romans 15:26 as an example. But in Galatians 2:10, Paul simply stated that he was eager to comply with the request of the apostles at Jerusalem, viz., to remember the poor, which he did by ordering churches, such as in Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia, to contribute to poor saints. For Paul to have relieved his financial obligation to the poor through the action of several churches, of which he was not a member and to which he made no monetary gifts, would have been a blockbuster of practicing individual religion by proxy. Brother Jackson, is this the way you fulfill your individual obligations to the poor by just urging churches to give to them?

Brother Jackson asks, “Could an individual Christian fulfill his obligation (Jas. 1:27) to such a poor person the same way Paul did?” Do you mean by ordering churches to give to institutional orphanages? Where did Paul do this? He directed congregations for example, to raise and to send money to the poor saints in Jerusalem, and using Acts 11:27-30 as a precedent, the money would have been taken to the elders, not to a board of directors.

In brother Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism he failed to prove his premises, as I shall show, so his conclusion is false. His very first premise (A), not to mention some others, is erroneous and, therefore, his syllogism is invalid. He failed to prove that the local church has an obligation to orphans in general. Neither James 1:27, nor my isolated statement he lifted out of context from the Guardian of Truth, proves his contention. James 1:27 is individual action and not church (collective) action. The “himself” of the text is no more a church than the “branches” are churches in John 15:5. Both are individual in nature. Sectarians make “branches” churches and brother Jackson makes “himself” a church. Both are wrong.

Brother Jackson endeavors to make James 1:27 both local church action and individual action at the same time because, as he reasons, the church also has an obligation toward widows (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 6:1). Since “to visit” relates equally to the fatherless and widows, then the local church, he concludes, has a responsibility toward orphans. Therefore, James 1:27 is not exclusively individual.

Well, if James 1:27 shows the duty of a local church to widows and orphans, are the restrictions in 1 Timothy 5:16 to be applied to James 1:27? The church in 1 Timothy 5:16 is to relieve widows indeed and the individual in the chapter is to take care of his own (5:8,16). Making James 1:27 individual, which it is, permits and obligates the care of widows and orphans on a general basis. However, the church is restricted to widows indeed. Brother Jackson is confused between the “church’s widow” of 1 Timothy 5:16 and the “individual’s widow” of James 1:27. Please tell us if James 1:27 is limited to widows indeed?

We are told that brother Thomas Thrasher would not even mention this argument on James 1:27 in the debate brother Jackson had with him. If he wouldn’t, I have not only mentioned it, but answered it, so let’s see what brother Jackson can now do with it. The local church has a duty to certain widows (widows indeed), and in like manner it has a responsibility toward orphans if they are among the needy saints, or the responsibility of needy saints.

The thrust of brother Jackson’s argument is James 1:27. He insists the verse allows local churches to contribute to institutional homes because an orphan needs a home. (Notice in his article how he shifts back and forth on the use of “home.” He makes it a legal institution with a board of directors, a relationship and also a place. It becomes confusing.) The Bible says nothing about the church contributing out of its treasury to any home. The local church in the New Testament gave to needy saints. If we used biblical terminology, the matter of benevolence would become so much easier to understand. Churches of Christ gave to people – needy saints. Seems some like the word “home” in discussing this issue as they can shift gears from one meaning of home to another whenever it suits their purpose. (However, if we define giving to a destitute Christian to provide for his family as the same as giving to a home, then, by definition, we are giving to a home.)

Brother Jackson finds a human institutional orphanage in James 1:27 because it says “to visit the fatherless.” W.E. Vine states that the word episkeptomai (visit) signifies “to visit the sick and afflicted, Matthew 25:36,43; Jas. 1:27” (Vol. 4, p. 190). Whatever is authorized in James 1:27 is also authorized in Matthew 25:36,43. Hence, if James 1:27 authorizes churches of Christ to maintain orphanages, then it also authorizes institutional homes for widows. But Matthew 25 includes much more. Given brother Jackson’s interpretation of James 1:27, churches may also build and maintain hospitals for the sick as Jesus said, “visit the sick” (Matt. 25:36) and build jails because Jesus said “visit those in prison” (Matt. 25:43). Some brethren already have Church of Christ Hospitals and Church of Christ Medical Missions. Brother Jackson, may churches of Christ build and maintain hospitals (like the Catholics, Baptists and Methodists do) and jails? If they can build orphanages to visit orphans, why can’t they build hospitals to visit the sick? We await your answer.

Let’s try brother Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism on for size and see if it will allow churches of Christ to build and maintain hospitals from their treasuries. Following brother Jackson’s line of thinking:

If it is the case that:

A. A church of the Lord’s people has an obligation in the care of the sick.

B. The needs of the sick cannot be adequately met at times without hospital care.

C. The church, without any further organization, cannot function as a hospital.

D. The church may discharge some of its obligations by providing funds, and

E. The church may send funds to a hospital.

Then it is the case that: (by conjunction, A,B,C,D,E, F)

F. The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to a hospital.

How about it brother Jackson? Why doesn’t your syllogism authorize churches of Christ to build and maintain hospitals, and even contribute money to Baptist, Methodist, city, county and state hospitals?

Our brother equates a meeting place of the church with an institutional orphanage. But these are not parallel. Though a church cannot meet without a place, it has choice as to facilities – a church building, private dwelling, school auditorium, etc. An institutional home is not inferred. What brother Jackson needs in his argument on a place to assemble to parallel his position on a local church contributing to an institutional orphanage, which in turn provides a home for children, is a “Christian Builders Corporation.” Churches could contribute to the corporation and it would buy property and build meetinghouses all over the country.

Homes, with their board of directors, take care of “our” orphans and widows and the “Christian Builders Corporation” would take care of our building needs. Sounds like we have a “good” thing going here. Since a church is not a construction company, as it is not a home, it may subsidize a construction company to expedite erection of meetinghouses just as it contributes to benevolent organizations to care for orphans, widows, the infirm and the sick. This is following the reasoning of those who advocate contributions from churches to benevolent institutions.

Brother Jackson declares, “In carrying out the command to care for some widows (1 Tim. 5:16 – given after the fact), the church gathered many necessities (treasury) and gave it to widows daily (Acts 4:34,35; 6:1-6). ” Observe that he says the church “gave it to widows.” Amen! What he needs to find is where they gave it to a board of directors of some institutional home that could have been called “Haven of Rest Care Center” which institution in turn gave just a part of the money contributed by the church to the widows.

The church at Jerusalem chose seven men to handle the distribution of funds for the needy widows among them. The church had all the machinery necessary to carry out its duty of relieving their needs. If required, a local church may provide a house, food, clothing and whatever else is necessary for a widow’s upkeep (and orphans who are its responsibility).

Brother Jackson says giving to a home is “parallel to giving to a church.” He then makes a strange statement that the term “church” in our language “includes the building and the people who meet in it.” I thought the church were the redeemed people and not brick and mortar? When Jesus shed his blood to purchase the church, did this include a building? When God purposed the church, did he include a building? No one is contesting a meetinghouse, nor its upkeep, but let’s not define the church of God (1 Cor. 1:2) to include an earthly and mundane building.

We are accused by brother Jackson of wanting to include the institutional home in any debate we have on the care of orphans so that we can talk about abuses and hide behind them. He says, “However, I never debated a one of them who believed the church could make a contribution to a home of any kind. They wanted to include the institutional home so that they could talk about abuses and hide when the going got tough.” Although there are plenty of abuses in institutional orphanages to talk about, you may have observed that in this first round that I haven’t written about them. Therefore, if brother Jackson’s characterization of us is true, then my part of this written debate has so far been rather easy, because we “talk about abuses when the going gets tough.”

We are told in brother Jackson’s final paragraph that since his syllogism is unquestionably valid and the premises are true, the proposition is proven to be true. In response, I feel just as confident that I have shown that his syllogism is unquestionably invalid and that some of his premises are not true, therefore, his proposition is proven to be false.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 333-334
June 4, 1992

By Clarence W. Fell

If you have tried to discuss the state of the dead with a Jehovah’s Witness then no doubt you have had to deal with Ecclesiastes 9:5-10. They smoothly focus on a couple of phrases from the passage and ignore the rest. The phrases that they focus on – out of context – would seem to support their position that the dead are currently in a state of absolute unconsciousness. However, when considered in context the passage says nothing supportive of the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.

The key to understanding this passage is to keep in mind that it looks at death from the perspective of men still living on earth. Its purpose is to encourage man to live and enjoy life now, not some elusive tomorrow (vv. 7-9). This passage does not attempt to explain the spiritual state of the dead. Let’s look at Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 in context.

“But the dead know nothing” (v. 5). Let’s first consider a parallel passage to illustrate the importance of context. I Samuel 21:39, “the lad knew not anything.” This verse is from a passage in which Jonathan gives David a secret signal concerning Saul. To take the phrase out of context and say that the lad was in a state of total unconsciousness would be the ultimate display of ignorance. We realize immediately that the statement about the lad is limited by the context. Likewise, the statement is Ecclesiastes 9 is limited by the context. If “the dead know nothing” is an unconditional absolute truth, then why not also the other two thoughts presented in the same sentence? Let’s consider the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and see what Solomon was really trying to teach us.

“The dead . . . have no more reward” (v. 5). Not even the J.W.’s would say that this is an absolutely true, unconditional statement. Even in their twisted system the faithful dead have a future reward. Clearly Solomon was not looking into the spiritual realm, but rather into physical life on earth in which the dead no longer have a part. Their opportunity to acquire and enjoy material rewards is past.

“The dead . . . the memory of them is forgotten” (v. 5). Again, no one would claim that this is an absolutely true, unconditional statement. Though the majority of the dead are eventually forgotten, there are some famous people who will never be forgotten by the living, and certainly God does not forget anyone. Solomon was not looking at the spiritual state of the dead, but rather at what happens to the majority of mankind: they are forgotten by the living. This passage views death from the perspective of the living.

“The dead . . . nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun” (v. 6). This phrase is one that the J.W.’s will most certainly reject if interpreted as an unconditional, absolute truth. In their system of belief all the faithful (except the 144,000 who actually get to go to heaven) will enjoy eternity of earth under the sun. They absolutely .must accept this part of the passage as a limited statement or deny a major portion of their own teachings. This should help make clear to the J.W.’s that Solomon was not trying to explain the spiritual state of the dead. He is simply saying that after death man has nothing more to do with this physical realm. Solomon is encouraging us to live life now and do the things we desire now because after death it is too late. Now is the time to enjoy life (vv. 7-10).

“There is no work, or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going” (v. 10). Various people have looked into graves at one time or another and can testify to the truth of this statement. There is nothing in the grave but the inactive human remains. From the perspective of the living, the grave is the end of all activity. If God had not told us about life beyond the grave then we would have been powerless to learn anything about the spiritual realm. We would have looked into the grave and, with our limited five senses, concluded that death is the absolute end because we are powerless to see the spiritual realm.

In this passage Solomon is not explaining the spiritual state of the dead. If he was we must deny future reward because he said the dead “have no more reward.” Who would believe such a thing? Solomon is saying that now is the time to live and enjoy life. Now is the time to work, devise, think, act wisely and enjoy a successful life because after death the opportunities to acquire success are gone.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 357
June 18, 1992

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