Truth Magazine

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

By Larry Ray Hafley

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). The “preaching of the cross” testifies to the ugliness of sin and the beauty of forgiveness. It manifests the retribution of evil and the reward of righteousness (Acts 24:25; Rom. 2:6-11). It reveals the hatred of man and the love of God (Tit. 3:3-7). It is not an exaggeration to say that “the preaching of the cross” was prefigured in every lamb that bled from the smoking altars of Sinai unto the Lamb of God who shed his blood on Calvary’s hill. Every sin of every man, from Adam to you and me, demanded damnation and commanded the cross. The order for every offering ever made, from the sacrifices of Abel to Abraham, from Moses to Malachi, even that selfless, sacrificial surrender of the Son of God, was given by sin. The need for the cross was created by sin; the cross itself was the design of the grace of God; the message of it is love, mercy and peace. Without “the preaching of the cross,” we die in our sins, we perish. With it, by it, through it, we are saved. Truly, in the praise and prayer of that precious hymn, “Jesus, keep me near the cross.”

As noted in the first article of this series, there is a trend toward limiting “the preaching of the cross” to the death of Jesus. As I have been told, “Larry, preach the cross. It is the greatest love story ever told. Do not preach so much on baptism and the ‘right church,’ but bring people to the cross, to Christ, not to baptism. You ‘turn off’ a lot of people when you show what is wrong with the denominations. Preach more on love and grace and not so much on how ,right we are’ and how ‘wrong they are.'”

“The preaching of the cross” is too important and the issues of truth and righteousness are too valuable to waste time either to defend or offend a worthless worm like me. That is not the point or the purpose of these articles. The only thing worthy of defense is the gospel (Phil. 1:17). The power and glory, the might and majesty of the Son of God are everything.

That being understood, how, then, do we approach “the preaching of the cross” in order to avoid the reproach of men? “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Does this mean that if we fail, that if we “turn off” those who hear, that we have not followed the wisdom of the Lord’s admonition? No, keep reading, for immediately after that verse, Jesus said, “Beware of men: for they will deliver you up , . . and they will scourge you. . . . And ye shall be hated of all men . . . they (will) persecute you” (Matt. 10:17-23). Even though one may be perfectly right, he will be hated and persecuted – “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” (Matt. 10:25) Jesus was the world’s only perfect preacher, and they crucified him.

Our Lord’s life and labor, his mission and ministry, was that of repentance and redemption (Lk. 5:32; 19:10). Did he stray from that course when he reprimanded the Pharisees and told them “how wrong they were” (Matt. 15:1-14)? John the Baptist had a specific message (Jn. 1:6,7,23). Did he swerve and sway from his appointed purpose when he told Herod that it was not right for him to have his brother’s wife? John’s manner, method and message were all fairly harsh and severe (Matt. 3:1-12). Was he, therefore, unloving, untactful, rude and crude? Did he violate the terms of his prophetic purpose by his caustic condemnation of sin and sinners? Who will answer, “yes,” to the questions above?

Hence, Jesus and John spoke in a critical and condemnatory fashion, yet they did not violate the terms of their professed purpose. Both dealt with local and contemporary evils and errors, but neither violated their prophetic place. Therefore, may not gospel preachers today reveal and rebuke the doctrines and commandments of men, the trappings and traditions of denominational religion, and still be faithful to their sacred trust of preaching “Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2)? Paul answers that question like this, “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers . . . who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach. . . . This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith” (Tit. 1:9-13- NASB).

This is not a smooth transition. Nevertheless, we shall shift gears, even if we have to grind the clutch, as we consider:

What Philip Did Not Preach

“One of the seven” in Acts 6 was “Philip the evangelist.” His example, with the approval and approbation of heaven, will help us see what it means to preach the cross. In preaching the cross, did Philip preach baptism and the church, or did he limit himself to the ordeal of the cross itself and seek to lead men to a “personal relationship with Christ” rather than to an appointment in a baptistry? Let us see.

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5). “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:35-39).

First, from the text of Acts 8:5-39, let us note what Philip did not preach:

1. That sincerity alone will save. The people of Samaria were sincere. They sincerely believed that Simon the sorcerer was “the great power of God” (vv. 9-11). Philip’s miracles and message exposed their error (v. 6). Had Philip believed that, “It does not matter how you serve Deity, just so you trust in something larger than yourself, you will be alright, ” he would never have caused the Samaritans to receive the word of God (v. 14). He would have let them alone in their sincere ignorance if he had believed that sincerity alone will save.

Further, the eunuch of Ethiopia was a sincere, Bible reading man who had travelled a great distance “to worship” (v. 27). Philip knew, from the events of Stephen (Acts 6:10-8:4), what could happen to one who would dare to declare the truth of Old Testament prophecy! He could have left the eunuch and said, “We both love Jehovah and the prophets, so why risk antagonizing this sincere, spiritually minded fellow?” Yes, he could have, but he did not. Philip knew that sincerity alone will not save, thus, he did not preach, “Come to God, whatever you conceive him to be, just so you are sincere.”

2. That Holy Spirit baptism and tongues are for everyone. Pentecostal preachers use this passage to teach that Holy Spirit baptism and tongues are for everyone, but Philip did not do so. Holy Spirit baptism is not even mentioned in the text. Even Simon saw what Pentecostal people cannot or will not see, and that is “that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given” (v. 18). Philip worked miracles, but there is no evidence that he could transfer this power unto others (vv. 14-18). The apostles could do so (v. 18; cf. Rom. 1:11). Since there are no living apostles today, there is none who can impart miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Philip did not preach what Pentecostal preachers proclaim.

3. That baptism is sprinkling or pouring. Vv. 36-39 illustrate and demonstrate the “mode” of baptism that Philip preached. (A) “They came unto a certain water.” (B) “They went down both into the water.” (C) “They (came) up out of the water.” In conjunction with the meaning of the word and the rest of the New Testament, we know that Philip did not preach that sprinkling and pouring are “ways” to baptize people. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics and others teach that sprinkling and pouring are acceptable forms of baptism, but Philip did not.

4. That baptism is for infants. When the Samaritans believed Phillip’s preaching, “they were baptized, both men and women.” Did none of these women have babies? If so, why is the mention of infants so conspicuously absent, especially in view of the practice of Catholics and prominent Protestant religions? The Samaritans and the eunuch were baptized after, not before, they “believed.” Belief precedes baptism (Mk. 16:16). That fact alone bans and bars babes from baptism. Unlike Lutherans, Catholics and others, Philip did not preach that baptism is for infants.

5. That baptism is not a part of the gospel. Baptists have argued for years that “baptism is not a part of the gospel.” We know what Philip preached. He “preached Christ unto them” (v. 5). Did he preach that baptism is not a part of “the preaching of the cross”? To the eunuch, did he preach “unto him Jesus” and leave off baptism? No, for the very next verse says, “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Some say, “Just preach Christ and not baptism.” Well, all that Philip had preached was “Jesus.” After hearing Jesus preached, the eunuch knew about baptism and that it was to be performed in the element of water (not the Holy Spirit) and that he needed to be baptized. How did he know all of this since he had only heard “Jesus” preached? Could it be that inherent in preaching Jesus is the preaching of baptism (cf. Lk. 24:47; Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38)? At any rate, after hearing Jesus preached, the eunuch knew about baptism.

This is equivalent to a trio of cases. (A) Cornelius was to hear “words” whereby he and all his house would be saved (Acts 11:14). Peter said these “words” which were to save were “the word of the gospel” (Acts 15:7). Part of the “word of the gospel” which saved Cornelius was the command to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 10:48), and baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). If one preaches the cross, the gospel, he will preach faith (Acts 15:7), repentance (Acts 11:18) and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:48), so that people, like Cornelius can be saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:11).

(B) Saul was told “arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:6). A truly “God sent” gospel preacher told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Later, this same Saul, also known as the apostle Paul, said he had been saved by grace, not by works, and that “the preaching of the cross” was the power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:6). Acts 22:16 was included in that “preaching of the cross” that saved him.

(C) In Acts 16:30, a jailer inquired, “What must I do to be saved?” He was told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But he cannot believe on him of whom he has not heard, for “faith cometh by hearing” the word of God (Rom. 10: 14,17). So, in order that he might believe and be saved, “they spake unto him the word of the Lord” (Acts 16:32). What did they preach? They preached “the word of the Lord.” Someone says, “That is what you preachers in the church of Christ need to do. You need to preach ‘the word of the Lord’ and not baptism.” Well, they spoke the word of the Lord, and the very next verse says, “And he . . . was baptized.” How did the jailer learn about baptism? How did he know to be baptized at such an inconvenient hour (midnight – Acts 16:25,33). All he had heard was “the word of the Lord.” So, how did he know to be baptized? Could it be that baptism is a part of preaching “the word of the Lord”?

6. That one can do nothing to be saved. Primitive, Hardshell Baptists and other Calvinists teach that man has no part to play in his salvation, that salvation is “all of grace,” that is, unconditional. From vv. 12,36-38, it is obvious that Philip did not so teach. “Save yourselves” sounds heretical to some, but it is a part of the word of “the preaching of the cross” (Acts 2:40). “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8,9; Rev. 22:14; Acts 10:34,35). Philip preached that men should believe and be baptized, for that is what they did when he concluded his preaching of the Christ and his cross. Should we do any less today and call it “preaching Christ”? If we leave off the command to believe and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 10:48), can we say that we are preaching Christ as Philip did?

There are things that we cannot preach if we would preach Christ. There are some items that we dare not leave out if we would preach the cross of Christ. In an attempt to appear more trusting in grace, do not be deceived by those who would, however unintentionally, water down, weaken, corrupt and pervert the gospel. One does not truly glorify the blood of Christ when he speaks against any part of the covenant which is instituted and inaugurated.

(Next week, in our fourth installment of this series, we shall consider what Philip preached as he preached the cross.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 359-360
June 18, 1992

By Frank Jamerson

On “Prime Time Live” (Nov. 21, 1991), Diane Sawyer did a report on three prominent TV evangelists – W.V. Grant, Larry Lee and Robert Tilton. Here are some of the facts she reported about these men.

W.V. Grant

Sawyer and other reporters visited some of W.V. Grant’s faith healing services. They noticed that he and his associates mingled before services with some who were going to be asking for healing and made notes on their names and problems. Then, when Mr. Grant brought them on the stage, he gave the impression that the Lord had revealed to him their names and some of their problems.

One of his “cures” was for a man who was supposed to be crippled, only Mr. Grant obviously reached over the man and took the cane from the woman sitting next to him. When he told the man to rise and walk down the aisle, he did so obediently, though he later said that he never had any problem walking. His problem was a sore arm! Another woman, working with the TV investigators told his associates before the healing began that she had injured her back. He laid her on her back and the camera man got a clear picture of Grant making her leg “grow” by slipping the heel of her shoe! That is a magician’s trick of illusion, but he and the audience praised the Lord for a miracle!

On one of Grant’s shows, his associate said that they were supporting 3500 children and 64 orphanages in Haiti. One of the orphanages, they said, was operated by an old lady they called “Mommy.” Well, Diane visited Haiti and found the grave of “Mommy” who had been dead for five years. The two doctors running that orphanage said that Grant had sent no money to them. One orphanage in Haiti is run by Bob Jones. He has 17 orphans, and will make up a sign for any religious group to take a picture to be used to beg money. Bob said that Jim Baker “didn’t handle his scheme right,” or he would not be in prison. He explained to Diane that preachers would not get into trouble if they would send him what they raised, and then he could return 95% of it, or whatever percentage they wanted. Prime Time said that Grant had been raising about $350,000 per month to help the poor orphans in Haiti, and sending about two thousand.

Mr. Grant’s program brings in about six million a year. He lives in a million dollar mansion, paid $84,000 cash for a Mercedes and in 1990 bought his second Ferrari, which lists for $105,000. He sent out a fund raising letter claiming that he had to borrow $99 and he needed support badly!

Larry Lee

Larry Lee left an eleven thousand member church in Dallas to devote more time to his TV ministry. Larry gives out that he is such a great man that he converted a witch. Eric Prior, who was represented as being a pagan leader in San Francisco was presented as a “born again Christian.” Larry said that Eric had married his live-in girl friend since his conversion. Diane investigated and found that the marriage ceremony, which they televised, was not recorded because he is not divorced from his wife.

Larry made a trip to Auschwitz, Poland and claimed that he was building a church building on the site of the Nazi horror. The TV crew visited the site and found that a Polish Pentecostal church had begun the building two years ago and Larry only stayed there about an hour and had his picture taken. He did give them thirty thousand dollars, but that would have been only a fraction of the money he took in for that “great work.”

Larry told on his program that his house had burned, and they had lost their furniture and most of their clothes. He even took his viewers on a video trip through the burned house. It turns out that a house that they had been trying to sell for two years did burn, but he had lived in a mansion on a five and one tenth acre estate for six years. When this misrepresentation was pointed out to Larry, he actually tried to justify it to Sawyer by saying that there were no furnishings in the mansion where they lived. Sawyer then showed pictures of rooms filled with furniture, pictures, books, etc.

Robert Tilton

Robert Tilton is the biggest fund-raiser on TV today. His intake is estimated at $80 million per year. A business called “Response Media” handles his mailings and sends prayer cloths, miracle cords, holy water, etc., with fund raising letters written by ghost writers. The Response Media said that “new names is the key” to success. The more names they get, the more money they receive. His mail, with the returned prayer requests, etc., is sent to a bank in Tulsa. The Bank takes the money out of the envelopes and throws the rest in the trash.

Robert owns a 4.5 million dollar home in Santa Fe, Calif., with a four car garage for his Mercedes, a waterfront home in Ft. Lauderdale with a $132,000 boat moored beside it, and his ministry rents another Texas home for $6,000 per month. The assets of Robert Tilton, that they can document, are valued at sixty million dollars, and most of this comes from listeners who make fifteen to twenty-five thousand dollars a year!

Conclusion

Such conduct is so repulsive that it is difficult to believe, but if it were not true, Prime Time Live would be facing a tremendous law suit. Not only are these big-time promoters perverting Scripture, they are prostituting the good intentions of their supporters.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, pp. 353, 375
June 19, 1992

By Roger Jackson

Would someone please tell me what it takes to get these preachers to answer material? Brother Warnock completely ignored some crucial questions, then he made arguments I never made and answered them. Are you afraid to answer what I asked, brother Warnock or are you waiting for your last negative so I cannot respond? These brethren pull this trick all the time and then report how they beat the “liberals” in their overblown reports full of false information, like Wayne Greeson did. If my opponent had information I could not deal with or questions I could not answer I would either change my doctrine or let someone else do the debating. I suggest that brother Warnock do one or the other or that Mr. Editor select a man who will!

Why did brother Warnock not give us that passage that he said obligates the church to “some orphans”? Must I beg him? When he gives it he will concede the debate and he knows it. Do you expect us to surrender to you with a problem like this? Give us the passage that authorizes the church to obey the laws of the land and to sing. I couldn’t find that in your “negative.” Brother Warnock says the church may support a widow, but he did not tell us, (1) if a widow must have a home, (2) if her home would be an institution apart from the church, (3) when the church does this supporting would it be supporting an institution apart from the church doing the work of the church, (4) if this home is a human institution, (5) if it is a human institution what is the church doing giving to a human institution (giving for its upkeep) when you (Warnock) say such is a sin. Quit hiding brother and give us some answers.

Brother Warnock first argues that an individual obligation cannot be discharged collectively. Then explain Galatians 6:6 for us. Did your brethren pay you individually Sunday? Did they practice religion by proxy? You didn’t even get the point. When the apostles requested that Paul remember the poor he said that they said, “we should remember the poor” (emphasis mine, rj). Paul remembered them through churches. If the “we” in Galatians 2:10 can include “churches” why cannot the “we” of Galatians 6:10 include churches? I know why you won’t answer questions.

The only argument brother Warnock will have in this debate is that a passage that names a Christian duty and specifies the individual Christian excludes the church. If this is not your position please state it. I contend (1) the rule is false, and (2) no preacher of his persuasion will apply it consistently. A sample: Warnock reasons that since the passage says “himself” it cannot mean “church.” I never argued any differently and never tried to make “himself” a church. But the passage is just as specific with reference to the work (fatherless and orphans) as it is as to who is to do it (according to him). However, in Searching the Scriptures (Vol. XXVII, No. 4, p. 374), you said “fatherless and widows” meant “all in distress or trouble of any kind.” Now just suppose you tell us why you insist that you can’t get “church” into “himself” but you can get all the distressed people of the world into “fatherless and widows”? Reader, this is why we will not give into these false teachers and their hobby!

To answer your question on James 1:27, why would an individual Christian who is unrelated to a widow relieve one who is not a widow indeed, since a widow indeed is one who has no one who can or will care for her? What would he be doing caring for someone who has someone to care for her? All you have proven is that there is a distinction within a class. You have not addressed the point of the argument, viz., the equal relationship of the two works. How could you have answered this when you do not even understand it? Neither did Greeson and Thrasher understand it and then had the gall to report that I seemed confused. The confusion was at the other table!

Warnock says the Bible says nothing about giving to any home! Mr. Editor said he believed it and so did all of his staff writers, so he insisted on the words “institutional home” being in the proposition. What is going on here? Either you two are just as divided as we are, brother, or somebody is practicing deceit. If you do not believe a church can contribute to any home, why not discuss what you believe?

It is a lot easier to make your own arguments and answer them isn’t it? That is what you did instead of answering mine. I never made one argument on the definition of the term “to visit.” However, I cannot resist the opportunity to expose some of the most foolish and fanatic suggestions you will ever hear from a supposedly sane man. A man who demonstrates in the process how desperate he is to save his hobby. It is a desperate man who has to argue that a jail is an institution for visiting those in prison! Brother Warnock do you not know the difference between a jail (a penal institution) and a home (a benevolent institution)? Do you not know that neither churches nor individuals should support denominational hospitals because it would support error? Do you not know that the church cannot engage in secular business like a state hospital? You said so in the Guardian (Vol. XXXIV, No. 13, p. 7). I agree with you. Mr. Webster defines a hospital as a place where the sick or injured are cared for (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 553). in case of a natural disaster, like a tornado, the church where you preach could not allow its building to be used to assist the injured who are non-saints because of your hobby and it could not be used to assist the brethren because it would be operating a “church of Christ hospital,” Deny it if you dare! I certainly agree with your syllogism provided we understand “hospital” to be an institution built and maintained by brethren, operated purely for benevolence in conjunction with Mr. Webster’s definition. Now answer my syllogism.

Brother Warnock conceded my point that a home is just as much implied in James 1:27 as a place is in Hebrews 10:25. The rest he said is smoke. If he thinks a construction company is a benevolent institution like a home he needs more help than I can give him. This is the logic (?) that keeps his hobby alive.

Brother Warnock says a church can provide a house, food, clothing and whatever else orphans need. Can they make the house a little bigger and take in 2? How about 22? If the state required incorporation, could it comply with the law? Thank you, brother Warnock, you have just conceded everything in my proposition!

I did not define the church to include a meeting house. I said that is what our language does. He cannot answer what I say without changing it.

Brother Warnock stated that my syllogism is invalid. I challenge him to prove it or admit he does not know what he is talking about. Validity relates to form and means the conclusion is demanded whether true or false. There are six rules of validity. Produce the one it violates. If the syllogism is invalid so is his for he employed the same form! I do not think he knows the first thing about validity.

Brother Warnock is operating on the rule that when a passage commands an action and names the individual, it does not authorize the church to do anything. This rule can be shown to be inconsistent because he believes the church may obey all of these individually commanded passages (Gal. 6:6; 2 Jn. 9-11; Col. 3:17; Jude 3). But on the other hand, I insist there is a principle of Bible interpretation that is sound and consistent:

Major Premise: All passages which relate to peculiarly religious matters are passages which apply with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

Minor Premise: James 1:27 is a passage which relates to peculiarly religious matters.

Conclusion: Therefore, James 1:27 is a passage which applies with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

By “peculiarly religious matters” I mean those actions commanded of a Christian on the sole grounds that he is a Christian, not because he is a father (Eph. 6:4), or a provider (1 Tim. 5:8), or a laborer (Eph. 4:8), or a servant (Eph. 6:5), or a relative (1 Tim. 5:16). Find an action this principle violates or concede it. I gave five passages that your rule violates.

My argument on James 1:27 is the only part of the syllogism he challenged and is the only one I have to defend. I answered all of his objections and offer the above syllogism as further proof. Since James 1:27 relates equally to the church it proves the church has an obligation in child care. The church may provide a home for orphans since that is a basic need. The church cannot function as a home, hence must use the services of a home. The church may discharge this obligation by funds sent. This is all that is involved in my proposition. The syllogism is unquestionably valid, the premises are true, thus we have a sound argument and there is no answer to it.

In this debate already we have heard a man argue that a jail is a benevolent institution for visiting prisoners like a hospital is for visiting the sick. He has demonstrated that he does not know the difference between business enterprises like a construction company and a home for orphans. He does not seem to know what simple validity is, but thinks proving a premise wrong makes a syllogism invalid. He says the church has a responsibility to orphans, but will not give us the passage that assigns that responsibility. He practices 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, but because he is a destitute saint. He is so desperate to cover the fact that he cannot answer my argument on the function of episkeptomai in the sentence that is James 1:27 that he changed it to the definition of the word and then tore that straw man to pieces. He says you just cannot get the church into a passage that addresses the individual, but cannot explain the fact that he never practices Galatians 6:6 if that is true. He argues that the “we” of Galatians 2:10 does not exclude the church, but will say the “we” of Galatians 6: 10 excludes it. He is sure that you cannot get “churches” into the “himself” of James 1:27, but has no problem getting every distressed or troubled person in the word into “the fatherless and widows” in the same passage. He knows how to give to a church, but does not know how to give to a home. He is in a debate opposing church contributions to a home, but indicates often that he does not know what a home is, or when a contribution is made to it.

Kind reader, you tell me how in five short pages (length of my copy) a man can have this many inconsistencies and blunders and still expect people to believe he has the truth? They can make it look good until they give the other side a chance to reply. That is exactly what happened when Wayne Greeson wrote a “review” of my debate with Thomas Thrasher and filled it with total inaccuracies and misrepresentations and the editor would not allow me a defense. The truth is Thrasher did no better than brother Warnock has done and this is the best any of then can do. I plead with you to renounce this disgraceful false doctrine and stand for the truth (Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 335-336
June 4, 1992