Robert Waters to the list,
In Don's opening remarks he stated the following:
"Don Martin with my second reply to Robert Water's second post relative to defending privately funded foundations, having a board of directors, President, treasury, in and through which Christians corporately preach the gospel outside the local church milieu:"
rw: Let us not forget that part of the issue we are studying has to do with SCHOOLS teaching God's word. Is there some reason that Don now seems to only want to debate "privately funded foundations?" From reading between the lines of Don's writings over the years, relative to FC and GOT, it seems to me that his main concern is over what some of them TEACH, particularly GOT faculty. And so he attacked their structure or foundation (no pun intended) by saying they are unscriptural. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not judging motives here. There is nothing wrong with seeing what appears to be an evil (at least in one mind) and then looking to the scriptures to find where that perceived evil might be condemned. But Don is mixing apples and oranges. He is applying scripture to condemn FC and GOT that only applies to the church. He says they are unscriptural and demands authority for their existence, which is something I believe is imprudent because it is divisive.
In my first article, I stated that Col 3:17 applies to churches rather than human organizations or individuals. I explained that the text teaches that churches must give book, chapter, and verse for what they do. In Don's first reply it appeared that he evaded the argument, but in his second reply it appeared that he answered by saying it applies to individuals, although he could have been more clear. Keep in mind that the epistle was written to a church and the context indicates that congregational action is under consideration. The previous verse is about an act of worship singing. Of course a church is made up of individuals and therefore individuals have to hear the command and follow it. Nevertheless, the text is applicable to the church rather than individuals. We as conservatives have always argued that the church has to have authority for all it does, and we have rightly applied Col 3:17 in teaching it. But now Don is doing like some of our liberal brethren have done with James 3:27, but in reverse order. The book of James was not written to a church and the context clearly indicates individual action.
Don has said that I don't understand authority how to establish it etc. but I think I do. I think Don does too but he is in a corner now. He has condemned something by saying it is not authorized. I showed that it does not have to be authorized. I showed all we have to worry about, as far as authority is concerned, is what the church does. I used Col 3:17 as the text that teaches that the church must have authority for what it does. What else could he do, if he is going to continue to try to uphold his position in this debate, other than take the position that he has taken? We all want to know the truth about FC and GOT, as to whether they have a right to exist and function, just like we want to know the truth about who has a right to marry. Well, it seems to me that the key to understanding it is in understanding what Paul said, as recorded in Col 3:17. We can argue about false doctrines that men at FC and GOT teach, we can argue about the influence they exert and we can argue whether or not a Christian ought to be involved in these organizations; but whether they are right or wrong boils down to whether Col 3:17 is directed to individuals or churches. Don says the text is directed to individuals. If he has actually done that he has given up the idea that the FC and GOT are wrong because they are not authorized (the text would then not apply to organizations), which was a major part of this discussion. All I lack now is to convince Don that individuals Christians are not wrong to use FC or GOT or to be a part of it.
It seems Don has drawn the conclusion he has drawn about FC and GOT mainly because of the teaching some of the staff have done that relates to MDR, which is not exactly as he thinks it ought to be. (He thinks some are teaching things that result in people committing adultery, which will cause them to go to hell. I think they see that Don's doctrine, which punishes innocent persons that are legally divorced, as being contrary to the justice of God and, maybe even Paul's statements about "forbidding to marry" as well as the command to "let them marry.") Well, if that is enough to condemn these organizations then it is enough for me to condemn Don's web site. I read where he tells people who have no marriage that they must remain celibate. That really raises my blood temperature because I know that what he teaches is contrary to the scriptures. I know what Jesus really said and I know that Paul's teaching not only allows divorced people to marry, but that he also directed any who would object to "let them marry." And, by the way, I don't think the fact that one learns the truth, on the matter of who has a right to a marriage, and changes his belief, means he is no longer a conservative. As I said in my last post, Don is mixed up a bit -- he confuses the word "conservative" with "tradition." To him if one deviates from tradition (his particular way of thinking or believing) then he is no longer conservative. Don does not seem to entertain the idea that he could be wrong on some things. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I sincerely hope I am.
Let us get back to the matter of whether individuals have to have authority for all they do. I'm not going to list a bunch of examples; I'm just going to illustrate it this way:
Our brethren don't make a practice of asking individuals Christians to provide authority for the things they do outside of the congregation. However, if they question something that one does they look for scripture that condemns it. Don has deviated from the norm by first asking for authority for FC and GOT to exist, and then, after he sees that he is off base, he changes his argument -- applying Col 3:17 to INDIVIDUALS rather than individuals AND organizations. Bottom line: we ask for authority only when CHURCH ACTION is involved. If Don is right in his contention that FC and GOT are unscriptural then we must start looking closely into the lives of individuals and asking them to provide book, chapter, and verse for anything we might question as not being "authorized" in the scripture. How ridiculous!
Don comments:
I had thought that Robert would do a better job defending a subject detached from the emotional doctrine that has come to epitomize Robert, the doctrine that in some situations, all men have a right to marriage, even the guilty put away. However, I am observing the same thought pattern. I, again, give Robert credit for defending what he believes, more than I can say regarding many today (I Pet. 3: 15).
rw: I don't know what Don thinks my "thought pattern" reflects, but I know that I diligently endeavor to follow good hermeneutics in my study of God's word. I believe I have done that in this debate and I believe I have done that, at least recently (the last 8 years, after my last change), on the MDR issue. I appreciate what Don said about me (above) but I cannot return the compliment at this time because Don has refused to defend his teaching on MDR and now any excuse he might offer for not doing so will be seen as just that, an excuse.
Don continues:
"
To attempt to have such foundations based on the silence of the scriptures (we do not read, "thou salt not have them") is not allowed (cp. Heb. 7: 14). In short, such foundations are without Bible authority and, as being discussed, have no right to exist. A parallel would be music. The scriptures authorize and specify vocal music (cp. Eph. 5: 19). It is agreed that there is no, "Thou salt not use mechanical music such as the piano." However, to attempt to have a piano in the worship of God based on the silence of the scriptures is not allowed (cp. Heb. 7: 14)."
rw: Don's argument (above) clearly condemns churches setting up organizations to do their work, and I have no problem with his argument. A church has no authority for such things, just as it has no authority to add mechanical music. The silence of the scriptures will not allow a CHURCH to build a human organization to do its work or to help carry out its work. But again, the text that Don uses (now after I have noted that it is THE text requiring authority) does not help him.
Don continues:
Robert wrote:
Don questioned whether I am qualified to debate him on this issue. I'm sure that Mike Willis would be more qualified than I (if he thought it necessary to debate) but he is not a conservative either, according to Don's definition of the word, because he does not believe the same as Don on MDR.
Don comments:
I shall not be deflected from the subject at hand to another. However, it is true that I do not view Mike Willis as conservative, at least not regarding divorcement.
rw: Don, if Mike is right regarding his view on MDR would he still be a liberal? If you were to come to realize that Mike is not wrong you would also come to realize that he is still a conservative. By your saying he is not a conservative because of his teaching on MDR you really mean he deviated from our (human) tradition. I think you are wrong on MDR but that does not make you a liberal. You are a conservative, defined as: "In favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change." Well, in view of the definition I just gave I can see how you could view someone who bucks tradition as being liberal. Nevertheless, it is not expedient to use such labels.
Don continues:
Mike teaches multiple causes and that one can divorce for causes other than fornication (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). This is not simply a matter of "...not believe the same as Don on MDR."
rw: Don, you are guilty of forbidding persons who have no marriage from having a marriage, which is clearly contrary to Paul's teachings (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 1 Cor 7:1,2; 7,8; 27,28). You are guilty of misinterpreting Jesus' words and teaching something that has Him changing the Law (that allowed divorced persons to marry) and breaking it, after He promised that the Law would not change till after the cross (Matt. 5:17-19). If I am right, and I am confident that I am, would I be right to conclude that you are not a a conservative? No, you are just wrong in seeking to maintain tradition as if it is authority from God.
Don continues:
It appears that Robert has reduced his argumentation to two areas: Robert contends that privately funded foundations that are designed to provide Christians with the means to corporately preach the gospel are allowed because they do not have to have authority for their existence, only the church is under authority (Col. 3: 17). His second area of thrust is the school of Tyrannus, seeing in the fact that Paul used the school in which to debate proof for privately funded orders such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation.
rw: Don is right about the points I have determined to press. Regarding the school, which is one thing that Don seeks to condemn with the scriptures, I have shown that God has no problem with schools. In fact, we know that God does approve of them being used in contending for the word of God and that much good can come from it. Don, however, has a problem with schools. He tells us that if a school or foundation has a board of directors (and virtually all do) and is privately funded by Christians then it is UNSCRIPTURAL, but what passage has he used to prove it? We don't know whether or not the school Paul used had a board of directors, nor do we know how it was funded. God did not tell us. Thus, it is apparent that Don is seeking to condemn FC and GOT by the scriptures simply because he does not like something about them.
Don continues:
Robert charged:
Don is wrong in his efforts to use the Bible to condemn schools and foundations. I acknowledge that some of his observations are valid, but they do not prove his point that the organizations themselves are condemned by the scriptures.
Don comments:
Again, the issue is foundations, etc. in and through which Christians pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel.
Robert wrote particularly regarding Florida College, Truth Magazine, and the Guardian of Truth Foundation as follows:
"Nevertheless, I defend their right to exist because God's word does not condemn them and the 'silence of the scriptures' argument does not apply to them. In fact, in my original article I showed scripture that proves that organizations, secular schools in particular, may be used in promoting the gospel."
Don replies:
The New Testament specifies how God intends Christians to corporately function and that is through the local church, having structure, oversight, and treasury. In view of total absence regarding any other organization preaching the gospel, to have such entities as being discussed for the preaching of the gospel is without authority and rejects the arrangement of the local church (cp. Acts 13: 1f.). The preaching of the gospel is not to be overseen by a board of directors or President of some foundation. The preaching of the gospel is not to be financed by the foundation of a human society. It is the church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth," not man-made foundations.
rw: Once again, Don is appealing to authority from the scriptures, but we have demonstrated that the need for Bible authority applies to churches -- not individuals or organizations.
Robert asserts:
The real issue is: "What may a local church do with its funds -- may it support human organizations to do the work that God has assigned it to do?"
Don replies:
We are not debating what a church may do with its funds, but rather do men-made foundations have the right to provide the climate in and through which Christians pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel.
rw: Once again, Don's problem is with human organizations, but we have seen that such organizations may be used by individual Christians to teach the gospel. While it is true that we are not debating what a church may do with its funds, it is a matter of importance to what we are discussing. My main reason for debating what a human organization may do, or whether it has a right to exist, is because Don seeks to use the scriptures to teach something that is needlessly divisive and therefore detrimental to the welfare of my Lord's church.
Don continues:
Robert reasoned:
We all know we must have book, chapter, and verse for what a church does. When Paul wrote to the church at Colossi he said, "Whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord." This was written to a CHURCH, Don. It was not written to an individual or a human institution. My opponent evidently has not accepted the fact that he is requiring proof for a human organization to exist, by demanding book, chapter, and verse (authority) when God does not require it. Unless Don can provide a passage that shows that human institutions are required to give book, chapter, and verse for their practices he may as well give up this debate and cease his efforts to castigate and expel from fellowship in the church those who he has publicly condemned.
Don observes:
Here is an example of the dialectic protocol, if you will, of Robert and the proponents of such foundations. I repeat, Christians are taught how to corporately preach the gospel and that is in and through the local church (I Tim. 3: 15). To provide any other arrangement such as human foundations to perform the work assigned to the local church constitutes an aberration or deviation from what is specified in the scriptures. I cannot follow Robert's logic in the immediately above because it is systemically flawed.
rw: Indeed, the church has the responsibility to preach the gospel, and such is accomplished by individuals as they are sent to preach by the church. And if the church were to set up an organization, or send money to one to do its work, I believe it would be unscriptural to do so. So Don and I are in agreement to a point. Where we differ is when he tries to force the scriptures to back up his contention that a human organization designed to do a part of what is assigned to the church by God, is wrong simply because it is not authorized in the scripture. The real problem he has is that Paul used a SCHOOL and God never gave any indication that a school would be wrong to use in SOME cases, such as how it was set up or what others in the school might teach.
Don continues:
Robert stated:
Indeed, the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth," and so Christians are never to forget this fact but are to make the local church a part of their lives and work through it in doing what God designed it to do.
It appears Robert has switched over to my position. Robert's reasoning reminds me of many denominationalists who say, "I agree the New Testament teaches and exemplifies vocal music, but there is nothing wrong with the piano." The problem is lack of understanding regarding Bible authority, how it is established, applied, and executed.
rw: I simply recognize that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Thus, I believe that we should not think that the answer to our reaching people with the word of God is to set up human organizations. Yet I have not switched over to Don's position. I do not think that the passage noted above supports Don's contention.
Robert continues:
Brethren, so far Don has ignored the real issue, which is the fact that colleges and foundations are not churches.
Don considers:
Here we go again. The thing wrong with the Guardian of Truth Foundation having "gospel meetings" in which to corporately preach the gospel to the lost and edify the saved is the fact that it is not a local church, but an anomaly, a man-made order, having its own man-made oversight, etc. Brethren argue that their foundations can do what they want to do, "since they are not the church."
rw: Ok, so you don't like how they are set up. Well, criticize them, withhold your support from them and tell others they need to do the same. Show the evil of their ways, if you can, but give up trying to show that they are unscriptural and that those involved are sinning.
Don continues:
They can and often do have known false teachers speak at their services. They engage in false practices relative to fellowship. Yet, when challenged, "We are not the church...." I think this is one reason God has specified the local church and man does not have the right to his versions or church anomalies.
rw: Don, they gave you a good reason for you to quit dealing with them as if they were a church that needs to justify by their existence and what they do by BCV. You should have listened. Instead, you tell them (and everyone who will listen) that they have no "right" to exist and that they are engaging in unscriptural action.
Robert makes the point:
Once again, I want to stress a point here. Don demands that schools and foundations that teach the gospel provide book, chapter, and verse for their existence. Yet it is obvious to us all that scriptures do not require human organizations to justify their existence or to show that what they do is authorized in the Bible. Churches must have authority for what they do, but when God is speaking to churches, as in Col 3:17, he is not speaking to human organizations or individuals.
Don replies:
More precisely, Christians are to have book, chapter, and verse for what they do. They have such in corporately preaching the gospel in and through the local church (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13: 1f.). However, they do not possess book, chapter, and verse for setting up foundations, etc. in and through which to corporately preach the gospel. Simple, isn't it?
rw: Don can word it any way he wants but he cannot change the fact that it is the CHURCH that has to have authority for what it does, not individuals as they go about their daily lives. We need to be moral and follow the guidance of the scriptures, but we don't have to give BCV for all we do.
If a group of Christians start a school or set up a foundation to do something that the church is authorized to do, that just means it is getting done in a different way. Paul talked about men who were insincere in their preaching and even had an evil motive, yet he said:
(Phi 1:18) "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
So we can conclude from this that God is not concerned about the gospel being preached by someone who is not even a true Christian. Yet Don seeks to condemn Christians who are sincere in their efforts to spread the boarders of the kingdom through means that they see to be effective, and which the scriptures in no way condemn.
Don continues:
Concerning Paul debating in the school of Tyrannus, Robert said:
"My point was that we now have a Bible example (after Paul used one) showing that individuals may use a human organization to promote the gospel. The text gives us no information as to how the school was set up or funded, nor does it give any detail as to the stipulations that Paul was under when he used the facilities."
Don considers:
I have pointed out that Paul's use of the school in Acts 19: 9, 10 does not contain an example of Christians corporately preaching the gospel in and through a human organization. The proponents of privately funded orders to preach the gospel are reaching, indeed, when they site, as does Robert, Paul using the school of Tyrannus. All I see in this is that Paul used the material facilities of the school in which to meet and debate.
rw: Now, if the "facilities" (a room) were all that God intended us to see why mention the SCHOOL at all? Why not just say that Paul rented a facility or building, or was allowed to use one, and experienced much success? Indeed, there is no mention of the structure of the organization or of any stipulations that were placed upon Paul, but we do not know there was not such. We just know he used a school, which means God has no problem with our using schools to preach - ANY SCHOOL. And, if schools are not wrong then a member, or members, of the church are not wrong if they set one up and use it.
Don continues:
In the previous verse, we are told that Paul regularly met in the synagogue. Will Robert say, based on Acts 19: 8 that "...individuals may use a human organization to promote the gospel"? What does Robert mean by "use"? Yes, Paul used the building in which the Jews met; yes, Paul used the school or the building belonging to Tyrannus. How can such authorize the formation of foundations set up to allow Christians to pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel, foundations having their own board of directors, President, and treasury?
rw: Don continues to ignore the fact that God has given an example of good being accomplished through a school, and he continues to appeal for authority for an individual to have a part in an organization, other than the church, that teaches God's word.
QUESTION or scenario for Don to answer:
Let us suppose that a group of Christians were to set up a human organization to help needy saints around the world. We know that part of the work of the church is to help needy saints. If they had a board of directors, a president and determined to accept private donations would the organization be unscriptural? Would the individual Christians involved be sinning? Don might conclude at first that there would be nothing wrong with it, but when it started helping non-saints, and maybe teaching that such was ok, he might not like it and then argue that the organization was unscriptural and had no right to exist. But in doing so he would have to misapply Col 3:17 by saying they had no authority for what they were doing. All the while he would be mixing apples and oranges by his requiring something of a human organization that God only meant to apply to a church.
Don deals with my questions:
Since we do not know how the school Paul used was organized or what stipulations they put on Paul, is it reasonable to conclude that a school is unscriptural simply because we know of and object to the way a school is organized or to some stipulations that are placed upon those who use it?
Don's answer:
Again, there is nothing necessarily wrong with a church renting a school building in which to meet. Here is the issue: Say the Christians decided to become part of the school and start preaching the gospel in and through the school itself and I do not mean the building, using the organizational structure of the school and its oversight, would this be wrong? I maintain it would be wrong and this is the real issue being discussed.
rw: We do not know that Paul was NOT a part of the school. Don asserts that Paul just RENTED a room, but he has no evidence of that. It would seem strange indeed that a school, such as FC, would allow someone to rent their facilities and teach for two years without being part of the faculty and therefore part of the school.
Paul's statement recorded in Col 3:17 applies to which organization: a) The local church; b) human organizations that teach the gospel; c) both.
Don's answer:
Christians are being addressed in Colossians 3: 17 and told to possess Bible authority. Christians who in and through the local church with its oversight, treasury, structure, corporately preach the gospel have authority (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13: 1f.). Christians who form their own institutions in and through which to corporately preach the gospel, under the oversight, treasury, and structure of the entity have no authority for their practice.
rw: I took it that by "Christians" Don meant INDIVIDUALS. I failed to also note "individuals" (Christians) as part of the choices, but that evidently did not affect anything.
Since it is clear that an organization may be used to teach and promote the gospel why would it suddenly become sin if two Christian men pooled their resources and set out to run the school in a way they determined would best meet the goals and objectives of the school?
Don's answer:
In the first place, Robert assumes too much. Instead of "organization" Robert should say, "The facility belonging to a school or synagogue." I maintain it is an act of lawlessness for Christians, however many, to pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel in and through a human order, be it school such as Florida College or foundation such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation.
All in all, Robert has done a fair job in his defense of privately funded societies and foundations that provide the means and oversight for brethren corporately preaching the gospel. Again, I thank Robert and you for your time. I commend all that are sincerely attempting to study this and all issues with an aim of arriving at only the truth.
rw: I greatly appreciate the comments above.
Don's Questions:
1). How do you define foundation? rw: A charitable or educational organization that has been set up with an endowment fund
2). Relative to the foundations being discussed in this exchange, what do you say relative to some of the components of typical foundations, such components as "President," "Vice President," and "board of directors"? What does a "treasury" belonging to and financially empowering a foundation mean to you?
rw: A foundation can use their funds as the board of directors wish.
3) What is meant by "corporately preaching the gospel" as opposed to true "individual action" (Acts 8: 26f.) and "concurrent action" (Acts 18: 24f.)? rw: Legally united to form a body that can act as a unit.
4) Since you contend that privately funded orders have a right to exist due to them not being addressed in scripture and that they, therefore, do not have the burden of producing Bible authority, then, would not Christians functioning in these orders also be able to teach what they wanted and to practice what they desired without authority restraints, such beliefs, for instance, as sprinkling for baptism and mechanical music in their foundation worship?
rw: Yes, they could teach what they wanted to and it would not change the fact that the scriptures do not condemn the school. Men in a church can teach error but that does not necessarily make the church unscriptural. However, each individual will have to give an account to God for any doctrinal error he/she teaches, regardless of the setting. We who love the truth don't like it when someone is successful in teaching error, whether it be on a web site, books, in churches, in schools or foundations. But that does not justify anyone who sets out to condemn ANY of these means or organizations.
5). If a matter is specifically taught and exemplified in scripture such as vocal music and based on such teaching all other matters excluded as is the case pursuant to Hebrews 7: 14, how do you, then, justify human foundations in and through which Christians corporately preach the gospel, seeing the local church is presented, with its structure, oversight, and treasury, as the means for Christians to corporately preach the gospel? (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13: 1f.)
rw: I justify them on the grounds that the Bible not only does not teach against them but also supplies an example of a school being used, bu individual, as a means to reach people.
Don concludes:
In closing, I wonder if any have conversed with Mike Willis? I love the way Mike sits back and allows others to do his work for him. How can men in the Guardian of Truth Foundation respect men such as Mike and Ron Halbrook in view of their reticence to defend their teaching and practices?
rw: Don, maybe you should have asked everyone to at least BC you a copy. Mike may be guilty of allowing others to do his work for him. In my view, that is a wise thing to do, where possible. But what about you, Don? Various one have attempted to defeat my position on MDR (which you oppose) in debate, but you have set back and done nothing -- even when you saw how they failed miserably in their effort to defend their teaching and show mine to be error. In fact, you have made excuses for not debating that are now seen to have been just excuses and not valid reasons. So, how can men who believe as you on MDR respect you in view of your reticence to defend your teaching and practice? I am the only one that really challenges your teachings. I can and will defeat you in debate on MDR, but the result could be that you and many others will learn the truth, which will help the Lord's church greatly.
Conclusion:
I'm not really sure I will respond to Don's next post. If I do not see some new argument or something I really want to respond to this may be my last article. (Knowing Don, I probably will.) I have enjoyed this exchange so far. Hopefully some good will come from our discussion. I think it already has. Don may even decide to adjust his comments about FC and GOT, in his future writings, to indicate that he disagrees with some of the things they do rather than to say they are unscriptural and wrong. I hope that is the case. Truth is what is important, rather than tradition, and this applies to all subjects.
I commend Don for his nearly perfect attitude in this discussion and for his willingness to discuss this issue publicly.