Robert Waters to Don Martin and all,
In my final article in this debate I intend to respond to a few remarks Don made, bring up some things he failed to address and to summarize the debate, rather than deal with each comment as I have done.
First, what should we as conservatives really be concerned about? Should it concern us that some school is teaching the gospel? Should it concern us that some individuals are teaching the gospel separate from the church, even while using the local church in the same way all the rest of us (who are preachers) are doing? When we apply common sense to this question the first thing that comes to mind is that it is a good thing for truth to be taught regardless of WHERE it is taught. Admittedly, we are talking about human reasoning here, but I provided a passage for Don to deal with, relative to the point I just made, which removes it from the realm of human reasoning and into the classification of divine guidance, yet he thought it best not to respond. (Maybe he will now.) In my private letter to Don I not only reminded him that he did not answer my question (in my previous article) but I also reminded him that he needed to review his last post to see if he dealt with all that I had said. It would seem that since this issue is of such great importance to Don that he would not have overlooked the passage and would have dealt with my argument. Let us look at it again:
Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
In the above text it seems apparent that God is pleased when the gospel is preached, even when done insincerely. Thus, it would seem prudent to conclude that God would be pleased wherever the gospel is preached, such as schools and foundations where individuals are working together. Nevertheless, Don has objections to Christ being preached in certain cases - - even in cases where it is done SINCERELY; because he doesn't think what they are doing is scriptural. He says since God specified the church as the organization to do the work of the church any effort to use a human organization is unscriptural and wrong. He also says that if individuals join together in a corporate way and teach and/or preach they too are acting contrary to the will of God.
But are they really acting unscripturally? I have pointed out that over the years we have not required individuals to give book, chapter, verse (bcv) for the things one might engage in. Rather, we have applied the matter of authority, as far as need to give bcv, ONLY to local churches. Don gets off the trail a bit when he endeavors to make it look like I was saying individuals can do anything they want. That obviously was not what I was saying. I stated that although individuals are not required to give bcv individuals are required to live moral lives, and if anything is questioned we look to the scriptures to see if what they are doing is condemned. But, out of the blue, a few years ago, Don Martin started teaching that INDIVIDUALS have to give bcv for what they do; and so the rules are to be changed in midstream, if we heed Don's warnings and admonitions.
Churches indeed have a responsibility to give authority for what they do. They must follow the pattern that God has given just as Noah had to do in building the ark and Moses in building the tabernacle.
Don Comments:
Robert did expend much time addressing why he thinks I have done various things and also injecting his MDR peculiarity. I shall not respond to these matters, as I view them a waste of time and space as well as being both irrelevant and extraneous.
rw: Don, MDR seems to be THE issue that you are the most concerned about. Any little deviation one might have from what you deem to be truth concerns you greatly, especially if others are learning from the teacher. Why, if one teaches ANYTHING at all that differs from your thinking (that to be allowed to marry you must not have been divorced) you and a few others generally set out to expose them and render them useless in all their efforts to preach the gospel. You challenge for debate and are willing and ready to chop them down to size. Why are things different in my case? I teach that divorced persons have a right to marry (which is what Paul clearly taught) and many are finding that my arguments are sound. You are a debater and defender of truth but don't want to discuss the matter because (as you say) it is a "waste of time."
Indeed, MDR is irrelevant to the issue we are studying but you have brought it up several times in this discussion and you have brought it up in discussions with others. Thus, it seems apparent that your real concern is that men of influence in schools and foundations are teaching something that you think will result in people committing adultery. I am certain that men in FC and GOT are not teaching something that results in people committing adultery. I am also certain that you misinterpret Jesus' teaching and then errantly seek to make Paul's teachings harmonize with what you think Jesus said. So the real problem, if I may speak bluntly, is your error on MDR.
QUESTION :
Can you show where you spoke out against schools and/or foundations before these ISSUES that concern you surfaced in the school (creation) and foundations ( MDR)?
Let us not note a comment Don made:
"Robert Waters has presented two paramount arguments in his first reply attempt to justify the foundations functioning as local churches."
rw: I did not agree to any proposition before or after starting this debate. I simply wrote an article called "In Defense of Schools and Foundations." Since Don did not like the fact that I was defending schools and foundations, as far as not being "unscriptural" he challenged me to debate.
Now, note that Don stated that I am attempting to justify foundations functioning as a local church. That is not correct, and he should have known I would not let such a statement go without comment. I can defend a church or a foundation's right to exist yet not agree that one of these may function as a "local church." While both FC and GOD teach Bible I have seen no evidence that either has sought to function as the local church. We saw where Don objected to members of GOT praying together. (I find it amazing that anyone would object to people praying anywhere.) But just because men pray together is no proof that they are seeking to or are in fact functioning as the local church. The local church gathered upon the first day of the week to break bread. If FC or GOT start doing the same then we will have reason for concern.
Don stated:
One rationale is Paul meeting in the school of Tyrannus, this is the one Robert pressed in his second responsive post. In this instance, Robert sees Paul and the Christians working through a human foundation, having its own treasury, oversight, etc., in order to corporately preach the gospel (remember, this is the issue and Robert introduced the school of Tyrannus as proof for his defense of the church/foundations).
rw: Now Don, did I say I saw the school as being a human foundation having its own treasury etc.? No, I just said we don't know how the school was set up. God did not tell us. The point I made was that God approved of Paul teaching at the school. There is no mention of him being on the faculty or anything like that, which means we do not know. But we now know that God approves of the gospel being preached at a school, because Paul did it. You are making assumptions by saying Paul just used the facilities and that the school was completely uncharacteristic of the type of school you condemn as unscriptural.
Don wrote:
I shall put this momentarily on hold and briefly comment on Robert's other argument that he considers definitive proof that such foundations are allowable, the Colossians 3: 17 argument.
rw: I never said Col 3:17 was "definitive proof" that foundations are allowable. My point using this text was to show that your main argument is faulty because there is no text that clearly indicates that individuals must give authority for their actions.
To understand the context of a passage you generally look at the proceeding passage. Let us look at it:
(Col 3:16) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Don said, "I concur that distributive action is seen in verse 16. I do not know what he said "concur" because I did not make the statement. If he actually concurs he sees the action of singing in worship as being collective, which would be to give up the debate. At any rate, over the years we have used this passage to teach collective action in singing in worship. But Don now seems to be telling us that it is to be understood as being distributive action.
Don continues:
Revisit, if you will, Robert's statement:
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....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.
rw: Don quoted the above statement and then told us what my argument reminded him of, but he did not really defeat it. All he did was talk about his concerns about where such logic would lead. In my previous article I noted that I know several men who have been taught by FC that are now capable and successful in preaching, including me. I suppose GOT could boast of accomplishment as well. I have not agreed with GOT on the "continual cleansing" issue or MDR, but neither do I agree with Don Martin on some things, yet he refuses to even allow both sides to be heard where most of his teaching is done (which is not at the local church, by the way). Thus, GOT, in my opinion, deserves more respect than Don because he refuses to allow readers of his web site to hear both sides of the MDR issue, where he insists that divorced people break up their homes and remain celibate.
Don Deals with the Text:
"8: And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. 9: But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. 10: And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 19).
First, concerned reader, notice that Paul for three months met in the local synagogue (vs. 8).
rw: Paul always sought to preach wherever opportunity availed. For several years the synagogue was a place that was available to Paul to use in religious instruction. To my knowledge the synagogue was similar to a school or church where Jews came together to teach, study and worship, but had a leader like a president, and probably had other characteristics of a school or foundation. I have found no evidence (and this is significant) that the synagogue was anything but a human institution.
Don asks:
What is meant by "...went into the synagogue"? Does it mean that Paul and the disciples worked through the local synagogue, using its treasury and oversight, in order to "...disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God?" Does Paul's use of the synagogue facility provide any attendant and necessary endorsement of the synagogue?
rw: The synagogue existed and was used by God's people. This Don has not and cannot deny and there is not one passage in the Bible that condemns it. The fact that Paul used the synagogue is evidence that he had no serious problem with it, as far as it not being authorized or any other matter.
Don continued:
Paul simply used these facilities, the synagogue building and the school building, in which to teach and debate.
rw: Yes, he used them and that proves that God did not have a problem with them - - not even the synagogue that did indeed, according to Don, have a treasury etc.
QUESTIONS:
Don, do you think you could conscientiously preach on the TV program offered by some human organization that was founded for the purpose of teaching the gospel if they asked you to do so? If you say YES then is that not taking part in the "evil"? If you say NO then are you not failing to follow Paul's example by preaching as opportunity avails? And what if after you spoke a few times they listed you as one of the regular speakers? Would you have to be paid before it would be wrong? What would it take for you to discontinue your work with them, as Paul did with the school of Tyrannus? Most of us (who are capable) would jump at the opportunity (if unrestricted in our teaching) to have a greater audience in which to preach Christ. We shall see if Don can wiggle out of the predicament he is in because of his contention regarding FC and GOT.
Don Continues:
All I am teaching and pleading is that we simply work in and through the local church, looking to the elders for oversight and the treasury for financial impetus and means (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13: 1f.).
rw: Don, we are all doing what you suggest and we cannot go wrong by following that for which you are pleading. But you are going beyond not only what you are pleading for but also the word of God by teaching that because there is no authority for schools and foundations men are sinning by being involved in them. And, as we have shown (although it was not necessary), there is divine approval for human institutions to be used in preaching, which is no small matter, yet Don has, with all his might, sought to play down that fact.
Don continues:
The foundations of men…serve as rallying points and produce much of the brotherhood politics.
rw: Don must really be desperate for an argument to have made the one above. Bible Matters list, Don's web site, journals and even the gospel meetings and bulletins of local churches sometime serve as a rallying point and produce "brotherhood politics." So, again, just because we do not like some fruit of an organization it does not give us the right to set out to destroy it.
Don concludes:
Robert did as well as any that I have debated on this subject. For the most part, I think Robert acted maturely and tried to address the real issues, however, I do not think he ever really had a firm grasp of the subject.
rw: I suppose that any time someone debates another both (unless someone publicly admits defeat) feel that the other did not have a firm grasp of the subject. Actually, this is just barely a Bible subject. Don has sought to make legitimize it by arguing that individuals and institutions are under the same obligation to provide bcv for their practices as are local churches. If you really think about it this is something that is really quite ridiculous.
Don again:
I urge us ALL to continue our studies and be willing to go where truth leads us, regardless of the consequences.
rw: The above is a praiseworthy statement. I would add that we not be so determined that we are right on something that we cannot even consider what someone else is teaching, even though they contradict what we think is clearly contrary to plain scripture. (I think Don has considered what I have said on this subject.) Remember, some Baptists think John 3:16 settles the issue of what one must do to be saved, but we know they neither understand the passage nor the subject itself. Indeed, consequences are something to consider, but I have great concerns about many of my brethren that are only looking to EARTHLY consequences, rather than eternal consequences.
Don's questions:
1). May a church (without treasury involvement) decide to work through a human foundation designed to preach the gospel, allowing the President and board of directors to make the decisions as to where, when, and who is to preach the gospel?
rw: Answer - NO
2). Would the Herald of Truth Foundation be scriptural or allowable if it ceased taking monies from churches?
rw: Answer: The biggest problem we have with the Herald of Truth is that they seek to activate the church universal by soliciting funds from all churches – funds they will oversee. It results in centralized control of church resources. Churches that cooperate in this manner give up their autonomy. If the Harold of Truth ceased taking monies from churches I don't know what would be left to which I would object? There might well be something, I just don't know of anything right now. Don will probably enlighten us.
The Question Don answered in a separate post:
"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 responded without giving a definite answer. He noted a "relief fund" that brother Wallace was promoting and said, "…This relief fund does not provide the political problems that the entities such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation do."
So, again, it seems apparent that the problem Don has with such institutions, which are set up by individuals to do part of the work the church is assigned to do, is "political", which includes doctrinal issues. But of course, as already noted, we have the same problems in other realms – areas to which Don has no objection and even uses regularly. Don did conclude by saying: "However, I see the problem being forming an entity with its human oversight and treasury." Nevertheless, he never said the organization in my scenario was unscriptural or that the brethren involved in it were sinning. Yet we know that all such organizations stand or fall together.
Don asks:
Why cannot we be satisfied with just letting the church, with its God appointed oversight and treasury, do the work God has assigned to the local church: Teaching the lost, edifying the saved; and assisting needy saints when the need is present?
rw: Don, I am satisfied - - but I'm not going to condemn other arrangements so long as the local church stays out of it and continues to do its duty, as authorized.
Don's last statement:
Robert's argument that Colossians 3: 17 only applies to the church and not individual Christians is bogus, forced, and untenable, as I illustrated in my third reply.
rw: If my reasoning is bogus, forced and untenable then Don must admit that we have been wrong all these years by only requiring that churches show that what they "do in word and deed" is in the "name of the Lord" or authorized, by giving bcv for all that is done collectively?
Conclusion: This completes my part in this discussion. Don has one more reply. Please read it carefully.
I hope our efforts have served to clarify the issue, to have a better understanding of the subject as it relates to authority and have helped each of us toward attaining the unity that our Lord demands and expects.
My thanks to Mike Hughes, board of director and treasurer of Bible Matters :-) for allowing this debate without censoring it in any way, and for Don's generally respectful behavior and demeanor.
For those of you who are truly interested in knowing the truth on MDR, I encourage you to urge Don to debate it with me and to encourage brother Hughes to allow it on Bible Matters. It will likely not take place if you do nothing. If the debate is to take place, it must be agreed upon soon. If I don't hear something positive in the next couple of days, I am near agreement with another brother and it will begin. And it will be publicized as widely as possible. It does not matter that much to me who I debate because the brother that has committed to debate is a veteran debater and I am confident that it will be a good and profitable discussion.