Robert Waters to Bible Matters members and any who might by chance or design read this exchange:
In my opinion there are more important issues that need to be studied than whether a college or foundation has a scriptural right to exist. But since Don Martin has for several years continually tried to arouse the troops to action against FC and GOT, I feel compelled to try to help settle the issue.
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. I'm sure that each of you who read my challenge to Don on MDR (which he refused) found it interesting that Don's reason for refusing is that I am unworthy and he could not debate me because of Matt. 7:6; 15-20 but now he has actually fully engaged in debating me on another subject. I have written countless articles on MDR, written books and numerous tracts, engaged in several debates and maintain a web site that probably has more on MDR than any other site. I myself qualified to debate that issue, but before this week I had never written an article in defense of schools or foundations. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to present sound reasoning as to why I believe 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.
I attended FC and have some very fond memories of the experience. I also benefited greatly from the Bible classes that I took, yet I do not look upon FC as necessary to the survival of the church. I have had articles published in "Truth Magazine," and engaged in exchanges on important issues, but I do not subscribe to nor give support to said journal or the GOT Foundation. 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.
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?" 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.
While I may question the wisdom of some of the things colleges and foundations do I know of no scripture that condemns them. 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. The text tells me churches, in a collective way, should not pay human organizations – like the ACMS, which was a failure, to do their preaching, but it says not one word about individual action or about human organizations that do not even accept contributions from churches.
Now I shall deal specifically with Don's reply.
Robert Waters submitted an article today titled: "A Defense of Schools and Foundations." In the article, Robert claims what I have taught on privately funded foundations with their structure, board of directors, and treasury in and through which Christians pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel is spurious and false. It appears Robert is supportive of such corporate efforts outside the local church to preach the gospel.
Rw: Brethren, so far Don has ignored the real issue, which is the fact that colleges and foundations are not churches. I left out a couple of words in one key sentence in my article and Don said he did not know what I was saying, yet in the same paragraph I made it perfectly clear what I was saying. When talking about Paul, I said, "The school he used did not solicit funds from churches, as far as we are able to tell. But it did not have to because it [was not] a church! That school not only was not spoken against in the scriptures but was set up as an example of how good could be accomplished. It was there, no bad word was said about it and Paul used it. But now if Don Martin had been there I suppose he would have argued that the school had no scriptural right to exist. 'WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE FOR IT?' he would argue. There wasn't any scripture for it, but, again, there did not have to be authority because it was not a church."
So you see how Don evades the issue instead of dealing with my statements. Will he deal with the issue in this debate or will he continue to ignore it and continue to argue that FC and GOT have no right to exist because they are not authorized in the scriptures? We shall see.
Don continues:
Since Robert mentioned me by name, I shall reply to his article. I am diffident regarding challenging Robert to a debate on this subject. I say this because I just do not know how capable Robert is to defend the privately funded foundation issue. I suppose I shall review his material and then see where it all leads.
Rw: I predict that Don will not like "where it all leads" because in this debate I am making only two arguments and I am going to press Don on them.
Don continues:
Let me say at the onset that I do not mean to be unkind to Robert; however, I shall be plain and perhaps cogent. I have dealt with Robert for many years. It is my desire that this brief reply might be of some help to one still studying this issue.
Rw: Do be cogent, Don, but please try to avoid further use of offensive remarks that tend only to build prejudice. I, too, plan to be plain and cogent and I have dealt with Don for many years. I, too, intend for this discussion to be brief. But note that Don CHALLENGED ME, to debate him, yet when I challenged him on another issue he refused. In the debate challenge I noted where he had said that he stands ready to debate everything he teaches. And of course we remember his excuse -- that it applied to someone "worthy." It is strange how I could go from unworthy to worthy in such a short period of time and without having done any great deed.
Don continues:
"Robert wrote:
First, I am a conservative, which means I believe a church should look for scriptures for everything it does (Col. 3:17). Amidst all the efforts of our liberal brethren to do away with authority I still strongly believe in the need for it."
Don comments:
I have not observed Robert possessing the necessary traits for conservatism. Robert's long held teaching on divorce and marriage to another that allows in certain cases the guilty put away person to marry another while the innocent putting away mate lives is not actually what I would call conservative.
Rw: Don seems to confuse the word "conservative" with "tradition." I am not one who seeks to defend tradition nor am I one who seems to think tradition and truth are synonymous. Neither do I seek those "necessary traits." If the reader is inclined to object to my statements relative to the MDR issue I remind you that Don was the first to bring it up.
Previously I wrote:
"What amazes me is that there are those among us who set out to expose a doctrine but they often do not deal with the best arguments -- they just pick the ones they think they can defeat and ignore the others."
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.
I have shown that Col 3:17 applies to churches. Yet, instead of doing what he needed to do to defend his actions (showing that the passage, or some other, applies to human organizations) note what he said below:
Don continues:
"I have been dealing with false teaching for about forty years and one thing that I have observed is that such teaching prolifically introducing additional false teaching in an effort to justify itself. Need I elaborate as to the fallacy of Robert's immediately above statement? Again, one reason I have basically ignored Robert is due to what I perceive to be some thought processing problems characteristic of Robert."
RW:
I may have some "thought processing problems" but whether such is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion, as well as offensive. I made an argument based upon a scriptural text. Don has a duty to answer that argument, but what does he do instead? He accuses me of "additional false teaching" and of having "thought processing problems."
Don again:
Robert continues:
"Churches do not have authority to send funds to human institutions as a contribution to do the work of the church. The silence of God forbids such a practice. As Don has rightly pointed out the church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." God set up the church to do His work. Local churches, then, must not give up their autonomy by paying some human organization to do their work for them. God's bride must not shun its duties and become nothing but a money making organization to subsidize some human organization that happens to share a mutual goal."
Rw:
Don noted that in one of his recent sermons he taught against the Akin Foundation. One objection was that "They will not send to a church that is in the process of securing a preacher whom the foundation (board of trustees) deems unsound. When the church ceases perusing said preacher and starts securing a preacher of whom the foundation approves, the foundation will then consider sending the church foundation money, all things equal and understood. Brethren, I know whereof I speak: These deemed 'privately funded organizations...' do have much impact on churches.
Ok, perhaps Don has a good point and maybe this objection alone is enough to convince some to have no part of said foundation. But what about Don's web site? A lot of people go to it, as they do mine, but he will not allow both sides of the MDR issue to be heard. You have heard his excuses for rejecting my debate proposition but it is obvious that Don's real reason for not debating and putting the debate on his web site is that he is afraid he cannot clearly show what I teach to be error. I have no such fear in offering the entire debate, should it take place, on my web site. His position makes no sense at all, and mine makes perfect sense. This I can easily prove with the scriptures.
Don continues:
Robert attempts to justify privately supported orders to preach the gospel:
"Is it not rather significant that the apostle Paul used a school for a few years to teach and preach the gospel? Indeed it is significant because this fact proves that the issue is not whether the organization has a right to exist. The school he used did not solicit funds from churches, as far as we are able to tell. But it did not have to because it [was not] a church! (Was not is what I meant to say.) That school not only was not spoken against in the scriptures but was set up as an example of how good could be accomplished. It was there, no bad word was said about it and Paul used it. But now if Don Martin had been there I suppose he would have argued that the school had no scriptural right to exist. 'WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE FOR IT?' he would argue. There wasn't any scripture for it, but, again, there did not have to be authority because it was not a church. But now, in our day, we DO have scripture for the school to exist. We have the example of Paul using a school. This means individuals can use a school through which to teach the gospel. It also means the school has a right to exist. And I see little difference in a school and a foundation like the Guardian of Truth.
Don replies:
First, I do not know what, "But it did not have to because it a church!" means. Perhaps this is a typo on Robert's part and I sure make my share of them.
Rw: Now Don, did you really not know what I meant? Although I left out the words "was not" I made myself very clear later in the same paragraph, as I have explained above.
Don continues:
I think that I have heard and considered all the arguments in favor of privately supported entities to preach the gospel. Consider the text to which Robert refers, a case that he thinks totally refutes only the local church serving as the organization, having oversight, treasury, etc., the entity that is called, "The pillar and ground of the truth" in and through which Christians corporately preach the gospel (I Tim. 3: 15):
"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). The proponents of privately supported societies see in the school of Tyrannus the following:
Rw: Let me make it clear that while I acknowledge that the scriptures do not teach against said societies I am not a proponent of them. I might use their services some, but whether or not they continue to exist is not of great concern to me. What does concern me is Don's efforts to make it appear that the Bible teaches against schools and foundations and that those involved are committing a great sin. In a previous article, published on Bible Matters list, Don compared schools and foundations to church support of human institutions that are set up to do the work of the church for the church: "The neo-institutionalism we now face is in some respects worse and potentially more debilitating. This new institutionalism, when carried out to its full application (hope Ron will allow me this application difference) competes with and will replace the local church."
So it appears that Don would have us to believe that FC and GOT, which do not encourage or accept church contributions, are worse than organizations that do. And then he stated that they will replace the church. I know of a number of men that have been to FC that are now successfully preaching the gospel as they work through local churches, yet I know of no church that has been replaced by FC. But maybe Don can prove his assertion.
(1). A case of Christians pooling their resources to form or make use of an already existing foundation, order, or entity in and through which to corporately preach the gospel.
Rw: No, I did not make that point and did not see that in the text.
(2). The school of Tyrannus had its own oversight, treasury, and structure through which Christians corporately preached the gospel outside the local church.
Rw: No, the text did not tell us about the structure of the organization.
Don continued:
I suppose if these proponents can see a full fledged functioning foundation in the case of Aquila and Priscilla, just one chapter earlier, they can see a school with its own Bible Department and attendant theological degree in and through which Christians are corporately working to spread the gospel, a school such as Florida College.
Rw: I did not bring up Aquila and Priscilla – didn't need to.
Don continues:
Intelligent reader, just because Paul used the school of Tyrannus in which to meet and debate, does not equate to a privately funded order to corporately preach the gospel.
Rw: 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 wrote:
Regarding the school of Tyrannus, we know nothing. Did Paul rent space in the school, who was Tyrannus, etc? We are not told. However, to imagine the school of Tyrannus being such a privately funded order as is becoming more common today, is some stretch and the result of an overly active imagination.
Rw: I don't imagine the school of Tyrannus as being anything more than what is said in the text. But I do see it as proof that schools not only have a right to exist but also proof that brethren may use them in their efforts to teach the gospel. Don's concerns and problems with known institutions may or may not be legitimate, but his concerns and objections are irrelevant. To condemn them by saying they are unscriptural is imprudent.
Don continues:
I am really ashamed for the brethren who are attempting to promote and/or defend these privately funded orders. Their arguments are impotent and flawed on even the lower levels.
Rw: I am appealing to only two simple arguments, both of which are logical and based in scripture. If Don deems my arguments to be of "the lower levels" then it is to his shame. Rather, he should deal with them or accept that his position is defeated and give it up.
Don concludes:
Rather than pursue one such as Robert Waters, why not all the list members contact Mike Willis and tell him that he has a standing invitation to join this list and discuss with me his teaching and practice regarding the privately funded order in which he is a high ranking member?
Rw: Personally, while I think Mike Willis is very capable of defending most of his practices I doubt that he can come up with a better argument than what I have challenged Don to answer. Frankly, Don can give no scriptural answer, as his whole contention is not even applicable because he is attempting to mix apples and oranges.
Don stated:
Some have described Mike as, "...one of our best scholars."
Rw: Indeed, Mike has written some good stuff, not the least of which is his exegesis of Deut. 24:1-4, which I quote on my web site as support for what I believe Jesus was actually dealing with, instead of the false idea that he contradicted Moses' Law by saying divorced people commit adultery when they marry.
Don continues:
I want the best to defend this and all doctrines that I deem false (I shall send Mike a copy of this post).
Rw: Don wants the best to debate him, I guess because he is the best maybe? I'm certainly not the best to debate this issue and I did not challenge Don to debate it. But on the MDR issue I too seek to debate the best. I may well be the best to debate the MDR position that I hold, which is held by a much larger number of brethren than Don would like to admit, and I did challenge Don to debate. He refused and comments regarding why he did so were evasive and insulting.
Don continues:
In closing, I have no personal animosity toward Robert Waters. Since he mentioned me by name and said what he did, I felt compelled to reply, providing a brief review.
Rw: It is strange that in every case (and there are several) where I have publicly challenged Don to debate the MDR issue he has replied with comments to the effect that I am not worthy and that he would go against his conscience if he debated me, yet he "felt compelled" not only to reply but to challenge me to debate.
Questions:
(1) Does Acts 19:9, 10 teaches that a human organization, such as a school, may be used to teach the gospel?
(2) Since we have a biblical example of an apostle using a school to teach the gospel is it not reasonable to conclude that the school was not something to which God objected, and thus is not sinful today?
(3) 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?
(4) 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.
(5) 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?
I will close by noting what brother Roger Blackwelder stated in an article he wrote after mine appeared on Bible matters:
"How then can brother Martin and others say it is a sin for brethren to teach the gospel, help the needy or edify the saints through organizations? We all agree God has not permitted such in His pattern for the church, but what limits has He placed on the organization Christians can have outside of the church?"
Rw: Don can say it is a sin -- just as he can say (contrary to Paul's teaching) that Jesus taught that divorced persons commit adultery when they marry, but he has not and cannot prove it. It is just an assertion, and a false one at that.
Now, since Don requested that all readers urge Mike Willis to debate him on the issue presently under study I urge request that you urge Don to debate me on the MDR issue. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. After all, it is now perfectly clear that Don has no legitimate reason for refusing.
I await Don's reply.