Don Martin to Robert Waters and the list:
Robert has a total of three posts and I have four posts. Robert was tied up over the weekend and I did not attempt to take advantage of his situation. Therefore, this is my final post and also the final post of the exchange, as I recall Mike's explanation.
My premise and proposition has been:
"The New Testament teaches and exemplifies that the local church, with its elders, treasury, and structure, serves as the means for Christians to pool their resources to corporately preach the gospel (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13:
1f.). Since no other corporate means are seen in the scriptures and in view of the local church being specified, I must conclude that the local church is the only means, all human foundations functioning to provide Christians with the corporate means of preaching the gospel being excluded (cp. Heb. 7:14)." I have illustrated this matter by using music in the worship of God. Vocal music is specified and since mechanical music is not observed in the New Testament in worship of God, it is excluded (Eph. 5: 19, Heb. 7: 14). The command, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" necessitates presenting only the local church. Robert, though, seems to think that he has found a way to skirt and circumvent this conclusion. Robert may even think he can successfully show how I Peter 4:11 ("If any man...") is only referring to the "church" and not to the "individual."
Robert's premise and proposition would be something as the following:
"Christians are at liberty to corporately preach the gospel through human institutions, as long as such does not involve the church treasury. This is because Paul preached through the school of Tyrannus and the command to have authority only applies to the church, not to individuals."
I have no trouble signing and both affirmatively and negatively teaching my proposition. As to Robert and the proponents of privately funded institutions to function as the local church, you can be the judge.
I precisely word my teaching to articulate what I am saying. We are not talking about a single Christian or even two or more Christians simply in a concurrent circumstance preaching the gospel, either with or without physical proximity. We are talking about foundations, entities, orders, and societies. Such mechanisms consists of organizational structure, their own treasury, and oversight, usually a President, Vice President, and board of directors. When I use the word "corporately," I am referring to the entity at work, the treasury, oversight, etc. It seems that some just cannot grasp the concept. Bible Matters is said to be the same as Christians working through the Guardian of Truth Foundation or Truth Magazine. The simple truth is Bible Matters is not a foundation or entity such as we have discussed, either legally, in practice, or conceptually. The action of contributors to Bible Matters is concurrent not foundational. Mike Hughes owes the list, but this is about as far as it goes, as I understand his actions. One publishes to the list, there is no treasury, board of directors, staff writers, etc. I am at a failure as to why some cannot see the difference in all these matters.
Robert good naturedly wrote:
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.
I shall now address Robert's third post and make my final comments.
Robert emailed me and said that I had failed to address one of his questions. I had deleted my copy of Robert's full second post. I asked Mike Hughes to see if he could find such a question. He found the only thing that both he and I thought was Robert's question and I made a supplemental post, addressing the matter. I also emailed Robert four days ago and asked him to send me the question and I never received a reply. It turns out, the supplemental post was not Robert's question.
Robert now provides his question:
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.
Robert expostulates:
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.
Don comments:
Again, we observe Robert's desperation. However, do not be too hard on Robert, he is doing all he or anyone can do to justify privately supported institutions. Robert knows that it is presupposed that Paul is not including anything that is contrary to scripture. For instance, even Robert would agree that church supported missionary societies are not justified based on Philippians 1:18. By the way, most of the arguments to justify neo-institutionalism that I have been encountering among brethren are the same arguments I dealt with in refuting the variant of institutionalism that involved church treasuries. Scary, you had better know it.
Robert gets a little mixed up:
I have pointed out that over the years we have not required individuals to give 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.
Don reflects:
Robert was, but was not saying it; kind of hard to follow, isn't it?
Robert continues:
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 have give bcv for what they do; and so the rules are to be changed in midstream, if we heed Don's warnings and admonitions.
Don tries to respond:
You know what, I do not think I can respond, I cannot follow the statement. As to what I have been teaching, it has been more than "a few years ago." I have been consistently teaching what I do for many years (my memories blurs over thirty years ago). If Robert is suggesting that I have changed positions or been inconsistent, let him produce the proof, he cannot do it. Still, what does that have to do with the truth taught in the scriptures?
Robert further and correctly stated:
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 agrees:
However, not only does the collectivity, the local church, function under the restriction of authority, but so do individuals. We saw, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet. 4: 11). I can speak as the oracles of God when I say that Christians are to corporately preach the gospel in the milieu of the local church, under God's appointed oversight, treasury, and structure (I Tim. 3: 15, Acts 13: 1f.). However, I cannot speak as the oracles of God if I say that Christians are to corporately preach the gospel in and through a human institution, having it own oversight, treasury, and structure. Robert has tried his best to prove this is the case, but you are a witness to how he has failed. As close as he has come is arguing that the individual Christian does not have to have authority and that Paul used the facilities of the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19: 9, 10). I might add that Paul resorted to the school of Tyrannus after he had used the local synagogue (Acts 19: 8). Hence, what one means, the other means.
Please indulge me just for a moment regarding this no authority needed argument. While this is a result and not the primary issue, I have been told many times by the proponents of some of these foundations as they play church that they do not need authority for allowing men to speak whom most would say should not be fellowshipped and even moving toward women addressing mixed gender audiences. "We are not a church; therefore, we can do as we desire," some of them have replied. Can you appreciate the wisdom of God in setting up the local church with its overseers to provide the corporate means? I asked Robert, as I recall, about if he had any issues with mechanical music in these foundation "gospel meetings," since they do not have to have authority, and I do not recall seeing his answer. This no authority needed issue is a serious secondary matter and shall result in many problems, I predict.
Robert then again turned his attention to matters of MDR, which I will not even mention.
Robert attempts to back paddle regarding his school of Tyrannus argument:
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 again attempts to follow Robert's logic:
I am affirming that only the local church is authorized to serve as the means for Christians to corporately preach the gospel. Robert is affirming that Christians may corporately preach the gospel through human foundations such as the Guardian of Truth Foundation. Robert said that he believed the school of Tyrannus served as conclusive proof that Christians may corporately preach through a man-made institution (again, this is his contention). All I see in the school of Tyrannus is that Paul used the facility. I have thus reasoned because in one verse up, Paul used the synagogue before going to the school. What one means, the other means. There isn't anything resident to show there was any difference in Paul's use of the synagogue and his use of the school. I think perhaps Robert now sees that his definitive proof text has failed him and he is attempting to take back what he thought was his all convincing school of Tyrannus. Indeed, preaching and debating in the school of Tyrannus has nothing to do with Christians working in and through their human foundations, having oversight, treasury, etc.
I believe that all reading this exchange can see how Robert's argument has severely backfired on him. Can you imagine Paul and the Christians working in and through the synagogue entity, using its oversight and treasury to corporately preach the gospel? Well, if we see this in the case of the school of Tyrannus (remember, Robert produced the school as justification for brethren doing what they are doing in the Guardian of Truth Foundation), we must see Paul and company doing the same in the synagogue. There are no two ways to it and no wiggle room.
Robert is just not willing to say that he made too much out of Colossians 3:17, when he said it was limited to the church and did not apply to individuals. Again, this is all a big to do over very little. I mentioned in an earlier post that I thought we could split hairs on Colossians 3: 17.
Robert said:
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 observes:
Let it be clearly known that Robert and other proponents of privately funded orders doing the work God has assigned to the local church in saying that individual Christians do not have to produce authority and that Colossians 3: 17 only applies to churches seriously err. I have said that while I absolutely believe error is being taught by these men, I believe all the error that they are injecting in an effort to defend their foundations is even more consequential.
Ron Halbrook has taught that Christians working within the milieu of the Guardian of Truth Foundation are only performing individual action. Stop and think about the consequences of this doctrine.
Robert Waters has taught in this exchange that Colossians 3: 17 only applies to churches and not individuals. Stop and think about all the ramifications of this.
Robert has returned to Colossians 3: 17 in an effort to bolster his position of only the church being authority restricted. I shared with Robert and the list a view of the verses in Colossians 3 immediately preceding verse 17. Over and over, the individual is addressed, before and after verse 17. I do not intend to be sidetracked, but suffice me to say that the action in verse 16 is action that obviously takes place in the assembly. However, that does not necessarily mean it is what we call church or collective action. The Lord's Supper takes place in the assembly, but it is not church or collective action (cp. I Cor. 11: 23f.). The Lord's Supper is simply distributive action, involving the individual in the assembly setting. While I believe the action of Colossians 3: 16 involves distributive action, it is not simply distributive, but also seen as reciprocal action. This is seen in Greek grammar by the reflexive pronouns and the obvious reciprocity required action. We could spend three thousand words in pursuing the action of Colossians 3:16, but the action is not what I simply call "collective action." Note, though, I am not saying the church is not involved. The action of assisting the needy saints in Jerusalem was collective action (I Cor. 16: 1f.). The discipline exercised by the church at Corinth toward the man in fornication was collective action (I Cor. 5, 2 Cor. 2). The action observed in the case of the church and widows indeed is collective action (I Tim. 5: 16). Foundation people do not understand individual, concurrent, distributive, corporate, and "church action."
I again say, we can split hairs regarding Colossians 3: 16. For sure, though, the authority enjoined in Colossians 3: 17 is applicable to the Individual Christian and to Christians in the aggregate.
Robert returns to his school of Tyrannus argument (he still has not learned to drop it):
"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 muses:
Robert just cannot let it alone. I have always observed the persistency of Robert through the years. Even many years ago (back in the eighties), I from long distance observed Robert's persistency. I thought then as well as know, if Robert had the truth, how wonderful his persistency would be.
Robert has said that he was not using Acts 19:8-10 to be a parallel to the foundations we are discussion, yet he did. After he said he was not, now he returns and contends: "...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."
Robert further states:
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 observes:
Of course, I have not denied Paul used the synagogue, why would I? All Paul did was use the facility to preach. He did not work with the synagogue, oversight, treasury, etc., as we are discussing relative to the foundations. Imagine Paul working with unbelieving Jews in preaching the gospel in and through the local synagogue organization, such is preposterous. Yet, Robert has be forced into such a position! Paul either simply used the facility, my position, or he went further and made use of the entity, a human institution, Robert's position. I talked about how I assisted part time a church that met in a Masonic Lodge. They simply rented the facility and this is all Paul did relative to the synagogue and school of Tyrannus. How desperate the proponents of such orders and the Guardian of Truth Foundation are in referring to the synagogue and school of Tyrannus as justification for their foundations!
In case any think I am twisting Robert's rationale, hear him as he first quotes me and then makes his point:
"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."
Robert addressed my questions, I commend him for this, and I shall now briefly comment on his answers, answer his one question, and then conclude my part in this exchange. I asked:
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
Don comments:
Robert has placed his objection on church supported foundations based on the involvement of the treasury. I really thought Robert would have said "yes" to the above that presented a circumstance without the church treasury being involved. I guess Robert has conditions he deems necessary that he has not stated in this exchange.
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.
Don's Comment:
I guess I spoke too soon. In the above scenario, Robert has problems even though the treasury was not involved. Now regarding this question, Robert said:
"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."
Don comments:
I would object to the Herald of Truth functioning without church treasuries being involved because a privately funded society in and through which Christians preach the gospel is without Bible authority. See where the position of Robert and others who defend the foundations takes them?
QUESTION:
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?... We shall see if Don can wiggle out of the predicament he is in because of his contention regarding FC and GOT.
Don's answer:
Perhaps I am wrong; some of my brethren who agree and teach the same that I do about the foundations tell me that I should take advantage of opportunities. It was thought that I was going to be asked to deal with some issues a couple of times in magazines that have the very entity structure to which I stand opposed. I have never accepted such offers. I did, as stated, teach in the Masonic Lodge. This was just a rented facility that did not involve the Freemasonry entity, just as in Acts 19: 8-10. I have also preached in schools and Hotels. Again, these were just rented spaces. I guess Robert is just not going to see the difference. Several years ago, some thought I might be asked to speak at the Florida College lectures. I reasoned out the matter and at one point decided that I could accept if there were no limits placed on my teaching. Then I decided that I just could not be a part of the arrangement. By the way, I was never asked so it was a mute point and concern. I have gone and preached for Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. and would gladly do so again. I believe that I see a big difference in these matters.
As I close, I again thank Mike Hughes for the list space. Mike is to be commended for wanting this issue studied. I sincerely hope that this exchange has afforded the opportunity for others to look at the issue and better understand it. This issue, like all issues, has its gradation of difficulty and, as I have admitted, on a higher level, there are questions that I know I cannot answer. However, these are not the problem. I must admit that while I think Robert could have had a little more lucidity characteristic of his thinking and logic, he has done a better job than I thought he would. Who knows, if I continue to see such improvement, I might even agree to debate Robert on MDR and have it published. By the way, I have material now written and ready to publish to http://www.bibletruths.net that contains the nine most often used defenses for privately funded entities. I shall announce when it is in place. Regarding Robert Waters and me, well, I think we are a little more communicative after this exchange than before. For the most part, Robert has treated me well. I pray that I have reciprocated. Saying this does not mean that I think Robert is a sound preacher of the gospel, I must add. Who knows what the future holds, though. Thank all of you for your interest in truth, all truth.
Cordially,
Don Martin
dmartinbtbq@comcast.net