Longhenry/Jackson Debate on Benevolence

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help only the needy saints.
 
 Affirm:  Ethan R. Longhenry
 Deny: George A. Jackson
 
 Hello, and peace be with you in our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
 I again thank George for the discussion on issues concerning our faith.  His comments will be 
 prefaced with his name, and my response with ELDV.
 
 George:
 Note, Ethan uses the word "ought" to do. Should not he have expressed a more positive word such 
 as "must," since he is speaking of a commandment? Also keep in mind the words "the things 
 which Christians ought to do.
 
 ELDV:
  It is true that the Scriptures have made commandments, and that Christians ought to fulfill them.  
 Christians, unfortunately, do not live up to God's commandments as well as they ought to when it 
 comes to owing to their humanity, hence the language used.
 
 I do affirm that Christians must do the will of God.
 
 George:
 Ethan is following the way the denominations do when they say the Bible plainly teaches that one 
 is save by faith/belief/trust. And point to the many Scriptures that one is saved by believing. But, 
 as we point out, it does not say faith/belief/believing "only." So I too must point out to Ethan that 
 nowhere does the Scripture say "saints only" or "only the saints." For Ethan to prove his 
 proposition he must come up with a verse that says the church "may help only the needy saints:" 
 God gave us the book of James to prove that one is not saved by faith alone or only. Where does 
 God give the verse for "saints alone or only? Maybe Ethan will give us that verse or passage 
 before the debate is over.
 
 ELDV: 
 George is right, unfortunately, when saying that the Protestants take the concept of faith for 
 salvation and then say faith only salvation.  This is wrong, but why is it wrong?  Because God has 
 never said in His Word that "only faith" saves, or because God has made it abundantly clear that 
 obedience and the works contained therein are also necessary?
 
 I believe that George and I can agree concerning the silence of the Scriptures, that if God is silent 
 on activities in which realm a specific command has been given, we ought not to do that activity 
 (i.e. instrumental music with specific command "to sing").  Did God have to say that we should 
 "only" sing for us to understand that we should sing without instruments? By no means!  We 
 understand that we sing without instruments because God nowhere demonstrated through 
 command, example, or inference that we ought to play them!
 
 The same goes with benevolence to the saints.  When Paul and Luke say that there were 
 collections "for the saints," that is exactly for whom they were made-- the saints.  There is no 
 discussion concerning non-saints, so we must respect God's silence and see that in the example of 
 the needy brethren in Judea, only saints were assisted.  The only way that we could ascertain 
 whether more than just the saints were assisted would be if God had made a statement to that 
 effect.  I have not seen one.
 
 George:
 Remember, I said to remember Ethan's definition of "saints" "those who are members of that body, 
 saved and renewed by Christ." So with this definition in mind let look at the "collection for the 
 saints" in Jerusalem. Were there any infants, small children, in the families of the saints in 
 Jerusalem? Were both parents Christians? If there was, according to Ethan, they could not receive 
 any of the collection "for the saints." Because he also made this statement part of his definition: 
 "Only" is to be understood to mean that this help is specific to the saints in question, and is for no 
 other."
 
 ELDV:
 The assistance went to saints, and saints alone.  The text is silent about anyone else except for the 
 saints, and we should respect that. However, if a saint had children who had not yet obeyed the 
 Gospel, if that saint took the assistance given him to help with his family, this would not be in 
 disharmony with the Scriptures, for in 1 Timothy 5:8:
 
 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has 
 denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 
 I am sure that the Christians in Judea would not wish to deny the faith, and would support their 
 families.
 
 In the end, there is no disharmony here because the church is not supporting the children of the 
 saint, but supporting the saint him/herself.  Why is the saint being supported?  So that his needs 
 may be met.  What are his needs? To provide for himself...and his family.
 
 George:
 No food could be bought, no clothing, etc. for the one parent, or the infant, or the child that had 
 not been  "saved and renewed by Christ." What is the result of such a teaching? Starving infants 
 and children with no food or whatever needs they needed, because they are not "saints". Who can 
 believe such? But that is the results of Ethan's proposition.  One member, if a saint, could received 
 what they needed, but other members of the same household could not receive any of the 
 "collection". If Ethan says they could, then he has surrendered his own proposition! Ethan do you 
 really believe Christ would allow such to go on in His church? Also could a Christian stand by and 
 watch his neighbor starve, if one had means (his part of the collection) to help him, even thought 
 he was not a saint? I dislike asking Ethan these questions, but to bring out the full impact of 
 Ethan's proposition and his definitions of his proposition I must. Lets again look at what Ethan is 
 saying: "Saints" are those who are members of that body, saved and renewed by Christ (Galatians 
 3:26-27).  "Only" is to be understood to mean that this help is specific to the saints in question, 
 and is for no other." The help if it comes from the "treasury" of a local congregation can only be 
 used to help the "saints, and is for no other"
 
 ELDV: 
 The assistance in question is given to saints only; how the saints use it is a completely different 
 issue, and not under discussion in this debate. To fulfill the commands of God, they would have to 
 use it to assist their family, but if the church gave a saint the money and he used it to sin, would 
 the church be judged or the individual?
 
 George:
 If one who is not a saint comes into your building one Lord's day, a day that is very hot and ask 
 for a drink of water, may you gave it to him, since the water fountain was paid for with church 
 funds? Would you allow him to eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine, or would you stop 
 him? Since they are purchased with funds from the treasury?
 
 ELDV: 
 First, I would say that we are treading dangerously, for we must remember the Scripture that 
 warns against speculation in 1 Timothy.  We could also sit here on many other issues, including 
 baptism, and "what if" ourselves into an un-Scriptural attitude.
 
 Any non-saint attempting to partake of the Lord's Supper would need to be taught the Way more 
 accurately, so that they would understand the nature of the Body of Christ and of the Lord's 
 Supper.  Concerning water, if a non-saint wanted some from a church source, I would attempt to 
 find another source from an individual, so that no stumbling block may be instituted.
 
 I again thank George and everyone for the opportunity to hold this discussion, and I pray much 
 may be gained from it.
 
 ELDV 
 Ethan R. Longhenry