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
 
 George:  
 My responsibility is to deny or rebut Ethan's affirmation, and this I am endeavoring to do. 
 
 Again, Ethan has giving me little to work with. Since I am in the rebuttal, and not in the 
 affirmative, I must go with what he has given me, which is not very much,  
 Now to Ethan's second affirmative:
 
 Ethan
 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?
 
 George: 
 What Ethan does not seem to realize is that the one who takes the position he does in his "saints 
 only," is doing the same thing that the Protestants do when they take their position on "faith only." 
 Because God has never said in His Word that the church is to care for the "saints only," which also 
 makes his position wrong.   
 
 Ethan:
 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").
 
 George:
 I certainly do agree to the silence of the Scriptures. But unlike the command to "sing," God has 
 spoken on the care of the needy, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Not only for 
 His people but to the needy of non-saints.   In my affirmative I will bring out these Scriptures to 
 prove my proposition, but all can see that Ethan has not given us one scripture stating that the 
 church is to care only for the saints, "and no other".  
 
 Ethan:
 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!
 
 George:
 Yes, the New Testament is completely silent on any other kind of music in the church! But is the 
 New Testament completely silent on helping "only" the needy saints."?   
  
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 When Paul and Luke says that one is saved by faith....is that exactly what they meant. Ethan you 
 would be hard pressed to debate a "faith only" believer, with your "saint only" belief. Nether one 
 of these are found in scripture.
  
 Ethan
 There is no discussion concerning non-saints,
 
 George:
 There is no discussion concerning "saints only" ether. But there is scripture on saints and other 
 needy people, as we shall see when I am in the affirmative.  
 
 Ethan:
 So we must respect God's silence and see that in the example of the needy brethren in Judea, only 
 saints were assisted. 
 
 George:
 This is an assertion without foundation: That "only" saints were assisted.  
 
 Ethan:
 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: 
 So since God is silent on it, how can you say that "only saint were assisted"?
 
 Ethan:
 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. 
 
 George:
 It would not be in "disharmony with the Scriptures." but surely would be in disharmony with your 
 proposition of "saints only." You cannot have it both ways. Ether the collection was for "saints 
 only" or it was not! Your definition for saints is as followers: ""Saints" are those who are members 
 of that body, saved and renewed by Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). An unbaptized child or any 
 member of one's family that has not been "saved and renewed by Christ" cannot be a saint, and 
 cannot receive any of the "collection." If any saints "took the assistance given him to help with his 
 family," a member who was not a saint, he would be in violation of God's command that the 
 collection was for the saints only" according to your proposition.  
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 How can you use this verse to justify giving of the "collection" to one who is not a saint? Note it 
 says "if anyone does not provide for his own," Who is Paul speaking of here? That the "anyone" 
 must "provide" for? I thought it was the church that is doing the providing! The "anyone" is 
 suppose to be the "needy"! And Paul then adds "his household." No, I don't see how you can get 
 around your proposition by using this verse. The person being spoken of here can obviously 
 "provide" for his "own" and his "household" and is not a "needy saint." And besides that, the saint 
 may be the wife in the family, not the husband!   
 
 Ethan:
  I am sure that the Christians in Judea would not wish to deny the faith, and would support their 
 families.
 
 George:
  I am sure Paul was not speaking of a family of "needy saints" in Judea, when he pinned 1 
 Timothy 5:8.
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 Remember it is the "needy saint" that the church is to support. So you are saying the church can 
 give the "needy saint" enough assistance to take care of his/her whole family, circumventing the 
 command to help the "saint only" "and no other." 
  
 Ethan:
 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:
 So again, the church can bypass the command to help the "needy saint only, and no other" by 
 using the saint to help the ones who are not saints! Is not an individual Christian also to obey the 
 command not to take from the church treasury and give it to non-saints? If not, then the church can 
 give to any needy saint, and the needy saint, can give to anyone they please, resulting in a useless 
 command to begin with. 
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 Ethan makes the above statement and then goes right ahead and discusses it! 
 
 Ethan:
 To fulfill the commands of God, they would have to use it to assist their family,
 
 George:
 Then the command does allow others then "only saints" to be helped from the church treasury. But 
 through a mediator! 
 
 Ethan:
 But if the church gave a saint the money and he used it to sin, would the church be judged or the 
 individual?
 
 George:  
 This is your proposition, not mine! 
 
 I asked in my first rebuttal: 
 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?
 
 Ethan answered: 
 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.
 
 George:
 Brethren, this is just one result of what the doctrine that Ethan is trying to defend, can result in: 
 Not even a drink of water to a non-saint from a source from the church treasury. "I would attempt 
 to find another source from an individual, so that no stumbling block may be instituted." he says. I 
 will leave it there, so we can all meditate on what this means. While thinking on these things, 
 think about the sign above your water fountain that reads: "For Saints Only"!
 
 George A Jackson