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 may the peace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
 
 I am appreciative of this opportunity to discuss this issue, and this will be my final affirmation.
 
 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.
 
 ELDV:
 I notice that George has not actually discussed the substance of the argument presented, but has 
 merely restated his position.  It is sufficient to see that the examples in the Scriptures show that the 
 church, when it was involved in benevolent activities, gave to saints.  Since we see no such 
 example of the church giving to non-saints, it stands to reason that we are authorized to give to 
 saints only.
 
 The example of "faith only" is a non sequitur, for God has clearly spoken that faith must exist but 
 be matched with obedient works.  No Scripture has been provided by George that shows that the 
 church gave to non-saints.
 
 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".
 
 ELDV:
 God has certainly spoken of the care of the needy, but God has never spoken concerning His 
 church as a collective supporting such that are not a part of the flock.  Whatever George will do in 
 his affirmative will occur after this discussion, but George has not yet demonstrated any form of 
 convincing evidence that would show that the church gave to more than those within the Body.
 
 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."?
 
 ELDV:
 The New Testament shows no command, example, or necessary inference for the church 
 supporting non-saints, but it does show command and example for the church supporting saints.  
 With this evidence, it may be asserted that the church can only assist those who are saints.
 
 The same applies to our music and God.  The New Testament shows no command, example, or 
 necessary inference for the use of instruments, but it does show command example for the use of 
 the human voice.  George, will you assert that instruments are acceptable because God never said 
 to use "only" voices?
 
 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.
 
 ELDV:
 Yet Paul and Luke also showed examples and commandments concerning obedience along with 
 faith.  You would be hard pressed to find either Paul or Luke showing examples/commandments 
 of the church supporting 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.
 
 ELDV:
 It stands to reason that if there is no discussion of non-saints, they are not included; if we assert 
 that they are actually included when there is no evidence to support as much, are we not truly 
 adding to Scripture?  If I see the New Testament church giving to saints but never giving to non-
 saints, what truths am I to derive from these practices, George?
 
 George:
 This is an assertion without foundation: That "only" saints were assisted.
 
 ELDV:
 It is without foundation?
 
 I have provided the texts involved that show that saints were assisted in the relief to Judea.  
 George, do you have evidence that this same money went to non-saints?  If you do not, then you 
 assert that Paul and Luke are liars! The sin of omission is very great, and if Paul and/or Luke 
 omitted the fact that the relief to Judea also went to non-saints, then that would be a weighty 
 omission indeed!
 
 George:
 So since God is silent on it, how can you say that "only saint were assisted"?
 
 ELDV:
 The same way that I can say that since God never says to use instruments, that I ought not to use 
 them.  Also, it is the same way that I recognize that even though God never said to partake of 
 Twinkies as a part of the Lord's Supper, I ought not to.
 
 A more "pertinent" example would be Acts 20:7; I can say that I am to come together to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week because the Apostles did; George, should I posit that 
 I could also partake on Monday since the text does not say that Paul, Luke, et al met "only" on the 
 first day of the week?  I think you can see that this line of reasoning leads to an improper 
 perspective on 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.
 
 ELDV:
 I have done no such thing.  The church is not DIRECTLY supporting the children; the church is 
 only DIRECTLY supporting the saints.  What the saints decide to do with their support is up to 
 them, and for that, they individually will be judged.
 
 I would like to see evidence that INDIRECT support=support.
 
 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!
 
 ELDV:
  I have never used 1 Timothy 5:8 to "justify giving of the 'collection' to one who is not a saint."  I 
 used 1 Timothy 5:8 to demonstrate the individual saint's responsibility to his family.  If the saint 
 receives support from the church, he ought to use it to support his family.  This in no way means 
 that the church is directly supporting the non-saints.
 
 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."
 
 ELDV:
 There is no circumvention involved in this discussion.  The church is responsible for supporting 
 the saints.  The saints are responsible for supporting the family.  If the first occurs, the second will 
 naturally follow.  What you have yet to prove is that indirect support is the same as direct support.
 
 This whole discussion is example of the "trickle down" idea of funding.  We both agree, for 
 instance, that evangelists may be supported from the church treasury.  If the church gives him 
 money to survive, and he goes and buys groceries, will we say that the church is supporting the 
 grocery store?  Let us say he buys a box of Nabisco crackers.  If I'm not mistaken, Nabisco is 
 owned by a cigarette company.  Would we say that the church is supporting tobacco if the church 
 gives money to the evangelist who gives money to the grocery store who paid for the merchandise 
 from the company owned by those who sell cigarettes?  This is absolutely ridiculous-- once the 
 money has left the church treasury, the church has lost not only control but also responsibility over 
 that money!
 
 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?
 
 ELDV:
 The church is not "bypassing" anything.  The church is performing its God-directed 
 commandment to support its own, and then the saints are performing their God-directed 
 commandment to support their own.
 
 George:
 This is your proposition, not mine!
 
 ELDV:
 George has brought up this discussion concerning the Lord's money being given to saints for non-
 saints and will not actually answer questions concerning this.  I had asked if the church would be 
 judged on the basis of how the saint spent the support given him.  He would not answer.  He does 
 not answer because he knows that the church cannot be judged on the basis of how the individual 
 saint uses his support, and that therefore whether or not the saint spends the money on himself, 
 non-saints, or what have you, it is no longer the responsibility or the obligation of the church.  His 
 silence sufficiently answers his objection.
 
 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"!
 
 ELDV:
 I have now seen exactly what George wishes to do in this debate.  He does not want to discuss the 
 issue outright, but appeals to emotional arguments concerning absurd extensions of the belief.  
 This has been done with baptism only too often, with people discussing such things as, "well, if 
 someone hears the Word in the desert, believes, confesses, and repents, and dies before being 
 baptized, is he saved?"  If you say that "God will decide," then they trump you by saying that you 
 cannot possibly say that one must be baptized.
 
 Furthermore, I said what I did with the emphasis on "stumbling block."  I find that your example is 
 ludicrous, for the fountain is done as a part of the city code.  Its purpose is not for non-saints, but 
 for the usage of anyone.  The non-saint can use the bathroom and breathe the air-conditioned or 
 heated air because the environment exists for the saints-- the non-saints happen to be there also.  
 The treasury is not directly supporting them, or nearly supporting them in any way, shape, or 
 form.
 
 I have one final question to ask of you George, and the floor is yours.
 
 Can you find any Scripture that would show that the church is sinning by not giving to non-saints?
 
 May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
 
 ELDV 
 Ethan R. Longhenry