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
 
 In all his three affirmative, here are the scriptures he used 1 Cor. 16: 1-2,3; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 
 17:11; 2 John 9; Acts 12:28; 2 Cor. 8:1,5; 1 Tim.1:3; 1 Tim. 5: 8, 10-15,16; Acts 20:7. Not one of 
 these scriptures will up hold his affirmation of "The Scriptures teach that the church, from its 
 treasury, may help only the needy saints." So, it has been obvious from the beginning of the 
 debate, that Ethan could not prove from scripture his proposition because no such scripture existed 
 stating that the church was to "help only the needy saints." 
 
 Ethan: 
 I notice that George has not actually discussed the substance of the argument presented, 
 
 George:
 I could not discuss what was not presented. I was in the denial, not the affirmative.
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George
 I have never argued that the church must help the needy saints. That was not the proposition. and 
 the scripture you gave: 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, does so state, but does not state "saints only." So it is 
 obvious that this passage does not sustain you proposition.
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 Using this reasoning there are many things we have no example for, so would be not authorized to 
 do. 1 Corinthian 16:1-2, only gives us an example for collecting for the needy saints in Jerusalem. 
 Where is the example for collecting for anything else?   
 
 Ethan:
 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:
 It was your responsibility to provide the scripture showing that the church is to give to "only the 
 saints." And of course you did not, simple because there is no such scripture. Is does follow that 
 the verse in Romans 5:1, concerning faith is parallel to the verse in Corinthians 16:1. Nether has 
 the word "only."   
 
 Ethan: 
 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:
 Again, it was your responsibility to provide the proof that the church is to provide for the needy 
 saints only. How could I disprove what you have not proved? My time to prove that the church 
 may help non-saints, is when I am in the affirmative, which is my proposition. 
 
 Ethan: 
 The New Testament shows no command, example, or necessary inference  for the church 
 supporting non-saints,
 
 George:
 Can you not wait until it comes my time to prove such? Beside that is not my proposition: It states 
 the "Scriptures" not the New Testament.
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 We are not debating if the church can support saints. Of course they may, and is commanded to do 
 so. That is not my denial. My denial is that the church may "only" support saints from it treasury. 
 And in that, you have not sustained in your affirmative. 
  
 Ethan:
 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:
 Yes! He did not say "sing only," nor did He say "saints only." Ethan, is it the individual that sings, 
 or the church? You say an individual may help any needy person, so now with this in mind, may 
 the individual play an instrument? 
 
 Ethan:
 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:
 That the church must help the needy saints! But where do you see the church not helping needy 
 non-saints? There is no such scripture!
 
 Ethan: 
 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!
 
 George:
 How can Paul and Luke be liars? when they did not write of such? Did you see where they wrote 
 that the money was to go to saints "only"? I have not found any such scripture. If I had, we would 
 not be having this debate. And you have not produced any such scripture. So tell us how they 
 could be "liars" 
 
 Ethan:
 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:
 You are making some serious charges against Paul! Remember, Paul wrote that we are saved by 
 faith, but where is the scripture that he wrote saying: we are not saved by faith only? Was this a 
 "sin of omission" on Paul's part, that James had to correct? 
 
 Ethan: 
 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:
 Everything you say is true. But is not parallel with our subject; because God has spoken on giving 
 to others then "saints only." in the Scriptures. Which I will show in my affirmative. 
 
 Ethan: 
 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. 
 
 George:
 So the church may `indirectly` help the non-saints, by giving "DIRECTLY" to the saint, and not 
 be held accountable? So in this way the church may help any needy person by giving the aid to a 
 saint, and letting the saints give the aid, because the individual saint has been instructed by 
 scripture to help the needy. Interesting! 
 
 Ethan:
 I would like to see evidence that INDIRECT support=support.
 
 George:
 Did you give not give us 1 Timothy 5:8? Where is says that one must "provide for his own, and 
 specially for those of his own house."? Is that not "INDIRECT  support=suppert."?   
 
 Ethan: 
 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:
 No, it is "INDIRECT" support, but regardless, whether "INDIRECT" or "DIRECT," it comes from 
 the church treasury, and is being used for an non-saint! You cannot escape the conclusion no 
 matter how one looks at it.  
 
 Ethan: 
 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. 
 
 George: 
 Support is support, whether or not it is direct or indirect. See above. 
 
 Ethan:
 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.
 
 George:
 I agree, but where is the scripture for paying the evangelist from the church treasury? 
 
 Ethan:
 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: 
 Yes it is "absolutely ridiculous," but that is what the doctrine you are defending leads to.   
 
 Ethan: 
 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:
 With what? Funds from the church treasury. So how can you say and defend your proposition: 
 "The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help only the needy saints."
 
 Ethan: 
 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:
 It seems to me I have answered all your questions that I can remember. But if you believe a church 
 cannot be judged by the actions of its individual members (which is the church), you need to read 
 what Jesus said "unto the seven churches which are in Asia;" (Rev.1:11). What Ethan is saying, is 
 that a local church, once it has giving its funds from its treasury to any member of that church "it 
 is no longer the responsibility or the obligation of the church." what these funds are used for. One 
 with very little imagination can see where this could lead to. If one opened a Bar with this money, 
 and was asked where he got the money to open the Bar, and he answered "my church," I wonder 
 what would happen next?   
 
 Ethan:
 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?
 
 George:
 No! And can you find any Scripture that would show that the church is sinning by giving to non-
 saints?
 
 Tit for tat! 
 
 My affirmative is coming up next.
 
 George