Longhenry/Jackson Debate on Benevolence

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help any needy person.
 
 Affirm:  George A. Jackson
 Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry
 
 George:
 I do hope Ethan remembers his definition of his proposition concerning "the Scriptures:" "the 
 word of God, the books of Genesis-Malachi representing the Old Testament..." And my definition: 
 "I mean the 66 books of the Holy Bible." Does Ethan now say we cannot use the Old Testament? 
 Was not Stephen referring to the Old Testament when he mention "the church in the wilderness" 
 (Acts 7:38). Is Ethan now saying that God's care for the needy was also nailed to the cross?
 
 ELDV:
  I certainly would never say that the "care for the needy was nailed to the cross;" I say that 
 in the new covenant, individuals are to bear the burden of assisting the needy of the world, not the 
 church.  The Old Testament is suitable for examples and the understanding of the plan of 
 salvation, but never for doctrine!
 
  George:
 1 Timothy 5:16 is a verse that I never mentioned in my affirmative. So lets look at it closely to see 
 what it does not say! It does not say that the church cannot help the widow if the individual cannot 
 or will not.
 
 ELDV:
  It says that if there is a believer who can take care of the widow, he/she ought to, so that 
 the church can "help those who are widows indeed." Paul is thus delineating the responsibility of 
 benevolence: individuals are to be burdened first, and only when there are no individuals to bear 
 the burden may the church help its own.  It would be good for us to recognize this pattern.
 
  George:
 Listen again to the Head of the church: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart 
 from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an 
 hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 'I was a stranger', and 
 ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick an in prison, and ye visited me not. Then 
 shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, 
 or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, 
 Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 
 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Mat. 
 25:41-46).
 As I have said, God has, in every age, enjoined upon His people the responsibility of caring for 
 those in need. In this, God has enjoined the church to be responsible in benevolence to the needy 
 and helpless (widows, fatherless, strangers, poor, oppressed, sick, hungry, thirsty, naked, etc.).
 
 ELDV:
  You again have assumed your proof, which I demonstrated in my last rebuttal to be 
 lacking.  God has surely enjoined upon His people the responsibility of benevolence-- you have 
 assumed that "His people helping" can refer to a work of the church, which is not expressed in the 
 Scriptures.
 
  George:
 As shown by a study of Galatians 6:10.
 As shown by a study of James 1:27.7
 
 ELDV:
  We have already gone over Galatians 6:10, and will probably see more discussion 
 concerning it later.  On James 1:27, the church is not given any commandment to help anyone-
 the commandment made by James refers to the INDIVIDUAL-- "and to keep ONESELF 
 unstained from the world."  James was by no means referring to the church in James 1:27.
 
  George:
 The responsibility of the local church In benevolence as shown by Galatians 6:10 it does not refer 
 to an action of only an individual Christian. Ethan teaches the action prescribed in this verse is 
 only an individual action, and that the church cannot, and must not, involve itself in doing good 
 unto all men, for it would be a sin in doing so, or In attempting to do so.
 If this is only an individual action, notice what the church may do. The church may not help those 
 of the household of faith, for those who are to do good unto all men are the very same ones who 
 are to do good unto the household of faith (Gal. 6:10; 1:2). The church may not restore a brother 
 overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6: 1).
 
 ELDV:
  George here is using a false proof-- he states that if I deny that Galatians 6 refers to the 
 church, then the church cannot perform these activities.  This is not borne out by Scripture, for we 
 see that in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, the church is commanded to collect to assist saints.  We have an 
 agreement from the last proposition that this is the case.  The fact that Galatians 6 does not refer to 
 the church, but to the individual, does not mean that every single thing mentioned in Galatians 6 
 cannot be done by the church.  It simply means that Galatians 6 cannot be used properly to justify 
 some of the actions of the church, unless George does not want to "rightly divide the word of 
 truth," (2 Timothy 2:15)?  The church can restore one of its own because this occurred in 2 
 Corinthians 8, not because of a commandment to the individual in Galatians 6.  Likewise, the 
 church can rebuke one of its own lost in sin due to 1 Corinthians 5, not due to any inference made 
 in Galatians 6.
 
  George:
 Though Matthew 13: 17 records these words of Jesus: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it 
 unto the church but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a 
 publican." The church may not bear one another's burdens (Gal. 6:2). The church may not fulfil 
 the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). The church may not pay the preacher (Gal. 6:6). Therefore, only 
 individuals would be responsible, and only individuals may help those of the household of faith, 
 restore a brother overtaken in a fault, bear one another's burdens, fulfil the law of Christ, and pay 
 the preacher. Who, proclaiming such a doctrine, practices that which is logically a consequence of 
 it? Who would say, for example, that only individuals may provide the support of the preacher? 
 Who would say the church would sin if it attempted to pay the preacher? Galatians 6:10 does not 
 limit benevolence to "saints only." The Greek word "pantas," translated "all men" means just that, 
 "everyone, anyone, all men., Obviously the "all men" of this verse refers to someone(s) other than 
 just those included in the "household of faith," and is not a reference to the household of faith; that 
 is, to "saints only." If this were the case, the verse would be redundant: "As we have therefore 
 opportunity, let us do good unto (the household of faith),, especially unto them who are of the 
 household of faith."
 
 ELDV:
  First, the beginning part of this segment is dealt with before: the fact that Galatians 6 
 refers to the individual does not necessarily mean that the church cannot perform the actions 
 discussed, merely that the individual ought to.  The church and the individual do have some 
 responsibilities in common, notably the support of evangelism and benevolence to the saints.  
 Again, it would be hard for George to find any comment I have made that denies that the church 
 ought to help its own, or to pay a preacher, or to be able to rebuke/restore one of its own.
 
 George has also created a nice strawman, an argument concerning the "all men" in Galatians 6:10.  
 Have I yet questioned that the "all men" signifies "all men" or not?  By no means!  I have 
 attempted to rightly divide the truth and show clearly that the command in question refers to the 
 individual, and not the church!  The individual Christians are commanded to do good to all men.  
 What George has yet to prove is that there is the same commandment anywhere in the Scriptures 
 that affirm that the church also has this role.
 
  George:
 A study of other passages employing this same word will reveal the meaning to be inclusive of 
 "everyone, anyone, all men," and not restricted to "saints only" (John 12:32; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 The. 
 3:12; 5:15). As shown by Galatians 6:10, the church has responsibility to extend benevolence to 
 all men (those other than saints), and especially to the household of faith (saints).
 
 ELDV:
  It is agreed that the individuals have this responsibility-- you have not yet demonstrated 
 any reason to believe that the context of Galatians 6 does NOT refer to the individual Christians.
 
  George:
 The responsibility of the local church in benevolence as shown by James 1:27.
 Ethan's doctrine erroneously teaches only individuals may fulfil that which is commanded in this 
 verse. This command does include individuals, but is not limited only to individuals As Galatians 
 6:10 was addressed to the church (Gal. 1:2), so James" inspired epistle was to the church (James 
 1:1; 2:1-2; cf. Gal. 6:16). Individuals and the church must practice that which is enjoined in this 
 verse James 1:27 is only for individual then, notice what the church could not do. The church 
 could not practice pure and undefiled religion, and would sin if it attempted to do so. The church 
 could not keep itself unspotted from the world, and would sin if it attempted to do so. The church 
 could not help the fatherless and widows--even if they were members of the church in their 
 affliction. The word "himself" in James 1:27.The same word occurs in I Corinthians 11:28 (in 
 connection with the taking of the Lord's Supper), and refers to an individual action which is 
 performed in association with others, in the assembly, as the body, the church. This word is also 
 found in 1 Corinthians 16:2, and refers to an individual action (laying by in store on the first day 
 of the week) which is performed in association with others, in the assembly, as the body, the 
 church. Thus, the word "himself" does not deny the collective action of the church, nor does it 
 limit the action of this verse only to individuals.
 
 ELDV:
  Again, George attempts the same false proof that he used in Galatians 6:10, that by saying 
 because James 1:27 refers to the individual, the church cannot be pure and undefiled, and 
 unstained by the world.  This is categorically false, because the church has been stated to be as 
 such in Ephesians 5:27.  Again, the fact that the context of James 1:27 demonstrates that "oneself" 
 is to remain unspotted from the world and to visit the widows and orphans in distress does not 
 mean that the church cannot perform any of these tasks-- it just shows that James is commanding 
 the individual to do so.  It is true that the church is unspotted from the world because of Ephesians 
 5:27, not because of James 1:27.
 
 Concerning the Greek word used as "oneself" in the text, it is the Greek heauton, defined by 
 Thayer principally as a "reflexive noun of the third person...to denote that the agent and the person 
 acted on are the same."  It is used in Matthew 27:42 when Jesus is on the cross, and the mockers 
 say that "He saved others; He cannot save HIMSELF,"  (emphasis mine).  This same word is used 
 in Mark's account (Mark 15:31) and in Luke's account (Luke 23:35).  James himself uses the same 
 word again in James 2:17, this time using it in the sense of "being alone:"
 
 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
 
 George's explanation of the term being an individual action done in the presence of others is not 
 borne out by either 1 Corinthians 11:28 or 1 Corinthians 16:2; Thayer comments on the use of the 
 term here: "par heauton, by him, i.e. at his home, 1 Cor. 16:2."  The "putting aside" was to be done 
 at home, and then brought for collection!  Especially seeing 1 Corinthians 11:22, which shows the 
 separation of the "home" and the assembly, clearly the saving is not an individual action 
 performed collectively. Furthermore, with 1 Corinthians 11:28, the examination is completely 
 individual-- each one is to judge whether or not he or she is fit to partake.  The text mentions no 
 specific time/place this could occur.  Would the text condemn such judgment being made at home 
 before one goes to assemble?  By no means!  Therefore, the Greek word used need not refer to an 
 individual action done collectively, but just an individual action.  James 1:27 continues to not have 
 any bearing on the church.
 
  George:
 1.May the church help a church member who is widowed, and has a small child?
 
 ELDV:
  Certainly, if he/she is a faithful saint.
 
  George:
  2. May the church refuse to help the small child if the mother dies?
 
 ELDV:
  I am confident that if the church has Christians who are diligently following their Master, 
 then this will never be a problem because the individual Christians will take in and support the 
 small child.
 
  George:
 3.Would the church be justified in letting the child die of starvation, exposure, or neglect-because 
 he is not a "saint"?
 
 ELDV:
  Ah, a "what-if" that is based on the idea that the individual Christians would not support 
 the child.  Here's your answer,  George: a church full of individuals who would not assist this child 
 would be lost in sin, not holy and blameless, and therefore not a part of the Church that is of 
 Christ, for its members have not performed the commandments given to them.  Would you really 
 expect a church whose individual members would not support this child to support the child 
 collectively?  This is rather ludicrous.
 
  George:
 4. Would the church sin if it allowed him to come in, sit down, and cool off (on the pew, and in 
 the air conditioning provided by the treasury)?
 
 ELDV:
  Certainly not.  The building, air conditioning, and all such things are provided for the 
 edification and assistance of the saints in attendance. It is not the intent, nor could it ever be 
 construed as the intent, of the church to be "supporting" non-saints by this venture.
 
  George:
 5. May the church use the phone (provided from the treasury) to call for an ambulance should he 
 need medical care?
 
 ELDV:
  See above.  Furthermore, the call is free :).
 
  George:
 6. Would those collecting the contribution be required to forbid a non-saint to contribute?
 
 ELDV:
   Why would a non-saint wish to assist the Gospel and yet still be a non-saint?
 
  George:
 7.Must the church post signs prohibiting visiting non-members from drinking at the water 
 fountain, and from using the rest rooms?
 
 ELDV:
  Again, see above.  These facilities are provided for the benefit of the saints, and cannot be 
 construed as financially assisting non-saints.
 
  George:
 What a ridiculous, and wrong doctrine is the doctrine which prohibits the church from doing good 
 to all men! Hopefully, we can see the error of such a doctrine which would eliminate the 
 responsibility of the church in benevolence to all persons in need The church has a great 
 responsibility and at great opportunity in the area of benevolence. Many doors have been opened 
 when people have seen Christianity in action in benevolence. (One said, "People do not care how 
 much you know until they know how much you care.") Whether those aided are obedient to the 
 gospel, or not, we still have the responsibility of caring for those in need.
 
 ELDV:
 I see here an emotional plea not based on any Scripture or any such truth, but just an opinion 
 presented because of what "seems" good.  The church has never been given the responsibility in 
 the Scriptures to assist non-saints; individuals have been given this responsibility, in order 
 that the light of Christ might shine through them in their good works.  George, what do you think 
 will convince someone more of the goodness in Christ: a church forking out checks or a Christian 
 giving a needy man a hot meal with a smile of warmth on his face?  I will not deny that Christianity 
 in action is seen clearly in benevolence-- I will vehemently deny, however, that it is the responsibility 
 of the collective church to perform such activities.  You have not yet demonstrated that the responsibility 
 to assist non-saints has been given to the church.
 
  George:
 While we must use wisdom, and not support those who will not work, but are simply con men and 
 bums, yet we must not be stingy, nor must we close our eyes, shut up our ears, and harden our 
 hearts toward the cries of the pitiable poor and needy (remember Mat. 25:41-46). The 'local church 
 has a responsibility in benevolence, and should look upon this responsibility as a privilege and a 
 blessing, for in benevolence we can be a blessing, and show Christ, who is omnibenevolent, 
 dwelling in us. We should be thankful we have opportunity to give to those in need (Eph. 4:28), 
 and that we are not in need ourselves.
 
 ELDV:
  This is certainly true-- of the individual.  No such commandment has been given to the 
 church.
 
  George:
 Here again Ethan is taken a letter written to the "churches of Galatia" and making it a letter to a 
 individual. Just what did Paul stop writing to the "churches" and write to the individual?
 
 ELDV:
  Ah, so you deny that a letter to a collective can never refer to individuals?  How about the 
 opposite?  In 1 Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy, does he not?  Yet in chapter 5 Paul discusses the 
 duties of the church concerning widows!  Shall we deny that Paul is discussing the church merely 
 because he is writing to the individual Timothy?   By no means!  Merely because Galatians 1:1 
 refers to the church does not mean that Galatians 6 must.  Subjects can and do change in anyone's 
 writings.
 
  George:
 Then you must judge the motive of each giver and return the money given by "one has no concern 
 for God or His Gospel," back to then before leaving the church building?
 
 ELDV:
  2 Corinthians 8 outlines the responsibility of the one who gives, that it should be done 
 cheerfully, and it is clear that they gave because they knew for what they were giving.  If they do 
 not do so, then they are guilty of error.  Concerning the church, is it responsible for the motives of 
 the individual?  No, it is not.  But the contribution remains the responsibility of the individual, and 
 the individual alone.
 
  George:
 Then when Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, and said in chapter 11:20 "When ye come 
 together..." He was not really speaking to the church but to individual 'only'?
 
 ELDV:
  The Lord's Supper is an individual action done collectively. Individuals come together to 
 become a collective.
 
  George:
 We see the church collecting for the saints, but where do we see the "church" collecting for the 
 preacher. "on the first day of the week"? The scripture you gave does not say such! So, since the 
 collection in 1 Corinthians 16, is for the saints "only," where do get the authority to pay the salary 
 of the preacher from that collection? How can we pay the preacher from this collection, but the 
 non-saint needy cannot be helped from it?
 
 ELDV:
  George, you clearly did not read what I said.  1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is the only example of 
 a time given when we are to contribute to a collection. We see in Philippians 4:9-10 that money 
 from the church in Philippi was given to Paul.  When else would they have collected this money?
 
 Furthermore, are evangelists saints or non-saints?  The collection can be used to give benevolence 
 to saints only; evangelists are saints; therefore, the collection can be used to give to evangelists.  
 Or do you wish to dispute that evangelists would fall into that category?
 
  George:
 Other words, yes and No!
 
 ELDV:
  By no means.  The church has no such commandment, the individuals do.
 
 George answered these questions:
 
 1. What is the purpose of the church?
 
  George:
 To bring glory to God. (1 Cor. 10:31; Eph.3:21)
 
 ELDV:
  Surely the church will do this.  How will the church bring glory to God?  Will you agree 
 or disagree that the church exists for the benefit of its members, that it is to encourage, edify, and 
 assist its individual members? 
 
  George:
 Removed the individual from the church, and there will be no more church. Without the individual 
 there is no church. One can no more removed the individual from the church and still have a 
 church, than one can removed the bricks from a brick house and still have a brick house. How 
 does the church "pray"? How does the church sing? How does the church have the Lord's Supper 
 and how does the church love? Through each member of the body: the church. All the members at 
 one time or the other, may not be faithful (Rev.2-3).
 
 ELDV:
  Good; I am glad we have agreement that the church consists of its individual members and 
 that it is only the individual members.  You have also said that the church is undefiled, and not a 
 part of the world, but yet it is in the world.
 
 Since the church is completely inclusive, what right does it have to assist outsiders?  How can the 
 duty of assisting those that are not in the church be reconciled to the fact that the church can be 
 only its individual members and exists for the edification and benefit of its own?
 
  George:
 The actions of its members are the actions of the church. A church may be dead, may have works, 
 may hear, may repent, may watch, may have a crown. May be rich, poor, wretched, miserable, 
 blind, and naked. May be nether cold or hot, etc, Everything an individual can do or be. A church 
 must be able to do or not do what the individual member of the church is able to do or not do, or 
 the church can do or not do anything! Because the church is its members. And as Revelation 2-3 
 has shown, may be held accountable for its actions or lack of actions, by the actions of its 
 members. ""He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
 
 ELDV:
  Herein we see the error of the belief that "whatever the individual can do, the church can 
 do."  May we all see that 1 Timothy 5:16 clearly denies this error, for there is a separation between 
 the responsibilities of the individual and the responsibilities of the church.
 
 To highlight this, let me ask this question to George:
 
 1. May an individual partake of the Lord's Supper by himself alone?  Why or why not?
 
 I await George's third affirmation.
 
 In the hope of Christ,
 
 ELDV 
 Ethan R. Longhenry