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
 
 Ethan:
 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! 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 
 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:
 In spite of the fact that I have given the verse: "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good 
 unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10), and, in spite of 
 the fact that I have shown clearly that it was directed to the church, (Gal. 1:2), Ethan still "insists" 
 that I give him such a scripture. We were afraid that maybe he would not be willing to accept the 
 proof of our proposition even when it was presented and he has proved this time and time again. I 
 thought, that surely Ethan would understand my use of the passage in Matthew but it seems that I 
 must go into a long, drawn-out explanation to show him all about it. Naturally, if there were no 
 other scriptures in the New Testament which prove that the church should help needy non-saints 
 then Matt. 5:43-48 would not prove anything on this matter. But since there are other such 
 scriptures, the principle set forth in Matt. 5:43-48 may be used without doing violence to the Word 
 of God. Next we have a dissertation about pronouns that are singular and pronouns that are plural!  
 The fact is that pronouns (both singular and plural) are used in the New Testament in reference to 
 the church and Ethan has still not told us how we may know in any given passage whether the 
 church or the individual is meant! And we are beginning to think that he does not know! We refer 
 the reader to Phil. 4:15. He thinks I am straining I Thess. 1:3 to show that the church is to "love." 
 But he was very emphatic in his first affirmative to state the Bible teaches us by example, 
 approved example. Now does it, or doesn't it, Is this an approved example of the Thessalonian 
 church showing "love," or not, and while you are dealing with this, will you also explain Rev. 2:19 
 which mentions the "charity" of the church. It seems that Ethan knows that if the Bible teaches the 
 church as such to manifest "love" he has lost the debate; that he has failed to successfully deny the 
 proposition. This is the only reason in the world why he would take such an untenable position as 
 this. This, no doubt, is also why he dropped like a "hot potato" the matter of the church being 
 commanded to be honest when the individuals in it are commanded to be honest, when we were 
 discussing the 13th chapter of Romans! If the church is commanded to be honest when the 
 individuals in it are told to be honest, then, is not the church commanded to "love" when the 
 individuals in it are told to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Actually, if one follows Ethan's 
 reasoning very closely, it would not be necessary to produce any scripture which states the church 
 is to care for the needy non-saints. All it would be necessary to do to uphold my proposition 
 (according to his own logic) would be to produce the scriptures where individuals are told to do it. 
 We have both pointed out, the church does all that it does through the individuals in it. The ears of 
 the church are the ears of the individuals in it, and, the heart(s) of the church is the heart(s) of the 
 individuals in it, and Ethan is forced either to the conclusion that the church as such may in 
 harmony with the scriptures care for the needy of the world, or else, he is forced to the conclusion 
 that the church as such can do nothing at all! 
 
 Ethan says with emphasis. That the church is obligated to help needy saints only.  May I ask, just 
 for the record, where is the scripture for the above statement? Now he doesn't like too well what I 
 said about the "legal loop-hole" but nevertheless that is just what it is. He said that if a woman 
 were a member of the church and her disabled husband were not, the church could help her and 
 give her a lot more than was necessary for her own support so that she could share it with her 
 husband and children. Thus, he has the church helping the needy non-member in this indirect way. 
 Therefore, indirectly, he has admitted that he has signed a false proposition. May we ask, Ethan if 
 there are other such "loop-holes" which will permit the church to help the needy non-saints? This 
 is interesting and we would like to know more about it. If the man in the example were only a 
 brother in the flesh to the woman who was a Christian, could the church still give her more than 
 enough so that she could share with her unbelieving brother? And, if this brother who believed not 
 happened to be married and lived next door with his wife and children, could the church give this 
 sister enough and some over so that she could share with her disabled brother and his family who 
 live next door? Tell us all about this in your next rebuttal. And what about orphan of non-saints! 
 Will you take the position that the church has no obligation in the care of these orphans? What 
 "loophole" permits the care of these little non-saints from the treasury?
 
 Ethan continues to evade the direct question, "how may we know in any given passage whether 
 the church as such it meant or the individual is meant?" And in the letter to the Galatians, when 
 did Paul stop addressing the church and addressed the individual.  We call to the reader's attention 
 that if Ethan knew the answer, he would not permit us to continually press him on this point.! 
 Please, Ethan, will you tell us plainly just how we may know?
 
 I have contended from the very beginning that everything the church does, it does through 
 individuals, but this still does not militate against the fact that the Bible represents the church as 
 such as doing some things. (Acts 11:22, Acts 12:5, Phil. 4:15 and I Thess. 1:13.) So the church can 
 do anything the individual can do to promote New Testament Christianity.
 
 I believe that there are many principles in the sermon on the mount which are applicable to the 
 church and which are binding upon the church and I think few people would agree with Ethan's 
 position that it applies only to the individual and not to the church. ( Matt. 5:43-48) He says it was 
 not directed to the church -- well, we all knew that it was not directed to the church-but we are 
 contending that it sets forth principles, which are binding upon the church and we backed this up 
 with several other passages of scripture.   So far as Ethan is concerned the church can do nothing 
 at all! Even in letters written to the churches. It seems according to him there are no commands in 
 the Bible directed to the church! He says it is directed to individuals Therefore, according to Ethan 
 the church must pay her debts So, what does this mean when the individuals in the church are told 
 to care for "all men"? Disregarding the fact that Paul said he was writing unto the churches of 
 Galatia, Ethan still contends that everything in the book of Galatians is directed to the individual 
 Christian. He can sees things in Galatians or Thessalonians being written to an individual. But he 
 cannot see a thing that is written to the church that could be a collective obligation of the church! 
 
 Paul was speaking to the church in Galatians 3:26-27. We certainly see all in the church had 
 become children of God by faith and obedience but they had done this individually. And all in the 
 churches of Galatia had been baptized into Christ and put him on, but they had done this 
 individually. Yes, he was speaking to them collectively and telling them what they had done in the 
 past to become members of the church. And he was speaking to them collectively in Gal. 6:10. 
 And Ethan will still be trying in vain when this discussion is over to show that Gal. 6:10 refers to 
 individual rather than collective obligation.  On the matter of James 2:1-26, Ethan says the 
 families of the man and woman who are in need of help are first responsible for their well-being, I 
 Tim. 5:3-16. And I will agree with this all the way. But now comes the "legal loophole" in the 
 whole business! Read carefully what he says the church may have to help the woman who is a 
 Christian, and she is in turn obligated to help her family, (I Tim. 5:8.) If this is not a "legal 
 loophole" I have never heard of one! We can just quit the debate right now, brethren, and from 
 now on for the sake of peace, instead of helping a non-saint from the treasury direct, all we'll have 
 to do to please Ethan would be to help them through a friend or relative who is a saint! It is alright, 
 says Ethan as long as we don't give it to them directly. We can give it to someone else and let 
 them give it to the needy non-saints! And look what verse he uses to prove it! I Tim.5:8! And he is 
 the one who has accused me of misapplication of scripture!
 
   On some issues, some brethren cry: "Glorify God through the church, through the church!" But 
 now, on this issue, Ethan wants us to "Glorify God through the individual"! Well Ethan, if the 
 woman in my question is to take part of what the church gives her and give it to her husband and 
 children, the church would have to give her more than enough - is this scriptural?
 
  I would like to ask Ethan how we may know in any given passage whether the individual 
 Christian or the church is meant, in the letters written to the churches? Can we tell by whether or 
 not a part of a human being is mentioned, such as "eyes," "ears" and "hearts," is this how we can 
 tell? Of course, I'm sure that you would not say that we could tell by whom the letter is addressed 
 to, would you? 
 
 Every scripture I mentioned in my first affirmative stands untouched! I used Matt. 5:43-48 along 
 with Rom. 13:7-10, Gal. 1:2 and Gal. 5:14, and also Gal. 6:10 don't forget this one. I used I Thess. 
 3:12-13 and I Thess. 5:14-15. I emphasized that Paul wrote unto the "church" and told them to 
 "ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to all men." And what did Ethan do 
 with these things? You can see that he did next to nothing at all. I also used James 2:1-26. In all I 
 used more than seven scriptures to uphold my proposition and they all stand for Ethan has not 
 taken away one of them. I have shown by these scriptures that the obligation rests upon the church 
 to do good unto all men especially to those who are of the household of faith. And in doing so, I 
 have thereby shown that the church is to use its treasury for this purpose, since the treasury is one 
 of the facilities available to the church for such good work.  And to prove my proposition beyond 
 any doubt, we will let the apostle Paul speak for us in his letter he wrote to the church at Corinth: " 
 For the administration of this service 'not only supplieth the want of the saints, ' but is abundant 
 also by many thanksgivings unto God; Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify 
 God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution 'unto 
 them', 'and unto all men;"'
 
 How many scriptures has Ethan given showing that the church is to help "saints only"? The same 
 amount as he could give us where it shows one is saved by "faith only"
 
 Now, to the question submitted by Ethan:
 
 1.May an individual partake of the Lord's Supper by himself alone? Why or why not?
 
 Can not one pray by himself, can not one sing by himself, can not one "lay by" himself, Are there 
 not many on Sunday night that take the Lord's Supper by themselves, if they missed the Sunday 
 morning services? Do not some carry the Lord's Supper to "shut-ins" and to hospitals.?  Is it 
 unscriptual?  
 
 Conclusion: Therefore, "The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help any 
 needy person."
 
 Brethren, God gave His Son to the world! (John 3:16). We as the body of His Son cannot help just 
 one needy person in the world? The Bible teaches no such thing.  
 
 By His Grace and Love
 George