Proposition:
The Scriptures teach that all or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation may 
be restricted to a single individual

"The numerous passages which I have set forth in this discussion have demonstrated a basic 
Biblical principle:  the few may teach the many."

Thus begins Steve's final affirmative of the above proposition.  This principle, the few may teach 
the many, is the defining characteristic of his final affirmative as he uses this phrase on at least 
five different occasions.  This principle is given to us as support for the above proposition.

However, followers of this discussion will notice that this principle does not affirm the proposition 
under consideration.  The proposition addresses not the few teaching the many, but one teaching 
everyone else. Nowhere in Steve's affirmative does he state a biblical principle that a single man 
may teach everyone else.  From his first phrase Steve fails to support his position and strengthens 
my position that all or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation cannot be 
restricted to a single individual.

Twice in the last affirmative Steve chides me on my use of the word "restrict".  However, the very 
proposition Steve has agreed to affirm uses the word "restrict" regarding public preaching and 
teaching.  If such a word was so problematic certainly it should have been addressed on his part 
before.

Finally, Steve continues to bring up his self-coined phrase "Law of Rotating Preachers" with 
reference to my affirmation of the prior proposition.  Again, readers of this discussion will note 
that this so-called "Law of Rotating Preachers" is not the subject of the debated proposition.  

In these three ways Steve has attempted to beat around the bush and even distract us from the 
subject at hand without ever fully engaging in support of a single individual doing all of a 
congregation's public preaching and teaching.  When all of the smoke is cleared, Steve lacks any 
passage of scripture to support the above proposition.

The proposition affirms the right of a congregation to restrict all of the preaching and teaching to a 
single individual under all circumstances-even when multiple capable men are present.  In his 
second affirmative Steve agreed that congregations have this right.  Therefore, if we find passages 
which declare that men gifted and talented in public instruction are required to use their gifts, then 
congregations doing otherwise, congregations which Steve would support, are not following the 
scriptures.

Let's take one more stroll through the passages previously discussed and see how they fail to 
support the stated proposition.

Steve misapplies Acts 2.  He says, "The newborn church was dependent upon the apostles for its 
instruct, and thus the Scriptural pattern was cast from day one:  the few can teach the many."  Did 
only Peter teach the newborn church?  No.  Twelve talented men did.  Acts 2 would only support 
the above proposition if only one apostle did the teaching. Since 12 participated, the passage does 
not affirm, but instead denies the state proposition.  The facts that only the apostles taught or that 
the number is 12 instead of thousands is irrelevant to the proposition currently under discussion.  
Remember this.  

Utterly absent from Acts 2 is the newborn church deciding that the first gospel preacher, Peter, be 
the ONLY gospel preacher and teacher of the newborn church.  Again, remember this.

In Acts 11, Steve takes an absolutely unfounded approach that Barnabas did "the lion's share" of 
the public teaching and teaching.  Notice, "only Jeremy doubts it was expedient for Barnabas to do 
the lion's share of the teaching in this circumstance."  Absolutely.  Why do I doubt this 
assumption?  One, nothing is said in the passage to say he did all of the teaching.  Two, capable 
and proficient preachers and teachers of the gospel other than Barnabas founded this congregation 
before his arrival. Does the mere presence of Barnabas now make them inadequate to continue 
doing the same?  Apparently Steve believes so.  

In fact, Steve asks, "Did other Christian men, 'simply sit down and keep quiet when Barnabas 
arrived?' I certainly think they did, at least for the most part."  Who can believe this position?  
Certainly no one looking for support for such a belief because none is found.

Steve then brings in I Corinthians 14:29-30 to support the above statement.  I Cor. 14 directs one 
prophet to keep quiet when another prophet began to speak.  However, this is telling two men not 
to speak at the same time.  The very same passage allows multiple prophets to teach at the same 
service just not at the same time.  Again, no support for the stated proposition.

Regarding Paul's three-year stay at Ephesus in Acts 20, Steve openly admits that the passage 
offers no support the restricting the preaching and teaching of a congregation to a single 
individual.  "I did not say the preaching of sermons was restricted to Paul and forbidden to all 
others."  So by his own admission, Acts 20 offers no concrete support for proposition Steve has 
agreed to defend.

Steve cannot find any real support with Acts 20:6 when Paul is the only mentioned speaker at a 
single service.  Since we know from the passage that this is a single service and that Paul was 
leaving the next day, there is no support for a perpetual practice of the same man doing all of the 
preaching and teaching.

In Acts 15:35 we find clear evidence that public preaching and teaching was not done by a single 
individual but by multiple individual.  Steve attempts to spin this against me.  However, my 
position under this proposition is not to prove that ALL must teach and preach but that preaching 
and teaching cannot be restricted to ONE.  This passage therefore satisfies my position.  Antioch 
used multiple men even in the presence of Barnabas and even in the presence of an apostle.

Thus concludes the list of passages used by Steve to support the proposition that a congregation 
may restrict public teaching and preaching to a single individual.  Can anyone disagree that none 
of these passages offers any support for the proposition?  We can use the verses to support 
multiple individuals preaching and teaching but we cannot spin the verses to support restriction to 
one.

Once again we find the charge that I have a "boundless fascination with preaching" from Steve.  
Multiple times in his final affirmative we read of Steve laying this charge.  Regarding the multiple 
passages I cited giving credence to the principle that instruction, both preaching and teaching, is a 
shared responsibility Steve has no response in refutation.  Does he disagree that we are to 
"admonish one another", or "exhort one another", or "teach one another"?  We find no such 
disagreement from Steve.  

In fact, regarding Hebrews 10:25 Steve admits, "the passage encourages men and women to be 
teachers."  Strangely, while Steve admits the scriptures encourage all to be teachers, he defends a 
position which restricts using these teachers to one.

I Peter 4:11 is a powerful blow to the position that congregations may restrict public teaching and 
preaching to a single individual.  If a congregation has 20 men gifted, whether naturally or by 
development, these men are asked by God to use this gift and share it with the brethren (i.e., teach 
and preach publicly).  The proposition states that congregations can ignore this verse and ignore 
19 men and limit public instruction to a single person.  Such a restriction is not biblical.  At a 
minimum, if men are talented, they must be used.

Steve made an interesting statement.  "Second, it's not likely that competent men are forbidden to 
preach [or as Jeremy likes to say, 'restricted'].  I disagree with this based on experience.  I know of 
congregations with hundreds of members but only one, two, or three men preach.  The restriction 
is not "active" in that a decree comes down stating only these men can preach but it is "passive" in 
that no one is encouraged publicly to take their place in front of the congregation. I've even heard 
preachers admit that they do not like "giving up their pulpit" and members apologize to me when I 
attend and someone else other than the preacher gives a sermon.  If Steve believes his statement 
his optimism blinds him to reality.

However, I cannot say I have any qualms with Steve's congregation. Therefore, my disagreement 
with Steve is not with his present practice, but with the principle he would allow.  I appreciate him 
taking the time to explain his current congregation's "teaching program."

Now to my apparent fivefold problem with denying this proposition. "First, he continues to elevate 
preaching above any other method of instruction."  I do not.  I simply ask why congregations 
saying teaching classes is open to all but preaching is restricted to one.  I think the elevation is on 
other's part.

"Second, he assumes any passage that speaks of teaching, admonishing, or instructing must refer 
to the preaching of sermons in a church assembly."  No such assumption.  Instead, I believe that 
passages which speak of our responsibility to teach, admonish, exhort or instruct, are naturally 
applicable to the public assembly just like commands to pray for one another and sing to each 
other.

"Third, he underestimates the problems caused by forcing all men to preach sermons."  This is off-
topic and applicable only to the first proposition.  I believe at a minimum, all talented and gifted 
men must use their gifts.  I also believe we should work and encourage actively for all men to 
develop these talents.

"Fourth, he overstates his case against the use of only competent preachers."  Unfortunately, I'm 
not quite sure what Steve is getting at with this one and I apologize for my lack of understanding.

"Fifth, he is unkind and presumptive in charging all those who disagree with him as lazy proud, 
and crippled."  I offered numerous foundations for these descriptions and Steve did not address 
them.  I'll refer the reader back to the latter half of my second rebuttal for my reasons and let the 
reader decide if I am unkind and presumptive.

I offer a sincere "A-men" in reference to Steve's hopes that the discussion has been fruitful.  I 
sincerely thank him for agreeing to publicly discuss these issues and I hope that our 
communications do not cease with this final installment.  May God bless us all and may we all 
reach out for the high calling of God.

In Christ,
Jeremy Morris