Carey's First Negative 7/26/99
I hope that all will pray about these matters and that the truth will be the victor of this discussion. So that all the more would recognize the truth, and bring their lives into it's light. I believe that as long has truth has a hearing, there are positive results to come from it. Only by suppression of the truth is there removed the opportunity to do righteousness.
Darrell wrote: In this leg of the debate my job is to affirm the scripturalness of several congregations sending a missionary's funds to a sponsoring congregation, which would send those funds to the missionary in the field.
Carey here: I believe it is my job in this debate to show where Darrell has NOT (emp--cs) proven his case.
Darrell wrote in his last sentence: Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligation to prove that this arrangement is authorized by the Bible.
Carey here: My job is to put into question whether Darrell has done what he claims to have done.
Darrell reprinted my answers to some questions that he offered me. The answers that I offered still stand. I am sure that many have probably understood what I meant, but I feel that I should clarify on one point.
Darrell wrote: Carey answered the question like this: The local church can make any decisions they want. Oversight is a word limited... (Please read from the First affirmative).
Carey here: A local church has power within itself to make any decision they want. That does not make it right, however. After all, we are all familiar with the churches that have decided to add the instrument to their worship. We are aware of those who allow women to preach and serve in authoritative roles. We are aware of the many ways in which the local churches have decided to go beyond scripture or have chosen to ignore certain scriptures. That does not make it right, but they have that ability. This debate concerns these things.
Our hope in this debate is that many who have made errors in judgement will see the error of their ways and repent and turn to serving God, HIS WAY (emp--cs).
Darrell wrote: I am pleased to debate this issue with a man who is obviously a free thinker.
Carey here: Since Darrell has brought in many quotes from past arguments and debates, it would be an assumption that Darrell expected me to answer the same old arguments, which have gone nowhere in the past. Let me assure everybody that I have learned through my years of experience to study the Bible for myself and determine for myself what I believe. I do not rest upon the traditions that have been taught in the past, but I study all things from the scriptures in order to give an answer of the hope that is in me (1 Pet 3:15; Acts 17:11). I hope this is what Darrell means when he calls me a "free thinker". If I missed something, maybe Darrell can let me know.
I also believe one of the reasons that the church is in such pitiful shape today is because many in the church do not know what they believe. Many have just been following blind tradition. Many have been caught up in these discussions and have learned to fear and hate those on the other side because they were told that those on the other side were evil. This statememt applies to both camps.
Darrell wrote: This debate is really a debate focused on Bible authority. Christians must have Bible authority for all that is done in religion (Col.3:17). Before anything can be expedient in religion a matter of Biblical obligation must be established. The Bible authorizes through direct statements, approved examples and implication.
Carey here: Darrell, I am going to hold you to this statement throughout the debate. You are right when you say that the debate focuses on Bible authority. I really believe that it is the focal point of just about every debate ever debated.
Darrell wrote: The church of Christ has been commanded to evangelize the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:44f; Phil. 2:15-16; Acts 8:4). Therefore, a matter of Biblical obligation has been established.
Carey here: I really think that a problem with Darrell's position is in his understanding of the mission of the church. I would ask Darrell to clarify his use of the term church. Is it used in a universal or local sense? Is it used of the local congregation, or the individual members of the local congregation apart from the organized worship?
Concerning the passages referenced by Darrell, we see that the great commission is given to His disciples, who carried the message of the gospel to the world. I would add 2 Tim 2:2 to your list up there and show that the responsibility to evangelize lies with each individual Christian in addition to the local church.
One of our problems in the church today is the fact that many accept the position that the church has that obligation and therefore excuse themselves, as individuals, from this greatest of all commands.
There are other problems, which Darrell brings up, that show a misunderstanding of the role of the individual Christian and the church. We will cover these later.
Darrell wrote: Specific authority is both inclusive and exclusive. By inclusive it is understood that specific authority is limited to the specifics given by God when obeying or fulfilling God given obligation. By exclusive it is understood that specific authority excludes the employment of any additions to what has been specified.
Carey here: I also intend to hold Darrell to this statement as well. This whole discussion/debate is based upon the fact that some have reversed the roles of examples and written statements to say something is specific when in reality it is generic or something is generic, when it is really specific. I will show that Darrell has done this in this first affirmative.
Darrell wrote: That the "sponsoring" arrangement as noted in the debate proposition is authorized under the heading of general authority is without question.
Carey here: Darrell, you have not proven this yet. You are speaking as if it is generally accepted. Your first sentence of your affirmative tells us that you must prove this. So far you have only assumed that everyone accepts your position. If you CAN (emphasis--cs) prove it, please proceed in a manner that produces evidence to prove your position.
Darrell wrote: No where does the Bible set forth specific authority as to how one congregation may financially cooperate with other congregations in evangelism. ...it is evident that the above statement is just one avenue of expediency under the heading of general authority.
Carey here: It is not evident at all in this matter. At your own admission, the scripture is silent. What is your authority to act in such silence? "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21). KJV says to "prove all things". You must prove by either a command or example or necessary inference to establish your statement. Heb 7:14 teaches that when the Lord speaks nothing in respect to a particular subject, in which He has instructed upon, we are to assume that we are not allowed to do that thing. Thus the old phrase "Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent"
Darrell, if we applied your principles to other subjects, we would most certainly be in trouble and guilty of condemning others who were acting upon the silence of scripture. You must get consistent with your arguments and your foundation of authority.
Darrell wrote: It is error to say that the Bible teaches that this is a specific pattern of authority for churches to support one of the Lord's workers in the field. It is damnable error to bind this as the only authorized way to support a worker for the Lord in the field.
Carey here: Darrell must first prove that there are no specifics listed in scripture in order to substantiate this charge. Darrell has yet to prove that the sponsoring church is included in a general command. Darrell has made many assumptions, but has not proven it yet. I ask Darrell to PROVE (emp--cs) his position in his second affirmative.
Darrell wrote: Another Biblically approved method of supporting a worker for the Lord in the field is through the sponsoring church arrangement. This arrangement is not a specific pattern of authority.
Carey here: Darrell has not proven that the sponsor church arrangement is even covered under generic authority. In our second debate, I will list scriptures, which give the specifics of authority concerning the work of the church. It is not my job in this negative to present affirmative evidence. That is Darrell's job. If this is another Biblically approved method of supporting a worker, please list the scriptures that authorize such. Darrell is proceeding as if he has proven this, but in reality, he has only given us reasoning and conjecture. Darrell has only one more opportunity to prove his arguments in this debate.
Darrell wrote: It can not be affirmed that each of the churches supporting Paul sent his wages directly to him. It may be the case that the church in Philippi was serving as Paul's sponsoring congregation.
Carey here: The whole of Darrell's evidence is in the fact that "It may be the case that..." If Darrell says that it may be a case, I suggest that Darrell admits that there is not certainty, but just a possibility. Therefore equally we can see that it may NOT (emp--cs) be the case.
If Darrell can give us a certainty, his case would stand. If you remember Darrell's point about authority, all we need is one example or verse to confirm how it was done. If we can produce a verse that tells us how, and there are no other verses that show a different way, we are limited by authority to that one example. An example would be the observance of the Lord's supper on Sunday. We act because of only one verse in all of scripture. As of yet, Darrell only offers a possibility. And, Darrell has given you our authority of one example listing a specific.
Darrell quoted Phil 4:15: "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only"
Carey here: Darrell, what does the last phrase mean? Does "but ye only" mean that all the other churches participated in this work? The scripture says right here that the church in Philippi was the only one to support Paul. How do you get out of this statement, that the Philippian church was the sponsoring church? You must admit that it is only a possibility and a hopeful guess.
Darrell wrote: The terms "giving" and "receiving" are most interesting. Paul used words which have to do with keeping the books. These words can be replaced with the words debit and credit. Vine wrote: "euphemistically referring to gifts as a matter of debit and credit accounts.
Carey here: There is another scripture reference that speaks of debit and credit accounts. Read Philemon 17-20. Here is an instance that the record keeping is between two individuals.
Although words might be specific terms, their usage within their context determines their actual meaning.
I looked up the word euphemistically in a dictionary, and found that a euphemism is the exchange of one word for another in order to suit the taste of an individual. This would be where in a quote someone uses profanity, and we change the profane words to something less offensive. But let us notice the entire statement of Vine.
5. Dosis (greek) denotes, properly, the act of giving, Phil 4:15, euphemistically referring to gifts as a matter of debt and credit accounts; then, objectively, a gift, Jas 1:17 (1st mention--See Boon). [This is listed under the word Gift, Giving.]
A study of the context of Phil 4:10-19 will easily show that the giving was demonstrated in the donation sent to Paul for his physical relief, and the receiving is what the Philippians received. The self-satisfaction that they were participating in the Lord's work, and their view of themselves in relationship to God. Paul told them that this sacrifice was well pleasing to God v18. To imply the "receiving" was the receiving from other churches cannot be proven with this passage of scripture.
Darrell is trying to change the scripture here to "receiving and giving" rather than what is actually spoken; "giving and receiving" Darrell has taken this as a euphemism to insert thoughts which are not supported by the actual words but would make his words more acceptable. Darrell has taken the God-given pattern in it's proper order and switched them around. My question #3 before this negative was on this subject. Darrell affirmed that there is a pattern and we cannot change the pattern of Biblical authority.
Darrell has NOT (emp--cs) fulfilled his obligation to prove his first affirmative.
Go to the second affirmative argument by Darrell
Return to the Debate Index page
Home / Bible studies / Bible Survey / Special Studies / General Articles / Non-Bible Articles / Sermons / Sermon Outlines / Links / Questions and Answers / What Saith The Scriptures /Daily Devotional / Correspondence Courses / What is the Church of Christ / Book: Christian Growth / Website Policy / E-mail / About Me /