Darrell's Second Negative 9/27/99

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the sponsoring church arrangement is a violation of local autonomy and without Biblical authority.


Darrell: I have clipped out the paragraphs which have become repetitive. In our first debate I proved that the church in Philippi served as Paul’s sponsor. There is a difference between proving something, and proving something to someone.

Carey:For the time being, I suggest we stick to the proposition. If you want to discuss the nature of the local church, draft some propositions and we will see if you want to pursue it in another medium.

Darrell: Carey, the problem you seem to be having in this leg of the debate, is that you are trying to affirm a negative proposition. The first leg of our debate already covered these arguments. Now you are affirming to deny something which you do not believe to be in the Bible, therefore you have nothing really to debate now. Furthermore, the nature of the local church has everything to do with a debate on cooperation. Until you learn more about the local church, you are going to continue to bind where the Lord did not bind.

Carey here: Darrell has twisted what I said. Perhaps it is my fault by my choice of the word "create."

Darrell: I clipped the comments leading up to this comment. The reader may want to review Carey’s 1st affirmative. (All posts to this debate may be found in the EGHhelps archives). Carey, I did not twist what you said. I held you to what you wrote and followed it through to its illogical conclusion.

Darrell wrote: Membership and loyalty to a local congregation is not option based on human agreement, friend (Acts 2:42).

Carey here: Our debate is here because you have added another element to what God has ordained. We can read of the universal church and the local church, but we cannot read of the sponsoring church in scripture. This is an addition and thus, without Biblical authority.

Darrell: Again, we are just repeating what was argued in debate 1. I proved in that debate that the church in Philippi was Paul’s sponsor. We can and do read of the arrangement in the Bible. Which by the way, answers you phantom limited pattern noted below:

Carey: The scriptures allow the cooperation of these individuals through several avenues.

1) Participation in the local church. Heb 10:24, 1 Tim 3:15

2) The combined efforts of several local churches (this would be cooperation, but not a federation, society, amalgamation or a structured grouping into a unit of sorts, each congregation would be acting independently of each other) in the support of an evangelist (2 Cor 11:8-9),

3) The financial support of one who preaches the gospel by individuals or a congregation or several congregations. Phil 2:25, Phil 4:15, 2 Cor 11:8 The sponsoring church arrangement is not one of the avenues supported by scripture.

Carey: By the way, I am only affirming that the sponsoring church position is without Bible authority. I have never stated anything about hell in any of my arguments. Darrell is attributing words to me that I have not spoken or even suggested. The statement was uncalled for.

Darrell: No Carey, the statement is the bottom line of the doctrine taught by the Non-Institutional Church of Christ. Most N-I’s who have challenged me to debate have insisted that we keep "going to hell" out of the propositions; because, it would cause prejudice toward the N-I position. Carey, you have charged me with adding to God’s word. Are you now saying that we can add to God’s word, and act in religion without authority, and not fear the fires of hell? I fear not to take this discussion to its conclusion. Carey, we are not debating a privately held opinion. No this is a doctrine you are teaching and binding on others. Carey, you are guilty of binding where God has not bound, and if you remain in this condition you will be tried and found guilty in the judgment to come. This is not my judgment, but the Lord’s.

Through inspired writers he said: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10). "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov 30:6). "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev 21:8). "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:. . . A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (Prov 6:16-19). Carey, your doctrine is of another mind. It has and does cause division. In one sense you add to the Bible because you have God taking a position which he does not take; therefore, you lie. These words are harsh and many will say that Darrell Broking is so mean spirited and hateful. But Carey I am not commenting on your motivation just your doctrine. And it is a lie. The Bible teaches that no (unrepentant) liar can go to heaven. Your doctrine has sowed much discord among brethren. Yes Carey, we are discussing the difference between heaven and hell.

Carey: God has not authorized any elders to oversee a work other than the work that is being done by the congregation which they serve (Acts 20:28, 1 Pet 5:1-4, Col 3:17). an eldership cannot give up its charge, responsibility, or treasury to the oversight of another eldership. Neither, does an eldership have authority to accept the charge, responsibility of another eldership.

Darrell: Carey, your claim is that when one congregation sends funds to another congregation that:

(1) The sending congregation gives up its charge.

(2) The sponsoring congregation accepts the charge of another eldership.

Well, the reason that I could not answer your question about oversight the way you wanted it answered, is because you conclusions are not warranted. You see the sponsoring congregation does not accept the charge of the sending congregation, nor does the sending congregation give up any of its charge.

The Biblical answer to your charge is simple. If an eldership assumes charge beyond their local allotment (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4) by accepting funds from outside their membership, then the church in Judea had some real problems. "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul" (Acts 11:29-30). Your doctrine has the Jerusalem elders exceeding their boundaries. Furthermore, the congregations which later gave funds to the church in Jerusalem, did not give up their charge. These congregations did not create a benevolent society, they were still local congregations. Carey, the same thing is true in sponsoring arrangement.

Carey here: I agree that congregations have the right to determine how they will use their funds, but they are limited by Biblical authority on how they can use them. The congregation that participates in a sponsoring church arrangement (giving or receiving) is acting without Biblical authority. No local church can choose to do error and still be pleasing in the sight of God.

Darrell: But Paul’s implication teaches the sponsoring arrangement (giving and receiving, Paul’s words - Phil. 4:15) is authorized.

For His Name,

Darrell Broking

Go to the third affirmative argument of Carey

Return to the Debate index

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 /