debate on church cooperation

My opponent writes that I am most concerned with autonomy. Well, of course, and so do you. And if it weren't for church autonomy the church of Christ would have been a full-fledged denomination right now. First of all, my opponent's reasoning is illogical. She implies that I was inconsistent by saying that contributing churches can contribute directly to Alan Highers who edits/publishes the Spiritual Sword. However, would not the money eventually go to the Getwell congregation or the Spiritual Sword? I suppose this answers questions A-B. Furthermore, Annanicole still pursues her argument about "one cupperism" can't she take the answer: "no, I don't teach that"? This debate is about church cooperation, may I remind you. A shocking revelation My opponent admits that the Bible -though I find the Spiritual Sword as fallible- is FALLIBLE. She admits that the Bible is NOT INFALLIBLE! I don't need any explanation concerning her declaration but let the words from what she wrote speak for themselves. And how many times do I tell my opponent: IT IS JOT WRONG send bibles. What my argument is all about is that the Spiritual Sword is unscriptural in teaching (in terms of support and practice of sponsoring church agreement). Now, i think my opponent will agree that supporting an unscriptural material will be as condoning error. This is an answer to letter C. In an effort to dodge my argument about Jehovah's Witnesses she has to resort to somewhat different. Consider the following statement in an answer if we can send Jehovah's Witnesses Literature: "Why, certainly you can, if used properly. "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" is technically in the latest Spiritual Sword under the article commencing on page 34, "Why I Am Not a Jehovah's Witness. " You can see the silliness of her response. And I was not referring to the "if used properly" but I was referring to the materials like "Watchtower" and "Awake". *** "The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated. " Will my opponent affirm that it is indeed in harmony with the Bible to simply change the "Pay to the Order of" on the check to Judge Alan Highers and LET HIM DO IT? Will you say that? I doubt it. Yet you'd have one congregation simply sending money to an "evangelist" who in turn uses the money "to evangelize". How about that? (E) Further, could Judge Highers simply contribute his "support" to the Getwell church so that they can publish the Spiritual Sword? I want to know what "autonomy" is violated by such a scheme. -Will my opponent also affirm send money to another church and do its work; to oversee its money? I don't think an individual can violate any other church's autonomy. Answer to letter E. "if the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to purchase/publish/distribute the Spiritual Sword, then BOTH are involved in evangelism through that work. Same with benevolence. If the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to supply the needs of the destitute, then BOTH are involved in that work. " Well, if that's the case then, doesn't the getwell church oversee the money of Highland church? Doesn't that violate autonomy? Can a congregation oversee the money of another congregation. If a congregation oversee a “little money” of another congregation can it oversee its whole treasury? If not, why not? “*** "Concerning the Antioch church, the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church. " Well, if you follow the example - if that is the exclusive divine pattern - then 1. (F) One congregation may supply physical needs only in cases of famine only, right? That's your example. (G) What happens in cases of a flood - and I call for a passage, by your logic, that calls for one congregation supplying funds to another congregation in cases of flood or hurricane? 2. (H) What happens if one anti- church desires to send food to relieve another little anti- congregation during a famine, and the recipient congregation has no elders? What do you do? "Which they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. " (17: 30). 3. Would not it be most scriptural to utilizer two "messengers" to send this relief? ” I don’t how did my opponent come up with these questions or did she really responded to the statement: “the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church. "But the answer is in this statement but my opponent just wants to stretch my arguments. Now concerning the questions she answered(? ) "(1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? " There is none. It is an expedient under the Great Commission. ” Not sure if she had read my first affirmative but I have already proven that it is not an expedient for it will violate God’s pattern on church cooperation. Remember, the great Commission only authorizes each church to go…and…preach, not an inter-church organization. "(2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? " There is none. There are multiple examples of church cooperation - so much so that there is no specific pattern. It is an expedient. And I suppose that there are multiple examples of a capella singing in the New testament that Instrumental music is an expedient. "(3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? " There is no such necessary inference. Maybe an assumed (unnecessary one), but not a necessary one. Again, it is an expedient governed by common sense and good judgement. ” First, you admit that there is no direct command then, you admit that there is no example and finally, you admitted that there is no necessary inference. So where do you get your authority, through “common sense and good judgment”? You didn’t get your authority from God’s Word but from man. For a thing to be expedient it should not violate any passage in the Bible. Miscellaneous Questions (I)-(L)Where is the direct command for the separation of persons by age or sex for teaching purposes. Where is the example of such? Where is the necessary (essential) inference that such occurred? And, to top it off, By what authority do you do it? There is direct command. But there is a necessary inference in I Cor. 14:23 also include the Great Commission (the go…and preach… command) and I can safely say that it does not violate any Bible passage thus we can say that we have the approval of God’s Word.