debate on church cooperation

Anna: "Nope, although neither (the Bible nor the Spiritual Sword) is fallible or infallible, nor can they be." Dan: Under his headline: "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 ..." Well, you'll get one anyhow: I'm in good company: "There is, in strict propriety, no infallible rule of faith. Nor is it possible there can be: for men and angels have erred under all rules. The terms "fallible" and "infallible" do not at all apply to things; they only apply to persons. We may have a perfect and complete - or a sufficient - 'rule': but we cannot have an infallible one. The 'fallibility' or 'infallibility' is in the 'application' of the rule - not in the rule itself." - Alexander Campbell, Campbell-Purcell Debate in 1837, McQuiddy Pub, Nashville, 1914 ed., p. 209 Now. What did I say again? "Nope, although neither (the Bible nor the Spiritual Sword) is fallible or infallible, nor can they be." Period. That's exactly what the great Campbell said in debate against Archbishop Purcell. And I concur with Campbell. So much for that. *** I asked: "(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." Dan answered: "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." Well, allow me to answer his question - and it appears to me to be a "yes" or "no" question - and I shall answer "yes" or "no", in contradistiction to my opponent who answers with several sentences without once using either a "yes" or "no": ""Will my opponent also affirm send money to another church and do its work; to oversee its money?" The answer, I think, is "yes". One congregation may send money to another congregation, for instance, to spread the gospel by the printing of Bibles, the Spiritual Sword, the Gospel Advocate, etc. Now that was simple. HOWEVER, I cannot for the life of me figure out how (a) the Highland church can send money to Alan Highers, (b) and he can hand it right over to the Getwell church, (c) the Getwell elders can oversee the publication/distribution of literature, including Bibles, and (d) no congregational autonomy was violated, according to you ---- AND YET (a) the Highland church can SKIP Judge Highers, and (b) thus simply EVADE the middle-man (a bit of nonsensical juggling, in my opinion), and (c) send the money directly to the Getwell congregation, where (d) the Getwell elders can oversee the publication/distribution of literature, including Bibles, and (e) anti-s are "up in arms" - but we can add a middleman as above, and pacify them Step forward and dig in and explain the vast difference, please. *** "What my argument is all about is that the Spiritual Sword is unscriptural in teaching" LOL! A little "petitio principii", ehhh? Who determined the Spiritual Sword in unscriptural in teaching? YOU? You assumed that which you have not yet proven. To boot, the "scripturalness" or lack thereof of any periodical was never the issue. Imaginary "loss of automony" is. Has your position degenerated to the point that you now simply say the PRACTICE is unscriptural because the Spiritual Sword, in your opinion, teaches that the PRACTICE is scriptural? If so, that's some text-book "circular reasoning". *** "But the answer is in this statement but my opponent just wants to stretch my arguments." (On Acts 17) Certainly I stretched them to their natural extension to show that you do not follow Acts 17 as an exclusive, divine pattern any more than I do. The difference is: I do not SAY it is an exclusive pattern, nor do I follow it as such. You DO SAY that it is an exclusive divine pattern, then you follow about 25% of it, and toss the rest of it aside. *** "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." Why, I 'admitted' that before the debate ever started, didn't I? That's no shocker - just like your position on Sunday Schools doesn't surprise me. Where did you turn? The same place I do in this debate, just as I said you would: "also include the Great Commission (the go…and preach… command) and I can safely say that it does not violate any Bible passage." Look at I Cor 14: 23: "If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad?" And my opponent - struggling to turn somewhere other than the Commission and "expediency" (which I predicted he would be forced to cite) - cites this passage by "necessary inference" to justify the division of people by age-groups, sex, and the like into classrooms! Sir, there isn't even an "inference" there - must less a "necessary" or "essential" one. So you're right back at the Commission! *** Dan: "And how many times do I tell my opponent: IT IS NOT WRONG send bibles." Oh, the question - as you well know - pertained not only to the sending of Bibles. Read it again: "The two (the Bible and Spiritual Sword are not parallel, except in the sense that you teach that one congregation cannot send money to another congregation to publish/distribute EITHER ONE.", and "So, as per my opponent, not only can we not send money to (1) fund Bible purchases", and "How about if one congregation just sends the other a couple dozen Bibles? Would that work? and "What if it simply sends a check for the eldership of congregation #2 to purchase Bibles?" And all he can say is: "It's not wrong to send Bibles." That's his answer, as Ripley says, "Believe it or not." Of course, the whole point is "Can congregation A send either (1) money to purchase Bibles or (2) the Bibles themselves for distribution to congregation B?" That's the question, and my opponent knows it. He hates to say "No, it's wrong," but can't afford to say, "Yes, it can", so he ducks for cover and says, "It's not wrong to send Bibles." Well, we all know that! Tell us all about one congregation sending another congregation MONEY to purchase and distribute Bibles, please. *** "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." Sure I read it. Did you read mine? I said there was no specific and exclusive pattern that either you or I would follow. Just because you ASSERT that some action "violates a pattern" does not prove that it does - especially when an exclusive pattern may not even exist. I have supplied a partial listing of examples of cooperation: Acts 15: 1-32, II Tim 4: 9, Rom 16: 1-2, II Cor 8: 9, I Cor 16: 15, and Acts 11: 26-30. Which one is the exclusive pattern? They are all different. *** "And I suppose that there are multiple examples of a capella singing in the New testament that Instrumental music is an expedient." I'm not sure that warrants a response. I'll simply state that that N. B. Hardeman, Guy N. Woods, Foy E. Wallace, G. K. Wallace, G. C. Brewer, Thos. B. Warren, Gus Nichols, Marshall Keeble ... Goodpasture, Highers ... (the list is endless) ... all occupied the same ground that I do - and not a one ever entertained a thought of adding an instrument to worship. You oughta look up "generic" versus "specific" commands, I'd say. "Go" and "teach" are generic. "Sing" is specific. I will close and post in order to give my opponent the opportunity to have all day Sunday to prepare a reply rather than having to do it during the work-week. Thank you, and best wishes.