Darrell’s First Negative 9/3/99


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

Darrell: Carey’s first paragraph needs no answer. I would agree with it’s gist. But Carey you have a fragmented view of the church. Those who are new to this list may want to get my third affirmative out of the archives, and examine the proof I have given that the Non Institutional Church of Christ does not understand the import and connection between the local church and the universal church.

Carey: When Christians in a particular locale agree to join together for the purpose of helping each other worship God, and fulfill their individual responsibilities that God placed upon them, they organize a local church. The local church is created by human agreement. As a result of local churches being established in various cities, the Holy Spirit gave instructions concerning the government and authority of the local church.

Darrell: Carey, your shallow concept of the eternal scheme of things is amazing. I know that many places today are experiencing a lack of loyalty to the local congregation. With the error embraced by the Non Institutional Church of Christ, NI congregations must have a tremendous problem with this lax loyalty. If I believed that "the local church is created by human agreement" then I would not bother with the local church. It would be so much less problematic to stay home with my wife and children and work and worship with them alone. It would be much cheaper that having to help others pay the building expenses. If human agreement were the issue then we would not even be in this debate right now!

May I suggest that you do some extensive research in the book of Daniel. Please go and learn what the "fullness of times" means (Gal. 4:4). From whence cometh the synagogue? By chance, by accident, or by him that ruleth in the kingdom’s of men (Dan. 4:25)? Babylonia contributed synagogue worship to the fullness of times. In the synagogue the Jews would read and expound upon the scriptures, take a collection, pray and sing (without mechanical instruments). When the Lord commanded the church to go with the gospel, those good and faithful brethren used the synagogue system as a launch pad for the truth! Immediately a congregation would be meeting and worshipping, and would only need to add the emblems to their worship to be complete. Then some 2000 years later Carey Scott says, nay, nay, no way "the local church is created by human agreement." Membership and loyalty to a local congregation is no option based on human agreement friend (Acts 2:42).

Carey, your doctrine breaks down in so many places its not funny. No it is not funny, it is sad. The Non Institutional Church of Christ split the Lord’s church over this amazingly incredible opinion. An opinion which opposes itself. Consider the affirmation you have just made. You have just affirmed that the Great Commission is an individual only commission. You say that congregations can not/may not/must not/ cooperate together in evangelism under the sponsoring church arrangement, lest they burn in hell.

In the first place you just preached several of the apostles into hell. This is true because the Lord spoke directly to them. But when the church was persecuted the disciples went preaching (Acts 8:4), and the apostles stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Secondly, you just preached the Non Institutional Church of Christ into hell. You see if the commission were an individual only commission, then when you fellows pull your money together into ONE TREASURY and pay the preacher, who should be evangelistic, you then have cooperated beyond your the limitations of your imaginary model of non-institutional decorum: "The Lord's missionary plan calls for individual Christians to go about preaching the word." Apply your individual only pattern to Galatians 6:6-9 and it would fit perfectly into you individual only commission, condemning the Non Institutional Church of Christ decorum even further. But I know how it works Carey, you say corporate for Galatians 6:6-9 but individual only for verse 10.

According to Non-Institutional Church of Christ doctrine orphan homes are error, and James 1:27 is an INDIVIDUAL command. The Great Commission is an INDIVIDUAL command. I would then expect to see every member of the Non-Institutional Church of Christ taking at least two orphans and widows into his home and taking the gospel to the world! Judaism with its animal sacrifices and annual feasts would be an easier burden than non-institutionalism. Yes consistence will not allow any other interpretation here. Carey, you have preached your brethren and comrade in arms into 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. If men were true elders, they would have kept the sponsoring church arrangement out of the church.

Darrell: If it is the case that "The Lord's missionary plan calls for individual Christians to go about preaching the word" and this is the exclusive pattern as you have affirmed. Then no eldership has the right to oversee ANY evangelistic work at all! If you fellows take $50 a week out of your treasury to pay for a radio program to teach other Non Institutional doctrine, then you have cooperated beyond your pattern.

Carey, another point of inconsistence in your doctrine is this. If your paragraph above were true in its charge towards the sponsoring arrangement, then it would be of equal force in its binding action when one congregation sends funds to another congregation to help the "poor saints only." Again, you have just affirmed many good first century brethren into hell for cooperating congregationally during the dearths.

Carey: I asked Darrell this question, and here is his response.

1. Who is responsible for the oversight of the sponsoring church?

Darrell answered: A congregation may be scripturally organized or it may be scripturally unorganized. By scripturally organized I mean having a qualified eldership. By scripturally unorganized I mean that there are no qualified men to serve as elders, so the business of the church is taken care of by the men of the congregation. All congregations, by the authority of Christ, are to be arranged as noted above.

Carey here: Notice that Darrell gave a correct statement that can be supported by the Bible. However you will notice that Darrell did not answer the question. Before I can respond and make a point, I need Darrell to answer the question.

Darrell: Carey, in your own words, keep re-working the question and you will get the answer you seek. I gave you the only scriptural answer to your question.

Carey: I also asked Darrell this question.

3. Can a local church be right in the sight of God, without participating in a sponsor church arrangement?

Darrell: Yes.

Carey here: Darrell has recognized God's pattern for leadership in the local church. Each congregation is autonomous and totally independent from any other local church. The fact that they have the same goals, and follow the same guide does not mean that they are cooperating in an organized work.

Darrell: No, I just acknowledge that congregations have the right to determine how they will use their evangelistic funds.

Carey: I also asked the following question and here is the response.

2. Who determines what the monies will be used for?

Darrell answered: By monies I assume that you mean money one congregation sends to another for a specified work. The sponsoring congregation takes on a work and then specifies that all funds sent for that work will be used for that work. A cooperating congregation would exercise their right to help that work and determine that their funds would be applied to that work. For example, in the first century the church of Christ at Philippi worked as Paul's sponsoring congregation. Any of the cooperating congregations would have understood that their funds were to be used to support Paul. Philippi obviously committed to getting those funds to Paul either directly, or indirectly through the congregation with which Paul was laboring at the time. No supporting congregation would have thought that they were exercising authority over the church at Philippi, nor would they have erroneously assumed that Philippi was exercising authority over them.

Carey here: Darrell makes many assumptions contrary to what is written in the Bible. His definition of Philippi as a sponsoring church arrangement is one such example. In our first debate, Darrell said that "it may be the case that Philippi was the sponsoring church". Darrell could not produce a scripture that specifically mentions a sponsoring church.

Darrell: Darrell did give book chapter and verse for this truth. Carey’s pattern has no room for the truth. Instead of repeating the argument here, let me refer any interested reader to access my third affirmative out of the list archives. Carey, time is running out. You only have two more opportunities to make a Biblical affirmation to support the negative you are trying to affirm.

For his name,

Darrell Broking,

Go to the second 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 /