Newsletter Vol.2, #1—January 1, 2006

Matthew 7 ¹⁵"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Informational Bulletin

The bulletin Harold prepares every Sunday night was not available last Sunday. Harold’s big computer was sick and in the hospital and his lap-top was being contrary, stubborn, rebellious and rude, refusing to print what Harold labored so long to put on it!

My correspondence to Brian on December 13, 2005

<… concerning the debate situation, I am somewhat disappointed in you, Larry. First, you must quit thinking you have the power to read minds (cf. 1 Cor. 11a).>

Larry Here: I’m not trying to read your mind, couldn’t if I wanted to. However, I reached a conclusion based upon your reluctance to sign the propositions sent you!

<From the get go, you tried to put "sponsoring church" in my Lubbock lecture introduction when I never even considered it.>

Larry Here: I don’t know that I tried to get that into your speech, but what you said had application to the sponsoring church as well as to benevolent organizations and other things.

<Now, you say I "really do not want a public debate," but only want to "quibble." You are wrong.>

Larry Here: I apologize for being wrong, it isn’t the first time! However, you could well prove me to be very wrong by signing the propositions!

<However, I do want to know exactly what we are debating, and I want you to know exactly what we are debating.>

Larry Here: The propositions set forth exactly what we are debating.

<The way I see it, the proposition for which you insist leaves the door wide open for you to build a "straw man." Why not cut to the chase and debate the crux of the matter instead of having to spend a lot of time defining terms? I would much rather define terms now and save the time for the debate to debate.>

Larry Here: Now who is reading minds? I think, without looking at previous posts, I have already assured you that a “straw man” would not be built by me. However, I shall include (attach) a chart that shows what I am willing to oppose. (See Newsletter Vol.1 #52)

<Second, why do you insist on "sugar coating" what you believe. Why not just use plain language that everyone can understand? "A local congregation sins..." is exactly what you believe, isn't it?>

Larry Here: No sugar coating is evident in my propositions and it is couched in plain language. The proposition you suggest is prejudicial and the same conclusion can be drawn from the proposition I am urging you to sign.

<Your comparison with debating a Baptist is faulty. Does "always sins" invoke prejudice like "going to Hell"? Maybe for those who have something to hide, but not for true seekers of the truth.>

Larry Here: No, the comparison is not faulty. Are you trying to read my mind again or assign motives to me? Are you suggesting I’m trying to hide something? Shame on you!

<Third, what does it matter in what forum the truth is defended? Your statement, "You seem to be wanting to debate via this medium instead of on the public platform," is interesting. So what if I was? Is not the truth worthy of defending here as well as in public?>

Larry Here: You are the one who suggested a public forum and I am puzzled why you continue to insist to debate in semi-private correspondences.

<As I mentioned in one of my earlier emails, I think these issues need to be discussed anew. There are new generations who, I am convinced, do not have a clue as to why this ugly division has separated us for these many years. I believe the generation today needs to hear the issues in plain language. No need to "sugar coat" what you (or I) believe, which reminds me of the last statement in your email.>

Larry Here: See my comments above about “sugar coating.”

<You say concerning the propositions you submitted, "Those propositions have been debated by sincere brethren and I see no good reason why you cannot do the same." To give you insight into my mind (cf. 1 Cor. 2:11a), I believe that one of the major problems with the brotherhood today is that too many do not study the Bible for themselves. Many are fluent in knowing what "brother whoever" says the Bible teaches about a given topic, but there is a "famine in the land" concerning studying what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. have to say about a particular Bible topic. This is why I am insistent on a debate proposition that is as close to Biblical terminology as possible. This is why "sponsoring church arrangement" is unacceptable. That term is nowhere found in the Bible. It does not matter to me that "sincere brethren" have debated your propositions before. They are not the ones who will (be) debating them now.>

Larry Here: The term “church building” is not in the Bible either. Would you debate a proposition that “It is Scriptural for brethren to own a church building” (or something to that effect)?

One church “sponsors” a preacher, several other churches send to that church for that purpose, hence, the Sponsoring Church.

<In my last email, I asked that no matter how else you responded to it that you please answer the true and false questions. Why did you refuse to answer these simple questions? I offer them because that is the best way I know to "cut to the chase." Here they are again. Please answer them.>

<1. The only actions we are authorized to do today are those actions that the Bible explicitly states and/or exemplifies.>

Larry Here: False

<2. A local church can send Bibles to another local church for that church to send to its African missionary work.>

Larry Here: False (Why not send the Bibles directly to the African church or churches?)

<3. A local church can send money to another local church for that church to send to Africa to by Bibles for evangelizing Africans.>

Larry Here: False

<4. A person always sins when he or she violates the New Testament pattern.>

Larry Here: True, Matt.7:21-23

Now, let me insert a word of caution here! You fear I might build a “straw man” so I ask that you do not abuse my answers above to make of them something I never intended.

==============================================================

To date (12/29/05) I have not received a reply. The holidays may be the reason for this.

==============================================================