Confusing "Constituent Elements"
In the Gospel Advocate I received today (Dec. 15, 1955), Brother Thomas Warren published an article entitled "Cooperation Between New Testament Churches," in which he seeks to scripturally justify the current method of cooperation through sponsoring churches. He concludes by saying, "Brethren, may I appeal to you to answer this if you can see that it is not according to the Bible. I want to be with the Bible." This is a commendable attitude which all Christians will appreciate. I make no claim to any kind of superiority, but I believe I can see that his argument on "total situations and constituent elements," which will not allow any combination, is unreasonable, illogical and unscriptural. And in response to his appeal I submit the following for whatever it might be worth. No doubt there will be others with far more ability than I who will review his article in a scholarly and detailed way, and this article in no wise attempts to reply to all his details, but is written to prove one point: that when some details and definitions are excluded from a statement or statements, and no combination is allowed of these "constituent elements" in our consideration of the proposition, then a false proposition may be "proved." Some of Brother Warren's "constituent elements" do not set forth enough necessary facts, and thus a false conclusion is reached.
For example, his "constituent element" number three says: "A congregation has the right to assume (undertake) the oversight of a work to which another congregation sustained an equal relationship prior to the assumption (undertaking) of the oversight." To correctly state the current issue, it should read: "A congregation has the right to assume (undertake) the oversight of a work, the total accomplishing of which exceeds its financial ability, to which another congregation sustained an equal relationship prior to the assumption (undertaking) of the oversight." But Brother Warren will not allow any combination or consideration of more than one "constituent element" at a time, for to do so would destroy his argument, for there is no scriptural authority for this last statement.
Using Brother Warren's own argument stated in his own language, I can "prove" this proposition: It is scriptural for one to confess before baptism that "God for Christ's sake has forgiven my sins."
- "Major Premise: All total situations the constituent elements of which are scriptural are total situations which are scriptural."
- "Minor Premise: The total situation described in the above proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural."
- "Conclusion: The total situation described in the above proposition is a total situation which is scriptural."
"This syllogism will be easily understood by all who know that not all of the constituent elements of the plan of salvation are found in any one passage. Bible students know that it is a valid means of arriving at the plan of salvation to use one passage to establish the necessity of 'hearing,' another, the necessity of 'faith,' anotherm the necessity of 'repentance,' etc. When each of the component parts of this total situation is proved to be scriptural, then the total situation itself is proved to be scriptural."
"To overthrow the argument, one must show that one of the specific constituent elements of this total situation is an unscriptural one .... It will be an invalid procedure for one to demand... these points to be combined into a single one . . . . These points must be dealt with a single point at a time . . . . By way of final admonition: this argument cannot be met by demanding an example with all of the details of one passage. It must be met by attacking the . . . . constituent elements one at a time!"
My Constituent Elements Set Forth With Scriptural Proof:
- It is scriptural to confess before baptism (Acts 8). "Who will deny that this constituent element No. 1 is scriptural?"
- It is scriptural to confess that God for Christ's sake has forgiven sins (Eph. 4:82). "QUESTION: Who will deny constituent element No. 2?"
- Conclusion: Since each constituent element is scriptural, then the total situation is scriptural (according to Brother Warren's argument)!
Since Brother Warren will allow no combination of the "constituent elements" in considering the "total situation," and since each of the above "constituent elements" is proved by scripture, I challenge Brother Warren to disprove my proposition by analyzing it according to his own limitations and rules set forth in his article. And remember: "These points must be dealt with a single point at a time," and "it will be an invalid procedure for one to demand . . .. these points to be combined into a single one." Thus the definition of the confession in constituent element No. 2 cannot be brought into combination with the confession of constituent element No. 1, according to his limitations. That would be "an invalid procedure." If Brother Warren withdraws his limitation in order to take the definition of the confession in No" 2, and combine it with the confession of No. 1 to disprove the "total situation," then by the same process I can disprove his "total situation" that "A congregation has the right to assume the oversight of a work, the total accomplishing of which exceeds its financial ability, to which another congregation sustained an equal relationship prior to the assumption of the oversight" by showing there is no passage in God's book that teaches such. If there is such a passage, Brother Warren would not hesitate to allow his elements to be combined! Will he withdraw his limitations or accept the "total situation" in my proposition?