Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
0870
Both men were exceedingly well prepared and had made extensive research. Each showed great familiarity with the writings of each other. The speeches abound with references to published material from many sources. The discussion is entirely representative; and the issue was debated capably and affirmed effectively by both men.
For a careful consideration of the debate as a whole, two very definite and distinct impressions have made their impact on this writer: (1) The glaring inconsistency characteristic of Ketcherside throughout; and (2) Wallace's persistence in pointing it out. With the regularity fo refrain bro. Wallace kept these matters before the audience, refused to be led from them, repeated them with tremendous force. Ketcherside, despite repeated efforts to lead the discussion away from such, was brought back to them in every speech Wallace made. The inconsistencies were a mill stone around Ketcherside's neck. For example, throughout in proposition no. I, Ketcherside said in local work preachers were pastors and functioned as elders. Yet he admitted he did such type work in the U.S. and in Ireland. Then in proposition II it was "An affirmation that not only may a preacher work with a congregation in the absence of elders, but that he may exercise the oversight thereof." We have never, in all our reading of religious debates, met with a more glaring piece of inconsistency than that characteristic of Ketcherside in this matter.
On schools, Ketcherside denied F.H.C. the right to exist because it usurped the work of the church. Then this must be just as true of Ketcherside's paper, The Mission Messenger. Bro. Wallace said: the education of the child is not the function of the church; hence, the school does not usurp the work of the church; the school cannot take the child without the consent of the parent, hence, does not usurp the work of the home. Wallace showed with irresistible logic that every objection Ketcherside made against F.H.C. could be made against Ketcherside's paper. This argument, ably advocated many years ago by F. B. Srygley in the G. A. has never been answered.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
Print
G. K. Wallace, Jr. vs Carl Ketcherside (Anti positions - local preachers and colleges)
April 2, 1953
Unknown Location
(Guy N. Woods)
April 2, 1953
Unknown Location
(Guy N. Woods)
Both men were exceedingly well prepared and had made extensive research. Each showed great familiarity with the writings of each other. The speeches abound with references to published material from many sources. The discussion is entirely representative; and the issue was debated capably and affirmed effectively by both men.
For a careful consideration of the debate as a whole, two very definite and distinct impressions have made their impact on this writer: (1) The glaring inconsistency characteristic of Ketcherside throughout; and (2) Wallace's persistence in pointing it out. With the regularity fo refrain bro. Wallace kept these matters before the audience, refused to be led from them, repeated them with tremendous force. Ketcherside, despite repeated efforts to lead the discussion away from such, was brought back to them in every speech Wallace made. The inconsistencies were a mill stone around Ketcherside's neck. For example, throughout in proposition no. I, Ketcherside said in local work preachers were pastors and functioned as elders. Yet he admitted he did such type work in the U.S. and in Ireland. Then in proposition II it was "An affirmation that not only may a preacher work with a congregation in the absence of elders, but that he may exercise the oversight thereof." We have never, in all our reading of religious debates, met with a more glaring piece of inconsistency than that characteristic of Ketcherside in this matter.
On schools, Ketcherside denied F.H.C. the right to exist because it usurped the work of the church. Then this must be just as true of Ketcherside's paper, The Mission Messenger. Bro. Wallace said: the education of the child is not the function of the church; hence, the school does not usurp the work of the church; the school cannot take the child without the consent of the parent, hence, does not usurp the work of the home. Wallace showed with irresistible logic that every objection Ketcherside made against F.H.C. could be made against Ketcherside's paper. This argument, ably advocated many years ago by F. B. Srygley in the G. A. has never been answered.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
