Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
0429
Held at Livermore, Ky., Sept. 26-27, 1914
Bro. Hines affirmed: The church with which I stand identified is the church of Christ (the only church), and it was set up or organized on the day of Pentecost, and Christ had no church before Pentecost; the church we have reference to is believed and known to be the church of Christ by me and my brethren, and said to be the Christian church by others; and it is apostolic in origin, doctrine, and name."
In support bro. H. presented all of the scriptures bearing upon the issues in logical manner and made his arguments in a clear, convincing manner that made a profound impression on the audience. Mr. Garland's reply consisted of a series of broad statements about which the disciples believed about the H. S., but he submitted no scriptural proof of his assertions, He sought to justify denominationalism by referring to the existence of the 7 churches in Asia Minor and by citing the figure of the vine and the branches. Among other claims Mr. Garland stated that the rock mentioned in Matt. 16:18 referred to the "rock hewn out before the foundation of the world, and that baptism was of Acts 2:38 did not mean water baptism. Bro. Hines had no difficulty in showing the fallacy of such tenants.
Mr. Garland affirmed: "The church with which I stand identified, known by me and my brethren and other people as the 'Methodist Episcopal Church, South", is a branch or a part of the church of Christ, and God through Christ had a church in the days of Abram, in origin, doctrine, practice and in name."
In his speech Mr. G. did not define his proposition. He endeavored to show from Eph. 3:20 that there was a church before the day of Pentecost, and cited the "church in the wilderness" for example. Mr. Garland asked several questions about baptism that Hines safely answered. He claimed scriptural authority for sprinkling but failed to produce a single case. He said John 3:5 referred to the natural birth, but bro. Hines showed the inconsistency of the statement by asking, "What will become of the unborn dead?"
In his summary bro. Hines asked the following questions: 1) Where did Christ or the apostles command infant baptism? 2) Where is the scripture for M. E. Church, which you claim to be a branch of the church of Christ? 3) Where is the scripture for a bishop (not bishops)? 4) Where is the scripture for a presiding bishop? 5) Where is the scripture for a circuit rider? 6) Where is the scripture for a district, annual, quarterly and general conferences? 7) If the "discipline" is a part of the word of God, what right has the general conference to change it? 8) How can a church be apostolic in origin that you claim had its origin in the days of Abraham? These Mr. Garland never attempted to answer, but these he answered: 1) "Can people be saved out of the M.E. Church?" His answer, "Yes." 2) "Can a person be saved out of the church of Christ?" He said, "No." Then bro. Hines showed that the logical conclusion is that the M. E. church is not the church or any part of the church of Christ.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
Print
J. L. Hines vs S. A. J. Garland (Methodist)
February 18, 1915
Livermore, Kentucky
(By A. B. Lipscomb)
February 18, 1915
Livermore, Kentucky
(By A. B. Lipscomb)
Held at Livermore, Ky., Sept. 26-27, 1914
Bro. Hines affirmed: The church with which I stand identified is the church of Christ (the only church), and it was set up or organized on the day of Pentecost, and Christ had no church before Pentecost; the church we have reference to is believed and known to be the church of Christ by me and my brethren, and said to be the Christian church by others; and it is apostolic in origin, doctrine, and name."
In support bro. H. presented all of the scriptures bearing upon the issues in logical manner and made his arguments in a clear, convincing manner that made a profound impression on the audience. Mr. Garland's reply consisted of a series of broad statements about which the disciples believed about the H. S., but he submitted no scriptural proof of his assertions, He sought to justify denominationalism by referring to the existence of the 7 churches in Asia Minor and by citing the figure of the vine and the branches. Among other claims Mr. Garland stated that the rock mentioned in Matt. 16:18 referred to the "rock hewn out before the foundation of the world, and that baptism was of Acts 2:38 did not mean water baptism. Bro. Hines had no difficulty in showing the fallacy of such tenants.
Mr. Garland affirmed: "The church with which I stand identified, known by me and my brethren and other people as the 'Methodist Episcopal Church, South", is a branch or a part of the church of Christ, and God through Christ had a church in the days of Abram, in origin, doctrine, practice and in name."
In his speech Mr. G. did not define his proposition. He endeavored to show from Eph. 3:20 that there was a church before the day of Pentecost, and cited the "church in the wilderness" for example. Mr. Garland asked several questions about baptism that Hines safely answered. He claimed scriptural authority for sprinkling but failed to produce a single case. He said John 3:5 referred to the natural birth, but bro. Hines showed the inconsistency of the statement by asking, "What will become of the unborn dead?"
In his summary bro. Hines asked the following questions: 1) Where did Christ or the apostles command infant baptism? 2) Where is the scripture for M. E. Church, which you claim to be a branch of the church of Christ? 3) Where is the scripture for a bishop (not bishops)? 4) Where is the scripture for a presiding bishop? 5) Where is the scripture for a circuit rider? 6) Where is the scripture for a district, annual, quarterly and general conferences? 7) If the "discipline" is a part of the word of God, what right has the general conference to change it? 8) How can a church be apostolic in origin that you claim had its origin in the days of Abraham? These Mr. Garland never attempted to answer, but these he answered: 1) "Can people be saved out of the M.E. Church?" His answer, "Yes." 2) "Can a person be saved out of the church of Christ?" He said, "No." Then bro. Hines showed that the logical conclusion is that the M. E. church is not the church or any part of the church of Christ.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
