Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
0787
At Paden City, W. Va., Feb. 5-6, on question of whether or not it is scriptural for a church to contribute to an orphan home.
Bro. Hines argued both nights that it is unscriptural for the church to support an orphan home, but never gave any method by which orphans may be supported. He argued that the church is sufficient to do all the benevolent work, but it is unscriptural for the church to help any person who is not a Christian. Of course, that excluded all small orphan children. Bro. Hines argued from Eph.3:21 that all benevolent work must be done by the church in order to give God the glory. Bro. Totty explained clearly that Paul had no such thing in mind but that the glory referred to in Eph. 3:21 was by Christ and that Christ glorified God by his suffering and dying for the church and that the glory would continue throughout all ages. He showed that Paul, writing concerning individuals in I Cor.10:31, taught that we are to glorify God in everything we do. It was clearly obvious that bro. Hines realized he was in a dilemma, since he had forcefully argued that all benevolent work must be done through the church and only to Christians.
Bro. Totty pressed bro. Hines severely to tell what is meant by "visit the fatherless" in James 1:27, but he never took a definite position on it. Bro. Hines attempted to cloud the issue by crying "institutionalism;" however, bro. Totty kept it before the people that institutionalism is a relative term and could mean many things, but that the debate was over whether or not it is scriptural to support orphan homes and that only.
Bro. Hines said he would fellowship churches that contribute to orphan homes and added that he would fellowship churches that practice "a lot of unscriptural things." Bro. Totty said he would not knowingly fellowship a church that practices any unscriptural thing. Bro. Totty pointed out that Hines position is the same as the late Daniel Sommer, Carl Ketcherside and others. And their teachings had disturbed the church for years.
Bro. Totty said Hines' teaching would lock the doors of every orphan home, but Hines would take no position as to what should be done with these homeless children when locked out in the cold without food and shelter.
Bro. Totty has had more battles with Sommerism than any man in the brotherhood. He has met every argument they have produced and debated every man who has dared to discuss the issues. His thorough knowledge of the scriptures, his ability to analyze the scriptures and his opponents' arguments, and his complete information on Sommerism make him, perhaps, the most able defender among us on the issue involved in the Totty-Hines debate.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
Print
W. L. Totty vs J. L. Hines (Orphan Homes Issue)
February 26, 1953
Paden City, West Virginia
(By Kenneth W. Franklin)
February 26, 1953
Paden City, West Virginia
(By Kenneth W. Franklin)
At Paden City, W. Va., Feb. 5-6, on question of whether or not it is scriptural for a church to contribute to an orphan home.
Bro. Hines argued both nights that it is unscriptural for the church to support an orphan home, but never gave any method by which orphans may be supported. He argued that the church is sufficient to do all the benevolent work, but it is unscriptural for the church to help any person who is not a Christian. Of course, that excluded all small orphan children. Bro. Hines argued from Eph.3:21 that all benevolent work must be done by the church in order to give God the glory. Bro. Totty explained clearly that Paul had no such thing in mind but that the glory referred to in Eph. 3:21 was by Christ and that Christ glorified God by his suffering and dying for the church and that the glory would continue throughout all ages. He showed that Paul, writing concerning individuals in I Cor.10:31, taught that we are to glorify God in everything we do. It was clearly obvious that bro. Hines realized he was in a dilemma, since he had forcefully argued that all benevolent work must be done through the church and only to Christians.
Bro. Totty pressed bro. Hines severely to tell what is meant by "visit the fatherless" in James 1:27, but he never took a definite position on it. Bro. Hines attempted to cloud the issue by crying "institutionalism;" however, bro. Totty kept it before the people that institutionalism is a relative term and could mean many things, but that the debate was over whether or not it is scriptural to support orphan homes and that only.
Bro. Hines said he would fellowship churches that contribute to orphan homes and added that he would fellowship churches that practice "a lot of unscriptural things." Bro. Totty said he would not knowingly fellowship a church that practices any unscriptural thing. Bro. Totty pointed out that Hines position is the same as the late Daniel Sommer, Carl Ketcherside and others. And their teachings had disturbed the church for years.
Bro. Totty said Hines' teaching would lock the doors of every orphan home, but Hines would take no position as to what should be done with these homeless children when locked out in the cold without food and shelter.
Bro. Totty has had more battles with Sommerism than any man in the brotherhood. He has met every argument they have produced and debated every man who has dared to discuss the issues. His thorough knowledge of the scriptures, his ability to analyze the scriptures and his opponents' arguments, and his complete information on Sommerism make him, perhaps, the most able defender among us on the issue involved in the Totty-Hines debate.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
