Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 7
February 2, 1956
NUMBER 38, PAGE 10,11b

Brother Warren's Major Premise

Guthrie Dean, Ruston, Louisiana

In Brother Thomas Warren's recent defense of the Herald of Truth he issued a Major Premise, a Minor Premise, and a Conclusion which he thinks proves his case. Brother E. R. Harper, at the last minute so the report goes, borrowed Brother Warren and his argument and used them both in the recent Abilene debate. I disagree with all three points of his argument, even the major premise. He stated: "Major Premise: All total situations the constituent elements of which are scriptural are total situations which are scriptural." He further said: "That the major premise is true no thinking man will deny. It is axiomatic that the whole of a thing is equal to the sum of its component parts. This is just another way of stating the major premise?' Brother Tant answered this matter fully, but I would like to add another series of thoughts here. In the first place Brother Warren is trying to force his major premise to fit an axiom which does not hit top side, bottom side, inside, or outside of the proposition. Brother Warren will not stick to the axiom either, just watch.

  1. The Lord's Supper is equal to the sum of its component parts. The parts being the fruit of the vine and unleavened bread. This is the true axiom. But look at Brother Warren's Major Premise:
    1. The Lord's Supper is a "total situation."
    2. The scriptural "component parts" are the bread and fruit of the vine. But what if the fruit of the vine is partaken of first? You still have all the scriptural parts.
    3. Therefore, according to Warren you have a "total situation which is scriptural" even though the order of procedure is changed. According to Brother Warren, the ORDER of execution isn't important.
  2. Church meeting on Friday night for worship.
    1. "total situation."
    2. They have the prayers, songs, and Lord's Supper. "scriptural elements." And with all these scriptural elements they take the Lord's Supper on Friday.
    3. Therefore, according to Warren you have a "total situation which is scriptural" even though the Supper is partaken of at the wrong time. Warren's argument says the TIME of execution isn't important so long as you have scriptural component parts.
  3. The Lord's Supper
    1. A"total situation."
    2. The bread and fruit of the vine being "scriptural component elements." But the participant partakes without discerning the Lord's body.
    3. According to Warren you have a "total situation which is scriptural" even though the man partakes in an unworthy manner. Why? Because you have only scriptural "constituent elements," and that's all that's needed to make a thing scriptural according to Warren. His proposition says that the MANNER of execution is unimportant.
  4. Giving of our means
    1. A total situation.
    2. Giving "on the first day of the week," as "God has prospered," "as purposed," "cheerfully" and "bountifully" are the scriptural component parts. But then the giver passes the contribution on to a missionary society.
    3. This would be a "total situation which is scriptural," according to Warren. His proposition says that a total situation is scriptural when the constituent elements are scriptural, so the PLACE of execution and the RECIPIENT of the executor are unimportant according to him.
  5. A church in the state of Texas is obligated to preach the gospel to the lost.
    1. This is a "total situation."
    2. That church assumes the oversight of the work of preaching the gospel to the lost. Let's say the elements used are "scriptural component parts." But then that same church assumes the oversight of preaching to the lost for the whole nation by means of radio and television and persuades other churches to do their preaching work through this one church, under its eldership.
    3. This would produce a "total situation which is scriptural" according to Warren because they started out with the scriptural component parts. The METHOD of execution is very unimportant according to him.
  6. A church in Tennessee is obligated to take care of the needy.
    1. "A total situation."
    2. That church gathers food, clothing, and funds to distribute to the needy. The elements being scriptural. But then that one church assumes the oversight of the care for all the needy of the state of Tennessee and encourages the other churches to do their good works through this one church, and under its eldership.
    3. According to Warren this is a total situation which is scriptural." He forgets that the work of the "assuming" church must be within reason and in accord with her ability. Warren's premise leaves out the ABILITY of the executor. That, to him, is unimportant. He argues that a church can assume the oversight of MORE and MORE work weekly of which it has no intention of ever paying for itself!!

CONCLUSION: If Warren's Major Premise is equal to the axiom that "the whole of a thing is equal to the sum of its component parts" then regardless of how the "parts" are put together or regardless of how the "parts" are abused you still ALWAYS end up with "a total situation which is scriptural." Now just think about that. According to Warren, regardless of the ORDER of execution, the TIME of execution, the MANNER of execution, the PLACE of execution, the RECIPIENT of the executor, the METHOD of execution, and the ABILITY of the execution, you always end up with a "total situation which is scriptural" just so long as the "component parts" or the "constituent elements" are scriptural. Why, you can just divide an apple into forty pieces and throw it all into a trash can and still have the sum total of the apple, Brother Warren. It's in the trash can and mighty badly mixed up but all the parts are there. Imagine putting faith, repentance, confession, and baptism in a hat and shaking them up and throwing them out on the ground. Regardless of how they fall: whether it's faith, baptism, confession, and then repentance ... you still have all the parts, so you can just change them to suit your own order according to Warren. Does he really believe his Major Premise is equal to his axiom???? We shall see.