Douthitt-Warren Debate -- No. IV.
Warren advanced one main argument to support his affirmation the last two nights of the discussion. That was his "total situation" argument. It was, indeed, the total of all that he had to say. This argument has been punctured so many times before and since the debate that I hesitate to even mention this mongrel again. I expect readers have grown tired of it, not the least of whom is Warren himself. In future discussions, if there be such, we shall hear less and less of Warren's 'component parts," "constituent elements," and "total situations." Actually the kind of argument Warren attempted is valid if properly applied and consistency is maintained. I know of no one that denies that a thing is equal to the sum of its component parts, but to say that the component parts always constitute the "thing" is quite another matter. My typewriter is the sum of its component parts, but who is so naive as to argue that if it were disassembled and disarranged that it would still be a typewriter? Douthitt pointed out to Warren that a thing is the sum of its component parts only when each part is considered in correlation to the other parts and to the whole. Then Douthitt read from Warren's writings in which Warren said, "Let none try to confuse the issue by demanding that three or four of these points be established at one time. May it be emphasized and re-emphasized that the whole of a thing is equal to the sum of its component parts. If the component parts of a thing are proved to be scriptural, then the whole thing is proved to be scriptural. These points must be dealt with singly, point at a time."
Douthitt then called attention to the fact that denominational preachers had been arguing that way for a long time before Warren took it up. He introduced the example of the Baptist preacher. dealing "singly. point at a time." attempting to prove that "Tabernacle Baptist Church" is a scriptural name. The Baptist Preacher showed that each component part was scriptural — mentioned in the scriptures, therefore he concluded that "Tabernacle Baptist Church" is a scriptural name for the church. He would not allow "tabernacle" or "baptist" to be considered in relation to each other or to the whole as a name for the church. Each point had to be considered point at a time. Douthitt showed that this was exactly the kind of proof Warren's "total situation" demanded. and the kind that he offered. So, a simple example, first introduced by a sectarian preacher, torpedoed Warren's "total situation" and left nothing but an undetermined number of component parts floating around. Douthitt called attention to the fact that the Baptist preacher had a better case than Warren had, for the Baptist did have all of his component parts and Warren's have changed each time he has presented them.
Brother Deaver was supposed to be giving the highlights of the debate, yet he failed to mention the "Tabernacle Baptist Church" episode which perhaps had more said about it than any other one thing during the debate. Warren argued with that "Tabernacle Baptist Church" example throughout the debate, but he never could get it to lie still. As Banquo's ghost, it kept rising up to haunt him until he was forced to repudiate his contention that each point must be considered a "point at a time."
When he did that, his total situation was wrecked, for his component parts cannot be proved to be scriptural when considered in relation to each other and to the whole. Furthermore, Douthitt called his attention to some component parts which his proposition demanded which he did not have listed. About the only rebuttal Warren ever offered to the "Tabernacle Baptist Church" example was about what he inspired Harper to offer to Tant in Abilene when Tant took the plan of salvation and re-arranged it according to Baptist usage and asked Harper if it were scriptural since all the component parts were. Harper came back accusing Tant of teaching Baptist doctrine! Warren replied by accusing Douthitt of teaching "Tabernacle Baptist Church" as a scriptural name for the church. As a member of the audience, I did not appreciate either answer, because I felt that it was a reflection upon my intelligence. I know that neither Harper nor Warren were so senile as to believe what they were saying themselves but perhaps thought the audience was stupid enough to believe it. Douthitt pointed out that he was not contending for such as a scriptural name for the church, but that was what the Baptist preacher was doing, and he used the same kind of argument to prove it that Warren used to establish his total situation.
When Warren introduced his "total situation" to Brother James Adams, it had a different number of parts to what it had when he wrote about it in the Gospel Advocate. He had still another number of parts when he debated Douthitt. The parts had increased to nine by that time with a multitude of sub-heads and little parts. Then when Deaver funneled Brother Gordon Clements at the Fort Smith debate, the "total situation" had been put on a diet and the number of components parts had been reduced to three. Yes, a thing is equal to the sum of all of its parts, but when can we be sure Brother Warren has all the parts? He has never presented the same number twice. At which time did he have too many or too few? Is a thing equal to the sum of more than its parts? Is it equal to the sum of less than all its parts? Which time did Warren have less than a total situation and which time did he have more than the total? He couldn't have had the same "total situation" every time because his component parts have not been the same. One time he had a sub-total situation and another time he had a tee-total situation. Just where in between these two did he arrive at the "total situation?" A wagon is the sum of its component parts, but one time it has nine wheels and the next time it has three, then again it has no wheels at all but is on skids. Warren says it is the same old wagon every time! That reminds me of the man's ax which he declared was 150 years old. He said, "It has had several new handles and a few new heads, but it is the same old ax."
Any one who can be led to accept Warren's "total situation" with all the changes which have been wrought in it since its inception, can be persuaded to believe anything. The Bible is not so variable and insecure. It reads exactly like it did before Warren's "component parts" were introduced, and it still reads the same way after his component parts have changed.