It Is No Longer An Assumption
Up until a few years ago I had never had the privilege of meeting Brother Tom Warren. He had only recently made his "change" when I first met him. Though I did not agree with him, yet my first impression of him was to cause me to like him. When brethren began to review his new-found teaching (i. e. his component parts, constituent element argument), I thought perhaps there were a few unnecessary barbs thrown into him concerning his logical ability. However, after reading his advertisement of his new book on the "issues" (if he wrote the leaflet), I felt that Brother Warren must think rather highly of his logical ability. Everything he dealt with in the book that was contrary to his position was totally obliterated, blown sky-high, if the advertisement is correct.
The Syllogism
In the first issue of the new paper, The Spiritual sword, of which Brother Warren is the editor, several articles appear written by him. In one of the articles he instructs us in the art of using the syllogism. However, he seems to object if some prefer Scriptures to syllogisms. He tells us that Webster defines the syllogism as ". . . 1. A logical scheme or analysis of a formal argument, consisting of three propositions (called respectively the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, so that, if these are true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to a demonstration." Brother Warren emphasizes the point that the syllogistic argument amounts to a demonstration, and suggests that this explains the reason why some brethren have been so critical of his use of the syllogism.
Special Pleading
Next Brother Warren warns us of the danger of what logicians call "special pleading." This is the practice of some of leveling "objections against the positions held by others which they are unwilling to level against the positions which they themselves hold," we are told. Brother Warren then proceeds to accuse some who oppose institutional orphan homes and other forms of centralization as being guilty of "special pleading." We are said to make some arguments against these institutions that we are unwilling to make against our own position.
Acts 11:27-30
In another article by Brother Warren in the same issue of The Spiritual Sword there is a sub-heading which he calls "Assumptions on Acts 11:27-30." He says this passage is a key passage in the argument of those who object to the human benevolent societies and oppose one church becoming a brotherhood agency, as Brother Warren did before his "change." He says our whole argument made on Acts 11:27-30 is nothing but an assumption, or a series of assumptions. One of the assumptions we are said to make is: "That the church in Antioch did the sending." (Emphasis his — C.W.) He further says "The Bible says 'disciples.' By what manner of reasoning do they conclude that 'disciples' means 'church'?" The entire argument made on this passage is destroyed, Brother Warren says, because we assume that when the Bible says the disciples sent to relieve the brethren in Judea that it meant the church in Antioch sent. It looks pretty bad for us, doesn't it?
But all is not as bad for us as it might at first appear. Brother Warren is not through yet. After he finished reprimanding us for our unwarranted assumptions on this passage, fortunately, he tells us what it means. He does not just leave us hanging in mid-air! Here is what the passage teaches: "The truth of the matter is the passage authorizes both individuals and churches to send in such cases." (Emphasis mine — C.W.) If it is true that we have missed the point on this passage as Brother Warren thinks, we can rest assured that we did not miss it when we "assumed" that the church sent to relieve the brethren in Judea. He criticizes us for assuming the church sent, and then tells us that "The truth of the matter is the passage authorizes both individuals and churches to send in such cases." Maybe the argument was not blown as high as we might at first have supposed. Since there has been very little, if any, controversy about the individual doing works of benevolence, and since Brother Warren has informed us that Acts 11:27-30 is authority "for churches to send in such cases," the argument over the teaching of Acts 11:27-30 on this particular point should cease. "The truth of the matter is" that "churches may send in such cases" and Acts 11:27-30 proves it! We won't have to argue this with these brethren any more. They admit it and teach it.
Surely after such a stinging rebuke as was administered to us for being guilty of "special pleading," Brother Warren would not in the same issue of his paper be guilty of the same crime. He rebuked some of the brethren for assuming, instead of proving, that Acts 11:27-30 authorized church action. But between the first sentence of the paragraph and the last sentence of the same paragraph, he has found "the truth!" And "the truth" found was the very thing we are supposed to have assumed! Churches did send!
However, to prove something, Brother Warren says use the syllogism. To find the truth reduce an argument to its syllogistic form. To undertake to show what he believes to be absurdities in the arguments of some brethren, Brother Warren reduces the arguments made to what he believes their component parts to be. To disprove a proposition, Brother Warren says show the premises to be false; to prove a proposition, use a syllogism and show its premises to be true. This is how he wants proof presented.
Now unless Brother Warren is guilty of "special pleading," i.e., applying a rule for the presentation of proof to us that he is not willing to apply to himself, then he used the syllogism when he found the truth in Acts 11:27-30. From the assumption that the church in Antioch did the sending to "the truth" that "the passage authorizes . . . churches to send in such cases," Brother Warren must have progressed by means of the syllogism. Otherwise he is guilty of special pleading, for that is how he would have us progress toward the truth.
But in a syllogism, Brother Warren told us, if the premises are true, "the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to a demonstration . . ." Here then is the present situation on Acts 11:27-30. We have been guilty of using the passage without presenting the proof to show its teaching (So Brother Warren says). Brother Warren has come to the passage, seen our assumption, applied his logical acumen and the proper logical process (the syllogism), and has concluded that "the truth of the matter is the passage authorizes both individuals and churches to send in such cases." Remember now, when the syllogism is applied, and certainly Brother Warren did not fail to apply it in reaching his conclusion after all he has written about syllogisms, the conclusion amounts to a demonstration.
We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Brother Warren for his help on Acts 11:27-30. That which we have only been able to assume has now been demonstrated. The church did send! Our many thanks Brother Warren, Perhaps we will not have to cover that ground again,