# "Cooperation Between New Testament Churches"

## Chapter III. "The Syllogism"

On page two of his tract, Brother Thomas B. Warren presents a syllogism under the topic heading, "The Syllogism By Which It Is Proposed To Prove the Proposition."

He again uses superfluous and meaningless words which tend to confuse readers who may not know what he is trying to prove. By this topic heading he simply means, "The Syllogism To Be Used In Proving the Proposition."

Why is he so persistent in his use of that pronoun "it" in clauses in which "it" has no antecedent? The structure of his sentences make him sound more like a babbler than a student.

1. **The Syllogism.**

Here is the syllogism by which he proposes to prove his proposition.

"1. Major Premise: All total situations the constituent elements of which are scriptural are total situations which are scriptural.

"2. Minor Premise: The total situation described in the above proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are scriptural.

"3. Conclusion: The total situation described in the above proposition is a total situation which is scriptural."

By this syllogism Brother Warren is trying to prove that his "total situation" of evangelism is scriptural by merely assuming that all the "constituent elements" of his "total situation" are scriptural. By a careful study of the wording of his proposition he should be able to see that his proposition requires his proving that two component parts of his "total situation" of evangelism are scriptural. The two unscriptural "elements" are: (1) one church may contribute money to another church for a work to which both are related equally; (2) 'a church may assume the oversight of that same work to which both churches are equally related, and thereby make the two churches unequally related to that work. The Bible does not contain one verse of scripture in support of either of these "constituent elements" in Brother Tom Warren's proposition.

The "total situation" in Tom's proposition is a plan for evangelizing the world. He can never prove that his "total situation," or plan for evangelization. is scriptural, until he proves that these two "component parts" are scriptural.

## 2. A Negative Syllogism.

Here is a syllogism which proves that Brother Tom Warren's "total situation," or sponsoring church plan of evangelization, is unscriptural.

(1) Major Premise: All total situations the constituent elements of which are unscriptural are total situations which are unscriptural.

(2) Minor Premise: The total situation described in Tom Warren's proposition is a total situation. Two constituent elements of which are unscriptural.

(3) Conclusion: The total situation described in Tom's proposition is a total situation which is unscriptural.

The only "possible way" that Tom can overthrow this syllogism is by presenting a passage of scripture which teaches that his two unscriptural "constituent elements" are scriptural. His assuming that they are scriptural will not suffice.

In the preceding chapter of this study, five of the six "elements of the proposition," as listed by Brother Tom, were shown to be unscriptural.

## 3. Parable Of The Three "Total Situations."

The "total situation" of Brother Tom shall be likened unto the three "total situations" of Tom, Dick and Harry.

a. Harry's "total situation" was a system of worship. His proposition obligated him to prove that instrumental music, one a the "constituent elements" of his "total situation," is scriptural. He could not prove it, but he could assume it. Therefore, he created a syllogism, and in the minor premise he assumed that all the "constituent elements," including the music "element," in his system of worship are scriptural. Harry then boldly announced: "For one to prove the minor premise to be false, one must show that a single, specific constituent element of this total situation is an unscriptural one." Poor Harry was so determined to ride his instrumental music hobby that he could not see that he himself had proved both his "minor premise" and his "total situation" to be false by his own failure to produce a passage of scripture in support of the music "element" of his "total situation."

b. Dick's "total situation" was a system of salvation from alien sins. His proposition obligated him to prove that the mourner's bench, one of the "specific constituent elements" of his "total situation," is scriptural. Poor Dick could not prove that the mourner's bench is scriptural, but he could assume it. Therefore his fertile imagination hatched a syllogism, and in the minor premise he assumed that all the "constituent elements," including the mourner's bench "element." in his system of salvation are scriptural. Poor Richard was so much in love with his mourner's bench hobby that he thought the whole world ought to accent the assumption of his minor premise that the mourner's bench "element" is scriptural without any scriptural proof at all.

c. Tom's situation was a system of evangelization. His proposition obligated him to prove by the scriptures that one church may contribute money to another church for the work of evangelization. This was a "specific constituent element" of his "total situation" or system of evangelization. Poor Tom could not find one word of scripture to prove this "constituent element" of his "total situation," but he could assume it. Therefore, Tom's prolific imagination brought forth a syllogism identical to every jot and tittle with the syllogism of Dick and Harry. In the minor premise of his syllogism he boldly assumed that all the "constituent elements" of his system of evangelism are scriptural, including the "element" of donations from a church to a church for a work to which both churches are related equally.

Having justified their three hobbies by the same syllogism, Tom, Dick and Harry were very happy that they had conceived and brought forth a syllogism that would soothe the conscience of every heretic on earth; therefore they issued the following joint proclamation: "For one to prove the minor premise of our syllogism to be false, one must prove that instrumental music in worship, the mourner's bench and contributions from a church to a church for the work of evangelism are unscriptural."

In the Abilene and Indianapolis debates, Brethren Ernest Harper and Guy Woods, like drowning men grabbing at a straw, tried to prove their propositions by Brother Tom's "elements" and syllogism. Like Tom, Dick and Harry, Guy tried to justify church contributions to human benevolent societies and Ernest tried to justify donations from a thousand churches to Herald of Truth by exactly the same syllogism.

Tom certainly hatched some syllogism! By that same syllogism, Tom proves that the diocesan oversight of an eldership in evangelization is scriptural; Dick proves that the mourner's bench is scriptural; Harry proves that instrumental music in worship and church contributions to a man-made missionary society are scriptural; Guy proves that church contributions to a man-made benevolent society are scriptural; Ernest proves that donations from a thousand churches to the Highland church for the Herald of Truth evangelistic project are scriptural; and they all prove their various erroneous doctrines by exactly the same syllogism. What A Syllogism!

His minor premise is totally false. His own interpretations of the most of his assertions (which he calls "constituent elements") are unscriptural, and he did not cite (much less quote) one verse of scripture to prove that his "constituent elements" are scriptural. If they are scriptural, why doesn't he quote the passage that makes them scriptural?

(To be continued)