Post-Debate Analysis with Q&A and Panel Discussion

All right, well thank you all for sticking around for after-dinner Q &A. This is going to be just a general Q &A, but at the same time the starting focus is going to be on the debate and discussion about how everything went at the debate.

If we run out of discussion on that, we can just talk about the Doctrine of Simony in general. But for starters, I suppose it would be meaningful if I gave some sort of analysis of the debate, but I don't really feel like I have that much to say.

So I think I'm going to pass it off to ask other people how they thought it went. How did you think the debate went? Any thoughts on the arguments that were presented? Or Tanner, in comparison to last year?

Anything like that?

Evaluating the Debate's Arguments and Dynamics

I guess I can go first. A lot of things that were similar to last year. One of the things I noticed is that Tanner began with this thing of, he didn't want us to take this big leap, what he considered a leap from Acts 8 to then considering biblical teaching, Simony.

What he was doing really was a lot of leaping as well that I don't think he really acknowledged. This is what a lot of people do. That is the leap from support being equal to sales. That's the leap that we see over and over and over.

Just because a worker is worthy of support and wages doesn't mean that is saleable. So that's a leap. Just to keep in mind as you talk to people in the future, that is kind of endemic to this discussion over and over.

You look like you're about to say something. I'm trying to think how to start. For one thing, it did seem like Tanner was attempting to pin you down by proving that you were inferring things that weren't explicitly written, which isn't a bad strategy if you only had one passage of scripture to defend your doctrine.

He just seemed to start there, but then when you got into 1 Corinthians 9, was it 1 Corinthians 9? Yes. Yeah. Then when you guys really got into exegeting that passage, I felt like you really just pinned him in a corner.

If people didn't follow that logic, it would be worth re-watching that section of the debate to follow the logic where it seemed like a few times you explicitly showed him something that he just couldn't make the connection.

Then it was Blake that came up and asked the question that stopped him in his tracks. It was the same thing repeated. Actually, I didn't read Blake's question because I thought we discussed it sufficiently.

When he asked it, Tanner was stopped in his tracks. I think that we have to remember that our goal is to properly exegete and teach God's word because we think that's where the power is and where the truth is.

Then ultimately, I saw what we see all the time, which I don't mean this disrespectfully towards Tanner, but I saw fear. I saw the fear of, if I don't do this thing that I'm already doing that already seems to work, how will it work out?

So Christianity is based on faith, not fear. We need to teach people that God will take care of us the way that he wants to take care of us. I was going to ask you, Conley.

I do feel like there Do you want to get the mic closer? Oh, sorry. I do think I picked up and others picked up that at certain points there was clearly, and I'm not saying he did this intentionally, but there was misunderstanding in his mind of what the position is and therefore it came out at certain points that there was just confusion in some of the things that I think he assumed our side would agree with.

One of the major things for me that stuck out is it seemed pretty clear to me that he's not totally clear in his mind about the distinction between co-labor and reciprocity.

Did you have that same impression? I did, and that's what I pointed out that one point in the debate where I said that my position was being misrepresented and I said I didn't think it was intentional, but he was talking about no payments of any kind in the context of, it's clearly not intuitive for him how to speak about these things, which I don't blame him.

It's a hard topic, but it does show that if it's not intuitive to him, then at least it's not super clear.

And the main reason I bring that up is, again, totally appreciate the fact that he had the urge to come into enemy territory, so to speak. He's carrying the unpopular position. But because of that, and because that's so central to the whole idea, I think it led some of his questions and his concerns in directions that just weren't really relevant.

And it kind of inserted confusion in places where if he had been more clear about our position, there would have been more pointed questions that would have been more helpful to actually get to the nub of where the disagreement is.

Yeah, one of the things that distinguishes this debate from last year is that last year I had probably, I don't know, maybe four or five conversations with the opponent, and this year only maybe two after we initially talked to agree.

So yeah, that is something that I'd like to do more of, but we only had enough overlap to get in a couple of conversations beforehand. I do fear the day when someone more hostile to the position wants to do this, and they have no interest in communicating beforehand.

Let's say someone high up in one of these organizations like Crossway or whatever was willing to, and they had no interest in trying to let me know what angle they were going for or anything, because what I've done both times with people as friends is we're basically trading all notes.

You know, I'm letting them know all the arguments I'm going to make. They're trying to do as much as they can the same, right, so that we understand each other as well as possible. But if we have a debate where all that's not on the table, it could go a lot rougher even.

I just want to point out that even though he was here like on your home turf, at the same time, his position is the most popular, right, in the broader sense. And so, in some sense, he didn't really, I don't think most people in his position feel like they have to argue very hard for their position or justify it very much, because it is the consensus, and you talk about this in your book, this weight of the assumed consensus that, well, there's so many people around us that agree with me that ministry can be sold, so I don't really have to look into it, because it must be this way because everyone has already looked into it very thoroughly and found it to be a good thing, right, biblically.

And also, I just wanted to point out that with his, I thought it was very telling that he wasn't allowing Conley to infer from Acts 8 that biblical teaching selling was simony, but he was willing to infer that selling the Lord's Supper or selling prayer was simony.

He was willing to make that leap, and I don't think he ever justified that inconsistency as far as I understand it.

Yeah, Andrew mentioned the part in the Doctrine of Simony book that talks about the weight of an implied consensus, people feeling like if they're in the majority that they don't have to give an answer for why it would be any other way.

If you have a retrieved Doctrine of Simony, if you recognize that the majority of Christian thinkers had a different view, suddenly it's no longer the majority position, and that fades away. So that's part of the value of retrieving this doctrine.

Yes, we want to be people of the book. Yes, we're going to Scripture. That's why I wrote the Dorian Principle as primarily just an explanation of the scriptural doctrine of freely given ministry, but if you restore the history, a lot of these implicit arguments begin to fade even more.

I also wanted to point out that he appealed to the fallibility of a writer or teacher several times in his talk, and fallibility does not remove the spiritual character of teaching or anything, really, that we do in ministry, right?

And so that was one thing.

Yeah, prayers are fallible, right?

The things that he would refuse just absolutely to sell, those all factor into our fallibleness as humans, and as sinners, that is. So something else to consider as well.

Whether the Didache Addresses Simony

All right, at this point, we can open it up to the Q &A mic, if anyone would like to. I don't know if anyone is watching the live stream to see if there are comments. Jonathan, if you want to point to that, or maybe someone up here wants to follow along.

Okay, all right, sounds good. But just so people know, on the live stream, you can ask questions, and we'll try to get those asked. And yeah, feel free to point the mic up to you as needed, depending on your height.

I mean, it doesn't talk about, like, something per se, but it does talk about, someone talks a lot about money, or false profit. I mean, it kind of alludes to it, like a precursor. Yeah, why didn't I quit the Didache?

That's what you're saying. Yeah, it's not, it is excellent because of how early it is, but you're right, it's not the most direct, so I just chose not to bring that up in the course of this conversation.

I think I do mention it in the book, but not in detail like I do in the Dorian Principle. I mention it there.

I guess, would the Didache be consistent with the spirit of this topic?

Absolutely, yes. For those who don't know, the Didache, which ostensibly, or not ostensibly, the word Didache means the teaching. It's referring to the teaching of the Twelve Apostles, it's a summary of the teaching.

This likely was written in the first century, and it talks about anyone who would sell their prophecy or anyone who would come to a people and stay with them for more than three days, that they're to be treated as a false teacher, the implication being that they're just in it for the hospitality, just in it for the funds.

The Shepherd of Hermas, I think I mentioned also, addresses this in that second century. I guess question number two.

Applying the Dorian Principle from a Reformed Perspective

In the beginning of the book, you talk about how this has to be treated from a Reformed perspective. I guess, what would stop a Roman Catholic or another person trying to do the Dorian Principle?

So, they could try, and in many ways they did, honestly. The address of simony in the Counter-Reformation was probably more significant than in the Reformation, because the Reformation had already dealt with it quite a bit.

And so, there are a number of works that I don't even go into, Suarez and others, during the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Catholic movement that was against the Reformation. So, they did try to advance the doctrine of simony even more.

However, if you understand all the other pieces that it goes together with, for example, I mentioned all the things about the friars. The Roman Catholic position would be very pro-friar. They have no problem with that.

They're still Franciscans and Dominicans today. There's things like that. There is the nature of what we're trying to accomplish. Are we just digging up history, or are we trying to really understand Scripture in light of the tradition as it might help us clarify things?

It just changes a lot of aspects of how we would do the task. I think also, I said more there that I'm trying to remember, but I think one of it was just it has to have motivation, right? It's a Reformed church that really cares about reforming.

Rejoicing When the Gospel Is Preached by Insincere People

I guess as a sub-question, you talk about if the message goes out, you rejoice, even if it's through. Ill, what's the word, ill-noble, or?

Sure, insincere people are preaching.

I guess if a heretical group co-opted it, I guess would you still rejoice?

If a heretical group were preaching the true gospel, is that what you're saying?

No, no, no, the Dorian principle. Oh, the Dorian principle.

Not necessarily. I mean, I'd be happy if true Christians ended up finding it, but I'm not exactly happy about Satan parading as an angel of light. Yeah, that's all. Thank you for answering.

Obligation, Giving Freely, and Ministerial Service

One thing in the debate, it seemed like a lot of the conversation ended up centering around the notion of obligation and like an individual or elder who they're obligated to serve in various ways, and so I was just curious if y 'all have comments on that, further comments on that topic, like how relevant is that at all, if at all, to the Dorian principle and simony?

Yeah, just any further comments on that?

Yeah, well, I'll start off and say that that message I gave on parachurch ministry shows that it is relevant in that you're supposed to be receiving from your own people. There is the nature of the obligation of the man to his people and the people to the man, but the implication that Tanner was trying to take from that was that, okay, well, if you go beyond what you're strictly obligated to do, then all rules go out, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.

And I would just add to that, the issue of obligation doesn't negate your obligation to be obedient. Just because you're not, you don't think you're obligated to pray for somebody who emails you or something like that, that doesn't mean that you don't have to obey a biblical principle, for instance, to give freely, to not sell the gospel.

And so I think he was conflating those two in a very unhelpful way, and that's what we need to keep separate, you know, to obey is better than sacrifice, and it's not that relevant as he thought it was, I don't think.

Yeah, it is really obvious once you bring back in this example of prayer, alright, minister's not obligated to pray for each person individually, can he charge for prayers to someone outside his church?

Once again, a massive leap to then all of a sudden conclude that...

He wouldn't agree with that, so clearly this obligation thing isn't the distinction that's going to save him.

If anything, the obligation thing even limits the people who ought to be ministering, right, which is what your point in the parachurch thing was later, that there are people who probably should just have secular jobs and shouldn't even be hoping for support for certain things they're doing ministerially.

When I heard that, I was thinking, parallel with Gahad, sorry, when I heard the obligation thing being brought up, and I think James asked the helpful question of, okay, so you see a direct obligation to someone who asks you for the gospel on the street, but isn't someone on the other end of a website who's trying to buy a book about the gospel, isn't that also at least an implied ask, right?

And it seems like there's this false distinction he's got that distance somehow, to your point, Andrew, changes our obligation to be obedient and keep to the principles God has given us. And just thinking of Gahadzi, that was kind of his attitude towards Naaman.

Naaman's the foreigner, my master spared this Syrian, I'm going to run after him and get something from him, right? Because, you know, he's a Syrian, we don't owe him anything. That's kind of the same attitude that's going on.

Right?

What Is the Gift of God in Acts 8?

So, one of the things that Tanner mentioned in his negative rebuttal in the closing was that Peter rebuked Simon for thinking the gift of God could be obtained with money. And he would say that you can't buy prayer, but you can buy a book.

You can buy certain things, but certain things you couldn't, which to my understanding are under the gift of God. So my question is, is what is the gift of God? And could there be a relevance to what is said in the scriptures about the fruit of the spirit, where the fruit is often taught as being a singular piece, as being a love, but with encompassing pieces?

Could it be a similar thing where the gift of God is one thing, but with pieces? And so, if you, so you can't have, so basically it's like the whole, and so you can't be picking and choosing, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

I'm not sure I follow. Did somebody else? I understood what you were saying. You were saying that maybe we could define, you could not buy the gift of God with money. That's what Peter was telling Simon, and the gift of God not necessarily being one thing, but it being in a sense of representation of all of the gifts of God, in a sense of synecdoche or metonymy, I think that is, where you're all of a sudden saying, he's actually, where you're saying Peter's actually describing all of the gifts of the spirit, but he's just using that one phrase.

That's what you meant. Correct. Yes. Do you think that's a valid thought of how to interpret that, is Courtney's question? You're the one who preached on Acts 8. I didn't think so at the time. I think Peter was talking to Simon about what he was doing in that moment, and I think that it's entirely okay for us to infer from that, and then to apply that to other parts of spirituality.

And again, if Acts 8 was the only chapter in the Bible that taught against simony and against selling the spiritual, it'd be a tough sell, but we pull so many other scriptures to say you have to freely give, and there's the whole Gehazi thing, and the sons of that one priest, Hophni and Phinehas, those guys were like the OG salesmen, you know, like these guys were just exchanging spiritual stuff for material stuff, and they were condemned harshly for it.

So, no, I do think that it was just the thing he wanted at the time that Peter was referring to. Thank you.

Identifying the Arguments That Carry the Most Weight

What arguments do you think have the most weight, but like a layman or whoever hearing it might hear it and agree, but like doesn't think it's very weighty? Does that make sense? It doesn't what? So, what is an argument that has a lot of weight, but I might hear it and go, sure, that's true, but I don't see how much implications or weight it has.

For our position. Okay. Meaning that we would, we would understand that it has a lot of weight, but that if someone was new to the position, they might not, might not realize how significant that is. Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, there's, there's a lot of things. There's so many things like this where, as I have grown in my study of scripture, I'm willing to make connections that there are a lot of steps in between that are happening and I'm not doing the calculus for people, right?

And that has become natural to me as the connections seem more natural. And a lot of people think that I'm trying to bamboozle them or something, right? Or that I'm just making crazy leaps where they don't exist.

But you look at Jesus interacting with the Sadducees to approve the resurrection. He was willing to say that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He's not the God of the dead, but of the living, therefore there's a resurrection.

Now anyone today hearing that for the first time, if that argument were not in scripture, would probably say that's way too much of a leap. You're abusing scripture by doing that kind of thing. But that was Jesus's own argument.

And so, for example, when I say for Acts 8, if this narrative has little instruction for us beyond just saying that this is something that happened to one of the apostles, then we're not understanding it because I know the nature of scripture to be something where when sins are featured, it is warning us.

That is the purpose of that passage, and therefore it must apply to many things. And if I don't see it applying to many things, then I don't yet understand it, and I have to find it applying to many things.

Whereas other people are fine leaving it at not applying to many things, and they do not feel burdened. In fact, they may even feel a hesitance to do that because that would be, you know, Michael talked about erring on the side of safety, right, on the side of honoring God.

A lot of people want to err on the side of charity, right, not coming to any conclusions that would condemn anybody. And so, people are often trying to do the opposite of what I'm trying to do, where I'm saying this passage has to be given to our instruction so I can be a complete man, exhorting me, rebuking me, etc., right.

It has to be, it has to be all the things that 2 Timothy 3 .16 and 17 says that it is, and if I'm not seeing that yet, I've got to understand it further. So, that would be one thing that I've mentioned a couple of times and may have even mentioned at the debate that I think has a lot of weight, just the nature of Scripture itself, but may not resonate with other people that that's how Scripture even works.

And I don't know if this answers your question, but I just wanted to, just along those lines and along the lines that you mentioned about the Trinity in your talk, Tanner was very concerned that, you know, we would be seeing this, this wouldn't be such a complicated thing to have to figure out and know what the right thing to do is.

The Trinity is just like that. It's one of the most complicated things for anyone to understand, yet it is one of the most serious things that you have to understand and one of the most serious things to deny.

And you could use the same argument, like how could you, how could you require a basic Christian to wrap their mind around this and agree with it? And if they're not, then they're having, they're in such grievous sin.

It's, it's, it, it, that is, has nothing to do, you know, whatever, you know, assumed complexity around something is, has nothing to do with obedience, has nothing to do with truth. And I tell this to my daughter all the time, who's four and a half, like, I really want you to remember that just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not true.

Because that is one of the most important things you have to learn about life. Because there will be so many things that God does and that God says that you don't understand right away, but doesn't mean they're not true.

I'd like to add an answer. No, sorry. But the, the preponderance of historic opposition and definition of simony, I think, is an extremely compelling reason to believe it, that for many Christians will not have the weight that we would hope.

And, and I think, like, we're hoping as Reformed Baptists that other people that call themselves Reformed would at least hear that kind of argument, you know. Tanner should be utterly convinced by 1900 years of people hating simony that he ought to also.

And, and it, and that is a hard thing for a lot of people because they're engaged in biblicism, they're, they're, they're the kind of people that if it doesn't say it right there, it's hard for them to believe.

And, and hearing that so many Christians believed it isn't always compelling. And, and I don't just want to answer your question and tell you what the problem is without offering a solution. I think that if we can help people see that they're actually siding with what they think is the majority when they're for simony, or they don't think they're for simony, but you know what I mean, that what they're doing is they're going with the majority of today.

They're going with what they see as what is the prevailing doctrinal, you know, cultural belief. And if we can convince people that, well, if you would have lived 200 years ago, you'd be as opposed to this as we are because everybody around us was 200 years ago then, or however long ago, it really, it's been about 200 years probably, right?

For what? Since this became so terrible. That's when it started probably.

So, so if we help people. If we mark it from copyright, 300 years.

Yeah, about 300 years then. So I think if we show people that, you know, you're really just going with what you see is the majority immediately, and what we're trying to do is show them that the majority of the church actually agrees with us.

And we're, we're really just agreeing with the, the pillar and buttresses that came before us.

Distinguishing Gray Areas from Understudied Questions

So this follows up on what you were just talking about. So I've seen this too, that when you're talking to people about various issues, if you can't point to a specific chapter and verse that says verbatim what you're trying to say, people will often say, not necessarily that you're wrong, but that it is a gray issue, right?

That you don't want to bind people's consciences. So what I'm wondering is how can you determine whether or not something actually is a gray matter? Like how can you make sure that you aren't binding people's consciences?

I think it's a really good question. And a couple weeks ago, I listened to the chapter from Andrew's book called copyright, what a perversion of justice, I think it's called, where Andrew proved that copyright was a perversion of God's justice.

And he did it by referring to God's law specifically. He started with one of God's commandments, thou shalt not steal. And then Andrew explained what stealing must be for you to violate it. And then he showed how copyright doesn't fit in the definition.

And it was very systematic and very clear to me by the end. Yeah, there was just no doubt that copyright doesn't fit under the eighth commandment. And so I think that you always want to root everything that you bind somebody else's conscience with in one of God's 10 commandments and be able to show how through scripture, it does fit a description of what that commandment requires or forbids.

And that's how you avoid binding other people's Christian liberty. I think it's a good instinct to have, by the way, you don't want to.

So good and necessary consequence, right?

Necessary, I believe in not good, necessarily. What's that? I'm a necessary consequence guy. I don't believe in good and necessary as Presbyterians do.

There's a reason the Baptist confession changes that phrase. How does the confession necessarily contained in necessarily contained on what you were saying earlier?

Sorry. I think we just live in a generally less biblical literate time right now, where even pastors don't know their Bibles nearly as well as they should. And to your point about you start connecting things in scripture that become so paths that are so commonly tread and followed that they become very easily established in your mind.

Whereas others don't necessarily make all the connections that you're making. And so I think we have to just be aware of that, that that's a reality where we might have to slow down and be careful to explain how we're connecting this text to that text.

But I think you mentioned calmly that God's law is broad. And like you read the Westminster, like larger catechism. And what are what things are commanded and forbidden in this commandment? And you read the exceedingly long lists of virtues and vices.

That is the way that we are to approach to your point calmly, that there is much within the word of God that is meant to be derived as we as scripture cannot be broken. And we connect all of it together.

God expects us to do that. And that's a good thing. You know, it's not we shouldn't be so simplistic as to think a text has to say exactly the point. Or one text by itself has to say exactly what I'm trying to say.

In order for an inference to be valid.

So would you say then that there are far fewer actual gray areas than people would say? Like does a lot of time gray area just mean under studied area?

Yes, I imagine that if Jesus were asked this question, that there would be no gray area for him. And so, yeah, we, we in our own sinfulness is where and in our own, you know, weakness, too, because we're just not necessarily excellent men and the capacities or mind or whatever the case may be, are not going to plumb every depth.

And so, yeah, there might be a personal humility that I haven't studied this all out. And so I'm going to be careful in how I apply it. But at the end of the day, no, I don't. I don't think there's any area where someone doesn't know or someone can't know what the right thing to do is.

There's no temptation that is so great that God will not give us the ability to escape. You know, he always gives us the way to escape. Therefore, there is no real gray area at the end of the day. They're the only gray areas that exist are basically our limitations and our weaknesses that we need to be humble about.

But that's not because God actually set it up so that there's not enough there. I feel like in many of these cases, Jesus would be saying, have you not read? You know, have you not? And and not every time where I would say that something is against God's law, may it be, you know, I might be wrong about those things, either saying it's white or saying it's black.

But I do not believe there would be ever a case where Jesus would be confused or or find a matter doubtful so that, well, we just got to give people a little freedom here because we don't totally know.

Thank you. I would just add that Matthew 10, 8 is remarkably clear compared to many other doctrines, many other issues that we see. And I've found that many times or most of the time when people give that argument, that it's too gray and you're binding people's conscience, that is an evasive maneuver because they don't want to grapple with it and they don't want to have to.

You know, I think the responsible Christian response to something that they don't understand or may feel gray to them is, let me go be like the Bereans and really get down to this and figure it out. But we do not see those people who are calling this, giving us that accusation of being gray, actually doing that.

It's just a way to evade it.

I want to add, I want to apply what I just taught to the doctrine of simony. And that is to tell you that the doctrine of simony is a violation of the third commandment of God. We're not revering God, his person, his works, his word in the way that we ought to.

We're devaluing it. And so I can say that I think simony is really just, you're just blaspheming. And so you can go to, as Kyle said, to my website, the Catechism website, and you can read what the third commandment requires of people.

Which includes correcting people who violate it when you hear it. And so we can do this with the doctrine of simony. And like Andrew said, there's clearer and clearer passages throughout. And so I think you're asking a good question.

Thank you.

Graciously Encouraging People to Engage the Issue

I've got a follow up on that. You want me to pitch a question to you guys? Just thinking about it, it seems like a big part of the battle is not just proving the position, but getting people to even be willing to engage the position.

And one of the most, what you just mentioned, Andrew, one of the most common evasions, just to evade even having the discussion, is it sounds so complicated. It sounds so almost next to impossible to really determine what would be simony and what wouldn't be.

They just kind of de facto assume, therefore the principle can't be the right one. And they just kind of use it as a reason to, no one could ever really come to it, to a conviction of knowing that this is right.

And therefore, why try? And they don't even give it the time of day. Do you guys have thoughts on how we can push back against that graciously and try to prod people to be willing to actually enter the discussion?

If I could just give a really quick answer. That's part of what I'm trying to do with this book. If it is a historical matter, I believe that, at least for Reformed believers who have an understanding of how history is supposed to work, that adds a burden to respond to it.

This is not just some novel weird thing that doesn't need an answer. I think that adds a burden.

Yeah, we've done this kind of pushback very simply and very often. And what I recommend is just turn the tables on them. So if your position is so simple compared to our position about simony, if your position is so simple, then please tell me how you discern when and when not to charge for ministry.

Because you do. You don't charge for prayer. You don't charge for the Lord's Supper. Please tell me from Scripture why. Why don't you? And why do you in other places? So far, not one academic, not one simple, it doesn't matter who we ask, they have never answered that question.

Not once.

I would add that we need to not neglect prayer. If we want the Spirit of God to move upon the people of God in regards to this, and we spend all our time in debates about it, then we're losers. Because we want the Spirit of God to do what only He can do, which is work on these people's hearts.

And I'd say, secondly, I would challenge people that we love God's law and God loves His law, and the blessed man meditates on it day and night, and he just repeats the Ten Commandments to himself. You know, the idea here is that we are studying it in such a way that we're trying to discern the will of the Lord, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

And what we're trying to do is understand what has God told us that we ought to do so that we might approach Him properly and live a life that honors Him properly in this exile that we're in. And Christians ought to want to know what that is.