Jon Gary Williams
Articles / Resources
0673
W. Curtis Porter vs W. C. Wright (Progressive)
August 11, 1921
Near Monette, Arkansas
(By F. L. Paisley)
This debate began July 11 and continued 3 days on a different proposition.
W. C. Wright, of Progressive fame, affirmed the first and third days respectively: 1) "Man is wholly material" and 2) "Only the regenerated will be raised from the dead." On the 2nd day bro. Porter affirmed: "Those who die in disobedience to the gospel of Christ will suffer everlasting punishment." It may seem strange that a "Progressive Christian" will debate such issues and contend for such doctrines, but it is simply "over the top" in the "Progressive movement."
Bro. Porter pressed his final affirmative on Rev. 14:9-12. Wright said that "worshipeth" is present tense, and the beast was the Pope and the "torment" lasted during the time that they worship the beast; that the expression "they have no rest day and night" cannot refer to eternity, because there is not night in eternity, according to Rev. 22:5. This put Wright in an embarrassing position. When bro. Porter called attention to the fact that while there will be no literal marking of time by day and night, as we count time, yet, according to Rev. 7:15, "they serve him day and night in the temple," which shows that the expression "day and night" is an accommodating term expressing a continuation of service in this last reference and a continuation of suffering in Rev. 14:11. Bro. Porter did a fine work here in spite of this opponents ridiculing of a "burning, frizzling, frying hell."
Mr. Wright alluded that "unquenchable fire" is fire that cannot be put out, but that it will "go out" when no more material is added top keep up the flames. This made bro. Porter curious to know just how the "smoke of their torment" could go up "forever and ever" after the material had all been burned and the fire gone out as had been implied that it would. Yes, it made me wonder if there is not "a little fire where there is so much smoke."
The debate was first scheduled for Monette, Ark. but because of some critical town folks, it was held about two miles out of town in a shady grove. This caused an interesting thing to occur.
From the beginning bro. Porter pressed Wright to meet some of us in debate on these and the music question in Caruthersville, Mo., Wright's hometown, and where we used to have property, but which had been taken by the cunning manipulations of Wright's congregation. This challenge was ignored til Wright's last speech the second day. He explained (?) That the church in Cauthersville did not wish a debate there and had especially urged him during the writer's (F. L. Paisley) meeting there in May not to allow a debate to be brought there under any consideration. He spent the rest of his speech begging sympathy from the audience by his artful tactics, which he uses well when needed. In this speech he gave the people of Monette a cutting reproof for trying to put a curb on religious investigation and being self-appointed guardians for things of the kind. I was anxious to hear bro. Porter call attention the next day to the fact that all he said about Monette was forcefully applied to his home congregation in that they also refuse to allow investigation of Wright's unscriptural doctrines and their unauthorized practices in Cauthersville.
Deportment of speakers was first-class. Not a slur or reflection cast. Each man is a good speaker and has his proposition well in hand. Bro. Porter is only 24 but shows a good acquaintance with the Book and doctrines he is combating.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>