Jon Gary Williams
Articles / Resources

Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe

0988


Both men are giants at debating. This debate will help brethren see how Sommerism has fastened itself on some brethren and some preachers. Of course, bro. Porter and others do not like to be classified with Carl Ketcherside and Daniel Sommer, however, Porter affirmed practically the same proposition that Ketcherside affirmed.

In 1937, Carl Ketcherside met Rue Porter at Ozark, Mo., Rue Porter affirmed: "The erection and maintenance of orphan homes, such as Boles Orphan Home, Tipton Orphan Home, and others of like character, for the purpose of housing and otherwise caring for orphan children, is authorized by the N. T, scriptures." Ketcherside said these homes had no right to exist. Bro. Curtis Porter denied almost exactly the proposition that Ketcherside denied. You will observe that Carl Ketcherside and Curtis Porter are in exact agreement in denying the right of an orphan home to exist. In times past, some of us have discussed the best method or way by which a home may be built or maintained, but none of us denied the right of such home to exist.

Curtis Porter has affirmed that it is contrary to the scriptures to build such homes. That means that he is arguing that such homes as Tipton should be destroyed and wiped out of existence. With him it is more than a question as to whether elders should take the money out of the church treasury or from a box in the vestibule to support the home. He denies the right of such a home to exist. He affirmed that it is unscriptural to build and maintain them.

Not only do we see that the proposition affirmed by Carl Ketcherside at Ozark, Mo. is the same proposition that Curtis Porter affirmed, but we also find that Porter and Ketcherside made the same speeches. It is interesting to read Ketcherside's speeches in his debate with Rue Porter and to read Porter's speeches in the Woods-Porter debate. Porter and Ketcherside made the same speeches, except that Ketcherside made them much plainer than Porter. That doles not mean that Curtis Porter cannot make as good a speech and Ketcherside, but this does mean, however, that Ketcherside was bolder in his speeches and did not hedge and dodge the issue. Carl Ketcherside said that such homes as Boles Home or Tipton Home do not have the right to exist. On this issue, Porter was vague. However, in the Woods-Porter debate, Curtis Porter said he never so much as read Ketcherside's speeches ion the Rue Porter- Ketcherside debate. This scribe does not doubt what Curtis Porter said, but I am not convinced that he has never read the speeches made by Daniel Sommers. Daniel Sommers says that Ketcherside used his speeches in the debate with Rue Porter. I am not sure who originated the arguments used, but I am positive that they are identical.

So far as I know the Gospel Guardian has never advertised the Woods-Porter debate. The Gospel Guardian is not publishing the book for sale. We wonder why?

VIEW NEXT REPORT  >>



Print