Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
We know that teachers, or doctors, have been given tot he church. This is a plain Scriptural statement on God's gifts to the church. Prophets, Apsotles and Evangelsits are no longer - they are the extraordinary offices of the church. Now we have pastors, teachers, and deacons, the oridnary offices of the church.
Question: What use are Teachers (Doctors)?? (i.e. those particularly gifted and skilled in exegetical, theological, historical and pracitcal theology.)
Here is the WCF on Teachers and Doctors:
Teacher or Doctor.
THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor.
Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments.
The Lord having given different gifts, and divers exercises according to these gifts, in the ministry of the word; though these different gifts may meet in, and accordingly be exercised by, one and the same minister; yet, where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments, according to the different gifts in which each of them doth most excel. And he that doth more excel in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher, or doctor, (the places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition.) Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far is able, the whole work of the ministry.
A teacher, or doctor, is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors."
This is a fine defenition. Eph 4:11 says we have teachers and the above indicates the prudent and Scriptural application of such an office in the church.
Calvin agrees:
(Given in brief - cf Institutes 4:3:1ff)
For by this means he first declares his regard for us when from among men he takes some to serve as his ambassadors in the world [cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20], to be interpreters of his secret will and, in short, to represent his person. And by this evidence he proves it to be no idle
speaking that he often calls us his temples [1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16], since from the lips of men, as from the sanctuary, he gives his answers to men.
Those who preside over the government of the church in accordance with Christ's institution are called by Paul as follows: first apostles, then prophets, thirdly evangelists, fourthly pastors, and finally teachers [Ephesians 4:11]. Of these only the last two have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of
his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands."
(Also compare the work, "R. W. Henderson, The Doctoral Ministry in the Reformed Churches (Harvard Dissertation, 1959)."
Okay, now we know that teachers (or Doctors) are in the church, and they are specially gifted to keep the church pure from heresy on an official level. They have an office.
INSERT HERE >>>> the Thread on Theological Tradictionalism
Now that we have hashed out the theological traaditionalism idea, and we have seen that those who become islands unto themselves, or dissenters from the church. usually claiming the "me and my bible" theology, or "I have the Holy Spirit...." theology, then what do we do about this huge problem of teachers?
If teachers are gifts by Christ to the church, then we best be smart enough to use them. Pastors shoudl be trained by other godly Pastors and Teachers (Doctors) of the church - those most apty suited who have been prepared and following in a specific orthodoxy given the church.
To deny that, is to deny what the Scriptures mean that we have the Holy Spirit to teach us - ffor he has given us, quite blatantly, Ephesians 4:11 that demosntrates that we have teachers who teach. Seminaries given under the guidance of the church (and we can think of lots of them that are not "dead"
are useful for the training of ministers and for the training of future doctors. Such a connection throughout Christendom is sufficienctly seen in Acts 15 and 21. House churches are not set on the authroity of their own "esse." If that were the case, then the Scriptures themselves have no authority, written of course by Apsotles and elders of the church who had authroity over all of the church. (i.e. all of the one church). Georgraphical locale does not disassociate the reality of the one church. Schism on the other hand is a result of sin, and does throw an immense wrench into the ecclesiology of the church.
If we believe what we like int he Bible, and throw out what we do not like, then it is not the Bible we believe, but ourselves.
Theological "Traditionalism" is the cornerstone of the doctrine of Ephesians 4:11 (and other passgaes about chruch officers). To disregard their offical role, or to say that "most seminaries are dead" is ludicrous, unless of course you have visited them all and have documented why this is such.
Rather, what is ludicrous is to dissent from the given orthodoxy of the church, and say that one is an island unto themselves in matters of faith and practice. That is why those who have misrepresented Christ to the world as divided, and schismatic, have been called dissenters throughout church history.
[quote:177d26fd05]
I did read what McMahon linked to. I am still waiting for a Biblical explanation of that belief rather than a philosophical rationale based on proven logical fallacies.
[/quote:177d26fd05]
The biblical rtionale is set in the context of that thread. You read the whole thing? WOW! Its quite long - one of the top 3 longest threads on the board.
In any case, you would have to demosntrate that dissention is biblical, otherwise, you would have to recant what you have said thus far. The very fact that Christ gifts teachers for his church demonstrates the incompatibility that "congregationlism" has with the biblical record.
Let's take a practical example:
Derrick said that a medical doctor is trained differently, using Scott's example. He then appealed to "I have the Holy Spirit" to teachy me theology.
Now, we are not saying that the Holy Spirit doe snot teach us. But we must ask HOW the Holy Spirit DOES teach us. Is it a barritone voice that well up out of the air? Is it a "feeling?" What exactly does it "feel like" when the Holy Spirit teaches us? Let's use my example from the theological tradicionalism thread - it is quite valid:
"Let's say a man were on a desert island, he studied the Bible for a whole week (he and his bible alone - SOLA SCRIPTURA!!), and let's say he had the Bible in the original languages and new them well, and came to a conclusion on passage. He believed he was right on it. The next week he did the same thing with another passage. He believed in his heart that the Spirit of God illuminated him to the truth of the passages. A few days later a box of books washes up on shore. They happened to be commentaries (you pick which ones you would like). He then checks his work. On the first passage he finds he misses a critical verb form of a word and it throws off kilter the whole meaning of his conclusion. On the second passage he found his ideas were almost word for word as the commentators. He hit the nail on the head on that one. In the midst of theological traditionalism, or the lack thereof, what does being "illuminated" by the Holy Spirit feel like? This man thought he had the truth, and found he had blundered. How would he have known what the "prompting" "internal testimony" of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with his heart to the truth of the Word (SOLA SCRIPTURA!!) FELT LIKE TO KNOW FOR SURE HE WAS RIGHT? I had asked this before, which is the heart of the issue, and no one has commented on it yet, so I bring it up again. [AND I BRING IT UP AGAIN HERE!!] The issue here is on how one [b:177d26fd05]knows[/b:177d26fd05] the Holy Spirit is leading them, as a regenerate believer, and that he is translating the Bible accurately since it is so clear. In this case (which is not such a fantastical case) the man was wrong. But if he did not have someone to check his work against, he would not have known that and would have thought the Spirit had lead him into all truth. He would have been happily mistaken. How does Sola Scriptura fit with the illumination of the Spirit of God, and how does one know they are really being lead? What does it FEEL LIKE TO BE LED??"
Historically, the Reformation did NOT teach NOR believe that the ploughboy became a "teacher", and was an island unto himself. Private interpretation was stressed "ad fontes" (back tot he sources) which placed private interpretation into the hands of the teachers, pastors and doctors of the church who knew how to handle Greek and Hebrew (not to mention Aramaic). That was why it was SO IMPORTANT to translate the bible into various languages so others could read it for themselves. However, they emphatically stated that interpretation, to be accurate, is placed int he hands of Sola Scriptura which begged "ad fontes." it is impossible without it.
The Reformation was built upon a proper understanding of hermeneutics, though in different methodologies, which gave way to a solid doctrinal stance on Sola Scriptura. In the beginning, young Luther embraced the scholastic fourfold sense of hermeneutical interpretation of a given passage (literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological). This Quadriga was later replaced by sound exegesis, though at the time, men like Calvin were ridiculed for handling the text in a literal fashion. Zwingli first utilized this literal interpretation in following after Erasmus' insistence on obtaining knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. As a result, the Quadriga influence on Luther (and later his "eight senses") would not be influential upon the Reformed church. Instead, Luther more positively influenced interpretation by applying the lex and evangelium in balance. Later, in his theology surrounding justification, Luther more readily abandons the Quadriga (or rather his heightened eight sense theory) and adheres to a literal sense as the Reformed church exemplified. The hermeneutics, though, of both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed church seem to have little in common at the outset. Rather, the commonality of their views of Scripture emerge from the their mutual attachment to the patristic fathers.
ALL THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH (i.e. those gifted by Christ in offices int he church to keep it pure from heresy) reject the notion that private interpretation is "me and my bible" theology or "I have the holy Spirit so I don't need to listen to anyone else." (That is simply a warped misrepresentation of the Word, and a rejection of historical orthodoxy.
