House Churches

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drdad

Puritan Board Freshman
Let me begin by addressing Matt's recent work against my position. On the outset he is answering the questions he posed to me to try to win the argument and then did a "Touchdown dance" after he answers the questions the way he wants me to answer them. I think this is funny and is clearly a straw man as well as showing the frustration he has in not being able to advance any of his arguments. My answers are different and I believe logically consistent.

To answer your question I need to explain that my side can agree with history and still not hold to Theological Traditionalism. For instance, I can agree with people on Total Depravity and yet criticize other aspects of their belief. I can agree with the canonization of Scripture from a logical standpoint, in which I mentally assent to their decision because I believe they made a rationale decision. This is not circular reasoning because I am not using history as you have used history. Looking at the evidence and saying, "Their logic was sound and they made the right choices" and yet disagreeing with history in other areas is within my framework. Thus, by using logic which is a part of General Revelation, I believe we can logically assent to the canonization of Scripture. This is not circular reasoning because I am not trusting their work alone but analyzing the logic they used and assenting to that logic. Thus, that is consistent that I agree with the conclusion but am not using Theological Traditionalism. I believe their logic was sound and also believe further archeological evidence have come to pass to further prove the decision to be correct. I do not think anyone here will disagree with their logic nor that there is clear rationale. They did not use circular reasoning or other logical fallacies to "make it happen" and the canonization has withstood cross examination and has proven to be firm in the logic and understanding. There is other rationale I have for holding to the Bible that I believe are logically consistent and had included them in this post but edited them out because I felt they were not needed to make this point considering the fact that everyone on here must assent to the logic I have made already.

As for the Ephesians 4 verse, which I didn't address because I didn't think I needed to after the post after it. There are a couple of notations I want to place here. You inputed the word "Doctor", the real word is "poimenos kai didaskolous" and thus we need to define that word and not place our definition of a doctor that is hundreds of years afterwards onto those words (much like some preachers try to place dynamite on the word "power" or redefine agape, phileo, and eros). I want to remind you that our definition of Doctor and Paul's idea would be totally different and thus I do not believe that is what Paul meant in that phrase. A doctor of theology, which was created well after the New Testament, was not what Paul meant in that situation and thus a clear exegetical fallacy. You again use circular reasoning of history to prove history and since I have already addressed that issue, I will abstain just referring to it. As for it showing Theological Traditionalism, I think you have to have a preconceived notion of Theological Traditionalism in order to see that in the text. In other words, you have to believe it then you see Ephesians 4 talking about it. In context, he is not talking about Theological Traditionalism. If you let Scripture define Scripture, Paul later says in II Timothy 3 that the Word of God is used "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Could this be what Paul was talking about especially when he admonishes us to rebuke people by using the Bible and referring to it as perfect in that area. I believe later in Ephesians 4 Paul goes on to say what equipping them means:

1. "For the work of the ministry" II Timothy 3 states the Bible is perfect in that area

2. For edifying. That is what II Timothy 3 states the Bible is used for, "edification"

3. "Unity of the Faith." I believe this is a result of II Timothy 3 and the results in Acts where we saw they committed to the apostle's doctrine, prayer (etc) and a few verses later it states that they were all in one accord (Acts 2:40-47).

4. "that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,"-This is precisely what Paul uses the Word of God for. In II Timothy 4:2-5 Paul admonished them to use the Bible as prescribed in II Timothy 3:16 because there will be deceit in doctrine. His admonishment to Preach the Bible and use the Bible the way it is perfect because people will leave sound doctrine. He did not admonish history but the Bible.

The difference in your argument is that you must go to history to prove history, I go to Scripture to understand Scripture. You continue to use fallacies and place on the text your presupposition to prove your presupposition, which is circular reasoning.

The argumentation of Theological Traditionalism has all been based upon circular reasoning. No one has disputed my findings on this and I think it is clear, Paul never intended Theological Traditionalism to be placed on Ephesians 4, the only other argument placed (and one that had to resort to using circular reasoning as a result and upon a presupposition rather than clear exegesis). Since there are no positive arguments, the other side is left with bashing my belief in order to make their belief stand. I stand firm on my belief and I do not think I am making the same logical fallacies they are, if I am I have not been shown. The other side has also begun to say, "Because some bad things might happen if we let people just read the Bible we therefore have to hold to Theological Traditionalism." The fallacy is evident and I stand with Wycliff in my rebuttal against this idea. If the Bible is perfect then we should be able to trust the Bible more than History. Thus my questions for the other side are these.

1. Without using circular reasoning or proof-texting, logically explain your reasons for holding to theological traditionalism.

2. How do you know which line of theological traditionalism you should hold to? Catholics have theirs, JW's have theirs, Landmarkists have theirs. How do you know yours is correct?

3. How do you know you are interpreting History correctly? After all, as a history minor in College, I saw a variety of interpretations from scholars. From my prof's to Rushdoony, there is a variety out there. People studying the vast volumes of history may misinterpret history. How do you know you are correctly interpreting History?

4. Don't you think someone will take a part of history and throw the rest of it out to say what they want it to say? This is not a serious question because the fallacy is evident, but it is an argument used against me and is a rather unfair question because the exception should not dictate the rule. Yet, if you honestly think this is an honest question to ask me I want you to answer it. In other words, if you have asked me this question you should answer the same. Yet, this is an entirely illogical question. Because some people misuse something does not prove the rule is wrong but that people will misuse it.

5. In the vein of the tradition of the Elders, how does your position not fall into the same trap that I set forth in the tradition of the Elders? How are we not making a mistake when it seems to be he exact parallel in the Bible?

I think these are honest questions that have all been posed to me about my side and in which I have, for the most part, answered. Yet, no one has posed scriptural objections. Which, I believe, is the crux of the debate. People are objecting because they distrust the Bible and believe history must be trusted. That is my final analysis for they do not believe the Bible is perfect and needs help from history because somehow the Bible is handicapped. I, on the other hand, believe history is handicapped and the Bible perfect.

Derick

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Drdad]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Derick,
But how do we know, how do you know that what you are interpreting is accurate & correct? What do you base your intepretation upon? If we follow your line of thinking, who is to say the JW or Mormon is not correct?
 

Drdad

Puritan Board Freshman
Scott,

That is the entire point of my post and why I asked the questions I asked. I believe JW's and Mormons are wrong via the Bible alone which has been my statement all along. Yet, if you hold to theological Traditionalism, then I want to know how you know your theological tradition is correct. I want to know the mindset of the Theological Tradition's viewpoint on which tradition, why, and support their position logically. I have explained my position and how I refute their tradtionalism, the Bible alone and have repeatedly referred back to II Timothy as my rationale.

I still stand with the questions that I believe should be answered.


[quote:61a56ce4cd]
1. Without using circular reasoning or proof-texting, logically explain your reasons for holding to theological traditionalism.

2. How do you know which line of theological traditionalism you should hold to? Catholics have theirs, JW's have theirs, Landmarkists have theirs. How do you know yours is correct?

3. How do you know you are interpreting History correctly? After all, as a history minor in College, I saw a variety of interpretations from scholars. From my prof's to Rushdoony, there is a variety out there. People studying the vast volumes of history may misinterpret history. How do you know you are correctly interpreting History?

4. Don't you think someone will take a part of history and throw the rest of it out to say what they want it to say? This is not a serious question because the fallacy is evident, but it is an argument used against me and is a rather unfair question because the exception should not dictate the rule. Yet, if you honestly think this is an honest question to ask me I want you to answer it. In other words, if you have asked me this question you should answer the same. Yet, this is an entirely illogical question. Because some people misuse something does not prove the rule is wrong but that people will misuse it.

5. In the vein of the tradition of the Elders, how does your position not fall into the same trap that I set forth in the tradition of the Elders? How are we not making a mistake when it seems to be he exact parallel in the Bible?
[/quote:61a56ce4cd]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Derick,
Possibly, I was not clear enough. What I mean to say is, if scripture alone is sufficient (and no one is trying to contradict the idea of sola scriptura here) and it is open [i:eb3f249ea5]only[/i:eb3f249ea5] to private interpetation, without any other facets, who is to say that the JW's are wrong? After all, that is how they have [i:eb3f249ea5]personally[/i:eb3f249ea5] interpreted the scriptures. They believe wholeheartedly that thay are not doing the scriptures an injustice. Do we rend them the same respect that you command?
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Derrick,

The very questions you posed are the [b:07ab4e7a07]same practical applications that we are TRYING to get YOU to answer, and you still have not.[/b:07ab4e7a07]


[quote:07ab4e7a07]
That is the entire point of my post and why I asked the questions I asked.
[/quote:07ab4e7a07]

Well, then, answer the question [b:07ab4e7a07]helpfully.[/b:07ab4e7a07]

How can you be sure you are following the Holy Spirit?

The Theological Traditionalism thread answers all your questions non-circularly. It answers them prudently. The question still remains how you come to your position without being an island unto yourself.

Just a note on "doctor."

That is not a fllacious argument at all. We can still say "teacher" and then exstrapolate that our "teachers" in the church shoudl be trained (just like Paul was) and that they should be tested (just like Paul was) and that they should study for a given amount of time to earn their place (just like Paul did for 13 years.) So let's not be "hyper-literalits" and say that "trasposing" "doctor" over "teacher" is an exegetical fallacy - that is utter nonsense. Paul proved himself to the Apsotles (who were quite afraid of him at the time) when he asked to join the church (not a house church) at Jerusalem. He spent the better part of 13 years in study before them before he became a "light to Gentile." To use, then, a term that packages all that is not a fallacy. No one is saing that "teachers" "literally means" doctors. It is simply an exstension of the prudence of the church. In other words, when those gifted to teach have been trained so they have enough knowledge, we separate the "teacher" (i.e. Ms Jones who teaches Sunday School to 3 year olds) with the special office of Doctor (or Teacher) as a gift of Christ to His church. To even begin saying that it is a fallacy by saying that the Greek does not say "Doctor" is a red herring, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Again we come back to asking you, what does the Holy Spirit feel like, or sound like or look like when you think you have it right? We rely on the Bible, and [i:07ab4e7a07]then[/i:07ab4e7a07] back up that decision by the Protestant consensus of the DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH - gifts from Christ to us. Would we go against eh commands of Christ by not following the gifts He has given us? How do you reconcile that with everything I said about the function of teachers (doctors) and your position ot throw away the concensus of church history? How do you prove that being an Island unto yourself is a biblical idea? What gives you the right to say that the Protestant Reformation was wrong? How do you know they were? Again, we are not talking in circles. The Scripture speaks, and the Holy SPirit says the same thing to John Owen as he does to Scott. He says the same thing to Calvin, as He does to Luther (again we are talking about essentials, and our standards). How do you prove that you have the right position over the others who are island unto themsleves as well - Mormons, JWs, etc? All you have done is taken what YOU like of the Reformation, and you left the rest behind. You are belieivng your own formulations, not that of the BIble. Why? Who told you that the rest were wrong? Why is most of Christian history wrong (thus obviously following after the devil if not the Holy Spirit) and you are right (not following the devil and saying you are being led by the Spriit). What is the time tested factors that allow that to be true on your part? Would you say you are a modern day prophet to bring us all back to the truth? You would have to in order to remain consistent.

AGAIN - we come back to circular reasoning on your part. How do you escape this?

You asked your five questions - all five of them are answered in basically the same way as we have already answered them. We exegete the bible, and thenr ely on Christ's gifts to his church to help us be sure we have exegeted properly (by concensus). Otherwise we become islands unto ourselves.

You exegete the bible and say you have the truth and everyone else is wrong (Confessional Christianity for 2000 years is wrong and you are right.) Are you at least seeing the tension that this creates?

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by webmaster]
 

Drdad

Puritan Board Freshman
Matt,

I answered the questions. The Bible alone using the Holy Spirit and Logic brings about it's own accountability that Historical Traditionalism cannot bring. If you doubt my answer, then I would invite an explanation of II Timothy 3:16-17. My answers are Biblical answers based upon the Bible. Thus, not liking my explanations by turning to the Bible... then I believe you have stated strongly your view on the bible.

You say your rationale is not circular. I have stated my reasons for believing it is circular. Instead of just saying, "It is not", you probably need to show where I am wrong in my analysis. Otherwise, you are stating something without support and that is making you an island unto yourself.

We are not going to get into the debate, "I won't answer your questions until you answer mine." I think I have spent much time in answering the questions you pose. I have shown the circular reasoning and have not been shown how I am incorrect. I have posed the exact same question to you that you posed to me. Yet, while you may not like my answers because they are rooted in the Bible, I have answered you. You have not answered me.

While you think I am an island unto myself, I contend that you have no rationale argument for your side and thus must resort in those stereotypes. As stated, answer my questions. Of course, if you can't answer the same questions that you posed to me, this may actually be insightful into the nature of this debate, which I have stated is based upon presuppositions not found in the Bible using presuppositions to prove your presuppositions.

Is your side unwilling to withstand the same scrutiny that you place on the other side? Is your side unwilling to confront logically your belief and give an apologetical answer? My answers have been based upon II Timothy 3 & 4. Which, all of us agree, that the Bible is Inspired. Thus, with that presupposition being the same my answers based upon our similar presuppositions should suffice. Yet, no attempt to show me that my rationale is wrong, except to say I am an island unto myself. Well, in that vein, I guess that is what the Pharisees meant when they were agast that Jesus would go against the Tradition of the Elders. And, if your interpretation of history is required, then what prevents you from becoming an island to yourself in your interpretation of history? Nothing. Yet, I maintain the perspicuity of the Bible, I do not maintain the perspicuity of history. I think the perspicuity of history is what is being advanced by the other side... it should be rejected.

Derick
 

Drdad

Puritan Board Freshman
BTW, I will respond more later. The more indepth I get the more I like to read and think through my answers, challenge, reread your posts and the like.

Derick
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Derick,
I honestly am not trying to pigeon-hole you here, but,
you open your last post w/ "The Bible alone using the Holy Spirit and Logic".

You now have added something to your previous premise & your idea of scriptures alone; "logic".

Logic is not the Holy Spirit, it is a system of reasoning. You agree then that it is the Holy Spirit along w/ reasoning? And if reasoning, do you not agree that your/our reasoning is influenced by pressupositions? Are not our pressupositions based upon things we have learned, i.e. history, tradition etc?



[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Derrick,

"Which, all of us agree, that the Bible is Inspired."

Yes we all do.

" Thus, with that presupposition being the same my answers based upon our similar presuppositions should suffice. "

This is where you are blwoing it. Your answers do not suffice because your answers are "The Bible says so because the BIble say so....because the BIble say so...."

That does not work. That's a circular kind of self-authentication that is as powerful as "The Koran says so as well..."

"Well, in that vein, I guess that is what the Pharisees meant when they were agast that Jesus would go against the Tradition of the Elders."

this more on the rigth track - so now how do we, as Jesus, who have left the "tradition of the elders" confirm out "correctness?"

"And, if your interpretation of history is required, then what prevents you from becoming an island to yourself in your interpretation of history? Nothing. "

Great question - the answer lies in what every other island has come to as a rationale as well, so to speak. My work is checked by the work of others, which is checked by the work of others, etc. Otherwise, we do in fact become solopsists (which is wrong.)

"Yet, I maintain the perspicuity of the Bible, I do not maintain the perspicuity of history. I think the perspicuity of history is what is being advanced by the other side... it should be rejected. "

We do not maintain the "perpecuity of history." Rather, we maintain that history demosntrates the perpescuity of the Bible by an orthodox concensus (that is what you are really rejecting.) (It is also what I think you are missing.)

I AM trying to pigeon hole you (and already have) because what you are saying is still circular - here is what I mean:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 6 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

True.

But, then:
HOW DO I KNOW IT IS TRUE?

You say:
Because the BIble says so.

Round and round we go. I suppose in certain respects this will also be a result of your apologetic.

2 Tim 3:16 is correct. But how do you know you have exegeted it correctly? That wquestion is the kicker.

You say we are under the same scrutiny. I WOULD HOPE SO!! That is point. It is the diofferecne between WE (culminative promoun) and YOU (singluar island). Has the church been ignoorant of its ecclesiology for 2000 years until the Vineyard movement or house church movement took off?

The Reformation was not a restructuring of the church, it was a redefining of the truth that was hidden by a concensus of poor exegetes. Instead, God blessed the pastors and teachers of the church to rediscover the truth, and by concensus see that light. Simply studying the intellectual origins of the European Reformation would eb a huge help to this whole thread. i woudl suggest getting McGrath's book called "The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation" and see how the Reformation was united by "ad fontes" (back tot he sources). and how God used specific people, unified in doctrine, to overturn the darkenss of the Roman Church. They were not, and did not desire to be islands unto themselves. Zwingli, Calvin and Luther came to a concensus agreement ont he foundational truths fo the Christian faith (which included quite a bit of ecclesiology). The other reformsers as well, in different countries at the same time (providentially) came to the same conclusions. Men like Viret, Farel, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Lefevere, Briconet, Couralt, Bucer, Bullinger, etc.

History is not perfect. But it is still God's redemptive history laid out. If we say we are purporting a doctrine that the church has not held, or does not purport to be true, then we must check outservles agaisnt the Word first (maybe we missed something vital, or are rebelling against something fundamental) and then we check ourselves in the "midst of counselors" as Proverbs directs us. The very nature of the offices of pastor and teacher demand this. Otherwise we end up being islands to ourselves.

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by webmaster]
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Derick...

I am not sure how this has downgraded, but you seem to be painting us in a very bad light, while we have commended you on how you uphold the Scriptures.

But one thing is still escaping you. You do not have the right to determine within yourself what the truth is. You may not correct history's errors. And, you can never prove that you are right.

What is missing here is what the Spirit does to illumine. What you are saying is that when you read the Bible alone, the Spirit speaks to you and gives you understanding that He has given no one else, or definitely a minority opinion.

My question to you is why would the Holy Spirit give you the correct answer, but leave all others in the dark?

Essentially, we are not trusting history or traditionalism in our interpretations. We are trusting what the Holy Spirit has done to illumine the Church. The God of history has left us a great cloud of witnesses. If we would not listen to them, what are we saying to the Holy Spirit that illumined them?

No, thanks, God. We can take it from here. Those guys were wrong according to our understanding. They were obviously not listening to you.

How can we say such things? Don't we more often thwart the illumination of the Spirit if we dismiss what our fathers have taught us?

You wish to call this past knowledge "wisdom". We call it history and tradition, but we are both looking out of the same window. The difference between us is that we rely on the Scriptures to teach, correct, rebuke, and instruct, but we do not rely on our own understanding as the final arbiter of what we have read. We draw our own conclusions, then, we check our answers with orthodoxy, the great cloud of witnesses.

The problem you are having is that you, too, check your answers with orthodoxy, but it stands against you. The only thing you lack is the ability to lay down your own interpretation, and submit to another.

You never have to submit where you agree, because you agree. But where submission lies is in the disagreement. This is where you are allowing your own feelings, thoughts, interpretations, etc., play the trump card.

You do not have that right. No place in Scripture gives you the right to lord over the Spirit in how He has illumined the Church and say that He has not illumined it. The Bible is not just for you to understand. God gave it to us all. If you don't like the answers of orthodoxy, you need to remember that orthodoxy has checked its answers all along the way as well. This is how we know immediately, based upon the Scriptures alone, that something is heresy. Because it is testified to by the Spirit in our hearts and with each other.

Everyone has a common testimony as to what the truth is. The early Church had it. Paul fought against the heresies that had already begun in it. But He told them and us to trust only the gospel handed to us. They knew well what this meant. It did not mean that they would decide for themselves. It meant that they would hold fast to what had already been decided for them. And, they walked in it.

For the most part, the truth of the gospel is already decided upon. Where heresies spring up is where they will simply not agree upon that which is decided. Did man decide this? Absolutely not. The Spirit decided it and then illumined it to man. It is the agreed upon testimony. Agreed in eternity by the triune God. And agreed on earth by the testimony of Christ and the Holy Spirit through the Church. The Church does not decide the truth. The Church is given the great gift of having a truth already decided.

But, from time to time, she has decided upon her own truth. At those times, God gives the illumination to members of her body that will return to the truth decided upon. This happened during the Reformation. It continues today.

But where this breaks down is when individuals stand against the decided truth. We all do this to a certain extent. We cannot be pure and undefiled. We can have no perfect sight here. However, we are called to be in communion with each other and member's of one body, who has one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

Therefore, we have no right whatsoever, to claim indefectablity as individuals and say that we are right against an already decided truth. What you and Pastor Way espouse, is exactly that. You both claim that your understanding of Scripture must be the final authority. You may say that it is Scripture alone, but it is not. It is your understanding of Scripture. And in some cases, not many and not serious, you have allowed your understanding to disagree with the decided truth.

As I said before, we all do this. But the moment that we claim our interpretation over that of another and we refuse to submit to the decided truth, we have made the discord within ourselves. We are schismatics and we are the ones causing division.

Does this sort of thing happen overnight? No. We all have to wrestle with these truths. We all have to press in and fight against our flesh when it comes to being right or wrong.

But, if we build on a foundation other than the one that is laid, what good are we?

So for many of us here, we would rather be "wrong" with a multitude of witnesses, than "right" by ourselves. This right and wrong is not adjudged so with God, but with men who are supposed to be our brothers. Because of who they are and because they disagree with us, we must be wrong.

So, Derick, how do we know we're right? How do we know we have truth?

If you answer, by the Bible alone, what you are saying is that the Holy Spirit has illumined you to a truth that He has not illumined but few other men to. Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit who is to guide us into all truth, only guides but a few of us? Or, should we rather see that where we believe something divergent from the decided truth is an area where the Holy Spirit has not given us understanding.

In Christ,

KC
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Pastor Way...

[quote:76e7fa167c]Presenting logic is fine.

Present Scripture though if you want to be convincing![/quote:76e7fa167c]

I can't really use Scripture to convince you, though, where you're already convinced to the contrary. Your interpretation will always trump mine. That is why you need to realize that you and I are not alone and the Holy Spirit does not just speak through us. We both must submit to the witness of the Church.

[quote:76e7fa167c]What has Derick put forth that is unorthodox or unScriptural?[/quote:76e7fa167c]

One such place is that he does not believe that a minister of the gospel is to be subject to a hierarchy of other ministers. I believe that is what he is saying. Would I be correct, Derick?

[quote:76e7fa167c]He is advocating a church that meets in a house. Some abuse it as some that meet in houses are wacko...then again, many that meet in church buildings are just as crazy, but he has carefully defined the church in a way that is consistent with Scripture. Proper government, ordinances, discipline, etc.[/quote:76e7fa167c]

Except in the above mentioned. He does not believe a local body is to be subject to other local bodies nor to the universal body of believers.

The website that someone posted advocates this. It is what caused me to post my first comments on this thread. They know no authority higher than themselves and seek isolation so that they may do what their "conscience" dictates.

I maintained that this is not permissible while there are lawful churches with which to hold them accountable.

[quote:76e7fa167c]So they meet in a house. What's the big deal? What is it that you and KC are really reacting to here?[/quote:76e7fa167c]

I will remind you of both mine and your posts. You even posted that we agreed. I have not said that house churches are illegitimate. I qualified by saying that they would be illegitimate if they do not align themselves with proper accountability.

In Christ,

KC
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
[quote:455465a166]You do not have the right to determine within yourself what the truth is. You may not correct history's errors. And, you can never prove that you are right. [/quote:455465a166]

This is not true. We are REQUIRED to determine ourselves what is true! "You shall know the truth", the Spirit will "lead you into all truth." We are REQUIRED to correct history's errors and stand against heresy and misinterpretation. We must stand against false teachers within the church. If we do not know what the Word says for ourselves how might we stand against elders who are teaching error? Yes we submit to those who rule in the church, but we also hold their feet to the fire by being sure that they are teaching sound doctrine!

And we do not need to prove that we are right. It is a common misconception that the believer is to prove his view with the Word. We don't have to prove anything. We are to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us, we are to defend the faith, but the Bible never says, "Win the argument by proving your interpretation is right."

The Word itself as applied by the Spirit is what convinces men. It is the Spirit's job to "convince" and "convict" men. Not ours.

We are to rightly handle the Word and leave the results up to God, who promises that His Word ALWAYS, without fail, accomplishes the task for which He has sent it out. Whether that be to convict, convert, break, convince, or even harden a heart! The Word never fails to accomplish the task it has been sent forth to accomplish.

As for Derick's view of the church and of ministers, he is right on (as a Baptist). The local church is not under the authority of any ohter body or group. And the ministers of that church are accountable to God, each other (hence the necessity of a plurality of elders) and to the congregation that they oversee.

[quote:455465a166][i:455465a166]from the Roles and Duties of Pastors by Pastor Way[/i:455465a166]

[b:455465a166]Scriptural Accountability for the Elder[/b:455465a166] - 1Timothy 5:19-22

1. Ephesians 4:11 - Christ as Lord of His Church gives pastor-teachers to the Church
2. Acts 20:28-31 - the Holy Spirit leads the church in the appointment of elders
3. 1 Timothy 4:14; Titus 1:5 - The Elders appoint new elders in the Church
4. Hebrews 13:17 - The elders are accountable to God for his work and his flock
5. Ephesians 5:23 - Christ is head (Lord) of the Church
6. 1 Timothy 5:19-22 - The elders are accountable to each other.

http://users3.ev1.net/~maranathachurch/rdpastor.html[/quote:455465a166]

Other churches are there for fellowship and to assist in settling dipsutes, but other local bodies have no authority over any other local body. Christ is Lord of His church and He rules through the elders.

So it sounds like your "Biblical" arguments against Derick are more about the fact that he is Baptist than anything else. It seems that if he were advocating Presbyterian house churches you would not object.

[b:455465a166]LBCF[/b:455465a166]

7. To [b:455465a166]each of these churches[/b:455465a166] thus gathered, according to the Lord's mind as declared in His Word, [b:455465a166]He has given all the power and authority which is in any way required for them to carry on the order of worship and discipline which He has instituted for them to observe[/b:455465a166]. He has also given all the commands and rules for the due and right exercise of this power.

8. A particular church gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church are bishops or elders and deacons. These are to be appointed for the peculiar administration of ordinances and the execution of power or duty with which the Lord has entrusted them and to which He has called them. This pattern of church order is to be continued to the end of the world.

9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder in a church, is that he is to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church itself. Such a person should be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands of the eldership of the church (if there be any previously appoint elder or elders). The way of Christ for the calling of a deacon is that he is also to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church and set apart by prayer, with the laying on of hands.


14. Each church and all its members are obligated to pray constantly for the good and prosperity of all Christ's churches everywhere, and to help forward everyone who comes into their district or calling, by the exercise of their gifts and graces. It clearly follows that when churches are planted by the goodness of God they ought also to hold fellowship among themselves to promote peace, increasing love and mutual edification as and when they enjoy an opportunity to do so to their advantage.

15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in matters of doctrine or administration, which concern the churches in general or any single church, and which affects their peace, union, and edification, or when any members of a church are injured because of any disciplinary proceedings not consistent with the Word and correct order, it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together do, through their appointed messengers meet to consider, and give their advice about the matter in dispute, and to report to all the churches concerned. [b:455465a166]However, when these messengers are assembled, they are not entrusted with any real church power, or with any jurisdiction over the churches involved in the problem. They cannot exercise any censure over any churches or persons, or impose their determination on the churches or their officers.[/b:455465a166]

[Edited on 4-12-04 by pastorway]
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:47bae4cea2]
What is missing here is what the Spirit does to illumine. What you are saying is that when you read the Bible alone, the Spirit speaks to you and gives you understanding that He has given no one else, or definitely a minority opinion.
[/quote:47bae4cea2]

Good point Kevin.

If it is NEW, it is not TRUE.

God has not kept the Church in the dark for 2000 years.

Even the Reformation was a return to Orthodoxy, not new doctrine.


Guess that eliminates dispensationalism and Baptist theology right away.

:tank:
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:9c2bab0044][i:9c2bab0044]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:9c2bab0044]
If it is NEW, it is not TRUE.

God has not kept the Church in the dark for 2000 years.

Even the Reformation was a return to Orthodoxy, not new doctrine.


Guess that eliminates dispensationalism and Baptist theology right away.

:tank: [/quote:9c2bab0044]

hmmm.... guess that eliminates Covenant Theology as well since it too is a product of the reformation. Give me a break.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:dc0c11952b]
hmmm.... guess that eliminates Covenant Theology as well since it too is a product of the reformation. Give me a break.

[/quote:dc0c11952b]

CT is as old as Adam, and the formalized systematic explanation of it can be traced to Augustine.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:7fdfbdb466][i:7fdfbdb466]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:7fdfbdb466]
[quote:7fdfbdb466]
hmmm.... guess that eliminates Covenant Theology as well since it too is a product of the reformation. Give me a break.

[/quote:7fdfbdb466]

CT is as old as Adam, and the formalized systematic explanation of it can be traced to Augustine.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:7fdfbdb466]

Ok. :rolleyes:
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:d9004bc531][i:d9004bc531]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:d9004bc531]
[quote:d9004bc531][i:d9004bc531]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d9004bc531]
[quote:d9004bc531]
hmmm.... guess that eliminates Covenant Theology as well since it too is a product of the reformation. Give me a break.

[/quote:d9004bc531]

CT is as old as Adam, and the formalized systematic explanation of it can be traced to Augustine.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:d9004bc531]

Ok. :rolleyes: [/quote:d9004bc531]

Actually,

Ligon Duncan has done some extensive work on Covenant theology in the early church fathers, specifically Irenaeus and Melito of Sardis.

You can find the article on Meilto in:
J. Ligon Duncan, "The Covenant Idea in Melito of Sardis: An Introduction and Survey," Presbyterion 28.1 (2002): 12-33.

I have a copy of the Irenaeus article, but not the time to scan in it right now.

A few good historical articles can be found at:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...heology & Justification/briefoverview.htm

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...ology & Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/History_Covenant_Theology.htm
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Derick,
I am curious. How do you fit Lee's treatise on family worship into you home church ideas. I do not believe it was Lee's intent to imply that one should forsake orthodox practices for singular home based vessels.
 

Gregg

Puritan Board Sophomore
Derrick, I would be glad to attend yours or Loriann's house church if I lived a little closer.

God Bless,
Gregg

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Gregg]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
this quest for apostolic doctrinal succession is almost funny.....burn all the Baptists, those new fangled gospel denying covenant twisting harry-ticks......

then again -

If anything new is not true
and there is nothing new under the sun
then nothing is not true
and therefore everything is true.......
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Pastor Way...

[quote:5f62b80e29][i:5f62b80e29]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:5f62b80e29]
[quote:5f62b80e29]You do not have the right to determine within yourself what the truth is. You may not correct history's errors. And, you can never prove that you are right. [/quote:5f62b80e29]

This is not true. We are REQUIRED to determine ourselves what is true! "You shall know the truth", the Spirit will "lead you into all truth." We are REQUIRED to correct history's errors and stand against heresy and misinterpretation. We must stand against false teachers within the church. If we do not know what the Word says for ourselves how might we stand against elders who are teaching error? Yes we submit to those who rule in the church, but we also hold their feet to the fire by being sure that they are teaching sound doctrine![/quote:5f62b80e29]

You didn't bother to read the rest of what I wrote. I said that we can do none of these things without the Spirit. Now, as I asked Derick, can you tell me that the Spirit will tell you one thing and me another? Will he tell a few baptists the real truth, but the rest of the Reformed a lie? We do not have the right to do any of these things where the Spirit has not led us.

[quote:5f62b80e29]As for Derick's view of the church and of ministers, he is right on (as a Baptist). The local church is not under the authority of any ohter body or group. And the ministers of that church are accountable to God, each other (hence the necessity of a plurality of elders) and to the congregation that they oversee.[/quote:5f62b80e29]

Here we go, case in point. Did the Spirit impart to y'all the truth, but we are being led into error, the Holy Spirit is allowing us to believe a lie. Who is to say?

In Christ,

KC
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Pastor Way....

[quote:7b76aabbcc][i:7b76aabbcc]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:7b76aabbcc]
this quest for apostolic doctrinal succession is almost funny.....burn all the Baptists, those new fangled gospel denying covenant twisting harry-ticks......

then again -

If anything new is not true
and there is nothing new under the sun
then nothing is not true
and therefore everything is true....... [/quote:7b76aabbcc]

No one is claiming apostolic succession. We're just with the majority on this. If you can't stand up to the scrutiny, why don't you join us. All you need to do is listen to the witness of the Spirit through the great cloud of witnesses you're surrounded by.

In Christ,

KC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top