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]
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]