How do we Biblically prove the existence of Church Orthodoxy

[raderag]

For those who have read my thread on 'rejecting the Lord's Supper', this is on the same line of that.

I told him that that doctrine is not to be found in church orthodoxy, and he asked where was orthodoxy in scripture?

I gave him the 2 Peter private interpretation verse as well as some others, but are there any more explicit/thorough ways to prove this?

I did rhetorically ask him if was each persons job to decide the canon of scipture, but I haven't heard back on that one yet.

 

[blhowes]

Brett,
Would 2 Timothy 2:2 be another verse that talks about orthodoxy?

2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

If just Timothy alone obeyed this command and the chain wasn't broken, I would think this would be the early development of church orthodoxy. If Paul taught this to all the others that he put into positions of authority and the teaching was followed, the orthodox base would be even larger. And, if all the other apostles taught this principle...

 

[Saiph]

Jud 1:3

Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Sola Scriptura

As much as I'm for Sola Scriptura, I think we err when we ask others (like your friend is doing) to "show me unequivocally from Scripture" where it proves such and such a point.

Lest I be harshly rebuked, let me explain:
Some people ask for such a high degree of conclusiveness from one Scripture that they're setting a standard which is impractical and unnecessary. These people like to be "proof texed" with everything. "Unless ONE VERSE says it completely, then I'm not gonna believe it!" Even if you should happen to give them their verse, they'll come back with another Scripture and say, "Oh, yeah, then what about THIS one???"

The JW's do this ALL the time! I could list countless doctrines that they hold off of ONE Scripture, that aren't anywhere near true, nor a sane hermanuetic. For instance, in Ecclesiastes they prove "soul sleep": "As for the dead, they know nothing at all."
There, soul sleep is proven conclusively, FROM SCRIPTURE!

Why this is such a big deal is because, how are you going to prove "The Trinity" from ONE Scripture? We have to take what the Bible says as a whole, keeping the context from the larger (The entire Bible), to the smaller (each book), to the smaller (chapter and verse). What about all the other many practices in the Church? What about the "means of grace?" There are too many things we believe, do, and practise that aren't crystal clear from just one Scripture.

Its hard to win a "proof-texting argument." It turns out to be more of a tennis match, with each side vollying their proof over the net. Sure, its best to start each argument with Scripture, and the more decidedly Scripture proves your point the better. But if someone wants an entire doctrine with all its ends tied formulated from a Scripture verse, they're often raising the bar too high for you to convince them. You may be better off reasoning from the few Scriptures that you can accumulate and then going to the early Church fathers, history, great divines like Calvin, etc. and seeing whose argument makes the most sense. As someone who was formerly caught up in Watchtower doctrine, I'm less inclined to be convinced from just a misapplied verse here and there.

(In my humble opinion)
:wr50:

 

[Scott]

Brett:

I would take him to Acts 15 and look at how the early church resolved doctrinal conflicts. The point at issue was the place of the Old Testament after the coming of Christ. The specific points at issue were the ceremonial laws (was circumcision required of new believers). The various churches called a council and resolved the issue. The Holy Spirit guided the meeting. Acts 15:28. Acts 16:4 identifies the authority of the conciliar decision: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."

Note the duty to obey the decision.

Most evangelicals would not even consider the process of Acts 15. Their sole means of handling disputes would be to distribute scriptures to each individual and try to individually persuade others to their interpretations. That is not what the church did. Acts 15 is a model for resolving conflicts.

Also note that the apostles did not just pull rank and say "we, the apostles, dogmatically decree X." They debated. They involved elders. It was joint process. They could have done the former (pull rank) legitimately I think. The fact that they did not indicates that Acts 15 is a model.

Anyway, we can find orthodoxy in early conciliar decisions. This orthodoxy is an interpretation of scripture and does not supplant it. It is similar to a court's interpretation of statutes. Where people disagree on what a statute means, they submit the issue to courts to resolve. They don't take the law into their own hands (i.e. become vigilantees). The legislative authority of the statute is always higher than the authority of the courts. Yet, the courts are charged with creating this secondary interpretive body.

Many evangelicals just become vigilantees so to speak and become their own indepedent source of secondary interpretation.

Scott

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

BTW, Thomas Oden's Rebirth of Orthodoxy I think has some good info on this topic, although I have not had a chance to read it myself yet:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...gl14/102-0328332-1146513?v=glance&s=books

 

[BrianLanier]

Excellent post Scott!!

 

[Bladestunner316]

With the Scripture of course

 

[alwaysreforming]

Excellent post, Scott!

You brought a lot of clarity to the situation for us! THAT'S the kind of sound hermanuetic we need more of!!!

 

[kceaster]

Scott et al,

:wr51:

Truly a great peice of work. Best explanation I have heard yet.

Good post, too, Paul. We are being built up brick by brick on the same foundation of Christ. Awesome concepts. The brotherhood of those statements is overwhelming.

In Christ,

KC

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:cf6db6ce2d]
Note: The body is being BUILT UP. We are PROGRESSING to a place where we will no longer believe false doctrine. Therefore, the centuries of buldiers have authority because God had ordained them as means to accomplish Eph.4
[/quote:cf6db6ce2d]

If everyone would understand this!

This was the whole argument int he house church thread that I tried to get across to some debating there. They missed it completely.

Thanks for this statement Paul - very good. :goodpost:

Scott KC.
Very good. Well thought out and needful.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by webmaster]

 

[raderag]

[quote:f1a84b794d][i:f1a84b794d]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f1a84b794d]
[quote:f1a84b794d]
Note: The body is being BUILT UP. We are PROGRESSING to a place where we will no longer believe false doctrine. Therefore, the centuries of buldiers have authority because God had ordained them as means to accomplish Eph.4
[/quote:f1a84b794d]

If everyone would understand this!

This was the whole argument int he house church thread that I tried to get across to some debating there. They missed it completely.

Thanks for this statement Paul - very good. :goodpost:

Scott KC.
Very good. Well thought out and needful.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:f1a84b794d]

I agree. I think the problem here lies with hermenuetics. Unless scripture is very explicit, he refuses to believe doctrines that don't fit his thinking.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by raderag]

 

[Scott]

Brett:

I also think that the issue of the canon you raised with him would be good. The absence of an express inspired list of inspired books should challenge him. Why is Hebrews in the canon and the Epistle to the Laodiceans out?

Scott

 

[raderag]

[quote:0870efc24a][i:0870efc24a]Originally posted by Scott[/i:0870efc24a]
Brett:

I also think that the issue of the canon you raised with him would be good. The absence of an express inspired list of inspired books should challenge him. Why is Hebrews in the canon and the Epistle to the Laodiceans out?

Scott [/quote:0870efc24a]

I have raised some of these issues.

Scott, I am going to U2U you, or whatever it is called.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Just Info

EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
It exists only in Latin: the oldest copy is in the Fulda MS. written for Victor of Capua in 546. It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, notably by Gregory the Great, to whose influence may ultimately be due the frequent occurrence of it in Bibles written in England; for it is commoner in English MSS. than in others. As will be seen, it is wholly uninteresting, and was merely written to justify or explain St. Paul's mention of the letter from Laodicea in Col. iv. 16.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea.

2 Grace be unto you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 I give thanks unto Christ in all my prayers, that ye continue in him and persevere in his works, looking for the promise at the day of judgment.

4 Neither do the vain talkings of some overset you, which creep in, that they may turn you away from the truth of the Gospel which is preached by me.

5 And now shall God cause that they that are of me shall continue ministering unto the increase of the truth of the Gospel and accomplishing goodness, and the work of salvation, even eternal life.

5 And now are my bonds seen of all men, which I suffer in Christ, wherein I rejoice and am glad.

7 And unto me this is for everlasting salvation, which also is brought about by your prayers, and the ministry of the Holy Ghost, whether by life or by death.

8 For verily to me life is in Christ, and to die is joy.

9 And unto him (or And also) shall he work his mercy in you that ye may have the same love, and be of one mind.

10 Therefore, dearly beloved, as ye have heard in my presence so hold fast and work in the fear of God, and it shall be unto you for life eternal.

11 For it is God that worketh in you.

12 And do ye without afterthought whatsoever ye do.

13 And for the rest, dearly beloved, rejoice in Christ, and beware of them that are filthy in lucre.

14 Let all your petitions be made openly before God, and be ye steadfast in the mind of Christ.

15 And what things are sound and true and sober and just and to be loved, do ye.

16 And what ye have heard and received, keep fast in your heart.

17 And peace shall be unto you.

18 The saints salute you.

19 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with your spirit.

20 And cause this epistle to be read unto them of Colossae, and the epistle of the Colossians to be read unto you.

It is not easy to imagine a more feebly constructed cento of Pauline phrases.

Zahn believed himself to have found a fragment of the Epistle to the Alexandrians in the shape of a lesson -a liturgical Epistle- in the (eighth century) Sacramentary and Lectionary of Bobbio (Paris Bib cat., Lat. 13246). It is headed Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians, but it is not from that letter or any other.

Brethren, we that are under the power of the Lord ought to keep the commandment of God. They that keep the Lord's precepts have eternal life, and they that deny his commandments get to themselves ruin and thereto the second death. Now the precept of the Lord is this: Thou shalt not swear falsely, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not take gifts against the truth, neither for power. Whoso hath power and denieth the truth, shall be denied the kingdom of God and be trodden down into hell, whence he cometh not forth again. How are we frail and deceitful, workers of sin! We do not repent daily but daily do we commit sin upon sin. That ye may know this, dearly beloved brethren, that our works [are judged, hearken to that which] is written in this book: 'it shall be for a memorial against us in the day of judgment.' There shall be neither witnesses nor companions, neither shall judgment be given by gifts; for there is nothing better than faith, truth, chastity, fasting, and almsgiving which putteth out all sins. And that which thou wouldest not have done to thyself, do not unto another. Agree thou for the kingdom of God and thou shalt receive the crown which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This, again, is a very incoherent little piece; it is rather like some curious fragmentary homilies printed by Dom de Bruyne from Carlsruhe (Reichenau) MSS. which I am sure are of Irish composition. I do not think it can be called an apocryphon at all; there are other pieces scattered about in manuscripts called 'preachings' of Paul, or the like, which are just centos of texts and precepts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scanned and Edited by
Joshua Williams
Northwest Nazarene College, 1995


http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/writing/epislao.htm