Fed Up With Eschatological & Apologetica Dogmatism - Page 2

Anton Bruckner · #41 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Have you read 2 Thessalonians. There was confusion about eschatology even within Paul's lifetime. The early Church did not have a pristine understanding of doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was just noting the other day that I'm thankful they did not as it was the cause of so many letters to the Churches that form our Scriptures that are, in large measure, correctives to faulty doctrines that rose up even within a few years of Paul's ministry.

Only the Thessalonians seemed to have the problem. And Paul when he tried to clarify did not go into a major theological treatise as per Romans. Thessalonians are amongst the shortest letters he ever wrote. Anyway I still I think there was a consensus in the first century which included many details as to eschatology. I believe this consensus was gradually lost as the apostles died whereby many "opinions" got seeped into sound doctrine.

Ivanhoe · #42 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:43 PM

I just wanted to use the phrase "anointing."

JohnV · #43 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I thought that the church hadn't come to a specific view, but yet here you say that it was the church's teaching. You are being inconsistent.

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

Semper Fidelis · #44 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Have you read 2 Thessalonians. There was confusion about eschatology even within Paul's lifetime. The early Church did not have a pristine understanding of doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was just noting the other day that I'm thankful they did not as it was the cause of so many letters to the Churches that form our Scriptures that are, in large measure, correctives to faulty doctrines that rose up even within a few years of Paul's ministry.

Only the Thessalonians seemed to have the problem. And Paul when he tried to clarify did not go into a major theological treatise as per Romans. Thessalonians are amongst the shortest letters he ever wrote. Anyway I still I think there was a consensus in the first century which included many details as to eschatology. I believe this consensus was gradually lost as the apostles died whereby many "opinions" got seeped into sound doctrine.

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

That would be fascinating given the litany of other problems they're having with all sort of other problems in the early Church. The 1st Century Church is hardly a pristine Church. You really think the Church in Galatia had every other doctrine correct but just gooned up the Gospel. Corinth is fine once they figure out how to love each other. Collose is fine except for that problem with gnosticism. But, AT LEAST THEY ALL HAVE THE PROPER ESCHATOLOGY! Phew! That was a close one.

Even within Revelation you have Churches going off the reservation with a myriad of problems.

Ivanhoe · #45 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I thought that the church hadn't come to a specific view, but yet here you say that it was the church's teaching. You are being inconsistent.

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

Elsewhere you state the church should side on millennial views. Then you state:

Quote:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

Do you see it?

JohnV · #46 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 10:56 PM

Do you mean, Keon, that part of the Bible has gone missing? Has part of the doctrine delivered to the saints not bee preserved? Is that what you're saying?

JohnV · #47 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

Elsewhere you state the church should side on millennial views. Then you state:

Quote:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

Do you see it?

No, I don't see it. What I said was that if the Church knew which was true they would surely stand on that truth, and not allow views that differ. But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

It seems to me that we're not differing on adiaphora either. No one has had any objections to my calling the specific millennial views adiaphora. Maybe our difference is that I mark a clear line between doctrine and adiaphora so as not to mix the two, and you don't.

Ivanhoe · #48 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

But you just said:

Quote:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

JohnV · #49 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prespastor

Just because I can be gracious with someone on a biblical subject I differ with them on does not mean I am admitting that differing views are equally right or acceptable. Rather, love 'covers a multitude of sins' (including mine where I err).

The Church does that: each view is equally acceptable. You can't go against your church on that.

Though love covers a multitude of sins, a differing view is still a sin? So you have it right from Christ Himself? Gentry is in sin for being Postmillennial? Is it not possible that you err in "knowing" that Amillennnialism is the only right and true millennial view?

Quote:

Also, in answer to...

"If I hear you right, you are saying that a minister may preach something that isn't necessarily true, but it's OK to do so because he is convinced in himself that it is true, and that that is enough reason to preach it."

You are not hearing me right at all. If I am convinced from the Scriptures that a thing is true, I should preach it. Not because it is necessarily true, but because I believe in good faith form the Word of God that it is indeed true. However, I should have discernment over secondaries versus weightier matters when it comes to what I see versus how another differing brother may view the subject.

I have not been able to reconcile all of your comments. I still don't see how you escape the conclusion that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the church has deemed it so?

OK, now I hear you. I think I've understood this already, but now I know. You are saying that if it's good enough to convince you, then that is good enough to say it is from God Himself. It is either that or you use the word "true" to convey the idea of "as close as we subjective people will ever know something to be true".

I don't say that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the Church has deemed it so. I'm saying a doctrine should only be reckoned true if the Bible says it, and the Spirit witnesses it to the plurality of elders of the Church. Not by one man, but by the Church.
[/quote]

JohnV · #50 (**permalink**) 10-03-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

But you just said:

Quote:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

I see what you mean. Sorry. My apologies. I wasn't very clear. You misunderstood because I didn't say it the right way. You're right if you read it that way, and I was wrong to write it that way. It was not what I meant.

I'm talking about the separation of doctrine from adiaphora, the obligation upon the elders to set aside their own views and protect each one's liberty of conscience equally, and that such issues should never be used to unsettle the church. These were what I was taught. I was not taught my millennial view, nor was it ever obligated upon me, not even by default. I came to it on my own, and that's all it will ever be. The church I grew up in was careful to instruct me to allow the Word to teach itself, and not impose anything upon it. If the Bible does not teach one specific millennial view, then it is wrong to make it a grid by which to understand the Word. The Word interprets itself without my adding my views. That is what the church taught me.

BrianLanier · #51 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 06:56 PM

Hi John,

I have been following this discussion and wanted to chime in on this particular post.

[quote=JohnV;311769]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

I'm talking about the separation of doctrine from adiaphora, the obligation upon the elders to set aside their own views and protect each one's liberty of conscience equally, and that such issues should never be used to unsettle the church.

I'm not exactly sure how you are using the term adiaphora here. It seems that you are saying that a particular millennial view is *not* a doctrine and therefore should be separated as adiaphora. But if that is what you're saying, then it is incoherent since doctrine = df. teaching or principle--which certainly a millennial view would qualify.

It would be helpful if you would clarify what you mean by adiaphora in general and the separation of it from doctrine in particular (if such a separation can be coherent since whatever is meant by adiaphora is certainly a principle or teaching, i.e., a doctrine).

Quote:

If the Bible does not teach one specific millennial view, then it is wrong to make it a grid by which to understand the Word.

This hypothetical proposition is indeed true. However, it is not helpful in the least, since it needs at least two more premises to make a meaningful argument:

(2) The Bible does not teach one specific millennial view,
so,
(3) It is wrong to make a millennial view a grid by which to understand the Word.

But here premise (2) is just begging the question against anyone who advocates a particular millennial view. And of course the burden of proof seems almost unbearable for its advocates, since to know it would involve: (1) demonstrating each particular millennial view to be in error (but of course, not all adherents to the broad millennial positions agree), and (2) that no one particular millennial view *could* be developed by anyone that would be an accurate description of the Biblical data. I don't see any good reason to believe that this could be done.

Maybe you meant something else, and if so I apologize.

Brian

Anton Bruckner · #52 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

.

I basethis on the whole New Testament, and the fact that Jesus expounded the whole testament and how it relates to Him in its fulfillment. (The Olivet Discourse, on the road to Emmaus) The Apostles received from the Master, THE comprehensive interpretation of eschatology, and it is this interpretation that the apostles disseminated. I do not believe and I refuse to believe that Jesus left the apostles in a quandry of premill, postmill or amill interpretations.

The very idea of differing interpretations were promptly rejected when Jesus upbraided the pharasaical interpretations of the law and the prophets which inevitably included eschatology.

armourbearer · #53 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 10:07 PM

JohnV -- If one denied a doctrine in the maintenance of an adiaphora, would that be cause of legitimate dispute? E.g., the doctrine that Christ sits at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool. If premillennialism denied this point, would it be cause of concern? Again, Christ's kingdom is spiritual. If a postmillannialist denied this point, would it be cause of concern? You are an amillennialist for a reason, and the reason is undoubtedly due to your consistent maintenance of these doctrines, not to any adiaphoric private interpretation.

Semper Fidelis · #54 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

.

I basethis on the whole New Testament, and the fact that Jesus expounded the whole testament and how it relates to Him in its fulfillment. (The Olivet Discourse, on the road to Emmaus) The Apostles received from the Master, THE comprehensive interpretation of eschatology, and it is this interpretation that the apostles disseminated. I do not believe and I refuse to believe that Jesus left the apostles in a quandry of premill, postmill or amill interpretations.

The very idea of differing interpretations were promptly rejected when Jesus upbraided the pharasaical interpretations of the law and the prophets which inevitably included eschatology.

...and the Gospel. My point is that, within a decade of Paul clearly teaching the Gospel, you had Churches completely abandoning a tenet of the Christian faith.

Hence, I don't disagree with you that the Scriptures teach a thing and that the thing is important but to claim that the 1st Century Church uniformly possessed doctrinal consensus on doctrine is repudiated by the pages of Scripture itself. To note that Thessalonica is the only Church mentioned with that problem belies a larger problem about scattered doctrinal confusion.

I'm not arguing, incidentally, that we shouldn't strive for unity on such matters but I consider the Gospel to be perspicuous in a way that eschatology is not. If the heart of man can dork up the Gospel then it certainly can dork up less clearly expounded doctrines.

JohnV · #55 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 08:04 AM

I thought I understood what we were disagreeing about, but now I wonder. What's so hard about this? Maybe I'm not getting some things. Such as:

- When did any one of the millennial views become a known teaching? Why didn't I know about it?

- If it is known which view is right, why do the churches still allow people to believe the other views equally? When did it happen that you may contradict the Bible in good faith?

- If one minister believes one view, and another one of the other views, and they teach each one his own view as Bible doctrine, which minister is being guided by the Holy Spirit? If it is known which one is right, why is this even allowed to happen?

- If the Spirit has guided the Church through the plurality of elders all these centuries, when did it happen that individuals were given the right to declare doctrine on their own?

- If it's true that theology rests only on the sure foundation of the Word, and that one of the millennial views is part of that sure foundation, why is that not explicitly stated in our Confessions?

- And why am I left out in the cold with the old sure foundations which did not include a millennial view? When did this all happen anyways?

The only way that I can make sense out of this is if I think that all theology is finally just as subjective as the millennial views, and that's why they're put on equal footing. One can put the covenant as the foundation for understanding the Bible, or one can put a millennial view underneath it to understand it; there is no difference in certainty either way.

To me, theology is not less than science. In science you can only build conclusions on sure and repeatable certainties; a conclusion that rests on a hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis; a conclusion that rests on individual conviction is nothing more than an individual conviction. A sure conclusion can only come from sure premises. Philosophy is the same. That's what all the fuss is about when it comes to the Ontological Argument, that it can never attain objective status because it includes even the smallest part of it as subjective in the premise, and therefore the conclusion may never be regarded as anything more than subjective.

Why is theology less than that? Why may we build a "Thus saith the Lord" out of a "this is my conclusion, and I'm pretty sure even though the Church isn't."? Why may we get away with things in theology that we wouldn't dream of trying to get away with in science or philosophy?

These are just a few of my thoughts. I thought this was simple and basic: the Church does not define which millennial view is the one the Bible teaches because she does not know; ministers do not assert doctrines on their own; ergo, ministers have no place to assert that their millennial view is the one the Bible teaches.

Robert Truelove · #56 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 08:42 AM

Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.

Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.

Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).

Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

I don't say that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the Church has deemed it so. I'm saying a doctrine should only be reckoned true if the Bible says it, and the Spirit witnesses it to the plurality of elders of the Church. Not by one man, but by the Church.

JohnV · #57 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prespastor

Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.

Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.

Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).

Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).

So there are other doctrines? Like, for example, three mutually exclusive millennial views? Whether it's your denomination or mine, they allow all three. Are all three doctrine, then?

You don't solve the problem, Robert. And misrepresenting the argument doesn't change that.

Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.

You still have to justify the fact that a single individual has a right to declare something as doctrinal. That's never been the case in Reformed ecclesiology. You say you have the right to declare Amillennialism as doctrine, and Ken Gentry has the right to declare Postmillennialism as doctrine. How do you explain that? One of you has no right to declare it; or neither of you has a right if Jacob is right; but it can't be that all three have that right. At least two of you would be declaring something that God does not agree with. Which one is it? And who says so?