House Churches - Page 2

C. Matthew McMahon · #41 (**permalink**) 04-03-2004, 08:26 PM

The problem with the dicussion on the thread is that it is only taking up part of the overall matter that shoudl be talked about. Everyone on this thread should read the "Theological Traiditionalism" Thread as well.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=1710

It will help round out the obvious question of authroity that this thread is lurking around, under, in front of, behind, but not "with."

Scott Bushey · #42 (**permalink**) 04-03-2004, 08:27 PM

Matt,
Exactly. Thanks, that was what I needed.

Drdad · #43 (**permalink**) 04-03-2004, 09:17 PM

I have no problem with anything Doulos or Pastor Way espoused.

Derick

Scott Bushey · #44 (**permalink**) 04-03-2004, 09:54 PM

[quote:8983dcdc28][i:8983dcdc28]Originally posted by Drdad[/i:8983dcdc28]
Scott,

My point to using the vineyard movement was not to show a postitive example but who is very active in that movement.
[/quote:8983dcdc28]

Derick,
Why would you want to use such a bad example to try and rend positive support to your position. Bad move. Vineyard & company are heretics!

[quote:8983dcdc28]Actually, my point was to show the variety in the house church movement.
[/quote:8983dcdc28]

This does not help your case............variety? To me, it shows the inconsistancy. It is not at all historically "orthodox".

[quote:8983dcdc28]Some like the characterize the House Church movement as being a certian segment when in actuality it is like saying "Churches that meet in ancient buildings are like this...". Thus, the example fits. Thus, trying to stereotype the house church movement is not proper and almost impossible.[/quote:8983dcdc28]

I don't quite understand.

[quote:8983dcdc28] A church we plant will be accountable to us until we set up Elders in that church and they become self sufficient. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

And then they are accountable to who? No one?

[quote:8983dcdc28]Concerning Seminaries. I am not a charismatic, I am not one of them and never have been confused as one of them. Secondly, I stand by my statement of Seminaries being a wasteland which I have said about my own denomination. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Derick,
Who are you to level such a charge against Gods people? God sends men to school and you say that the schools as well as the men attending are [i:8983dcdc28]dead[/i:8983dcdc28].

[quote:8983dcdc28]They were not needed in Paul's day and I do believe they are not in the best interest because they are not under the authority of a local church and local Elders. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Did not Paul exhort us all to [i:8983dcdc28]study. To show thyself approved?[/i:8983dcdc28] Study is academics. Approved could be rendered passing tests that lead to degree's. You say that these institutions are not under the authority of a local church and local elders. Are these home churches?

[quote:8983dcdc28]As mentioned before, I see two lies of the devil: one is that you don't need any education the other is that you need formal education. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Lay people may not need formal training. Leadership should never cease studies. Leadership should have formal training.
You say it is not a biblical mandate; I disagree. Paul exhorts leaders to study.

Please comment on my idea of my acting as a doctor. Is it ok for me to practice medicine?

[quote:8983dcdc28]The precedence is the Bible. In the Bible there was a time of testing, trying, and proving that is not the case in today's society. In fact, after about a few interviews most Pastors are called. Does anyone think this is trying or testing? [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Part of the trying and testing is the academic institutions and tests.

[quote:8983dcdc28]About my "one man show" issue. I am not discounting the teaching ministry or the preaching ministry. In fact, in the early church there were many qualified people who taught. In I Corinthians 14:26-33, we see that the Apostle is giving instructions for order of service because of the chaos. He relates that there was more than one "prophet" (someone who expounded the word). There was more than one person who brought a psalm. The problem in the book of Corinthians is that they had this in chaos and Paul had to ensure that they did this properly and in order. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Derick,
I disagree that Paul was talking of the leadership. We know that not all are called to be pastors and teachers. We know that Pastors and teachers have certain responsibilities that the lay people do not. So, unless this contradicts, this must be less than a formal church gathering. This is not an example of how a church should run. Woman were speaking even.

[quote:8983dcdc28]BTW, when someone prophecies (preaches the Word) we are to judge. The Elders are to ensure truth is given. In context of a multiple number of teachers were the women encouraged to remain silent in the church (they were not to get up and speak or interrupt the speaker to ask questions). [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Derick,
How do you know that the elders are qualified?

[quote:8983dcdc28]You asked, "Has God called all men to teach/preach?" Yes! [/quote:8983dcdc28]

He has? I believe the scripture says:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Some. Not all!

[quote:8983dcdc28]If you plan on being a father you are called to be a teacher (action), [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Technically, no. We are called to rear our children as parents. The bible speaks specifically of teachers. These examples are for the local assembly. The reference is not in regards to parenting and to try and fit this square peg in a round hole is to paint w/too large a stroke and an injustice.

[quote:8983dcdc28]not all are called to be Pastor-Teachers (office). I do not see the separation of a teaching-elder and other elders. Mark Dever does try to make a point in Revelation and other places concerning a singular teaching Elder. He makes a strong point, though, to say that at best his position is speculative. All Elders should be apt to teach, which some have stated means the "ability" or "spiritual gift" to teach but it can mean (and most often means in ancient text) the stability (or ability because of sturdiness) to teach. I site the fact that none of the qualifications for Elders have anything to do with giftedness in a certain area. In fact, an Elder is to labor in Word and Prayer and be able to teach (rebuking implies that they may be required to teach).[/quote:8983dcdc28]

I agree.

[quote:8983dcdc28]Thus, I do not see a one man show anywhere in Scripture. I do, though, believe they got together to hear from special speakers like Paul and others. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Correct. The apostles were accountable to each other. These autonomous small groups cannot be left to their own decision making. Special speakers are fine.

[quote:8983dcdc28]Yet, there is a multiplicity of teaching going on. [/quote:8983dcdc28]

Derick,
You are dismantling the system. You have confused the precept. The hierachial system is not just a figment of historical orthodoxy's imagination. It is a biblical concept. The passage in 1st Cor is not new to the ears of history. Why is it no one has generally adopted such a practice? The church at large does not function in such a manner. Why is that?

A lot happens in our services but we are not where I want to be.

Derick [/quote]

Derick,
Look at this cite. it is very close to what you describe. Have you seen this material?
http://www.house2house.tv/index.pl/faq2#1012

This concerns me.............Take Matts suggestion and read the post on traditionalism defined. There are reasons we do what we do.

Alsio, Don't confuse my zeal for lack of love toward you brother. I was telling someone the other day that I work at my job in the same manner. Even sports.......I am high energy. Forgive me, I don't mean to be offensive. Challenging, but not offensive.

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

Drdad · #45 (**permalink**) 04-05-2004, 02:19 PM

[quote:4129e674ae]
Derick,
Why would you want to use such a bad example to try and rend positive support to your position. Bad move. Vineyard & company are heretics!
[/quote:4129e674ae]

The purpose of using them was to combat two things, one is to have people think this is just a one theology movement but to show that it is very vast.

Secondly, to show that you cannot just assume you know what theological system the house churches use, because you can't.

Thirdly, I was reporting facts of who is involved. I do not think reporting is a "bad move" but honest.

The purpose was not to get sympathy for the house church movement. On that end, I was hoping people would not fall for the fallacy of guilt by association and believed that would not be a problem. Unfortunately, I have been battling the fallacious argument of guilt by association on numerous fronts.

[quote:4129e674ae]
This does not help your case............variety? To me, it shows the inconsistancy. It is not at all historically "orthodox".
[/quote:4129e674ae]

Again, the movement is not rooted in just one group, but many groups. To say that one group is guilty by association is a fallacy in argument.

[quote:4129e674ae]
And then they are accountable to who? No one?
[/quote:4129e674ae]

They are accountable to the Elders of the Church. I do not see the Bible making a separate entity for accountability. I do believe when one church teaches heretical doctrine other churches should remove fellowship from that church, but I do not see a structure above the local church in the Bible.

[quote:4129e674ae]
Derick,
Who are you to level such a charge against Gods people? God sends men to school and you say that the schools as well as the men attending are dead.

[/quote:4129e674ae]

No doubt God sends men to those schools, I went to two post-graduate schools and will probably go to a third. Yet, the vast majority of them are dead spiritually. Are there good professors? Yes! Yet, I do believe most of them are dead and they could no less cast out a demon if they needed to. The results of these seminaries have resulted in deadness in the church.

I am not relating deadness as the Charismatics do, though. They relate everything as emotional but fail to understand the spiritual. Seminaries tend to move on a few plains, one is that they are focused on church growth or church work. The other is focused on theology and doctrine. The final is focused on leadership. Yet, few are focused on the spiritual and theological and doctrine. One Calvinist from overseas came to a reformed school and remarked as such. He stated that the learning was great in the institutions but the spiritual depth was shallow. The two things an Elder should focus on is praying and studying. I believe that should be the focus of a seminary.

[quote:4129e674ae]
Lay people may not need formal training. Leadership should never cease studies. Leadership should have formal training.
You say it is not a biblical mandate; I disagree. Paul exhorts leaders to study.

Please comment on my idea of my acting as a doctor. Is it ok for me to practice medicine?
[/quote:4129e674ae]

I do not believe in anything called 'lay people' for it is a made up word and not found in the Bible. I do not see that distinction in the Bible.

I used to work at a Medical School coordinating 3rd and 4th year rotations as well as working in Rural Health Care working with R-HEP and the Kellog Foundation (I know R-HEP no longer exists but I am not sure if Kellog still exists or not). I can give you a couple of reasons why I believe the training is different.

1. There is no Holy Spirit who was given to teach you all things medical
2. Other books are not given to us as the Bible was given: it is the "Perspecuity of Scripture" that makes the difference.
3. The Bible is perfect in reproving, rebuking, exhorting, and training in Righteousness. The medical profession requires many books who often change from year to year with new studies to validate previous thoughts or invalidate them. The Bible does not need such work.
4. We are not professionals, we are people who study. The Bible does not state, "Go to Seminary to show yourself approved." It says to study (btw, what are we to study? The Bible).

I do believe in studying. That is why I keep stating my favorite phrase. There are two lies of the devil, one is that you need formal education and the other is that you do not need any education. Studying is a requirement but seminary is not.

[quote:4129e674ae]
Derick,
How do you know that the elders are qualified?

[/quote:4129e674ae]

By living with the person, knowing them and how they act day in and day out. Seeing them in day to day situations is the best way to see if someone is qualified. You do not know someone is qualified by sending them to Seminary. You also do not know if they are qualified by having a few interviews and letting the person preach in your church a couple of times. You know if they are qualified by living with them, getting to know them personally. There is no replacement for seeing their life every day. It is then you see whether they measure up to the qualifications in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. You will also know their sturdiness in theological issues. You can see if they are true spiritual leaders of their family. You can also see if they are filled with the Holy Spirit.

My question is how do you test to see if a man is an Elder? Most churches I know take in a resume, call a couple of references whom the candidate supplies. If they are really good they may call a couple of references whom the candidate's references supply. They talk to him about theology. Listen to them preach once or twice. Here a tape of their preaching. They may ask a few questions hoping the candidate does not lie. Have a vote, and guess what, that is an elder. Total time, maybe three months but only a couple of dozen contacts if that much. Oh, yeah, the person went to Seminary so they can be "qualified as an Elder" and they have ordination papers." As in the medical profession, because we trained people to be Doctors did not mean they were good doctors. It only meant they went to school and passed a few classes. Even in my Elder meetings today, we keep challenging each other. Last week we asked, "What are you doing to continue to grow in your studies? What studies are you wanting to do in the future?" In Seminary you are forced to study, in the real world you study because you love God. I believe my Elders study because they love God and not because they are forced. They want to grow.

[quote:4129e674ae]
He has? I believe the scripture says:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Some. Not all!...

Technically, no. We are called to rear our children as parents. The bible speaks specifically of teachers. These examples are for the local assembly.
[/quote:4129e674ae]

I invite you to read a link on my website to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's dissertation on Family Worship. He is a Covenanter and while there are areas I disagree with him, I respect him. As well, traditionally, the father was seen by the reformers and the compilers of the WCC that they were the teachers of their home in spiritual matters. By the 1600's this was so accepted that people began to allude to it because few debated it.

Secondly, I do believe there is a difference between the office of teaching and the act of teaching. For instance, in Ephesians 4 it states an office of Evangelist. Does this mean everyone should not evangelize? Of course not! We are all called to be evangelists and spread the Gospel but not all called to hold that office. There is an office of teacher but that does not mean no one else can teach? In fact, Titus 2 seems to indicate that everyone has an obligation to teach.

I still stand by my I Corinthians verse in which it states many teachers. I Timothy 2:2; 24, Timothy was exhorted to entrust words to people who would be able to teach, not necessarily elders. Hebrews, Apollos (?) states that they all should be teachers by now but they still need teachers. I do not believe he is talking about the office of teacher but being able to teach. Thus, when you asked me whether everyone is called to teach, my answer is yes! If you stated, "Is everyone called to the office of teacher (Pastor-Teacher)" my answer would be no.

[quote:4129e674ae]
Derick,
Look at this cite. it is very close to what you describe.
http://www.house2house.tv/index.pl/faq2#1012

This concerns me.............Take Matts suggestion and read the post on traditionalism
[/quote:4129e674ae]

Again, do not fall for the fallacy of "guilt by association". I used to subscribe to House 2 House magazine and I no longer do because of some areas I disagree with them on and thought my money could be better spend on other things. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I was on their subscription list when they first began publishing.

On traditionalism, I again offer you to read my citations on the "Tradition of the Elders." I believe Jesus clearly gave us his modern day equivalent to that underlying issue and Jesus did condemn the Tradition of the Elders. I also believe the Word of God is perfect in reproving, rebuking, exhorting, and training in Righteousness... being perfect I do not believe it needs anything else to "help us", otherwise it would not be perfect. I did read what McMahon linked to. I am still waiting for a Biblical explanation of that belief rather than a philosophical rationale based on proven logical fallacies. Otherwise, I believe this fits almost exactly to my research and understanding of the Tradition of the Elders that Jesus himself condemned.

Derick

C. Matthew McMahon · #46 (**permalink**) 04-05-2004, 03:39 PM

Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

We know that teachers, or doctors, have been given tot he church. This is a plain Scriptural statement on God's gifts to the church. Prophets, Apsotles and Evangelsits are no longer - they are the extraordinary offices of the church. Now we have pastors, teachers, and deacons, the oridnary offices of the church.

Question: What use are Teachers (Doctors)?? (i.e. those particularly gifted and skilled in exegetical, theological, historical and pracitcal theology.)

Here is the WCF on Teachers and Doctors:
Teacher or Doctor.

THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor.

Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments.

The Lord having given different gifts, and divers exercises according to these gifts, in the ministry of the word; though these different gifts may meet in, and accordingly be exercised by, one and the same minister; yet, where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments, according to the different gifts in which each of them doth most excel. And he that doth more excel in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher, or doctor, (the places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition.) Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far is able, the whole work of the ministry.

A teacher, or doctor, is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors."

This is a fine defenition. Eph 4:11 says we have teachers and the above indicates the prudent and Scriptural application of such an office in the church.

Calvin agrees:

(Given in brief - cf Institutes 4:3:1ff)

For by this means he first declares his regard for us when from among men he takes some to serve as his ambassadors in the world [cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20], to be interpreters of his secret will and, in short, to represent his person. And by this evidence he proves it to be no idle
speaking that he often calls us his temples [1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16], since from the lips of men, as from the sanctuary, he gives his answers to men.

Those who preside over the government of the church in accordance with Christ's institution are called by Paul as follows: first apostles, then prophets, thirdly evangelists, fourthly pastors, and finally teachers [Ephesians 4:11]. Of these only the last two have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of
his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands."

(Also compare the work, "R. W. Henderson, The Doctoral Ministry in the Reformed Churches (Harvard Dissertation, 1959)."

Okay, now we know that teachers (or Doctors) are in the church, and they are specially gifted to keep the church pure from heresy on an official level. They have an office.

INSERT HERE >>>> the Thread on Theological Tradictionalism

Now that we have hashed out the theological traaditionalism idea, and we have seen that those who become islands unto themselves, or dissenters from the church. usually claiming the "me and my bible" theology, or "I have the Holy Spirit...." theology, then what do we do about this huge problem of teachers?

If teachers are gifts by Christ to the church, then we best be smart enough to use them. Pastors shoudl be trained by other godly Pastors and Teachers (Doctors) of the church - those most apty suited who have been prepared and following in a specific orthodoxy given the church.

To deny that, is to deny what the Scriptures mean that we have the Holy Spirit to teach us - ffor he has given us, quite blatantly, Ephesians 4:11 that demosntrates that we have teachers who teach. Seminaries given under the guidance of the church (and we can think of lots of them that are not "dead&quot

are useful for the training of ministers and for the training of future doctors. Such a connection throughout Christendom is sufficienctly seen in Acts 15 and 21. House churches are not set on the authroity of their own "esse." If that were the case, then the Scriptures themselves have no authority, written of course by Apsotles and elders of the church who had authroity over all of the church. (i.e. all of the one church). Georgraphical locale does not disassociate the reality of the one church. Schism on the other hand is a result of sin, and does throw an immense wrench into the ecclesiology of the church.

If we beleive what we like int he Bible, and throw out what we do not like, then it is not the Bible we beleive, but ourselves.

Theological "Traditionalism" is the cornerstone of the doctrine of Ephesians 4:11 (and other passgaes about chruch officers). To disregard their offical role, or to say that "most seminaries are dead" is ludicrous, unless of course you have visited them all and have documented why this is such.

Rather, what is ludicrous is to dissent from the given orthodoxy of the church, and say that one is an island unto themselves in matters of faith and practice. That is why those who have misrepresented Christ to the world as divided, and schismatic, have been called dissenters throughout church history.

[quote:177d26fd05]
I did read what McMahon linked to. I am still waiting for a Biblical explanation of that belief rather than a philosophical rationale based on proven logical fallacies.
[/quote:177d26fd05]

The biblical rtionale is set in the context of that thread. You read the whole thing? WOW! Its quite long - one of the top 3 longest threads on the board.

In any case, you would have to demosntrate that dissention is biblical, otherwise, you would have to recant what you have said thus far. The very fact that Christ gifts teachers for his church demonstrates the incompatibility that "congregationlism" has with the biblical record.

Let's take a practical example:

Derrick said that a medical doctor is trained differently, using Scott's example. He then appealed to "I have the Holy Spirit" to teachy me theology.

Now, we are not saying that the Holy Spirit doe snot teach us. But we must ask HOW the Holy Spirit DOES teach us. Is it a barritone voice that well up out of the air? Is it a "feeling?" What exactly does it "feel like" when the Holy Spirit teaches us? Let's use my example from the theological tradicionalism thread - it is quite valid:

"Let's say a man were on a desert island, he studied the Bible for a whole week (he and his bible alone - SOLA SCRIPTURA!!), and let's say he had the Bible in the original languages and new them well, and came to a conclusion on passage. He believed he was right on it. The next week he did the same thing with another passage. He believed in his heart that the Spirit of God illuminated him to the truth of the passages. A few days later a box of books washes up on shore. They happened to be commentaries (you pick which ones you would like). He then checks his work. On the first passage he finds he misses a critical verb form of a word and it throws off kilter the whole meaning of his conclusion. On the second passage he found his ideas were almost word for word as the commentators. He hit the nail on the head on that one. In the midst of theological traditionalism, or the lack thereof, what does being "illuminated" by the Holy Spirit feel like? This man thought he had the truth, and found he had blundered. How would he have known what the "prompting" "internal testimony" of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with his heart to the truth of the Word (SOLA SCRIPTURA!!) FELT LIKE TO KNOW FOR SURE HE WAS RIGHT? I had asked this before, which is the heart of the issue, and no one has commented on it yet, so I bring it up again. [AND I BRING IT UP AGAIN HERE!!] The issue here is on how one [b:177d26fd05]knows[/b:177d26fd05] the Holy Spirit is leading them, as a regenerate believer, and that he is translating the Bible accurately since it is so clear. In this case (which is not such a fantastical case) the man was wrong. But if he did not have someone to check his work against, he would not have known that and would have thought the Spirit had lead him into all truth. He would have been happily mistaken. How does Sola Scriptura fit with the illumination of the Spirit of God, and how does one know they are really being lead? What does it FEEL LIKE TO BE LED??"

Historically, the Reformation did NOT teach NOR beleive that the ploughboy became a "teacher", and was an island unto himself. Private interpretation was stressed "ad fontes" (back tot he sources) which placed private interpretation into the hands of the teachers, pastors and doctors of the church who knew how to handle Greek and Hebrew (not to mention Aramaic). That was why it was SO IMPORTANT to translate the bible into various languages so others could read it for themselves. However, they emphatically stated that interpretation, to be accurate, is placed int he hands of Sola Scriptura which begged "ad fontes." it is impossible without it.

The Reformation was built upon a proper understanding of hermeneutics, though in different methodologies, which gave way to a solid doctrinal stance on Sola Scriptura. In the beginning, young Luther embraced the scholastic fourfold sense of hermeneutical interpretation of a given passage (literal, allegorical, anagogical and tropological). This Quadriga was later replaced by sound exegesis, though at the time, men like Calvin were ridiculed for handling the text in a literal fashion. Zwingli first utilized this literal interpretation in following after Erasmus' insistence on obtaining knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. As a result, the Quadriga influence on Luther (and later his "eight senses") would not be influential upon the Reformed church. Instead, Luther more positively influenced interpretation by applying the lex and evangelium in balance. Later, in his theology surrounding justification, Luther more readily abandons the Quadriga (or rather his heightened eight sense theory) and adheres to a literal sense as the Reformed church exemplified. The hermeneutics, though, of both the Lutheran Church and the Reformed church seem to have little in common at the outset. Rather, the commonality of their views of Scripture emerge from the their mutual attachment to the patristic fathers.

ALL THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH (i.e. those gifted by Christ in offices int he church to keep it pure from heresy) reject the notion that private interpretation is "me and my bible" theology or "I have the holy Spirit so I don't need to listen to anyone else." (That is simply a warped misrepresentation of the Word, and a rejection of historical orthodoxy.

Scott Bushey · #47 (**permalink**) 04-05-2004, 08:49 PM

Derick,
You mention the admirable Nigel Lee. Curious, do you believe he would agree with your house church philosophy here?

Drdad · #48 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 08:59 AM

Why I do not hold to traditionalism!

I want to apologize for the tardiness of this response, but this has been a very busy week.

First, part of the reason I no longer come back here is because of this very issue and one other issue and the very link you gave me was key to that issue. Thus, this topic is important to me. Here is my rationale for rejecting your ideas.

1. You base most of your argumentation on circular reasoning (in many cases not just one or two which I will site in my response), which is a logical fallacy. You base most of your argument of using history by using history. It is like saying "I am an expert on cross country skiing" And you believing it without because you believe I am right. You believe I am an expert in cross country skiing because I said I was. Now, if an Olympic Committee awarded me a Gold Medal, then there is external evidence for this belief. Much of what is being stated is using some sort of circular reasoning. My litmus test was to prove it using the Bible alone (an outside source). Otherwise you are just using circular reasoning and thus give me one of my best reasons for rejecting your proposition. Let me show you what you are stating. You are validating history by using historical figures like Calvin. You state what Calvin believes. Yet, all the arguments against my side can be leveled on one person's interpretation on how to use history. Thus, the question is, "How can we trust what Calvin says", "Calvin is depraved and could have misinterpreted", "Calvin was only one man", etc. As I have read your arguments it goes something like this, "We can trust Calvin because history has validated it." In other words, we have to believe in the validation of history in order to believe in the validation of history. That is the essential conclusion of your belief which is circular reasoning. In essence, I would have more respect for you if you said, "I just believe by faith" rather than relying upon history to validate history and thus using fallacies of argumentation. My conclusion and point is that I want you to show me using the Bible your point because otherwise you will be relying upon circular reasoning.
2. It makes the Bible less than perfect. The Bible claims to be perfect in those matters but by saying that we NEED history to interpret essentially states that the Bible is less than perfect and needs something to come along side it to help us. If I said God was omniscient, He would need nothing added to be perfect in this area. The same could go for all his attributes. If the Bible is perfect in the areas described in II Timothy and Psalms 119, then it needs nothing added to keep it perfect and/or interpreted. You are arguing that man being totally depraved will make mistakes. Duh! Yet, it is the Bible that is used to correct and the Bible makes that exact point in how it is to be used in light of man being totally depraved. For the same reason you use for rejecting man's interpretation, total depravity, I use to support the Bible as perfect. In fact, that Bible is perfect in correcting thus needs nothing else. To state the Bible needs something to be interpreted correctly outside of the Holy Spirit is stating the Bible is less than perfect.
3. Part of your argumentation about "my interpretation" is fallacious. You are basing your argument on mishaps of humans not on whether the Bible is perfect and can be interpreted correctly by an individual and not based upon this person's interpretation withstanding the scrutiny of cross-examination. The Bible is perfect no matter the human entity or what history has stated and we do need help in interpretation thus Christians are given the Holy Spirit. Even history can be misinterpreted, anything can. Yet, in the case of cross examination and using hermeneutical laws, I do not believe a misinterpretation can withstand the scrutiny of the Bible. Why? The Bible is perfect and nothing can be more clear and focused than the Bible alone. I do not believe it is through the lens of history that makes the determination but through Biblical exegesis. Should we totally reject history? No, there is much wisdom and oftentimes they are correct and offer Biblical exegesis that cannot be denied. But as stated, we treat it as wisdom and not on the same plain as the Bible. Sometimes one must reject wisdom and other times we must hold fast to wisdom. Thus, I believe in the depravity of humans and believe that even history can be misinterpreted and history itself because of depravity should be rejected.
4. Your argumentation denies the perspicuity of Scripture. That simple.
5. I believe you have not addressed my argument on the Tradition of the Elders. I also believe you reject it for the mere fact that it was the 1st Century equivalent to this debate. In fact, very few examples fit more closely than that one. They relied upon history to interpret the Word of God, they believed it was based upon the Word of God, and they condemned people who did not hold to the Tradition of the Elders. Jesus, quite boldly, did things that were explicitly forbidden in the Tradition of the Elders. The same argumentation existed by the First Century Elders as is being advanced here. Even our Reformers rejected history at times because of the clarity of the Bible. For instance, we know that the church before 100 AD, had separated Bishops and Elders into two different offices similar to the Catholic model. This is the case until after the Reformation, thus there is no history for Calvin and Luther to turn to in rejecting this idea. The reformers rightly turned us back to the Bible in this one area. When for 1500 years of church history we got it wrong beginning very early. Yet, the Reformers were not claiming to be inspired either. They changed a wrong as they saw it misrepresented in the Bible and rejected history. Now, in trying to use circular reasoning some have stated this is a reason to support history because history corrected itself. If we made a change today in the Christian church, 50 years from now someone could use the exact same argument that history "corrected itself" but other Christians rejected it today because it was not historical. In fact, that argument can be used for dispensationlism today.

Thus, I believe in the Bible alone! I believe Jesus gives us the example that tradition should be rejected when it collides with the Bible. Yet, the Elders in Jesus' day believed history interpreted the Bible correctly.

[quote:0ed5055450]
ALL THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH (i.e. those gifted by Christ in offices in the church to keep it pure from heresy) reject the notion that private interpretation is "me and my bible" theology or "I have the holy Spirit so I don't need to listen to anyone else." (That is simply a warped misrepresentation of the Word, and a rejection of historical orthodoxy.
[/quote:0ed5055450]

If this is a warped misrepresentation of the Word, show me using the Word of God. If the Bible is

Thus a part of the entire fallacy of argument that history says thus about history so therefore it is true. Which, is the precipice by which the entire argument stands and by which is normally called circular reasoning and should be rejected.

Secondly, this idea denies the true perspicuity of Scripture and believes that the Bible is not perfect in the areas the Bible itself states it is perfect in. In other words, you believe the Bible is insufficient alone and needs history and thus somehow less than perfect.

I still invite any insight on the Tradition of the Elders material I have placed forth.

I agree, this is the base of the debate. I believe the Bible is perfect in reproving, rebuking, correction, and training all in righteousness. You clearly believe that the Bible is somehow not perfect and needs help from history.

Derick

kceaster · #49 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Not that I necessarily want to enter this debate with you again, but I would like to ask you a few things:

Can you understand God's Word without the help of the alphabet, grammar, lexicons, dictionary, etc?

None of these things are inspired.

These are all things that history has proven true. Do they make the Scriptures less inspired? Do they render it insufficient?

Yet you would have us believe that you approach the Scriptures alone and that you are a clean slate, bringing no presuppositions and no preconceived ideas.

Tell us, do you know how to read the Scriptures in both Hebrew and Greek? How is it that you know what Scripture says? Do you sometimes depend on an English translation? If you do read it in the original languages, how did you come by this knowledge? Did the Bible teach it to you?

Now, you automatically believe that we attack the all-sufficiency and the perspicuity of the Scriptures, yet this is far from the truth. What we are saying is that we have had help understanding what the Scriptures say. It doesn't all come from Calvin. Did he receive nothing? Was he a clean slate? Instead, we are arguing that the Church from its infancy until now has had a common understanding. You are trampling on that, sir. And, you have no other authority than your own opinion and understanding. The Scriptures aren't telling you this, because they don't tell other people this. They speak through many, but you would have us believe they only speak through you.

This is not Sola Scriptura. And, unless you have been given divine powers never given to any human being, you use common ordinary means that are HISTORICAL to understand the Scriptures.

The Scriptures would never have been perspicuous had God not also allowed us to have written language. The Scriptures, for those of us who do not know the Hebrew and Greek language, would never be perspicuous were it not for History and Tradition.

Is the Alphabet history and tradition? Yes. Each successive generation writes and spells using the same alphabet their fathers used. It changes sometimes, too. Definitions change as well.

Why do we know what the color blue is? Is it described in the Scriptures? We know what the color blue is because God gave it to someone to know, and it has been passed from generation to generation.

The same it is with the Scriptures. We know what they say and what they mean by some modicum of universal experience. There is not one person on this earth who approaches the Bible without history and tradition. This history and tradition is not inspired. But God uses it to help us understand what He means.

Now, we affirm Sola Scriptura. It is the rule for faith and practice. It is the supreme authority by which all must be judged. But it does not stand apart from understanding. And that understanding is tradition whether you want to admit it or not. Some traditions are better than others. But the singular testimony of the Church through the ages is placed along side the Scriptures so that we may understand them. It is a glossary and it helps us to understand and know that we are hearing the truth of God. The Scripture is a witness to God's truth. It is the ultimate witness. The rule of faith is a secondary witness to it, so that we mere humans can know and be affirmed in the truth.

Sola Scriptura will always include peripherals. Reading my post right now includes peripherals. How did you know what peripheral meant? Was that divinely inspired?

You may say all you want about circular reasoning and flawed logic. But the truth is that you cannot understand a thing without history and tradition. The very reason you know what those two words mean, proves that you must use history and tradition.

In Christ,

KC

Scott Bushey · #50 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 11:51 AM

Excellent post Kevin.

fredtgreco · #51 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 12:39 PM

I would not argue that history assists us in interpreting the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit does.

Where I differ from Derick (and I pray that he sees that the difference, whiel significant, is not insurmountable) is that the Holy Spirit works both specifically (in the believer) and generally (in the Church).

The Work of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages is found in the doctrines of the Church. They are not infallible, since the Church could actually be resisting the Holy Spirit and fostering the doctrines of men. But the key point (somehow I think I have made this 1000 times) is the burden of proof. If the Church is wrong, it is because it has rejected the work of the Spirit in that area (something Papists say is impossible since the Pope is infallible). Otherwise the Church is right, since it (like the believer) is applying the illumination of the Spirit who works in the collective body of believers [b:3829860e77]even as[/b:3829860e77] He works in the individual believer.

So the burden is on the individual to show that the Church has rejected the Scriptures, not vice versa. Look at this from every perspective of the Reformation - even the "radical" Reformation. Show me where Calvin or Luther or anyone else rested in "Show me, Roman Catholic Church, where in the Bible is X. Until you show me, I'm right." They always take painstaking care to show that Rome was WRONG about its doctrines, that papal authority is against the Scriptures, not found in the Scriptures, and that Biblical church government is.

Why do the 21st century heirs to the Reformation take the opposite tack? We hear this today all the time -
"well, I don't believe in X, and I don't care if the Church has believed in and confessed X for 1000 years (even if it has done so across denominational lines). Unless you, Joe Shmoe, can show me today, to my satisfaction (would that an easier standard like [i:3829860e77]beyond a reasonable doubt[/i:3829860e77] were used!) that the Bible teaches X, then I'm right and you're wrong."

Are we saying that the Holy Spirit left His people to wander about on every issue for 1000s of years? Is he more foolish than any other founder of an entity in that He does not lay down a foundation and then build upon it? Do we really think that he makes us rebuild again basic doctrines all the time?

kceaster · #52 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 12:49 PM

[quote:fcb3c01797][i:fcb3c01797]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:fcb3c01797]
I would not argue that history assists us in interpreting the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit does.[/quote:fcb3c01797]

Thank you for showing how unclear I can be at times.

I do not mean to say that it is merely history and tradition either. The only way we may understand anything Spiritual is by the Spirit. I completely affirm this, though my post did not mention it. The Spirit is obviously using whatever means are necessary to show us truth.

[quote:fcb3c01797]Are we saying that the Holy Spirit left His people to wander about on every issue for 1000s of years? Is he more foolish than any other founder of an entity in that He does not lay down a foundation and then build upon it? Do we really think that he makes us rebuild again basic doctrines all the time? [/quote:fcb3c01797]

Good questions. I do not think He causes each generation to rebuild. Course by course, we should all be laying on the same foundation, each course adding understanding for their posterity. We will never have to go back to the bottom course with the Spirit. He is the master builder who desires that we should all be built up into one spiritual household.

In Christ,

KC

pastorway · #53 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 06:12 PM

I guess you need to define the "Church" then, because my church thinks your church is dead wrong on several issues!

Do we go by who has held a belief longer?

Well if we do, the RCC has us all beat, because they held to error for hundreds of years before the Reformers challenged their tradition.

So what is orthodoxy? The WCF? The LBCF?

Can't be either, because groups that claim to hold to these confessions disagree with other groups holding to the same confessions. So the confessions interpret the Scriptures and then we must interpret the confessions and so we disagree about what the confession means and what the Word means and we are n ocloser to consensus.

So how do we settle debates?

We each individually go to the Word of God.

If we go to history we can quote opposing sides all day long with historical support. I mean really now, how much material got left out of the confessions because those framing them could not agree on their interpretation of passages of Scripture? And then too, the confessions are not comprehehnsive, so not everything can be settled by appealing to history.

We must go to the Word. We must rightly handle the Word.

Derick is correct when he states that the only tool we have that is perfect for doctrine, reproff, correction, and instruction in righteousness, the only tool we have that is guaranteed to make the man of God thoroughly equipped for every good work, the only tool that brings us to maturity and makes us compelte in Christ is the Word of God.

We need to quit trying to defend the Word with history and tradition and instead try defending our history and tradition with the Word.

My :wr50:

Say goodnight Gracie....

Phillip

SolaScriptura · #54 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 06:14 PM

[quote:7be8ee938a]
Say goodnight Gracie....
[/quote:7be8ee938a]

Goodnight Gracie! :P

Scott Bushey · #55 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 06:46 PM

Phillip,
Please read Kevins post as it presents logic. You cannot leave the defining of scripture to individuals. It has to be validated by something other than just subjectiveness. It was not my or Kevins intent to imply that scripture is secondary to history or tradition; it is not; You know us both better than that. Is Derick correct? How does what Derick defines as correct settle alongside the fathers and history? Are father and history defining? I believe God has ordained many things in this manner, i.e. The closed canon for one. Secondly, eclessiastical protocols which generally have remained consistant except for a few instances. The church at large is generally on the same page. Does this not count for something? Absolutely. How can one deny this?

pastorway · #56 (**permalink**) 04-09-2004, 07:16 PM

Presenting logic is fine.

Pres