|
Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2008 0:43:15 GMT -5
This thread is for the two debaters, gloryintruth and Zorro to debate the topic:
That true believers can be identified solely within the membership of the F&Ws fellowship.
gloryintruth has agreed to defend the premise and will post first an affirmative view. Zorro will follow by posting a view refuting the premise. The two debaters will then debate the issues, responding one after the other. Finally in about a week's time both debaters will post closing addresses.
There is a thread for any referee's comments (I33t has offered to be chief ref) and for issues of an administrative nature. Plus another thread for the audience to chatter away while we indulge in popcorn, tea and scones as the debate rages.
All done very civilly!
Please respect the intent that this thread only be used for the debate proper. It is solely for posts by the two debaters. All other comments and bright ideas can be posted on whichever of the other threads here is relevant. Now sit back and enjoy.
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 2, 2008 2:29:36 GMT -5
Git and Zorro. Please familiarise yourself with the debate suggestions that I've outlined in The Ref's Thread. These are for the sake of courtesy to your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Mar 11, 2008 5:56:24 GMT -5
THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE AND VERY ROUGH DRAFT OF THE OPENING STATEMENT. I APOLOGISE FOR THIS DEEPLY.
i. Introduction There are some who say that Christianity is a matter of belief. And that belief is independent of the outward “church” to which we may align ourselves. Then again, there are others who – when confronted by the great yawning chasms of doctrine between denominations – seek earnestly to fit all people into the true Church by claiming that there is such a thing as an “invisible” construct into which Christians may mystically belong. I reject these views as modernist creations alien to the Faith of endless generations of Christians.
The historic view of Christians of all generations until recent decades is that there exists a true church. The True Church is characterised by: obedience to the Word of God and biblical principles. The True Church is possessed of the Holy Spirit – the Pure Spirit who is the presence of God and Christ Jesus within us and among us – and this is reflected in its practices, beliefs and attitudes of heart. And the True Church receives favour and approval from God because of its devotion and obedience.
The question which is placed before us today – and for the next couple of days as this debate progresses – and the question which all readers are invited to answer for themselves from the available evidence, is YOUR position in regards to the matter of the True Church. Firstly, you are asked to question your values. Is there such a concept? What is truth? And what is a true church? Secondly, you are asked to consider what sorts of things would characterise a Church that is truly obedient to God. And thirdly, to whom does the Apostolic ministry pass, and in what manner?
ii. The True Church The portion of our debate question with which I am chiefly concerned is showing and demonstrating The Church (the Fellowship) is the true church. If such a thing could be shown from scripture, then ipso facto, those who belong to Her are true believers. This is a simple argument, but one that is unshakable.
Let us imagine we have two classrooms. In each classroom stands a science teacher, one of whom knows his discipline well, while the other does not. The knowledgeable teacher conveys truthful facts and scientific realities, while the ignorant teacher conveys many falsehoods and inaccuracies. Which class of students would carry away more scientific truth from their teacher? Obviously the answer would be those who had the knowledgeable teacher who spoke that which was true, factual and accurate.
Likewise with true believers and the True Church.
The True Church is obedient to the Word of God – it searches the scriptures and applies them to itself in the belief that all that is NECESSARY for faith, morals and practice of life is found in the pages of God’s inspired testament – the Holy Bible. It does not resort to theology ex cathedra, aside and apart from the Bible. It does not practice things which are alien to the principles exemplified by the Apostles - that we come not with "wisdom of words" but with a simple message, "Jesus and him crucified".
But, let us suppose that we reject the theological validity of the Bible. Let us suppose that we are unmoved by the search for truth - that we speak from the worldview that asks: "Does it work?" and not the worldview that asks "Is it true"? Let us suppose truth and reality are for us, merely abstractions, and so we regard the Gospel with scientific curiosity as one might regard a beetle through a microscope.
Even if this were out perspective, we must surely agree, from simple, logical and purely historical point-of-view, that if the Gospel - if that collection of writings, that way of life - has any meaning at all, then those most intimate with that meaning would surely have been the Apostles. After all, these men, anointed by Jesus, taught the Gospel for varying lengths of time amounting to decades; they KNEW what the Gospel was; they KNEW what the Church ought to be. Surely then, their faith and practice is a sure guide to how we, as Christians in the modern world, ought to live out our Faith.
For this purpose we of The Church make heavy use of the Acts of the Apostles which is given for our instruction into the ways of the Christian Church.
Characteristics of the Apostolic Church (which by definition is the True Church since there was but one Church at this time, guided by the Apostles who were approved by Jesus) are straightforward. Alignment to the Apostolic example, not merely their teaching, characterises the True Church. For did not Paul say, "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Jesus Christ?"
Well, what is the Apostlic example?
1. Abolition of physical temple elements Acts 7:48-49 "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says: "'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?
In this case, against the context of Judaism, the Apostle would be referring to synagogues as much as to the temple on Mount Zion, since synagogues were frequently renovated houses in which the Lord was said to dwell. As churches approximate in function to synagogues, we may view this as a condemnation of any structure in which we make an effort to contain or isolate our worship.
This is important in the light of the following teaching:
2 Corinthians 5:1 [ Our Heavenly Dwelling ] Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
The Church reflects the believer’s hope – we have no abiding house here, but we now look for the eternal house in heaven; the eternal sanctuary that is God’s throne. There is no temple in the New Jerusalem, for God himself is there. And because God promises to dwell with believers, there is no more need for temples among us.
Acts 16:40 After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia's house, where they met with the brothers and encouraged them. Then they left.
Romans 16:5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.
1 Corinthians 16:19 [ Final Greetings ] The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla [ Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.
Colossians 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
They met in houses because it reflected the new belief that one did not any more need to “go up to the temple to pray” as in Jesus’ parable of the publican and Pharisee. God’s presence is here among us! The wonder and majesty of the Gospel is that nothing shall evermore interfere with our access to God – we may carry his Spirit with us wheresoever we go, and we may worship freely without the cumbrance of a structure and its ornamentation.
We Friends worship in homes not because we believe worship must be conducted there, but because homes reflect for us the total abolishment of the Old Testament and its outmoded paradigm. Homes represent for us "God with us", in that Immanuel has come down to earth to live among us, to share our homes, our tables, and yea, our very sorrows also. For us, we no more think of rites, religion and observances as taking place within a formal, specialised setting. We may just as well worship outdoors, in a dry river bed, in a hotel room, or in a caravan park. Any place can be consecrated for use as a meeting place. For this is the freedom open to believers.
To mire religion down into a building is alien to what we see demonstrated in the Bible. No Apostle set out to found a church, and in so doing, to found it in bricks and lime.
We may speak also of the ministry, going forth in pairs as also supported from scripture. We may speak of a freedom from the theologians. We could discuss the order or paradigm of which worship is described by the Apostle Paul. We may speak of a robust church, free from encumberances - in a sense, to use corporate language - we would describe the true "privatisation of faith" as opposed to the public ownership that is so tragically represented in denominationalism.
Counterarguments Zorro may say to you, "If the Fellowship is the True Church, how is it that so many other people claiming Christ - 2 billion at last count - could be wrong?" Or, he may say, "How could so few people be right?"
An argument based on numbers - or more correctly, based on consensus - is not valid. To see how impracticable this is, let us consider that Zorro rejects the validity of Roman Catholicism, even though there are more than 1 billion Roman Catholics in the modern world, and they are better represented around the world than any other Christian body. Will he say that Roman Catholicism is true in its preaching?
We may say, "There are 1.7 billion adherents of Islam. How could so many people be in error?" The same argument could even be used against Christianity - there are more non-Christians in the world by orders of magnitude in the billiongs, so how is it that Christians can claim to have the sole monopoly on truth?
For truth is not isolated within popularity. One man, gazing at the heavens through a rough-hewn telescope, who believes that the earth travels around the sun, may be denounced as a fool by the scholarly men of his age, yet though he stands alone, he is still in possession of truth. Likewise, we may not appeal to widespread belief and practice in defence of our position, any more than a man may say, "Many hundreds of thousands of people practice infanticide in the world. Therefore this practice is moral."
But may we appeal to small numbers to undo The Church? Can we say, as is commonly said, "How could so few be right?" However, we in the Church would answer and say that God has always worked with a remnant of his people. The word remnant appears frequently in the salvific history of Israel, because God always elected to save NOT all, but a remnant - a small number, whom he would plant again and from them would spring renewed fruit. Israel, though small in number, was not itself saved wholesale.
As it is written: Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. (Micah 7:18)
Note well. Who does the prophet say God forgives? Is it the entire nation? No, it is the remnant. It is the remainder after great tribulation - those who emerged from the cataclysm of God's wrath unscathed. God does not err. He elects a remnant for his inheritance. And he delights to show mercy to them.
Because as Paul said (Romans 9:27): Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.
Note again. Great numbers of people out of which a small remnant, the elect band, shall come. For as it is written in another place, "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." (Romans 11:5). As even Augustine believed, most people will not be saved; those who will be saved are indeed few in number - just read the Lord's response to the disciple who asked, "Lord, are there few who be saved?"
To which the answer was given, "Strive to enter in at the straight gate. For broad is the way and wide is the gate that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat."
Zorro will then say to you, "How is it that you can believe that a late 18th sect is the True Church?" To which we reply: the Church of the Apostles is for all time. To follow the teachings of the scripture, and the Word of the Lord is to follow a timeless truth.
When a man comes to you and says, "Love your enemies - believe this because it is a truth from the shores of Galilee" does he not speak rightly? A man who is a mouthpiece, or a church that is a reflection, or a voice in the wilderness may each speak a timeless truth, and in some mystical fashion, become integral to that truth itself.
If I say, "Hear O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is One" I affirm this truth. I proclaim this truth. My stock is placed upon this truth, not upon my own vintage. This is the error of the apostate: to believe that vintage can be mistaken for truth; or that error is error unless it has been validated by centuries.
God has always had a True Church. Its manifestation is not the issue. Its proclamation of the truth is the issue. But we speak of high spiritual things, of a truth which vitalises a man.
And that truth is Jesus of Nazareth, whom to know is life.
FINAL EDIT
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 11, 2008 8:48:59 GMT -5
Thank you.
Opening statement from Zorro?
Final edit by Git for opening statement: « Last Edit: Today at 8:15am by gloryintruth »
(I should have thought of this sooner. Last edit time being noted to ensure no sneaky business - not that I expect any, but to just maintain consistence and fairness to both parties)
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 11, 2008 10:31:18 GMT -5
The moderators have given me the option of including rebuttal remarks in my opening statement. My intention has been to simply present my opening remarks and rebut GiT’s positions in my 2 allotted rebuttal posts and closing statement. For the most part that is what I still intend to do. However, there is one area I feel must be addressed immediately. I want to alert readers to GiT’s use of a “straw man” argument. This is the technique of constructing a position and then attacking it as if it were the position of one’s opponent. This is exactly what GiT has done in the section he identifies as “Counterarguments”. He puts forth arguments as if I had made them, and then attacks them. In basic terms, he tried to “put words in my mouth”. This is unfortunate, because I have no intention at all of making any of those arguments. I will indeed refer to the beginnings of his fellowship, but not to make the points he has constructed in this straw man fashion. In essence, I am calling “foul” and ask the readers to disregard this entire section of GiT’s post. Now, on to my prepared opening statement……..
That true believers can be identified solely within the membership of the F&Ws fellowship.
A true believer is a saved individual. This statement declares that I am not a true believer; IE that I am an unsaved individual, simply because I am not a member of the F&Ws fellowship. Not so long ago I would have said the same thing of another because I was also fully convicted that all true believers were members of the F&Ws fellowship, or would be eventually drawn to it. My brief will simply be a description of the journey God led me on, and the scripture He used, as He revealed that my former beliefs were in error. Perhaps the first passage to deeply and profoundly impact my thinking regarding what is commonly called “exclusivity” was the parable of the sheep and the goats, found in Matthew 25.
Matt 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The classic interpretation by the F&Ws regarding this passage, myself once included, is that the “sheep/believers” are the F&Ws and the “goats/unbelievers” are the world, the one true sheepfold being the F&Ws fellowship, etc. The first thing I noted is that this passage is describing the final judgment and obviously the people of all the nations had not been separated while on earth. This seemed basic enough, so the next assumption was that even though the sheep/believers and goats/unbelievers “co-habitated” on earth, God would certainly make it easy to identify who was a sheep and who was a goat, particularly since it was assumed to be an issue of salvation. Closer examination revealed that just the opposite was true. It is conclusive that the sheep did not clearly recognize one another ……”when did we do this, when did we do that……?” At first I reasoned that Jesus was referring to “opportunities to serve” that they either recognized or not, but then I noticed that he said :
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
He wasn’t talking about “opportunities”, he was talking about people who were his brothers – even though the “sheep” didn’t recognize them as such. Obviously, Jesus didn’t reprimand them for failing to recognize a fellow brother. This seemed so foreign to me. I had always thought that it was critical that be able to identify our brethren and that God had planned many ways for us to easily accomplish this – alignment with the worker’s ministry, meetings in the home, the dress code, etc. I deeply questioned how it could even be possible that the “sheep” not recognize Jesus’ brethren if God’s plan was to provide the obvious outward marks of distinction identifying the very kingdom of God. I make no claim to know exactly who Jesus was describing in this parable – which is actually at the heart of my argument – but there is one particular “sheep” I noted that struck fear in my heart….the stranger. By his very definition the stranger is someone we would not recognize as a believer, yet could be Jesus’ brother. The parable clearly illustrates Jesus’ judgment against those who reject his “brothers”.
Jesus teaches a similar lesson in Mark 9. I have heard many different attempts to explain this passage away, but one fact that simply can’t be ignored is that the man was “not one of us” and Jesus clearly states that there would be reward awaiting him, which would certainly be in heaven.
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
For nearly 30 years I believed it was critical that I be able to identify the “true believers”, perhaps even more importantly to be able to identify the “non-believers”. Suddenly I realized that while God certainly wants us to have fellowship with other believers, we simply cannot know – nor do we apparently need to know - exactly who they all are. Instead, it seems God wants us to consider the possibility that anyone might be one of Jesus’ brothers that we would only recognize as “hungry, thirsty, sick, ….. or a stranger”. As I pondered why this would be God’s plan, I came to understand what this verse really means:
2 Tim 2:19Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his" [/b]
Again, a “believer” is a “saved” individual. When we take it upon ourselves to declare another as an “unbeliever” - to be “lost” - we are taking a place that God has reserved for himself. He is the only righteous judge. He knows who are his. We don’t. Just a cursory study of the issue will quickly lead us to the conclusion that unrighteous judgment is an abomination to the Lord. This is a very serious issue that Jesus dealt with in Matt 9 and 12.
Matt 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Here Jesus introduces the Pharisees to the reality that they are looking at things from the wrong perspective. Those unregenerate people – perhaps the Pharisees would have considered them goats, if you will – were actually the ones Jesus had come to save. This appears to have been a difficult concept for them to understand, because we see in Matt 12 that they had failed to learn the lesson he instructed for them.
Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Here the Pharisees thought they had Jesus’ disciples “dead to rights”. There was no question that they were breaking the law. They thought they understood the scriptures well enough to judge the disciples and they confidently declared them guilty.…..and then Jesus reminded them of the lesson he had given them….go learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice. Obviously they had failed, but what I had never before realized was the actual reason for the lesson. It was to avoid the inevitable outcome of their legalistic worldview. And I realized that we need to learn the same lesson if we are to avoid the same, ultimate outcome – condemning the innocent. Can there be any question that for us to condemn the innocent, the very brethren of Christ himself, is an abomination to God? I have absolutely no question that Jesus is teaching us that if we are to err regarding judgment or mercy – we are to err on the side of mercy. I have found this is much easier to do when I give God his rightful place as the judge of men’s hearts.
The question before us is can a non member of the F&Ws fellowship be a true believer? I am willing to offer myself as a test sample. I declare before God and the world that I am a believer of Christ, regenerated by his Holy Spirit, and loved of God. With God as your witness, is there any among you willing to step forward to declare that I’m not?
FINAL EDIT
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 11, 2008 18:37:48 GMT -5
Thanks Zorro.
Git's first response?
Final edit by Zorro: « Last Edit: Today at 11:32am by Zorro »
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Mar 12, 2008 5:20:31 GMT -5
PREFACE: I start by reflecting on Zorro’s preface which regrettably left me quite angry. I remind all concerned that Zorro is in no position to command readers to ignore, or skip any part of his opponent’s debate. As a reminder: a debate is where we demonstrate the superiority of our position, not tell others how to read or interpret the presentation made by the “other side”.
I also remind readers that it is perfectly usual in debate for a person to assume or pre-empt possible arguments he may expect from his opponent, and that this is not the same as making a “straw man argument”, which Zorro apparently misunderstands – a “straw man argument” is an argument based on the oversimplification and misrepresentation of someone else’s position in order to easily “bowl over” that perspective. Pre-empting possible arguments is not a “straw man argument”, but even if it were, it is not an “illegality” in the sense that it be stricken from the debate.
Zorro has no right, nor the authority, to issue interdicts to the reader telling them to ignore or disregard any portion of his opponent’s posts.
I. WE MUST DISTINGISH BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE BROTHERS A thorough reading of Zorro’s post reveals that he does not address the concept of the True Church – as implicit in the debate statement – but instead chooses to examine how universal and exclusive is Christianity. Zorro’s argument and presentation seems to revolve around how we may define “true believer”. In the process, Zorro uses a logic and argumentation methodology that I find deeply puzzling.
I draw the readers’ attention to the final paragraph of Zorro’s post, which I find to be revealing:
I am willing to offer myself as a test sample. I declare before God and the world that I am a believer of Christ, regenerated by his Holy Spirit, and loved of God. With God as your witness, is there any among you willing to step forward to declare that I’m not?
When I read this, I was immediately set in mind of the manner in which Pope Leo X signed his Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther from the Roman Catholic Church: “Any who would contest our judgement stands under the wrath of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and Almighty God.”
In other words, Pope Leo appeals to emotion, appeals to fear, and to the promise of imminent judgement in order to justify the stance made at that time by the Papacy. It was an effort to prevent discussion, to shut down the debates then raging throughout Christendom. When I look at Zorro’s statement, I cannot deny seeing similarities. Zorro seems to be daring us; he seems to be appealing to God’s judgement, God’s wrath, and the human emotion of fear in order to quash the debate.
How else are we to understand his phrase, “Is there any among you willing to step forward”? Yet if this method of argumentation, being based on subjective emotionalism, was not valid for Pope Leo X, then surely it is not valid for Zorro either. We must be consistent. We must adopt a paradigm that is steady. And if we would not tolerate a Mormon, and fail in our duty to evangelise him in the truth, because he says, “I am a believer of Christ, are you willing to step forward and say that I am not?”, neither do we cease with our case in this instance.
Zorro seems to imply that anyone who calls themselves Christians and profess a belief in Christ must somehow stand beyond reach. Anyone who identifies themselves as a Christian has passed from fallibility to infallibility, and is now immune from being challenged, scrutinised and examined – for to do so could set us under the wrath of God! But the Bible clearly teaches that not all men who say “Lord, Lord” shall enter into the Kingdom of God, because not all are saved who with their lips claim Christ for themselves.
Again, a “believer” is a “saved” individual. When we take it upon ourselves to declare another as an “unbeliever” - to be “lost” - we are taking a place that God has reserved for himself.
If this were true, then it would make nonsense of so much of the Apostolic Literature, which warns us of “false brethren” and “unbelievers” in our midst. Contrary to what Zorro here maintains, the Apostle Paul took a very different view (and I trust the words of the Apostle Paul) who wrote:
(Galatians 2:4) This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
The Apostle speaks without equivocation regarding false brothers actually entering the Church. Their purpose was to make Christians slaves again to false beliefs, and the dead paradigm of the Old Testament – and what is a “false brother” but an unbeliever? Paul apparently had no scruples in identifying those whose doctrine, lives, and practices were alien to the Gospel of Jesus, as did Peter in his Second Epistle, and the Apostle Jude when addressing the false teachers who were then (as now) proliferating in the Church.
Moreover, these false brothers actually sought to harm the Apostle:
(2 Corinthians 11:26) I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
Here “false brothers” are ranked among bandits, unbelieving Jews, unbelieving Gentiles, and danger. There is no question that a “false brother”, like the wolves that would enter “not sparing the sheep” is quite a real danger. Apparently the Apostle was able to distinguish between them, and indeed, the Apostle advised us to do the same, because:
(Jude 1:4). For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Why warn someone if not so that they can be active in searching out the danger that they not come into harm’s way? In fact, Jude seems to advocate severing ties with these godless, false brothers:
(Jude 1:12-13) These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
This passage sounds awfully as if Jude was pointing out the unbelieving quality of some people who professed outwardly to be followers of Christ, and urging others to do the same, to “contend and fight for the faith” against false believers such as these who were shoring up to themselves everlasting damnation and the “blackest darkness”. This is the penalty for all those who claim Christ, and stand within the doorway of the Church within reach of Holy Things, but pervert them for selfish interest.
No! We are called to distinguish; to be wise; to be aware. For many “false prophets have gone out into the world” and their converts, though outwardly Christian, are not true brothers or disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.
II. ZORRO’S USE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT
I would dispute that Zorro has cited scripture within context and accurately in his argument, particularly in relation to the passage he cites regarding the Final Judgement in Matthew 25. I feel that Zorro has selected isolated texts, and tried to turn them to his own personal situation through the use of subjective interpretation, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
Let us take Zorro’s reflection on Matthew 25, the Final Judgement. This is the final portion of a chapter that contains within it the Parable of the Ten Virgins, and the Parable of the Talents, and finally the Final Judgement. Let us examine the chapter within this context and we quickly see the theme the Apostle is attempting to establish: he is speaking of judgement, and the fact that there will be some who claim to be followers but who are deficient in some way. They will not possess some vital element required to enter the Kingdom of God.
Thus we have the five Foolish Virgins who did not possess oil in their lamps, and missed the Bridegroom when he came. They stood outside and knocked, “Open for us!” but he answered, “I don’t know you”. The message is for us to be prepared; to be ready with all the necessary spiritual preparation for the coming of Christ.
We then have the Parable of the Talents in which one servant buried the talent he was entrusted with, and did not allow it to earn any profit for his Master. When his Master came to account for his servants, the servant was found wanting, and was cast out into “darkness and gnashing of teeth”. He was an unprofitable servant.
Lastly the passage about the Final Judgement in which, again, as in the proceeding parables, one group was denied access to the Kingdom of God due to a deficiency in conduct – they were lacking something in life. They had not been profitable.
Zorro claims that the sheep did not recognise each other (and interesting conclusion to make from a parable), because they did not have any recollection of doing anything for the “least of these my brethren” – however, this is begging the point, and seeing all kinds of new teachings in a simple explanation: the whole point of this passage is that entrance to heaven is based on service to others, even to those who would rank as least and lowly. Who were the brethren? Jesus was surrounded by his disciples – a crowd of them, doubtless – and it was to them that such service was to be given. Even to the “least”; the lame, the old, the infirm, and the simple-minded – those in greatest need should receive the greatest attention and service from Christian people.
This entire chapter is about preparation for the coming of Christ; that is the context. As Matthew Henry noted in his commentary: this passage is given to us to “quicken us all with the utmost care and diligence to get ready for Christ's second coming, which, in all his farewells to his church, mention was made of, as in that before he died”. To derive some obscure point based on a belief that the sheep recognised or did not recognise the “least brother” is to miss the greater teaching.
Matthew Henry explains the teaching contained in this passage in three ways:
[1.] Self-denial, and contempt of the world; reckoning the things of the world no further good things, than as we are enabled to do good with them: and those who have not wherewithal to do good, must show the same disposition, by being contentedly and cheerfully poor. Those are fit for heaven that are mortified to the earth.
[2.] Love to our brethren; which is the second great commandment, the fulfilling of the law, and an excellent preparative for the world of everlasting love. We must give proof of this love by our readiness to do good, and to communicate; good wishes are but mockeries without good works, Jam. ii. 15, 16; 1 John iii. 17. Those that have not to give, must show the same disposition some other way.
[3.] A believing regard to Jesus Christ. That which is here rewarded is the relieving of the poor for Christ's sake, out of love to him, and with an eye to him. This puts an excellency upon the good work, when in it we serve the Lord Christ, which those may do that work for their own living, as well as those that help to keep others alive. See Eph. vi. 5-7. Those good works shall then be accepted which are done in the name of the Lord Jesus, Col. iii. 17.
There is no teaching of universalism here!
III. IT IS VITAL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE BELIEVERS AND TRUE AND FALSE CHURCHES
The Apostle John writes:
1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
The Apostle, the last remaining eyewitness of Jesus, close to the end of his days, reminds the Church of their need for vigilance. Why? Because many false teachers and false prophets (preachers) have gone out into the world to decieve, to trick, and to destroy. However, the Lord in his mercy has given us a means of identifying those who are true believers - and that is adherence to sound doctrine, and belonging (truly belonging) to his body, so that we may not have cause to "stand outside and knock, 'Open up for us!'".
For the True Church breeds true believers. And the marks of the True Church are the marks of the Gospel:
Poverty - Poverty is always commended in scripture, where we are urged not to lay up for ourselves treasure on earth, but rather in heaven. The True Church is a pilgrim entity, who seeks not its own enrichment, but embraces the principle of being poor in "this worlds goods" that She might be "rich in grace".
Humilty - The True Church is not haughty, ostensible, or garish. It is not loud, obnoxious, or in love with this world's ways.
Separate from the world - "Come out from among her my people", said God. Yet we see in churches an embrace of rock music, video presentations and many other elements drawn from the world. It seems the modern church feels a need to embrace and appropriate the ways of the world in order to attract converts. Yet, when we use worldly means of presenting the Gospel, we shall reap worldly results - myriads of shallow believers. When we use godly methods, we shall have godly results - a few, dedicated and firm believers. For the world stands in opposition to God.
Holy - the sacred rites are not treated lightly. For the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" and does not treat the ordinaces of God lightly.
Orderly - under the same authority, following the same practice, obedient to God.
The Church - the True Church - is not some isolated outhouse in the suburbs, neither is it a great chain of garish buildings. It is a church that adheres to what is found in SCRIPTURE:
- Homeless, pilgrim ministers - The Gospel spoken by more than one mouth, for "in the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". - Abandonment of structures and church property - a complete break with the Old Testament paradigm, and an embrace of the new and living way in Jesus most Wonderful, Jesus most Glorious! To Whom be glory now and forever, Amen! - Speaking the Word of God undiluted by the words of man. - Emphasis on private prayer and devotions. - Fellowship WITH Christ, and participation from all. - The three rites of Baptism, Communion and "Holy Orders" (or Ministry). - A trust in the work of the Holy Spirit. - The belief that the example of "church" in scripture is an example that is valid and true for all people, in all places, and at all times, for scripture is likewise valid in such a sense.
Who can deny that the Church is biblical? Who can deny that the Church adheres to the Apostlic Example?
IV. THE FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH
I was lost, and a wandering sinner. Without hope in the world. Ignorant and benighted, I knew not God. I did not recognise the worship of Yahweh. And my heart was cold, My eyes were dry, as the desert storm, Whenever I regarded the crucifix.
But, then the Gospel was preached unto me. In all simplicity it came, as Jesus in a manger. "Come unto Jesus. Be saved." "Salvation is found in Jesus alone." "Ye must be born again!" I listened with awe. Never had I heard words such as these. My heart stood still. My spirit locked in mortal terror of my sins. And I rejoiced in this message. Even though the ground seemed to tremble at its proclamation.
Jesus of Nazareth, Shepherd of the soul, Brought me into his fold. This is how I know I am saved - for he has not abandoned me. I am still to be found among his people. I am still to be found at the table of the New Passover Feast. I am stll to be found in the fold of Christ, his Holy Household!
And I am persuaded, Through Jesus' majestic authority, and sovereign power, He draws his people together. He speaks to them through his Servants. He soothes their wounds, and binds up their broken hearts. He opens his nail-pierced hands, And lays them upon our weary shoulders. "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, And I will give you rest."
Through his grace I have access to the sacraments, The channels of grace, The emblem of heavenly intervention. I partake a valid Passover. I hope in the Blood of the Lord. For that is my only hope. And I thank God always that he brought Jesus to me, Through his Holy Bride, the Church, Through whom he works his miracle in the Earth.
And I know at the Last Day, Christ's Church shall stand victorious, And shall be the Church at peace.
FINAL EDIT.
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 12, 2008 18:43:44 GMT -5
GiT,
Is your post finished? I can't tell as section III is a single line. Perhaps that's deliberate. Anyways, please remember to add "FINAL EDIT" when you are done so Zorro can respond.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 13, 2008 7:40:39 GMT -5
Thank you GiT,
« Last Edit: Today at 20:59 by gloryintruth »
Zorro - first response?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 13, 2008 8:21:58 GMT -5
Since I am rebutting 2 posts, this rebuttal will be in 2 parts. First, I will respond to GiT’s second post, then his opening statement.
PART ONE: Response to 2nd post
First, I do indeed know what a straw man argument is and GiT perfectly demonstrated one. Secondly, GiT has slightly overreacted with his accusation of me “commanding” readers to ignore his post, when the actual word I used was “ask”. Thirdly, it is well within debate protocol to point out logical fallacies and the like in a debate format. I perfectly understand the effort to anticipate and pre-empt an opponent’s position, but GiT took a risk with the use of a straw man, because he didn’t actually know if I’d take those positions or not. In this case he assumed wrongly. If he wanted to introduce those particular points to the debate he should have used a different strategy. His indignant response is regrettable. Lastly this remark is interesting, given that the majority of GiT’s rebuttal would fail to meet his own admonition: As a reminder: a debate is where we demonstrate the superiority of our position, not tell others how to read or interpret the presentation made by the “other side”.
GiT’s first salvo is to try to redefine the debate:
A thorough reading of Zorro’s post reveals that he does not address the concept of the True Church – as implicit in the debate statement – but instead chooses to examine how universal and exclusive is Christianity. Zorro’s argument and presentation seems to revolve around how we may define “true believer”.
To refresh our memories, this is the debate resolution that GiT agreed to defend:
That true believers can only be found within the F&Ws fellowship.
I find it odd that I’d be criticized for trying to “define a true believer”. I submit that a “thorough reading” of both opening statements will reveal that I attempted remain aligned with the debate resolution and GiT attempted to redefine it. This conflict here is very simple. GiT’s position is that the true church defines who the true believers are, my position is that the true believers define who the true church is. GiT was overzealous when he presented the following “wrong direction” fallacy:
The portion of our debate question with which I am chiefly concerned is showing and demonstrating The Church (the Fellowship) is the true church. If such a thing could be shown from scripture, then ipso facto, those who belong to Her are true believers.
If GiT wants to present this sequence in an ipso facto manner, then I would add that this statement can be even more broadly defined as a post hoc fallacy. I understand the careful placement of “if such a thing can be shown” makes it appear that the statement is presented in the form of hypothesis, but this is betrayed by his claim that I have erred in failing to recognizing this as a fact “implicit in the debate statement”. In simple terms, my position that identifying true believers will lead us to correctly identify the true church is my “perspective”, while GiT has presented his “perspective” as fact. My position is obviously foreign to GiT.
I consider his comparison of my declaration of salvation to the pope’s condemnation of Luther to be pure bluster (this is where I could explain the logical fallacy of a “Red Herring”, I suppose). The fact of the matter is that it was the pope who rose up to declare his freedom to judge Luther, just as GiT rises up to declare his freedom to judge other Christians, “as implicit in the debate statement”. I submit that his position more closely aligns with the indignant pope he quoted, and mine of Luther – in that he is the accuser and I am the condemned. Let me make myself perfectly clear, what is “implicit in the debate statement” is the unmistakable stench of unrighteous judgment. Since GiT seems to have ignored this portion of my opening, I will restate the verse that is the cornerstone of my position: If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. Again, my position is that condemning the innocent is a very serious offense before God, and understanding this is the first step of recognizing the error of GiT’s position. GiT has failed to recognize my declaration of personal salvation as a logical conclusion of my position, and presented to simply and clearly debunk the debate resolution, which it does. If one thoughtfully considers my statement they will realize it is the only statement I can make. And I can only make this declaration about myself. Instead, of considering that conclusion – and the inherent acceptance of me as a brother, and by proxy countless other Christians, GiT resorts to accusing me of espousing the heresy of universalism. It’s easy to understand why. His position is one of extremes. Black and white thinking. Notice the subtle attempt to recharacterize my position in this statement:
Zorro seems to imply that anyone who calls themselves Christians and profess a belief in Christ must somehow stand beyond reach. Anyone who identifies themselves as a Christian has passed from fallibility to infallibility, and is now immune from being challenged, scrutinised and examined – for to do so could set us under the wrath of God! But the Bible clearly teaches that not all men who say “Lord, Lord” shall enter into the Kingdom of God, because not all are saved who with their lips claim Christ for themselves.
May I simply say that this is a blatant twisting of my words. I make no implication whatsoever that a person can “stand beyond reach”, immune to being “challenged, scrutinized and examined”. Indeed, that is the very exercise of this debate. But true to an extreme, black and white world view, GiT extracts this from my statements contesting our ability to judge another’s salvation. I will also point out that it was the Lord who issued the judgment against those in the verse GiT quoted, not their peers.
His position is that the marks of a Christian are outward and easily identifiable. My position was clearly stated when I said :
it seems God wants us to consider the possibility that anyone might be one of Jesus’ brothers that we would only recognize as “hungry, thirsty, sick, ….. or a stranger”.
To interpret that position as a defense of universalism is telling. I believe my position is made very clear when we consider Paul’s teaching of the fruit of the Spirit. Those are the marks that distinguish a true believer and the marks we should be trying to discern in others. I found GiT’s accusation that I employed an eisegetical hermeneutic and missed the context of the parable of the sheep and the goats hollow. He said:
This entire chapter is about preparation for the coming of Christ; that is the context.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement - that is exactly the point of my observations of the parable - and I believe a careful reading of GiT’s quotes of Matthew Henry will lead one to the conclusion that they support my position not his, especially the second point regarding loving our brethren. My contention is that the “goats” failed because they felt no inclination to extend brotherly kindness when they didn’t recognize others as their brother. My question to GiT is, exactly where do you think Matthew Henry extracted the teaching of brotherly love from in this chapter? Also please explain how Mr Perry would be able to identify who his “brethren” were. My position is that we are better prepared for the coming of Christ when we live life in an a non judgmental way, embracing fellow Christians rather than excluding them, looking for the marks of Christ in their lives….rather than judging one to hell simply because they don’t agree with flawed Biblical interpretation, which I will address in the second part of my rebuttal. But first, I want to address GiT’s scripture references to false brothers.
There is no question at all that the early church was challenged by heresies and the leaders that trumpeted them. Of course, those efforts needed to be rebuffed. In that day, the church was easily identifiable by simple alignment with the Apostles and their teaching. As time passed by, simple outward identification wasn’t so…..simple. So the question eventually became – how does one identify a true church? Calvin offered these guidelines:
“Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists”.
I believe it is safe to say that Calvin’s establishment of the Consistory indicates he didn’t feel meetings in the home and an itinerant ministry were necessary to identify a true church. Rather than assume GiT’s position, I will simply ask him to reconcile his defense of the debate resolution with his perception of Calvin’s salvation.
It’s interesting that GiT introduced John as a witness to somehow support the 2x2 church. Perhaps I can introduce readers to two of John’s disciples – Polycarp and Ignatious, and Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus, as well. Even a casual look at their lives reveals the fact that the early church actually looked far, far different from what has typically been envisioned the F&Ws. So different that one is left with no choice but to consider one of these two options, either the early church immediately went wrong or the 2x2s have it wrong. We find these men described as Bishops of local congregations (Symrna, Antioch, and Lugdunum, respectively). At this point, I’ll give readers something else to ponder – why does history describe Timothy as the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus?
With all due respect to my opponent, and a tip of the hat for some very lovely poetry, I find the summary of this post to be a mish mash of proof texting and rationalization that in no way, shape or form builds a case for the F&Ws uniquely filling any of his purported characteristics of the true church.
PART TWO: Response to opening statement
This will not be a line-by-line examination of my opponent’s opening statement. Instead, I will argue that this post is a text-book display of “pattern theology”. I will also argue that the F&Ws fellowship is simply one of many “restorationist” groups, all of which are founded on misapplied scripture – the result of pattern theology.
Perhaps I should quickly state that I do not believe that adherence to traditions based on misinterpreted scripture is in any way a reflection of an individual’s zeal and love for God. In fact, I think that a case could be made that it is zeal and love of God that motivates a person to accept legalism as God’s will. In short, my intent is not to debate my opponent’s love of God, or that of the fellowship as a whole. My intent is to demonstrate flawed theology.
I understand that the term “theology” is akin to a “dirty” word to many members of the fellowship. I have been on the receiving end of several lectures about being “puffed up with knowledge”. GiT has even introduced the traditional position that the fellowship enjoys “freedom from the theologians” (later calling on Matthew Henry’s interpretation of Matt 25). Basically, anyone that tries to interpret scripture and apply it to their life is a theologian. It is also true that we all apply various methodologies to Bible interpretation, but often unsystematically and inconsistently. Before I continue, it may be in order to define a few basic terms regarding Bible interpretation.
Exegesis - critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.
Eisegesis - an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
Narrative- a story or account of events, experiences, or the like
Normative-pertaining to giving directives or rules
For purposes of interpreting the Bible, we want to understand that good exegesis is accomplished when we allow scripture to direct us to God’s intended conclusion, without interference from our personal bias. Of course, this is easier said than done. We want to avoid, to the best of our abilities, bringing our preconceived bias into the process; IE we want to avoid “reading into scripture” whatever we want it to say (eisegesis). I anticipate that this will bring howls of protest, but my contention is that this is exactly what has been done by my opponent – indeed must be done to defend his position.
We also need to understand that much of the Bible is narrative in nature, simply describing events that took place. Endless difficulties arise when believers take scripture that was intended to merely describe an event and interpret it to be normative; IE a directive or rule. Again, I will demonstrate that this is what my opponent has done.
At this point, I would like to introduce my contention that the F&Ws fellowship is one of many “restorationist” groups. Following is a brief description from Wikipedia:
Restorationist organizations include Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, Seventh-day Adventists and others. These groups teach widely divergent theologies, but they all arose from the belief that the true pattern of the Christian religion died out through apostasy many years before and was finally restored by their churches. Some believe that they alone fully embody this restoration exclusively; others understand themselves as conforming to a rediscovered pattern of original Christianity that is now found in many churches, including their own. (This is the official stance of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), for example). Some restorationist denominations state that mainline Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches are not actually Christian.
Restorationism is based on a belief called the Great Apostasy, that traditional Christianity has departed so far from the original Christian principles that it is not redeemable. Because of its divisions, errors and compromises with the world, the claim is that the corrupted church fell out of line with the church founded by Jesus. If there were no apostasy-at-large and a church on the true-and-legitimate pattern was present, there would be no need for a Restoration. Thus, diverse Restorationists share with one another the conviction that there has been an apostasy from the true faith, which they have undertaken to correct.
I believe that the F&Ws, included in the description as Christian Conventions, rightly belong in the list above. I also believe that GiT considers that they are the only group to successfully restore Jesus’ only true way, and many, if not most F&Ws would agree. Most simply don’t realize how many people are members of groups that started for the very same reasons and make the very same claims. The common ground for all restorationist groups is this statement:
(they) understand themselves as conforming to a rediscovered pattern of original Christianity
In order to help readers understand the error of pattern theology, and recognize it as applied to my opponent’s position, I thought it might be helpful – and extremely interesting – to share with you some of the patterns various groups have gleaned from Bible narratives and established as normative issues central to their beliefs, to the point of declaring others as non Christian and doomed to hell for non compliance. My hope is that, in addition to recognizing the absurdity involved, you will understand the danger of inconsistent, random application of “patterns”. After this brief demonstration, I will deconstruct GiT’s defense and illustrate that he has fallen prey to this flawed method of Bible interpretation.
The narrative I would like to use is one the F&Ws commonly use to defend the meeting in the home – the Last Supper. We are all familiar with the defense that this “meeting”, which is universally accepted as Jesus’ institution of communion, also established the meeting in the home. Following is an interesting list of patterns gleaned from the same narrative - patterns that are actually central practices of groups and grounds for declarations of salvation, lost eternity, or schism.
Upper room. There are people who believe true worship can only take place on the second floor of a building. They feel their defense is further bolstered by the narrative describing Paul speaking in an upstairs room in Acts 20:7-8.
Hymn Singing and Going Out. Remember how it describes Jesus and the disciples singing a hymn and then going out to the Mt. of Olives? In my research, I came upon a story of a visiting pastor who was told he was to speak upon completion of the hymn sung after communion. As he approached the lectern, the entire congregation stood up, left the building and came back in.
Lord’s Supper at Night. Obviously, the Last Supper took place in the evening. That communion should only be taken at night is a position passionately held by some, particularly those that also uphold the upper room pattern.
Foot Washing. This is an issue that I wondered about for a long time and was instrumental in helping me recognize the problem with patterns. Not only did Jesus obviously wash the disciple’s feet, but a case could probably be made that he actually gave a commandment to continue the practice when he said “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you”. There are people that feel that he did intend that the practice be continued. Most people don’t interpret his commandment literally, but as a spiritual command to serve one another – which is what I personally believe. But the point is that here we can easily see how prone we can be to “picking and choosing” what portions of scripture we accept as narrative or normative.
One-Cup. The belief that communion can only be rightly administered with “one cup”. This is an extremely contentious area, especially with adherents of the One Cup with Handle group. Seriously.
Fermented wine vs grape juice. This one is self explanatory, but came as surprise how contentious this subject can be.
One loaf and bread pinching. Another contentious area, usually connected to the One Cup pattern. Obviously Jesus didn’t use sliced bread. Some feel we should know better than to pinch bread from a slice.
Sitting down. Since Jesus and the disciples were sitting down at the table, some people feel it is equally obvious that communion should be taken while sitting down. Except for the folks that feel the NIV rightly interpreted the verse to say they were “reclined”. I wasn’t able to find out if this meant reclining on the floor or on La-Z-Boys.
OK, now I’m just getting silly….but that’s the point. At what point can we rightly discern what scripture is simply describing events as they happened from scripture to be treated as a commandment - a true pattern to follow? It is clear that well meaning, passionate Christians somehow feel they can randomly choose from the above list particular points as normative, critical issues on the one hand and explain away the others as narrative on the other hand. I believe it is also clear that the F&Ws employ this same flawed methodology.
We are all aware that the patterns F&Ws believe are necessary to re-establish the true church are the meeting in the home and the itinerant 2x2 ministry. The premise of my opponent’s argument is that true believers can only be found amongst people that align themselves with these patterns. Indeed, in a discussion with an overseer I was asked if I accepted the "belief in the meetings in the home and the worker’s ministry as fruits of the Spirit”. My contention is that both of these issues are simply patterns that have been plucked from Biblical narrative and transformed into normative characteristics attempting to identify the F&Ws fellowship as God’s only true church on earth.
In his opening statement GiT said:
…..if the Gospel - if that collection of writings, that way of life - has any meaning at all, then those most intimate with that meaning would surely have been the Apostles. After all, these men, anointed by Jesus, taught the Gospel for varying lengths of time amounting to decades; they KNEW what the Gospel was; they KNEW what the Church ought to be. Surely then, their faith and practice is a sure guide to how we, as Christians in the modern world, ought to live out our Faith.
For this purpose we of The Church make heavy use of the Acts of the Apostles which is given for our instruction into the ways of the Christian Church…..
……Well, what is the Apostolic example?
I couldn’t have phrased the question better myself. Indeed, what is the Apostolic example? For our immediate purposes, I’m happy to restrict myself to the Acts of the Apostles in order to illustrate the use of pattern theology by my opponent. Before I begin, perhaps readers would be interested in the following reference:
The critical hermeneutical question here is whether biblical narratives that describe what happened in the early church also function as norms intended to delineate what must happen in the ongoing church. Are there instances from Acts of which one may appropriately say, “We must do this,” or should one merely say, “We may do this?” Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way. (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D Fee and Douglas Stuart, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p 97, bold in original)
First, I would like to point out that GiT has done what I have witnessed of nearly every defender of this position – he has ignored the scriptural account of original Apostles and focused on Paul. I find it interesting that he said, as quoted above, that there could be no better guide than the Apostles yet makes nary a single reference to them. Following is a list of scripture that GiT used in his opening statement:
Acts 7:48-49 – the words of Stephen 2 Corinthians 5:1 – Paul Acts 16:40 – regarding Paul’s ministry Romans 16:5 – Paul 1 Corinthians 16:19 – Paul Colossians 4:15 – Paul 2 John 1:10 – a proof text that actually weakens his defense, which I will discuss shortly.
Let me say clearly, that my point is not to disparage Paul’s ministry in any way, shape, or form. My point is simply to illustrate that while Paul indeed had a dynamic ministry to the Gentiles on one hand, the work of the Apostles in Jerusalem looked quite different. As we look at what scripture tells us about them, perhaps we can ask ourselves why do the F&Ws look at Paul’s work as the accepted “pattern”, but ignore the “patterns” we could just as easily glean from the Apostles? Or put another way, how can a defense be made that the F&Ws belief in the meetings in the home and the itinerant ministry is founded on the “Apostles” – as GiT’s quotes above demonstrate, while ignoring the actual text describing their days in Jerusalem?
……Well, what is the Apostolic example? A close examination of the narrative describing the Apostles early days shows us that:
They cast lots. They spoke in tongues. They immediately baptized new converts. They did signs and wonders. They met in the temple courts daily. They broke bread together in homes. They prayed in the temple. They healed. The believers lived communally. The Apostles were not itinerant. They practiced laying on of hands. They had homes. They had wives.
There are many, many more examples but I think this list is sufficient to make my points. There are 13 points on the list above. I should also point out that several of the acts on the list have multiple references and strong cases could be made that they be considered norms, and in fact many groups do just that. So, in the first 8 chapters of Acts, the chapters that arguably provide the clearest picture of the early church in Jerusalem, how many items do the F&Ws claim from the above list as normative? One. I dare say that an unbiased reading of the first chapters of Acts will reveal that nothing even remotely resembling the F&Ws fellowship existed in Jerusalem. The history of the Early Church certainly confirms that to be true.
With this exercise in mind, I would encourage readers to look at another commonly cited portion of scripture in this light. Peter’s trip to Joppa. This trip is often offered up as an extremely weak defense of Peter’s itinerancy. With an unbiased view look at what Peter actually did and reconcile it with the F&Ws view. See for yourself how easy it is to walk over narrative scripture and snatch one single point to support a preconceived position.
So the question being begged is: what are the true patterns we actually can base our service on? I’ll address that question in my next post, as well as the unaddressed charge of proof texting I made against GiT. I’m guessing that most will agree that this installment is long enough.
FINAL EDIT
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 13, 2008 10:24:37 GMT -5
Thank you Zorro.
« Last Edit: Today at 0:09 by Zorro »
Second response from GiT?
BTW, we're now halfway. Well done guys.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 18, 2008 7:43:15 GMT -5
GiT,
Will you be responding again? I realise you have a tight schedule. Perhaps you could give a rough time by which you think you'll be able to respond?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Mar 20, 2008 21:59:15 GMT -5
It appears GiT has withdrawn. After three requests for further posts I've had no response, though he has taken the time to attempt to draw me into a debate about Calvinism. I do understand he is busy and has had a lot on his plate but out of courtesy I'd hoped at least for a reply requesting extra time. Since no response has been forthcoming Zorro is free to post closing comments on his own argument.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 21, 2008 1:44:49 GMT -5
I promised in my last post to discuss what Biblical patterns we could safely rely on and I would like to start with a discussion of God’s attributes; IE the character of God. God’s attributes are commonly classified as either incommunicable or communicable. Incommunicable attributes are those that God doesn’t share with us, while communicable attributes are those he does share with us. God’s eternity, infinity, omnipresence, and unchangeableness would be examples of incommunicable attributes. Communicable attributes that he does share with us would include his love, knowledge, mercy, justice, etc. The very characteristics of God, himself, that he wills to impart to us through his Spirit must surely be considered the safest patterns we could possibly search the Bible for. The following partial list of attributes and definitions are found in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: Wisdom. God’s wisdom means that God always chooses the best goals and the best means to those goals.Truthfulness (and faithfulness). God’s truthfulness means that he is the true God, and that his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth.Goodness. The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and all that God is and does is worthy of approval.Love. God’s love means that God eternally gives of himself to others.Mercy, Grace, Patience. God’s mercy means God’s goodness towards those in misery and distress. God’s grace means God’s goodness toward those who deserve only punishment. God’s patience means God’s goodness in withholding of punishment toward those who sin over a period of time.Holiness. God’s holiness means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor.Righteousness, Justice. God’s righteousness means that God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right.We can live our entire life learning about the character of God, allowing him to impart these attributes to us, and searching for them in the lives of others. Jesus was the perfect manifestation of the fullness of God’s character and when he said that he was the way, the truth and the life surely he was imploring us to follow the pattern of his character. I also believe that a dominant theme of the Bible is the specific attribute of God’s love. I don’t believe it would be overstatement to consider John 3:16 to be a cornerstone of Christianity: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.In my opinion, for us to begin to understand the pattern of God’s love we need to try to see the world from God’s loving perspective (let this mind be in you….). And there is no better place to begin seeing God’s love for his creation than to consider his plan to redeem mankind to himself. I would surmise that every Christian considers Christ’s sacrifice to be the pinnacle of redemptive history. However, when I see people insisting that salvation is limited to only those who submit themselves to patterns that they exclusively claim, I have little doubt that they don’t fully understand God’s great pattern of love – the redemption, regeneration and continued sanctification of his people. The verse says whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Can it actually be that simple? My opponent insists that we need identifiable outward marks. I once thought so, too. Many years ago I read an outstanding study on Romans 14 by Donald Karnes, a worker. He explained that Romans 14 illustrated that the people of that day had many contentious points of difference – yet they remained within the will of God. I wondered how could this be? How could one person be fully persuaded to eat only herbs, another eat meat (a very divisive issue of the day) and they BOTH be right before God? How could they have fellowship? Verse 17 changed my life: 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. I pondered this verse for months and came to understand that, in the context of the chapter, it is at the heart of understanding how to overcome divisive human tendencies. I realized that man demands unity of the outward, agreement on issues of “eating and drinking” (Paul’s own way of summarizing a chapter’s worth of divisive issues) – and insist upon that agreement to define their ability to have fellowship with another and identify the kingdom (or church). But Paul was explaining that’s not what the kingdom of God is about. It’s about “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”. At the time I could see that even in my little fellowship meeting there wasn’t unity and agreement in outward issues, and I came to realize that true fellowship occurs in a different, spiritual realm. Actually, I believe most F&Ws would even agree with that statement. But I also recognized that members typically lean very heavily on the outward issues as the ultimate, decisive indicator (I spoke with a worker about this once and he described this as people needing a spiritual crutch). I thought one day we’ll stand before the judge of our hearts as individuals stripped of outward trappings and I pondered for a long time what the fellowship would look like if all the outward trappings were stripped away now? Shouldn’t we still be able to identify each other? If so, how? I came to understand that that real pattern for our life, the true identifiers of God’s children, are described as the fruit of the spirit, or more precisely, one fruit, with many characteristics; IE the very characteristics of God himself. And to my amazement, I began to recognize those characteristics in others outside of the fellowship. I came to the full realization that Paul was describing true fellowship as taking place in a spiritual realm, not a natural one. In my opinion, this is a critical portion of scripture, if we are to recognize another of God’s great patterns in scripture – the uniting of his people. I understand the typical protests …..how can I even think of discussing unity with a backdrop of denominationalism, Protestantism vs Catholicism, etc? I suggest that we look at scripture and consider that God’s plan to unite Jews and Gentiles gives us another true pattern to live by today. The entire New Testament describes that plan and the extreme difficulty in implementing it. I also believe that the Bible demonstrates this to be an unfinished work. But I think several things are clear. First, God’s plan of uniting his people enlarged his kingdom, not shrink it. I marvel that F&Ws take scripture describing the uniting of Jew and Gentile into one fold, one body, one faith, one baptism, etc (enlarging his kingdom) and turn it into a defense of their fellowship somehow representing the one fold, one body, etc (effectively dividing and shrinking God’s kingdom). God’s plan of uniting Jew and Gentile clearly gives us the pattern of enlarging the kingdom’s borders across intense, prohibitive, outward forces. This is still the plan and pattern for today. I will contend that if stripped of the multitude of outward differences in the world of “Christianity” as a whole, and likewise the F&Ws, there exists much more unity amongst orthodox believers than the F&Ws fellowship. Agreement on the core issues of salvation by grace alone, justification, sanctification, the Trinity, Christ’s deity and so forth are found everywhere you look. I offer 10 statements of faith for consideration. These are big and small, local and national, various denominations as well as non denominational churches. www.stonebriar.org/about-us/beliefs/detailed-statement-of-faith/www.truthforlife.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abt_what_we_believewww.thedoor.org/about/documents/statementoffaith.pdfgenesisjourney.org/bigpic.htmwww.imagodeicommunity.com/information/mission/theology/www.moodychurch.org/information/doctrine.htmlwww.oakhillschurchsa.org/about/beliefs/www.algonaefree.org/?page_id=9www.fccfranklin.com/app/w_page.php?id=22&type=sectionwww.gracecommunitynet.org/Though my opponent protests loudly that his fellowship universally embraces orthodox beliefs, it simply isn’t so. I know for certain that GiT personally accepts traditional Christian orthodoxy, and it’s also clear that he understands the implications of what it would mean to concede that his orthodox beliefs are at odds with his fellowship, at large. But the reality he faces is that there is no unity at all amongst members regarding salvation by grace alone, the Trinity, Christ’s deity, justification, sanctification, etc. To deny that this true is GiT’s option, but that is to ignore the truth of the matter. In his opening, GiT described those being confronted “by the great yawning chasms of doctrine between denominations”. I believe the stark reality is that the only points of doctrinal unity within his fellowship are the meeting in the home and the worker’s ministry. Even the issue of exclusivity, which once enjoyed nearly universal agreement, is causing division and strife – as GiT knows only too well. So, which is the critical issue – sound doctrine or the presence of an itinerant ministry? What does scripture say? This is probably a good place to address the proof text GiT used when introducing 2 John 10 as evidence of the meeting in the home. First of all, the context of the verse has nothing at all to do with a meeting in anyone’s home. It is about inviting false teachers into one’s home. Not just any false teachers, but itinerant false teachers. Consider these references: During the first two centuries the gospel was taken from place to place by traveling evangelists and teachers. Believers customarily took these missionaries into their homes and gave them provisions for their journey when they left. Since Gnostic teachers also relied on this practice, 2 John was written to urge discernment in supporting traveling teachers; otherwise, someone might unintentionally contribute to the propagation of heresy rather than truth. ( Introduction to 2 John, Zondervan Study Bible) 2 John 10 forbids Christians to give a greeting to itinerant heretical teachers who were not proclaiming the true gospel at all. ( Sysyematic Theology, Wayne Grudem p 877) Let us further consider the words of the “pattern” himself, Paul: Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.The clear conclusion is that it was the message that was of critical importance, not that it was delivered by an itinerant minister. John is discussing the actual presence of itinerant ministers delivering a heretical message and Paul acknowledges that he himself, the very pattern of itinerant ministers, would be accursed if his message were false. So, what is the true message? For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. With all of this in mind, let us look closely at the passage I suggested in my last post – Peter’s trip to Joppa and Caesarea, as described in Acts 9, 10, and 11. Can there be any question at all that the theme of this story is the uniting of Jew and Gentile? Within the narrative of this event we see a mention of Peter traveling “about the country”. We also see him heal a paralytic and raise a woman from the dead. In light of the monumental events that unfolded initiating the reconciliation of the nations of the world, the simple reference of Peter traveling about the country appears trivial at best; while something as unbelievable as raising one from the dead becomes a secondary issue within the context of the entire story. And what a magnificent story it is, arguably the crowning event in Peter’s earthly ministry. Assuming that readers are familiar with the story, I want to touch upon the text that I feel are the cornerstones not only of this portion of scripture, but of the pattern of reconciliation they establish. In Acts 11:28 Peter says: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.This is a truly remarkable verse. Peter had absolutely crystal clear scripture to support his position against having fellowship with the Gentiles. But God has now shown him something completely contrary to what generations of Jews had believed regarding “outsiders”, if you will. The story continues: Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.Another remarkable statement, but one that obviously begs the answer to “what is right?” Peter then gives a brief history of the Christ and concludes: He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.I have little doubt that there are readers who will read these verses and conclude the significant message here is this: He commanded us to preach to the people. However, can there be any question at all that Peter was personally amazed that he was delivering this great message of reconciliation: everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name?And then the proof: 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.Peter’s immediate response: 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."Before we look at the conclusion of this incredible event, let’s consider the context. Here is Peter rising above traditional scriptural guidance to enter the next great phase of redemptive history. I’m not certain it’s even possible for us to fully grasp the depth of hate the two peoples felt toward each other. They were mortal enemies…. and God’s plan was to reconcile them. Does anyone believe the contention between members of the F&Ws fellowship and those “outside” is even remotely compared? I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether the account of Acts 11 gives us a “pattern” acceptable to guide our hearts. When Peter returned to Jerusalem it says the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Were they just in their criticism? According to their understanding of the Law, they certainly were. It says that Peter explained “precisely” what had happened, including hearing a voice from heaven saying 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' Then he explains the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit and his reaction: 15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" What was the proof? Their receipt of the Holy Spirit. Period. Then the verse that I consider absolutely unbelievable: 18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."Consider that these men were willing to accept that God had revealed his plan to alter the course of history based on one simple piece of evidence – Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. Did they begrudgingly concede the possibility that a Gentile here or there might somehow, inexplicably, receive the Holy Spirit? No. They rejoiced. Why? Because they knew that this watershed event changed everything. In closing, I want to explain something that I feel has been mischaracterized by my opponent. In my opening, my intention wasn't to hold myself up as an example of righteousness. My point is very simple. Just as the Apostles recognized a single event signaled God’s inclusion of Gentiles in his kingdom and changed their view completely, the same is true for us. All it takes is to accept the Spirit's presence in one person to change everything and begin the process of reconciliation with the one true body of Christ. If someone considers me to be a poor example of Christ, that’s fine….consider someone else, there are plenty to choose from. FINAL EDIT
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Mar 21, 2008 2:24:54 GMT -5
At long last….the closing statement!!!!
In GiT’s opening statement he said the following:
Let us imagine we have two classrooms. In each classroom stands a science teacher, one of whom knows his discipline well, while the other does not. The knowledgeable teacher conveys truthful facts and scientific realities, while the ignorant teacher conveys many falsehoods and inaccuracies. Which class of students would carry away more scientific truth from their teacher? Obviously the answer would be those who had the knowledgeable teacher who spoke that which was true, factual and accurate.
In my opening statement I quoted the following verse:
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
I then offered this observation:
…..we need to learn the same lesson if we are to avoid the same, ultimate outcome – condemning the innocent.
A few days ago, an enraged GiT leveled the following against a fellow member of his fellowship:
XXXXXX is one with whom I would never worship. I would never share bread with him, nor do I want anything to do with him. He represents a disease in the Fellowship - one of concilliary behaviour toward the world.
His views are anathema to me. His perspective is one of siding with apostates and heretics. I have nothing in common with him, and regard him as a "false brother" - and a thoroughly repugnant jackass who likens the Friends to Jim Jone's followers. I cannot express my loathing sufficiently in words.
I will duly note that GiT later issued an apology for “harsh” comments, and I want to be sensitive to that. However, it should also be noted that GiT ventured far beyond “harsh” and onto very dangerous ground by accusing a brother of “anathema”, which is the denunciation of one as accursed. With brotherly kindness, I implore GiT to learn the lesson – condemning the innocent is the unavoidable end of your worldview. With that, I leave readers to ponder for themselves about our “teaching” abilities and rest my case.
FINAL EDIT
|
|