OK, One Last Shot

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

OK, One Last Shot

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Clarifications (RTC)
Re:

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
Re:

And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Re:

Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Yes it is (RTC)
Re:

Holds no water (passerby)
Re:

You use wrong cup (RTC)
Re:

pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Re:

Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Re:

Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t)
Re:

Hi Anon,
Re:

biblical?
Re:

Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Re:

Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Re:

Thayer's Greek Definition of Ekklesia (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Still got more (RTC)
Re:

Not Much Point in going further ... (Christopher Yip)
Re:

The same point (RTC)
Date: 2001, Jun 06
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

RTC,
RTC,

It's amazing and regrettable that you have this blind spot which prevents you from seeing your own contradiction even though they appear within a few paragraphs of each other:

"Since it was the usual way, their norm of doing things, my question is why would we want to depart from those norms. You tend to misrepresent my position by saying that I advocate a do or die position, that I am demanding that we must do exactly what they do."

vs.

"If that pattern is consistent with or an outgrowth of the doctrinal teaching of Scripture, then we must conclude that it was meant as an authoritative example for the church."

Perhaps in my misunderstanding, I have thought you used "normative" and "authoritative" (example) as "rule" and "no biblical support" as a serious aberration deserving the term heresy. It is liken to when we say that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification finds no support in the bible, we are not simply saying that you can still follow it if you please. We are declaring it to be heretical, something that should NEVER be followed. This is why I think you are absolutely wrong to describe the churches this way.

On the other hand, if you say by "normative" you simply mean the "usual", or just simply what they did, then we would argue that we need not follow the form as long as the principles are adhered to. Why wouldn't we want to follow it if we can? Well, if God's Word does not make it mandatory, then we will need to exercise discretion and respond to the circumstances expediently. Therefore, in the Apostolic and Church Fathers' time, they found it necessary, in order to safeguard doctrines, to have established churches which became the guardian and deposits of biblical truth. So, if anyone is in doubt as to what the apostles taught, they should turn to these churches for verification. Hence, Irenaeus, for instance, make a big deal out of tracing apostolic succession to Paul and Peter. We owe a great debt to the Ecumenical Councils which helped shaped orthodoxy and refuted heresies. Because the Fathers felt that this form of ecclesiology did not contravene any of the biblical principles, they felt free to evolve the church organisation to meet the contingencies. It is this that I feel you can't seem to grasp.

We think also of many examples such as mode of baptism, leavened or unleavened bread for communion, one cup or many. Certainly in all these cases, we can gather from NT what the NT believers actually did - John baptised in the river and full immersion so the disciples most probably followed; they ate unleavened bread since it was the Passover feast, they used a single cup (debateable but won't go there). The question we then face is - must we do the same? Surely there is theology behind all these practices - full immersion to indicate dying and rising to life, unleavened bread to represent purity, single cup to represent oneness and unity. We can build up a theology for quite a lot of things we observe in the NT. We can certainly give good reasons for the many things they did.

So if we say to the affusionist or aspersionist that their practice is "not supported in the bible", not "normative", or to the many churches that use leavened bread plus those which don't even use bread or to those who use many cups the same thing, are we saying they should stop because it is "unbiblical" in the sense that it goes against the "rule" in the bible?
You hold two clubs. When we say that it is not "do or die" that we can only have house churches, not institutional churches, or that we must have a college of elders but not a bishop, or that we have structured worship, you bring out the left club that reads "we must conclude that it was meant as an authoritative example for the church". And when we say that we would then need to eat unleavened bread, or to be baptised only in rivers fully immersed, or to gird our loins, etc. (if you want us to tell you the wonderful theology behind all these practices, I'm sure we can find something for you; earlier in this post, I have given some), then you bring out the right club that says "You tend to misrepresent my position by saying that I advocate a do or die position, that I am demanding that we must do exactly what they do".

We, or at least I, take offense at the way you use "normative", "no biblical support". Perhaps it is my own oversensitivity in which case I will be glad if proven wrong. While it is true that the NT church had no denominations, no order of service, no big bands, no "speaker", no announcements, etc. it does not mean we cannot have it AS LONG AS the principles of church life are not sacrificed. What principles? Those that are found in Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles - preaching the Word, teaching, reproving, correcting, praying for one another, bearing each other's burdens, singing and praising the Lord, meeting the needs of believers, etc.
I believe you insist (and I think you will again deny this) that these are somehow mutually exclusive to our churches because of the way it is organised. Sure, you may not see ALL of these things in ONE meeting but must it be? Yes because the NT church did it this way? Here comes the left club. But they ate unleavened bread for their communal meal - do house churches do that as a rule? No because that would be exactness? Here comes the right club.

And so on and so on.

I have broken my own word and repeated myself here, I know. I am just giving it one last shot. To end, I would like to respond to a few points.
++ Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation held to the latter policy. He was therefore content to accept many of the trappings of the church of Rome as long as they did not contradict a biblical teaching or principle. The radical reformers sought to form the church on the basis of what is specifically taught in Scripture. When we approach Scripture we should always ask "what does it teach and why?" It should not be "it never say cannot, so we can" attitude, and then go on to declare that it is biblical.

So you are saying that Luther and the Lutherans did not form their church on the basis of what is specifically taught in Scripture. That's a BIG one. Perhaps they have ALREADY asked "what does it teach and why" and have concluded that "it never say cannot, so we can". Could that be a possibility, RTC?

I am not very familiar with Luther's writings but to think that John Calvin has not asked "what does it teach and why" before concluding that "it never say cannot, so we can" and thus laid down the foundations for the ecclesiology of the Reformed churches of today in his Institutes Book IV is quite unbelieveable. Calvin said,

9. Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20)...

10. We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, ...

11. ... If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments, we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun pride and presumption in the other." (Institutes, IV, 1:9,10,11)

These are things you will certainly find in our churches. I simply find it incredulous to think that Calvin dreamed up these marks of the Church without actually examining the bible and asking "what does it teach and why". Simply incredulous.

I also find in rather incredulous going back further to Cyprian and Augustine that, in their writings that they too have not asked the same question with regards to church ecclesiology and have established themselves as bishops of their churches without proper exegesis.
Could it be, RTC, that these folks have in fact studied the bible and concluded as we do today? Of course they could be wrong. They are not infallible, they are not God but so far, as what I have been trying to fish out from you for the last 6 posts, I haven't seen any compelling evidence otherwise. They had the bible, they are truly masters of the Word, and it escaped them that their ecclesiology of bishops, Pentarchy, ecumenical councils were all "not supported by bible" and not "normative". Gosh!

Previously: They didn't have denominational names then, they divided themselves this way: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:12 KJV) Paul later told them that such divisions were necessary: "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 KJV)
++That�s appalling! You mean to say that Paul approve of their way of dividing themselves according to personalities? Then why the rebuke in Chapter 1? I am surprised at the way you interpret this portion of Scripture. We must be careful in interpreting the NT. In Chapter 11 Paul was not endorsing their divisions, he was simply recognising that division is inevitable because people are like that. But among such divisions some will be found to be approved by God whereas some will not. Surely those who decry the "I am of Peter" syndrome in some way separate themselves from among the others in their actions and thinking, and these are the people whom God approved. And among believers there will be diversity of opinions on any issue but some are clearly more Scriptural in their understanding than the others, these again are those who have God�s approval in the sense that their views are faithful to Scriptures.

What a word to use, RTC, "appalling"? Please don't go berserk on your own misreading. I did not say Paul approved of divisions. I reproduce the paragraph above for you to read again.

You said the early church did not have denominations, remember? I am responding to that. They HAD their divisions which basically amounted to denominationalism. Sure, Paul did not approve of them but Paul did not, like anti-Protestant Mr Tan does, forcefit everyone into one congregation at the expense of truth. Instead, he explains why he tolerates such divisions.
But the point is that even though we have denominations and divisions just as the Corinthians had, that don't make us any less a church. Consider Calvin's words with regards to the Corinthians division:

"14. They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle's sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order. If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches? (Institutes, IV, 1:14)
Paul still calls the Corinthian Church a church DESPITE divisions or in modern terminology, denominations.

Previously: And as we have told you, the three forms of church governance - episcopalian, congregational, prebyterian are all mentioned, albeit in sketches, in the bible.
++That�s what prooftexting does, but not if you understand the NT story. That�s why I pointed you to read "Revolution" by Gene Edwards.

++Again you are going by the "never say this, never say that" approach to the neglect of what the early church did and why. I base my practice on what the Bible says whereas you base yours on what the Bible does not say. The bottom line is still the Word of God, you simply have no basis for how the church is functioning in the institutional church setup.

ME: Prooftexting eh? Well, it is always easy to assert that for your opponent. I would like to borrow Calvin's words again and note particularly his assertion that he teaches on the authority of Scriptures. You may say I prooftext but you would need more than that to refute Calvin:

7. While we assign a church to each pastor, we deny not that he who is fixed to one church may assist other churches, whether any disturbance has occurred which requires his presence, or his advice is asked on some doubtful matter. But because that policy is necessary to maintain the peace of the Church, each has his proper duty assigned, lest all should become disorderly, run up and down without any certain vocation, flock together promiscuously to one spot, and capriciously leave the churches vacant, being more solicitous for their own convenience than for the edification of the Church. This arrangement ought, as far as possible, to be commonly observed, that every one, content with his own limits, may not encroach on another's province. Nor is this a human invention. It is an ordinance of God. For we read that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters over each of the churches of Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium (Acts 14:23); and Paul himself enjoins Titus to ordain presbyters in every town (Tit. 1:5). In like manner, he mentions the bishops of the Philippians, and Archippus, the bishop of the Colossians (Phil. 1:1; Col. 4:17). And in the Acts we have his celebrated address to the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus (Acts 20:28). Let every one, then, who undertakes the government and care of one church, know that he is bound by this law of divine vocation, not that he is astricted to the soil (as lawyers speak), that is, enslaved, and, as it were, fixed, as to be unable to move a foot if public utility so require, and the thing is done duly and in order; but he who has been called to one place ought not to think of removing, nor seek to be set free when he deems it for his own advantage. Again, if it is expedient for any one to be transferred to another place, he ought not to attempt it of his own private motive, but to wait for public authority.

8. In giving the name of bishops, presbyters, and pastors, indiscriminately to those who govern churches, I have done it on the authority of Scripture, which uses the words as synonymous. To all who discharge the ministry of the word it gives the name of bishops. Thus Paul, after enjoining Titus to ordain elders in every city, immediately adds, "A bishop must be blameless," &c. (Tit. 1:5, 7). So in another place he salutes several bishops in one church (Phil. 1:1). And in the Acts, the elders of Ephesus, whom he is said to have called together, he, in the course of his address, designates as bishops (Acts 20:17). Here it is to be observed, that we have hitherto enumerated those offices only which consist in the ministry of the word; nor does Paul make mention of any others in the passage which we have quoted from the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates other offices, as powers, gifts of healing, interpretation, government, care of the poor (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28). As to those which were temporary, I say nothing, for it is not worth while to dwell upon them. But there are two of perpetual duration--viz. government and care of the poor. By these governors I understand seniors selected from the people to unite with the bishops in pronouncing censures and exercising discipline. For this is the only meaning which can be given to the passage, "He that ruleth with diligence" (Rom. 12:8). From the beginning, therefore, each church had its senate, composed of pious, grave, and venerable men, in whom was lodged the power of correcting faults. Of this power we shall afterwards speak. Moreover, experience shows that this arrangement was not confined to one age, and therefore we are to regard the office of government as necessary for all ages...

10. Now seeing that in the sacred assembly all things ought to be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), there is nothing in which this ought to be more carefully observed than in settling government, irregularity in any respect being nowhere more perilous. Wherefore, lest restless and turbulent men should presumptuously push themselves forward to teach or rule (an event which actually was to happen), it was expressly provided that no one should assume a public office in the Church without a call (Heb. 5:4; Jer. 17:16). Therefore, if any one would be deemed a true minister of the Church, he must first be duly called; and, secondly, he must answer to his calling; that is, undertake and execute the office assigned to him. This may often be observed in Paul, who, when he would approve his apostleship, almost always alleges a call, together with his fidelity in discharging the office. If so great a minister of Christ dares not arrogate to himself authority to be heard in the Church, unless as having been appointed to it by the command of his Lord, and faithfully performing what has been intrusted to him, how great the effrontery for any man, devoid of one or both of them, to demand for himself such honour. But as we have already touched on the necessity of executing the office, let us now treat only of the call...

15. The next question is, Whether a minister should be chosen by the whole Church, or only by colleagues and elders, who have the charge of discipline; or whether they may be appointed by the authority of one individual? Those who attribute this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5); and also to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man" (l Tim. 5:22). But they are mistaken if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever pleased them, while all others were excluded. Lest this should seem to be a fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words are, Ceirotonhvsante" presbutevrou" kat! ejkklhsivan (Acts 14:23). They therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election. Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3). Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people (Acts 6:2). "Those examples," says Cyprian, "show that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all." We see, then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. (Institutes, IV, 3:7-8, 10, 15)
That seems to me to be pretty sound exegesis and exposition. You can say you don't agree with our exegesis, but please don't say our churches are unbiblical or cannot find support in the bible. Calvin demonstrates ably what the essentials are in biblical ecclesiology. Please don�t sidetrack to the issue that not all denominations follow this Presbyterian model. The point is that the "institutional" churches do not contravene any of the biblical principles for church polity. They have been structured to allow the church to respond to the needs of the times while at the same time not sacrificing any of the principles of church polity. The cell group is part of that continual renewal and adaptation to meet the needs of the Body of Christ.

Calvin has studied the early Church�s ecclesiology and concluded:

"1. HITHERTO we have discoursed of the order of church government as delivered to us in the pure word of God, and of ministerial offices as instituted by Christ (chap. 1 sec. 5, 6; chap. 3). Now that the whole subject may be more clearly and familiarly explained, and also better fixed in our minds, it will be useful to attend to the form of the early church, as this will give us a kind of visible representation of the divine institution. For although the bishops of those times published many canons, in which they seemed to express more than is expressed by the sacred volume, yet they were so cautious in framing all their economy on the word of God, the only standard, that it is easy to see that they scarcely in any respect departed from it. Even if something may be wanting in these enactments, still, as they were sincerely desirous to preserve the divine institution, and have not strayed far from it, it will be of great benefit here briefly to explain what their observance was..." (Institutes, IV, 4:1)

Have you considered the possibility that to you, perhaps no exegesis is exegesis unless the conclusion is the same as yours?

Christopher