Missed by a long 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...

Missed by a long 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)
Re:

OK, One Last Shot (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 08
From: 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: ++What’s the problem? Isn’t Scriptures authoritative? Of course you can choose not to follow these examples, in that sense I am not saying you must follow the norms or face God’s wrath, the consequences are entirely of your own choice. 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. ++Then you have really misunderstood. Normative simply means the norm and I am not using it in any other way. Vine defined heresy as "an opinion," especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage. It is up to you to look at current church practices and evaluate them in the light of this definition. 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. ++If there’s a norm or some usual way of behaviour which we can discern from the NT, then it means logically that there is a guide for us to look at and follow. It also means that there is a consistent and usual expression of the principle behind the form. Like I said, there are some forms that best expresses the principles and I believe the NT has shown us what they were. Of course you don’t NEED to or HAVE to follow them if you don’t WANT to. In no way do I make it mandatory for you. I also don’t think that the NT make it mandatory for me to follow their expression. It is not necessarily a right and wrong thing, which is just what you are wanting to see, but it is also about bad, good, best practices. I do recognise one thing, that the early church had a consistent practice that flowed out of their life with Christ and this persisted for the first three centuries and beyond by those meeting outside organised Christianity. My point of sharing is this, the NT lays down the “best practices” and that even if such practices are not rules to be followed, that if we choose to follow them, we reap the resultant benefits. 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. ++And a response is certainly required, but I do not agree that it is a matter solely decided on expediency. Expediency is a lousy guide in the matters of the church and it has many times been upheld at the expense of church life, ironically the very thing man tried to protect. We should again look to Scriptures for how the apostles responded to circumstances they faced. 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. ++Though the works of the church fathers are a valuable source of information, they should not be seen as authoritative and must still be checked. Yes, doctrines must be guarded, but was the elevation of one elder, later called Bishop, above the elders the right way? And please, I am not using talking about a moral right and wrong, but about a practice which the apostles has laid down for the church. The apostles did not establish churches to safeguard doctrines, did they? Who were supposed to safeguard the doctrines? Weren’t it the role of matured believers, the elders? Was it the job of one man? Or was it the role of every person, especially those whom the church knew as elders? If I were to ask you to evaluate between the two options (a) choose one man above the rest as the bulwark of truth (b) elders to refute false teachers, which would you think is biblical? Of course you can rely on a negative hermeneutic and say that the Bible NEVER say cannot have a bishop over the elders, but that is merely arguing from silence and is an artificially imposed dichotomy. For me I will argue from what the Bible has clearly said. Church history simply told us what happened, and we should be thankful for those things that should have happened which did. But we must also know that many times it weren’t so. 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. ++I can grasp the need to take measures to solve a problem, but I cannot agree with measures taken that ignore what the apostles has said. The principle to defend doctrines is rightly held, but the way in which it was done was far from biblical. And though you can say that their way doing things had some good in them, I wonder how much better would it had been if they heeded to the apostles’ teaching. It is one thing to have abled people (whom God has raised up as gifted people to the church) defending the doctrines, it is another to set them up (which is what man did) as a special defender of truth, and after they have long been laid in the earth, to become a perpetual institutional role for someone to fill. 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. ++The question we should ask is not “must we do the same” but “why would we want to do it differently?” after we are able to deduce the theological underpinnings? Unless you can demonstrate that it was merely on the basis of expediency that the early church did what they did, you cannot use expediency to justify what we are doing today. 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". ++For me it is very clear, the NT has certain practices which though not explicitly commanded as mandatory, were certainly normative for them. I believe these are intended and best practices which if we heed to them we will reap the benefits. And such practices are authoritative in that they were established or supported by the apostles. The problem comes when you try to be petty and split hairs with me. Take the issue of bread for instance, unleavened bread is not a common commodity we find here. So does it mean we stop it? Far from it that we should stop observing this practice because we can’t find such bread! That would be legalism and likely betrays a mystical significance imposed on the bread. In our house church meetings, we make do with normal bread though I am trying to source for unleavened bread. Why? Is it a mere legalistic adherence to NT church practices? No, but I believe that the use of unleavened bread communicates in its physical form a deeper theology of the Body of Christ as pure and blameless which the partakers resent can better appreciate and relate to. Does that mean I cannot have a proper Lord’s Supper with normal bread? Not at all, it’s just that normal bread cannot communicate or symbolise well that particular aspect of theology that unleavened bread does. Now, can you grasp this or not? 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. ++I have explained how I used the words “normative”. And by “no biblical support” I simply mean that what is being said cannot be supported by a proper exegesis of the Scriptures. You will need to examine yourself why you take offense, whether it is one that comes about because of Scriptural reasons or because I have kicked at some sacred cows. 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. ++Are you so certain that NOTHING is being lost or sacrificed? Do you know that you can sacrifice church life even without purporting to be sacrificing principles of church life? That what you do can undermine what you believe? Where is interaction when people are seated in pews facing the front listening to a sermon? You may uphold the principle of teaching but you have sacrificed the “one another” principle of 1 Cor 14:26. You may uphold the principle of leadership but yet sacrificed the “brotherhood” aspect of believers by making a caste system of clergy and laity. Can you grasp this or not? 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. ++The problem is really one of your own making. You see as rules to be obeyed what I see as examples to be followed. If the early church has certain things and we don’t have them, we must ask why. Failure to do that indicates a failure to examine ourselves in the light of the Bible. Paul clearly says a should in 1 Cor 14:26. But now you say “must meh?”. Well, it’s up to you. You think 1 Cor 14:26 should only take place in cell groups but not in Sunday service. I say it should take place whenever the church gathers as the early church knew of no such distinction between Sunday service and cell groups. You may say this is the problem with the under-developed ecclesiology of the early church whereas I say this is the problem with the IC which has departed from the simplicity of the NT. 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. ++That’s not what I am saying. You are trying to make me agree on a sweeping statement you make. 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 will not speculate over possibilities. But anyone can look at the Lutheran church or any other denominational church and what goes on in them and ask “what does Scripture has to say about that?” 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. ++No one is able to answer whether Calvin thought of this or not, we can only look at what he has laid down and evaluate it with the Scriptures. He sees the true form of the church as one that can demonstrate certain activities namely, preaching and observing sacraments. But do these things constitute a church or do they simply tells us what are some of the things the church engage in doing when gathered? 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. ++Have you any idea the form of church Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cyprian and Augustine that held to? Did they teach a church of voluntary association or was it a State Church they were building? Calvin wanted a Christian Geneva and sought to establish a Christian society, imposed and regulated through the State. Now, is the idea of a State Church Biblical? Augustine paved the way for the inquisition to take place, now did he examine the Bible for that? 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! ++Well if you are of the opinion that they have followed Scripture, then we will use Scripture to see if that’s true. And the Scriptures will test their doctrines and practices. 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. Paul still calls the Corinthian Church a church DESPITE divisions or in modern terminology, denominations. ++Was that what the issue is all about? I think you really missed it! Am I saying that those in the IC system are any less believers as those in the house churches? Am I saying that those with denominational loyalties are not a part of the Body of Christ? That’s not what I said. I have on many occasions said that those in the IC are my brethren too, in so far as any is a genuine believer. Yes the Corinthian church had their divisions, but there were no where like we have today, institutionalised divisions with registered denominational names! There were divisions but they had no denominations. No doubt some entertained a party spirit, but it was not an accepted way of life like we have it today. If Paul had to rebuke them for such divisions which were not yet full blown, do you think he would use any more kind words on the Christian scene today? Yes the Corinthian church was still a church, but it was a fragmented one that needed a scolding. Are you happy with the current situation? Are you tolerating such divisions today? Paul recognised it but he did not tolerate it but rebuked them for it. What about you? What are you doing about it? Or are you perpetuating it? ME: Prooftexting eh? Well, it is always easy to assert that for your opponent. ++Then show me how you come up with three forms of church government. 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: ++Then we will use Scripture and test some of the things Calvin taught. Calvin said that “While we assign a church to each pastor… But because that policy is necessary to maintain the peace 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.” Does Scripture teach that churches be assigned to pastors? The verses that relate to appointing elders in every church has no mention about any line of demarcation over which a pastor “rules”. Those are natural geographic zones, not imposed ecclesiastical lines whereby one needs a public, presumably a higher ecclesiastical council, authority to grant approval to minister across another man-made ecclesiastical boundary. Calvin said “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...” The NT does not teach that church discipline is the domain of elders, nor do they possess any ecclesiastical clout to correct faults. Church discipline is to be exercised by the whole church in consensus, admittedly led by the elders of the church. Elders have no power on their own to effect church discipline. As to the correcting of faults, that’s the prerogative of every believer, to admonish one another. Calvin said “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.” Cor 14:40 must be interpreted in its rightful immediate context. What was Paul addressing in the text, ecclesiastical governance or the orderly expression of gifts in love? The appointment of elders and deacons are not addressed in this letter, it is taken up in Timothy and Titus. 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. ++I agree with Calvin’s points. He said that elders, bishop, pastors are used interchangeability which many in the IC don’t agree as they distinguish a pastor from an elder, or a bishop from a pastor. He also said that leaders are to be appointed by God and recognised by the people, this I also agree, though I might like to add that these elders are to be people long known by the church and are tested believers, whose ability to manage their own household is visible to all. Having said that, the point is that a church (defined as people) cannot be said to be biblical or unbiblical, it is the teachings and practices that can be discerned as such, even the system which the church operates under. 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. ++Whether the IC contravene biblical principles of church polity will have to be seen and evaluated on its own. However, the prevalent church polity espoused by the IC surely perpetuates a clergy and laity distinction which is unbiblical, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. The cell group is not really a new thing as much as it is an attempt to model itself after the NT of house churches (you decide whether the cell church finds the NT practices normative or not in this instance). It isn’t so much renewal as a kind of restoration in a limited sense, since it is still highly institutional in its framework. The cell church is simply attesting to what people in the house church are saying all along, that homes are the best place for a deeper church life. They have taken one step in the right direction. Calvin has studied the early Church’s ecclesiology and concluded: "…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. …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) ++Looks like we are back to the example of the early church! Did Calvin think that the early church provided a representation by which any present day church can be compared to? If the NT has no such guide, as you alleged, then what was Calvin looking for, just principles, or the expression of those principles? But then it remains to be seen whether the NT fully supports what Calvin taught. This is another issue altogether. Calvin has wrote a huge volume of works that would take years to cover which I have no intention to attempt. Have you considered the possibility that to you, perhaps no exegesis is exegesis unless the conclusion is the same as yours? ++That is a question you will have to answer for yourself too. I am of the opinion that you are not too bothered with the exegesis part as much as the mistaken notion that I am advocating a mandatory form of church. From what I have gathered in our exchanges, your contention wasn’t so much of disagreeing with me over what the Bible says, but whether we need to follow what the NT church did, since there are no explicit statements in the Bible that we must do it the NT way.