I do not want to discuss how the Bible does not authorize. Liberals are real good at attacking command, example and necessary inference (CENI) but they never seem to get around to showing people just how the Bible authorizes. This is an open invitation to our liberal friends to give evidence of how they arrive at authority.
613 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 613 Newer› Newest»you mean, I like, I think, I feel, I wish, I want, I hope, I don't like, I don't think, well my daddy always said, well my mama used to say, well I always thought, well my commentary in my "study" Bible says, my "pastor" says, that guy on tv said, the "pastoral" alliance said, the political correct answer is, and so on, isn't acceptable authority for you. Come on, why would we expect an omniscient God to be able to communicate in an effective way with the man He created by means of the word which He choose to use. I mean, its not like the word is powerful enough to create the world when spoken. It not like the word is powerful enough to get down to who we really are (Heb. 4:12). Its not like the word can save our souls (James 1:21). Its not like the word is able to make us complete (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Its not like God's word is truth (John 17:17). Its not like he has given us all we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Its not like we need to study the word (2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Its not like God gave Christ all authority (Matt. 28:18). Its not like we must do all things according to His authority (Col. 3:17). Its not like the word will be our judge (John 12:48). I guess I don't get it. Why would you think there is any authority in the word? - ok, in the words of my first grade daughter... "duh, dad"
Denny
I'll be one of your "liberal friends", if it's ok. Paul taught much about Liberty and Freedom, so I'm in good company.
How does God authorize? He authorizes and teaches with actual "Words", amazingly enough. He doesn't play "Hide the Commandment" with His people. He tells them plainly and simply what is an issue, and what isn't an issue. We don't need to delve into the black void of "Silence" to find His wishes. Silence is merely a void. Since He was Silent on instruments for example, they are clearly a non-issue with Him. Only MAN in his so-called wisdom has turned it into an issue. They even go so far as to make it a salvation issue, which is clearly Adding to the Word. God implies no such thing in His Silence on a matter.
God is Silent on Peanut Butter as well, but that doesn't make Peanut Butter "evil". It makes it a non-issue. God speaks through His Words, not through the gymnastics of man's thinking.
God must be so pleased that we in our wisdom have finished writing the Bible for Him using our formulas of CENI. Look in most Churches of Christ and you will find mounds of literature revealing what God means by His "Silence" on an issue. I find that incredibly ironic.
The "Anti-Sunday School" group uses the same arguments from silence as the Pro-Sunday School group does, yet they arrive at totally different conclusions on these issues! This shows the flexibility of the "Silence" argument. We can make God's Silence "say" whatever the Church of Christ wants it to say. Amazing.
Since I've already experienced William on a different website, I have no desire to address his comments. I will be interested to see if he comes up with anything new (he hasn't yet) except for attempting to attack things he views as inconsistencies because he has no concept of generic and specific authority, precisely because of his background in the anti movement.
By the way, did anyone find an actual answer to the question or was that not just an attack again?
I'm just warning everyone. Prepare for more of the same. It's his hobby.
William wrote,
"We don't need to delve into the black void of "Silence" to find His wishes. Silence is merely a void. Since He was Silent on instruments for example, they are clearly a non-issue with Him."
William,
God was silent on members of the tribe of Judah as priests, (Heb. 7:13-14), but it was not a "non-issue" with Him. Just ask King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16-21).
William,
I would stand by you my friend but I refuse to participate in a blog where "negative/insulting" comments are only deleted if they do not agree with it.
Being called a liberal panzie then accusations about our characters being made is wrong. It was not addressed by the blog owners, it was let go, brushed uder the rug and it shows volumes of their character.
Good comments William.
Anonymous, he was not silent about members of the tribe of Judah being priests.
Look at Numbers 18:6-7
I myself have selected your fellow Levites from among the Israelites as a gift to you, dedicated to the LORD to do the work at the Tent of Meeting. But only you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death."
God said Aaron and his sons only (Levites) only which rules out members of the tribe of Judah.
The instrument question was never addressed because like William said, it was a non-issue in the first century.
I am sure that someone will desire to reply to me by saying that "to sing only" is also a command. Before you do that, look at the context of the scriptures in your arguments.
The Bible authorizes many things. It authorizes to go to all the world (Matthew 28), it authorizes to walk in the light (1 John 1), and it authorizes taming our tongue (James 3) for some NT examples. It also authorizes crying out to God in all seasons of life (Psalms) and that people must remain committed to him in order to remain in relationship with him (most of the OT) for some OT examples.
THe problem is that the Bible does not answer all the questions we want it to. Our culture is taken with scientific data, patterns, historical facts, and exact quotes. THis was not the concern of the Biblical authors. Look at the gospels for the simplest example of this idea.
The Bible authorizes exactly what it was meant to authorize to the people of the time in which it was written. That is why when studying in the Bible we must be careful not to ask 21st century questions first. Instead, look at the 1st century questions and situations, and decide how the Biblical writer answered those. Then we figure out how those principles transfer over into our culture and time.
I will use Ephesians 5:19 (one of the favorites to "authorize" singing only)
4:17-24 - Don't live like Gentiles anymore
4:25-5:20 - live like this because Christ loved you and gave himself up for you
What are the issues Paul seems to be addressing in the Ephesian church?
1. Do not continue to live like a Gentile (one who does not know God)
2. This is how Christians should live
Of course these are very broad, but that is what this passage is "authorizing." I do not see corporate worship being addressed, let alone the idea of using or not using instruments.
"God said Aaron and his sons only (Levites) only which rules out members of the tribe of Judah."
This also is a good comment, Chuckles. So He certainly was not "silent" about who was to be in the priesthood. He was pretty plain.
But the Church of Christ has other fish to fry, and the passage in Hebrews about "saying nothing about a priest coming from Judah" is about all they've got. So they milk it for MORE than it's worth.
I'll share some real deep spiritual insight here. Do you know what God really meant in the words about "saying nothing about a priest coming from Judah"? It means...(drum roll)...that it says nothing about a priest coming from Judah. There ya go. That's it. It takes a wild imagination plus a pre-conceived doctrine that they must try to find some evidence for, to find things in that passage that clearly aren't there.
"Being called a liberal panzie then accusations about our characters being made is wrong. It was not addressed by the blog owners, it was let go, brushed under the rug and it shows volumes of their character."
It does show volumes about their character, JP; but you can expect much more where that came from. It's how they fight back. If they can't fight with solid scripture, they will stoop to personal insults, attack your intelligence, accuse you of "hating the Truth" and anything else they can use to sidetrack you off the topic. But we need to just stick to the topic and the passages, no matter how bad the insults get.
Kevin W. Rhodes said...
"Since I've already experienced William on a different website, I have no desire to address his comments."
Hello again, Kevin Rhodes.
If I recall, you also have a problem "seeing" probing questions even when they are in front of your nose. I went through the same thing with you. You couldn't see any questions or comments to respond to for anything. Even when repeatedly placed in front of you.
You should fit in with this group just fine, Kevin Rhodes. It's a vision problem.
William, people cannot see your "probing questions" because your ego is in the way and all you do is rant and rave about how mistreated you are... but why should we expect anything different on this discussion than we have experienced over the last three? You are a plague of narcissism, but as much as you know about everyone else you probably already know that about yourself.
I would challenge you to deal with the subject and because you don’t believe in the principle of silence I’ll add only the subject at hand.
Kevin W. Rhodes said...
"Since I've already experienced William on a different website, I have no desire to address his comments."
At least you haven't changed, Kevin. You had no desire to address my comments then either. You did a lot of disappearing, if I recall. Shall I expect the same?
As posted on Simple Silence:
JP, you are correct and now I must apologize to the list for letting this go on as long as it has. Mark this down...THERE WILL BE NO MOST AD HOMENIN ATTACKS, PERIOD.
"You are a plague of narcissism, but as much as you know about everyone else you probably already know that about yourself.
I would challenge you to deal with the subject and because you don’t believe in the principle of silence I’ll add only the subject at hand."
Very sweet.
I'm now a "plague of narcissism". The fruits of the Spirit are still totally absent from your posts, Rick.
You challenge me to deal with the subject? I DID deal with the subject, Rick. Your interpretation of God's Silence does nothing but cause strife and division in the Body. Kevin mentioned "inconsistencies" which is very true with your doctrine. Over twenty different factions and divisions of the Church of Christ organization, with no end to the divisions in sight. The factions will continue as long as your way of thinking prevails in the organization. Paul calls those factions the "Acts of the sinful nature" and He spoke truth.
By the way, I simply don't believe in YOUR "Principle of Silence". It doesn't work.
William, the Baptist do not subscribe to the principle of silence yet they too have "different factions and divisions" as you put it. This is not do to the doctrine itself and even if it were, if the doctrine is correct division must come. There are many "different factions and divisions" as you put it concerning the deity of Jesus, should we throw that out as well?
"I will be interested to see if he comes up with anything new (he hasn't yet)" --(Kevin)
I'll be ready when you gentlemen are.
It's like the Congregation that complained about getting the same sermon three Sundays in a row. The Preacher's response was, "As soon as you deal with the first sermon, we'll move on to the next one".
Rick said...
"William, the Baptist do not subscribe to the principle of silence yet they too have "different factions and divisions" as you put it. This is not do to the doctrine itself and even if it were, if the doctrine is correct division must come. There are many "different factions and divisions" as you put it concerning the deity of Jesus, should we throw that out as well?"
What's this, a "Bait and Switch"? I was discussing a very real cause of the factions in the Church of Christ organization. Instead of discussing any of the reasons I gave, you switched over to a problem with the Baptists and others, instead. Can we stay focused on the Church of Christ and the reasons for it's many divisions for a little while, and THEN if you want to talk about the Baptists, we can do that.
Other denominations have their problems as well. We all do. But using my comments as simply a springboard to talk about the Baptists isn't dealing with OUR problems we have here.
"Mark this down...THERE WILL BE NO MOST AD HOMENIN ATTACKS, PERIOD.
March 13, 2008 9:12 PM"
Now, Rick posted this notice just 17 minutes after he called me a "Plague of Narcissism".
Does anyone else see a problem with this, or is it just me "whining"? Any inconsistencies here?
Appreciate it Rick, I will join in this discussion a bit later.
Ha, I like the desperate plea for comments/arguments. Clearly your little conference from the last post didn't draw much interest.
Anonymous said...
"Ha, I like the desperate plea for comments/arguments. Clearly your little conference from the last post didn't draw much interest."
If your post was directed towards me, it really doesn't matter if anyone comments.
Just pointing out something that didn't seem right. It would be like me saying "Your mother wears combat boots", and then a few minutes later me issuing a declaration that NO ONE SHALL HENCEFORTH ACCUSE ANYONE'S MOTHER OF WEARING COMBAT BOOTS.
Is that simple enough for you to grasp, Anonymous?
Please don't actually answer any questions William. You might give us a heart attack.
QUESTION FOR WILLIAM:
Since you say that silence doesn't work. What method do you use to interpret the Bible?
"How does God authorize? He authorizes and teaches with actual "Words", amazingly enough. He doesn't play "Hide the Commandment" with His people. He tells them plainly and simply what is an issue, and what isn't an issue. We don't need to delve into the black void of "Silence" to find His wishes. Silence is merely a void. Since He was Silent on instruments for example, they are clearly a non-issue with Him. Only MAN in his so-called wisdom has turned it into an issue. They even go so far as to make it a salvation issue, which is clearly Adding to the Word. God implies no such thing in His Silence on a matter."
You guys keep saying I'm not dealing with the subject. I've BEEN dealing with the subject. You might try reading my posts to see what they say. Just a thought.
"QUESTION FOR WILLIAM:
Since you say that silence doesn't work. What method do you use to interpret the Bible?"
Read the actual "words" put in there for us to see. Next, trust the Spirit to reveal it's meaning. Simple method. It doesn't need to be complicated.
good job William, keep it up. I don't know who you are, but the website needs someone like you to challenge the Reflections staff with their ideas and view points.
Mr Rhodes said; "I'm just warning everyone. Prepare for more of the same. It's his hobby."
Is it my hobby, or could I possibly care that people are still in the same bondage that I was trapped in for many years? A man named Paul, through the Spirit's guidance, taught me that if a law could have been given that could produce righteousness, then certainly righteousness would have been by the law. Righteousness does not come by law. Laws can show you that you fail, but they have no power to clean you up. In the Church of Christ we had many "laws" in place that we thought made us righteous. Many of these laws were of our own making. We thought "avoiding instruments" made us more righteous than those Baptists down the road. The New Covenant teaches us that that thinking is terribly flawed. It only produces pride, not righteousness. So is it my "hobby" to help introduce people to freedom in Christ? Maybe. Good hobby, if it is.
chuckles said...
"good job William, keep it up. I don't know who you are,...."
I'm Wilma the Panzy, and the king of Narcissism to boot! (<:
I guess I'm also a guy with a large ego, a man who only rants and raves about how mistreated I am, I whine and cry constantly, I never have anything new to say, I never ask any questions, and I never give any answers to anything. I guess that pretty much wraps it up. I sound like I must be a terribly evil man.
Today, we are under the law of the spirit of life in Christ, the perfect law of liberty. The old covenant could not take away sin with the blood of bulls and goats but the blood of Christ, in obedience to the new covenant/doctrine of Christ/word of God/that form of doctrine, etc., we can be saved.
How do we learn? Quite simply by study (2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:12ff). The Holy Spirit works by means of the word on our hearts. There is no direct operation of the Holy Spirit to the human heart.
Denny
"He tells them plainly and simply what is an issue, and WHAT ISN'T AN ISSUE"(william).
William where does he say that instrumental music ISN'T AN ISSUE in new testament worship?
I thought this thread was an opportunity for those who dislike "CENI" to express and explain their hermeneutic for applying the scriptures today.
So far I see virtually no effort to do so.
If one is not going to seek to apply the scriptures by means of "CENI", then please explain what you are going to do?
The biggest (well, one of the biggest) problem with CENI is that it can't be applied consistently, so we resort to incredible mental gymnastics to support our positions.
Here are some commands that the CENI crowd isn't especially fond of:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1
Do all things without murmurings and disputings. Philippians 2:14
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 1 Cor 14:39
Greet one another with an holy kiss. 2 Cor 13:12
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. James 4:11
These could be multiplied, but this is a start. Maybe I'll come back with some not so friendly examples later.
Kevin Rhodes - 4th post into this blog, you apparently felt it necessary to "warn" us about William based on your experience with him on a different site, and what you said was quite defamatory. Gossip. Even if you think it's 100% truth--and all gossip has some truth in it, which is why it's so easy to spread--it's still gossip. Anybody here can read this blog and other blogs on this site and decide for themselves about William. You didn't add anything to the subject at hand, you just tried to turn folks against William. It's gossip, man, and my Bible says that God doesn't like gossip.
Answers??? asked what method do I use to study the Bible. I have to have a method to read my Bible? I can't just read it? Actually, I do have a method, though. It's the same method that our school district issues to students at the end of the year regarding their summer reading: read a chapter, then answer certain questions, such as who is in this chapter, what is the action, the conflict, location, etc. Yes, this method is designed for works of fiction, but I've modified it a little and of suits me.
My dad (Church of Christ minister since before I was born, says to read each chapter 3 times, write notes after each time. It's amazing to me how things just sink in that 3rd time.
CENI. Command. Example. Necessary Inference. Who came up with this method? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I really want to know. I pretty much understand the Command and Example bits, but Necessary Inference? IMHO, NI has allowed some folks to decide what they think is important, find an inference in scripture to support their theory/doctrine, then impose/bind their theory/doctrine on the body of Christ.
And y'all, it's "ad hominem" not "ad homenin". Not trying to be a jerk, it's just a pet peeve--just ask my students. I hate to see/hear an intelligent person sound ignorant, like pronouncing the word "cello" as Sello instead of CHello.
Here are some examples that some of us would prefer not to regard as part of the "pattern."
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45
And the same man (Philip) had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. Acts 21:9
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (before they had been baptized). Acts 10:44
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 1 Cor 14:13
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (Is this an example or a command?) James 5:14
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. 1 Tim 5:23
That's enough for now. Again, these could be multiplied, and it really gets fun when we start trying to decide which inferences are "necessary" and which are not.
Let's have some fun with some inferences.
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Cor 12:17 Some infer from this that it is sin if you have the Lord's Supper with anything other than a single loaf.
The NT doesn't "authorize" mechanical instruments of music. Some infer from that silence that instruments are prohibited and sinful. The NT doesn't "authorize" Sunday School. Some infer from that silence that classes are prohibited and sinful. Others infer that classes are an expedient.
Some infer that we should use only fermented fruit of the vine in communion. Others infer that it must be unfermented. Some infer that we may use only one cup for our fermented or unfermented fruit of the vine while others infer that we may use multiple cups as an expedient.
Because in Christ there is no longer male and female, some infer that we should not place restrictions on women in the work of the church. Because of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14, others infer that we should place significant restrictions on women. Some infer that it is expedient to use women to sign for the hearing impaired or to translate for a foreign language audience. Others infer that it is sinful for women to do so.
Some infer that it is okay to have a song leader up front because we are supposed to sing. Some of the same people infer that it is sinful to use a group up front to lead singing.
We could go on and on, and it all seems very puzzling. I think I may have discovered the key. If I want to bind something on you, my inference is "necessary," and you would agree with me if you were honest. If I want some freedom, I infer that something is an expedient. Hey, I think I'm starting to warm up this!
I was so excited about my new discovery that I couldn't type. My last line should have read "warm up to this."
That's ok, anonymous, I'm not gonna get ya for typos. I make plenty of those!
Good post, btw. You read my mind on these (you must have ESPN).. ;-)
William, I posted and then read the good reasoning of JP and decided to change the direction of the post, and your problem? Repentance is still allowed, right?
William, this is not a “bait and switch” just a correct observation about your reasoning, it’s wrong and I have showed you why. Your suggestion was that the problems in churches of Chrsit arise from the principle of silence and I gave you two arguments why that is faulty reasoning. First, Baptist, who do not believe in the principle have division. Second, if the principle is true then your division argument is false. God’s word is a two edged sword and doctrine causes division, including the deity of Jesus (which you totally overlooked).
Anonymous writes, "Ha, I like the desperate plea for comments/arguments. Clearly your little conference from the last post didn't draw much interest."
"Ha"? At present, we have approximately 100-150 trainees in our last three evangelism classes. We sometimes post informational articles. I don’t think that over 20,000 hits and 2000 comments over the last few weeks classifies as “desperate”. The reason for the new post was because people were asking for it because the other post are running from 500-900 comments.
Actually, what creates division in Baptist churches and churches of Christ is usually the same thing--fleshly pride. People fall in love with their interpretations of silence or difficult passages and adopt a "my way or the highway" approach, which is devoid of humility.
Alexander Campbell once talked about people who cause division over their opinions. He said such a person should be marked and excluded from the fellowship "not because he has an opinion but because he makes of his opinion an idol and demands that others bow down and pay homage to it."
The NT offers up a few reasons to break fellowship with other professed believers, but most divisions among the churches of Christ have very little connection to those NT reasons.
Good conversations guys. I too want to know where this CENI came from. I only see it utlized in the CoC.
Like you, I simply read the bible, I try not to isolate scripture from the rest of text. If I do not understand it, I read it again. Sometimes you have to throw your hands up and say" You know what, I do not have this figured out, and that is Ok" Christianity is more then doctrinal correctness.
" Hey, I think I'm starting to warm up this!"
Not bad, not bad at all!
I asked this on the other blog, and maybe I'm the only one that needs clarification. Since my previous post I did a little research online and found "ad hominem" AND "ad homenin", but I only found a definition for the former, which is basically an argument that is not based on facts but on prejudice or feelings; or it is an personal attack designed to discredit the debator instead of addressing the actual subject.
And Kevin Rhodes, I apologize if I was a bit harsh, but gossip is another pet peeve of mine. Folks around here know better than to come to me with gossip 'cuz I tell them just what I told you. My children have lovingly dubbed me the Gossip Police. :)
step by step...
You could not be more right on. CENI is a completely man-made doctrine, and there is nowhere in the Bible that I can read that tells me that I must use this "method" to understand the Bible. In fact, I have not been using this method for all of my life-and I have been able to read it just fine. Granted, I do not have it all figured out, but I continue to read, study, search, and pray while not using any man made method.
I agree I can get on board with the command, and example (although just b/c there is not example does not make something WRONG), but the necessary inference makes no sense-and it does exactly what you said-allows people to put forth their own doctrine, then bind it on and condemn other people for not following it. That is most definitely adding to the Word of God and speaking where He has never spoken, which ironically goes against the whole premise of "speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where it is silent", huh?
Anon said:
"Actually, what creates division in Baptist churches and churches of Christ is usually the same thing--fleshly pride. People fall in love with their interpretations of silence or difficult passages and adopt a "my way or the highway" approach, which is devoid of humility.
Alexander Campbell once talked about people who cause division over their opinions. He said such a person should be marked and excluded from the fellowship "not because he has an opinion but because he makes of his opinion an idol and demands that others bow down and pay homage to it."
The NT offers up a few reasons to break fellowship with other professed believers, but most divisions among the churches of Christ have very little connection to those NT reasons."
Brother/Sister,
That was a great comment. There is nothing to add to it.
I amen JP's amen to anon's comment!
You hit it spot on-I just wish everyone understood this!!
Blessings~
JP and Katherine,
Thanks for the props. I decided to be something other than just plain old anonymous while maintaining my anonymity.
melchizedek,
You know, it would only take you (literally) one minute to create a blog. With what you wrote above, I would be interested in reading more!
"We could go on and on, and it all seems very puzzling. I think I may have discovered the key. If I want to bind something on you, my inference is "necessary," and you would agree with me if you were honest. If I want some freedom, I infer that something is an expedient. Hey, I think I'm starting to warm up this!"
You might have indeed found the key to it all, Anonymous. They have invented two categories, both of which are full of "un-authorized" things. If you WANT to do something that is not authorized, you put it in the "expedient" category. If you want to bind a law against instruments on somebody, you simply take instruments out of the expedient category and into the "needs authorization" category. It's a great system, allowing a church to either allow, bind, or condemn any action at their OWN discretion.
Since the Bible doesn't explain these rules to this wonderful system, I'm thinking that the whole thing is not from God in the first place. The old Scottish Presbyterians refined it and used it lots, and Campbell and others that helped fire up the Church of Christ organization drug the thing into their doctrines. The thing is a brainchild of man's intellect, not scripture.
But the poor folks within the Movement even today stake their very Souls on the thing. They refuse to let it go. If they would only let CENI go, many of their divisions would clear up.
(And one problem with letting it go is, many of these folks like things just the way they are. They like being the Only Ones.)
Rick said...
"William, this is not a “bait and switch” just a correct observation about your reasoning, it’s wrong and I have showed you why. Your suggestion was that the problems in churches of Chrsit arise from the principle of silence and I gave you two arguments why that is faulty reasoning. First, Baptist, who do not believe in the principle have division. Second, if the principle is true then your division argument is false. God’s word is a two edged sword and doctrine causes division, including the deity of Jesus (which you totally overlooked)."
We certainly see this differently, Rick. (And by the way, thanks for the new direction of the thread.)
The divisions in the Baptist outfit (or anyone else for that matter) could be because of MANY things, and was a total veering off of my comments about the divisions plaguing the Church of Christ. You never explained WHY my suggestions and thoughts about the Church of Christ were not good, rather you went immediately into the topics of the Baptists, and then you threw in the problems people have with the Deity of Christ for good measure. I did not comment on you bringing up those divided by the "Deity of Christ" problem, because it had nothing to do with our discussion. It was un-necessary. It too, is a separate topic that we could discuss on it's own.
In short, you didn't show me at all why my reasoning was "wrong", you simply said, "Well, look at the Baptists". Instead of throwing the ball back to home plate, you threw it out to third base where nobody was...
"The NT offers up a few reasons to break fellowship with other professed believers, but most divisions among the churches of Christ have very little connection to those NT reasons."
I agree, this post was a great one. The Churches of Christ today divide themselves into splinters in ways never even dreamed of by the early Saints. They would have said, "You divided over WHAT???"
The Early Church in it's many locations was not obsessed with making every other location a Carbon Copy of themselves on all these little matters like is done today.
Well, so far, Kevin W. Rhodes is exactly like I remember him. I don't recall him ever quoting someone's statements and showing them why they are wrong. All I've known him to do is personally attack the integrity of his opponent, without ever actually commenting on his opponent's WORDS themselves.
So how about it, Kevin Rhodes? Have you been able to see anything at all yet that has been spoken on this topic? Would you care to add your thoughts? You got somethin'?
This place seems totally overrun by the Liberals at the moment. How did this happen?
I dunno. Maybe we're the only ones with no life on a Friday night.
And William, don't make me fuss at you about gossiping. Let sleeping Kevins lie.
...Maybe they are trying to find an article from the "brotherhood" magazines to copy and paste to refute you liberal heretics :-)
My spouse says they've apparently decided we are all lost and we've been dis-cyber-fellowshipped.
And since you've brought up the "L" word, allow me to take this opportunity to say that I have never been considered a liberal in any aspect of my life, except with the CofC. So, I have decided to break out my purple sweatshirt with the big yellow L on it. (It's also got a big yellow S and a big yellow U on it, hope y'all don't mind.)
Just a reminder of the subject to be discussed "Liberals are real good at attacking command, example and necessary inference (CENI) but they never seem to get around to showing people just how the Bible authorizes. This is an open invitation to our liberal friends to give evidence of how they arrive at authority."
I have no problem with CENI, within certain limits. Commands are pretty obvious- Hear, believe, repent, be baptized, assemble, "do this in remembrance of Me", love one another, don't judge, have faith....
Example becomes a little more difficult but still fairly straightforward. We look at the narrative to see how Jesus, the disciples, apostles, etc. treated each other, interacted, lived from day to day, worshipped. We try to emulate that in our lives.
Necessary inference- that's ok as well, but depends on human reasoning and intellect, not God's Holy Word.
The issue is really what each of us wishes to bind on the other. I'd say we're safe to bind the commands, but as we move through example to inference we might be on shaky ground. You see, we are basically very flawed and sinful people, even after being saved- moving toward perfection but not very quickly, and that not by our own power but by the Holy Spirit.
When the churches of Christ (liberal or conservative) can't practice the commands or first century examples with anything like perfection, how can we chunk rocks at each other over humanly inferred doctrine?
So here's my personal plan in a nutshell- 1. Approach my walk by trying to get the big things right first- the commands. I will scarcely have made a good beginning on that before this earthly life ends. 2. Be ready to share what little I know- the Gospel as written. 3. Have faith that our Father will make me stand, mistakes and all. 4. Have faith that our Father will make you stand.
Having obeyed the Gospel, we are all parts of the same Body, liberal, conservative, whatever. Therefor you are my brother and I yours. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
God bless!
"When the churches of Christ (liberal or conservative) can't practice the commands or first century examples with anything like perfection, how can we chunk rocks at each other over humanly inferred doctrine?" --(brother liberal)
Your whole post was good. We are not perfect people. Which means in effect that we too are "Erring Christians". All in the same boat. So what if one is closer to the stern and one is closer to the bow...it's still a LONG way to the Shore!
Do you believe someone who practices homosexuallity will be saved willie?
It's a "yes" or "no" question...
He that is without sin gets to cast the first stone. So step right up, grab a big rock, and let 'er fly.
"Huh?",
Are you an un-erring Christian? If you are, you would be the first in a long time.
Also, did you clean yourself up, or did Jesus help any?
It's a "yes" or "no" question...
Hey "Huh?",
Just wondering. Is your church any kind of a hospital for the sick, or is it a place where only perfect people hang out?
Homosexuality is a sin, yes. And so is a lot of other things. Anything that is "not of faith" is sin. This would include "worry", showing favoritism, etc.
"Huh?"
Did you doze off, or are you still looking for good Rocks?
Now I see why some folks are afraid to use their real names here. They can slink away under cover of darkness.
I have shown what I think are some of the flaws with trying to apply CENI consistently. The only place I can be called a "Liberal" is in the churches of Christ, but I'll take a swing at the authority question anyway.
First, I try to read and understand Scripture within its context before I try to apply it to my circumstances. What was the writer saying and why? What else does the Bible say on this subject? Ripping verses from their contexts here and there to prove a point is a bad approach to interpreting Scripture.
Second, I try to figure out how to apply what I discovered in the first step to the present day.
Third, I try to interpret God's word in a way that is consistent with what the word reveals about the character and nature of God. For example, when the good religious leaders criticized Jesus for "welcoming tax collectors and sinners and eating with them," Jesus explained that he was living out the character of God. The Book of Hebrews says that Jesus is the exact representation of God's being. If God is love, and Jesus loved us and gave himself for us, I don't want to interpret Scripture in a way that makes me an angry, mean, judgmental person, because that is inconsistent with my theology.
I hope this is at least a starting place to answer the challenge in the original post.
Mel
Good thoughts, Mel.
Using scripture as a Proof-text Vending Machine to simply back-up the beliefs we already have is not the way to treat the Bible. Instead, we should lay everything we have been told and everything we think we "know" constantly at the feet of Jesus, and then say, "Ok, Lord, Renew my mind. Teach me what YOU want me to know, not just what I've been "told" to believe by my organization." If we are open and humble in our approach to scripture He will "renew our minds" often. Sometimes more than we would like Him to!
If we only use scripture to proof-text what we already "know", we will never grow or learn anything past our present position.
In a controlling church, the folks are simply handed a package of accepted beliefs and basically told to "believe everything just like we do". Those groups use scripture simply for proof-texting only. Those that grow past the commonly accepted beliefs of a group are often branded "Liberals".
Good job willie, that's the way not to preach against sin. Just excuse it, cause we're all sinners.
Paul was a sinner too when he said:
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
Brother Liberal said...
Just a reminder of the subject to be discussed "Liberals are real good at attacking command, example and necessary inference (CENI) but they never seem to get around to showing people just how the Bible authorizes. This is an open invitation to our liberal friends to give evidence of how they arrive at authority."
Well, I think the crazy Liberals have finally "gotten around" to showing a bit on how the Bible authorizes.
Now it's time for the Hosting friends to rip our logic and our reasoning to shreds. Shred it like a Paper Shredder. Tear into it. Knock it down. Come on, Batter UP!
Proving what is acceptable said...
"Good job willie, that's the way not to preach against sin. Just excuse it, cause we're all sinners."
Yes indeed we are. Paul called himself "the Chief of Sinners", and that was AFTER he was saved, not before. That is proven by his "desire to do good in his inner man". An un-saved man wouldn't even HAVE the desire to do good.
There were some unanswered questions leftover from last night. Would you care to take them over? You yourself, are you an "Un-Erring Christian"? I'm certainly not, and I've never met anyone that is. Is your church more of a Hospital for the sick, or a hangout for perfect people? Take any of the questions you wish.
Let's add another one. Is it our job to decide which sins are the "Big" ones, and which sins are just little ones? Is sin sin, or is there a numbering system?
And frankly, guys; I don't care if I'm called William, Wilma, Willie, or Goofball. Just so you deal with what is SAID. That's all I'm concerned about.
Shhh. The Lions are sleeping...
proving (nothing) said,
"Good job willie, that's the way not to preach against sin. Just excuse it, cause we're all sinners."
Maybe Willie thought the question was about his approach to Scripture, rather than preaching against sin. If you want to ask a different question, ask it. You guys finally get the "Liberals" to play your game, and all we hear are the crickets chirping.
Katherine said,
"I have not been using this method for all of my life-and I have been able to read it just fine. Granted, I do not have it all figured out, but I continue to read, study, search, and pray while not using any man made method."
Katherine,
Where do you get your authority for have a church building?
JB,
By what authority have you determined that we need authority to have a church building?
It is a sin not to preach against sin. Would you agree william or is the christian supposed to shut up and not judge righteous judgment?
The real question is not do we sin or have we sinned. The question is are we bearing fruits worthy of repentance. If I accept the status quo and continue to worship falsly then I am not repenting. When I am unwilling to repent, the sin is unto death no matter how big or small. If I am seeking to justify the way I worship by means other than new testament teaching then repentance is required.
When Paul went into the temple to fulfill his vow, which verse from the NT did he use to justify that act?
That's probably not a fair question because we all know that Paul didn't have a NT. In fact, none of the first century Christians had New Testaments. What did they use to justify their worship, and did they repent of it before they died? I would hate to think that all of them went to hell because they justified their worship by something other than the NT.
I was just wondering about something. If we could get in a time machine and visit for worship in the church in Jerusalem in 35, the church in Antioch in 45, the church in Corinth about 55, and the churches in Ephesus and Rome about 65, do you suppose we would notice any differences (not just language or style of dress)? Or would they all pretty much look the same?
What I have learned from the answers to the challenge:
First, liberals have a hard time justifying any kind of hermeneutic. Still, after 82 posts, no hermeneutical approach has been brought forth. Oh, some have tried, William for example started out by saying that God authorizes by actual words. William, do you believe in the inerrant, verbal inspiration of the Bible? Other would suggest that there is some kind of dishonesty in those who accept CENI, such as “I think I may have discovered the key. If I want to bind something on you, my inference is "necessary," and you would agree with me if you were honest. If I want some freedom, I infer that something is an expedient” (anonymous).
Second, liberals either misunderstand or deliberately skew the principle of silence to mean something that it does not. For example, some would argue that God is silent on Peanut Butter as well, but that does not make Peanut Butter “evil”. The principle of silence does not mean that it is not specifically mentioned in Scripture. The principle of silence demands a specific command or example. Gil Yoder correctly observes, “The principle of silence states in effect that authority from God is expressed by what the scriptures say, i.e., where the Bible speaks, and that where the Bible is silent authority from God is absent. This principle is expressed in the motto, ‘We speak where the Bible speaks, and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.’ The apostle Peter expressed the principle in these words: ‘If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God’ (1 Pet. 4:11).” (letusreason.com). Thus one only has authority when God speaks. For example Peanut Butter would be “evil” (if by evil we mean unauthorized) if we used it on the Lord’s Table either with or instead of the unleavened bread. It is not “evil” in and of itself because God authorized man to partake of the fruit of the earth for his nourishment (Gen. 1:28-29).
Third, liberals continue to try and discount what others offer but offer no explanation themselves. For example, Numbers 18:6-7 are brought up as to suggest “God said Aaron and his sons only (Levites) only which rules out members of the tribe of Judah.” The text does not say “Aaron and his sons only”. Yet, no explanation is given for what the Hebrew writer means by “of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:13-14).
Fourth, the argument is made that the principle of silence is divisive, therefore it must be wrong. The main argument we offered was never addressed. Just in case some missed the main argument here it is again. TRUTH IS DIVISIVE IN NATURE. Just because something is said to be divisive does not mean that it is without value. Every time the gospel was preached it was divisive (Acts 28:24). Jesus speaks of the truth dividing family members (Mat. 10:34-37). This is a part of what it means to take up your own cross and follow Jesus (v. 38).
Fifth, anonymous suggested that I am not fond of certain passages because of my hermeneutics. This I disavow! All the passages mentioned (Phi. 2:14; 1 Cor. 14:39; 2 Cor. 13:12; Jas. 4:11; Acts 2:44-45; 21:9; 1 Cor. 14:13; Jas. 5:14; 1 Tim. 5:23) are precious indeed. I can only suppose that there was an argument herein, although I refuse to make it for him.
Sixth, some argue that NI for example, “makes no sense.” Did Paul repent of his sins?
Seventh, liberals seem rather impatient. I am sure that I did not catch everything that was said but I am also confident that the discussion will continue. Please be advised that I will be away from my computer all day Sunday due to evangelism classes in Fort Worth.
Rick,
If you will go back to the post about the commands, I said up front that the problem with CENI is that it can't be applied consistently. You want to say that commands are binding, but there are many commands that we have to use some other means to interpret.
Do you greet with a holy kiss? I don't either. Do you tell people not to forbid speaking in tongues? Do you wash feet at your church?
The same point is made in the posts concerning examples and inferences. I know of a church that split because the elders were anointing sick people with oil, but that is what the passage in James 5 says to do. I don't know of any Church of Christ where the believers hold all things in common according to the example in Acts 2. Is it okay to drink some wine if you have stomach issues, as Paul instructed Timothy? Is Paul's reference to one loaf binding, or is it okay to have several trays with multiple crackers in them?
We all (both the CENI advocates and the so-called "Liberals") have to consider matters of context, social custom, and so on to interpret Scripture. Everybody "does" hermeneutics, whether they know it or not. We are always trying to interpret what we read.
When I tell you that what Scripture reveals about the nature and character of God, especially as he is revealed in Christ, is a guiding factor for my hermeneutics, why do you think it appropriate to say that no one has put forth a model for hermeneutics? Is CENI the only model that you acknowledge?
Yes, truth is divisive. That's why we don't need to make matters worse by dividing over communion cups, loaves of bread, spiritual gifts, musical instruments, whether women have to cover their heads, whether it's okay for a church to send some money from its treasury to an orphans home, and so on, ad nauseum. Those splits are generated by different applications of CENI, not by the truth of the gospel. Quit blowing smoke at us.
CENI is a hermeneutic of application. This is whay it is employed with regard to the subject of authority.
Induction requires:
1. observation: read the text, what does it say
2. interpretation: perceive the text, what does it mean
3. application: apply the text, what does it mean for my life
#2 is where most of what hermeneutics is about. It deals with the questions concerning genre, historical context, literary figures of speech, covenants limits, dispensations, author, audience, occasion, etc.
#3 is where one must determine what to do with the understanding discovered in #2. This is where one must decide what is authorized (required, prohibited, etc.)
The book of Proverbs acknowledges an approach to learning that has become known as the Trivium.
The Trivium is usually divided into the 3 areas of:
--grammatical
--dialectical
--rhetorical
This parallels what Proverbs calls:
--knowledge
--understanding
--wisdom
The inductive method also parallels:
--what does the text say, knowledge
--what does the text mean, understanding
--what does the text mean for me, wisdom
NOW.... someone show me a more excellent way that CENI for this last area!!
Mel, no smoke here, you told me what you think of CENI and that “We all (both the CENI advocates and the so-called "Liberals") have to consider matters of context, social custom, and so on to interpret Scripture. Everybody "does" hermeneutics, whether they know it or not. We are always trying to interpret what we read.” Mel, this is my point exactly. I generally apply what is called historical-literary exegesis in my study. But to listen to some of these liberals they just go by “words” or “listen to Jesus” or “hear the Holy Spirit”. Don’t give me that, we’re talking hermeneutical approach to establish authority.
Mel, considering the nature and character of God, especially as he is revealed in Christ as a guiding factor in hermeneutics is not in opposition to CENI (cf. 1 Pet. 1:16; 1 Cor. 3:17).
Mel, I am glad to hear someone acknowledge that truth is divisive and I certainly agree with you that men can distort the truth and be divisive regarding what they call the truth that is not the truth of Jesus as revealed in the New Testament. This does by no means suggest that we cannot arrive at truth.
I have never suggested that we can't arrive at truth, but it seems obvious to me that not all truth "weighs" the same.
The truth that Herod had John the Baptist beheaded is not as theologically significant as the truth that J the B was the forerunner for the Messiah. The truth that Paul could speak in tongues is not nearly as significant as the truth that he received his message and his commission through some sort of direct revelation from Christ.
It also seems obvious to me that some truths are presented more clearly than others in Scripture. For example, it is hard to miss the truth that believers are called to love each other. Paul himself said that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus were matters of "first importance." The teaching that those who come to faith in Jesus should be baptized is well attested in the gospels, Acts, and several of the epistles.
Here are some matters that are not presented as thoroughly or as clearly. Must we observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday? Is Sunday the only day when we may partake of the Lord's Supper? Since Jesus took "the" cup, are we restricted to one cup for communion, or may we use multiple cups? Are we restricted to the one loaf Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12, or may we use multiple crackers or wafers? Bible classes aren't authorized, but are they, perhaps, expedient? What, exactly, does a person have to know for his or her baptism to "take"?
The question isn't "Can we know truth?" The question is "Who gets to determine which of the less clearly defined truths (or teachings)get to become matters of "the faith"? You have your list of "fellowship issues" which I would guess is longer than my list. But the one cup, one loaf folks probably wouldn't fellowship you. They got to their conclusions using CENI. Why is your list better than theirs?
The reason Paul told his audience in Romans not to pass judgment on disputable matters is that there really are such things as disputable matters, where one side thinks something is a "matter of the faith" while the other side regards it as a matter of freedom.
If I'm not making sense, let me know, and I'll take another run at it.
You make perfect sense to me, Melchizedek, and your questions are on the money. I also want to ask-
1. Was I saved by some knowledge of scriptural truth based on CENI, or by the blood of Jesus Christ?
2. Assuming the latter, must I come to a complete understanding of the Word in order to determine truth and remain saved, and who gets to grade me on my understanding?
3. If that absolute truth has been determined, can I have a list of the guys who made that determination?
4. If absolute truth has been determined, is there a master document somewhere I can refer to?
5. Given that the written Word was not readily available for study to most Christians for several centuries after the establishment of the Church, and without the Word one cannot know truth, are all those people damned?
6. If truth and the Gospel are divisive, why were thousands added to the Church daily in the first century?
7. If truth and the Gospel are divisive, why did Jesus pray earnestly for unity of believers in John 17:20-23?
8. How much must I get right to remain saved? 50%? 75% 95%? If it's much over 50%, I may be in trouble. I think I smell brimstone! No, it's just my power supply smokin' from too much blog.
Good night and God bless.
Don't forget my question: where did the CENI method come from? Why must I use it to study scripture? Not trying to be a smart aleck (a broken record maybe, but not a smart aleck) :)
Sinner WIll? said...
"It is a sin not to preach against sin. Would you agree william or is the christian supposed to shut up and not judge righteous judgment?"
There is a time and a place for that, yes. But HOW we do it is important. First we must remain humble, knowing that we ourselves are not without sin.