Toxic plants

“Steve Hays, over at Triablogue, responded to my last post in the comments section of THIS THREAD, via a NEW THREAD which he posted yesterday. The comments section of this new thread is proceeding down an a different (though related) tangent, due to the first comment penned by BJ Buracker, a Presbyterian who seems to take the visible church much more seriously than the ecclesiastical anarchists who have attempted to address his questions.”

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/04/ecclesiastical-anarchy.html

Since David Waltz has to regard Presbyterianism as a schismatic development, it’s disingenuous of him to tout a Presbyterian.

“Steve’s comments are based on some very tenuous presuppostions: first, Steve assumes that the pattern portrayed in Scripture concerning the “NT churches overseen by apostles” is ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’, as such, the post-apostolic church should not seek to duplicate the apostolic church; second, apostolic authority cannot/was not passed on by the apostles to successors.”

David’s comments are based on some very tenuous presuppostions: first, David assumes that the pattern portrayed in Scripture concerning the “NT churches overseen by apostles” is ‘prescriptive’ and not ‘descriptive’, as such, the post-apostolic church should seek to duplicate the apostolic church; second, apostolic authority can/was passed on by the apostles to successors.

“Early Church history presents a record for us that is quite contrary to what Steve would have us to believe.”

i) An assertion in lieu of an argument.

ii) Takes for granted that early church history should be our yardstick.

iii) Early church history is descriptive, not prescriptive.

iv) It’s not as if modern Catholicism moves in lockstep with early church history.

“Once again, the early Church tells a different story; organic continuity via espiscpal succession was an important ‘mark’ in determining the Catholic churches from the schismatic and heretical ones. That organic continuity has continued down to our day in both branches of the Catholic Church (Western and Eastern).”

Once again,

i) An assertion in lieu of an argument.

ii) Takes for granted that early church history should be our yardstick.

iii) Early church history is descriptive, not prescriptive.

iv) It’s not as if modern Catholicism moves in lockstep with early church history.

“A brief stroll down through history reveals the sects which have embraced Steve’s dictum—examples include: Gnostics, Medalists, Melitians, Donatists, Arians (after 381), Pelagians, Monophysites, Monothelites, et al. (Augustine in his, The Heresies, lists no less than 88 sects which ended up rejecting the organic Catholic unity.)”

i) Of course, this annuls any appeal to church history as normative. Since church history is a record of rival factions, church history cannot adjudicate between rival factions.

ii) Moreover, I don’t accept the claim that the Donatists were wholly wrong while the Catholics were wholly right.

“If Steve is correct on this, then one must conclude that we have no ‘true’ Christian churches from the middle of the second century until the 16th century.”

A trademark case of David’s chronic reading incomprehension. Go back and see what I said about the remnant in the original post.

“I did not drive the ‘wedge’, it is merely a historical fact. And as for Dr. Lane’s essay, to date, I have not read anyone who has cogently addressed the issues he has raised.”

A historic fact is not a norm. If every historic fact were normative, then the various “sects” which David mentions would all be equally valid expressions of historic Christianity. David unwittingly plays into the hands of Bart Ehrman.”

“And the resulting ‘fruit’ of Steve’s dictum: ecclesiastical anarchy.”

Fruit inspection is a two-way street. If David wants to judge a church by its fruits, then how should we grade the produce department of a church which brought us the Borgia popes or the priestly abuse scandal–to name just two examples?