STEVE SAID:
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
"So here is my question for you, if scripture is the only infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule?"
Perry,
As you know, Jesus conducted public debates with members of the religious establishment. So did John the Baptist. So did the Apostles.
Bystanders overheard the debates. Who was to judge which side got the better of the argument?
Clearly the religious establishment was not the final arbiter, for Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles were challenging the religious establishment.
As a practical matter, every man (or woman) in the crowd had to judge for himself. Some judged rightly and some judged wrongly.
That's a leading theme in the Gospel of John (to take one example).
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
“Your example of Jesus and the Jewish leadership would be germane if all things were equal, but all things are not equal so it is not an apt comparison. Jesus has a commissioning superior to theirs. Jesus’s commissioning is attested to by the miracles and prophecy. (Jn 10:38) In a similar fashion the prophets had a commissioning superior to the ordinary commissioning of the Levitical priests, which is why they could correct them. The judgment in both cases is that of a superior degree of normativity.”
My example presupposes that Jesus, OT prophets, and NT apostles are more authoritative than scribes and Sadducees and Pharisees and Levitical priests–or even the high priest.
“Further, when you ask among the bystanders, who was to judge, there is an equivocation on the term , judge.”
It’s an equivocation from your standpoint, not from mine.
“For the question is not, who is to ascertain the truth of the matter for their own conscience, but who can settle the matter with a normativity that goes beyond in application their own conscience to that of others.”
That’s how you frame the question, not how I frame the question. I don’t think it goes beyond ascertaining the truth of the matter for one’s own conscience. I don’t think God has authorized church officers to settle the matter with normativity for others.
“The judgment of the prophets and Jesus was not on a normative par with the ordinarily commissioned Hebrew/Jewish leadership. At best they can claim Abraham and Moses, since they have no miracles and prophecy since they were ordinarily commissioned, through a succession. (Neh 7:64) Jesus clearly one-ups them through an appeal to the Father directly with attesting miracles.”
There are two separate issues here:
i) Intrinsic/contingent authority
ii) Verification of intrinsic/contingent authority.
Apropos (i), the authority of Jesus is inherent in his person. By contrast, merely human authority, however exalted, is derivative and conditional.
Apropos (ii), verification doesn’t confer authority. It merely furnishes a means of recognition.
“Jesus and the prophets by virtue of their superior commissioning and attestation with miracle and prophecy were in a position to challenge those lower down on the commissioned and normative ladder.”
It would be simpler to say that one party was right while the other party was wrong. And that’s because one party had access to the truth in a way not shared by the errant party. “Normativity” is secondary to truth.
“So the question is, in the church, who is to act as the judge in terms of normatively settling a matter or dispute in applying the rule or is there to be as many judges applying the rule as there are readers of the rule.”
Since the church has a corporate life, there has to be some decision-making process to set policies for the fellowship as a whole. But there’s nothing inherently normative about those decisions. Such decisions are only normative to the degree that they accurately apply biblical teaching to the matter at hand.
“In which case, there is no judge which can settle a matter with the normativity to bind the conscience of any man other than himself and all ecclesiastical judgments are in principle revisable.”
I accept that consequence.
At the same time, every individual is also in the hands of God. Nothing happens apart from God’s providential purpose for the church.
“Clear problems arise in say cases of excommunication.”
How is that a problem? Excommunication is a fallible process. It’s quite possible to be unjustly excommunicated.
That’s only a problem if you have a sacramental view of the church such that excommunication severs the individual from the saving means of grace. I don’t.
“In 2 Tim 3, Paul seems to indicate the Scripture is the rule to be employed by the ‘man of God’ and the way that Scripture uses that term doesn’t seem to indicate that the ‘man of God’ is just any believer.”
Yes and no. Paul lays down certain qualifications for church office. Church office doesn’t qualify the candidate. Church office doesn’t confer a set of qualifications on a candidate. Rather, the candidate, in his lay identity, must bring these qualifications to the job.
A pastor is a qualified layman. A layman who’s qualified to hold church office.
“The Scriptures are a rule to be employed by those appropriately sent and commissioned such that the question becomes, who sent these ministers? For how will they preach, unless they have been sent?”
Prophets and apostles are “sent.” Pastors are not.
Prophets and apostles have a special divine vocation. A charismatic calling. Their authority derives from their inspiration.
By contrast, pastors have natural abilities. The Pauline qualifications for church office involve natural human abilities.
Timothy himself may have had a prophetic gift of some sort, but that’s not a qualification for church office.
“Who commissioned the Reformers and with what commissioning, ordinary or extraordinary?”
No one. The only relevant question is whether the Reformers met the Pauline qualifications for church office.
Your reasoning might have more traction with someone like Scott Clark, who has a more authoritarian concept of the church than I do. But it’s a nonstarter for a Biblicist and low/free churchman like me.
ENERGETICPROCESSION.COM SAID:
“Steve, in Orthodoxy, authority is predicated on the spiritual life such that the prophets, apostles, and saints in seeing the glory of the Lord have this authority.”
I appreciate the explanation. However, I have no reason to put the saints in the same class as the apostles and prophets. Indeed, I have good reason not to.
“Those who know and are of God are the final arbiter. Like the men you quote.”
But I the pertinent knowledge is tied to inspiration, which had its terminus at ad quem with the death of the apostles and some of their handpicked deputies.
“The prophets, Christ, and the apostles held men accountable to their testimony whether some judged it true or not.”
True, which is why heretics and impenitents don’t get away with anything in the long run.
You have worked very hard to join the ends of a circle.
ReplyDeletea practical matter, every man (or woman) in the crowd had to judge for himself. Some judged rightly and some judged wrongly. Who determines those who judged rightly vs. wrongly?
A.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDeleteYou have worked very hard to join the ends of a circle.
a practical matter, every man (or woman) in the crowd had to judge for himself. Some judged rightly and some judged wrongly. Who determines those who judged rightly vs. wrongly?
****************************
i) In terms of Biblical narrative, the narrator determines who judged rightly or wrongly. The narrative viewpoints cues the reader as to which members of the audience responded appropriately, and which did not.
ii) If you mean nowadays, that operates at two different levels:
a) One individual judges rightly or wrongly whether another individual judged rightly or wrongly.
A high churchman can’t escape private judgment. He has to judge for himself which church is the true church. He has to judge for himself which interpretation of a church father is right or wrong.
If he judges evangelicalism to be false, that’s a personal value-judgment. So you are forced to determine to your own satisfaction those who judged rightly vs. wrongly.
Was it the Pope? The Patriarch of Moscow? Arius? Chrysostom?
b) Ultimately, God determines who judged rightly vs. wrongly.
Does orthodoxy have a place in your perspective? If so what is it's role?
ReplyDeleteThat question is too vague to answer.
ReplyDeleteIf it is vague in your understanding given what has been stated in your thread to date, you were wise not to answer. We will leave it at that. Thank you for the exchange.
ReplyDeleteA.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDelete"If it is vague in your understanding given what has been stated in your thread to date, you were wise not to answer. We will leave it at that. Thank you for the exchange."
Spare me the maladroit condescension. When you pose a question, it's your responsibility to spell out the parameters of your question. It's not up to me to guess what you have in mind.
There is nothing vague about my understanding of the issues. The vagary lies in the formulation of your question.
So don't make your grand exit under the illusion that you've scored some sort of coup with your parting shot.
There was no condescension involved. You were free to define orthodoxy as you desired from your opening post and your original objections. You chose not to. My observation was that you made no mention of how the orthodoxy of the church comes into play in determining what is proper doctrine and what is not, specifically with regard to who makes such determinations. I do not desire to argue the issue with you but instead note some of the short comings in your presentation. Perhaps you should discuss the issues of orthodoxy and authority with your pastor or elders. I have found such discussions to be of great benefit with such complex matters as these.
ReplyDeleteA.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDelete“There was no condescension involved. You were free to define orthodoxy as you desired from your opening post and your original objections.”
That’s not how Perry Robinson (and, later, Daniel Jones) framed the issue. You’re rewriting the history of the thread. I was responding to Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones.
“You chose not to. My observation was that you made no mention of how the orthodoxy of the church comes into play in determining what is proper doctrine and what is not.”
And that’s not how you framed your original question to me either. Don’t pretend that you said something you didn’t say, then backdate it as if that’s what you said all along.
“Specifically with regard to who makes such determinations.”
That goes back to Perry’s question, which I answered. Moreover, Perry’s question was more narrowly qualified.
Only someone who is infallible can infallibly determine what is orthodox or heterodox. Barring that, all such determinations are fallible.
Churches can render fallible judgments on the parameters of orthodoxy. And they can formulate the terms of ordination, membership, or excommunication accordingly.
But Perry framed the issue in terms of “normativity.”
“I do not desire to argue the issue with you…”
Because you’d lose the argument. Since you don’t have good arguments, you try to weasel out of an exchange which you initiated.
“But instead note some of the short comings in your presentation.”
Unless and until you’re prepared to knuckle down and actually argue for your contentions, then you’re in no position to assert “shortcomings” in my presentation. You haven’t paid the intellectual dues to collect on that conclusion.
“Perhaps you should discuss the issues of orthodoxy and authority with your pastor or elders. I have found such discussions to be of great benefit with such complex matters as these.”
Perhaps you should stop begging the question. You need to establish which pastors or elders of which denominations to consult. To do that you need to establish which denominations are orthodox. To do that you need a doctrinal standard which is independent of my pastor or your pastor. Or do you just flip a coin?
Aside from not owing you any sense of intellectual dues, perhaps it is a better thing to leave you to your devices. My inquiry with orthodoxy is understood by even those young students with a slight modicum of church understanding. I am certain you could have addressed it but you chose not to as is your license.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, your own pastor and elders would naturally be those I would recommend to you unless of course you lack trust in their wisdom.
A.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Aside from not owing you any sense of intellectual dues, perhaps it is a better thing to leave you to your devices.”
Meaning that you can’t back up your assertions with an honest argument.
“My inquiry with orthodoxy is understood by even those young students with a slight modicum of church understanding.”
You’re in no position to anticipate what they would say. You love to make assertions you can’t begin to back up.
“I am certain you could have addressed it but you chose not to as is your license.”
There’s nothing to address since you’re too evasive to formulate a specific question.
“In any event, your own pastor and elders would naturally be those I would recommend to you unless of course you lack trust in their wisdom.”
Now you’re resorting to demagoguery. You clearly don’t think that just any old pastor of just any old church is in a position to determine what’s orthodox or not. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have introduced the issue in the first place.
Therefore, you’re not even attempting to be consistent with your own position. Instead, you’ll casting about for any excuse you can use to cover your hasty retreat, whether or not that’s a principled excuse.
There is no hasty retreat. Do you engage in the ad hominem attack with everybody that questions your logic? That is certainly the case in this exchange and adding that to your reluctance to commit your understanding of orthodoxy into your discussion, there really is no Christian discourse to be had here.
ReplyDeleteI had been cautioned by wise Christians in engaging your proclivities but thought otherwise. Perhaps they were accurate in their assessments.
Blessings in Christ.
A.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDelete“There is no hasty retreat. Do you engage in the ad hominem attack with everybody that questions your logic?”
When you’re evasive, I’ll point out that you’re evasive. It’s perfectly valid to draw attention to your refusal to argue for your position or even formulate a specific question–then pretend that your opponent failed to respond when you gave him nothing to respond to.
You’ve been bluffing your way through this exchange for several comments now.
“That is certainly the case in this exchange and adding that to your reluctance to commit your understanding of orthodoxy into your discussion.”
Once again, statements like “commit your understanding of orthodoxy into your discussion” is an utterly vague statement on your part. There’s nothing to respond to.
“There really is no Christian discourse to be had here.”
You have no claim on “Christian discourse” when you continue to behave in this shifty fashion.
“I had been cautioned by wise Christians in engaging your proclivities but thought otherwise. Perhaps they were accurate in their assessments.”
I see. Do you engage in the ad hominem attack with everybody that questions your logic?
You have one more chance to post a substantive comment. If you can’t bring yourself to pose a specific question or specific objection, then further comments will be deleted. I don’t have time to waste on evasive opponents.
Mr. Mallet,
ReplyDeleteBefore even reading your profile, your comment came across as very condescending.
Then, after Steve had asked a legitimate clarifying query to your next comment, you proceeded to insult his intelligence thus provoking him.
If you had been warned by certain 'Christians' of certain 'proclivities,' then they were nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies.
Your behavior here is contemptible.