Pages

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Remember Lot's Wife



Dan Wallace has done a post at his new blog that’s getting a lot of buzz:


But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome.

I’m not clear on why he says Protestants made the split necessary. The usual argument is that Rome made the split necessary. Rome forced the issue by her impenitant moral and theological corruption.

Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity.

Why is that tragic? Christ founded a church, not a denomination. The Protestant Reformers simply broke with a preexisting denomination. The Roman church is merely a Western European denomination. A local church that gained undue influence through power politics, which became (and remains) morally and theologically corrupt.

Why is splitting from Rome any more tragic than splitting from the PC-USA, EPUSA, ELCA, &c.?

The church is a divine institution, but denominations are man-made. That doesn’t mean denominations are inherently evil. Just that denominations are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. They exist to serve a function. Sometimes they outlive their usefulness. Sometimes they become counterproductive.

Consider Stephen’s contrast between the temple and the tabernacle (Acts 7). The temple was fixed in time and place. Centralized. Fairly permanent.

The tabernacle was portable. Decentralized. Stephen commends a tabernacle piety over a temple piety. Travel light and keep your bags packed. Be ready to break camp and move on. Heb 11 has a similar mindset. Don’t get tied down. This is a journey, not a destination.

Spiritually speaking, should Christians live in tents or houses? Should we live like Abraham or Solomon? NT piety is nomadic. Like Jews who eat the Passover in haste, with cloak tucked into their belt, feet shod, and staff in hand, Christians should never settle down, but stay on the move.

Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity…

That’s a false dichotomy. Shared truth is a source of unity. A bond between like-minded believers. Insofar as there is only one truth, truth and unity go together. You are one with another by believing the same truths. By living by the same truths.  

You can split over perceived truth. You can disagree over what is true.

…but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

That’s deeply misleading:

i) To begin with, contemporary Catholicism is a big tent. There’s what the Roman church believes on paper. Then there’s its very lax standards of church membership. In practice, Modern Catholicism is like an Arab Bazaar. 

ii) Historically, both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been highly polarizing forces, by persecuting heretics. They’ve caused divisions within Christendom. They have actively spawned schismatics. They have maintained internal unity by excommunicating dissidents.

I’m not commenting on whether this is good or bad. I’m just pointing out that this type of unity can only exist by first fomenting disunity, then distancing itself from the other.

If you draw a line in the sand, there will be unity on your side of the line. But you achieve that unity by exclusion rather than inclusion. When you draw a line in the sand, that’s automatically and intentionally divisive. You instantly create insiders and outsiders. Your unity can only exist in contrast to the outsiders. Wherever you draw the line, you will have groups on either side of the line.

This can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how and where the lines are drawn. But the resultant unity is a partial unity, within a larger disunity.

“But unity in falsehood is no unity at all,” some will protest. To a degree that is true. If the unity of the church meant that we would all deny the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person, then that would be unity against an essential of the Christian faith. But there is no thinking Christian who agrees lock, stock, and barrel with what his pastor teaches. Yet, he is a part of that church. In this respect, he has prized unity over truth. We all have to do this. If we didn’t, each Christian would be his or her own church. The fellowship would be awfully predictable and quite boring!

But that’s true for Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike. For instance, many Catholics and Orthodox are members in good standing, even though they are nominal members. They don’t agree with everything their denomination represents.

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.

There are several obvious problems with a hierarchical accountability system:



i) Subordinates are accountable to superiors while superiors are unaccountable to subordinates.

ii) If the hierarchy is liberal, it will impose heresy rather than orthodoxy. It will persecute the faithful rather than promoting the faith.

iii) Take some real-world examples. Lutherans have a hierarchical accountability system: episcopacy. Is Lutheranism in Germany, Denmark, and Norway conspicuous for its doctrinal fidelity? Have Lutheran bishops kept the ELCA faithful in doctrine and practice?

What about the church of England, or the ECUSA? Need we say more?

Presbyterians also have a somewhat stratified polity. The Presbytery. The General Assembly. How well has that worked for the PC-USA?

No accountability system is better than the men who run the system. Who watches the watchman? On the one hand we have accountability mechanisms to police human nature, but human nature is where every accountability mechanism breaks down. That’s the weak link. We’re putting some sinners in charge to police other sinners. That always has predictable results.

The machinery won’t save us from ourselves. Skynet won’t protect us. There’s no substitute for faith.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have accountability structures in church. But it’s not as if a hierarchical system is more reliable than independent churches or the SBC. Every alternative has its share of horror stories.

Three events have especially caused me to reflect on my own ecclesiological situation and long for something different.
 
First, I have spent a lot of time with Greek Orthodox folks. It doesn’t matter what Orthodox church or monastery I visit, I get the same message, the same liturgy, the same sense of the ‘holy other’ in our fellowship with the Triune God.
 
i) If Wallace stepped into a time-machine and traveled back to the 1C, if he visited different house-churches, would he encounter the same liturgy? Did 1C churches have incense and icons? Priests in vestments? The alter behind an ornate screen (iconostasis or templon)?

Is this how 1C Christians in apostolic churches worshipped God?


ii) The Greek Orthodox have a highly stylized worship service. Sacred theater. Play-acting.

That quickly becomes routine, perfunctory. The effect is numbing. Like watching the same movie every week. Rather than fellowshipping with God, it distances you from God.

The liturgy is precisely what bothers so many Protestants since their churches often try very hard to mute the voices from the past. “It’s just me and my Bible” is the motto of millions of evangelicals. They often intentionally forget the past two millennia and the possibility that the Spirit of God was working in the church during that time. Church history for all too many evangelicals does not start until Luther pounded that impressive parchment on the Schlosskirche door.

That’s a cliché. And it’s also a half-truth. Certainly church history is, in part, the history of God preserving the church for 2000 years. But church history is also a history of apostasy and corruption. Church history is, by turns, a record of fidelity and infidelity.

In Protestantism, one really doesn’t know what he or she will experience from church to church.

Is freedom of choice a bad thing? At least that gives you the opportunity to choose from the best available options rather than being stuck with uniform error.

Even churches of the same denomination are widely divergent. Some have a rock-solid proclamation of the Word, while others play games and woo sinners to join their ranks without even the slightest suggestion that they should repent of anything.

But in a fallen world, that’s inevitable. There’s no point complaining about things you can’t change. No point being perpetually disgruntled. In every generation you have well-intentioned Christians like Wallace who complain about too much diversity, too much mediocrity, in the church. But the complaints come and go. The complainers come and go.

We can’t make everyone do what we think they should. Rather, we can only form associations with those who share our outlook. I’m reminded of the Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
Courage to change the things I can
And wisdom to know the difference.

If Wallace were born a hundred years earlier or later, he’d find similar things to complain about. Go back 500 years. 1000. 1500 years. Heck, go back to the First Church of Corinth!

And his complaints wouldn’t leave a trace. No point fighting futile battles. It only leads to needless aggravation, frustration, disappointment, disillusionment, and bitterness. At the end of the day we’re primarily responsible for our own individual conduct.

Too many Protestant churches look like social clubs where the offense of the gospel has been diluted to feel-good psycho-theology.

Is the average Catholic Mass any improvement? Is the average Catholic homily any improvement?

Or consider some Greek Orthodox Americans: Jennifer Aniston, Michael Dukakis, Olympia Dukakis, Tommy Lee, John Podesta, Telly Savalas, Marina Sirtis, Olympia Snowe, George Stephanopoulos, Paul Tsongas, Jimmy "the Greek".

Are they devout Christians?

And the problem is only getting worse with mega-churches with their mini-theology. This ought not to be.

That’s a false dichotomy. While that’s true of some megachurches, it’s a hasty generalization. For instance, the 1C church of Jerusalem was the original megachurch-5000 strong (Acts 4:4).

Spurgeon pastured a megachurch. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, Tim Keller, John Piper, Edwin Lutzer, and Mark Discoll are (were) megachurch pstors. Even if you criticize their teaching in some respect, it’s not because they have mini-theology.

Second, a man whom I mentored years ago became a pastor of a non-denominational church. Recently and tragically, he denied the full deity of Christ and proclaimed that the Church had gotten it wrong since Nicea. He got in with a group of heretics who were very persuasive. The elders of the church had no recourse to any governing authority over the local church; they were the governing authority and they were not equipped to handle his heterodox teaching. It smelled wrong to them and they consulted me and another evangelical teacher for help. It took some time before they could show the pastor the door, and they were bewildered and troubled during the process. The congregation wasn’t sure which way was up. Doubts about the cornerstone of orthodoxy—the deity of Christ—arose. This cancer could have been cut out more swiftly and cleanly if the church was subordinate to a hierarchy that maintained true doctrine in its churches. And the damage would have been less severe and less traumatic for the church.

This raises a host of issues:

i) Does Wallace think hiring and firing should be taken out of the hands of the congregation and vested in some governing authority over the local church? But I don’t know why congregations would put up with an arrangement where they pay the bills but have no real say in how the church is run.

ii) The operative codicil is “if the church was subordinate to a hierarchy that maintained true doctrine in its churches.”

But what if it’s subordinate to a hierocracy that doesn’t maintain true doctrine? And that isn’t just hypothetical. Many hierarchical churches have liberals in the hierarchy.

iii) Even if a pastor is heretical, it would be damaging to summarily remove him. You have to prepare the congregation for that action. You have to bring the congregation into the process. After all, a number of parishioners may be emotionally attached to the pastor. They can’t go to church next Sunday and suddenly see an interim pastor in the pulpit. That would hardly be fair to the interim pastor.

Although a heretical pastor should clearly be fired, that can’t happen overnight. There has to be some explanation, as well as understanding on the part of the congregation. Otherwise, the exercise will backfire.

iv) Apropos (iii), if the congregation is confused on something as basic as the deity of Christ, they need to be shown what the Bible says about that. They can’t simply be told that the pastor is a heretic–even if he is. They need to be able to see that for themselves. Someone should walk them through the Biblical evidence.

v) Apropos (iv), it isn’t enough for parishioners to put their faith in the governing authority. They need to put their faith in the witness of Scripture. Christian faith is faith in the word of God. Faith in Jesus. Faith in what Jesus says about himself. Faith in the apostolic witness to Christ. Not blind faith in church elders.

It can’t just be: “Take our word for it–he’s a heretic!”

I’m sure that Wallace appreciates this fact, for he himself has coauthored a couple of books for laymen (Reinventing Jesus; Dethroning Jesus) which are designed to educate the laity.

vi) BTW, since Wallace has mentions the Eastern Orthodox, I’d like to make a point in that regard. The Orthodox are famous for their emphasis on Christology and Triadology. But how intrinsically important is that to many Orthodox? How does that really function in Orthodoxy?

Is it essentially different from Saturday worship for Seventh-Day Adventists? In other words, do the Orthodox make a big deal about Christology and Triadology because that’s fundamentally important in itself, or is this like Saturday worship–just a way of differentiating themselves from other Christian groups? Is the function of these doctrines essentially sociological, as boundary markers to distinguish the Orthodox from other Christian groups?

Take the fixation on the Filioque. Do most Orthodox really consider that all-important, in and of itself? Or is it just something to set them apart from the rest of the pack? To make them feel special and superior?

To take a comparison, cultures have ways of demarcating social class. It’s terribly important to the upper class to distinguish itself from the lower class. It has artificial ways of doing this. Elaborate table manners. Fancy cloths. A fancy accent. A distinctive dialect. Changing for dinner. All ways of ensuring that you don’t confuse the upper class with the lower class.

Same thing with some theological distinctives, which can really be theological customs. It’s not about fidelity to revealed truth, but spiritual snobbery. Justifying your separate existence from the hoi polloi.

This is a great danger when people simply default to their sectarian traditions. Eastern Orthodoxy is primarily concerned, not with biblical Christology (or Triadology), but patristic or conciliar Christology. The Bible filtered through Orthodox tradition. 

Third, a book by David Dungan called Constantine’s Bible makes an astounding point about the shape of the canon in the ancient church. Dungan discusses the passage in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (6.12) when this church father famously spoke of four categories of literary candidates for the canon—homolegoumena, antilegomena, apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha. Dungan mentions that for Eusebius to speak of any books as homolegoumena—those twenty books that had universal consent in his day as canonical—he was speaking of an unbroken chain of bishops, from the first century to the fourth, who affirmed authorship and authenticity of such books. What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church. Dungan went on to say that Eusebius must have looked up the records in the church annals and could speak thus only on the basis of such records. If Dungan is right, then the issue of the authorship of certain books (most notably the seven disputed letters of Paul) is settled. And it’s settled by appeal to an ecclesiological structure that is other than what Protestants embrace. The irony is that today evangelicals especially argue for authenticity of the disputed letters of Paul, yet they are arguing with one hand tied behind their back. And it has been long noted that the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity.

There are several problems with this appeal:

i) I’m surprised that it doesn’t occur to Wallace that Eusebius may be painting a somewhat idealized portrait of the period..

ii) In addition, those circumstances are unrepeatable in modern times. We’re not living in the 4C. Contemporary Catholic and Orthodox bishops don’t have access to the same records that were available to Eusebius. They’re in the same boat Protestants are. They just sit in the stern, facing away–pretending that they occupy a different boat. But the epistemic situation of a well-connected 4C church historian can’t be replicated in our own time and place. Those conditions came and went long ago.

Wallace is confusing evidence with an argument from authority.

iii) The church of Rome didn’t really have an official canon until Trent. And you can’t say Rome had an informal canon all that time, for when Trent convened, the bishops weren’t in agreement on the scope of the canon. Even after debating the issue, there was no unanimity. Not even a majority. Just a plurality.

The Orthodox don’t have a canon. They don’t feel the need. From their perspective, the Orthodox don’t really need the Bible. They treat the Bible as a ladder. Once you climb the ladder to the top, you no longer need it.

They think they’ve taken what they need from Scripture. That’s enshrined the liturgy, Greek Fathers, Desert Fathers, and church councils. 

First of all, we Protestants can be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology rather than think that we’ve got a corner on truth. We need to humbly recognize that the two other branches of Christendom have done a better job in this area.

They’ve done a worse job.

Second, we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don’t line up with ours.

Does Roman Catholicism have a distinguished record of ethical accountability? Hierarchical church governance is a one-way street. That’s a recipe for decadence. Consider the Renaissance papacy. Or the sex scandal.

Third, we can begin to listen again to the voice of the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries. Obviously, it must all be subject to biblical authority, but we dare not neglect the last twenty centuries unless we think that the Spirit has been sleeping all that time.

i) There can be dangers in looking back. Remember Lot’s wife (Lk 17:32)!

ii) I’m all for listening to the voice of the Spirit. But as we’re also admonished: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn 4:1).

iii) The Spirit can also speak through Amish, Puritans, Plymouth Brethren, or Protestant Reformers. The Spirit can speak through a pious mother or grandmother.

iv) God requires us to be faithful to the situation he put us in. Not to be faithful to the situation of our forebears. Not to keep faith with our ancestors. Not to reproduce their circumstances. Not to reproduce their adaptive strategies. We are answerable to God, not to our forebears. Just as they aren’t answerable to us, we aren’t answerable to them.

We must be loyal to God, not to those who came before us. And that’s the example we should set for posterity. Not to bind posterity to us, but to bind posterity to God, as he’s expressed his will in his Word. The departed faithful have no claim on us. Only God has a claim on us.

I wonder why it is that in evangelical churches we often refuse to let those who are seminary-trained be on elder boards. I believe that elder boards should indeed have laymen on them, but I think they also should have those who have gone through the rigors of theological education and understand what it means to be committed to the scriptures. In evangelicalism especially the priesthood of the believer means a pooling of ignorance, which is quite different from the Reformation or biblical principle. More than one elder should have an MDiv or ThM.

I agree. Of course, that’s not a failsafe.

In short, there is no ideal church, nor can there be today, because we’ve all made a mess of things since the eleventh century when Rome and Constantinople went their separate ways.

Wallace is wistful for a legendary golden age. But that’s a mirage. If he were actually living back then I doubt he’d be that nostalgic.

The seven universal creeds of the ancient Church articulate especially a high Christology.
 
We need to examine sympathetically yet critically what the Fathers have said—including modern Fathers of the Church—and glean from the wisdom that the Holy Spirit has imparted to them. The Nicene Creed is one of these traditions that needs to be examined in detail and wrestled with. In general, I can say that unless we see rather compelling evidence to the contrary in the scriptures, we should embrace what these universal creeds are teaching.

i) Actually, I think Nicene orthodoxy (to take one example) articulates a lower Christology than NT Christology.

ii) Moreover, exegeting the Bible is already a full-time task. But to exegete church fathers and church councils quickly gets you mired in multiple layers of church history. That becomes a detour without a destination. You can delve ever deeper into church history without ever finding your way out of the cave.

iii) The study of church history tells us what people have believed, but the study of Bible history tells us what people should believe.

Russ, I have thought about the Anglican Church quite a bit actually. I love the liturgy, the symbolism, the centrality of the Eucharist, the strong connection with the church in ages past, and the hierarchy. And yes, I have seriously considered joining their ranks–and still am considering it. There are some superb Anglican churches in the Dallas area.

i) If Wallace wants to join an evangelical Anglican church, I’m fine with that. However, let’s keep in mind that Wallace is not your average churchgoer. He’s intellectually gifted. He’s a seasoned NT scholar. He’s taught two generations of pastors.

So I doubt he has much of anything to learn from the average sermon. He probably finds it boring to listen to the average sermon. In that respect, it’s not surprising if he prefers a communion-centered service to a sermon-centered service. But most laymen aren’t in his situation.

Likewise, he’s dutifully labored in some of the drier fields of NT scholarship, viz. textual criticism, Greek grammar, NT backgrounds. So it’s not surprising if he’s a bit dehydrated by the average evangelical church service. If he needs a draft of Anglican aesthetics to quench his thirst.

ii) Joining an Anglican church would subvert Wallace’s central complaint. The Anglican church broke with Rome. And ever since the elevation of Vicki Gene Robinson to the episcopate, you’ve had a major schism within the Anglican Communion. 

34 comments:

  1. They have actively spawned schismatics.

    I'm just blowing past the rest of the post, but I'm just loving that on the short list of Horrible Things Catholics Did, "for one thing, they made those freaking protestants!" made the cut. :D

    ReplyDelete
  2. Try to follow the argument. I didn't comment on whether the results were good or bad. I'm merely responding to Wallace on his own grounds. He objected to Protestant disunity. I pointed out that Catholicism is a source of disunity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Try to follow the argument.

    Hell no! That's boring. I came for the laughs.

    I pointed out that Catholicism is a source of disunity.

    I think you're going to have to do a little more work on this, because otherwise you're telling me that the mastermind behind the Protestant Reformation was, in fact, the Catholic Church.

    It comes across a little like insisting that men are the leading cause of divorce. Did you know that 100% of all divorced women were previously married to a man? There's your proof!

    If you say "no, the correlation doesn't equal causation there", you'll be playing into Wallace's hands. I have a feeling his argument about Protestant disunity will deal with fundamental protestant approaches to Christianity.

    But really, I wasn't here to make a serious comment. I just thought that quote was unintentionally funny.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the one hand, Crude insinuates he didn't read the post and isn't serious about engaging it:

    "I'm just blowing past the rest of the post...Hell no! That's boring. I came for the laughs...But really, I wasn't here to make a serious comment..."

    But on the other hand, Crude feels free to lecture the author of the post about a point dependent upon the author's post for background, which in turn was a post which Crude apparently didn't even bother to read in the first place:

    "I think you're going to have to do a little more work on this..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the one hand, Crude insinuates he didn't read the post and isn't serious about engaging it:

    I hardly "insinuated". I flat out said! I couldn't have been clearer about this if I typed in all caps.

    Really, pretending to take my comments to the Protestant Crime Lab is overkill here. I'm not exactly being subtle.

    But on the other hand, Crude feels free to lecture the author of the post about a point dependent upon

    ...his reply to me, in the comments.

    And "lecture"? I just responded to what he actually wrote, I gave a fast example of why what he said to me doesn't seem to be so cut and dry. And really, my statements here have been - let's face it - less than a bug fart in terms of actual content. I doubt Steve feels lectured to.

    But hey, carefully parse my words if you like. Not really necessary, but I suppose it's kind of flattering.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This cancer could have been cut out more swiftly and cleanly if the church was subordinate to a hierarchy that maintained true doctrine in its churches. And the damage would have been less severe and less traumatic for the church.

    Yeah, like the Athanasius was banished from his See 5 times by various emperors at the behest of the majority Arian leaders during the Arian ascendancy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The Roman church is merely a Western European denomination."

    It's a bit ridiculous to call the only church in a particular geographic area a "denomination".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Crude said:

    "But hey, carefully parse my words if you like. Not really necessary, but I suppose it's kind of flattering."

    Well, I was trying to take your words in a more positive light. But since you readily admit your own words were far less measured than I had tried to take them, what can I say? I guess I'll have to agree with you! :-)

    "...his reply to me, in the comments."

    Which in turn presumes as background what Steve wrote in his post, which you "flat out said" you haven't read and aren't serious about engaging.

    "Really, pretending to take my comments to the Protestant Crime Lab is overkill here."

    Pity you take my words in a more negative light (e.g. "pretending," "the Protestant Crime Lab").

    Ah, well. C'est la vie.

    "And really, my statements here have been - let's face it - less than a bug fart in terms of actual content."

    Once again, I can't disagree if that's what you think of your own words! :-)

    "I doubt Steve feels lectured to."

    What he "feels" and what you did aren't identical.

    Anyway, ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve, you said:

    "Why is splitting from Rome any more tragic than splitting from the PC-USA, EPUSA, ELCA, &c.?"

    It's not. Nor is it any less so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Then there’s its very lax standards of [Catholic] church membership."

    Are you talking about active or passive Church discipline? Most churches -- Protestant or Catholic -- don't usually oust members unless there's a very visible and obvious transgression. I certainly can't think of many who actively investigate the lives of their parishioners to see if their lives reflect the expectations of that denomination.

    So, I don't think is particularly a Catholic issue ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve,

    I think the main weakness of your response (though you did make some fair points) was that you didn't really address certain key issues. You commented on various points without actually refuting them.

    For example, when Wallace quoted scholars as saying "Protestantism has no ecclesiology," you responded by saying every ecclesiology has flaws, essentially agreeing with his point. That Protestantism has no ecclesiology (i.e. ecclesiology is a 'non-essential', and thus not perspicuous) is going to have serious ramifications as to how schism and heresy are going to be addressed, both in terms of soteriology and governing policy. It's ridiculous to suggest a hierarchical policy is no better than an autonomous 'non-denominational' type policy and that Christians are free to pick what they feel is best.

    So Wallace is concerned about a real problem, namely unaccountability since Protestantism has no ecclesiology, and you respond by saying no ecclesial structure is the right one.

    P.S. Blogger has removed the "Subscribe by Email" option since it's latest series of "improvements" and if you want folks leaving comments to be able to follow a discussion you have to go to your blog Settings and enable "Embedded Comments".

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's posts like this that keep me coming back here, Steve.

    I was just having a conversation with a dear brother who is a Lutheran, and has recently split off the ELCA, and he brought up this very point in his concern over independent churches.

    Ironically, he told me that there needed to be oversight to guard the true deposit of apostolic teaching, and I said to him, "how did that work out for you?"

    Christ builds His Church, and Christ preserves and sustains His Church, not denominations, not organizations, not even creeds, as useful as they can be as means.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JAMES SAID:

    "Are you talking about active or passive Church discipline? Most churches -- Protestant or Catholic -- don't usually oust members unless there's a very visible and obvious transgression. I certainly can't think of many who actively investigate the lives of their parishioners to see if their lives reflect the expectations of that denomination."

    I'm thinking of liberal Catholic politicians, for instance. Or mafia dons, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nick said...

    “I think the main weakness of your response (though you did make some fair points) was that you didn't really address certain key issues. You commented on various points without actually refuting them.”

    I wasn’t stating my own position from scratch. I was responding to Wallace on his own terms. That’s not a “weakness.”

    “For example, when Wallace quoted scholars as saying ‘Protestantism has no ecclesiology,’ you responded by saying every ecclesiology has flaws, essentially agreeing with his point.”

    That’s a fallacious inference from what I said. It also depends on what you mean by “ecclesiology.”

    i) The Bible has a lot to say about the theology of the church, beginning with the OT covenant community and the remnant. Then we have the church under the new covenant.

    ii) But I suppose you’re really referring to church polity: the formal organization of the church. NT polity is simple, minimal, flexible. It can be developed in more than one direction, depending on the needs of the situation. But extrabiblical developments are pragmatic, not obligatory.

    “That Protestantism has no ecclesiology (i.e. ecclesiology is a 'non-essential'…”

    You’re piggybacking on a false premise. Imputing to me something I didn’t say or imply.

    “Essential” is ambiguous. “Essential” is generally a relative term–essential in relation to what? Are hiking boots essential? If you plan to go hiking, they may be essential, but if you play to go surfing, they are inessential.

    Is a hierarchical polity essential to the preservation of orthodoxy? No. To the contrary, a hierarchical polity frequently facilitates and codifies heresy.

    “…and thus not perspicuous)”

    You continue to build on a false premise. I didn’t suggest the Bible was unclear on ecclesiology. The Bible is clear in what it says.

    The problem is that some folks are always dissatisfied with what it says because they want it to say more. They demand answers that it doesn’t give. They want it to rubberstamp their extrabiblical ecclesiology.

    “…is going to have serious ramifications as to how schism and heresy are going to be addressed, both in terms of soteriology and governing policy.”

    i) Which I discuss in response to Wallace.

    ii) Of course, the traditional way that Rome addressed “schism and heresy” was by killing and/or torturing those it identifies as heretics and schismatics. Do you think that policy should be reinstated?

    “It's ridiculous to suggest a hierarchical policy is no better than an autonomous 'non-denominational' type policy and that Christians are free to pick what they feel is best.”

    It’s ridiculous for you to say it’s ridiculous. I gave reasons for my position. Your assertion is not a refutation.

    “So Wallace is concerned about a real problem, namely unaccountability since Protestantism has no ecclesiology, and you respond by saying no ecclesial structure is the right one.”

    Wallace poses a problem and proposes a hypothetical solution. I point out that his solution fails to solve the problem he posed. That’s a perfectly adequate response. That’s how he framed the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve said:

    >>NT polity is simple, minimal, flexible. It can be developed in more than one direction, depending on the needs of the situation.>>

    Where are you getting that conclusion?


    >>“Essential” is ambiguous.>>

    I was speaking of "essential" in regards to Sola Scriptura making the "essential" doctrines perspicuous. So whatever is 'essential' for faith and Christian living should be plainly spelled out in Scripture; if not, it's not essential.


    >>Is a hierarchical polity essential to the preservation of orthodoxy? No.>>

    That's not how I was using the term "essential". The issue isn't so much "which ecclesiology is better?" as it is "which ecclesiology is God's Will?"


    >>I didn’t suggest the Bible was unclear on ecclesiology.>>

    That's the impression I got when you said no polity is perfect. If you are saying the Bible is "clear" that ecclesiology is "simple, minimal, flexible," I'd say that collapses into a relativist ecclesiology and in effect no different than no ecclesiology at all.


    >>Of course, the traditional way that Rome addressed “schism and heresy” was by killing and/or torturing those it identifies as heretics and schismatics.>>

    Both Protestants and Catholic secular powers have been involved in that, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly. That's not how the Church itself addressed those issues though, since schism/heresy are defined in relation to orthodox ecclesiology and theology.


    >>It’s ridiculous for you to say it’s ridiculous. I gave reasons for my position. Your assertion is not a refutation.>>

    To say hierarchy is no better than autonomy is to say they are equal, which means Scripture isn't clear on which of two contradictory ecclesiologies are right. That's like someone saying Christ is Divine and Christ is not Divine are equally acceptable positions from the available Scriptural evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. NICK SAID:

    "Where are you getting that conclusion?"

    From the NT.

    "I was speaking of 'essential' in regards to Sola Scriptura making the 'essential' doctrines perspicuous. So whatever is 'essential' for faith and Christian living should be plainly spelled out in Scripture; if not, it's not essential."

    You're confusing whether Scripture teaches the essentials of church polity from whether church policy is an "essential doctrine."

    "That's not how I was using the term 'essential'. The issue isn't so much 'which ecclesiology is better?' as it is 'which ecclesiology is God's Will?'"

    Everything isn't a binary choice between right and wrong. Sometimes there can be more than one practical and/or morally licit option.

    "That's the impression I got when you said no polity is perfect."

    No polity solves the problem that Wallace posed (or alleged).

    "If you are saying the Bible is "clear" that ecclesiology is "simple, minimal, flexible," I'd say that collapses into a relativist ecclesiology and in effect no different than no ecclesiology at all."

    That's an illogical inference. Why would a simple, minimal, and flexible polity be no different than no polity at all?

    Keep in mind that Roman Catholic polity evolved over the centuries, and continues to evolve. So that's pretty flexible, although it hardly has the virtue of simplicity.

    "That's not how the Church itself addressed those issues though."

    Historically, that's exactly how the Roman church itself addressed heresy (real or imagined) and schism.

    "To say hierarchy is no better than autonomy is to say they are equal..."

    Actually, I said hierarchical church polity is generally worse.

    "...which means Scripture isn't clear on which of two contradictory ecclesiologies are right."

    You're equivocating. The fact that Scripture hasn't said more on a particular issue doesn't mean it's unclear in what it has said.

    And it doesn't mean it needs to say more. You beg the question.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve,

    (1) What specific passages from the NT are you getting the simple/minimal/flexible conclusion? Do you have any articles you can link to?

    (2) I see no substantial difference between Scripture teaching "essentials of church polity" with polity being an "essential doctrine".

    (3) If the choice is between two mutually exclusive views - e.g. hierarchy vs autonomy - then that's binary, the only alternative is that neither are perspicuous.

    (4) I guess it depends on how one defines simple/minimal/flexible. A polity too flexible, such that mutually exclusive options are valid, makes it collapse into relativism. If a polity is too simple and too minimal, that can be taken as no structures at all (e.g. a self appointed house church).

    (5) I don't see why the Church would have Ecumenical Councils if it were simply a matter of persecuting the weaker camps.

    (6) Scripture could say:
    (a) "some form of polity is necessary" - being totally vague
    (b) "hierarchy is necessary" - ruling out autonomy
    (c) "autonomy is necessary" - ruling out hierarchy

    If you are arguing Scripture teaches something akin to (a), then that doesn't tell us much of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. NICK SAID:
    Steve,

    "(1) What specific passages from the NT are you getting the simple/minimal/flexible conclusion? Do you have any articles you can link to?"

    Roger Beckwith has a good summary and analysis in his little book Elders in Every City.

    "(2) I see no substantial difference between Scripture teaching 'essentials of church polity' with polity being an 'essential doctrine'."

    It's a pretty elementary distinction, like the difference between the essentials of chess and whether chess is essential.

    "(3) If the choice is between two mutually exclusive views - e.g. hierarchy vs autonomy - then that's binary, the only alternative is that neither are perspicuous."

    I didn't say it was a choice between two mutually exclusive views.

    And you continue to foist your idiosyncratic definition on "perspicuous." Once again, there's a rudimentary distinction between clarity in what was said and leaving some things unstated. Try not to chronically confuse the two.

    "If a polity is too simple and too minimal, that can be taken as no structures at all (e.g. a self appointed house church)."

    What makes you think there *weren't* "self-appointed house-churches" in NT times? What makes you assume house-church hosts like Lydia or Aquila & Pricilla were/had to be "appointed."

    "(5) I don't see why the Church would have Ecumenical Councils if it were simply a matter of persecuting the weaker camps."

    Since you fail to explain why you don't see the connection, there's nothing for me to respond to.

    "If you are arguing Scripture teaches something akin to (a), then that doesn't tell us much of anything."

    To cut to the chase, Roman Catholic ecclesiology is contrary to Biblical ecclesiology.

    ReplyDelete
  19. (1) Unfortunately, the Elders in Every City book is $40 (used). There has to be a website or online article stating basically the same thing.

    (2) It makes no sense to suggest you can have "essentials of church polity" without also having polity being essential doctrine. They're two sides of the same coin. The whole point of perspicuity is so that one has sufficient information for Christian living.

    (3) Hierarchy and autonomy are opposites.

    (4) You asked: "What makes you think there *weren't* "self-appointed house-churches" in NT times? What makes you assume house-church hosts like Lydia or Aquila & Pricilla were/had to be "appointed."

    The concept of self-appointed defeats and contradicts the very mission of the Apostles, literally 'the sent' ones. Romans 10 says the Gospel comes by hearing, but those delivering the Gospel are sent. The various local congregations met in houses because that's the only place they could meet, but none the less there were deacons, bishops, etc, appointed to oversee. If self appointment were true, then Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus are nonsense. And 3 John 1:9-10 strongly refutes self-appointment and autonomy as well.

    (5) You said: "To cut to the chase, Roman Catholic ecclesiology is contrary to Biblical ecclesiology."
    Not according to texts like 3 John 1:9-10.

    ReplyDelete
  20. NICK SAID:

    "(1) Unfortunately, the Elders in Every City book is $40 (used). There has to be a website or online article stating basically the same thing."

    That's not my problem.

    "(2) It makes no sense to suggest you can have 'essentials of church polity' without also having polity being essential doctrine."

    To claim it makes no sense is not a counterargument.

    "They're two sides of the same coin."

    Another orphaned assertion.

    "The whole point of perspicuity is so that one has sufficient information for Christian living."

    i) You're confusing perspicuity of Scripture with the sufficiency of Scripture, which is inept.

    ii) You're also assuming that Biblical ecclesiology is insufficient, which begs the question.

    "The concept of self-appointed defeats and contradicts the very mission of the Apostles, literally 'the sent' ones. Romans 10 says the Gospel comes by hearing, but those delivering the Gospel are sent."

    There's no evidence that Priscilla & Aquila were sent. Sent by whom?

    "The various local congregations met in houses because that's the only place they could meet, but none the less there were deacons, bishops, etc, appointed to oversee."

    You make assertions bereft of evidence. There were independent missions and missionaries in the NT church. Christians who seized the initiative because there was a need, they were in the right place, and they had something to contribute. Consider the principle articulated in Mk 9:38-40.

    "If self appointment were true, then Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus are nonsense."

    His instructions don't require elders to be "appointed." They must simply meet certain minimal qualifications.

    "And 3 John 1:9-10 strongly refutes self-appointment and autonomy as well."

    There is no 3 John 1:9-10.

    "Not according to texts like 3 John 1:9-10."

    Aside from your inability to cite the passage properly, this is about someone who refuses to defer to the authority of an apostle.

    Nothing there about priests, or the Roman episcopate, much less the papacy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (1) All I'm asking for is an article that addresses your view of NT polity. I'm not even asking you to write some long response. If you want to convince someone, it helps to provide proof.


    (2) That's like saying the Bible teaches the essentials of chess but that chess isn't an essential game. That's ridiculous, it means perspicuity applies to aspects of doctrines that ultimately are note essential ones.

    (2i) Perspicuity and Sufficiency go hand in hand.

    (4) Priscilla & Aquila heard the gospel first by either Paul or a missionary sent by the Apostles. And from there Paul established a local church in their home.

    (4b) There were not "independent" missionaries in the NT Church. That's ridiculous. The principle in Mark 9:38 that you quote simply shows there can be believers outside formal communion, but says nothing about them being independent missions/missionaries. Your position makes every Tom, Nick, and Harry a pastor and missionary.

    (4c) Your view makes nonsense out of every text speaking of appointment and laying on of hands. Those become mere hand-waving.

    (5) You didn't exegete 3 John 9-10 adequately enough. Diotrephes clearly had ecclesial authority that couldn't simply be overturned or overthrown at the whim of those who disagreed, no matter how wrong they considered him. This refutes self-appointment and establishes hierarchy. Further, it would entail the author of this Letter was of a higher rank, further establishing hierarchy within the church. That the author was John the Apostle is not found in the text.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nick, you might first consider that Rome's long-term understanding of "early church polity" is very much discredited.

    For example, in the link I've provided:

    "John Reumann, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP), defines the problem as well as any that I’ve seen:

    Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles . . .,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” [64] For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century.[65] It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.

    They not only “suggest” or “posit that” “no successor for Peter is indicated”, but rather, they “conclude” this. The footnotes clarify:

    64. Lumen gentium 20 (Flannery trans., Vatican Council II [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975], pp. 371-372; Abbot trans., Documents of Vatican II [New York: Guild Press, America Press, Association Press], pp. 39-40, “the episcopate in a sequence running back to the beginning”). Cited are Iren. Adv. Haer. 3,3,1 = PG 7:848; Tertullian, Praescr. Haer. 32 = PL 2:52f., and Ignatius of Antioch passim.

    65. Gnilka 2002, p. 225. Ignatius had no “succession; bishop and presbyter correspond to Christ and apostles, not successors to the apostles (p. 223); the “succession lists” in Rome were of presbyters and bishops (pp. 242-50). (Referring to Gnilka, Joachim. Petrus und Rom. Das Petrusbild in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2002).

    In short, there is a basic conflict between the actual history of the period, and what is claimed in official dogmatic statements of Vatican II".


    Once you consider that Rome's story is completely discredited, then you look for positive historical efforts that describe what actual NT church polity was. I've begun to do that with my series on House Churches in Rome.

    I've got quite a bit more where that came from, too.

    ReplyDelete
  23. NICK SAID:

    "(1) All I'm asking for is an article that addresses your view of NT polity. I'm not even asking you to write some long response. If you want to convince someone, it helps to provide proof."

    You didn't come here to be persuaded.

    "(2) That's like saying the Bible teaches the essentials of chess but that chess isn't an essential game. That's ridiculous, it means perspicuity applies to aspects of doctrines that ultimately are note essential ones."

    There's no logical link between perspicuity and essentiality. The Bible is clear on many nonessentials Take extraneous details like the number of water pots at the wedding in Cana. It says there were six. Well, nothing ambiguous about that. It clearly says there were six water pots.

    Is it essential to the narrative that John specify the number of water pots? No. It is essential to the miracle that there were six water pots? Would the miracle fail if there were five or seven rather than six? No.

    You betray a very insubordinate attitude toward the word of God. You dictate to god what God is supposed to say or refrain from saying.

    "(2i) Perspicuity and Sufficiency go hand in hand."

    That's a patch-up job on your original claim.

    "Priscilla & Aquila heard the gospel first by either Paul or a missionary sent by the Apostles."

    You made that up whole cloth. To begin with, they were probably educated Jews who already had a good grasp of OT messianic prophecy.

    Also keep in mind that many Christians back then had firsthand knowledge of Jesus' teachings. If you lived in Palestine at the time of Jesus' public ministry, you could go hear him preach. And there were thousands of men and women in that position.

    "And from there Paul established a local church in their home. "

    You have no evidence that Paul established a local church in their home(s). And they maintained more than one house-church. Why not assume he took advantage of a preexisting house-church as a base of operations?

    "The concept of self-appointed defeats and contradicts the very mission of the Apostles, literally 'the sent' ones.'"

    That's the etymological fallacy.

    "There were not 'independent' missionaries in the NT Church."

    Philip the evangelist. The church didn't "appoint" him to be a missionary.

    "Your position makes every Tom, Nick, and Harry a pastor and missionary."

    Only if they're qualified.

    "(4c) Your view makes nonsense out of every text speaking of appointment and laying on of hands. Those become mere hand-waving."

    i) The imposing of hands was applied to men who were already in Christian ministry (e.g. Acts 13:1-3).

    ii) The fact that some men were appointees doesn't mean everyone had to be. Your inference is fallacious.

    "You didn't exegete 3 John 9-10 adequately enough. Diotrephes clearly had ecclesial authority that couldn't simply be overturned or overthrown at the whim of those who disagreed, no matter how wrong they considered him."

    You just invent what you need. But that's not what the text says or implies.

    i) He doesn't have to have "ecclesiastical authority." He could be a rich man, a Roman official, or a Roman aristocrat. Any one of those would give him clout.

    ii) Actually, Diotrephes is a type of pope. Like the pope, he usurps apostolic authority.

    "Further, it would entail the author of this Letter was of a higher rank, further establishing hierarchy within the church. That the author was John the Apostle is not found in the text."

    That artificially isolates 3 John from 1-3 John and the Gospel of John.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,

    What are some articles you can offer on what true Biblical polity is supposed to be? I want to see a Biblical case that it was "simple, minimal, flexible." And if you can, what is your interpretation of 3 John 1:9f?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nick, so I'm assuming you are agreeing that the Roman view of "early church polity" truly is discredited?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve,

    (1) I've been persuaded by Protestants offering fair and solid arguments before. It's not like I'm closing my eyes to evidence. In my experience, too often Catholics have quietly conceded various Protestant arguments based on the mere claim that something is Biblical, when in reality the Protestant hasn't made a Scriptural case at all.

    (2) You said:
    "There's no logical link between perspicuity and essentiality."

    That's false based on numerous Protestant sources I've consulted over the years. It's false based on even the WCF's definition.
    To say "the Bible is clear on many nonessentials" (such as the 6 jars at Cana) is equivocation on the term "Perspicuity", since Perspicuity specifically refers to essentials, not referring to 'specific details' in general of any given text.

    (3) The first time P&A are mentioned is in Acts 18:1-3, where it says they were Jews recently expelled from Rome when they met Paul. That strongly implies they weren't Christians yet. To say that they were educated Jews who had a good grasp of OT messianic prophecy is irrelevant (cf 18:24f). There is no mention of a church in their home until much later (1 Cor 16:19). In Romans 16:3, Paul calls them "my helpers" indicating ecclesial subordination.

    You said:
    "Why not assume he took advantage of a preexisting house-church as a base of operations?"

    "Why not assume"? Didn't you just get on my case for assuming and now you make this unsupported assertion? The Biblical facts don't support this. The limited information we have says: (a) they were Jews, no mention of Christianity; (b) they recently came to Corinth, which wouldn't fit with a preexisting house-church timeline; (c) Paul stayed with them because they made tents, no mention of Christianity or house-church existing.

    (4) How is it an etymological fallacy? To suggest the term "Apostle" has no deep significane makes a mockery of Scripture's terminology and description about them.

    (5) False, the Church explicitly ordained and appointed Philip as a Deacon to be of service to the Apostle's needs (Acts 6:5f).

    (6) Your Acts 13:1-3 text says nothing about imposing hands to men already in authority. Being in ministry can have a range of meaning, but the fact the text says the Holy Spirit specifically wanted certain men selected and says these men were "sent" goes totally against your Lone Ranger Polity. Your position, as I already said, makes total nonsense of laying on of hands, reducing it to mere hand-waving.

    (7) None of those (e.g. rich, aristocrat, public official) give one the authority to receive or cast out members of a congregation. He could have "clout" to convince another, but not do the receiving or casting out himself. If Lone Ranger Polity were in place, then Diotrephes is actually on firm ground and not being insubordinate to John at all. The characterization of "loves to be first" entails he is prideful of the fact he is first (i.e. leader).

    ReplyDelete
  27. NICK SAID:

    “I've been persuaded by Protestants offering fair and solid arguments before. It's not like I'm closing my eyes to evidence.”

    As a Catholic epologist, your mind is made up before you even crack open the pages of Scripture. You will automatically discount any interpretation that runs counter to what your denomination teaches.

    That's false based on numerous Protestant sources I've consulted over the years. It's false based on even the WCF's definition. _To say ‘the Bible is clear on many nonessentials’ (such as the 6 jars at Cana) is equivocation on the term ‘Perspicuity’, since Perspicuity specifically refers to essentials, not referring to 'specific details' in general of any given text.”

    You’re the one who’s equivocating. That’s why I asked at the outset, “essential for what?”

    According to the WCF, this is the scope of perspicuity: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

    So it has special reference to “those things which are necessary for salvation.” And even then, it’s contingent on “a due use of the ordinary means.”

    Unless church polity is essential to salvation, your argument fails.

    “The first time P&A are mentioned is in Acts 18:1-3, where it says they were Jews recently expelled from Rome when they met Paul. That strongly implies they weren't Christians yet. To say that they were educated Jews who had a good grasp of OT messianic prophecy is irrelevant (cf 18:24f). There is no mention of a church in their home until much later (1 Cor 16:19). In Romans 16:3, Paul calls them "my helpers" indicating ecclesial subordination.”

    My contention is supported by Catholic NT scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentaries on Romans (735) and 1 Corinthians (619-20). As usual, we have a lay Catholic apologist who’s out of step with mainstream Catholic scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cont. “Didn't you just get on my case for assuming and now you make this unsupported assertion? The Biblical facts don't support this.”

    i) Don’t be stupid. I can’t respond to something before you say it.

    ii) Fitzmyer’s argument is better than yours.

    “How is it an etymological fallacy? To suggest the term "Apostle" has no deep significane makes a mockery of Scripture's terminology and description about them.”

    It’s fine with me if you have to build your case for Catholicism on stock semantic fallacies. Moral of the story: the argument for Roman Catholicism is fallacious. Thanks for highlighting that fact.

    “False, the Church explicitly ordained and appointed Philip as a Deacon to be of service to the Apostle's needs (Acts 6:5f).”

    You’re equivocating (again). What were the duties of the deaconate? To “serve tables” (Acts 6:2). That’s set in contrast to the “ministry of the word” (6:4).

    So he was not appointed to preach the word. He was not appointed to be an evangelist.

    Rather, he did that at his own initiative (8:5). He wasn’t “sent” to do that. He was a “Long Ranger” missionary in that regard.

    “Your Acts 13:1-3 text says nothing about imposing hands to men already in authority.”

    Paul was already an apostle, with a direct commission from God to evangelize the Gentiles (9:15). He was already a missionary (11:26; 12:25).

    “But the fact the text says the Holy Spirit specifically wanted certain men selected and says these men were ‘sent’ goes totally against your Lone Ranger Polity.”

    Once again, you’re equivocating. He wasn’t sent by a bishop. He was sent by the Holy Spirit (13:4). Very charismatic.

    “None of those (e.g. rich, aristocrat, public official) give one the authority to receive or cast out members of a congregation. He could have ‘clout’ to convince another, but not do the receiving or casting out himself.”

    You’re recasting the issue in terms of his (alleged) “authority,” although the text doesn’t frame the issue in those terms.

    Diotrephes wouldn’t need “ecclesiastical authority” to throw his weight around. You need to bone-up on Greco-Roman patronage. Power is not the same thing as authority, much less ecclesiastical authority.

    “If Lone Ranger Polity were in place, then Diotrephes is actually on firm ground and not being insubordinate to John at all.”

    Apostles (e.g. John) outrank elders and laymen. That’s the operative polity. And it’s not Roman Catholic polity. 3 John doesn’t have a hierarchy of priests, bishops, and popes.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Steve,

    This will be my last (brief) response since I know we're both tired.

    (1) I have always meant "essential" in so far as a teaching is essential for doctrine of faith and Christian living (i.e. polity). You zeroed in on simply the WCF focus of "necessary for salvation" and then said: "Unless church polity is essential to salvation, your argument fails." On the contrary, my argument is now effectively proven. Since no Protestant would say polity is essential to Salvation, that means it's non-essential and thus Wallace's point is made: there is no Protestant ecclesiology.

    (2) Don't hide behind Fitzmyer - present Biblical proof! It's ironic that I'm the one appealing to Scriptural evidence while you're appealing to ipse dixit.

    (3) Philip was estranged from the Apostles due to persecution (8:4), he was not out starting his own church apart from the care of those above him. Note that this work was not autonomous from the Apostles, for the text plainly says the preachers in Samaria called the Apostles to come and Confirm the new converts(8:14).

    (4) Two things: (a) not everyone receives divine revelation like Paul did, so that's an exception not the rule; (b) Acts is clear that Paul always operated with union to the Apostles and central body. If your theory were correct, Paul should have never had to join up with the Apostles or even Ananias, and Acts 13:2f would be superfluous. Your "sent by the Holy Spirit" Lone Range polity is a total distortion of the text.

    (5) If Diotrephes had no ecclesial authority, then John could have said ignore him and submit to the true authorities (who would be even more culpable for taking bribes). Instead, we see Diotrephes "loved to be first among them," meaning he held an authoritative spot and is spoken of in singular when it came to casting out of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  30. NICK SAID:

    “You zeroed in on simply the WCF focus of ‘necessary for salvation.’”

    That’s because you were the one who cited the WCF, but then ignored the stated scope of perspicuity. That’s how the WCF qualifies perspicuity. So you’re burning a straw man.

    “On the contrary, my argument is now effectively proven. Since no Protestant would say polity is essential to Salvation, that means it's non-essential and thus Wallace's point is made: there is no Protestant ecclesiology.”

    That’s a complete non sequitur. To say church polity is inessential to salvation hardly entails the claim that there’s no Protestant ecclesiology. Your inference is patently fallacious.

    “Don't hide behind Fitzmyer - present Biblical proof! It's ironic that I'm the one appealing to Scriptural evidence while you're appealing to ipse dixit.”

    i) Ironic to have a Catholic apologist accuse a Protestant of hiding behind Catholic scholarship. More like a Catholic apologist is running away from Catholic scholarship. It’s your problem when Catholic scholarship is a threat to your argument for Catholicism.

    ii) It’s a false dichotomy to oppose scriptural evidence/Biblical proof to Fitzmyer’s exegesis of passages concerning Aquila and Priscilla.

    “Philip was estranged from the Apostles due to persecution (8:4), he was not out starting his own church apart from the care of those above him. Note that this work was not autonomous from the Apostles, for the text plainly says the preachers in Samaria called the Apostles to come and Confirm the new converts(8:14).”

    You’re backpedaling from your original claim. You initially said:

    "There were not 'independent' missionaries in the NT Church."

    I replied:

    Philip the evangelist. The church didn't ‘appoint’ him to be a missionary.

    He was not appointed to preach the word. He was not appointed to be an evangelist. Rather, he did that at his own initiative (8:5).

    You failed to demonstrate that the church appointed him to be a missionary.

    You’re also trying to smuggle in the sacrament of Confirmation, as if 8:14 describes the sacrament of Confirmation.

    “Two things: (a) not everyone receives divine revelation like Paul did, so that's an exception not the rule.”

    Once again, you’re backpedaling from your original argument. You initially said:

    “Your view makes nonsense out of every text speaking of appointment and laying on of hands… Your Acts 13:1-3 text says nothing about imposing hands to men already in authority.”

    I’ve documented your error. Whenever I do that, you change your argument.

    “(b) Acts is clear that Paul always operated with union to the Apostles and central body.”

    That’s far from clear. To the contrary, Paul normally acts on his own initiative, or at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cont. “Your ‘sent by the Holy Spirit’ Lone Range polity is a total distortion of the text.”

    Really? The text says:

    “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
    4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.”

    i) So the Holy Spirit was the primary. The Holy Spirit was the ultimate sender. The church of Antioch only sent them at the direct instigation of the Holy Spirit.

    ii) In addition, this didn’t involve a hierarchy of priests and bishops. Rather, NT “prophets” were the intermediaries.

    “If Diotrephes had no ecclesial authority, then John could have said ignore him and submit to the true authorities (who would be even more culpable for taking bribes).”

    You need to bone up on social class in the Greco-Roman world. If Diotrephes was their social superior, then he doesn’t need ecclesiastical authority to throw his weight around.

    House-churches were sponsored by a wealthy Christian host or hostess. Authority is built into the patron/client relationship.

    Since the house-church was private property, belonging to the host or hostess, the householder could determine membership. Who got in. Who was excluded. Which itinerate teachers were allowed to speak there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. NICK SAID:

    "Note that this work was not autonomous from the Apostles, for the text plainly says the preachers in Samaria called the Apostles to come and Confirm the new converts(8:14)."

    i) No, the text doesn't plainly say "the preachers in Samaria called the Apostles to come..."

    Rather, the text says "when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down..."

    The text doesn't say Philip sent for them. And the very fact that the church of Jerusalem sent representatives to investigate proves that Philip's action took place without the prior approval or supervision of the Apostles.

    ii) But since you bring it up, notice that the church of Jerusalem sent Peter. You think Peter was the first pope and the prince of the apostles. Yet he was sent by the other apostles. So by your logic, he's subordinate to the Apostolate. He can't act on his own. He needs permission, authorization, from the other apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  33. NICK SAID:

    "Instead, we see Diotrephes 'loved to be first among them,' meaning he held an authoritative spot and is spoken of in singular when it came to casting out of the church."

    In other words, Diotrephes was the first pope. Benedict XVI is the lineal successor to Diotrephes.

    ReplyDelete