Pages

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Defective ecclesiology

More than any other criticism of AHA I find this one to be the most serious. Namely, I find AHA's existence and governance outside the authority of the Church to be more than a little disturbing. The attitude in the author’s argument demonstrates a seriously defective ecclesiology. Christ authorizes ministry through His Church and only through His Church. Moreover, godly leaders recognize the significance of formal structure and the importance of humble submission to their spiritual leaders. They do not adopt the typical American cowboy Christian idea that they are just going to go take care of business themselves.


Reminds me of something I read in the Gospels:


And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not wait for permission from his ecclesiastical superiors to pull him out?”

29 comments:

  1. Babies will be torn limb from limb upon the beginning of the business day Monday.

    Torn, that is, into bloody mangled pieces by hired assassins bought and paid for by their mothers.

    Their screams will not be heard. Their agony will not be on display. They will not have a holocaust memorial.

    I bet the last thing those babies think about as they are being ripped apart is AHA's "defective ecclesiology."

    Steve, I think on this that you are right to point out that passage and apply it here. AHA is to be commended for its no-compromise approach that is centered on the gospel and the root cause of infanticide.

    I'll help you folks pull that son or ox out of the well, whether or not ecclesiastical chains of command are willing to bless or sanction it.

    If these authorities want AHA and other action groups to submit to ecclesiastical oversight, these leaders need to lead the way.

    Like Telemachus did.

    I wonder which governing body he asked permission of to launch himself into meaningful action (beyond blog wars, that is. BTW, have these blog wars against AHA been approved by the proper authorities?).

    I'm with you on this Steve, and AHA as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's it? That is the best rebuttal you can come up with Steve? I predicted you would weigh in on this one. I just didn't think your contribution would have so little impact and relatively no value whatever.

    Justin, all the emotive language on the planet doesn't change the facts of the real issue at hand here. This is about what God's word has said about the structure of His Church that is purchased with the blood of His own Son.

    This is a perfect example of what I mean by the term cowboy Christians. Abortion is a serious issue and how the Church reacts to it should be determined, not by a bunch of young, non-submissive know-it-alls, but by seasoned, mature godly leaders which is in keeping the commandments of Scripture. Yet, you men use the plight of abortion to ignore the clear biblical mandate to ignore God's structure of the Church. I suppose I should thank you for making my case for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's it? That is the best rebuttal you can come up with Steve? I predicted you would weigh in on this one. I just didn't think your contribution would have so little impact and relatively no value whatever.

      Steve's satire aptly demonstrates the frailty of your artificial piety. Not the literary type, are you?

      Delete
    2. @Ed Dingess

      I doubt you're a "seasoned, mature godly leader"! For one thing, what sort of a "seasoned, mature godly leader" spends so much of his time hopping from one Christian website or weblog to another attacking other Christians in unfair ways? For example:

      1. Here on Triablogue alone you've attacked Steve Hays and Rhology in less than honorable ways. People can search our archives if they're interested.

      2. Also this guy doesn't exactly seem too pleased with you.

      3. J.P. Holding has an entire page dedicated to some of your escapades here.

      4. Another similar thread exists here.

      Anyway, the bottom line is you're at best a busybody who begrudges other Christians for whatever reason(s). At worst? I guess that's up to you to decide.

      BTW, you never answered if you were or are Dr. Liberal. Let me ask you again: did you ever go by the name Dr. Liberal on this blog?

      Delete
    3. Considering the fact that Ed teaches at a cowboy seminary, it's strange that he's so hard on cowboy Christians. It's not as if the Veritas School of Theology is under the authority of a Christian denomination. So where's the "formally structured" ecclesiastical accountability?

      Delete
  3. Anyone who knows anything about JP Holding knows he has lost all credibility due to his tactics. Henebury is in a local body under elders. Your assertion is ridiculous. I am a guest professor teaching languages. Steve's satire is out of place. The unbridled rudeness on this site is not far from Holding's I must admit. TB is quickly deteriorating in the kind of site that makes it difficult to take seriously. Credibility is eroding rapidly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a dodge. The question is not whether Henebury is a member of a local church, but whether Veritas is formally accountable to an ecclesiastical body. Just measuring you by your own yardstick, Ed. You come up short.




      Delete
  4. All the links posted around the JP Holding nonsense are connected with JP Holding, an uncritical endorser of SSC, denies literal eternal punishment, believes men can be saved apart from the gospel, that female pastors are biblical, and that the biblical structure for husbands and wives is outdated. If you wish to cast your lot with that fellow, be my guest. No Christian can read those links without recognizing the malicious slander in them and no Christian would EVER give them any credence whatever. They should be immediately recognized for the ungodly attitude they reflect. You argue for the truth of Christianity while passing along malicious slander and so become a participant of it yourself. What an embarrassment to the gospel and to the Church of Jesus Christ! You boys just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you and presents a sound argument for why, can you? Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What sound argument? Nice job poisoning the well. Tell me again how you became a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society?

      You've written a lot in response to this post, yet you haven't made more than a passing dismissal of its main point. Are you going to address it or can we just expect more sophomoric canting?

      Delete
    2. I wrote two posts on the issue. I made my arguments without ambiguity. I responded to criticism of my arguments. So far, no one has presented a clear argument against my position other than Rhology. And he at least was respectful and charitable even if we do disagree. What I see from young men like you is a complete lack of charity and no interest at all in actually searching out the truth of the matter. You are far more interested in name-calling and your own ego. What point have you made to counter my argument? I would venture that you don't even understand my position on the issue. I would even go so far as to say that you don't even understand the exact location of disagreement. That you so freely through around disparaging remarks about people you don't even know tells me that you are either very immature or worse. That Christ's commands to love your brother and to treat one other kindly and always make sure your speech is seasoned with salt means very, very little to you tells me tons about your faith, far more than your intellect could ever tell me. A man's spiritual maturity is measure more by character than by intellect, more by how he treats those with whom he disagrees than by his ability to construct syllogisms. If you have spotted some unbiblical arguments in my position, feel free to point them out. I promise to respond. But if all you got is name-calling, don't waste my time. Go read Romans 12:9-21. If you can't spend as much energy obeying that text in every setting as you do arguing, I suggest you give arguing a break and go learn what biblical sanctification looks like.

      Delete
    3. Ed's two posts are a rehash of his stock position on Christian political activism. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We've already been over that ground with Ed.

      Delete
    4. And Ed incessantly reminds us of how spiritually mature he is. Do spiritually mature people feel the need to constantly brag about their superior sanctity? Or is all that spiritual preening a mark of overweening pride rather than humility? Sounds more like the self-congratulatory attainments of a 33-degree Freemason.

      Delete
    5. Talk about hasty judgments; you don't even know me. Why don't you put down the crystal ball and try following your own advice about "charity" and "interest" in the "truth of the matter." It strains credibility for you to invoke such high-minded ideals while, in the same breath, claiming I don't understand the issue being debated, that I am either "very immature or worse," that I have "far more interest in name-calling and [my] own ego," that my actions demonstrate a severe lack of faith and intelligence, etc., all without a modicum of evidence. Try more arguments and less insults, especially if you have the kind of temperament that can't take direct and personal criticism.

      The issue is whether you've responded to the satirical point Steve makes here. I'm not aware of where you have done that. If you have, please indicate as much so that I might read it. No one is otherwise interested in your moral posturing.

      I also indicated that you engaged in well-poisoning with respect to JP holding's comments about your behavior. Yet you dismiss my observation as "name-calling." Your alleged willingness to submit to Biblical and intellectual scrutiny rings hollow.

      Again, how did you become a member of the EPS? They usually require people to have obtained a degree (or several) in philosophy. Maybe I'll contact my thesis adviser, a member of EPS, about your behavior on the Internet. People like you should be drummed out with all due haste.

      Delete
    6. "What I see from young men like you is a complete lack of charity and no interest at all in actually searching out the truth of the matter."

      When they have guys like Ed Dingess to look up for, why would you expect otherwise?

      Delete
  5. For those who are reading but not commenting: have you seen one serious rebuttal from Steve or any of his uncritical minions? They operate under the basic presupposition that regardless of the issue, and no matter how rude or how poor Steve's response might be, Steve is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've written a series of detailed rebuttals to Ed's ad hoc, unbiblical theories concerning Christian political activism.

      Delete
    2. Unless the theory agrees with you Steve, it is always ad hoc. I wouldn't call your responses real rebuttals. I would classify them a series of logical fallacies ranging from bifurcation to red herrings, to the straw man. your most recent one above, of course, was tu quoque. In addition, it is always one ad hom from you after another. It is how you argue. And when called on the carpet about the sinful nature on the lack of charity that shows up in your vitriol, rather than reflect on your behavior and apologizing for offending your brother, you turn it up a few notches. This means you could care less if you offend your fellow believer in Christ. This attitude is telling. It certainly is not in keeping with biblical mandates for how we should treat one another. But hey, that is outside of apologetics, and there isn't much philosophy there either, so, who cares? Right? Heaven forbid we should be concerned with our sanctification. That would be just too boring. You accomplish nothing by portending to defend that which you do not live. The only true measure of belief is found in application. Do we really believe it enough to live it? Do we believe all of it or just those parts that do not threaten us? Are we like the homosexuals we condemn for claiming to be Christian while engaging in wicked sexual behavior? Do we despise our brother by assuming the worse, by name-calling, by deliberately misrepresenting his views in order to make ourselves look good? Is that what Christian apologetics is really about? Is that what Triablogue is really about?

      Delete
    3. Ed,

      You take yourself way too seriously. Like Dave Armstrong, you constantly make yourself the central topic. Your imagined sense of slighted honor. You need to get yourself out of the way and make room for Jesus. Unlike you and Armstrong, I don't spend all my time defending my honor. I'm not that important.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. If I follow your thinking through Steve, there would be no church discipline because there could be no beginning of the process. There would never be a sermon on sanctification because, every attempt to preach one would expose the speaker to the charge of claiming himself to be perfect. It really is pretty simple. Just be nice. Be polite. Be kind. Extend respect and courtesy. How hard is that? I have NEVER claimed to be perfect. I have never said I was better than you or anyone else. Why do we treat blogs differently than we do Sunday School or small groups? I guarantee you this kind of behavior would not last in a small group. The first time someone resorted to rudeness, we would have an serious heart to heart. I bet you that you do not use these tactics in your church with people who know you that you disagree with, especially in front of others. I am concerned about how all Christians treat each other, everywhere. That includes here. What shouldn't I be? Explain to me how my informing someone that their comment was rude makes me automatically think I am perfect or better than someone else? How does that work Steve? It doesn't. This is just one more tactic that you use to manipulate others and make yourself look good without actually being accountable for rude behavior. The young minions may be too naïve to see but others do.

      Delete
    6. Ed, this is not a babysitting service. I'm not here to listen to you talk about yourself and pat yourself on the back. We get enough of that from Dave Armstrong.

      Delete
    7. Here in this very thread, Ed Dingess states:

      "I have never said I was better than you or anyone else."

      Here in this very thread, Ed Dingess defames young Christian men in contrast to himself:

      "how the Church reacts to it [abortion] should be determined, not by a bunch of young, non-submissive know-it-alls, but by seasoned, mature godly leaders [like Ed Dingess ]"

      "The young minions may be too naïve to see [unlike Ed Dingess who is an older, seasoned, mature godly leader]"

      Delete
  6. Abortion is a serious issue and how the Church reacts to it should be determined, not by a bunch of young, non-submissive know-it-alls, but by seasoned, mature godly leaders which is in keeping the commandments of Scripture.

    In other words, if you agree with Ed Dingess, then you've exhibited a mature, submissive, and seasoned character. If you disagree, then you're a young, non-submissive know-it-all. Perhaps you didn't realize you're dialoguing with Steve Hays, a man in his fifties? Seriously, you just can't hold it in, can you? Even when you're dialoguing with someone in the older age-range (no offense Steve), you still have to throw slurs at people younger than you. I don't know what beef you have with young people, but I can't say you're going to make many friends by constantly describing them as naive, rebellious, ignorant, etc.

    Yet, you men use the plight of abortion to ignore the clear biblical mandate to ignore God's structure of the Church.

    And you care why? Remember, I kept reminding you of what you told Paul Manata.

    "mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel would serve our purposes far greater than intellectual pugilism."

    So what are you doing here? Who cares what Steve or AHA does? Why not spend your time doing something far greater like mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel? You couldn't answer the question then, and you can't now. You just go on ignoring it. You keep popping up here, violating your own stated opinion of what's better to do. You're a walking contradiction.

    I have to shake my head at how comfortable you are slurring people in a younger age group and yet you continue, even now, to violate your own standard without any particle of caring about your inconsistency. If that's what people are doomed to become when they get old, I'd prefer to die young. You're not beacon of good Christian conduct to young Christians, Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve: "I've written a series of detailed rebuttals to Ed's ad hoc, unbiblical theories concerning Christian political activism."

    Is Ed Dingess an R2K guy like Darryl Hart and Zrim?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ed,

    1. One doesn't have to agree Holding's theology or apologetics to agree with his observations about you. In fact, Holding could be an atheist and secularist and still be right about you.

    2. Also, one doesn't have to agree with everything Holding says about you to agree with some of what Holding says about you.

    3. However I'm not asking people to agree with Holding's observations about you. I'm just asking for them to examine the evidence themselves. Not just what Holding has written. But also others I've mentioned above. At the very least people can easily do a quick Google search for your name and come up with all sorts of material and useful leads about your online behavior from diverse sources.

    4. Actually, even without the testimonies of others regarding your behavior, interested people could simply examine everything you yourself have written on our blog as well as all these other Christian weblogs and websites you comment on. Google something like "site:triablogue.blogspot.com dingess" for starters. People can decide for themselves how you behave based on your own words.

    5. Given you say you're an elder at a TMS church, and given you're so adamant about submitting to spiritual authority, I'd be interested in what someone like John MacArthur would say about all your comments on all these various weblogs and websites.

    6. BTW, is John MacArthur's church run the way you think churches should be run? Does Phil Johnson or Fred Butler have to run everything they've posted in the past by their fellow elders like MacArthur?

    7. You say you're an elder. Would pious and godly Christians say you meet the qualifications (e.g. see here)? Overall are you "above reproach," "temperate," "self-controlled," "prudent," "sensible," "respectable," "able to teach," "not pugnacious," "peaceable," "of good reputation outside the church," "not self-willed," "not quick-tempered," "loving what is good," "just," etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Patrick, you are terribly misinformed on the JP Holding issue. You do not know what went on with that individual and it all took placed almost two years ago. The websites he had someone set up were due to his heresy.

    It is not uncharitable to point out uncharitable behavior. It is not rude to point out rude behavior. If Christianity followed the logic of the young men who blindly agree with everything tactic and every view on Triablogue, no one would ever be able to speak about behavior that is not proper for Christians because the use of the to quoque fallacy that goes on here without restraint.

    I never said I was an elder. Lets be clear. One of the leaders, yes, but not an elder. My post about AHA was not rude, uncharitable, or condescending. My blog does not contain insults and ungodly remarks about others. It is respectful. Both my post and my respond to Rhology were respectful. Both of Steve's responses were disrespectful in that they were absurd and intentionally misrepresented my position. They were the typical straw man responses. To compare my remarks about AHA to someone who wouldn't save an infant running out into a busy intersection is ungodly. That is not the kind of person I am. It paints anyone who disagrees with Steve on the message and methods of AHA as callous and uncaring. To engage in that behavior simply because you don't like what someone blogged is irresponsible and foreign to Christian love and respect. No scholar would agree that we are free to misrepresent views in this fashion. To paint someone this way poisons the well and is simply unacceptable behavior for Christians in the Christian community.

    For me to point out that Steve's posts were uncharitable when they were in fact uncharitable is not itself uncharitable. For you and the rest of these young men to think that it is demonstrates the level of your desire to faithfully apply Christ's word to your heart. I do not know you, but I would be willing to bet that you would never speak this way to me face to face, say, in Sunday School. If we disagree with my views, while sitting in a live environment, you would not respond as you do on the internet. And I would be willing to bet that Steve would not respond with those sorts of posts either. If you behaved that way in your local Christian community, and if that community takes the "one anothers" of Scripture serious, you would land in front of an elder for counsel.

    No one who knows me Patrick would accuse me of not possessing the qualities of leadership outlined by Paul to Timothy. My blog is submitted to my pastor because I know how deceptive sin can be not just in doctrine but in the spirit in which it is written. I do not trust my own heart. Someone else, a mature leader who takes serving serious, must hold me accountable. I understand the significance of God's structure in His Church. Romans 12:9-21 is an excellent place for everyone who has posted in this comment thread. It is neither rude nor uncharitable to point out rude and uncharitable behavior. The fallacy of to quoque if laced throughout these comments. I am accused of being uncharitable ipso facto by pointing out uncharitable behavior.

    Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
    Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
    Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Eph. 4:29-31

    You can either take Scripture seriously or, you can use our disagreement as excuse to ignore them. Your actions will reveal to whom you allegiance is: God or Yourself. Is this discussion about truth or is it about your ego?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,

      I don't have the time right now to respond to everything you've said. But I will quickly say the following (and just so we're clear I say this respectfully but firmly as I've been doing in this entire thread):

      Why do you scold and all but tongue-lash us "naive young men" so much about the sliver of wood that's in our eyes, but you don't notice the huge 2x4 that's planted squarely in your own eye? Indeed, much of what you've said here about us applies directly to you, but the problem is you don't realize it.

      Delete
    2. "My blog does not contain insults and ungodly remarks about others. It is respectful."

      Ed Dingess with the April Fool's Joke win!

      Delete
    3. “Both of Steve's responses were disrespectful in that they were absurd and intentionally misrepresented my position. They were the typical straw man responses. To compare my remarks about AHA to someone who wouldn't save an infant running out into a busy intersection is ungodly. That is not the kind of person I am. It paints anyone who disagrees with Steve on the message and methods of AHA as callous and uncaring. To engage in that behavior simply because you don't like what someone blogged is irresponsible and foreign to Christian love and respect. No scholar would agree that we are free to misrepresent views in this fashion. To paint someone this way poisons the well and is simply unacceptable behavior for Christians in the Christian community.”

      i) Ed, you need to get over yourself. You suffer from a seriously inflated sense of self-importance. You bristle at a whiff of intellectual criticism. Your reaction is like a parody of an aristocratic honor code. You can complain all you like, but I’m not going to pander to your vanity.

      ii) I did two satirical posts which represent a reductio ad absurdum of your position.

      iii) It’s an argument from analogy. Just as a toddler who wanders into a busy intersection is endangered, prenatal babies are endangered by abortion. Just as Christian laymen can intervene to rescue a child in traffic without prior approval from their pastor or elders, Christian laymen can intervene to spare babies from the fate of abortion without prior approval from their pastor or elders. You can take care of it yourself.

      Same thing with rescuing a son (or even an ox) who’s fallen into a well.

      Explain how one requires formal ecclesiastical supervision, but the other does not.

      Delete