Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account (Heb 13:17).
This verse is much loved by high churchman to keep uppity laymen in their place. I've discussed it before:
Now I'd like to make one additional point. The author of Hebrews doesn't decouple authority from truth. To the contrary Heb 13:17 comes at the tail-end of a very lengthy argument to prove the author's position and disprove the opposing position. Throughout his letter, the author appeals to the authority of Scripture, reasoning from Scripture, to establish his position. He never suggested that his readers should submit to their elders even if their elders are wrong. His whole letter is about correcting doctrinal error.
I will review your article in due course. However, the way in which you poison the well from the beginning must be addressed. You poison the well from the beginning by accusing the "high churchman" of using this verse in an abusive manner. The fact that some may engage in abuse in this way in no way indicates that just because someone is bringing the text into the discussion that they are attempting to do the same. But the inference is clear enough.
ReplyDeleteThe likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is. Secondly, these elders should have another body of elders as accountability partners if the Church is not in a structured organization like the PCA.
Your effort to raise this to the most general level is noted and rejected. The issue before us is the VERY specific question of ministries and men in ministry, specifically, parachurch ministry and in particular AHA. As I said at the beginning; I will read your link to see if there is something I am missing in my own ecclesiology.
The likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is.
DeleteThat's kinda the question, isn't it? If they're wrong and won't repent, how godly are they?
Ed Dingess
Delete"The likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is."
Test case: a plurality of Lutheran elders affirms baptismal regeneration and the real presence, whereas a plurality of Baptist elders denies baptism regeneration and the real presence. Examples could be multiplied.
Ed Dingess
Delete"In your attempts to defend the indefensible, you seem to be willing to compromise the perspicuity of Scripture. It is clear that baptismal regeneration is NOT something Scripture CLEARLY teaches. Do you think that a session's decision to affirm a particular doctrine means that doctrine is ipso facto unclear where Scripture is concerned?"
I'm testing your own claim by obvious counterexamples. You said: "The likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is."
Well, let's test that. You're a Baptist. You think Lutheran sacramentology is wrong. So it's not unlikely that a plurality of elders can be wrong. After all, you think Lutheran elders are wrong about baptismal regeneration and the real presence.
Are you going to claim that all Lutheran elders are ungodly? Is the differential factor in sacramentology that Baptist elders are godly while Lutheran elders are ungodly?
You insinuated that a plurality of elders functions as a check on the judgement of an individual elder. You suggested that there is safety in numbers. I'm citing an obvious counterexample, one which you agree with. It would be easy for me to cite other counterexamples.
In addition, it is nowhere near as difficult to understand the cardinal teachings of the Christian faith as you seem to imply. These things are plain for Spirit-filled believers and elders to see. It is VERY difficult, although not impossible, to stack a session with unbelieving men. Generally the church is apostate long before that ever occurs.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see where steve is implying that, Ed. He's got a problem with your hermeneutic and your application.
DeleteWhy is it so difficult for you to correctly characterize what steve writes?
Are you really just a troll?
Ed Dingess said:
DeleteNo God-fearing man engages in this kind of abusive and offensive language with someone they have not thoroughly investigated. To be called a troll is not only outrageous and highly offensive, it temps a fellow brother to sin by thinking ungodly thoughts about the person committing the offense. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from such disrespectful language in the future. If you have a positive contribution, then make it. If all you can do is offend, save yourself the time.
Among other things, Dingess is disruptive and argumentative. He has tried to pick fights with us and other commenters (e.g. such as when he posts off-topic comments on his hobbyhorse du jour). There's nothing wrong with argument, but engaging in an argument isn't the same as being argumentative. I'm sure he hardly sees it this way, of course, but that's what's happening. See here for example.
There's a fair chance he posted under another alias (Dr. Liberal) after we banned him. See here for example.
He's been repeatedly warned by several of us not to return to our posts. But he does. We had to delete his recent comments here for example.
If he wants to respond, why doesn't he respond over on his own blog?
In any case, if people want more evidence, they can search our past archives for all Dingess' comments. They could start here.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out that someone is a troll if, indeed, they are a troll.