I have pointed to:
The Great Teacher Himself, God the Holy Spirit
How does stressing spiritual illumination bolster Ed's case for elder authority? Didn't Quakers appeal to the "inner light" to oppose church office?
The promise of Christ that the elect can not be deceived
How does stressing the undeceivability of the elect bolster Ed's case for elder authority? What if a layman is elect while an elder is reprobate?
Safety is found in the perspicuity of Scripture
How does stressing the perspicuity of Scripture bolster Ed's case for elder authority? Isn't that a democratizing principle? The more perspicuous the Bible, the less need for clerical instruction.
Ed is so focussed on taking aim at AHA that he doesn't pay attention to which end of the rifle he's holding. He keeps pointing the rifle back at himself, then pulling the trigger.
The consequences will continue to be church hopping on a whim, self-appointed apostles, prophets, and leaders who set out to start ministries like most Americans start a business. The thought of elder sanction and submission rarely cross our minds. Hays completely misses the point when says that his view is not anachronistic. It is his pragmatic and modern way of looking at things that leads him to draw the conclusions about the text that he does.
Notice how the first sentence contradicts the fourth sentence. He alleges that my position is "pragmatic," yet he complains about the alleged "consequences" of my position. Needless to say, objecting to a position due to the alleged consequences of said position is a pragmatic objection!
The likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is.
His safety-in-numbers principle is another pragmatic appeal. Given, moreover, the Biblical doctrine of the remnant, Scripture discourages the faithful from trusting in numbers.
The Church is filled with self-authoritative individuals from top to bottom.
How does that bolster Ed's case for elder authority. If the church is "filled" with "self-authoritative" individuals from top to bottom, then that would include the leadership. Self-authoritative pastors and elders at the top. Notice how Ed unwittingly sabotages his own position.
In other words, the one thing Hays admits we must submit to, Scripture, commands us to submit to our leaders.
Scripture doesn't command unconditional submission to our leaders. It's not "obey your elders, right or wrong." That's not biblical ecclesiology, that's cultic ecclesiology.
Does a layman decide for himself, or is there more to it than that? Are we free to pick and choose which church we attend based on our own personal preferences?
Before a layman can even submit to his elders, he must decide for himself which elders to submit to. Lutheran elders? Baptist elders? Assembly of God elders? So a layman must render a preliminary, independent judgment on which elders qualify.
Now, a layman can have good reasons or bad reasons for what he thinks or does. That's why we need to consider the reasons, rather than Ed's fact-free rules of thumb. Ed relies on empty norms.
Steve makes the point that we must make allowance for the implied situation if we are to properly interpret Scripture. The standard way of saying this is that we must take into consideration the historical context within which the text was written. However, an overemphasis on this principle could lead to situational ethics even within the Christian system of ethics and this could have disastrous results.
Notice that Ed's objection to "disastrous results" is a pragmatic objection. A results-oriented criterion is classically pragmatic.
BTW, this is what I actually wrote:
But it’s important to keep in mind that Biblical commands and prohibitions typically have an implied situation. An implicit or explicit situational context. To be faithful to Biblical commands and prohibitions means we must make allowance for the implied situation, and apply those biblical injunctions to analogous situations. Far from honoring the authority of Scripture, to disregard the implied situation can make a mockery of original intent.
Let's take a concrete example. Take the biblical command to fence your roof (Deut 22:8).
That injunction presumes an implied situation. A sunny dry climate where folks built homes with flat roofs. Rooftop terraces, to be exact.
Clearly that doesn't envision a snowy climate where folks build homes with gabled roofs. So what do we do with that commandment?
i) If you have a roof terrance, then you should put a railing around your roof.
ii) However, even if you don't live in a sunny dry climate, that specific command exemplifies a general principle. Even if the command isn't specifically relevant to the architecture of your house, you can apply the command to analogous precautions, like childproofing your house if you have a toddler (e.g. outlet covers, safety gates).
1) Jesus and the NT authors also appealed to the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Are you arguing for a different master? Human reason, perhaps?
ReplyDelete2) Plurality + Perspicuity = safety + illumination guarantee safety.
3) My consequences are not purely pragmatic. In fact, they are not pragmatic at all. Division in the church and false prophets are more than pragmatic concerns.
4) Why do you imply I argue for UNCONDITIONAL submission? Nowhere do I do this? Strawman!
5) No Spirit-filled believer really "decides for himself" to which elders he will submit. He is led by the Spirit and as he grows, his ability to spot godly congregations and elders grows as well. My sheep hear my voice, a stranger they will not follow. Perspicuity refutes vagueness.
6) Disastrous results are division, heresy, immorality. Pragmatism is something much different. Surely you realize this.
7) There are no conditions in which a believer should not be obeying and submitting to their elders. Your ecclesiology is by far unorthodox. Is this is really what you believe. No reformed teacher I know of would agree with your analogy. You distort a fine principle of hermeneutics.
8) The best thing for you to do is to supply us with a positive statement on the authority of elders in modern times. If you do not, we are left to believe that Steve Hays does not think there is a place for elders in the contemporary church. Such a view is not only unorthodox, it is down right dangerous.
If you do not, we are left to believe that Steve Hays does not think there is a place for elders in the contemporary church
DeleteSuch bloviation and grandstanding. Shameful.
It is a valid inference. I have urged Steve to provide his understanding of the function of elders and to make a positive statement relating to ecclesial authority. Oddly, I am still waiting. It makes we wonder if Hays has actually had a bad experience that has turned out to affect his view in this area. I can understand how that could happen. I have had a bad experience myself. It was not easy to remain grounded. I needed the help of a disinterested biblical counselor to help me see my own pride and arrogance so that I would not be my own self-attesting reference point. What was an outwardly ugly experience proved to be spiritually invaluable.
DeleteIt was not easy to remain grounded.
DeleteI can imagine. You didn't remain grounded, as it turns out.
see my own pride and arrogance
DeleteI know this is going to sound really mean and nasty, but I mean it with 100% sincerity: You could probably stand a few more visits. Your pride and arrogance, as you have expressed them over the course of our interactions, have astounded me.
My local church, my intimate reformed brothers in Christ, and my elders are better judges of my spiritual needs than you, with all due respect. In addition, I will give your observations some consideration. It has been my experience that one of the ugliest sins to deal with is the sin of pride. I am even tempted to take pride in not being prideful. I cast myself on the mercy of God when it comes to that monster.
DeleteMy local church, my intimate reformed brothers in Christ, and my elders are better judges of my spiritual needs than you, with all due respect.
DeleteBut you insisted to speak to my elders.
Double standard.
I cast myself on the mercy of God when it comes to that monster.
I suggest you stop blogging in the meantime. You're not doing anyone any good. In all seriousness.
I am full of pride and you are now telling me not to blog? You are the new blog police? Unless my blogging comports with your views, I am not doing anybody any good? And I am supposed to be the arrogant one? I am the one with the pride issue? You may speak to my elders anytime you wish. My Church is Creekside Bible Church. It is very easy to find. My pastor is Rob Tartaglia. He is a strong leader and a gentle and loving man. But is a MacArthur type, so he will not pull any punches and he is as sharp as they come. Enjoy!
DeleteI am full of pride
DeleteBy all appearances, yes.
and you are now telling me not to blog?
Pleading with you not to. For everyone's good.
You are the new blog police? Unless my blogging comports with your views, I am not doing anybody any good?
Ummm...
You may speak to my elders anytime you wish
Missed the point.
Ed Dingess said:
DeleteThe best thing for you to do is to supply us with a positive statement on the authority of elders in modern times. If you do not, we are left to believe that Steve Hays does not think there is a place for elders in the contemporary church.
If Steve doesn't provide this "positive statement," then it means he doesn't think there's a place for elders in the contemporary church? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
If Ed doesn't supply us with a positive statement on true and false positives, true and false negatives, type I and II errors, or sensitivity and specificity, then we are left to believe that Ed Dingess does not think there is a place for testing for or treating diseases in contemporary times.
Ed Dingess "4) Why do you imply I argue for UNCONDITIONAL submission? Nowhere do I do this? Strawman!"
DeleteIronically, he reaffirms unconditional submission 3 points later: "7) There are no conditions in which a believer should not be obeying and submitting to their elders."
He also implies unconditional submission when he says we should submit to elders even when we disagree with them, as well as when he denies that a layman should "decide for himself."
"1) Jesus and the NT authors also appealed to the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Are you arguing for a different master? Human reason, perhaps?"
i) To begin with, there's the issue of how Ed defines spiritual illumination. In Reformed theology, spiritual illumination isn't "teaching."
ii) More to the point, the question at issue isn't the merits of spiritual illumination, but whether that appeal is consistent with Ed's emphasis on elder authority. I'm drawing attention to the incoherence of Ed's position. Notice how he blows right past that.
"2) Plurality + Perspicuity = safety + illumination guarantee safety."
Once again, he ignores the question of whether his criteria undercut elder authority.
"My consequences are not purely pragmatic. In fact, they are not pragmatic at all."
Notice that he's not offering a counterargument. He's just issuing a denial in the teeth of my argument. So my argument stands.
"No Spirit-filled believer really 'decides for himself' to which elders he will submit. He is led by the Spirit and as he grows, his ability to spot godly congregations and elders grows as well. My sheep hear my voice, a stranger they will not follow."
Once again, how does that support elder authority?
"8) The best thing for you to do is to supply us with a positive statement on the authority of elders in modern times."
This is Ed's attempt to deflect attention away from his own pragmatic, incoherent, opportunistic ecclesiology.
"If you do not, we are left to believe that Steve Hays does not think there is a place for elders in the contemporary church."
A fallacious inference. And, in any case, Ed labors under the illusion that my comments are directed at him. They're not. My comments are about his position, but I'm not attempting to persuade him. You can't reason with unreasonable opponents. Rather, my comments are for the benefit of readers.