After looking at the Scriptures and seeing how we are to make righteous judgments, especially of heretics and false teachers [here, here and here], I would like to analyze my judgment of Ed Silvoso here.
As it can be seen in my review of Ed Silvoso's sermon during this year FOP (Festival of Praise), I judged Ed Silvoso to be a heretic and questioned his salvation. This is mainly based on his embrace of soteriological heresies, as the bad fruit it shows is the most obvious. The other errors with regards to Scripture if logically believed to its conclusion, constitute rank heresy. However, since the errors are not expanded on and they are implicitly deduced, I will be charitable and think that probably Silvoso may be inconsistent here.
Applying the criteria of righteous judging of a heretic to the case of Ed Silvoso, we can first ascertain that what Ed Silvoso says is blatently heretical. From the review of his sermon, any unbiased person must admit this fact. As stated in my preliminary defence of my review of Silvoso's sermon, after researching into Silvoso's background, especially his involvement as a so-called 'Apostle to the marketplace' in the ICA (International Coalition of Apostles) which is part of the extreme charismatic Third Wave movement, I am especially convinced that he truly believe what he says he believes, and those catch-phrases and punchlines which he comes out with like "There are some cities where people will find it very hard to go to hell. They can go there if they want to, but they will have a heaven of a time to go there" are therefore not to be considered as hyperboles but as something he sincerely believes literally. I have given a bit about his background in my review of his sermon, but for the fuller picture, those who are interested should do their own research themselves.
Therefore, we have established that Silvoso does indeed believe and teach blatent heresy. The only question to ask now is whether he is a Christian who is decieved, or a unsaved heretic.
Now, to make such a judging is rather hard, since I do not know Silvoso well enough. Therefore, I do not make a concrete judgment like 'Silvoso is definitely not saved' or something to that effect. However, we can cast doubt on his salvation because the heresies he embraces are very serious. In fact, if he really believes in the logical conclusions of what he teaches, he can be judged to be unsaved! For example, he implicitly denies original sin and total depravity, implies that he preaches another gospel (of miracles without necessity of repentance), proclaims a heretical teaching of institutional redemption to list a few. Silvoso, by embracing such doctrines implicitly, is a step away from being revealed as an unsaved heretic, which would happen if he explicitly teach these false doctrines which he has so far only implicitly mention. For example, if Silvoso would openly deny original sin (or rather proclaim his semi-Pelagian understanding of original sin), then he would be exposed.
But couldn't it be the case that Silvoso is deceived and is deceiving others but he is still a Christian? Technically speaking, embracing heresy implicitly does not tell whether the person is saved or not. However, since God preserves his children, as can be seen in my previous post (part 2), and thus do not allow them to be astray on such a fundamental doctrine for a long time before he 'hunts' his erring children down, the longer a person embraces heresy would show the person to have a higher probability of actually being an unsaved heretic. Since Silvoso has embraces his heresies for such a long time, the probability that he is not a believer is rather significant, thus his salvation can be doubted. For example of the length of embracing heresies, his liberation theology-tainted idea of the Gospel as people believing in a God who does miracles, without any idea of sin and repentance, was embraced by him already in the 1960s-1970s, while he was helping out with the Luis Palau crusades. His idea of institutional redemption was embraced by him rather recently, definitely before he was 'apointed' as an 'apostle to the marketplace'. For sure, he has embraced this heresy for at least 4 years, since his book on the subject entitled Anointed for Business was released on 2002.
Since this is the case, my judgment of and casting doubt on Silvoso's salvation is justified. I rest my case here.
46 comments:
when listening to his sermon, the thought of Silvoso not being saved did not cross my mind. Neither am I really thinking about it now
Haha jus wanted to say that during the sermon, both my friend and I agreed that we could give a better message than him.. which I am sure many pple are able to do so if they try :P
I would be very worried if you hear a sermon with a view towards finding out whether the preacher was saved or not. Critical attitudes are not encouraged. However, that said, listening with discerning is encouraged. The difference between the two is that the former tries to find fault with the preacher whereas the latter is just neutrally gleaning the good and the bad in the sermon according to Scripture, if there are present. The good parts are to edify the listerner and the bad parts are to be rejeceted and if heretical, warned against.
I have heard Ed Silvoso (or I should say watched a video presented at our church) and am disturbed by his message, a small sample:
“Jesus intentionally recruited marketplace people who were not members of the religious establishment because His objective was to create a new social vehicle – the Church, a movement that was meant to be the counterculture, rather than a subculture.”
and proclaiming all of the followers were marketplace people,
Luke – medical doctor
John – a partner in food enterprise
Mark – unemployed millionaire – Ed Silvoso suggested that Acts 12:12-17 shows that his mother Mary had a large house as many met to pray for Peter’s release from prison. When Peter knocked at the gate, Rhoda, a maidservant, answered. Poor people did not have servants, and their homes did not have gates.
Lydia – wealthy wholesaler of expensive fabric
Dorcas – designer and manufacturer of inner garments (Acts 9:36-42)
Aquilla & Priscilla – business people, tent makers (Acts 18:3)
Paul – tent maker
Ethiopian eunuch – government official (Acts 8:27)
Erastus – city treasurer (Rom 16:23)
Theophilus – high-ranking government official (Acts 1:1)
... I don't know , but while listening I just felt uneasy, and felt that the true spirit of God was being somehow mis-represented.
This being said, I have a hard time with people proclaiming who will find salvation and who will not, it is not our right to condemn, but to warn. To pass judgment would be speaking for God, and we would be standing judged by our own words, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Happy Easter
-Brian-
@Sput:
I see you have your run-in with Silvoso, and the Holy Spirit is showing to you that something is wrong.
The issue of judging is not about us sentending who is saved and who is not. It is merely the obedience to the apostolic decree of proclaming what is and is not already true (cf Titus. 3:10-11, Mt. 16:19; 18:18). The Scriptures are abundantly clear what the marks of a true teacher and the marks of a false teacher are. It is also abundantly clear that false teachers are heretics who will not inherit the kingdom of God (ie be saved).
We are not God who condemns, but we are God's embassadors who proclaimed the sentence which God has already passed. Certainly, I am not saying everyone should function in this role, and in fact many should not. But this is not to negate the fact that the sentence which God has passed is objective and must be proclaimed by the Church.
The judging of heretics has a tradition dating back to apostolic times. Paul condemned the Judaizers, the Church Father Irenaeus condemned the Gnostics, the Council of Nicea the Arians and so on. None of them thought they were God, but as embassadors of God obeyed God's decree to implement a judgment which God has already passed.
I just went to a conference where Ed Silvoso spoke. There were some things I didn't agree with, points I considered stretching, but nothing I'd consider rank heresy, and a lot of good, encouraging things. One Mexican that the people in the conference had been praying for so that he wouldn't die due to gang violence now has testimonies to share about gang leaders repenting, the top gang leaders that were warring being arrested, an 80% drop in crime rate, churches working in the community to impact society, and a city where parents now feel free to take their children out into the park without fear of being murdered.
I would assume Ed Silvoso sees a difference between eternal salvation that the individual receives and the impact of Christians being salt and light on a society. When I was listening, I was assuming he held to some basic evangelical doctrines.
Some of these articles present 'Third Wave' as a radical fringe more radical than standard Charismatics. But I don't think that's accurate. That's what Peter Wagoner called evangelicals that believe in spiritual gifts that weren't part of the typical Charismatic movement. Some of them are more 'charismatic light' you might say. They believe in spiritual gifts, but tend to be more standard evangelical in their doctrines. There is also the NAR which has a lot of these folks, too.
I don't know if Silvoso has Benny Hinn in mind when he talks about healing in crusades. He goes to other countries, and in a lot of countries there are preachers doing stadium crusades. No doubt he's heard of Benny Hinn, but I don't know that he's really in the same circles as Benny Hinn. Hear locally, the churches that cooperate with him seem to me to be third wave. One is from a small denomination that is historically Anabaptist and the pastor definitely says he isn't charismatic, but he believes in spiritual gifts.
I was looking at the article about Ed Silvoso's sermon linked in the blog. I sure get the impression that the author is nit picking and interpreting Silvoso's comments in an unjustified way.
Accusing him of violating the doctrine of 'perspicuity of the scriptures' because he didn't see marketplace stuff in the Bible until he read it with a 'marketplace lens' is silly. First of all, 'perspicuity of the scriptures' isn't a doctrine from the Bible anyway. It's just a position Protestant theologians take as opposed to Roman Catholic theologians. God can give a whole people eyes that they cannot see, etc. so that they don't understand the scriptures. So why would the 'common man' necessarily understand the Bible when he reads? A man needs to have the eyes of his heart enlightened. Why would a Calvinist think that total depravity doesn't reach into the arena of understanding the Bible as well? You shouldn't hint that a man is a heretic over a doctrine that was made up by theologians anyway.
And just about any pastor is going to understand more about a topic when he specifically looks for it in the Bible. So why condemn Ed Silvoso for the same thing, looking for marketplace stuff in the Bible. One of his recent points in the seminar had to do with how Paul was able to more fully reach a city after he had learned to make relationships with government officials (e.g. Sergias Paulus) and when he began interacting with people in the marketplace as a church maker also providing for himself, his team, and the needs of others financially.
I also get the sense that you are ready to condemn a man as a heretic, not for rejecting some teaching of scripture, but for rejecting one of the five points of Calvinism. And you seem a bit liberal with accusing him of not believing in total depravity. He's probably not going to embrace the terminology, 'total depravity' anyway. But if he believes that an aspect of 'salvation' has to do with making cities more righteous, etc., that doesn't mean he believes men are doing this through carnal effort. He believes in believers being salt and light and bringing an impact to their cities as they follow Biblical principles on how to reach cities.
On your accusation about the denial of the preservation of the church accusation because he believes many pastors have been lacking on understanding the role of the marketplace for basically being 'monks' (I think he means career clergy who haven't work)...come on? How can any Reformed Protestant accuse him of such a thing over such a light point. Protestants in general have a much bigger problem with this issue over the RCC's rejection of or ignoring salvation by faith and many, many concepts related to the priesthood. Is it wrong for Protestants to think that the negative attitude of RCC clergy in the middle ages toward marriage and married sexuality was generally wrong? Is it wrong for to think that they may have been off-balanced in their doctrine because they rejected Biblical standards for church leadership, insisting on celibacy instead of men who ruled their houses well?
But much of Protestantism has rejected aspects of Biblical qualifications for leadership. There are seminaries that will take men who haven't worked and don't have families and they can be employed in pastoral roles over churches without demonstrating that they have ruled a house well. They don't have any children who treat them with the proper respect yet. The apostles appointed elders, not young men, and these men had to have worked to support themselves to rule their houses well. If we really fall it most of our elders/pastors/overseers in the church will have worked a secular job. But we've turned ministry into a career track thing that someone can enter into as a young man. At least some churches have, and some of the churches that don't in their home country fund seminaries overseas where young people can become ministers through a career-track method.
If we've turned eldership into a career-track thing that the young can enter into instead of doing it the way the apostles did, then can't disregarding scripture lead to some lack of understanding of the marketplace by some of the leaders of our churches? I certainly think so. This isn't denying that continuance of the church. That's totally ridiculous. You should lean toward being gracious if you are going to fault-find, especially if you are evaluating if someone is a heretic or a brother, rather than being hyper critical.
And having a wrong idea or holding to a false belief doesn't make one a heretic. There is a divisive element to being a heretic.
Honestly, it's a bit of a relief to see that one has to 'stretch' like this to accuse the man of being a heretic. I figure if he were really promoting a heresy it would be at the top of the articles and really clear.
@Link,
>There were some things I didn't agree with, points I considered stretching, but nothing I'd consider rank heresy, and a lot of good, encouraging things
Heretics who don't say anything true will not be able to deceive anyone. Heretics always say some true things, mixed with error.
> One Mexican that the people in the conference had been praying ...
Arguing from experience is invalid. Every religion has "stories" of how their god/ religion has worked for them. That doesn't make it any less true or false.
>Some of these articles present 'Third Wave' as a radical fringe more radical than standard Charismatics. But I don't think that's accurate
There are two groups that are considered "Third Wave": those associated with Vineyard and Alpha course (Charismatic lite), and the NAR. The two are not separate, but they are distinct. The Third Wave I am identifying as a major problem is the NAR group, of which "Apostle" Ed Silvoso is part of.
@Link,
>First of all, 'perspicuity of the scriptures' isn't a doctrine from the Bible anyway
Not true. Perspecuity of Scripture is taught by the Scriptures. To deny that is to deny a cardinal doctrine of the Faith.
>God can give a whole people eyes that they cannot see, etc. so that they don't understand the scriptures.
What does the sometimes failure of one's subjective ability to comprehend Scripture has to do with the OBJECTIVE perspicuity of Scripture?
>So why would the 'common man' necessarily understand the Bible when he reads?
Read 1 Cor. 1-2. It is the Spirit that indwells ALL believers. The "common man" who is a believer can understand what the Bible says.
>You shouldn't hint that a man is a heretic over a doctrine that was made up by theologians anyway.
Of course, since Scripture teaches its own perspicuity, not some "theologians," your argument is invalid.
And I would strongly suggest that if you deny perspicuity of Scripture, you are certainly no Evangelical. Even worse, I don't see how you can say I am wrong since according to your own hermeneutic, you have no way of knowing what Scripture itself teach. So if you can't know what Scripture teaches, upon what basis can you say that my interpretation of Scripture is wrong?
@Link,
>I also get the sense that you are ready to condemn a man as a heretic, not for rejecting some teaching of scripture, but for rejecting one of the five points of Calvinism.
That is the unanimous judgment of all non-Lutheran Protestant churches in the 17th century, in the Great Synod of Dordt. The Church has ruled it as heresy. so upon what basis can you say that the Church is wrong?
>He believes in believers being salt and light and bringing an impact to their cities as they follow Biblical principles on how to reach cities.
He also believes that the Church is to take over the State (through the New Apostles taking control of the "Seven Mountains" of society), and rule it. If you like theocracy, complete with the Inquisition and the Crusades, be my guest.
@Link,
>On your accusation about the denial of the preservation of the church accusation because he believes many pastors have been lacking on understanding the role of the marketplace for basically being 'monks' (I think he means career clergy who haven't work)...come on? How can any Reformed Protestant accuse him of such a thing over such a light point.
That's because some of us actually have read up on Church History, and know about the Patristic and Medieval Church. The Reformation was NOT a revolution in the Church, but a reformation of it. The Reformation was all about going back to teachings held to already in the Patristic Church, and removing the corruptions of the Medieval Church. It was never about saying that the Church was all wrong, but that the Late Medieval Church was corrupt. That is why the Reformers cite the Church Fathers and even early medieval theologians, because they see themselves as being in historical continuity with the Patristic Church.
>But much of Protestantism has rejected aspects of Biblical qualifications for leadership.
Perhaps. But since when has two wrongs make one right?
>The apostles appointed elders, not young men, and these men had to have worked to support themselves to rule their houses well.
Was Timothy a young man? I guessed he was, according to 1 Tim. 12, he was. Yet Timothy was an elder in the church of Ephesus. As for having children, are you saying that Paul is disqualified from that office, since he never married?
>But we've turned ministry into a career track thing that someone can enter into as a young man.
What is a "career track"? You failed to differentiate "career" from "calling." Just because the modern church turned the ministry into a profession does not mean that the ministry is NOT a calling.
>If we've turned eldership into a career-track thing that the young can enter into instead of doing it the way the apostles did,
What is the way the apostles did? They appointed elders who ruled over the church. These elders had actual authority, and they tend to the flock. They were not necessarily young (e.g. Timothy), but had a special calling to care for the flock. I don't see anything here that suggests a laicized clergy as you suggest.
>You should lean toward being gracious if you are going to fault-find
Gracious? Was Athanasius gracious towards the heretic Arius? Was Augustine gracious towards Pelagius? I am only "fault-finding" if you can show that Silvoso is actually following Scripture, which up till now you haven't done so.
We haven't even touched on the usurpation of office that Silvoso has done, in taking upon himself the haughty title of "Apostle." He has not been called by God to be an apostle, and the arrogance of people like him in the NAR knows no bounds.
>And having a wrong idea or holding to a false belief doesn't make one a heretic.
Well, the divisive element is here: Silvoso preaches a false gospel. So he promotes division in the Church.
But you confuse schism and heresy. Schism is the promotion of division; heresy the promotion of error. So yes, Silvoso proclaims a false gospel, a semi-pelagian gospel at best. He is a heretic, and as long as the Church Universal has condemned Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, Silvoso is always and has been outside the pale of orthodoxy.
>>>That is the unanimous judgment of all non-Lutheran Protestant churches in the 17th century, in the Great Synod of Dordt. The Church has ruled it as heresy. so upon what basis can you say that the Church is wrong?<<
You are assuming a contradiction. I take you are still on the topic of extracting a statement from Ed Silvoso about not realizing some aspect of the scriptures before reading it through a 'market place lens.' It just seems to me that you are taking little comments here and there, and taking a huge leap to assume that his comments mean he adheres to an entire theological system you consider a heresy based on some little comment that isn't very condemning. That's what it seems like to me. I am going off your description of it, but it sounds like he is saying that he learned more about a topic after reading the scripture more from a certain perspective.
In general, I'd side with the Protestant view on this, that 'regular folks' can read and understand the scriptures. But I also see that God can blind people from understanding spiritual things and He can give others insight. Paul prayed that the Ephesians would have the Spirit of revelation.
Also, the idea that one can gain more knowledge of the scriptures from studying them and meditating on them is a Biblical concept. The psalmist wrote that he was wiser than his teachers because he had made the law of the Lord his meditation. Your accusation of heresy on this one just seems to be going out on a limb and then taking a huge leap. It's as if you take innocuous comments and try to match them with the closest related 'heresy' you can think of. And accusing some of being a heretic for not agreeing with some aspect of a decision of the Synod of Dordt isn't justified. Do you consider Lutherans to be nonChristians? What about believers before the Reformation who had never heard of this yet-to-come Synod?
I'm from a church background that is a bit more fundamentalist, more Bible focused, not focused on creeds or confessions. I'm not from the Dutch Reformed Creed or some group that is related to the synod of Dordt. I recall reading that the Puritan/Separatist pilgrims to Massacheusetts held to that confession, so giving your moniker, I can see why that might mean a lot to you.
But I believe a man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the wording of Protestant confessions. I wonder if you are so strict on accepting the nitty gritty details of the more ancient church councils. For example, do you believe someone is a heretic if he does or does not believe that Constantinople is as important of an ecclesiastical see as Rome?
>>He believes in believers being salt and light and bringing an impact to their cities as they follow Biblical principles on how to reach cities.
He also believes that the Church is to take over the State (through the New Apostles taking control of the "Seven Mountains" of society), and rule it.<<
I'm not all that familiar with all his teachings. He apparently believes in apostolic ministries, but referred to a group he met with as 'so-called apostles.' At least in community matters, he seems the inclusive type, wanting to love and bless everyone, get influential Roman Catholics in South America to be involved in God-honoring community events, and working together in those sorts of things.
His idea of discipling nations is that this involves discipling every aspect of a nation and he points out that the command in the Great Commission to discple the nations precedes the command to baptize.
I'm not clear on his eschatology. A lot of the more third wave charismatic types, whether the more 'prophetic movement' types or the more evangelical types that seem less Charismatic in style than Charismatics, don't really explain a systematic view of eschatology. I got the impression he believes in a return of Christ, but that we have a lot to do until then.
He doesn't seem to be a professional trained theologian, either. So if you take one comment and say he believes in this heresy or doctrinal belief system, your guess would probably be wrong. He may not agree with the whole system, but have some similar beliefs he holds to without embracing the whole system you have in mind. I've heard him speak a few times, including one conference.
As far as the general thrust of what he's doing, encouraging believers to get involved in developing business and economic models that are beneficial to the poor, discipling and evangelizing government officials, church leaders serving the community in ways the communities want them to to build relationships and have an impact, I see those as positive things. Some of the people who go to his conference are apparently from churches whose views on these things is that the world is just going to get worse and worse until Jesus comes back, but they way they interpret that is to stay out of various spheres of society. Historically, I see the church can have a positive influence. A lot of what he said was pretty simple straightforward stuff about being salt and light, and pointing out that Acts shows Paul ministering in the marketplace as his ministry reached higher levels in terms of reaching greater numbers of people and influencing society and expanding beyond Jews and God-fearers to include pagans as well (e.g. Corinth and Ephesus.)
Btw, the 'kingdom now' emphasis with some of the Charismatics seems to come from taking the eschatology and beliefs of certain Reformed types and modifying them a bit or mixing them with other eschatological concepts.
>>It was never about saying that the Church was all wrong, but that the Late Medieval Church was corrupt.<<
You still have a problem with continuity of the church. If the church had it wrong for the duration of the middle ages... that's a pretty long time from a human perspective. That's one of the RCC objections to the Reformation.
I don't see large numbers of professing Christians, or even the majority, not having a decent understanding of a certain doctrine as a real problem. Truth isn't a popularity contest after all.
Ed Silvoso's issue you mentioned was seeing the importance of the marketplace in ministry. With Protestantism, the issue is something much more core, doctrines related to salvation. Also, various doctrines related to ministry.
You said that Timothy was an elder. The Bible says no such thing. The Book titles to the KJV, which weren't in the Greek manuscripts, call him a bishop. That's church tradition. But it also seems like church leaders two or three hundred years out liked to claim saints who'd been in their cities as the historical bishop of that city. Was Peter really the 'bishop' of Antioch ruling like a monarchical bishop in the middle ages? Probably not.
In the Bible, Timothy is an apostle. So was Paul. In the Bible, they both appointed elders, but this was in cities where they had introduced the Gospel and won people to Christ, and in that sense, they were fathers, fathers in the Gospel. But the type of men they appointing to lead, including the young Timothy, were elders, not youngers.
You described my comments as a 'laicized clergy'. I don't care for the term 'clergy' since it has a lot of connotations I don't see in the text. What I do see is that Paul and Barnabas preached in various cities. They left one to introduce the Gospel in another. When they returned, probably many months or up to a year later, they appointed elders, or older men, from within those very congregations. So those men would have been regular members of the congregation before being ordained as bishops/overseers in the church. Is that a 'laicized clergy'?
>>It was never about saying that the Church was all wrong, but that the Late Medieval Church was corrupt.<<
You still have a problem with continuity of the church. If the church had it wrong for the duration of the middle ages... that's a pretty long time from a human perspective. That's one of the RCC objections to the Reformation.
I don't see large numbers of professing Christians, or even the majority, not having a decent understanding of a certain doctrine as a real problem. Truth isn't a popularity contest after all.
Ed Silvoso's issue you mentioned was seeing the importance of the marketplace in ministry. With Protestantism, the issue is something much more core, doctrines related to salvation. Also, various doctrines related to ministry.
You said that Timothy was an elder. The Bible says no such thing. The Book titles to the KJV, which weren't in the Greek manuscripts, call him a bishop. That's church tradition. But it also seems like church leaders two or three hundred years out liked to claim saints who'd been in their cities as the historical bishop of that city. Was Peter really the 'bishop' of Antioch ruling like a monarchical bishop in the middle ages? Probably not.
In the Bible, Timothy is an apostle. So was Paul. In the Bible, they both appointed elders, but this was in cities where they had introduced the Gospel and won people to Christ, and in that sense, they were fathers, fathers in the Gospel. But the type of men they appointing to lead, including the young Timothy, were elders, not youngers.
You described my comments as a 'laicized clergy'. I don't care for the term 'clergy' since it has a lot of connotations I don't see in the text. What I do see is that Paul and Barnabas preached in various cities. They left one to introduce the Gospel in another. When they returned, probably many months or up to a year later, they appointed elders, or older men, from within those very congregations. So those men would have been regular members of the congregation before being ordained as bishops/overseers in the church. Is that a 'laicized clergy'?
One more point for now, that I didn't catch in my mailbox earlier,
>>
Read 1 Cor. 1-2. It is the Spirit that indwells ALL believers. The "common man" who is a believer can understand what the Bible says.<<
Paul also prayed that the Ephesians would have the Spirit of revelation. Paul wrote that if he spoke with the tongues of men and of angels... if he were able to understand all mysteries and all knowledge... if he gave his body to be burned.
Understanding spiritual mysteries and having knowledge is on a continuum. Yes, the regular believer can read the Bible and gain understanding. But it is possible for one believer to have more insight than another either because of a greater spiritual understanding or after more time meditating.
I suspect you know this. Why would someone encourage Bible study if they didn't expect the one doing the studying to grow in knowledge and understanding by doing it. The Silvoso quote was about him not seeing something in the Bible, but seeing it later. Whether you agree with him or not on the point he made about the passage, how can you accuse him of not believing in perspicuity of the scriptures because of that? From my perspective, you seem to be reading huge heresies into tiny comments where they probably aren't there because there are some things you do not like about the guy or his other beliefs and practices.
@Link,
> I take you are still on the topic of extracting a statement from Ed Silvoso about not realizing some aspect of the scriptures before reading it through a 'market place lens.' It just seems to me that you are taking little comments here and there, and taking a huge leap to assume that his comments mean he adheres to an entire theological system you consider a heresy based on some little comment that isn't very condemning.
Have you actually looked at what Silvoso taught?
>Also, the idea that one can gain more knowledge of the scriptures from studying them and meditating on them is a Biblical concept.
True, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Scriptures are perspicuous
>Your accusation of heresy on this one just seems to be going out on a limb and then taking a huge leap.
Do you suppose that heretics will come with horns and a pitchfork saying "I am a heretic"? The way you reason, it is as if there is no way anyone can be said to be a heretic.
>And accusing some of being a heretic for not agreeing with some aspect of a decision of the Synod of Dordt isn't justified. Do you consider Lutherans to be nonChristians?
Lutherans have a unique soteriology that is in the grey area.
>What about believers before the Reformation who had never heard of this yet-to-come Synod?
The same way believers before 325AD who have never heard of the Council of Nicea or its creed. The same way most believers before 325AD have no idea what the key word homoousia means, before affirming it in 325AD became a test of orthodoxy.
No one is condemned for not affirming orthodoxy, but heretics are condemned for promoting heresy.
>But I believe a man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the wording of Protestant confessions.
That's true to some extent. But there is a difference between simple faith, and a naïve faith. Simple faith does not hold to orthodox wording but WILL hold to orthodox teaching if they are taught. Naïve faith on the other hand, refuses to learn, refuses to adhere to orthodoxy, in the name of being "biblical" and holding to JBFA.
> At least in community matters, he seems the inclusive type, wanting to love and bless everyone, get influential Roman Catholics in South America to be involved in God-honoring community events, and working together in those sorts of things.
And you don't see any problems with his cooperation with Rome? Where is your supposed fidelity in holding to JBFA?
>His idea of discipling nations is that this involves discipling every aspect of a nation and he points out that the command in the Great Commission to discple the nations precedes the command to baptize.
And that is one of the problems I have pointed out (i.e. institutional redemption). I find it rather interesting that you accuse me of nitpicking, while at the same time validating my criticisms.
@Link:
>He doesn't seem to be a professional trained theologian, either.
Read James 3:1, note that he claims to be an "Apostle" of Christ, and tell me whether being a theologian is optional for someone who claims that office.
>As far as the general thrust of what he's doing, encouraging believers to get involved in developing business and economic models that are beneficial to the poor, discipling and evangelizing government officials, church leaders serving the community in ways the communities want them to to build relationships and have an impact, I see those as positive things.
And those are besides the point. I have no qualms with his work in society per se.
> A lot of what he said was pretty simple straightforward stuff about being salt and light, and pointing out that Acts shows Paul ministering in the marketplace
And that requires an "Apostle" to point out? What does that have anything to do with any of his false teachings?
>Btw, the 'kingdom now' emphasis with some of the Charismatics seems to come from taking the eschatology and beliefs of certain Reformed types and modifying them a bit or mixing them with other eschatological concepts.
Dominionism is not the same as puritan revivalist postmillennialism. Read C. Peter Wagner's book Dominion, and compare with Iain Murray's book The Puritan Hope, before you try to posit any connection between the two.
@Link:
>You still have a problem with continuity of the church. If the church had it wrong for the duration of the middle ages
Did I say the entire duration of the middle ages? Bernard of Clairvoux, cited by John Calvin, lived in the early Medieval era. Thomas Bradwardine lived in the High to Late Medieval periods. Throughout the Medieval era, there were always remnants in the professing church. At the time of the Reformation, the remnant has shrunk to almost nothing, not that the Church "disappeared" during the Medieval period.
>You said that Timothy was an elder. The Bible says no such thing
You might want to actually read the Bible. There are only two ordinary offices in the church, as the Pastoral Epistles state. Prophets and Apostles are specially appointed offices that are only there during the apostolic times.
Timothy is ordained to the ministry (1 Tim. 4:14), and he is no apostle or prophet, therefore since he is involved in teaching, he is an elder.
>The Book titles to the KJV, which weren't in the Greek manuscripts, call him a bishop.
A "bishop" or overseers comes from the Greek word επισκοπος , which is the same office as the word "elder" or πρεσβυτερος .
>In the Bible, Timothy is an apostle.
Nope. You will find nowhere in Scripture where Timothy is called an apostle. He is called "brother" and Paul's "son" among others, but never apostles. Furthermore, he never once showed any of the signs of the apostles (c.f. 2 Cor. 12:12).
Which brings us to the next point: Ed Silvoso does not exhibit any of the signs of an apostle.
>When they returned, probably many months or up to a year later, they appointed elders, or older men, from within those very congregations. So those men would have been regular members of the congregation before being ordained as bishops/overseers in the church. Is that a 'laicized clergy'?
They appointed elders, not necessarily elder men. These elders actually are ordained with the laying on of hands LIKE Timothy, and are thus set apart for this holy calling. They are not some older guys who have a nice full life in the secular sphere and then are ordained in their older years.
You have not proven to me you know why these men are called "elders." Why was the Greek word πρεσβυτερος used here? Instead, you rely on mere etymology to deduce that "elders" in the church necessarily mean "old men." Just FYI, there IS a Greek phrase or term that is actually used to refer to older men in 1 Jn. 2:13-14, and it is not the term πρεβυτερος (elder).
@Link:
>Paul also prayed that the Ephesians would have the Spirit of revelation. Paul wrote that if he spoke with the tongues of men and of angels... if he were able to understand all mysteries and all knowledge... if he gave his body to be burned.
And nowhere did I ever claim that perspicuity implies full knowledge, so your point is invalid.
If Ed Silvoso saying he didn't understand something about the importance of the marketplace in scripture until he read it with a marketplace lens is a violation of perspicuity, what is your basis for your accusation, then? That sounds more like you are accusing him for not initially having complete knowledge. I'm talking about an article that was linked as a pdf that I'm having a little trouble finding in the blog, which I realize is several years old.
While doing a search, I found a critique of what was going on with the lighting while Don Moen sang, using spotlights shining all around, which you interpreted as a violation of worshipping in spirit and in truth. To me, that's a completely ridiculous interpretation on your part. What does lighting have to do with whether a believer worships (or prostrates) in spirit and in truth? There is no connection. If you happen to be worshipping next to a building with wild and crazy lights that shine in your window, that's not going to make your worship untrue. If the lighting guy is trying to create an 'atmopshere' that doesn't necessarily have to do with the trueness of worship. And there is a prooftext for using lighting. "There were many lights in that place" from Acts 20. :) But your approach in that article seems typical of your blog. From my perspective, a lot of your conclusions seem unjustified, especially when you are using them to condemn or accuse other brethren.
When I interact with someone from your perspective, it just feels to me like you have a much larger body of material that serves as a de facto canon of scripture than I do. The way you use certain aspects of church history and the Great Synod of Dordt seems to me to occupy the place that I would reserve for scripture. I suspect a lot of other people from the churches that don't rely on the creeds would feel the same. I'm thinking of non-denominationals, Wesleyan influenced churches that aren't Methodists. A lot of Baptists, while they have doctrinal statements, aren't really into the creeds or take a very light approach to them.
If you think true believers are naturally going to agree (or at least not oppose) anything produced by the Great Synod of Dordt or whatever other Protestant synod or confession you hold dear, what about more 'core' historical church councils? Certain canons from the Council at Chalcedon clearly endorse the idea of one bishop per city. One dealt with dividing up municipalities and how that affected the bishopricks for those cities.
If a true believer is going to accept some really late Protestant synod's decisions if he is a genuine believer, how could a genuine believer reject or oppose any aspect of these early church councils? How could Presbyterians, who rejected the episcopal set-up, and went for a flatter Presbyterian structure be considered true Christians? What about all the other Reformed Christians that aren't set up under the traditional monarchical bishop system? Aren't they in opposition to an ecumenical church council?
Isn't using church council's decisions and states from post-Reformation synods, church confessions, etc. as a basis for deciding who is a brother contrary to the concept of sola scriptura?
You wrote,
>>>Did I say the entire duration of the middle ages? Bernard of Clairvoux, cited by John Calvin, lived in the early Medieval era. Thomas Bradwardine lived in the High to Late Medieval periods. Throughout the Medieval era, there were always remnants in the professing church. At the time of the Reformation, the remnant has shrunk to almost nothing, not that the Church "disappeared" during the Medieval period.<<<
And why would you assume that Ed Silvoso thought that his own ideas about the marketplace are completely new. I suspect if you actually asked him to come down on one side or other on the issue of whether other people had taught similar things throughout history, he wouldn't argue that his ideas were original. That's just a guess on my part.
The strange thing is that it seems like you just imagine the man's whole position based on a little information. Maybe you had a huge amount of information that you didn't share in the article, but I'm just going based on what I've read. I also see on the blog that you can take huge leaps in your 'logical' deductions, but when you do so to accuse someone, that's problematic.
>>>You might want to actually read the Bible. There are only two ordinary offices in the church, as the Pastoral Epistles state. Prophets and Apostles are specially appointed offices that are only there during the apostolic times.<<<
I do read the Bible and I've studied this topic in depth. I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6 indicate that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were apostles.
>>>Timothy is ordained to the ministry (1 Tim. 4:14), and he is no apostle or prophet, therefore since he is involved in teaching, he is an elder.<<<
Your conclusion is not justified by the evidence you present. Paul taught over and over again and he was an apostle. Barnabas was an apostle, too (Acts 14:4, 14.) He and Saul of Tarsus were among the 'prophets and teachers' in Antioch. Barnabas could have been a prophet considering the literal meaning of Barnabas, which was a name the apostles gave him.
And there is no reason to think that if someone teaches he must be an elder. One appointed as an overseer must be 'apt to teach.' But he is already apt to teach before he's appointed to that role. The Bible does not limit the teaching role only to elders or exclude apostles, prophets or others in the congregation from teaching. One individual may operate in multiple gifts.
>>>A "bishop" or overseers comes from the Greek word επισκοπος , which is the same office as the word "elder" or πρεσβυτερος .<<<
I agree that the elders of the church are bishops. Of course, you should consider yourself a heretic along with myself for saying that if you treat the Council of Chalcedon as sacred as you treat the Great Synod of Dordt. :)
But 'elder' has some other connotations to it. The role of elder of the church is a continuation of the Old Testament zaqen role, elder role. The elders of the people in the Gospels, the Sanhedrin or the party therein were likely quite old. The Christian sources that deal with this seem to draw from Maimoinedes, which is about 1000 years too late to be fresh information. But traditionally, we would expect these elders to have been at least 60 at the national level.
Take a look at I Peter 5. Peter tells the elders to pastor the flock of God, gives various other instructions, and then tells the younger to submit to the elder. Notice the age contrast between the elders he was addressing and 'the younger.' Also notice that in I Timothy 5, Paul says not to rebuke an elder sharply, then tells the requirements for another group of older people, widows indeed, who had to be at least 60. The NIV translators felt like the word for 'elder' could be translated 'older man' in this context.
I'm not saying a church has to have a specific age cut off to be an elder, but the term used seems to have implied age and maturity, as did the Old Testament equivilant. An overseer should at the very least be old enough to have demonstrated an ability to rule his house well.
Timothy was apparently preparing to appoint elders in the church. He was an itinerate minister, traveling from place to place. There is no Biblical evidence that he was a settled church elder. Some people read the epistle through the lens of the monarchical bishop tradition, seeing him as the city bishop who appointed elders beneath himself.
>>>Nope. You will find nowhere in Scripture where Timothy is called an apostle. He is called "brother" and Paul's "son" among others, but never apostles.<<<
Again, I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6.
>>> Furthermore, he never once showed any of the signs of the apostles (c.f. 2 Cor. 12:12).<<<
That's silly. You weren't there, and you have no Biblical basis for your statement. Besides, if a man is an apostle in scripture, we should assume he meets any qualifications for the role.
>>Which brings us to the next point: Ed Silvoso does not exhibit any of the signs of an apostle.<<
I wouldn't know one way or another. Historically, there is a wider group of men referred to as apostles. There are numerous men, but for example there is Patrick, apostle of Ireland and Cyrill and Methodius, apostle of the Bulgarians and a bunch of those Slavic type people-groups whose names I can't remember off the top of my head. Even in the Reformed tradition there has been some use of the term in this way, like John Elliot apostle to the Indians in the Massacheussettes colony, and a referene to missionaries as apostles in a Congregational hymn I came across. The Bible uses the word 'apostles' for a wider group than Paul or the 12. If we don't allow for that, we don't have much Biblical basis for missionaries or expanding the church in missions fields. Apollos and Paul both are apparently refered to as 'we apostles' in I Corinthians. Apollos was an itinerant evangelist and teacher, apparently, who strengthened an existing work.
But I don't see how running transformation conferences necessarily fits the mold. But I don't know enough about what Ed Silvoso does aside from that to comment one way or another. The network that some of those NAR apostles are in has such a wide and loose definition of apostle that I don't really see much connection to scripture.
>>>They appointed elders, not necessarily elder men. These elders actually are ordained with the laying on of hands LIKE Timothy, and are thus set apart for this holy calling. They are not some older guys who have a nice full life in the secular sphere and then are ordained in their older years.
>>>You have not proven to me you know why these men are called "elders." Why was the Greek word πρεσβυτερος used here?<<<
That's a frequently used technique in not-too-scholarly discourse, but it's faulty reasoning. We look at the words the Bible uses. Arguing that they could have used another word doesn't prove anything about the meaning of the words they actually wrote.
@Link,
>While doing a search, I found a critique of what was going on with the lighting while Don Moen sang, using spotlights shining all around, which you interpreted as a violation of worshipping in spirit and in truth. To me, that's a completely ridiculous interpretation on your part.
Obviously you have no idea what the regulative principle of worship is. To say that is ridiculous is to think that God has not revealed HOW we are to worship him. Do you think that God does not care how we worship, as long as our hearts are right? Do you suppose that you can offer to God whatever you think is right for worship, and he must accept it?
>But your approach in that article seems typical of your blog. From my perspective, a lot of your conclusions seem unjustified, especially when you are using them to condemn or accuse other brethren.
You have not even proven that you understand what the issues are at stake. You have no understanding of the importance of doctrine, no understanding of the gravity of worship, no understanding of the importance the Scriptures place on itself, and so on.
>When I interact with someone from your perspective, it just feels to me like you have a much larger body of material that serves as a de facto canon of scripture than I do.
Actually, we have the same canon. However, you do not understand what the Scriptures teach. Whatever the Scriptures teach is truth, and deductions from Scripture are equally true. Just because you are blinded to the truth does not mean that what is deduced from Scripture is less true.
> I suspect a lot of other people from the churches that don't rely on the creeds would feel the same.
Why should I care what they think? In church history, these are the groups that broke off from the Reformed Churches. I don't care how long ago it was; all of them are guilty of the sin of schism even if they were not the generation that rebelled against the Reformed Churches.
> A lot of Baptists, while they have doctrinal statements, aren't really into the creeds or take a very light approach to them
So? They are wrong, and guilty of the sin of schism. Historically, their forefathers rebelled against the true church.
>Certain canons from the Council at Chalcedon clearly endorse the idea of one bishop per city.
And these were not the main doctrines propounded. So what's your point? That just because a council has its core doctrines right means we must accept EVERYTHING that was said there? Nobody does that, not even Rome.
>how could a genuine believer reject or oppose any aspect of these early church councils?
Because these were not the core doctrines of the council, in the same way as I am not interested in what those pastors and bishops have for lunch.
>Isn't using church council's decisions and states from post-Reformation synods, church confessions, etc. as a basis for deciding who is a brother contrary to the concept of sola scriptura?
No, it is not. The goal of synods and confessions is not to impose new doctrine, but to state what the Scriptures actually teach. We hold those because Scripture teaches those doctrines. To reject those standards is to reject the teachings of Scripture.
@Link:
>And why would you assume that Ed Silvoso thought that his own ideas about the marketplace are completely new.
Oh, they are not "new." It is a resurrection of the entire Church-State complex found in medieval Roman Catholicism, part of the corruption of the medieval period I may add.
>The strange thing is that it seems like you just imagine the man's whole position based on a little information.
"Little information." If Silvoso said something, and I cannot take what he claims to believe and hold to at face value, then I think it is you who is doing the spinning.
>I also see on the blog that you can take huge leaps in your 'logical' deductions, but when you do so to accuse someone, that's problematic.
You can't prove that. In fact, earlier, you validated my criticism of Silvoso as teaching institutional redemption, so I think it strange that you claim that I make logical leaps while you agree with my observation of what he teaches.
> I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6 indicate that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were apostles.
Really? So Paul must be referring to all three of them in 2:6, even though in 3:2 "we" sent Timothy? So clearly Timothy is not part of the "we." [Not to mention Silas is not an apostle as per Acts 15:27, but a prophet. And while Paul exercised his apostolic office in Acts 18:5, we have no evidence that Silas did the same but rather functioned as Paul's support team]
It seems strange to me that you have no idea how Paul uses plural pronouns to refer to his generic apostolic team with a focus on his apostolic office.
>Paul taught over and over again and he was an apostle. Barnabas was an apostle, too (Acts 14:4, 14.)
Barnabas is not Timothy.
>And there is no reason to think that if someone teaches he must be an elder.
So we can throw out Jas. 3:1 and the entire pastoral epistles? Anyone can teach now, even though Eph. 4: 11 states that God gave these people to the church, not that God gave gifts to everyone and whosoever desires to teach may do so?
>One appointed as an overseer must be 'apt to teach.' But he is already apt to teach before he's appointed to that role.
Irrelevant. The issue is calling, not whether the person is apt to teach. An adulterer who is "apt to teach" is disqualified regardless of his giftings.
>The Bible does not limit the teaching role only to elders or exclude apostles, prophets or others in the congregation from teaching. One individual may operate in multiple gifts.
Actually, it DOES. The Bible says that God calls people to the office of elders, deacons etc, with the laying on of hands. Furthermore, Eph. 4:11 makes it clear that the giftings are given by God to those He calls to that office, for the benefit of the Church. It never says that whosoever wants to teach may do so. The pastoral epistles DO exist after all.
Not to mention, there are no more prophets or apostles in the Church today. They have fulfilled their functions and there is no more need for their particular office of revealing God's truth, since revelation is complete and final (c.f. Heb. 1:1-2, Rev. 22:18-9)
@Link:
>But 'elder' has some other connotations to it. The role of elder of the church is a continuation of the Old Testament zaqen role, elder role. The elders of the people in the Gospels, the Sanhedrin or the party therein were likely quite old. The Christian sources that deal with this seem to draw from Maimoinedes, which is about 1000 years too late to be fresh information. But traditionally, we would expect these elders to have been at least 60 at the national level.
Yes, that is its background and etymology. Now, let's go to the New Covenant Church instead of staying at the root meaning of the word "elder."
>Take a look at I Peter 5. Peter tells the elders to pastor the flock of God, gives various other instructions, and then tells the younger to submit to the elder. Notice the age contrast between the elders he was addressing and 'the younger.'
You are assuming that refers to age. Typically, in churches there is definitely an age gap between those who are younger in the faith and those who are older, especially when we deal with children. But you assume too much by your tight association of "elder" with older people. As I have said, Timothy is an elder. Paul was 30+ when he began his ministry, as an apostle and also as an elder of the Antiochene church.
>I'm not saying a church has to have a specific age cut off to be an elder, but the term used seems to have implied age and maturity, as did the Old Testament equivilant.
It does imply maturity, but not age. Maturity is supposed to come with age, but not always. The young Samuel was deemed more mature than the elderly Eli for example.
>An overseer should at the very least be old enough to have demonstrated an ability to rule his house well
The Apostle Paul would have failed your test.
> He was an itinerate minister, traveling from place to place.
He was itinerant WHEN he was part of Paul's ministry team. After Paul was placed under house arrest in Rome (which was when the Pastoral Epistles were written), he became pastor at Ephesus, as church history has told us.
>Again, I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6.
Again, 1 Thess. 3:2
@Link:
>Historically, there is a wider group of men referred to as apostles. There are numerous men, but for example there is Patrick, apostle of Ireland and Cyrill and Methodius, apostle of the Bulgarians and a bunch of those Slavic type people-groups whose names I can't remember off the top of my head.
Those are called "apostles" in the sense of the ones sent to a particular people group, NOT the office of an Apostle. They are also called "apostles" by men in this colloquial sense, not in the biblical sense.
>like John Elliot apostle to the Indians in the Massacheussettes colony, and a referene to missionaries as apostles in a Congregational hymn I came across.
Again, in the colloquial sense, which I think we should phase out since it confuses everyone.
>The Bible uses the word 'apostles' for a wider group than Paul or the 12.
Yes, for a slightly larger group of people like Barnabas. But that's all. Paul is the last of the Apostles, as he himself said (1 Cor. 15:8)
>If we don't allow for that, we don't have much Biblical basis for missionaries or expanding the church in missions fields.
You mean we need apostles to do missions? Do you really want to say that?
>We look at the words the Bible uses. Arguing that they could have used another word doesn't prove anything about the meaning of the words they actually wrote.
It's not that could have used another word. It's that they intentionally used another word to refer to older men when they could have just said elders.
>>the entire Church-State complex found in medieval Roman Catholicism, part of the corruption of the medieval period I may add.<<
Plenty of early Reformed thinkers wanted to have Christian cities, a Christian society, etc. What was Geneva about, and what were the pilgrims in the New World trying to do?
>>"Little information." If Silvoso said something, and I cannot take what he claims to believe and hold to at face value, then I think it is you who is doing the spinning.<<
I'm thinking of your taking a little comment of his that reminds you of some elaborate philosophical or theological system and your attributing that whole system of thought to him.
>>You can't prove that. In fact, earlier, you validated my criticism of Silvoso as teaching institutional redemption, so I think it strange that you claim that I make logical leaps while you agree with my observation of what he teaches.<<
I don't necessarily agree that 'institutional redemption' is the right label for what he beleives it. I couldn't say that without a quote from him to that effect. He does believe that scripture that teaches that God is reconciling the whole world to Himself has some application to institutions in society, and that Christains should be salt and light in society. He doesn't like the idea of Christians sitting in church buildings waiting for the rapture, thinking the world is going to get worse and worse, while not engaging with the people in the world to be salt and light, and even make the world a better place.
When I listened to him, I wondered if he held to some kind of post-mil eschatology which I'd associate more with the Reformed movement. You mentioned liberation theology in one of your articles about him. Maybe that's what you thought of when you listened to him. But something he said indicated that he believes that Jesus is going to come back and rule, so my guess is that he believes that Christ will return, but in the mean time, we are to be salt and light in social and economic spheres and that great things can happen through this as we are the salt of the earth.
Historically, there are examples of cities and nations that feared God, where the church had great influence. Sitting around and waiting for the second coming while not engaging in the culture to be salt in light in these spheres of influence may be a poor choice. So he may have a valid point about this. I don't know if I'd agree with his eschatology. But I suspect I'm a bit more open about who I'd consider to be a part of the church than you are.
>>>Really? So Paul must be referring to all three of them in 2:6, even though in 3:2 "we" sent Timothy? So clearly Timothy is not part of the "we."<<<
When you read the letter from the apostles and elders, brethren, in Jerusalem in Acts 15, do you exclude Paul and Barnabas from that group because they letter says that 'we' are sending them? You've still got to have more than one to be counted as 'we.'
>>>Not to mention Silas is not an apostle as per Acts 15:27, but a prophet.<<<
Paul and Barnabas are among the group of 'apostles and teachers' in Acts 15. That doesn't mean Paul wasn't an apostle. We can see that they were both apostles after the Spirit spoke and they were sent out. Silas hadn't gone out on the journey with Paul yet at the time Acts 15:27 was set. Acts doesn't report Timothy's receiving a gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. Btw, compare that to the Spirit speaking prophets and teachers laying hands on Saul and Barnabas when they were sent out, and then Acts finally first refers to them as 'apostles.'
>>> And while Paul exercised his apostolic office in Acts 18:5, we have no evidence that Silas did the same but rather functioned as Paul's support team]
>>>It seems strange to me that you have no idea how Paul uses plural pronouns to refer to his generic apostolic team with a focus on his apostolic office. <<<
Generic apostles are still apostles. I've got scripture that shows that Timothy and Silas were apostles. Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist. The Bible never calls either of them bishop or elder. Why should tradition trump the evidence we have in scripture? As far as your pronoun argument goes, you seem to be reading your own beliefs into the text.
>>>And there is no reason to think that if someone teaches he must be an elder.
So we can throw out Jas. 3:1 and the entire pastoral epistles? Anyone can teach now, even though Eph. 4: 11 states that God gave these people to the church, not that God gave gifts to everyone and whosoever desires to teach may do so?<<<
James 3:1 does not say that one has to be an elder to teach either. The passage continues on to explain that the one who can tame the tongue is a perfect man. Perfection or maturity is a trait related to being a teacher. Notice the author's expection for the 'general readership' of the book of Hebrews in chapter 5.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (ESV)
Do you really beleive that only elders can teach? What about all the various churches of the Reformed tradition that have unordained people teaching adult Sunday school classes? Is that really wrong?
Romans 12 tells the one who is gifted to prophesy to prophesy according to the proportion of faith, the one gifted to teach, to teach, the one gifted to exhort to exhort. A man appointed as an overseer is to be 'apt to teach.' He has to have the ability to teach before he's appointed. How can he do that if he hasn't taught before and demonstrated his gift?
You are also overlooking the fact that according to Acts 14, the apostles left congregations without appointed elders. They had to do something during this time. We dont' know if Corinth had any elders appointed by the time it got it's first epistle. The household of Stephanus was ministering and Paul supported that, but his epistle doesn't salute any bishops as the epistle to the Philippians does. He doesn't even reference.
>>Irrelevant. The issue is calling, not whether the person is apt to teach. An adulterer who is "apt to teach" is disqualified regardless of his giftings.<<<<<<
If someone called a brother is in adultery and won't repent, we shouldn't be having fellowship with him.
The command for the one gifted to teach to do so in Romans 12 is enough of a calling for any believer with the gift. But I'm talking about teaching saints, not being an elder. Elders are to be apt to teach, but not all teachers are elders. I wouldnt' be surprised if your very own church functioned this way, at least with Sunday school programs or other Bible studies if you have them. The story of John Brown, whom the Reformed Scottish Covenanter known as prophet Peden is said to have prophesied, comes to mind. John Brown was unordained, but had a minsitry of teaching young men if I recall correctly. I might have heard that part from an Alistair Begg sermon, the part about teaching and the martyrdom, without the bit about the predictive prophecy.
As far as calling goes, the Bible talks about apostles being called, but it doesn't say elders or bishops are called. I'm not against the concept per se, but it's worth noting it isnt' mentioned. There are lists of qualifications for these roles. It is sad if churches focus too much on 'calling' or education and ignore the actual qualifications. Part of that problem comes the Reformed movement renaming 'priests' as 'pastors' and then creating a new role of elder out of the Geneva city council man. That role got modeled by the Scottish Reformed church, and hence there are non-pastoral 'elders' in some congregations. Other Protestants copied the Scottish Reformed movement.
>>Actually, it DOES. The Bible says that God calls people to the office of elders, deacons etc, with the laying on of hands.<<<
What part of that is evidence that someone can't function in multiple roles or move from one to another. Philip's widow-feeding role may be what we'd consider a deacon. But later he's called an evangelist. Paul were among the 'prophets and teachers in Acts 13:1. But by chapter 14, Barnabas is also an apostle. Generally, elders should also be teachers, but not all teachers are elders.
>>Furthermore, Eph. 4:11 makes it clear that the giftings are given by God to those He calls to that office, for the benefit of the Church. It never says that whosoever wants to teach may do so. The pastoral epistles DO exist after all.<<
God gives out lots of gifts. I Corinthians 12 is full of them. So is Romans 12. There are a few verses in I Peter 4 about this. If you read those passages, don't you see that every believers operates or can operate in some gift of some sort. There aren't only 5 (or 4) in the Bible, those in Ephesians 4:11.
As far as who can speak in church, the actual instructions for to do in church as far as speaking is concerned, in the only passage that deals with it at length says,
"26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." ( I Corinthians 14:26, ESV)
Why is it that people who say they believe in the 'regulative principle of worship' usually ignore the detailed instructions regarding what to do in church? The command is to let these things be done unto edifying. Instructions follow that indicate that the member of the church who speaks in tongues is allowed to as long as the instructions regarding interpretation are obeyed. The prophets are allowed to speak according to the order laid down. 'Ye all' may prophesy according to the order given. Paul appeals to the universal practice of the church, and strongly corrects readers who would disagree, even those who considered themselves prophets or spiritual, that what he had written are the commandments of the Lord. Some readers like to focus only on the instructions to women, but he gave a lot more commandments than that, including 'Let all things be done unto edifying.'
What things? Certainly the things we are commanded to allow to be done include allowing 'every one of you' to sing, teach, give tongues, revelations, and interpretations' in an edifying manner, which means consistent with the instructions laid down in the chapter.
Notice there is no mention of one pastor speaking one sermon behind a pulpit. There is no instruction for a meeting that opens with prayer, followed by exactly songs all of which skip verse 3, (or no instruction that a psalter must be used in a particular order of service.) There is no reference to one pastor preaching one sermon. The passage doesn't even mention a pastor or elder. It does mention prophets.
>>>Not to mention, there are no more prophets or apostles in the Church today. They have fulfilled their functions and there is no more need for their particular office of revealing God's truth, since revelation is complete and final (c.f. Heb. 1:1-2, Rev. 22:18-9)<<
Getting a prophecy isnt' adding to the scroll of Revelation unless one actually sits down and writes the prophecy in the book of Revelation. Even if you take a preterist approach to Revelation, the two witnesses still have to come after John writes the last verse, and they prophesy and do miracles. The book also mentions the blood of prophets in Babylon. Peter quoted Joel regarding the outpouring of God's Spirit and prophecy in the last days.
And there is also the early Reformed tradition of prophets and prophecy in Scotland and France, including the French prophets, George Wishartr, Peden, and various others.
I don't see how anyone can interpret Hebrews 1:1-2 as saying there are no more prophets unless he hasn't read what Acts, the Gospels, and the epistles have to say on the topic. Christ said He would send forth prophets, wise men, and scribes. There were numerous prophets in the church Jerusalem and later in the church way up in Corinth. Agabus, Silas, and Judas are specifically identified as prophets, as you well know. Hebrews 1 is making a lesser to greater argument. In the past, God spoke to the fathers through the prophets. Now He has done something greater by speaking through His Son. But that doesn't imply that prophets are no more, since Christ said He would send prophets.
The twelve were sent as apostles BEFORE the ascension. But after the ascension, Christ gave the gift of apostles to men, so there are apostles given after the ascension as well according to Ephesians 4.
Historically, the church acknowledged both apostles and prophets. Men who brought the Gospel to knew people-groups were known as apostles. Popes and bishops also claimed apostolic authority for themselves, which isn't something we'd necessarily agree with. As far as prophets go, there is plenty of evidence for churches accepting the ministry of prophet and the gift of prophecy. If you read the primary sources arguign against Montanus and Montanism, for example Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history, the opponnents of Montanists would affirm that they believed in the gift of prophecy but rejected Montanus as genuine. At least one even listed the names of some accepted prophets. The popularity of the Sepherd of Hermas and it's content is futher evidence. Justin Martyr argued with Trypho that prophets were in the church not among the nation of Israel. Of course, Ireneaus affirmed prophecy among a long list of other gifts and miracles in his day, including speaking in tongues and raising the dead.
You may be able to find a comment or two regarding cessationist, a theologian affirming he hadn't seen a certain gift and trying to think of reasons why in a few documents here and there, but for the most part, modern cessationism is a very late theological development, and not part of the faith once delivered to the saints. Augustine advanced some cessationist theories when he was younger, but documented miracles as he grew older.
>>>Not to mention, there are no more prophets or apostles in the Church today. They have fulfilled their functions and there is no more need for their particular office of revealing God's truth, since revelation is complete and final (c.f. Heb. 1:1-2, Rev. 22:18-9)<<
Getting a prophecy isnt' adding to the scroll of Revelation unless one actually sits down and writes the prophecy in the book of Revelation. Even if you take a preterist approach to Revelation, the two witnesses still have to come after John writes the last verse, and they prophesy and do miracles. The book also mentions the blood of prophets in Babylon. Peter quoted Joel regarding the outpouring of God's Spirit and prophecy in the last days.
And there is also the early Reformed tradition of prophets and prophecy in Scotland and France, including the French prophets, George Wishartr, Peden, and various others.
I don't see how anyone can interpret Hebrews 1:1-2 as saying there are no more prophets unless he hasn't read what Acts, the Gospels, and the epistles have to say on the topic. Christ said He would send forth prophets, wise men, and scribes. There were numerous prophets in the church Jerusalem and later in the church way up in Corinth. Agabus, Silas, and Judas are specifically identified as prophets, as you well know. Hebrews 1 is making a lesser to greater argument. In the past, God spoke to the fathers through the prophets. Now He has done something greater by speaking through His Son. But that doesn't imply that prophets are no more, since Christ said He would send prophets.
The twelve were sent as apostles BEFORE the ascension. But after the ascension, Christ gave the gift of apostles to men, so there are apostles given after the ascension as well according to Ephesians 4.
Historically, the church acknowledged both apostles and prophets. Men who brought the Gospel to knew people-groups were known as apostles. Popes and bishops also claimed apostolic authority for themselves, which isn't something we'd necessarily agree with. As far as prophets go, there is plenty of evidence for churches accepting the ministry of prophet and the gift of prophecy. If you read the primary sources arguign against Montanus and Montanism, for example Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history, the opponnents of Montanists would affirm that they believed in the gift of prophecy but rejected Montanus as genuine. At least one even listed the names of some accepted prophets. The popularity of the Sepherd of Hermas and it's content is futher evidence. Justin Martyr argued with Trypho that prophets were in the church not among the nation of Israel. Of course, Ireneaus affirmed prophecy among a long list of other gifts and miracles in his day, including speaking in tongues and raising the dead.
You may be able to find a comment or two regarding cessationist, a theologian affirming he hadn't seen a certain gift and trying to think of reasons why in a few documents here and there, but for the most part, modern cessationism is a very late theological development, and not part of the faith once delivered to the saints. Augustine advanced some cessationist theories when he was younger, but documented miracles as he grew older.
As far as understanding apostleship goes, it seems like any time the Greek word is used in the NT in a way that doesn't fit with your idea of apostleship, you call that 'colloquial.'
You also seem to pick and choose from church councils and synods the things you consider essential, cherry picking I suppose. You may be right that some of the RCC folks don't hold that tightly to church councils either, but they'd probably consider the role of monarchical bishop as more core than you would.
Would you accept someone as a non-heretic if he treated the Great Synod of Dordt as loosely as you treat the Council of Chalcdeon, only accepting the points he considered theologically important?
I see your approach as contrary to sola scriptura, though, since you consider people as heretics if they don't hold to the same synod, confessions, or whatever, that you do. Your approach seems to be circular reasoning to me. You reason that if someone holds to Biblical truth, he'll accept confession X, and if he doesn't, he is a heretic. I see no reason to think your Reformed stream is the full fulfillment of the church and has everything right, especially when I can compare scripture to church practice and ecclesiology and see that they don't match. That is not to say that there aren't many godly brethren who hold to Reformed theology that are brothers in Christ and whom the Lord is using mightily in their ministries.
@Link,
>>the entire Church-State complex found in medieval Roman Catholicism, part of the corruption of the medieval period I may add.
>
>Plenty of early Reformed thinkers wanted to have Christian cities, a Christian society, etc. What was Geneva about, and what were the pilgrims in the New World trying to do?
There was a steady move away from Constantinianism. Regardless, the main issue is that all of the Reformers (besides the Erastians) conceive as the Church and State as being two separate institutions. The State ought to promote true religion, but that's about all. The State was not to make doctrinal pronouncements, and the Church did not make civil laws.
Silvoso's idea goes back to the Roman Church-State idea where the Church has both temporal and spiritual powers, whereas this was not the case for the Reformers, who distinguished those powers. For the Reformers, the Church merely expects the State to enforce her rulings, not the Church actively controlling the State.
>I'm thinking of your taking a little comment of his that reminds you of some elaborate philosophical or theological system and your attributing that whole system of thought to him.
There is nothing more that I can say then, since you are evidently blinded to the fact that your very descriptions of his teachings validate my critique.
>I don't necessarily agree that 'institutional redemption' is the right label for what he beleives it. I couldn't say that without a quote from him to that effect. He does believe that scripture that teaches that God is reconciling the whole world to Himself has some application to institutions in society, and that Christains should be salt and light in society.
Go read Silvoso's books, and C Peter Wagner's book Dominion. I'm tired of being told that the plain teachings of the NAR are being "misrepresented" when it is so clear what they believed, even when they penned it down explicitly in heir writings.
>He doesn't like the idea of Christians sitting in church buildings waiting for the rapture, thinking the world is going to get worse and worse, while not engaging with the people in the world to be salt and light, and even make the world a better place
That, Sir, is whitewashing his actual beliefs. Again, go read the NAR stuff.
>When I listened to him, I wondered if he held to some kind of post-mil eschatology which I'd associate more with the Reformed movement.
He holds to Dominionist post-millennialism. He is an "Apostle," part of the New Apostolic Reformation. Go do your homework first before trying to deny the obvious.
>something he said indicated that he believes that Jesus is going to come back and rule, so my guess is that he believes that Christ will return,
ALL of the NAR, and all postmils, believes that Jesus will come back and rule. Do you even know what postmillenniaism teaches?
>When you read the letter from the apostles and elders, brethren, in Jerusalem in Acts 15, do you exclude Paul and Barnabas from that group because they letter says that 'we' are sending them?
Who is sending them? The Council, a corporate entity. Was there a corporate entity of "Paul, Silas and Timothy"? If so, what was its name?
>Acts doesn't report Timothy's receiving a gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.
See the 1 Timothy 4 verse.
>Btw, compare that to the Spirit speaking prophets and teachers laying hands on Saul and Barnabas when they were sent out, and then Acts finally first refers to them as 'apostles.'
Paul and Barnabas are also "elders." All Apostles are Elders, but not all elders are apostles. The Apostle John referred to himself as an elder (2 Jn. 1), so does Peter (1 Peter 5:1).
Furthermore, we see in Gal. 1:15-7 that Paul's apostleship was due to God's anointing even before the laying of hands. This shows that apostleship is not conferred by the laying on of hands, but rather a special calling from God.
@Link:
>Generic apostles are still apostles.
You misrepresented my position and missed the point entirely. I said they were in the "generic apostolic TEAM." Those in the team might not be apostles, just working under an apostle.
>James 3:1 does not say that one has to be an elder to teach either.
I never said Jas. 3:1 state that. It was one of the verses towards that conclusion. What Jas. 3:1 states is that teaching is a solemn task in the church. Eph. 4:11 then contributes the focus of teaching as an official function in the Church.
>Notice the author's expection for the 'general readership' of the book of Hebrews in chapter 5.
Are you trying to tell me that expectation of knowledge equals calling to teach? "You" ought to be teachers = ALL of you are supposed to be teachers? Really? That is the logical fallacy of division.
>Do you really beleive that only elders can teach?
Only elders/pastors and those approved by the elders/ pastors under their guidance can teach.
>What about all the various churches of the Reformed tradition that have unordained people teaching adult Sunday school classes?
Which "churches of the Reformed tradition" are you talking about? You seem to operate with an extremely broad view of what "Reformed" means.
>Romans 12 tells the one who is gifted to prophesy to prophesy according to the proportion of faith, the one gifted to teach, to teach, the one gifted to exhort to exhort.
And what makes you so certain that the gifts that are given does not correspond to the office of eldership?
> How can he do that if he hasn't taught before and demonstrated his gift?
You haven't heard of elders-in-training before have you?
>You are also overlooking the fact that according to Acts 14, the apostles left congregations without appointed elders. They had to do something during this time.
Again, elders-in-training
>The household of Stephanus was ministering
And you know the household of Stephanus were not prophets or elders or apostles how?
>What things? Certainly the things we are commanded to allow to be done include allowing 'every one of you' to sing, teach, give tongues, revelations, and interpretations' in an edifying manner
I don't see how that every member has to exercise their giftings = every member could teach and exercise their "gift of teaching".
>Notice there is no mention of one pastor speaking one sermon behind a pulpit.
Evidently, the example of the apostles preaching the Word simply does not count for you. Nor is the command of Paul to Timothy, an elder of the Ephesian Church.
>There is no instruction for a meeting that opens with prayer, followed by exactly songs all of which skip verse 3
If you don't understand the principles of Reformed worship, don't even bother trying to pretend.
>The passage doesn't even mention a pastor or elder. It does mention prophets
Of course, it is rather strange that you prefer to go to Rom. 12 for how the church is to conduct herself while neglecting the PASTORAL epistles.
>Getting a prophecy isnt' adding to the scroll of Revelation unless one actually sits down and writes the prophecy in the book of Revelation.
So evidently, a present "prophecy" according to you is totally unlike what Scripture states prophecy to be. I think I'll stick with Scripture here.
> Even if you take a preterist approach to Revelation, the two witnesses still have to come after John writes the last verse, and they prophesy and do miracles
Actually, my interpretation of Revelation is the traditional Reformed thematic interpretation. Revelations paints pictures, not a linear literal description of events.
>Peter quoted Joel regarding the outpouring of God's Spirit and prophecy in the last days.
Which is fulfilled at Pentecost according to Peter.
> And there is also the early Reformed tradition of prophets and prophecy in Scotland and France, including the French prophets, George Wishartr, Peden, and various others.
That is a misrepresentation of history. It totally ignores the historical context of Scotland, the apocalyptic interpretation of history and the different meaning of "prophecy" that the Scots advanced. As for France, it ignores the fact that the "French prophets" came only after the Reformed churches were almost wiped out after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
> I don't see how anyone can interpret Hebrews 1:1-2 as saying there are no more prophets unless he hasn't read what Acts, the Gospels, and the epistles have to say on the topic.
None of those passages say there will continue to be prophets. They merely state that there are NT prophets; it did not state that they will continue after the completion of revelation, which Heb. 1:1-2 shows will happen when the Canon is closed.
> There were numerous prophets in the church Jerusalem and later in the church way up in Corinth.
And all before the Canon was closed
> Hebrews 1 is making a lesser to greater argument.
Actually, Heb. 1:1-2 states that Christ IS the final revelation, "in the last days."
> But after the ascension, Christ gave the gift of apostles to men, so there are apostles given after the ascension as well according to Ephesians 4.
You assume that the giftings are perpetual, whereas the Scripture merely say they were given, without stating the times in which they are given. When we see the purpose of the gifts, we know that the gifts of revelation are linked to God's revelation, and have thus ceased with the closing of the Canon.
> Historically, the church acknowledged both apostles and prophets. Men who brought the Gospel to knew people-groups were known as apostles.
Again, that is using the term "apostle" loosely, not according to its strict biblical usage.
> If you read the primary sources arguign against Montanus and Montanism, for example Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history, the opponnents of Montanists would affirm that they believed in the gift of prophecy but rejected Montanus as genuine.
Yes, the early church believed in continuation of prophecy, because they have not put much thought into the topic. They saw prophets in their early days before the Canon was settled, and assumed they continued without much thought. That doesn't prove anything.
> but for the most part, modern cessationism is a very late theological development, and not part of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Not true. Cessationism has always been the view of the Reformation. And the early church struggled with the issue as they saw the gifts ceasing, and then took a wrong direction as they began toying with miracles as done through the "continuing apostolic office" of the Pope.
> Augustine advanced some cessationist theories when he was younger, but documented miracles as he grew older.
Yes, he documented miracles as he grew older, AND they were tied to the growing cult of the martyrs, which is the precursor to the entire idea of Roman Catholic saints and the Treasury of Merit. Unless you want to hold to the cult of the Martyrs, the power of religious relics, and the Treasury of Merit, I would suggest Augustine's later position on miracles is not something that supports your view, since it is tied to an emerging sacerdotalism.
>As far as understanding apostleship goes, it seems like any time the Greek word is used in the NT in a way that doesn't fit with your idea of apostleship, you call that 'colloquial.'
Go pick your fight with NT scholars if you wish. It is well-established that the word "apostle" took on a special meaning when the Church appropriated it for their use. If you want to claim that the entire NT scholarship on this issue is wrong, be my guest.
>You also seem to pick and choose from church councils and synods the things you consider essential, cherry picking I suppose. You may be right that some of the RCC folks don't hold that tightly to church councils either, but they'd probably consider the role of monarchical bishop as more core than you would.
I can't help you if you cannot discern a doctrinal issue from an ecclesiastical issue.
>I see your approach as contrary to sola scriptura, though, since you consider people as heretics if they don't hold to the same synod, confessions, or whatever, that you do.
Again, you ignore the fact that I said that I hold those confessions etc BECAUSE they are teaching what the Scriptures teach.
My question for you: Would you hold someone heretical if they deny the Deity of Christ since they don't want to add the Council of Nicea to Scripture?
>I see no reason to think your Reformed stream is the full fulfillment of the church and has everything right, especially when I can compare scripture to church practice and ecclesiology and see that they don't match.
You answer to God for how you approach Scripture. It is not my fault that your position is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture, as I have amply proved.
@Link:
This has gone on long enough. It is evident that you have lots of unexamined presuppositions that you are bringing to the table, and some rather basic points of fact that you are ignorant of (i.e. the way the NT appropriated the word "apostle"). Unless there's something worth responding to, this is all
My comment on 'generic apostles' was meant as my own comment, not an interpretation of your view. You argue that the word 'apostle' took on a specific meaning after the church came onto the scene. I don't disagree. I just suspect the word is probably a bit broader than the way you understand it since it is used more broadly in the New Testament than the way you are using it. I notice you dismiss uses you don't care for as 'colloquial.'
As far as the continuation of prophecy and other spiritual gifts go, continuation should be the 'default' understanding. I Corinthians 12 says that the Spirit gives gifts like the word of knowledge, tongues, prophecy, healings, etc. as He wills. It's up to God and His sovereign will to give them. You have no authority to say He stopped. Since scripture does not teach that these gifts would cease at the close of the canon, you have no authority for advancing that idea.
The early church believed in the ongoing gift of prophecy because the gift continued on and the apostles hadn't taught that they had already ceased. Ireneaus, a champion of orthodoxy against heresy, wrote of brethren exercising gifts like tongues, prophecy, foreknowledge, raising the dead, casting out demons. That was around 200 AD. Quotes from Eusebius show that second century Christians not only believed prophecy continued, but had experience with people operating in those gifts. At least one or two are named in the section against Montanism (orthodox prophets, who weren't Montanist.) The fact that prophecy continued with the church was used in polemic against Montanists in a debate after Montanus and Maximilla had died.
I notice a lot of arguments against gifts continuing are based on doctrinal statements and theology, not scripture themselves, e.g. doctrinal statements about the role of scripture that can't be backed up by scripture.
I haven't read Wagoner's book dominion. But I can see that Silvoso is a bit inclusive and likes to network with as many people as he can. So if Wagoner believes something, that doesn't mean Silvoso does. You are probably used to churches where everyone adheres strictly to a long set of doctrines and confessions to a greater degree than members of Wagoner's network do. Silvoso's interpretation of the stone in Nebucadnezzer's dream and the parable of the leaven do sound like they could be post-mil. But he didn't expand on his eschatology at the conference, and some people hold to hybrid views, a basic millennial view with some other beliefs that sound similar to post-mil as well. Some preachers and leaders don't ever give a cohesive systematic presentation of their eschatological beliefs. You could be right about Silvoso being post-mil, but you'd have to get evidence from what he's actually said or wrote.
Assuming he agrees with Wagoner because he is a part of his network is too big of an assumption. These are strict creed and confessional following traditional Reformed folks we are talking about.
As far as calling someone a heretic for not believing in the deity of Christ and departing from the Council of Nicea, if I were to call someone a heretic for not believing in the deity of Christ, it would be because of scripture, not Nicea. I can agree with the Council of Nicea that Christ is divine, but I don't treat it as authoritative like scripture. A lot of the churches that are not so into creeds are more 'sola scriptura' than the more traditional Protestants in this regard.
you seem to think that continuationism is the "face value" reading, yet such is naïve. After all, the NT (and most of the modern church) does not have schools of prophets like in the times of Samuel.
Your failure is the failure to recognize the progress of redemptive history. You do not read Scripture in light of its entire theme. Yours is a classic case of Solo Scriptura, whereby Scripture is read apart from the interpretations of the doctors and theologians of the church, as if you are the first one reading Scripture.
As it is, the topic has strayed far afield. I'll just ask you to be more humble and start reading what the saints of former times have believed based upon their lifetime study of Scripture, instead of thinking you are the first one there and you can ignore what these godly men have came up with
I put a lot more weight on early writings, the Bible especially. If second century authors believed that prophecy, healing, and miracles continued, then maybe it is Augustine, Calvin, and those who further codified cessationism who should have been a bit more humble to hear them out. There are cessationists who will write that there is no evidence for spiritual gifts, who don't seem to have bothered to read early church writings on the subject. Warfield apparently did. He was working hard to come up with a theory to discount gifts in Ireneaus day, but his theory that gifts exclusively were passed down by the laying on of the apostles hands doesn't hold up if we examine all the cases in scripture.
If I disagree with Calvin or an old Dutch synod over something, that doesn't mean I'm arrogant. Your beliefs disagree with Ireneaus and various other authors. I know you dismiss the parts of Chalcedon you (and I) don't agree with as ecclesiology, not doctrine, but ecclesiology is doctrine also.
You seem to be setting yourself up as an authority, too, when it comes to which parts of the councils to take. Or you may just go with your tradition in your stream of Protestantism, a Reformed track that settled it's doctrine several hundred years ago, and agree with it in areas where it disagrees with older church councils. I don't consider the church councils to be inspired like scripture, so it doesn't bother me. But I hope you see how it is inconsistent to condemn people as heretics for not agreeing with everything from the Great Synod of Dordt if you don't accept everything from the Council of Chalcedon. And I can accept the 'important stuff' that I agree with as essential doctrine from Dordt if you can accept he 'important stuff' from Chalcedon.
The attitude that all true believers who believe in the Bible will agree with the doctrinal positions of some post-Reformation synod is an unnecessarily divisive attitude. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by believing in the statements of a synod that serve as a basis for the state church in some European country.
And the types of things I've written here aren't unique to me. Others who have studies these issues in the Bible say the same sort of things.
1) You have yet to show familiarity with the way the early church framed the issue of gifts.
2) You persist in reading the writings of the early church fathers as if they are proto-Pentecostals, committing historical anachronism and refusing to read them on their own terms. You will notice that I never claimed then as cessationists, but rather explain what they were trying to do and why
3) On councils, you persist in refusing to acknowledge the difference between doctrinal pronouncements, and ecclesiastical management. I guess you have never been to a Presbytery or Synod meeting before.
4) You refuse to see that historically, all other non-Lutheran Protestant bodies arise from splits form Reformed church bodies. That means that the division is from those who split from the Church. We have maintained a consistent witness for the last 400-500 years, so who's the divisive person here?
5) I couldn't care less about counting heads. I don't care if most Pentecostals think that what I say is divisive for example, because Pentecostals split and divided the Church at the Azusa Street event in the first place.
I suggest you stop talking about "being divisive" and look at yourself and your church, whichever it is, first and ask if you and the founders of your church are being divisive for splitting from whichever Reformed church body it came out from in the past.
This is my last comment on the Gifts issue. It is already a big diversion from the main topic, which is the heresy of Ed Silvoso, and which has nothing to do with the Gifts.
Post a Comment