There are records to show Paul planted Rome.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The tradition of Apostolic Authority
- Thread starter NeoPatriarch
- Start date
"It began when four well-known Charismatic teachers, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, and Don Basham, responded to a moral failure in a charismatic ministry in South Florida. Witnessing this failure, the four men felt mutually vulnerable without greater accountability structures in their lives.[citation needed] They also felt the charismatic movement was becoming individualistic and subjective. These realizations, led them to mutually submit their lives and ministries to one another.[citation needed] Ern Baxter was later added to the core leadership of the group, and they became known as the "Fort Lauderdale Five." "
"A network of cell groups were formed. Members had to be submitted to a "shepherd", who in turn was submitted to the Five or their representatives. At its height, an estimated 100,000 adherents across the US were involved in the networks.[citation needed]"
"Other movements influenced by the Shepherding doctrine were the Shiloh houses scattered across the USA (some of them transitioned into Calvary Chapels when they abandoned the shepherding movement ideas), International Churches of Christ, Maranatha Campus Ministries,[1] and Great Commission International (today known as Great Commission Ministries/Great Commission Association of Churches)"
"The movement gained a reputation for controlling and abusive behaviour, with a great deal of emphasis placed upon the importance of obedience to one's own shepherd.[citation needed] In many cases, disobeying one's shepherd was tantamount to disobeying God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_Movement
Authority chain claim-holders are sometimes abusive and over-controlling in my opinion.
"A network of cell groups were formed. Members had to be submitted to a "shepherd", who in turn was submitted to the Five or their representatives. At its height, an estimated 100,000 adherents across the US were involved in the networks.[citation needed]"
"Other movements influenced by the Shepherding doctrine were the Shiloh houses scattered across the USA (some of them transitioned into Calvary Chapels when they abandoned the shepherding movement ideas), International Churches of Christ, Maranatha Campus Ministries,[1] and Great Commission International (today known as Great Commission Ministries/Great Commission Association of Churches)"
"The movement gained a reputation for controlling and abusive behaviour, with a great deal of emphasis placed upon the importance of obedience to one's own shepherd.[citation needed] In many cases, disobeying one's shepherd was tantamount to disobeying God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_Movement
Authority chain claim-holders are sometimes abusive and over-controlling in my opinion.
Hugh McBryde said:
This does much to call into question many arguments Roman Catholics make because there is more than one Church line tracing to Jesus instead of all Church lines tracing to Peter.
Furthermore how could the Indian Orthodox Church (technically Syrian Orthodox) be held accountable to Peter's line when Thomas line (if you believe it was founded by Thomas) was separate from Peter's line and in India having no reasonable means to contact the Popes that are allegedly in Peter's line and much closer to Europe than India.
Unless I have a misunderstanding about the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India existing prior to Roman Catholics coming to India and that it did not exist in India prior to Roman Catholics coming to India.
I do not know much about it's history. I am very interested in what the Syrian Orthodox Church was like before Roman Catholicism changed their Churches (if they did change them,) but I got very confused when I tried to research it.
The fact that scripture calls Paul the Apostle to the Uncircumcision and Peter the Apostle to the Circumcision is one proof. The letter of Paul to the Romans, the other. The first Bishop of Rome is appointed by Paul. The apostolic succession (note I do not capitalize in this case) of Rome is through Paul, not Peter. The later doctrinal error and claim of the RCC was that it was through Peter so as to claim the "Keys to the Kingdom." It relied on the misinterpretation of that verse for political supremacy amongst the many "seas" of Christianity. Again, it has never been my claim that the RCC stands as the sole conduit through which authority in Christianity and the Churches comes to us today.DiscussingTheTopic said:
I have no problem with the idea of their claim per se. In fact this is one of the authoritative lines I would look at immediately if I were seeking a line back to Christ.DiscussingTheTopic said:
The point is, that unless you are declaring personal supremacy in judgement over who is to be or not to be an Elder in a church, that Elder must have been appointed by another Elder. If you don't look at it that way, time does not sanctify a rebellious error of one setting oneself on the seat of authority in a church (and what is then logically, not a church at all). All your successive appointments are called into question, and in fact shown to be invalid. An Elder appoints by some extension of his authority, other Elders. Those Elders were appointed by Elders. Who appointed the first Elder is the real question and then after that, is there a documented line of successive office from that first Elder to now. The first Elder must be appointed by an Apostle, the Apostle was appointed by Christ/Jesus/Yeshua/God. Even Jesus submitted to the priestly line (John the Baptist, a Levite) to begin his ministry. He is said to be Melchizedek to whom Abraham tithed, in whose loins by extension was Levi.
It is no longer amazing to me, as it had been in the past, that we, as avowed polygynist Christians, reject authority when applied to ourselves (meaning, the men of this "movement"). We're totally content to tell women to be subject to us as real latter day slaves and faux Patriarchs, and at the same time be in complete rebellion against authority in the churches. What we would expect of women unquestioningly when confronted with our authority, we refuse to recognize outside ourselves. We want to be the top of the pyramid. This is hypocrisy and I'm very tired of it.
Indeed the gospel is where the line of authority resides. And since the gospel cannot fail and will never fail through that line empowered by the Spirit the Lord does indeed raise up new assemblies that function underneath the authoritative rule of Scripture written by the Lord and apostles. Men who are to be elders are, as Dr. B.B. Warfield of the old Reformed school of conservative Presbyterians would say, created by the Lord, birthed through providence by the Lord, elected by the Lord, called unto salvation by the Lord, matured by the Lord to leadership quality, called out to leadership by the Lord and then confirmed by the giftings of the Spirit which is recognized and confirmed by others in the Lord who too have the Holy Spirit inside of them and also by those who voluntarily choose to submit themselves unto the one or ones called out by the Spirit (some call that recognition or confirmation ordination). The gospel will never be restricted nor will the gospel ever fail. It is like Dr. William Carey said once when he was heart broken over the lost souls in India. He as a Calvinist stood up in the midst of his Calvinist brethren and expressed his concern for their souls. They, being too far on the side of sovereignty, told him to sit down because he was in their minds an enthusiast. He was told if God wants to save those people he would do it without anyone's help. Dr. Carey wisely replied: "No if God wants to save them he will use us as the means unto that end." He then went to India, served for years, translated a Bible into their language, and thousands of souls were saved. Still today even a school exists there he founded that continues to encourage others in the work of the gospel.
That actually is the answer, and I have. Like Luther, Calvin and Gresham Machen, I was rejected by my church and have thus gained the authority to start my own.Jim said:
Dr., your statement here is without content. It's a heap of words that have such strong connotation that few dare to ridicule the way you use them. We've had this discussion before in a more private venue at this forum. You're making the Gospel like pornography, in that you'll "know it when you see it."Dr. K.R. Allen said:
My answer is as always essentially; "Who died and appointed you Judge?"
Granted, this sounds harsh, but you've been ducking this question all along while using a bulldozer to push up God words in a pile. You also drop names of authorities like carpet bombing runs. In the end it is Elders of the Church appointed by Apostles of Christ directly who had the authority to appoint other Elders and I have shown this. In turn you start dropping "Gospel" and "Holy Spirit" around gratuitously and without context or meaning as if the sheer weight of these terms and so called authorities will elevate your argument.
Though the Church teaches the Gospel, they are not exactly the same thing, are they? The Church is an organization. It's leaders are set up by a clear process outlined in scripture. Granted there would be no church without the gospel, but you can't use gospel three times like Dorothy clicking her heals together to get from no elders to elders. Thus you have no church.
Hugh McBryde said:
Biblically were elders allowed or told to appoint elders?
So the RCC being allegedly from Peter's line should be targeting circumcised Jews and not trying to usurp Paul's line by claiming it is illegitimate and does not have the same level of authority or higher over gentiles than the RCC? And if they do the Paul's line Pope can burn the Pope from Peter's line in a fire for blasphemy against the line of Paul? (Just as the RCC have burned so many non-RCC)
Yes. That's covered clearly in Titus.DiscussingTheTopic said:
:lol: 
hummmm Hugh I thought you would recognize this phrase and see the other points of emphasis:
As we have indeed discussed my ordination is a valid one from even what you would call a valid line. But that is not the point I was making either for myself or for anyone else. I, of course, do agree with Dr. B.B. Warfield and even Dr. Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology in then the fine Calvinist School of Princeton Theological Seminary, who by the way was one of the most able and precise defenders of the Westminster Confession of Faith ever, as those two men both spoke in the same vein as I have above. The gospel, the calling and gifting of the Spirit, and the recognition or ordination or confirmation (whatever term you want to use there) is a part of that "package of providence" as they would say. Nothing in that statement gets into the "specific line issue" per se. My point of emphasis there was to focus on the fact that there is more than just the line issue involved.
Of course you and I have discussed that in some detail elsewhere. My point was not in that vein but to emphasize there is more to authority than just people and the line they are appointed by. The sovereignty of God in crafting someone for a role, the election unto salvation and to a particular service, and then the gifting of the Spirit which will indeed be confirmed by the Spirit in and through others (which is where the line issue comes into play) are all part of the package. It is more than just a one point issue. The sovereignty of God is a critical piece in this which is the emphasis I was making while still retaining an emphasis on man's responsibility in the work of the gospel (the reason for the Carey illustration). I think you might be reading my post with a slanted presupposition leading you to react in a super sensitive way that is not required by the points being made. Everything I have said above can fit nicely into the idea of the "specific line" viewpoint or even for those who might see that issue differently than you. The other points are important points beyond that one single issue of the line question. So many today don't even get the other points and thus those too need to be emphasized which is the point herein.
So put down your rifle for a moment..
....stop aiming at me on this one :shock: because I did not say what I did to try and go back over what we have already discussed in a private thread 
. My emphasis here is in support with much of the heart of soul of the very essence of the ideology that your tradition holds so sacred, i.e. the (1) creation of God, (2) his election of others to salvation and (3) service, (4) the call of God, (5) giftings of God, and (6) confirmation work of God are all governed by his providence. So at worst here in counting those we have 5 out of 6 that we are on the same page with while differing on the way in which God confirms a leader or reveals a proper leader. Too many today do not even see any of the other five clearly.
hummmm Hugh I thought you would recognize this phrase and see the other points of emphasis: As we have indeed discussed my ordination is a valid one from even what you would call a valid line. But that is not the point I was making either for myself or for anyone else. I, of course, do agree with Dr. B.B. Warfield and even Dr. Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology in then the fine Calvinist School of Princeton Theological Seminary, who by the way was one of the most able and precise defenders of the Westminster Confession of Faith ever, as those two men both spoke in the same vein as I have above. The gospel, the calling and gifting of the Spirit, and the recognition or ordination or confirmation (whatever term you want to use there) is a part of that "package of providence" as they would say. Nothing in that statement gets into the "specific line issue" per se. My point of emphasis there was to focus on the fact that there is more than just the line issue involved.
Of course you and I have discussed that in some detail elsewhere. My point was not in that vein but to emphasize there is more to authority than just people and the line they are appointed by. The sovereignty of God in crafting someone for a role, the election unto salvation and to a particular service, and then the gifting of the Spirit which will indeed be confirmed by the Spirit in and through others (which is where the line issue comes into play) are all part of the package. It is more than just a one point issue. The sovereignty of God is a critical piece in this which is the emphasis I was making while still retaining an emphasis on man's responsibility in the work of the gospel (the reason for the Carey illustration). I think you might be reading my post with a slanted presupposition leading you to react in a super sensitive way that is not required by the points being made. Everything I have said above can fit nicely into the idea of the "specific line" viewpoint or even for those who might see that issue differently than you. The other points are important points beyond that one single issue of the line question. So many today don't even get the other points and thus those too need to be emphasized which is the point herein.
So put down your rifle for a moment..
....stop aiming at me on this one :shock: because I did not say what I did to try and go back over what we have already discussed in a private thread . My emphasis here is in support with much of the heart of soul of the very essence of the ideology that your tradition holds so sacred, i.e. the (1) creation of God, (2) his election of others to salvation and (3) service, (4) the call of God, (5) giftings of God, and (6) confirmation work of God are all governed by his providence. So at worst here in counting those we have 5 out of 6 that we are on the same page with while differing on the way in which God confirms a leader or reveals a proper leader. Too many today do not even see any of the other five clearly.Hugh McBryde said:
:?:
Topic,
Titus is not a long letter, I suggest you just read it and get back to me.
Titus is not a long letter, I suggest you just read it and get back to me.
Dr, and I would think you would recognize these words:
You're also laughing off serious points and trying to portray me as somehow irritable. These two devices have no place in this discussion. They may play well to the crowd, particularly if the given group is already in your corner, but they contribute nothing. You may also tread close to the behavior of the joker in Proverbs. Please deal with the substance of the discussion. Stop "tut-tutting" me as well, since I may possess a few more grey hairs than you do.
The house is built through a succession of Apostleships, of who Christ is the Chief sort.
Who is Paul? An Apostle of Christ.
To whom does he direct his Apostleship? The Gentiles.
How do the Elders of his churches in his Administration or Apostleship come to be? By his appointment of Titus and then Titus as an apostle of Paul, appoints others.
There is as I mentioned in Titus the clear line that the Apostle of Christ appoints a leader who then subsequently appoints elders at the Apostle's direction. This charge has never expired. You have been big in the other discussion on the possibility of God doing it by miraculous fiat, yet you have not shown how he has done this ever in the recorded history of the Church in scripture nor have you shown anyone declaring that it ought to be done this way. "I AM THE LORD," says our God, "I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Sure he COULD, but he DOESN'T and just saying he could doesn't mean he did.
A "proper leader" comes through the appointment of another "proper leader" and a "proper leader" was appointed in the right way. Caiaphas.
Certainly the LORD can move on from a church that doesn't do the things it ought to (Laodicea).
I would also urge you to move on from the usage of "The Gospel." it is elementary in our discussion, it is not of primacy.
Now that we are on to the tough stuff, show us, without bandying about names of scholars and the misuse of the term "Gospel," how when and where did God appoint elders by the witness of the spirit in this fashion alone?
However, if the "others" that confirm were themselves confirmed in the method that I have described as found in scripture, I have far less trouble with it. Please come down to earth with us with a Bible and show us how this works.
So far, with all humility, I will say that only I have documented how leaders are appointed to office in the church. Right or wrong I am the only one to make a case. All you've done is say that God could do it another way, but you have utterly failed to show that he does or would or did. I may be wrong, and in such a case I speak out of the foolishness of my own wisdom, but I rather think that I am right. If I am, it is the wisdom of God I speak of through the prayerful and nearly constant study of his word. There is no wisdom of mine then, in anything I am right about.
Which are an echo of many other verses in scripture such as this:
And yet you persist in carpet bombing with the names of those who write these endless tomes:
I am not even sure when you invoke their names that you do so using their quotes and views in context. Granted these are great men of the faith but it's Tyndale's purported plow boy to which the Psalmist points:Dr. K.R. Allen said:
The great scholars of our time are not arbiters of the truth. Your loose and ill defined "Gospel" seems to set them up as just that. It's my contention that authority flows through some of these men, but not necessarily wisdom. Scripture is the source of that. Men in office are the source of authority in the Church or churches.
You're also laughing off serious points and trying to portray me as somehow irritable. These two devices have no place in this discussion. They may play well to the crowd, particularly if the given group is already in your corner, but they contribute nothing. You may also tread close to the behavior of the joker in Proverbs. Please deal with the substance of the discussion. Stop "tut-tutting" me as well, since I may possess a few more grey hairs than you do.
Actually, no. I suspect strongly that if they are the words of those you say they are, that "recognized and confirmed by others" is a sort of finite regression, not infinite, in which the eventual others are found to be those to whom I refer, ultimately. Who we are an Apostle of, is critical. Hebrews 3:Dr. K.R. Allen said::lol:
Christ is an Apostle. Of God. To us. According to the Author of Hebrews Melchizedek is Christ or a type of Christ so potent as to elevate his Priesthood above all others. Moses is of Levi who is in Abraham who tithes to Melchizedek.
The house is built through a succession of Apostleships, of who Christ is the Chief sort.
Who is Paul? An Apostle of Christ.
To whom does he direct his Apostleship? The Gentiles.
How do the Elders of his churches in his Administration or Apostleship come to be? By his appointment of Titus and then Titus as an apostle of Paul, appoints others.
No, there isn't. The first Apostleship is that of the FATHER to the DISCIPLES through CHRIST. Christ is that Apostle. The second sort is of the disciples of Christ who are HIS Apostles. The last sort is the apostleship of men who bestow authority through office tracing their authority back through people like Paul to Christ to the LORD.Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Yet though we know the LORD "does all these things" (Isaiah 45) there is no demonstrated method for discerning the Holy Spirit's role, nor is there any declared role for the spirit in the two places Paul talks of appointing elders.Dr. K.R. Allen said:
There is as I mentioned in Titus the clear line that the Apostle of Christ appoints a leader who then subsequently appoints elders at the Apostle's direction. This charge has never expired. You have been big in the other discussion on the possibility of God doing it by miraculous fiat, yet you have not shown how he has done this ever in the recorded history of the Church in scripture nor have you shown anyone declaring that it ought to be done this way. "I AM THE LORD," says our God, "I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Sure he COULD, but he DOESN'T and just saying he could doesn't mean he did.
A "proper leader" comes through the appointment of another "proper leader" and a "proper leader" was appointed in the right way. Caiaphas.
Certainly the LORD can move on from a church that doesn't do the things it ought to (Laodicea).
I would also urge you to move on from the usage of "The Gospel." it is elementary in our discussion, it is not of primacy.
The Gospel is not the trump card, the Gospel to the believer is Elementary.
Now that we are on to the tough stuff, show us, without bandying about names of scholars and the misuse of the term "Gospel," how when and where did God appoint elders by the witness of the spirit in this fashion alone?
There is no way to verify this method as it is phrased. It is entirely mystical.
However, if the "others" that confirm were themselves confirmed in the method that I have described as found in scripture, I have far less trouble with it. Please come down to earth with us with a Bible and show us how this works.
So far, with all humility, I will say that only I have documented how leaders are appointed to office in the church. Right or wrong I am the only one to make a case. All you've done is say that God could do it another way, but you have utterly failed to show that he does or would or did. I may be wrong, and in such a case I speak out of the foolishness of my own wisdom, but I rather think that I am right. If I am, it is the wisdom of God I speak of through the prayerful and nearly constant study of his word. There is no wisdom of mine then, in anything I am right about.
:lol:
But not a case for humility huh?
.
I don't think I would have any reason to be proud of being wrong, other than I could not be said to be a Laodicean. The case that the LORD can do a thing Dr, is not a case that he either did or would do a thing. That's the only argument you have made.
I will not ask your forgiveness for being humorless in this matter. It's not a laughing one. The Church in general is in tatters. Individual congregations are in disarray. We know they teach wrong doctrine about the most fundamental matters of day to day living. Our children depart the faith.
Let us review.
You construct no argument other than to say with God all things are possible.
You pile up the names of theologians. This is simply a logical fallacy when it comes to reasoning.
You pile up words and lean heavily on terms like "Free" hitched often with "Gospel."
Then you try to laugh it off.
I will not ask your forgiveness for being humorless in this matter. It's not a laughing one. The Church in general is in tatters. Individual congregations are in disarray. We know they teach wrong doctrine about the most fundamental matters of day to day living. Our children depart the faith.
Let us review.
You construct no argument other than to say with God all things are possible.
You pile up the names of theologians. This is simply a logical fallacy when it comes to reasoning.
You pile up words and lean heavily on terms like "Free" hitched often with "Gospel."
Then you try to laugh it off.
April 9th of this year:
John knows I consider him a friend. We have met personally. We converse often. We share much as men who lead small congregations though John knows I don't consider his group to be a church.
I do consider that John's calling to be a pastor of a church is real.
I consider it as yet unrealized. This is because of where he can trace his leadership ancestry, or rather, where he cannot.
Yes John, I am tenacious. The more I research the history of the church, the most important history being that which is recorded in scripture, the more I am convinced that God passes on his Apostolic authority through his son, to his son's direct Apostles to the individual churches through his Apostles, who are bestowed authority to appoint as apostles of mere men (though these men were in the first case, Apostles of Christ), leaders in the individual churches. I have cited Titus as the most direct evidence of this and Hebrews. On this very page of this thread. Supporting evidence is the fact that all office in the congregations and worship of men of our LORD have been passed down only by human agency. We have no other scriptural example.
Church history has it's best analog in Old Testament writings in the Genealogies of the People of Israel.
They were not PART of scripture, but they were relied on to demonstrate the legitimacy of one's office or place within Israel. Ezra 2:
All of this seems tedious to us in our reading of scripture, but it's the way we are told that someone had a place. A priest was a priest because he could present his Genealogy. If he could not and there was a flaw in the record, another priest could validate him with the Urim and Thummin inquiry. Or invalidate him as well. This meant you could trace your place in Israel or even in authority in Israel through a separately held historical record which would be examined and validated by those also possessing such records for themselves, and in the case of the Priesthood (authority in the congregations of God), you assumed your office in this way.
This then is the basis of the importance and necessity of Church History. Church history does not establish a doctrine, but it does record legitimacy of office holders and it can (I personally believe) validate a doctrine as potentially legitimate by showing us a debate existed in the church. There is nothing new under the sun after all. That is a different debate though.
The constant sidebar detours of scripture into genealogies must be taken with this declaration, also in Titus:
I understand that some church records have been lost. We're dealing with a perfect God with a perfect plan, and if the records were lost, that was God's purpose after all. We need to accept that. If the 1st Church of Antioch, established in the 1st century of our LORD kept records flawlessly through 2009, and they were all lost in a fire and there are no duplicates.
Well.....
That was God's plan. The church line ends. We need to accept that.
For a group that claims it follows the Bible on marriage, this is an indictment.
The above remark was of course, directed at me personally, by John.John Whitten said:
John knows I consider him a friend. We have met personally. We converse often. We share much as men who lead small congregations though John knows I don't consider his group to be a church.
I do consider that John's calling to be a pastor of a church is real.
I consider it as yet unrealized. This is because of where he can trace his leadership ancestry, or rather, where he cannot.
Yes John, I am tenacious. The more I research the history of the church, the most important history being that which is recorded in scripture, the more I am convinced that God passes on his Apostolic authority through his son, to his son's direct Apostles to the individual churches through his Apostles, who are bestowed authority to appoint as apostles of mere men (though these men were in the first case, Apostles of Christ), leaders in the individual churches. I have cited Titus as the most direct evidence of this and Hebrews. On this very page of this thread. Supporting evidence is the fact that all office in the congregations and worship of men of our LORD have been passed down only by human agency. We have no other scriptural example.
Church history has it's best analog in Old Testament writings in the Genealogies of the People of Israel.
They were not PART of scripture, but they were relied on to demonstrate the legitimacy of one's office or place within Israel. Ezra 2:
We should realize that the Genealogies of the scriptures themselves are redacted quotations of the Genealogies kept by families.
All of this seems tedious to us in our reading of scripture, but it's the way we are told that someone had a place. A priest was a priest because he could present his Genealogy. If he could not and there was a flaw in the record, another priest could validate him with the Urim and Thummin inquiry. Or invalidate him as well. This meant you could trace your place in Israel or even in authority in Israel through a separately held historical record which would be examined and validated by those also possessing such records for themselves, and in the case of the Priesthood (authority in the congregations of God), you assumed your office in this way.
This then is the basis of the importance and necessity of Church History. Church history does not establish a doctrine, but it does record legitimacy of office holders and it can (I personally believe) validate a doctrine as potentially legitimate by showing us a debate existed in the church. There is nothing new under the sun after all. That is a different debate though.
The constant sidebar detours of scripture into genealogies must be taken with this declaration, also in Titus:
All means all, so the genealogies are there for our edification and have a place in our day to day living and understanding of our Christian faith. I believe I have outlined the major reason for those records. To show us that there is a transition from one generation to the next, and that the transitions need some validation, some record, which is our responsibility.
I understand that some church records have been lost. We're dealing with a perfect God with a perfect plan, and if the records were lost, that was God's purpose after all. We need to accept that. If the 1st Church of Antioch, established in the 1st century of our LORD kept records flawlessly through 2009, and they were all lost in a fire and there are no duplicates.
Well.....
That was God's plan. The church line ends. We need to accept that.
When exactly? It's been nearly 6 months.John Whitten said:
Yes actually, it is a case for my humility, and your (Dr. Allen's, not John's) arrogance. I've waited for the answer that never comes. Everyone here says I am wrong but can't prove it from scripture, and cannot lay out a case from scripture for their view.Dr. K.R. Allen said::lol:Hugh McBryde said:
But not a case for humility huh?
For a group that claims it follows the Bible on marriage, this is an indictment.
Hugh McBryde said:
Since it's so short it would be easy to list the chapter and verses by number and possibly also copy and paste from Biblegateway.com or blueletterbible.org, etc if it is really there especially since you already know it is there if you really know
Topic, you're proving you're not reading my responses, at all, except to be contrary to them. Look up. It's on THIS PAGE. Furthermore THIS IS "BIBLICAL FAMILIES," not "I'D LIKE TO READ THE BIBLE SOMEDAY BUT UNTIL THEN I'LL JUST HAVE YOU DO IT FOR ME Families." I rather expect you to know scripture. If you don't, asking ME to quote chapter and verse on something that's clearly in scripture is an indictment of you. Asking me to quote it when you know it's there, is merely being contentious.
PS: I can stay tied up all day looking up things and proving they are there for people. This, in my experience, never stops them from challenging the most simple assertions I make about scripture. In the end, I decided to write off such requests as a version of "rope a dope."
There is the additional factor that most internet forums separate pages by number of posts. This conversation between you and I has deteriorated into "Did TOO" vs "did NOT" for which which I lay the blame (carefully and deliberately chosen word) firmly at your feet. After about 4 or 5 such posts, all that appears in a thread on the last page is the "Did TOO" vs "did NOT" discussion. I have concluded in most cases this is a deliberate tactic on the part of many. They are ridiculous, and their arguments don't hold water, so the best case scenario is to drag their opponent down with them, as ridiculous.
In chess, that's salvaging a draw out of a loss. Like I said, it's tactical. It's not honest when people do that on purpose. Please don't be one of those people.
PS: I can stay tied up all day looking up things and proving they are there for people. This, in my experience, never stops them from challenging the most simple assertions I make about scripture. In the end, I decided to write off such requests as a version of "rope a dope."
There is the additional factor that most internet forums separate pages by number of posts. This conversation between you and I has deteriorated into "Did TOO" vs "did NOT" for which which I lay the blame (carefully and deliberately chosen word) firmly at your feet. After about 4 or 5 such posts, all that appears in a thread on the last page is the "Did TOO" vs "did NOT" discussion. I have concluded in most cases this is a deliberate tactic on the part of many. They are ridiculous, and their arguments don't hold water, so the best case scenario is to drag their opponent down with them, as ridiculous.
In chess, that's salvaging a draw out of a loss. Like I said, it's tactical. It's not honest when people do that on purpose. Please don't be one of those people.
Hugh you claim that I have not offered an argument but the reality is you do not want to accept the argument that not only I but many other good theologians from your own official/legitimate tradition affirm. I know you get all bent out of shape about names. But Dr. Warfield and others like him in the Calvinistic tradition have affirmed that God in his sovereignty gifts believers with his sovereign gifts (1 Cor. 12:11) and then others recognize those gifts after the Spirit calls the person out in and with those gifts.
And Dr. Warifield, among others, is also one from the official or authorized line that you yourself accept as a legitimate line.
You do not like the argument offered. Fine. I'm mature enough to see that sometimes people will not arrive at the same conclusions on some of these biblical issues. I understand your argument but I think it actually is not in line with the sovereignty of God where he distributes the gifts as he wills when he wills to whom he wills which is recognized and verified by other saints.
But saying there is no argument is not the same as not liking or agreeing with the one offered.
I'm certainly not as concerned about this subject as you are. Why not? Let me explain.
I see it working out either way for God's glory of grace or justice. Suppose John Doe is indeed gifted by God, called of God, and then he sets out to do ministry. He receives Christ at a young age but never gets an official endorsement from anyone. He misses by providence his meeting with Hugh and never even hears of this issue. He sets out on his faith journey and he ministers for 10 years serving the Lord, sharing the gospel, obeying the Bible, and making disciples. He shows the fruit of the Spirit in his live and his ministry is blessed with people being saved and growing in the Lord from his ministry. But then he finally meets you Hugh and you tell him he is not legitimate. He then says: "What do I need to do to be legitimate?" You tell him he must be ordained and installed by a legitimate elder from a legitimate line. He then goes and meets with some who are of a line you say is valid. They subject him to test him and they drill and grill him and in their hearts they come to the same conclusion that yes he is indeed mature enough in the word, they sense the call of God in his life, and they lay hands on him and official sanction him for ministry. What does he do then? He goes out with their support and encouragement back into the field where he was just at and continues to do the same things he was doing before: sowing the gospel seed, obeying the word to the best of his ability as he makes disciples in Christ.
Or on the other hand, sometimes some will say they are called. They will sit underneath someone who will confirm and sanction them, even supposedly of a legitimate line. Suppose Bobby Doe is appointed and installed by Elder Larry for the work of the gospel ministry. But then that Bobby Doe does little to really serve God. He cares very little for discipleship, he hardly ever sows the seed of the gospel, but he boasts greatly that he is of the true legitimate line and that others should follow him because he is truly official and legitimate. He loves position more than service. Hardly anyone grows under him and those who do sit under him do not mature and they too care little for the Word, for the gospel, and they exhibit very little love to the sheep around them.
In such cases Hugh I find that our Calvinist forefather Warfield was right as I see it, i.e. where the true Spirit abides there will be the fruits of the Spirit in that person's life evidenced by outward actions. Our Bible was created by the sovereign will of God and then recognized by the saints. Likewise, as Jesus said, we will know his true servants by the works they do (Matthew 7:16).
Thus, if I were dumb or intelligent, mature or immature, if I examined the two situations with little or even with great perspicacity in regard to John Doe and Bobby Doe and I in prayer had to do the best I could in deciding who to follow and if the standard was who was showing the fruit of the Lord in their life I would choose to follow and submit to John Doe as a leader of the Lord. If I got to heaven and Jesus the Lord said to me: "My child John Doe for the first 10 years was not ordained of a true line. Why did you follow him and not Bobby Doe?" I would respectfully reply: "Lord, I did my best to follow the one who seemed to have the heart of you in them and the one that expressed that love the most in deeds of service that represented you the best. I think I had to make a choice of either following someone who truly loved the word and the gospel or following one who was of the legitimate line but from an examination of his fruit cared very little for the word, your sheep, and your sacrifice and gospel. So in weighing out the two I chose to follow one over the other because to me you told me plainly to observe the fruit to know who really loved you and thus I went that way to the best of my ability."
In life Hugh sometimes people have to examine the total set of circumstances. Sometimes we can fight, wrangle, and debate for days, months, years, and still not arrive at the same position. Do I enjoy dialogue and debate? Sure much of the time I do. I've spent close to $75,000 for undergrad, grad, and post grad education, maybe more, so that I could sit in classes where we argued just like this (for hours, days, weeks, semesters, and years) and did so that I could be grilled in ideas ranging from many of the brightest theologians and philosophers of the ages to some of the more liberal and pagan minds among the ranks of intelligentsia. Fun? Oh Sure! In many respects I think you exhibit some of that spirit I saw in many others (and even in myself at times), a love of argument and debate as in the process iron sharpens iron.
But as with all things balance is important. In that effort sometimes we focus too long and too much on something that even if we are right or wrong about we miss the larger picture. Jesus spoke to people about this. He once chided the Pharisees for straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:23). For an example outside of this issue Hugh I have literally seen men argue for a doctrine like the Lord's Supper that has to be viewed in xyz form or it is not of God. They argue, debate, even cut off fellowship with others over it and claim to be taking the high road and yet when I got to know them personally their home life was a wreck. Their family is immature and the fruit of the Spirit is hardly evident in anyone's life in the home. But when it comes to arguing over the importance of that doctrine bless the Lord the man is there standing to fight with all his might while in the background he is loosing his most precious gift, his family.
Numerous examples abound like that where someone becomes unbalanced and they begin to focus on one doctrine to the neglect of so many other areas. In and among the country circles people call this type of stuff cutting off your nose in spite your face. As one author said:
Thus, I would rather follow someone and teach others likewise to follow someone who has the gospel right, who has the love of the word in their heart for both the Lord and his people, and one who evidences the fruits of which Christ spoke about than to spend more of my time focused on what is the most or the only way to determine what is or is not a legitimate line for indeed some who are from the supposed legitimate line do not love the Lord, the gospel, or his word or his people. I'm convinced that the sovereign God of the universe can indeed work out the details of getting the right people before the right people if he is that concerned about it.
For me though in the meantime I'd rather be with a John Doe those first ten years (and telling others to do likewise) even before he supposedly became legitimate and grow from him during that time under his leadership than be with a supposed legitimate one like Bobby Doe for ten years and learn nothing about the word, the Lord, the gospel, or how to make disciples.
So again, yes we differ here. And yes you'll probably spend another period of significant time to try and convince me again that I have no argument when in reality you just don't accept the argument. Or you might just call me an ugly name or say how stupid you think I am, criticize me for utilizing the resources I have been taught to use or have been blessed by in the Lord, or something of the like, or maybe shout from the pages how you have won or how the case is closed since you are the only true one who really has an argument as you pronounce the verdict on the case yourself, etc. etc.
Yet, nonetheless, I agree with you that many of the churches are shambles, that many dark and dry places exist. I, however, do not think this is the major doctrine or a cardinal doctrine (or one even if restored that would do the most for turning the church around), or as Dr. Al Mohler calls it, a First Order doctrine, that is worth spending hours, days, and months debating with no end. I see other issues that rank much higher on the scale of importance than this issue. I see other issues that will indeed have a larger impact on lives and families than this issue here. Endless debate over something not essential to the gospel or a first order doctrine takes time away from my actual time in sowing the seeds of the gospel and actually spending time loving on others with the word who are nowhere near even close to where you or I in biblical knowledge.
Thus, I'd rather spend my time ministering to those who need much more of my time than you need mine or I need of yours. Thus, I'm comfortable, content, and convicted to remain in this circumspect position but not to labor over it endlessly as I have other First Order issues that take precedence over this issue. I'll defend and argue for first order doctrine until Christ returns, but as for these second or third order issues I'm not inclined to camp out there when so much more needs to done elsewhere, especially in the first order areas.
And even beyond, even with such a difference as this I can and would be so eager to worship with you, sit down over a meal together with you, and be in prayer with you and for you as I see you as a dear brother. Nothing on my end sees this issue as an issue so essential that it disrupts my conscience or heart in so many other areas where we do agree, issues that are so much bigger and so much more important. And that too is another thing I learned over the years of watching people debate in college and seminary. I found that many times the true test of love for one another was not per se tested by the debate itself. Instead where the real test (James 1) came into play was how did the brothers treat one another after the debate. Did one grow cold to the other? Would one still pray for good for the other? Would the ones who differed in minor non-salvific areas still reach out to one another if one was hurting or in need? Would one who was upset over the debate still invite over to supper the one he just debated with even if he did not get the other to yield to his position? Would the ones debating still unite in areas they could agree upon to go down the road to help minister to the family who did not know Christ and whose home just burned down or would they remain so entrenched in their position that they would avoid each other so as not to have to do ministry together because they differed and because their feelings were hurt? Those were often the real tests that I watched and learned from as to how God was at work in someone's life.
And thus, I pray that despite the difference here, one that I doubt we'll resolve anytime soon, that you and I can still have the true love of Christ in our hearts for one another and for his work that transcends and takes priority over this non-salvific issue. For surely if what binds us is not stronger than this difference than something is truly wrong with our character and maturity. I'm grateful for you and the many things the Lord has done in your life and for the many great things I see that you do believe where we do align. I can greatly rejoice in my spirit over those areas even while we differ in this area. I hope you can too!
Blessings my friend and brother!
Dr. Allen
And Dr. Warifield, among others, is also one from the official or authorized line that you yourself accept as a legitimate line.
You do not like the argument offered. Fine. I'm mature enough to see that sometimes people will not arrive at the same conclusions on some of these biblical issues. I understand your argument but I think it actually is not in line with the sovereignty of God where he distributes the gifts as he wills when he wills to whom he wills which is recognized and verified by other saints.
But saying there is no argument is not the same as not liking or agreeing with the one offered.
I'm certainly not as concerned about this subject as you are. Why not? Let me explain.
Two Practical Illustrations
I see it working out either way for God's glory of grace or justice. Suppose John Doe is indeed gifted by God, called of God, and then he sets out to do ministry. He receives Christ at a young age but never gets an official endorsement from anyone. He misses by providence his meeting with Hugh and never even hears of this issue. He sets out on his faith journey and he ministers for 10 years serving the Lord, sharing the gospel, obeying the Bible, and making disciples. He shows the fruit of the Spirit in his live and his ministry is blessed with people being saved and growing in the Lord from his ministry. But then he finally meets you Hugh and you tell him he is not legitimate. He then says: "What do I need to do to be legitimate?" You tell him he must be ordained and installed by a legitimate elder from a legitimate line. He then goes and meets with some who are of a line you say is valid. They subject him to test him and they drill and grill him and in their hearts they come to the same conclusion that yes he is indeed mature enough in the word, they sense the call of God in his life, and they lay hands on him and official sanction him for ministry. What does he do then? He goes out with their support and encouragement back into the field where he was just at and continues to do the same things he was doing before: sowing the gospel seed, obeying the word to the best of his ability as he makes disciples in Christ.
Or on the other hand, sometimes some will say they are called. They will sit underneath someone who will confirm and sanction them, even supposedly of a legitimate line. Suppose Bobby Doe is appointed and installed by Elder Larry for the work of the gospel ministry. But then that Bobby Doe does little to really serve God. He cares very little for discipleship, he hardly ever sows the seed of the gospel, but he boasts greatly that he is of the true legitimate line and that others should follow him because he is truly official and legitimate. He loves position more than service. Hardly anyone grows under him and those who do sit under him do not mature and they too care little for the Word, for the gospel, and they exhibit very little love to the sheep around them.
In such cases Hugh I find that our Calvinist forefather Warfield was right as I see it, i.e. where the true Spirit abides there will be the fruits of the Spirit in that person's life evidenced by outward actions. Our Bible was created by the sovereign will of God and then recognized by the saints. Likewise, as Jesus said, we will know his true servants by the works they do (Matthew 7:16).
Thus, if I were dumb or intelligent, mature or immature, if I examined the two situations with little or even with great perspicacity in regard to John Doe and Bobby Doe and I in prayer had to do the best I could in deciding who to follow and if the standard was who was showing the fruit of the Lord in their life I would choose to follow and submit to John Doe as a leader of the Lord. If I got to heaven and Jesus the Lord said to me: "My child John Doe for the first 10 years was not ordained of a true line. Why did you follow him and not Bobby Doe?" I would respectfully reply: "Lord, I did my best to follow the one who seemed to have the heart of you in them and the one that expressed that love the most in deeds of service that represented you the best. I think I had to make a choice of either following someone who truly loved the word and the gospel or following one who was of the legitimate line but from an examination of his fruit cared very little for the word, your sheep, and your sacrifice and gospel. So in weighing out the two I chose to follow one over the other because to me you told me plainly to observe the fruit to know who really loved you and thus I went that way to the best of my ability."
In life Hugh sometimes people have to examine the total set of circumstances. Sometimes we can fight, wrangle, and debate for days, months, years, and still not arrive at the same position. Do I enjoy dialogue and debate? Sure much of the time I do. I've spent close to $75,000 for undergrad, grad, and post grad education, maybe more, so that I could sit in classes where we argued just like this (for hours, days, weeks, semesters, and years) and did so that I could be grilled in ideas ranging from many of the brightest theologians and philosophers of the ages to some of the more liberal and pagan minds among the ranks of intelligentsia. Fun? Oh Sure! In many respects I think you exhibit some of that spirit I saw in many others (and even in myself at times), a love of argument and debate as in the process iron sharpens iron.
But as with all things balance is important. In that effort sometimes we focus too long and too much on something that even if we are right or wrong about we miss the larger picture. Jesus spoke to people about this. He once chided the Pharisees for straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:23). For an example outside of this issue Hugh I have literally seen men argue for a doctrine like the Lord's Supper that has to be viewed in xyz form or it is not of God. They argue, debate, even cut off fellowship with others over it and claim to be taking the high road and yet when I got to know them personally their home life was a wreck. Their family is immature and the fruit of the Spirit is hardly evident in anyone's life in the home. But when it comes to arguing over the importance of that doctrine bless the Lord the man is there standing to fight with all his might while in the background he is loosing his most precious gift, his family.
Numerous examples abound like that where someone becomes unbalanced and they begin to focus on one doctrine to the neglect of so many other areas. In and among the country circles people call this type of stuff cutting off your nose in spite your face. As one author said:
Thus, I would rather follow someone and teach others likewise to follow someone who has the gospel right, who has the love of the word in their heart for both the Lord and his people, and one who evidences the fruits of which Christ spoke about than to spend more of my time focused on what is the most or the only way to determine what is or is not a legitimate line for indeed some who are from the supposed legitimate line do not love the Lord, the gospel, or his word or his people. I'm convinced that the sovereign God of the universe can indeed work out the details of getting the right people before the right people if he is that concerned about it.
For me though in the meantime I'd rather be with a John Doe those first ten years (and telling others to do likewise) even before he supposedly became legitimate and grow from him during that time under his leadership than be with a supposed legitimate one like Bobby Doe for ten years and learn nothing about the word, the Lord, the gospel, or how to make disciples.
So again, yes we differ here. And yes you'll probably spend another period of significant time to try and convince me again that I have no argument when in reality you just don't accept the argument. Or you might just call me an ugly name or say how stupid you think I am, criticize me for utilizing the resources I have been taught to use or have been blessed by in the Lord, or something of the like, or maybe shout from the pages how you have won or how the case is closed since you are the only true one who really has an argument as you pronounce the verdict on the case yourself, etc. etc.
Yet, nonetheless, I agree with you that many of the churches are shambles, that many dark and dry places exist. I, however, do not think this is the major doctrine or a cardinal doctrine (or one even if restored that would do the most for turning the church around), or as Dr. Al Mohler calls it, a First Order doctrine, that is worth spending hours, days, and months debating with no end. I see other issues that rank much higher on the scale of importance than this issue. I see other issues that will indeed have a larger impact on lives and families than this issue here. Endless debate over something not essential to the gospel or a first order doctrine takes time away from my actual time in sowing the seeds of the gospel and actually spending time loving on others with the word who are nowhere near even close to where you or I in biblical knowledge.
Thus, I'd rather spend my time ministering to those who need much more of my time than you need mine or I need of yours. Thus, I'm comfortable, content, and convicted to remain in this circumspect position but not to labor over it endlessly as I have other First Order issues that take precedence over this issue. I'll defend and argue for first order doctrine until Christ returns, but as for these second or third order issues I'm not inclined to camp out there when so much more needs to done elsewhere, especially in the first order areas.
And even beyond, even with such a difference as this I can and would be so eager to worship with you, sit down over a meal together with you, and be in prayer with you and for you as I see you as a dear brother. Nothing on my end sees this issue as an issue so essential that it disrupts my conscience or heart in so many other areas where we do agree, issues that are so much bigger and so much more important. And that too is another thing I learned over the years of watching people debate in college and seminary. I found that many times the true test of love for one another was not per se tested by the debate itself. Instead where the real test (James 1) came into play was how did the brothers treat one another after the debate. Did one grow cold to the other? Would one still pray for good for the other? Would the ones who differed in minor non-salvific areas still reach out to one another if one was hurting or in need? Would one who was upset over the debate still invite over to supper the one he just debated with even if he did not get the other to yield to his position? Would the ones debating still unite in areas they could agree upon to go down the road to help minister to the family who did not know Christ and whose home just burned down or would they remain so entrenched in their position that they would avoid each other so as not to have to do ministry together because they differed and because their feelings were hurt? Those were often the real tests that I watched and learned from as to how God was at work in someone's life.
And thus, I pray that despite the difference here, one that I doubt we'll resolve anytime soon, that you and I can still have the true love of Christ in our hearts for one another and for his work that transcends and takes priority over this non-salvific issue. For surely if what binds us is not stronger than this difference than something is truly wrong with our character and maturity. I'm grateful for you and the many things the Lord has done in your life and for the many great things I see that you do believe where we do align. I can greatly rejoice in my spirit over those areas even while we differ in this area. I hope you can too!
Blessings my friend and brother!
Dr. Allen