The tradition of Apostolic Authority

[Hugh McBryde]

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."

A bad argument from people in my "official/legitmate" tradition is a bad argument. That was why there was a Reformation. I regard the RCC as legitimate. At least up until the point of the Reformation. You continue as you have before, to make me swear to all the tenets of the Reformation, when one of the tenets of the Reformation is "Semper Reformanda," or "always reforming." No, you do NOT get to use the slight of hand to bind me to all every reformation authority or scholar has ever said. That is simply not the theme of the Reformation in the first place. Neither will I pull punches on this obvious tactic that a learned and logical man such as yourself knows to be a tactic. Stop it.

I know you get all bent out of shape about names."

No, quit incorrectly characterizing my statements as well. I get all bent out of shape about the abuse of logic involved when you invoke a name, and a name alone, as proof (argumentum ad verecundiam).

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."

If what he means is someone can stand up and declare they are so "gifted" and then proceed to endorse others as being gifted, then what we have is anarchy. In addition, there is no support for this in scripture. At all. Thus Dr. Warfield would be wrong. On occasion no less a man than the Apostle Peter was wrong. His argument must be sound and from scripture.

Dr. Warifield, among others, is also one from the official or authorized line that you yourself accept as a legitimate line."

As I said before (which you conveniently ignore, a frequent tactic of yours): "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."

To rephrase. I don't think there are any new or newly discovered doctrines. Church history validates what is subject to debate by establishing what is to be debated, the pros and cons. Church history establishes who is in office. In private we essentially argued this before, and now I'm just going to point the finger at you as dishonest. I do not hold the position that because those in my tradition have expressed or adhered to a point of view, that I ought to as well. It is only that SOMEONE in the WHOLE tradition of the church, dating back to the beginning, must have held a position very similar to mine.

You know this, yet you continue to flail away at the straw man that I am bound to a reformer's views because he is or was a reformer.

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."

You're argument is only that God can do anything, and thus you cling to the idea that he has done as you need him to have done, to legitimize your position. No scriptural evidence for your view exists other than the to say he could have done it. That leaves us in agreement, he could have, but then we, as men of God, must go to his word.

The word says you're wrong and you have yet to show otherwise.

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."

Dr, this is heaping up words only. Bring me a scripture. If he gets sanctioned, he's sanctioned. He is thus an elder of the church.

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)."

You do not have to be a church officer to be God's servant. You equivocate. I still don't care what Warfield said unless it is backed up by scripture. In addition, without even researching it, I think you take Warfield out of context. I think Warfield probably would see those recognizing a potential leader in the church, as being leaders themselves (at least some of them) already.

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."

I hate to tell you this, but it doesn't matter. Unless you use it correctly, it's just a waste of time and $75,000.

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. "

Who wouldn't? Me? I'm only talking about what a church is. Get that right and then try to get the church right in doctrine.

So again, yes we differ here.

Yes, and I have specific scriptures aimed to the specific question and specific examples in scripture and you don't. Game, set, and if you don't come up with something soon, I'm going to call it "match."

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."

If you've made an argument, point to it, succinctly, with scripture to back it up. You have not. You've heaped up words and names and accolades for yourself as a theologian and scholar of great personal expenditure but you have not made an argument other than "God can do anything."

Show me where he has, or show me where he has mandated your method or show me where there is an example of your method in scripture.

You have not.

You cannot.

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."

For day to day Christian living, the Gospel is elementary Dr. as Hebrews declares. How a church is set up is indeed the first order of business after a group of believers come together, so that they can be rightly shepherded as God intended. They may be abused in a church correctly set up, but they might not be. They are always abused in a faux church.

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!"

And so you bow out of yet another debate, this one public, not private as the last one was, declaring you do not wish animosity, yet continuing to forward an argument with no scriptural underpinning. You do not serve his people well in this area. You fail them.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

You do not serve his people well in this area. You fail them.

I'm fine and perfectly at peace with letting God be the ultimate and final judge of whether I fail him or not. I find that he, not you, will have the final word on rather or not I have honored him and his people. I'm content with letting him be the ultimate judge of that. "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).

In the meantime, as for anarchy two reasons stand as to why I am not advocating or walking in anarchy (without any rule over me): other men who are pastors to me and who I know and trust who are mature men in the word, such as good men here like Pastor John and Dr. Luck among others, keep check on me and I have and gladly currently receive their biblical instruction, wisdom, and yes even their admonitions from time to time as needed in the Lord from them based upon the ultimate authority of the Word (Hebrews 13:7 and 17).

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I judge not the man, only the action as not measuring up. You are the author of that action. Do not make my judgement overbroad. I only judge that you do not follow scripture in this matter. Any who do that fail God's people. I make no claim that I am always successful in this way. I greatly fear I engage in a very large number of failures, and very few and small are my successes in serving him.

You offer no defense of your views from scripture, only a defense of yourself.

 

[steve]

a minor change to the possible outcome of the story:

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 are ready to lay hands on him when they find out his views on polygyny. They then tell him that he does not qualify because of this belief, and he can never become legitimate. He goes back to his ministry and sorrowfully disbands it because of its illegitimacy and the people slowly (some more quickly) slide back into the lives that they were rescued from.

steve, the illegitimate judaizing pharisee