Disqus - Latest Comments for knoxbury

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

knoxbury — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:44:16 -0000

You chide us for reading our presuppositions into the text of Scripture, but that is exactly what you are doing. We all bring presuppostitions to our reading of Scripture. So just because your reading is different than what you grew up hearing doesn't make you right. And just because our reading (Rodney and I) is similar to what you grew up hearing doesn't make us wrong.

Also, we can both find scholars to support our positions, so that card won't work. My goal in posting comments is to "balance" your presuppositions. Of course if readers buy your arguments, fine. I just don't happen to agree with your views of the church and wanted to express that . . . not as an argument with you, but as another point of view for the readers.

And let me respond to just one of your statements about Timothy not being a pastor. I'll explain this with an example. If I write a letter to a friend of mine who is a musician and you intercept the letter and read it, you may never read the word "musician", but you may gather from the letter that my friend is a musician by the use of my language related to this field. In the same way, the letters to Timothy are full of instruction to someone who is in a leadership position in the church. If he is not in a leadership position in the church, then he would have no authority to carry out the instructions. And the leadership provided for in the NT is elders. So Timothy was an elder in the church. And if an elder, then seemingly one gifted in teaching (because he is instructed to teach). And the elder that is gifted in teaching is most commonly referred to as a pastor.

Anyway, my comments are already too long for this type of forum.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

knoxbury — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:35:21 -0000

Painting with a broad brush, Rodney is generally correct. There was something new established with the NT church. Never before did we need to establish elders, deacons, pastors, communion rules, discipline, offerings, missionaries (sent by a group of local believers), establish order in a church service (1 Cor. 14), and on and on. You can try and link all of this back to the OT, but while there may be pictures or similarities in the OT, there was not the same intentionality and organization (e.g. establishing qualifications for elders and deacons). In fact, the letters to Timothy might as well be thrown out since they were clearly written to a man who served a local group of believers as an "official" pastor.

And as far as changing the name of the building to community center, I think we miss the point and ignore history. We don't call these buildings "church" in a historic vacuum. It is a church building because that is where a local group of believers (i.e. the church) meet, as we're instructed to meet in Scripture, to exercise the gifts of teaching, service, etc. Does that mean we don't continue to utilize these gifts outside the building? Of course not. But one would be in a mighty lonely camp (among "scholars") if he/she is advocating the elimination of a "formal and structured" church, outside of those few weak and old-fashioned Christians who want to cling to their community center.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

knoxbury — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:27:27 -0000

The lack of standard is present by default because no debate is being made (for the most part) based on any standard other than opinion as if God has nothing to say about church.

And the abandonment is implied . . . it doesn't have to be expressly stated.

As far as Acts 15, the Presbyterians base much of their church polity on this chapter. I don't happen to agree with them, but the point is that there are at least issues to debate from Scripture (a standard) as to how the church should look.

I'm not trying to go point by point. I just want to encourage readers to base their opinion of church on a standard instead of remaking church into our image.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

knoxbury — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:47:23 -0000

But WHY are the theological mantras inaccurate? They're only inaccurate if there is a standard of accuracy. And who or what sets that standard? If Scripture is not the standard, then who or what decides?

Scripture of course if not crystal clear on some of these issues (which offers freedom), but it does provide guidance. For example, elders, deacons, qualifications, day of the week for gathering, orderly services, services at all, church government (Acts 15), etc.

If our "new" standard has a foundation rooted in mere opinion and ignores what God has made clear, we are making church into our own image. That doesn't mean we can't correct where needed, but to abandon all and start over as if God doesn't care what we do with church is problematic at best.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

knoxbury — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:41:39 -0000

It's never wise to build a theology primarily based on negative experiences. These experiences are often rooted in a specific time and culture founded on false presuppositions and bias.

Instead, our belief system should be positively formed based on the specific revelation God has left us in Scripture. A careful study of the local church in Scripture yields a structured environment that includes leadership, requirements for those leaders, church government and instructions about order.

Obviously there is going to be some latitude where God was silent, but let's not set out to abandon the organized church as if it's entirely up to us to figure out the best way to do this.