Comments on: Declaration. Address.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:20:57 +0000

Why Care About Church History or Historical Theology? – a recont post by John Mark Hicks on his blog. Please see the link:

http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/why-care-about-church-history-or-historical-theology/

This is a brief (about three minutes) but very good read for all. It is especially good for anyone that does not recognize the value of knowing church history, especially our own church history. How we handle scripture today is heavily influenced by how those that preceded us handled scripture.

It would be a shame to do something and insist it was the right way to do it without having a good understanding of how/why our forebears came to that conclusion, but I beleive it happens frequently.

One of the things we learn from the study of history is that we don’t learn from the study of history.

http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/why-care-about-church-history-or-historical-theology/

By: C.

C. — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:13:26 +0000

I like where Ray B. says “My personal confidence comes from inspired revelation.” On certain topics such as IM, many have personal confidence in their stance. There is definitely a wide range of inspired revelation giving this confidence, however. Some find their inspiration in the silence of NT scripture. Some in the NT wording of “singing from the heart”. Personally, I get my confidence from Isaiah 38:20, which inspires me to enjoy IM.

So, whether your personal confidence moves you towards acceptance, prohibition, or simply preference regarding IM —- it directs us all to the absolute meaning of Galatians 3:27-29.

Thanks for the spirited discussion, folks!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:23:25 +0000

Geezer –
I am definitely sincere in my desire to learn more about God’s Word, and I appreciate the suggestions. John Mark Hicks is an excellent scholar. I guess my question is not really about the history of how we got to this point, but what do we do the passages mentioned earlier? I believe I am relying not only on the silence of New Testament scripture on instrumental music, but also God’s specificity about the worship we see in the New Testament. I think we all see the silence of scripture as being prohibitive to some degree (we could probably come up with several things we shouldn’t do in worship about which the New Testament is silent)- it seems like the difficulty lies in determining what is or is not prohibited by that silence. I would like to know more about the “good understanding of scripture” which would stand against the traditional view. I have heard some disagree with the “traditional” opinion, yet never explaining how they arrived at that conclusion, so I would love to see some specifics. Thanks for the comments!

Tim –
In many ways, I think I understand your frustration. Yet, I do think it is also good for those who disagree to be able to discuss it in a way that could be civil and fruitful. I would love to see more such discussions among members of the Church of Christ. I appreciate your patience.

By: Ray B.

Ray B. — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:11:06 +0000

Geezer ,
Thank you for your good suggestion. No , I have not looked at scripture from the silence concept or tradition except for the tradition of scripture.
qb ,
Thank you for your excellent thoughts. This has been a good and healthy discussion.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:04:04 +0000

Here is a link to part I of Stone Campbell Hermeneutics if anyone is interested:

http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-i-campbells-scholarly-baconianism/

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:39:33 +0000

Ray and Andrew: I trust y’all are sincere in desiring to know how to understand and interpret scripture. Ray has spoken of doctrinal precision and I think he is applying to a doctrine of silence that is most unevenly applied. In this case, what some understand as the silence of scripture regarding IM in the church is taken as prohibitive though many other things about which scripture is “silent” are deemed permissible. Thus, some of us think the real weight for this position falls on a tradition rather than a good understanding of scripture.

If y’all are truly interested in how the CofC came to this understanding regarding IM as well as how we got and maintained our hermeneutics, I strongly recommend John Mark Hicks blog – just google him – you’ll find it and all his material is available if you search for it. He did a wonderful series on hermeneutics in the Stone Campbell movement during 2008. Each part can be read in about 10 minutes and you could spend the rest of the day mulling it over as times allows. Then you might want to read the next section the following day and mull it over. In a week or so you would have a much better understand of how some other well educated and sincere disciples of Jesus understand scripture. (Please take this as only one suggested way you could do this. I don’t intent to dictate how you do you do your personal study.) You may also consider purchasing a book on hermeneutics. I believe there are some good ones written by conservative scholars.
Peace,
Geezer

By: tim

tim — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:04:55 +0000

this whole conversation is sad.

By: qb

qb — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:44:32 +0000

Ray, we probably have a lot in common. The basic piont to be made here is that although the Scriptures claim (in some readings, anyway) to contain all of God’s truth, there are several counterarguments that may be posed from within Scripture itself. First, God is too great, grand, complex, and mysterious to be contained within the pages of a book, no matter how wonderful that book might be; it probably follows that his will is equally inscrutable.

Second, the oft-used and shopworn idea that Scripture can be brought explicitly to bear on every human circumstance is demonstrably not so; we have no choice but to reason our way to truth in a wide variety of settings. (That’s the dirty little secret about the “necessary inference” component of CENI-based hermeneutics.) So we have no choice to put revealed truths together in syllogisms of sorts in order to reach useful inferences about things not explicitly addressed in Scripture (ethical solutions to problems posed by modern genetics technology, for example). Scripture by itself cannot stand as the full counsel of God aside from reasoning with it to determine applications beyond the scope of specific revelation.

Anyway, I share your desire that we love and pursue truth. I might quarrel some with the idea of a pattern, but I take your piont and harbor no delusions that an affinity to truth patterns in the Scriptures somehow excludes kindness, love, compassion, and other Christlike virtues. So carry on, and peace to you.

By: Ray B.

Ray B. — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:46:34 +0000

qb ,
Very interesting. I know that there will never be total agreement on everything. And yes I ,know there are some who say there is a core teaching , doctrine, truth. My personal confidence comes from inspired revelation. My experiences can be very misleading because they are so subject to emotions. I think my emotions should flow from the knowledge of the word. And yes there have been in the lives of all of us some very special experiences. But do they authenticate the word or do they become an authority set apart from the written revelation and then we find ourselves being subject to the subjective instead of the objective. My greatest concern is that we do not lose the deire to know and be guided by an absolute standard of truth. There was a time when we spoke of a pattern of truth. I know that is subject to being described as legalistic. But all through life we all live with standards and intructions and laws to govern life so it is not chaotic.Because someone chooses to be precise about doctrine does not mean that person has abandoned love and compassion. Just the opposite. That same person will worship God, praise Him and beyond a worship assembly will also feed the hungry , listen to the brokenhearted , etc. while maintaining some serious doctrinal convictions and be firm but loving about those convictions. I guess I become concerned about the extremes that seem to be present in our great and wonderful brotherood and because some have been abusive ( some tell us about abusive churches and jeaopardy churches ; churches that also may still be doing good works ; and I have asked but not had anyone to answer , who is saying that a cappella is the defining characteristic, mark of the church ) others say well let’s just abandon docrtinal precision and concentrate on works of compassion. Why can we not study deep and love with all our hearts as well. Let the historical and doctrinal truth of the divine revelation then become the foundation for the moral and practical.

By: Dee

Dee — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:41:26 +0000

Thank you, Andrew.

By: qb

qb — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:08:21 +0000

Ray B., as to your “where do we go” question, is it possible that the container known to us as “the word of God” contains more than just the written compendium from times long past, including someone’s judgment as to which of those writings qualifies as canonical?

That is, how would you respond to Dr. Dallas Willard, who teaches that the “knowledge of Christ” container includes three major items, including (a) the written canon (suitably defined, and serving for our purposes as “divine revelation”), (b) empirical knowledge that we gain by experience, and (c) our rational faculties brought to bear on revealed and empirical knowledge, so as to “extend that knowledge to indefinite lengths?” He also teaches that relying on any one of those without the correctives of the other two is bound to lead us into a ditch. How does that strike you, Ray?

Curious,

By: Ray B.

Ray B. — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:03:09 +0000

Andrew ,
Thank you and thank you for your tone. And I believe your post is thoughtful. I wonder if we have come to a time when facts, doctrine, truth is now considered unimportant. I read people saying we should center on Jesus. Amen ! But where do we go for our knowledge of Jesus if not in the word, the scriptures. Also , when it comes to worship, is it my opinion verses your opinion or do we have some truth about worship and how to worship ? If not , I guess it is all just a toss- up and whatever you think or I think is all that counts.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:12:20 +0000

Scott,
I agree that anything that keeps Christians talking is probably a good thing. I do think (although no one else might) that the different color Bible covers is not the best parallel for instrumental music in worship. Again, it seems that the over-arching assumption is that instruments aren’t a big deal and that our previous arguments are just mistakes based on “shoddy hermeneutics.” I guess that is where I get frustrated, because I like to think of myself as a fairly thoughtful person (not necessarily smart or anything, just thoughtful), and I, like many of you, have thought and studied about this a great deal. I still come to the conclusion that this is a matter of obedience, and yet all I read in this comments section is how short-sighted and judgmental that opinion is (or jokes at the expense of that position).

I’m curious to know that when you say God has broken down the barriers between His children, what specific barriers you have in mind. I read recently the book Rick Atchley and Bob Russell co-authored – Together Again – and they made an interesting statement. In discussing Jesus as the only way, they mentioned a phone number. Just misdialing a single digit of that phone number will result in a wrong number. There is only one way to reach someone with a specific phone number, and in the same way, God has only given us one way to be a part of His family (I don’t have the book in front of me, and I don’t want to misquote anyone, but that is my memory. Please correct me if I have misread anything).

I wonder if that image might hold true when it comes to worship – that if we have a God-given example of how to worship, we should be careful about adding in our own digits to the number. I know that certain examples of God’s concern with the details of how something is carried out (Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, etc.) have been cited and debated often. We may even be sick of those arguments, yet that doesn’t eliminate them from scripture. How do we deal with them if God’s specificity/silence is not important? How do we deal with the way in which instruments were commanded and specifically directed by the Old Testament, but we have no such New Testament commands? If God wanted us to use instruments, wouldn’t He have given us similar specifics? I know, many are thinking “We have heard this before…” but that still doesn’t answer the question of what we do with those facts.

Just some thoughts – I realize this will probably result in more frustrated posts of those who wish this discussion would end, but I would be interested in feedback. I appreciate the open tone from so many of you, and I would honestly like to hear from you on this. Thank you!

By: Trey Morgan

Trey Morgan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:06:11 +0000

Hopefully one day the only thing we’ll be arguing about is how best to reach lost people.

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:01:22 +0000

Sorry, I should have sent you to the first page:
http://www.glenacres.org/Documents%5CAnti1.htm