Covenant Theology - Wrong due to origins

[truthman]

Covenant Theology is wrong because many Christians have followed it for the better part of 2,000 years. The majority isn't always right, so, Covenant Theology is suspect.

truthman

p.s. Those who know me know what I'm getting at

[Xavier]

Yeah... OVT logic strikes again... :hehe:

[Amazing Rando]

Covenant Theology is wrong because many Christians have followed it for the better part of 2,000 years. The majority isn't always right, so, Covenant Theology is suspect.

truthman

p.s. Those who know me know what I'm getting at

Of course! :idea: Since Mid-Acts Dispensationalism was not "discovered" until the 1920's, and everyone knows that the majority is always wrong, then Mid-Acts Dispensationalism must be true! :banana:

[Xavier]

Next thing you know...

The Trinity, nay the Very Deity of Christ will be up for debate too...

I mean if the majority of Christians are Christian maybe that's wrong too... :lol:

[truthman]

My point again is that you cannot ever judge whether or not something is right or wrong by looking at it's adherents or lack thereof.

Jeremiah 5:1, very few believed the truth at that time, but that didn't make it less true.

Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be [any] that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

[Amazing Rando]

My point again is that you cannot ever judge whether or not something is right or wrong by looking at it's adherents or lack thereof.

Jeremiah 5:1, very few believed the truth at that time, but that didn't make it less true.

Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be [any] that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

That's what Joseph Smith said. :wink:

[Joseph Smith]Why yes! The Christian church has fallen away from the truth! But thanks to me and the angel Moroni, we've discovered it again![/Smith]

T-man, when a completely new interpretation of the Bible springs up out of whole cloth as happened in the 1920's with Stam, it's got a lot of ground to cover. To me, it seems like only sheer, unmitigated pride could make one think that one's own Bible interpretation is more correct than that of the entire Body of Christ for the previous 1900 years.

[Em7add11]

Moved to Theo201.

[GoBahnsen]

My point again is that you cannot ever judge whether or not something is right or wrong by looking at it's adherents or lack thereof.

Jeremiah 5:1, very few believed the truth at that time, but that didn't make it less true.

Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be [any] that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.This is exciting...tell me some new thing and help me scratch my ears.

[Ormly]

This is exciting...tell me some new thing and help me scratch my ears.
...............you need more than your ears scratched

[Jezz]

My point again is that you cannot ever judge whether or not something is right or wrong by looking at it's adherents or lack thereof.
It is an overstatment to say that "you cannot ever" judge truth by an "argument from the majority". It is correct to say that this a deductive fallacy. But it is a useful inductive argument. Indeed, most people recognise that "argument from authority" is a useful inductive argument. Well, "argument from majority" is merely an "argument from authority" on steriods.

In dealing with historical matters, we are never dealing in the realm of pure deductive logic. Thus to claim that "argument from majority" is a fallacy is merely to try and justify your own existence. Merely saying that the majority can be wrong is a far cry from proving that they are.

As Christians, we have an even stronger reason to go with the majority - the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit really does indwell Christians, then on average you'd expect His voice to be heard through them. I'd go so far not only to claim that we can heed the majority, but that we must always heed the majority - for that is where the voice of the Holy Spirit must be heard. To do otherwise is (as Rando pointed out) the result of pride. It is pride because it means that one believes that one's own indwelling of the Holy Spirit is purer and less unadulterated than everyone else's.

Jeremiah 5:1, very few believed the truth at that time, but that didn't make it less true.

Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be [any] that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.
The difference between Jeremiah (and those faithful to the truth that he spoke of) and Stamites are significant:

1. Jeremiah was a prophet of God - specifically called by God. Stam was not.
2. Jeremiah was not testifying to a truth that had been lost altogether, but was testifying on behalf of the remnant that had preserved the truth. If we believe Stam, God did not even preserve a remnant of the truth. A God that cannot even preserve a remnant is not a God worth worshipping.
3. Jeremiah was not testifying to something new - he was testifying to a belief that could be historically traced back to the time of Moses, Jacob, and Abraham. Stam's interpretation of the Bible is completely new and has no historical precedent whatsoever.

[truthman]

First of all, the mid-Acts view is not new, but is rather found throughout Paul's writings.

Secondly, in II Kings 22, we see that Hilkiah found a book of the law of God in the house of the Lord. It had basically been lost for more than one generation. The same God you speak of Jezz let His holy word be lost from among the people.

truthman

[Agent Yoshi]

First of all, the mid-Acts view is not new, but is rather found throughout Paul's writings.

Secondly, in II Kings 22, we see that Hilkiah found a book of the law of God in the house of the Lord. It had basically been lost for more than one generation. The same God you speak of Jezz let His holy word be lost from among the people.

truthman

But what does it mean when it says it was lost? If you read the entire chapter, you'll notice a few things.

First, verse 3 mentions the Temple scribe. the temple scribe's primary job was to make perfect copies of the sacred writings. How could he do so if they were lost?

Continue reading, and you'll see that the temple was still functioning, but in need of repair.

Most likely due to King Yoshiyahu's interest in the temple work, the high priest then sends word the torah to him, saying "I have found..." This is most likely so that King Yoshiyahu would know what was needed to have the temple restored, and why.

Then, in verse 14, King Yoshiyahu consults a female prophet.

Note that no where it says the Torah was lost. It mentions that the people were not observant of it,and one copy of it was found in the temple by the high priest.

[bar Jonah]

But what does it mean when it says it was lost? If you read the entire chapter, you'll notice a few things.

First, verse 3 mentions the Temple scribe. the temple scribe's primary job was to make perfect copies of the sacred writings. How could he do so if they were lost?

Continue reading, and you'll see that the temple was still functioning, but in need of repair.

Most likely due to King Yoshiyahu's interest in the temple work, the high priest then sends word the torah to him, saying "I have found..." This is most likely so that King Yoshiyahu would know what was needed to have the temple restored, and why.

Then, in verse 14, King Yoshiyahu consults a female prophet.

Note that no where it says the Torah was lost. It mentions that the people were not observant of it,and one copy of it was found in the temple by the high priest.
Which still means it was lost to the people of God.

Which is more than Truthman and I are saying -- we say the people of God have had all of scripture this past two millenia, and have lived according to His word in many respects, but just not in this particular respect. Not even remotely as bad as what happened to Israel back then. (Mind you, Karaite, I say this from a Christian perspective, obviously. I do appreciate your two cents.)



And Jezz, if historical majority is valid authority, then why aren't you a member of the Roman Catholic Church?

[GoBahnsen]

...............you need more than your ears scratchedI'll let my wife determine that... you stay out of it. Can't you find someone else to harass?

[Sheepdog]

actually, Jezz is wrong (:eek:). bandwagon fallacy tends to be weak even inductively. we get back to the popular proverb, "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

where the strength of tradition and/or the bandwagon comes in, though, is when we look at why the majority view has been the majority view for so long. so, appeal to majority can be strong if done responsibly, but isn't by default.

[bar Jonah]

actually, Jezz is wrong (:eek:). bandwagon fallacy tends to be weak even inductively. we get back to the popular proverb, "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

where the strength of tradition and/or the bandwagon comes in, though, is when we look at why the majority view has been the majority view for so long. so, appeal to majority can be strong if done responsibly, but isn't by default.
All that does is show that it's a historical majority; so what? There's no difference. It's just that all the members of the majority weren't alive at the same time as each other, so how is that different, at all?

[Jezz]

actually, Jezz is wrong (:eek:).
It has been known to happen. :smile:

bandwagon fallacy tends to be weak even inductively. we get back to the popular proverb, "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
That depends. All else being equal, argument from majority is the best argument we have - especially when the majority is overwhelming. Supposing the people in your sample are of similar education level in the subject matter in question, the bandwagon argument would seem to me to be the best argument that there is. People use the "most scholars agree" argument in this manner all the time. It is widely understood (:wink:) that the one who wishes to overturn scholarly consensus bears the heavier burden.

But your point is well taken that the appeal to majority cannot be applied indiscriminately. This does not detract from the main purpose of what I wrote, though - which is to counter the claim that appeal to majority is never a good argument. This is a patently false claim - just as false as the idea that appeal to majority is always a valid argument.

where the strength of tradition and/or the bandwagon comes in, though, is when we look at why the majority view has been the majority view for so long. so, appeal to majority can be strong if done responsibly, but isn't by default.
Certainly. I didn't intend to restrict the appeal to majority to those now living. I intend to give those who are asleep in the Lord a voice too. Indeed - I give them greater weight the closer they are to the testimonies of those who lived and wrote closer in time (and in the same language!) as the apostles themselves.

[Jezz]

And Jezz, if historical majority is valid authority, then why aren't you a member of the Roman Catholic Church?
Because after they split from the rest of the churches, the Roman Church ceased to be Catholic, and ceased to be part of the true Church. When I speak of the majority, I speak of the majority of those in the true Church. The vote of a (post-schism) Roman Catholic does not count. As I said in response to Sheepdog, appeal to majority includes the opinions of those who died in the Lord, and those closer in time to the events in question carry greater authority.

Mind you, even though I do not believe that the RCC has the full truth, I certainly think that they're a lot closer than most Protestant sects (with the exception of Lutherans and high Anglicans, with whom they're on a par). If I had to choose between Papism and Stamitism, I'd take Papism any day of the week (and twice on Sundays :wink:)...

[Jezz]

First of all, the mid-Acts view is not new, but is rather found throughout Paul's writings.
Rubbish. The fact that noone found Stamite views in Paul's writings, ever, until 1920, means that it wasn't there. Period. Like those special 3D glasses, you can only see it if you put the special Stamite glasses on...

Secondly, in II Kings 22, we see that Hilkiah found a book of the law of God in the house of the Lord. It had basically been lost for more than one generation. The same God you speak of Jezz let His holy word be lost from among the people.
Karaite already did a good job on this... I'll just point out that even if I grant your objection that the Torah was actually and completely lost for "more than one generation", then that still doesn't give you a precedent. The Stamite view was missing for a lot longer than that. Unless you wish to prove that Stam was a prophet, or that you are, then I have no reason to listen to you who preaches a Gospel other than the one that Paul preached.

[themuzicman]

Act9 dispensationalism is found in the poor exegesis and hermeneutics of Paul's writings.

They don't even get the "mystery" right, which is clearly detailed in Col 2:2.

Michael

[truthman]

Michael, there are more than just one mystery in Paul's writings.

The mystery of Godliness, they mystery of the rapture, the mystery of grace alone for salvation, etc.

Don't be so limited and don't hijack the thread.

[themuzicman]

I started another thread for "Mystery".

[Amazing Rando]

Which still means it was lost to the people of God.

Which is more than Truthman and I are saying -- we say the people of God have had all of scripture this past two millenia, and have lived according to His word in many respects, but just not in this particular respect. Not even remotely as bad as what happened to Israel back then. (Mind you, Karaite, I say this from a Christian perspective, obviously. I do appreciate your two cents.)


Aside from the fact that your beliefs are totally absent from church history until the 1920's, I find your explanation of the "great apostasy" utterly absurd. You point at the single verse from "15You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes."

and you use it to try and explain the fact that even the very next generation after Paul, nobody was following his teachings properly. You do this despite the fact we've shown several times that this verse has nothing to do with a theological apostasy but rather indicates personal abandonment because of Paul's imprisonment. Let me know if you need me to rehash my arguments against your position here.

[Sheepdog]

It has been known to happen. :smile:

you know i gotta pick :teeth:

That depends. All else being equal, argument from majority is the best argument we have - especially when the majority is overwhelming. Supposing the people in your sample are of similar education level in the subject matter in question, the bandwagon argument would seem to me to be the best argument that there is. People use the "most scholars agree" argument in this manner all the time. It is widely understood (:wink:) that the one who wishes to overturn scholarly consensus bears the heavier burden.

unfortunately, this isn't as substantial as i was expecting. at the very least, i will gladly concede that it is less likely for many people to get something wrong than a few, but the possibility of many people getting it wrong shouldn't be ignored.

that's why i emphasize looking at the reasons why these views were popular. was it that the leaders over the past 100 generations or so knew their stuff, and gave good reasons for the populace to believe, or was it that everyone was following the "in thing" to do? i know the nature of people, which is why i am naturally suspicious of the bandwagon, though perhaps not as much as most.

i don't think bandwagon is necessarily the best we have. though, in a way, it is the best most will be exposed to, since the meatier arguments are too much for a lot of people. (here is where my criticism elsewhere is chiming in: i wish we would challenge people to expand their intellect more and dumb down our message less.) but, what are the available deductive arguments? other inductive arguments? evidence and the like?

But your point is well taken that the appeal to majority cannot be applied indiscriminately. This does not detract from the main purpose of what I wrote, though - which is to counter the claim that appeal to majority is never a good argument. This is a patently false claim - just as false as the idea that appeal to majority is always a valid argument.

ok. in that case i agree on this point.

Certainly. I didn't intend to restrict the appeal to majority to those now living. I intend to give those who are asleep in the Lord a voice too. Indeed - I give them greater weight the closer they are to the testimonies of those who lived and wrote closer in time (and in the same language!) as the apostles themselves.

this is certainly a good idea, though i note that heresies also sprang up early (apparently early enough to be implicitely addressed by the NT writers in some cases). i really do not say that to group orthodoxy with heresy-- i simply note it to ensure it is recognized that people were getting it wrong in that day as well.

[Sheepdog]

Rando! post me a link, please, because i'd like to read that discussion

[Amazing Rando]

Rando! post me a link, please, because i'd like to read that discussion

Here's truthman's post where he argues this point:

So, you guys think it's weird for the Acts 9 dispensational message to have 'disappeared' for 1900 years and then suddenly appear from a pulpit in America? And that this is an invalidation of our doctrine......

Well, it's not strange to me at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears again, maybe even very soon. Why, you ask?

Because of this verse

I Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

So, Paul, the great 13th Apostle experienced it in his own lifetime. Not sure if you know this but "all they which are in Asia" includes the Ephesians, so your Polycarp examples are extremely late. The Acts 9 message disappeared from certain regions even during Paul's lifetime and ministry. So, it's not hard to see why it could easily disappear for 1900 years.

truthman

That comes from
this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37362&page=2&pp=16).

RightIdea brought up the issue in the Tennis Court thread in which he and I are battling over Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Here's my response:


(And Adam and I are waiting on your response to his pointing out the churches that left Paul, proving that churches and church networks were falling away from truth (whatever truth that was) in extremely short spans of time in the 1st century. You've said, yourself, that you find it hard to believe Mid-Acts could be true if people in Polycarp's time already would have had to allegedly move away from it that fast. Using scripture, Adam proved that it happened twice as fast as even that, before Paul was even done writing his epistles for goodness' sake.)

Using one itty bitty verse from Timmy? Let's see.
2 Timothy 15

You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

Two observations- first of all, "everyone" is most likely a hyperbole, a deliberate exageration to express widespread desertion. This is especially true because Timothy was most likely in Ephesus at the time of his receipt of Paul's letter. And guess where Ephesus is? Yep, it's the capital of the province of Asia. Secondly, Paul never says anything in that context of 2 Timothy about "falling away from the truth" or anything like that. He says that he has been "deserted." No mention of doctrine error or apostasy at all. Muz demonstrated in the thread (a post to which you haven't yet responded BTW) that this was not an apostasy of any sort, but rather a personal desertion.

It was Paul's imprisonment that caused his followers to desert him personally, not his doctrine to cause them to apostasize. This is corroborated later in the epistle (chapter 4 to be precise) where Paul goes into further detail about this "desertion" that he has only briefly mentioned here:

Aww rats- biblegateway seems to have crashed on me or something. Can't access it right now. Suffice it to say that in 2 Tim chapter 4, verses 9-18, you'll see the fuller discussion of this supposed "apostasy." It is really nothing of the sort. Paul's followers were simply abandoning him in droves (with the exception of Luke, who possibly served as writing secretary for Paul in this letter) because he was in prison and about to be executed and they didn't want to share his fate. This has absolutely zero to do with apostasy or abandoning Paul's doctrines, but everything to do with Paul being abandoned personally. I'll head over and post my treatment of this passage in the Church History thread a little later.

That's from this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=715605&highlight=Timothy+apostasy#post715605)

Here's the verse I was unable to post at the time- this shows the real nature of the "abandonment" Paul was talking about in 2 Tim 1:15.

9Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
14Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.
16At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. 18The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul was not referring to apostasy at all, rather a personal abandonment by all of his closest relations except Luke because of the fact that he was in prison and about to be executed. Thus, we have no indication from the Bible that said apostasy away from the "truth" of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism occured within the lifetime of Paul, as RightIdea and truthman have claimed.

[Jezz]

you know i gotta pick :teeth:
Hey, I can't fix my faults if noone points them out to me, so thanks. You've forced me to tighten up my statement quite a bit.

unfortunately, this isn't as substantial as i was expecting. at the very least, i will gladly concede that it is less likely for many people to get something wrong than a few, but the possibility of many people getting it wrong shouldn't be ignored.
I will likewise concede that it is possible that many people would get it wrong. But as I stated from the outset, I'm not talking about deductive arguments here - I'm talking about inductive arguments. It is not impossible for many people to get it wrong, however in inductive argumentation we are not concerned with possibilities, but with probabilities.

It is also important to remember the caveat I added of "all else being equal", too - obviously, there may be a stronger inductive argument that overturns the argument by majority. But it has to be a pretty strong argument (especially if it's an overwhelming majority).

that's why i emphasize looking at the reasons why these views were popular. was it that the leaders over the past 100 generations or so knew their stuff, and gave good reasons for the populace to believe, or was it that everyone was following the "in thing" to do? i know the nature of people, which is why i am naturally suspicious of the bandwagon, though perhaps not as much as most.

i don't think bandwagon is necessarily the best we have. though, in a way, it is the best most will be exposed to, since the meatier arguments are too much for a lot of people. (here is where my criticism elsewhere is chiming in: i wish we would challenge people to expand their intellect more and dumb down our message less.) but, what are the available deductive arguments? other inductive arguments? evidence and the like?
See above on my comments about "all else being equal", because that is relevant here.

Another comment that is relevant here: I think an important distinction needs to be made between knowledge of Christian dogma and other forms of knowledge garnered by investigating nature (ie, the natural sciences).

In the natural sciences, where we are gathering information and learning the truth, argumentation is necessary. Different scholars will interpret observations differently. Here, argument by majority is less useful, as quite often those in the "voting pool" haven't actually made the observations directly, but have relied on others who have. In such cases, they are merely representing the truth as passed down to them - if the original was in error, then they are propagating error.

Christian truth is different. Christianity is revealed, not discovered. We do not learn about God by doing experiments and making arguments based on data, but by receiving revelation. We start with Christ and His revelation, which He passed to His apostles. They in turn passed it to those whom they evangelised, and so on. Our job as Christians is not to make new discoveries about God, but to preserve the revelation that He gave to His apostles at the beginning. As a bonus, God promised His Holy Spirit to aid in this process and promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

Argument by majority is less useful when the truth is arrived at by argumentation. It can be helpful, but as you point out it can also be undermined by other arguments and other considerations. But when it comes to preserving a pre-existing revelation, argument by majority is the best way to go. Imagine doing Chinese whispers. Suppose a person tells 100 people a certain message (our "revelation" in this thought experiment) to memorise. But this is Chinese whispers with a difference - these 100 people each hear it many times (as is common with oral tradition), and remember it well, and share it among themselves to reinforce it. Now, suppose that some time later you get them all to recite the revelation, and 95 of them come out in agreement, and the remaning 5 insist that the other 95 are wrong (and perhaps even disagree among themselves). Who would you put your money on?

ok. in that case i agree on this point.
:thumb:

this is certainly a good idea...
:thumb:

...though i note that heresies also sprang up early (apparently early enough to be implicitely addressed by the NT writers in some cases). i really do not say that to group orthodoxy with heresy-- i simply note it to ensure it is recognized that people were getting it wrong in that day as well.
Oh, I certainly acknowledge that heresies sprang up early. But you must also realise that the principle reason that we know that they were heresies is because the Orthodox, Catholic Christians (who were in the majority) of the time declared them to be so.

For example, consider this thought experiment: suppose that Gnosticism had been the major strand of Christianity in the early days, as opposed to that brand of Christianity proposed by Paul and the other apostles. How would things be different now?:

Well, for starters we'd actually be calling the "Gnostics" orthodox, and we'd be calling the Paulians heretics. Saint Marcion's "Against Heresies" would have described the heretical beliefs of the Paulians, led in his current day and age by that foul heretic Irenaeus. He would have exclaimed with horror at how these heretics perverted the truth - with the disgusting notion that this utterly evil body was not only good, but that the immortal soul would actually be returned to this prison (which would be reconstituted specifically for that purpose). Marcion would quote passages from the four canonical Gospels of Luke (modified from ours), Truth, Phillip, and Thomas in order to refute these heretics. He might also quote some of the canonical epistles of Hymeneus and Alexander.

I could go on, but I think I've said enough to make my point. Of course, none of the above happened. Why? Because people like St Paul, St Irenaeus and Tertullian were among the majority, and their opinion carried the day by the weight of this majority. It is for this reason, and for this reason only, that we consider Gnosticism a heresy, and Paulianism Orthodoxy, and that we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as our canonical Gospels rather than the Gospels of Truth, Phillip, Thomas, and butchered Luke. History is written by the winners.

This is not to say that our current belief is due merely to the luck of history. In a Christian worldview, there is no such thing as luck. The Orthodox did not win by luck, but by the will of God. God is the Lord of history - He is always the winner, and thus it is He who writes history according to His will. The Holy Spirit acted through the Church to guide the Church to preserve the truth - acting as the immune system of the body of Christ by expunging the Gnostic disease.

So this is why I don't put too much stock in the argument that "there were heretics in the early Church". Yes, we know that there were heretics. But generally, the person making that statement forgets that the only reason that we know that they were heretics is because there were Orthodox Christians who stood against them.

[bar Jonah]

actually, Jezz is wrong (). bandwagon fallacy tends to be weak even inductively. we get back to the popular proverb, "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

where the strength of tradition and/or the bandwagon comes in, though, is when we look at why the majority view has been the majority view for so long. so, appeal to majority can be strong if done responsibly, but isn't by default.
Thank you, bro. I know we're not on the same side, but I sure do appreciate your two cents, here. It gets rough being an "army of one," sometimes. I'm not complaining, but even a small assist is always appreciated. You're a fair man. :rithumb:

All else being equal, argument from majority is the best argument we have
On that, we agree. That's the best ya got. When you openly admit the best you have is one of the most famous logical fallacies, a bell should be going off upstairs... :rigreen:

And yeah, I see your comeback before you even open your mouth. But I wonder... when it comes to majority view of doctrines, do you follow that rule for all theology? Or just the ones you prefer? What happens if the majority shifts? Will you change your beliefs?

By trying to stand on inductive logic, you fall deeper into the sand you already built your house on. You seem to be inferring that no Christian can really be sure of anything in the Bible... including the deity of Christ, or even the existence of God. It goes without saying that we must begin with a presupposition somewhere. Indeed, it is not only rational to start with a presupposition, but it's impossible to start without one. But the Holy Spirit's work in scripture is our shared presupposition, and from that point forward, you can either stand on the shifting sand of maybes and probablies... or you can stand on the bedrock of God's word. Majority views shift and swing. Scripture is what it is. We can never have perfect understanding in this earthly life. But the question is what you aim for.

I don't know about you, but if and when I pick up a bow and arrow, I always try to hit the bullseye. I don't start out by assuming I will miss the bullseye and therefore don't even try. I aim for perfection, even if I know I will not be perfect. Why aim for anything else?

In doctrine, we should aim for the source of absolute truth, not opinion and preference and shifting majorities. Who knows what the historical majority will be 500 years from now? But I sure as heck wouldn't gamble my belief on matters of absolute truth based on such a thing.

You aim for your maybe. I'll aim for an infallible source and nothing else. You keep your sand. I'll keep my rock.

Because after they split from the rest of the churches, the Roman Church ceased to be Catholic, and ceased to be part of the true Church. When I speak of the majority, I speak of the majority of those in the true Church. The vote of a (post-schism) Roman Catholic does not count. As I said in response to Sheepdog, appeal to majority includes the opinions of those who died in the Lord, and those closer in time to the events in question carry greater authority.

Mind you, even though I do not believe that the RCC has the full truth, I certainly think that they're a lot closer than most Protestant sects (with the exception of Lutherans and high Anglicans, with whom they're on a par). If I had to choose between Papism and Stamitism, I'd take Papism any day of the week (and twice on Sundays )...
You just proved your argument by defining what is the true church, thereby giving yourself the majority? :lmbo:

I love it! Thank you! Debaters have known for many centuries ... if you want to win the argument, control the definitions. :riwink:

Karaite already did a good job on this... I'll just point out that even if I grant your objection that the Torah was actually and completely lost for "more than one generation", then that still doesn't give you a precedent. The Stamite view was missing for a lot longer than that. Unless you wish to prove that Stam was a prophet, or that you are, then I have no reason to listen to you who preaches a Gospel other than the one that Paul preached.
Back to your relativity of maybe and probably and could be and likely not. Will you never cease in your foundational relativism of doctrine?

Act9 dispensationalism is found in the poor exegesis and hermeneutics of Paul's writings.

They don't even get the "mystery" right, which is clearly detailed in Col 2:2.

Michael
You convinced me! I repent! :shocked:

:riahem:

I will likewise concede that it is possible that many people would get it wrong.
And that's your authority for doctrine? Tsk tsk tsk...

Look at the world. Christianity is FAR outvoted. You certainly can't use your relativistic views of absolute truth on doctrine to share the gospel, can you? Maybe you can flip it and argue some kind of minority authority...

Imagine doing Chinese whispers. Suppose a person tells 100 people a certain message (our "revelation" in this thought experiment) to memorise. But this is Chinese whispers with a difference - these 100 people each hear it many times (as is common with oral tradition), and remember it well, and share it among themselves to reinforce it. Now, suppose that some time later you get them all to recite the revelation, and 95 of them come out in agreement, and the remaning 5 insist that the other 95 are wrong (and perhaps even disagree among themselves). Who would you put your money on?
The way you treat absolute truth is not much short of appalling. Like it's a game of chance? Roll the dice? Pull the handle on the slot machine? You don't know if it'll come up three apples, or two oranges and a lemon. What a way to build a systematic theology. Putting your faith in a big fat "I hope so." :no:



In the end, the only people who can possibly stand with you in this line of reasoning is Catholics and Orthodox. The rest of the folks here are out of luck, since they're all in the historical minority, aren't they? When are you going to nail them with the same line? (And why are they so silent in here, regarding your relativistic rationale, I wonder, when it applies to them, too? Where are Rando and Muzicman when your whole argument is an indictment of them, as well?)

[Jezz]

On that, we agree. That's the best ya got.
That's nice... but I get the feeling that you haven't really grasped the point. :smile:

When you openly admit the best you have is one of the most famous logical fallacies, a bell should be going off upstairs... :rigreen:
Perhaps you need to learn what the difference between inductive argumentation and deductive argumentation.

And yeah, I see your comeback before you even open your mouth.
Good. That means you're starting to learn.

But I wonder... when it comes to majority view of doctrines, do you follow that rule for all theology? Or just the ones you prefer?
Yes, I follow that rule for all theology. That's why I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church. As for the ones I'd prefer not to believe (eg fasting) - well, Jesus did not promise that everything would be easy if you chose to follow Him. The Orthodox Church, like Christ its head and founder, is the measuring stick against which all truth must be measured. Thus, it is like a mirror - where I think I can see a fault in an Orthodox doctrine, what I am really seeing is a fault in myself.

What happens if the majority shifts? Will you change your beliefs?
The majority cannot shift, because history cannot be rewritten. If you want to play such hypothetical games, I can ask: what happens if Romans wasn't written by Paul? Will you change your beliefs?

By trying to stand on inductive logic, you fall deeper into the sand you already built your house on.
I would recommend that you don't use terms that you clearly don't understand. By trying to discredit the usefulness of inductive logic, you shoot yourself in the foot - because all argument pertaining to history rely on inductive arguments. Including yours.

You seem to be inferring that no Christian can really be sure of anything in the Bible... including the deity of Christ, or even the existence of God.
I infer that with inductive logic, there is never any such thing as complete certainty. That is the failing of logic.

It goes without saying that we must begin with a presupposition somewhere. Indeed, it is not only rational to start with a presupposition, but it's impossible to start without one.
Granted. But I hold that your presuppositions are ultimately incomplete or self-contradictory.

But the Holy Spirit's work in scripture is our shared presupposition, and from that point forward, you can either stand on the shifting sand of maybes and probablies... or you can stand on the bedrock of God's word. Majority views shift and swing. Scripture is what it is. We can never have perfect understanding in this earthly life. But the question is what you aim for.
The problem is that your presupposition of Scripture presupposes the ability of the Church to infallibly discern the canon of Scripture. Yet you would deny the Church infallibility in discerning other doctrines.

I don't know about you, but if and when I pick up a bow and arrow, I always try to hit the bullseye. I don't start out by assuming I will miss the bullseye and therefore don't even try. I aim for perfection, even if I know I will not be perfect. Why aim for anything else?
Sure, by all means aim for the bullseye. But when 99% of well-trained archers (including those who the archer's association has traditionally upheld as being the finest archers in the business) all tell you that you're aiming at the wrong target, then to continue to take aim at the wrong target and insist that it is the right one is arrogant in the extreme. You are not the best archer in the history of the world, and the sooner you humble yourself and admit that, the better. (Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.)

When I pick up a bow and arrow, I am likewise aiming for the bullseye. However, I take very seriously the coaching of the archer's association. After all, my eyesight's not that good.

You ask: "Why aim for anything else?" My response is: "You tell me! All the finest archers in history want to know why you are doing exactly that!"

In doctrine, we should aim for the source of absolute truth, not opinion and preference and shifting majorities. Who knows what the historical majority will be 500 years from now?
History cannot be rewritten, RI. In 500 years time, there will still be 2000 years of unbroken Orthodox Tradition before then, and the majority will not change.

Besides, because Christ promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth, and because I trust Christ's promise, I know that the majority will never shift. It hasn't done for 2000 years, I see no reason why it would start to do so now.

But I sure as heck wouldn't gamble my belief on matters of absolute truth based on such a thing.
So you instead you gamble your belief on matters of absolute truth based on your own infallible interpretation? Do you think that highly of your own exegetical abilities? :lmbo:

You aim for your maybe. I'll aim for an infallible source and nothing else. You keep your sand. I'll keep my rock.
[/quote]
*Yawn*. And you wonder why we're going in circles? This is a perfect example of how you keep leading us in circles. I already have an open thread to address this "infallible source" claim of yours. You remember - that one that you posted in once and rudely went far off-topic (without even a hint of an apology, mind you) without even addressing the main point of the thread? In case you'd forgotten where it is, I draw your attention to it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38624).

My rock is Christ - the chief cornerstone of the Temple, which is His body, and which is dwelling place of the Holy Spirit here on Earth. Your "rock" is the sinking sand of personal interpretation divorced from historical context.

You just proved your argument by defining what is the true church, thereby giving yourself the majority? :lmbo:

I love it! Thank you! Debaters have known for many centuries ... if you want to win the argument, control the definitions. :riwink:
No, I used the definition of Church accepted by both the Orthodox and the Papists - ie, that the Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the Church that believes that which has been believed by members of the Church "everywhere, by everyone, at all times" (both uphold the teaching of St Vincent of Lerin - see later). It is not too difficult a matter to demonstrate that the papists are the ones who have deviated, but that would take us too far off-topic.

Karaite already did a good job on this... I'll just point out that even if I grant your objection that the Torah was actually and completely lost for "more than one generation", then that still doesn't give you a precedent. The Stamite view was missing for a lot longer than that. Unless you wish to prove that Stam was a prophet, or that you are, then I have no reason to listen to you who preaches a Gospel other than the one that Paul preached.

Back to your relativity of maybe and probably and could be and likely not. Will you never cease in your foundational relativism of doctrine?
It is not possible for me to cease something that I never started. Not to mention that this statement is a complete non-answer in the context of my original statement. Apparently, you do not understand the concept of a hypothetical argument. Another fine demonstration of your lack of training in the art of logical thinking.

I am not a relativist. But neither an I a positivist. I am a "critical realist". I believe that truth and morality are objective - because God is objective. However, I acknowledge that any one person's picture of the truth will by nature always be subjective. Read Part I of NT Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God" for a good discussion of these issues of epistemology and how they relate to what we've been discussing.

I will likewise concede that it is possible that many people would get it wrong.

And that's your authority for doctrine? Tsk tsk tsk...
Fallacy of arguing from potentiality to actuality. In other words: Just because something is possible (as in, logically possible) doesn't mean that that possibility will actually eventuate.

This is, in fact, the core fallacy that you continue to regurgitate in your sound bites against me. Just because a person is fallible, it does not necessarily follow that they will commit an error. If this argument would hold, it would destroy the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, because all the humans who penned it were fallible.

Look at the world. Christianity is FAR outvoted. You certainly can't use your relativistic views of absolute truth on doctrine to share the gospel, can you?
I don't have relativistic views of absolute truth. When I share the Gospel, I do so by finding common ground with the person I am sharing, and going from there. Sooner or later, I will find an inconsistency in their worldview (I guess this is sort-of a TAG approach). The inconsistency in yours, for example (as with most Protestants), is that you accept the authority of Scripture without accepting the authority of those who discerned the canon.

Maybe you can flip it and argue some kind of minority authority...
No thanks. I'll leave the arguing for minority authority to you.

Imagine doing Chinese whispers. Suppose a person tells 100 people a certain message (our "revelation" in this thought experiment) to memorise. But this is Chinese whispers with a difference - these 100 people each hear it many times (as is common with oral tradition), and remember it well, and share it among themselves to reinforce it. Now, suppose that some time later you get them all to recite the revelation, and 95 of them come out in agreement, and the remaning 5 insist that the other 95 are wrong (and perhaps even disagree among themselves). Who would you put your money on?

The way you treat absolute truth is not much short of appalling. Like it's a game of chance? Roll the dice? Pull the handle on the slot machine? You don't know if it'll come up three apples, or two oranges and a lemon. What a way to build a systematic theology. Putting your faith in a big fat "I hope so." :no:
You completely failed to address my point. I do not believe in chance - that is a strawman of your own invention. "chance" is a pagan concept that denies the sovereignty of God. God leaves nothing to chance. Not so much as a sparrow falls to the ground by chance, nor is the number of hairs on my head an accident. The whole point of my argument is that it is not merely a historical accident that [insert doctrine here] was the majority opinion within the Church. It was the majority opinion because that is the opinion that the Holy Spirit wanted His Church to have. Why do you persecute the Holy Spirit's decision? It is hard for you to kick against the goads...

Christianity is a revealed religion. I hope that you will agree with this at least. There is no ongoing revelation - God has already revealed Himself fully in Christ. Hence, the job of Christians is not to try and discover God's revelation, but to preserve it as it has already been received. We do not have the authority to add anything to the revelation that God has given us.

This is the point of the Chinese whispers analogy. We all know that transmission via Chinese whispers is only as good as the weakest link in the chain of transmission. Yet, absent further revelation, this is the only means we have of preserving God's revelation to us. How do we overcome that? Well, as any good engineer will tell you, if you want to build a system that will not fail when you only have fallible components, there is only one way to do it: you use multiple components in parallel.

Our Lord is the Great Engineer who architected the entire cosmos. He knows this basic engineering principle quite well. And it was for this reason that He did not rely on a single-thickness chain to preserve His revelation - but He entrusted this responsibility to the whole Church, and promised that His Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) would dwell in the Church and keep it on track. Each member of the Church is a link in this chain, with multiple cross-links to other members - so that what we have is not a single chain of transmission, but a tightly inter-woven mesh. And although each link in this chain is individually weak and fragile and prone to breaking, when considered as a whole the entire mesh is unbreakable.

In your system, there is only one chain - you link yourself directly to Scripture. Moreover, it's a phantom chain, because you actually can't link yourself directly to Scripture because you don't understand Greek (as amply demonstrated in my "challenge" thread). You can continue with your phantom, single-thickness chain if you'd like. For me, I'll stick to the unfailing mesh that St Paul calls the pillar and ground of truth - that is, the Church.

In the end, the only people who can possibly stand with you in this line of reasoning is Catholics and Orthodox.
Mostly, this is a correct (although Anglo-Catholics would also fall into this group, as would some Lutherans). But note that those two groups together count for about two thirds of all Christians now living, and a much greater percentage if we tally up all Christians that have ever lived.

The rest of the folks here are out of luck, since they're all in the historical minority, aren't they?
Depends which point of doctrine we are talking about. On some points of doctrine they are inline with historical (ie, Orthodox) Christianity, and on those points I will agree with them. But should any of them hold a doctrine that contradicts historical Christianity - then yes, they are out of luck. Or, because I don't believe in luck but in the Holy Spirit, I should instead say that they are "out of the Holy Spirit". :smile:

When are you going to nail them with the same line?
Now now, don't get upset or think that I'm singling you out. The others will get their turn whenever they make a claim that is contrary to historical Christianity. It just happens that in this thread noone has decided to contradict me except you and truthman (and Sheepdog to a much less significant extent).

But just in case you thought you were a special focus of this argument, let me point out that this isn't an argument that I had to specially invent just so that I could refute your unique heresy, and nor is yours the first heresy I've used it on. :wink: I've been using the exact same argument to refute every doctrinal innovation and heresy every since I came to fully understand the depth and power of the argument.

For example, I used it in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21744#post490921) and this one (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21744#post505500) long before I started to use it on our resident Stamites. Likewise, I used it against muz, VFarris, and any one of a number of Protestant fundies who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, starting here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667#post613129). My first post against Muz in that thread was here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667#post613392) and contained my classic refrain:

Once again Michael, you find yourself trying to explain how everyone in the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years, and how it is that you're so much smarter than everyone else that you are able to see what they could not. Their blindness is made all the more astounding by the fact that they were reading their own language in their own culture and hearing it from those who were actually present at the Supper! Or perhaps (as I find more likely), it is you who is wrong, and the Church who is right?

That was in July - still long before I decided to tackle you.

Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38624) I devoted a thread to the issue. Indeed, I noted in that thread that I seemed to be using the "catholicity" argument in just about every thread I am involved in. My most recent target is the Calvinists.

And I am by no means the first to use it, either, and nor did I invent it - there is a long Tradition of Orthodox Catholic Christians who have been using this argument ever since the time of the heretics that Irenaeus and Tertullian and even Paul himself faced. Indeed, it was (and is) the argument to end all arguments - the broad-spectrum pesticide that is effective against all pests.

(And why are they so silent in here, regarding your relativistic rationale, I wonder, when it applies to them, too? Where are Rando and Muzicman when your whole argument is an indictment of them, as well?)
I don't know. Why don't you ask them? I suspect that they are silent because they know that my argument is an indictment of them too, and they are worried at how effective it is... :smile:

I do agree with you that it is a bit inconsistent on their behalf to accept my argument when it is against you, but reject it when it is against them (it was my desire to be consistent which led me to apply this standard universally). But that is their problem, not mine, and bringing this up does not in any way help you to counter my argument.

[Amazing Rando]

*Yawn*. And you wonder why we're going in circles? This is a perfect example of how you keep leading us in circles. I already have an open thread to address this "infallible source" claim of yours. You remember - that one that you posted in once and rudely went far off-topic (without even a hint of an apology, mind you) without even addressing the main point of the thread? In case you'd forgotten where it is, I draw your attention to it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38624).


Jezz- the post you linked to was not your "fallible middle-men" challenge to RI- the link here is to your St. Vincent post. RI didn't post at all in that thread.

Also- I'm not entirely following your line of reasoning. If the majority of Christian saints are the authority, then why should the RCC not be your authority since it has something like three times the global membership of the Orthodox churches today, and has always been historically larger than the EO? I'm not following you here.

[Jezz]

Jezz- the post you linked to was not your "fallible middle-men" challenge to RI- the link here is to your St. Vincent post. RI didn't post at all in that thread.
Oops, my apologies. Of course, the thread that I meant to link to was here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39831&page=1&pp=16).

Also- I'm not entirely following your line of reasoning. If the majority of Christian saints are the authority, then why should the RCC not be your authority since it has something like three times the global membership of the Orthodox churches today, and has always been historically larger than the EO? I'm not following you here.
I don't think that they have always been historically larger than the EO. Where do you get your figures from there?

Besides which, the EO considered the Roman Church to be part of itself for the first 1000 years anyway. It was only at the time that they split that they were two separate entities. So the question becomes, which of these two groups at that time were the legitimate successors of the undivided Church and the Apostolic Tradition of the first millenium? Which of them is the remnant, and which of them are the branches that were cut off from the olive tree?

Thus, to figure out which of the RC and the EO were in the right at the time of this schism, we apply St Vincent's criterion - if a large section of the Church goes into apostasy, you consult antiquity. This is because (as St Vincent rightly observes), those who have passed on into history can no longer be affected by modern innovations, so their witness cannot be tainted. So in order to figure out which of the two groups is the legitimate successor, you consult the tradition of the first 1000 years.

This is the important point, so let me emphasise it again: to figure out which of the two groups were correct at the time of the schism, it is necessary to consult the Tradition of the united Church up to the time of the schism. Thus, the fact that the Roman Church is bigger today and could outvote the Orthodox today does not matter. What matters is the first 1000 years of tradition, and which of the two groups remained faithful to it. The group that was faithful is the remnant that remained grafted into the olive tree with Christ as its root, and the group that wasn't are the branches that were cut off.

It would be beyond the scope of this thread to delve deep into the reasons at this point, but it is my considered opinion that it is the Roman Church who innovated and changed the Tradition. As a summary, though:

1. There are rules in the early ecumenical councils that prohibit making any additions to the Niceo-Constantinoplian Creed.
2. The Roman Catholics today admit that they added stuff to the Creed, and acknowledge that today's Orthodox use it in its original form.
3. There are also rules in the early ecumenical councils that prohibit bishops interfering in the affairs of other bishops.
4. It seems clear to me that the relative honours assigned to the bishops of the various cities had more to do with the honour that that city was accorded within the Empire than it did with their apostolic foundation.

If you wish to discuss this in more detail, feel free to start a thread (Ecclessiology perhaps) and I'll see you there. Or perhaps I will start it myself soon (I've been meaning to).

[GoBahnsen]

I thought this thread was going to deal with Covenant Theology and it's origins.

The fact is that until the Pelagian controversy, the Church did not have a highly developed soterioloy. The early Church did have a Theology of the Covenant, but it wasn't very developed.

I don't think Augustine's contribution should be thought of as late in Church history. I think the Church owes alot to his work. Certainly the Reformers, including Luther stood on Augustine's shoulders.

Sadly, much of the Church today has fallen asleep to the great contribution of the Reformation. I think a big part of the problem is the reaction to Modernity that has caused a majority of the Church to focus on practical fundamentalism with a lack of interest in the Reformed tradition.

But I also see hope, as many burned out evangelicals are starting to take a look back at out Christian heritage and rediscovering the richness and robust teaching of the great Covenant Theologians of history past. Thanks to men like RC Sproul and Michael Horton for their labors to get it out to the man on the street; many evangelicals are having their eyes opened to a great treasure.

[Ormly]

[QUOTE]
Sadly, much of the Church today has fallen asleep to the great contribution of the Reformation. I think a big part of the problem is the reaction to Modernity that has caused a majority of the Church to focus on practical fundamentalism with a lack of interest in the Reformed tradition.

I think the church has fallen asleep BECAUSE of the reformation tradition. In fact I'd say that is a fact.

But I also see hope, as many burned out evangelicals are starting to take a look back at out Christian heritage and rediscovering the richness and robust teaching of the great Covenant Theologians of history past. Thanks to men like RC Sproul and Michael Horton for their labors to get it out to the man on the street; many evangelicals are having their eyes opened to a great treasure.
Never.

The Church does not deny the fact of Pentecost. The Church embraces Acts 2 because: "....the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Deny that then step aside because the Church will go around you. Pentecost still happens as it did then.

[GoBahnsen]

I think the church has fallen asleep BECAUSE of the reformation tradition. In fact I'd say that is a fact.
powerful argumentation, hard to deal with.

The Church does not deny the fact of Pentecost. The Church embraces Acts 2 because: "....the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Deny that then step aside because the Church will go around you. Pentecost still happens as it did then. The verse you quote is at the heart of Covenant theology and Calvinism for that matter. It doesn't favor your universal, non particular view of redemption. The promise is to believers and their children (covenant children), yes! And to everyone else? No! To as many as God shall call to Himself. That ties right in with Jesus teaching in John 6 that NO MAN CAN come to Him unless the Father initiates.