Saved for what?
12 years ago
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (1 Thess 5:12)Perhaps this explains why there was no reference - this 2002 revision of the popular NIV Bible has been perceived as wrongheadedly politically correct because of its rigorously gender-neutral translations. (e.g. "and sisters" above instead of "brothers" for adelphoi) They actually have a website constructed to explain various departures from the NIV. In any case, the TNIV translates "lead" for the same word in Romans 12:8.
...was especially applied in the Greco-Roman world to patrons, sponsors of clients and religious associations. If that sense is in view here, those would be the Christians who opened their homes for the churches to meet in them and sponsored them, providing what financial and political help they could... (595)I suspect that is a dead-end, though. Why would those be singled out as ones who "labor among you"?
What a contrast this is to clergy-led doctrinal convocations behind closed doors at denominational headquarters; or even just an individual Minister of an individual church unilaterally deciding how things ought to be! (131)Some of the toughest decisions a church must make have to do with disciplining members by kicking them out (hopefully temporarily). Jesus in Matthew 18 seems to imply that this is the work of the whole assembly, and this is confirmed by Paul's handling of sexual immorality in the Corinth assembly, 1 Cor 5. (131-4)
...I want to live according to what I read in scripture... I need to know that I am in conformity to his revealed Word, for only then can I know that I am in conformity to him. Only then, and this is what matters to me more than anything else, can I know that I am safe from doing my will, and free to be doing his. (115)That, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of an actual disciple of Jesus, and a servant of God is Jesus' mold. Not my will, but yours.
I do not say that the wrong practices themselves are necessarily sinful, or that to observe them out of genuine ignorance is either, but once we do become aware of the truth then we are duty bound to act. (102)Not acting, once the knowledge is in place, is, sad to say, hypocrisy; it is preferring human traditions to the will of God, whilst publicly claiming to be devoted to the will of God. And this is like the hypocrisy Jesus condemned in his fellow Jews, who overrode the clear commands of Moses for the sake of their own traditions. (102) To point this out is not mean or self-righteous; when one employee suddenly gets clear on what precisely the Boss wants, he naturally tells his fellow employees, and if they won't listen, he'll obey anyway.
Church gatherings in New Testament times would be virtually unrecognizable to those whose only experience is that of being part of churches which adhere to the legacy left us by the Early Church Fathers. (83)In NT-era churches, what was a weekly church meeting? Job turns to 1 Cor 11-14 to see what apostolic-era church meetings were like. The essential points are:
I am simply arguing that Jesus... [and] the Apostles - knew best, and that it is not possible to come up with better ways of doing things than what we see already revealed in the pages of scripture... [which] contains not the slightest hint that its teachings and practices were supposed to be replaced by something different later on. (92)Next time: The Choice.
...infant baptism is based purely on the teachings and traditions of the Early Church Fathers, and [has] nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the New Testament. (78, original emphasis)Is sum,
Rather than being a spontaneous act having come into a relationship with Jesus and repented of sin, baptism now became a ritualistic entry ticket into the organization of the now institutionalized church. (80-1)Next time: what was the apostolic tradition about weekly church meetings?
...be very careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God... we should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself... always act in godly concord; with the Bishop presiding as the counterpart of God, the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles... Thus, as the Lord did nothing without the Father... so you must do nothing without the Bishops and the presbyters. ...let all men... respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God... without those no church is recognised. (59)And Tertullian:
The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church... (60-1)Thus, the norms implicit in the New Testament with overthrown. Moreover, church tradition has now been elevated above the NT and the apostles' tradition. Or has it? As Job points out,
...the Fathers claimed for themselves the same type, and measure, of authority that the original Apostles of Jesus possessed. They argued that what they taught was necessarily correct precisely because they, as those standing in a direct line back to the original Apostles, were saying it. (63)The bottom line:
Historically Christian churches have supported, and submitted to, this tradition of the Early Church Fathers rather than being in obedience to the... traditions of... the New Testament. (64-5)We've been basing our leadership practices not on the Apostles (and so, on the will of Jesus, which is the will of God), but rather on this ancient catholic tradition, which purports, like the mythical oral law of Moses, to go back to a divine source. But, it conflicts with the Bible, which we accept as inspired by God.
"Man-made established practice had ousted God-ordained established practice under the guise of obedience to God's will." (27)Seems sort of obviously wrong, when it's other people, doesn't it?
[T]here are no such thing as ‘institutional churches’. Churches have institutions of various sorts, they aren’t institutions. Furthermore, the Bible is full of traditions and many of those developed after NT times are perfectly Biblical. It’s not really possible to draw a line in the sand between ‘Biblical principles’ and traditions. The question is which traditions comport with Biblical tradition and which do not. And there is a further problem. It is ever so dangerous to take what was normal in early Christianity as a practice, and conclude that therefore it must be normative. It may have been normal in the NT era for non-theological reasons, for example for practical reasons. (paragraph 7, original emphasis)Read what follows on his blog, if you haven't already. Pay special attention to his description of holy or unholy spaces (paragraph 37f). Who do you agree with on this issue, BW3 or the authors of PC?? Take part in the poll at the top of the main page; it closes October 31, 2008 at 11 PM EST.