I now feel like I am talking to a fence post. At the end of your last comment, you said that your answer would be enough to discuss.

I have already discussed everything so far as need be discussed. My frustration comes from the fact that you seem to fail in comprehending anything and when faced with something you don’t’ like, you say you don’t believe it – as if that refutes everything.

Somethings you have written on here I have finished with. If you can’t get it, I can’t help you. Circular arguments are not worth my time.

This is the last comment on this thread. I’m done talking with you after this, since you don’t hear anything you don’t want to hear and think that denying something is enough to refute it.

Here goes:

a) You’ve already explained everything you need to explain sufficiently.

b) Don’t think you fall off the cliff? I can’t help you. You seek to influence me. I think you have heretical theology, don’t know what you are talking about and won’t listen to anyone else. I won’t listen to you. That’s what disqualifies you.

c) Turns out mootness is a legal term, just as you say. I concede that the term exists and apologize for saying it doesn’t. I have never heard of it before now.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t think you are light years away from me. I think you are. That’s all that matters in this. See “b” above.

1) *sigh* See this is where you just say, “Nuh-uh!” as loud and as often as you can and think that is the same as a convincing argument.

Assigning the Office of Apostle to a modern day churchman is heretical. If you don’t believe it, I don’t care. It is you who is seeking to influence me, here.

The Bible doesn’t forbid it. It just doesn’t establish it. You bring this up again in more detail in a moment so I will finish this thought later.

2) No. We don’t have to define everything for you just because you demand we jump through your hoops. It doesn’t matter. You aren’t listening anyway. Heresy was defined twice for you earlier and you could easily look it up. Being stubborn about us conforming to your standards for discussion doesn’t change our perception of you, but affirms you want to argue us into submission.

Again, this discussion is over as you are not listening, but no one would have objected to Beth Moore defining anything. You never offered any quotation or citation of her that could be verified. More on this in just a moment.

3) Again, you aren’t listening. That you think that this is your commission shows how far away you are from Southern Baptists. We’re not listening to this stuff, no matter how much you insist you have the right to make us.

4) “Maybe yes, maybe no?” *sigh* Again, you don’t want to hear what you don’t want to hear.

You just don’t get this. Do your proselytizing elsewhere. We aren’t buying what you are selling.

5) Heresy, twice offered, twice ignored.

This is hearsay and spurious. I deny she said what you say she said. I think you are hearing what you want to hear. You would have had to cite it definitively to use it with validity and you know that. I am sure you are mistaken about her affirming the “office of apostle” as not heretical.

You did say earlier that the office of apostle was about authority. It is used as extra Biblical authority by those with whom you worship. I now think you don’t even know what your own church believes, but seek to impute it on others anyway.

You have already affirmed the two things you say I am implying and are now denying.

I know full well what apostolos means. You do not. You have added to the definition “sent ones” to be the role of a bishop. Those Scriptures do not establish an office. It is not a spiritual gift. Ephesians 4 does not list it as one. I know the argument. I reject the argument. It is a spurious hermeneutic.

Also, I have already explained my point on this a long time ago, but, again, you weren’t listening.

We are done discussing. In fact, we never began. To have a discussion, you have to have two people who are willing to listen to one another.

You will not listen to me. Having read what you have written here, I don’t care to lend you my ear.

Jonathan, saying that you think we should all listen to you, while admitting you don’t have any theological training and believe things that we think are heretical, just isn’t enough to insinuate yourself into the conversation.

You are no ally of mine. You can not help me and I don’t want your help.

I know this sounds harsh, but I have tried to be subtle and have increasingly become more and more blunt.

We’re through talking. You don’t listen and I don’t want to hear what you have to say about any of this.

Goodbye.

I’m going to respond to your comments, in order.

(a) I won’t be afraid to tackle the technical issues here, so long as CB will also openly discuss this stuff. Pastor Art, I’d like to know where you’d like me to start in explaining what I believe.

(b) I don’t think that disqualifies me. I’d sure like to see your unwritten rules that says it does disqualify me.

(c) Mootness is a legal term I learned in the first semester of Constitutional Law in law school. It actually is a doctrine that the Supreme Court has invented. Regardless, I do not believe my theology is “light years” from yours. We both agree that Jesus is the Savior. We both believe in the Trinity. We both believe in a lot of issues, so I think if we took a poll on our theology, there would be more shared than disagreed upon.

Now for the numbers…

(1) Calling my pastor’s pastor is NOT heretical, and we do not claim extra-biblical authority here. Paul was Timothy’s pastor, and thus was an apostle, and this is a similar relation. Even Beth Moore says this is not heretical, and is more of a “gray area.” Why do you keep on insisting the calling of a pastor’s pastor an apostle as heretical. Where in the Bible does it say this is forbidden? Where in the Bible does it say apostles have ceased their function?

(2) If CB is going to throw out a term, he needs to explain what he means. And that goes for everyone else. I cannot really respond to something that is not defined sufficiently for me to respond to. Again, no one has really defined “heresy” for me, or “orthodoxy” as well, according to a Bible standard. That’s what I’m looking for, so I can respond to that. I’d sure like to offer Beth Moore’s definition of these terms, but I do not think anyone here would agree to that.

(3) If Jesus was able to raise the dead, why do you think it is wrong for Christian believers to attempt to do so today? If you do not believe that Christians have the authority and power to raise the dead, then you also do not believe we should go out and the lost. I thought Southern Baptists believed in being an “Acts 1:8 church.”

(4) So, your point is that “people who hold to this theology are moving away from the SBC because we are so different in our beliefs. This means that the denomination is not moving toward your position.” Maybe yes and maybe no. Even if the SBC is not moving towards “my position,” all the more why there needs to be a greater influence to reach SBC people.

(5) If someone offered a valid definition of heresy, then I would be able to respond to it, because such a valid definition would show what heresy is NOT. A former pastor of mine said heresy is any doctrine that would “shatter one’s faith.” Thus, believing in modalism and not the Trinity is heretical, denying the atonement or the efficacy of the blood of Jesus is likewise heretical. These are clearly tenets outside the Christian faith. I AM conversant about that.

As regards to Beth Moore, there are two things I should say. First, I cannot link to it, because I heard her say what she said on James Robison’s TV show, “Life Today.” She did a teaching about the backbone of Christianity, and one of her points was that if the doctrine was not a part of the backbone, then it could NOT be considered heresy. Beth Moore lumped the “spiritual gifts” question as not being heretical, which includes BOTH the PPL issue, AND the issue of whether there is still a gift of apostle today. It is the latter issue that was brought up here. Please clarify if this is not accurate.

The other thing I must say is that I have never, ever claimed to establish any authority besides Scripture. You, and perhaps others, have insinuated that I have, and I really have not. You think that because my pastor’s pastor is called an “apostle” in our theological community, that somehow that automatically establsihes an extra-biblical authority. That certainly is not true. The relation is much more similar to Paul-Timothy, which I do not see you denounce at all.

There is one more thing. You stated, “You must cite Beth saying that the establishment of an office within the modern church, called “apostle,” to which God gives the holder authority over the church and divine revelation is not an issue of heresy.” This statement IMPLIES two things that I do NOT believe:

(1) This statement IMPLIES that I believe that God gives the holder of the office of “apostle” authority over the church, and
(2) This statement IMPLIES that I believe God gives the holder of the office of “apostle” divine revelation (I’m going to assume this would be revelation on the same level of Scripture).

Neither of these implications are correct. I do believe that God has established an office within the modern church called “apostle.” What I do not believe is that holders of this office have authority over the church (universal or local), OR that God has given them some kind of divine revelation on the same level of Scripture.

I would like to offer an alternative, functional definition of someone who is a holder of the office of “apostle.”

Such a person would be a pastor of pastors, and would oversee local congregations that relationally (but not hiearchially) relate to that apostle as a “sent one,” (that’s what apostolos means) to establish them in the faith, and to EQUIP THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. That is the general purpose of the office of “apostle,” to equip the saints (Christian believers) for the work of the ministry (train them for ministry, perfect them, etc.) The office of “apostle” is listed at least 3 places in the Bible. It is listed in Eph. 4:11ff, it is listed in 1 Cor. 12:28, and it is listed in Eph. 2:20. There is no verse in the Bible that expressly and explicitly says God has ceased dispensing this gift to His Body. This issue is completely within the germane of “spiritual gifts,” and not an issue of extra-biblical authority.

That should be sufficient now to discuss. Art, if you have additional questions, or others do as well, please ask and I’ll respond as openly as I can. Thanks.

Blessings,
Jonathan

Coming back to Jonathan now,

a) Good. I am glad that you will be forthcoming.

b) It doesn’t put you at a disadvantage. It disqualifies you.

c) Your opinion concerning the “mootness” (this is not a word, btw, but I use it since you did) is just that: your opinion. It is not based on reason, either. The salient point here is that your theology is light years from ours and that makes your opinions on our theology irrelevant. That is a fact on which your opinion has no bearing.

Just because you think something is true, doesn’t make it true. Stand on top of a cliff and believe in your mind that you will fly if you cast yourself off. Thinking you will soar will not keep you from falling.

1) Calling him an Apostle is good enough. It doesn’t matter what term you use, you have an extra Biblical authority – that’s heretical.

2) CB doesn’t have to define anything. I’m coming back to this, but you need to understand that when you demand a definition of terms, you are saying that you don’t even know what we all are talking about. I know we have to be sure that we are misunderstanding one another, but this is not a court of law. Bullying people by demanding they define terms to your satisfaction doesn’t win you the argument before a jury. Rather, it tells us that you can’t answer his question and therefore, you attack the question. This action only hurts you.

3) A concession? You should reread what I wrote. What I said was that this is yet another area where you reveal that your theology is so far separate from ours, it makes your opinion irrelevant. Whether or not you raise the dead is not relevant. That you think it is your commission is the point.

4) None of that changes my point, which is still true: that people who hold to this theology are moving away from the SBC because we are so different in our beliefs. This means that the denomination is not moving toward your position.

5) Going back to my point about definitions, if you need someone to define heresy, what makes you think that you will be able to speak to this, or any, issue? This is basic stuff, and if you are not readily conversant on it, then, again, it proves that you are not qualified to speak here.

Further, Beth Moore has NEVER said that the establishment of an authority beyond Scripture, WHICH IS THE ISSUE, is not a matter of heresy. You are very wrong to lump this into her statement. You should, by the way, cite it or link to it if you are going to reference it as you do.

You can’t. She didn’t say that.

She did say that the PPL issue and others are not a matter of heresy, and she is right there. This is not where I said you were being heretical, and therefore is a false claim on your part. (though I assume it was unintentional)

I know the value Beth puts on God’s Word, and I am quite sure she would never say that the setting up of an authority beyond Scripture was anything but heretical. Again, cite it and prove me wrong. I will call her myself, if you can show me where she makes the claim that extra Biblical authority is not an issue of heresy.

There are things that are not a matter of Orthodoxy in this discussion. However, since you are outside the bounds of Orthodoxy on the grounds of authority, your opinions on these other things are disqualified.

Beth won’t help you, here, either. And you cited her twice as authoritative, but gave no quote or link to her words to verify that she is actually backing you up.

Let me say this again, plainly, so that there is no misunderstanding:

You must cite Beth saying that the establishment of an office within the modern church, called “apostle,” to which God gives the holder authority over the church and divine revelation is not an issue of heresy for you to use her words in your favor in this argument.

Again, I say that you will never find such a thing.

Not that it matters. IF she had said such a thing, I would say that she were heretical as well. This point, however – like the one above – is moot, since I am absolutely positive that she never said it.

I entered the link into my browser, and still get the 403 Error message. I really don’t know why. Maybe John Stickley can say why?

CB,

You claim to be Orthodox? Is there such a thing as Baptist Orthodox, LOL? Sorry for the pun.

Jonathan

I agree that you do not see things as a question of Orthodoxy, but, we who are Orthodox do.

cb

I am still getting the 403 error with the link.

CB,

I agree with Bryan on this one. I think Beth Moore also agrees, that there is some gray area between that which is “orthodoxy” and that which is “heresy.” It is not all black and white. I also agree with Bryan that we do not need to resort to hermeneutics, as Bryan has suggested in his awesome post.

I also agree that there are boundaries of orthodoxy that are not to be abused. I think that orthodoxy is more of a “big tent” for Christians than a small one. Take eschatology, for instance, I think there are a multitude of views allowed for under orthodoxy, and we do not all have to be pre-mill and pre-trib as R.A. Torrey believes. The same can be said regarding spiritual gifts (which is being discussed here), and other issues as well. I would not even place eternal security (or not) as being a question of orthodoxy.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Jonathan

I know you are knowledgeable to that of which I am about to speak so please do not think I am in a mode of condescension here.

Just as there are boundaries of conduct we must not cross, there are boundaries within Orthodoxy we must not abuse.

The particular theological system several of us have been debating for the last couple of days is one wherein much is abusive to the limits of Orthodoxy. Therefore, those that hold fast to the truth of our faith must speak to the error of the afore mentioned theology, especially when it is cast upon us as a perfect solution to our problems as Southern Baptists.

It was for that purpose and one ofa personal nature that I engaged this debate.

cb