My posts were not directed to you, but insofar as your beliefs coincide with those of dmatic (to whom I was responding), your comments are germane and welcome.
You wrote to me:
Paul’s preaching to the Jews and Gentiles in the synagogue was not a church gathering, but was an outreach to unbelievers. It therefore does not correspond to anything in normative Christian worship, but to our evangelistic efforts, which (as with Paul) take place outside the church meetings.Paul preached to Jews every Sabbath and also to Gentile God Fearers...remember that text Calvinists love to cite? THE only First day celebrations cited are the ones Saturday night/Sunday morning when Paul was heading to Jerusalem and the poor kid fell out of the window. As well as Paul stating that the First Day of the week was to settle the business ended Friday before Sunset (Sabbath) so as to figure out what moneys could be gathered to send to the poor Nazaraeans of Jerusalem.
You have more than once mentioned your understanding of 1 Corinthians 16:2 as referring to using Sunday as a day to settle accounts of the previous week. While this may indeed be what Paul was referring to, it is not the only possible meaning of his words. All he actually says is that they should put something aside for the poor on the first day of the week. You know that this verse is commonly used to prove that the early church met on Sundays (which might have been the case), but such conclusions do not and cannot arise from strict exegesis of the statement.
You wrote :
Ken, it is disingenuous for you to suggest that I follow my “personal beliefs,” and that you (or anyone else) do not do so. It is your personal belief (chosen by you alone from among many options) that the Orthodox traditions are authoritative. This is your personal belief every bit as much as my acceptance of the scriptural authority is my personal belief.Steve, we are friends, but in fact you not only a self instructed Bible Teacher; you are a Personal Belief teacher.
Unless someone chooses to believe something under duress from another, every person believes what he personally finds to be convincing. I find the authority of the apostles and Christ to be compelling, so I believe them. Yes, that is my personal belief.
Since I do not rest on any human authority, so much as on the authority of the scriptures, I also bear the responsibility of seeking to ascertain the meanings of what the apostles and Christ said. In this effort, I employ exegesis (as best I can), rather than depending upon the exegesis or opinions of other men, whom I do not know, and who were influenced in their thinking by I-don’t-know-what.
Since Jesus said that it will be His own words that will judge men on the last day (John 12:48), it is incumbent on each person who will stand in that judgment to examine and follow His words, rather than to trust that men of earlier generations have done this for us, and have gotten all the answers correct. It certainly seems more honest for me to follow and teach my personal beliefs than to teach things that I personally disbelieve. I don't suppose that even you do the latter.
You wrote :
I do not knowingly dismiss historic facts. I know that it is a fact that a leadership hierarchy, such as you describe, existed in the church at least from the second century onward. I do not dismiss nor deny this historic fact.As in yesterday's dismissal of Apostolic Ordination, Apostles (bishops), Prebyters (Elders) and Deacons (Ministers). You flatly state as fact your beliefs (assumptions) to dismiss well attested historic facts. You believe therefore you interpret. Ok. Fine.
However, I do deny that this arrangement can be found in the apostolic teaching. It is apparent to anyone looking at the relevant texts, without bias from later traditions, that the apostolic church did not distinguish between Episkopoi (Bishops) and Presbyters (elders), as you do (above). Nor did they equate Bishops with Apostles, as you do (the latter appointed the former in each church). These things seem indisputable from the relevant scriptures on the subject. Thus it is not a case of my dismissing historical facts, but of traditional Christianity dismissing, or altering, the apostolic pattern.
You wrote :
Then it sounds as if you and I take essentially the same approach. I certainly do not endorse “personal assumptions that exclude vast amounts of datum because it don't fit my presuppositions.” I am always looking for data that don’t fit my assumptions. It is only by disovering such, that I can correct my own errors, which is something I have always been desirous of, and committed to, doing.I have been trained to exegete based on Grammatic rules, Lexiconographic Facts, Historical contexts and any archeological or ancient written data that sheds insight to the subject. As you tried to do to refute mr. Calvinist in your last debate. It is then that my belief is arrived at. I try to let the facts wag the tail of my theological dog, not personal assumptions that exclude vast amounts of datum because it don't fit my presuppositions. No tail wagging the dog.
Optional, yes. Isn't that the same thing as "not necessary"? But useful? I am not aware of ever saying anything that would justify this characterization of my position. There are many useful things that are not necessary to salvation—e.g., fasting, “quiet times”, prayer journals, church attendance…You assume that if anything does not seem necessary it to Salvation it is either optional or not of any use.
You wrote :
I don’t know. Perhaps you should pose the question to someone who finds it difficult. I have never had serious problems with it, when walking in the Spirit.Why is doing as Christ and his Apostles did so tough?
You wrote :
Congratulations. That sounds like a pretty good place to be at.I do not hold to a modernist Anti-establishmentarianism and Hippie created "counter-culture" or "lone ranger" christianity which is imposed upon Scripture and History and based upon interpretation of english bible texts through such coloured glasses. I am a Jesus Freak still, but a Trained Freak now, who has rediscovered the Baby much of Protestantism has cast out with the bath water of Romanism.