I regret that you have decided to end this discussion. However, I understand.

Let me clarify one small point: I did not intend to suggest that you were simply unwilling to publicly defend your views. If you recall, I acknowledged the main reason you gave: poor health. I only said on the last post that you “are not willing to have an oral debate.” I had no intention of suggesting any dark motives; indeed, folks can read the previous posts and knwo that such was never my intent.

One other small point: I do not condone heated arguments. I don’t think we have engaged in that kind of exchange; at the very least, I haven’t been angry at all–and I have not detected that from you.

I have told you my opinion about the efficacy of the internet in back-and-forth discussions. That opinion has not changed. However, I must commend you for being willing to step forward in this arena and make your voice heard. Not many on your side of the aisle are willing to engage those whom they oppose in a give-and-take. May your tribe increase.

I hope we meet again in another venue someday. I wish you well, and hope there comes a day when all of us in the church can be truly unified.

In Christ,

David

I have read and re-read you comment and have concluded that we are making no progress at all. I regret that, but I think you are likely to agree that it’s so.

For whatever reason, we seem unable to communicate in a way that is likely to be helpful to each other or to the readers. I did not have this difficulty with Phil, Greg, and Mac, and have not had this difficulty in many other online discussions with conservatives. I don’t know why in this case here, but we’d may as well admit it and move on.

I’m sorry that our exchange hasn’t been more fruitful, but I don’t see any point in continuing.

You wrote, “Paul was willing to dispute publicly with the Pharisees and Jews who opposed him.” I post one or more articles a day at http://OneInJesus.info and allow unmoderated comments. I frequently engage in public disputes (in the sense of a debate, not in the sense of a heated argument). Many a conservative has challenged my views, and I have gladly exchanged views before a very large audience.

This website, GraceConversation, hosted a public debate that I created and organized. I actually sought out the most respected representatives of the conservative Churches I could find.

It’s therefore entirely unfair to suggest that I’m unwilling to publicly defend my views. I do so every day to a worldwide audience.

I’m unable to engage in an oral debate for several reasons, one of which is my health — as we’ve previously discussed. It’s not a matter of choice, and I cannot be goaded into good health. I wish it were true.

If you wish to challenge my views, you are welcome to post comments at http://OneInJesus.info. You comments will be read by a great many people.

I wish you well in your ministry.

I must admit to a certain amount of frustration in our exchanges. I am doing my best to reply to your questions, and yet you either (a) claim that I have not answered them, or (b) ignore my answers. Yet, I will again make an effort to maintain this dialogue.

In your previous post, you write:

“Many use Col 3:17 as a proof text for the Regulative Principle. You seem to be saying that anyone who violates the Regulative Principle will no longer be saved. Is that a fair understanding?

“Are you saying that Col 3:17 is an example of those things that might cause a saved person to fall away? Or are you saying this is the only way a saved person can fall away?”

Your first assumption in the first paragraph is way off of the mark. Your original question to me was: “By what scriptural standard do we distinguish doctrinal error that causes a Christian to necessarily fall away from doctrinal error that does not?” By “standard” I assumed you meant a basic principle from the Scriptures. Col. 3:17 gives that principle for all areas of life, not just our teaching.

Also, you say “do we distinguish…” This clearly implies that we engage in some kind of hermeneutical process, and that you believe (by asking the question in this way) that it can be done. In good faith, I gave the scripture. However, you seem (based on previous posts) to be desirous of a “checklist” of sins, which I find highly ironic—given the position advocated against such a mentality by those on your side of the aisle.

That being said, we can distinguish between things that are essential and things that are expedient, and know when a thing is not scriptural. I teach a class every semester on Biblical Authority—and use Roy Deaver’s book as one of the textbooks. George Beals’s book on the silence of Scripture is another book we use.

Your second question is a complete misapprehension of the reason I cited Col. 3:17. The verse gives a general principle for all areas of life. I also find it interesting that you use the term “Regulative Principle.” I have never used that term in teaching, preaching, or writing.

Are you completely opposed to prooftexting? If so, do you think that Jesus erred in Matt. 22:31-32? I am interested about your take on this passage.

As to the propositions: since you insisted on them in your last post, I came up with the two listed. If you remember, this is what I originally wrote in my first post:

“Paul was willing to “dispute” publicly with the Pharisees and Jews who opposed him. Formal debates are the best forums in which to discuss these issues. A carefully worded proposition, with ground rules set beforehand, keeps the discussion on a high plane.”

This was set in the context of giving reasons for oral debate as opposed to internet forum discussion. I did not suggest, at that time, that I had such a proposition. Nor do I suggest now that the two I submitted fit the bill—because (a) you are not willing to have an oral debate, and (b) a carefully worded proposition has to be agreed to by both sides before such a debate can take place. Such propositions are designed for public debate. I have read your material online, and have your book The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace.

Be that as it may, the first proposition (I thought) would be one you could affirm—however, it seems that you are not willing to do so. As far as “be right” is concerned for both propositions, it refers to being right according to the Scriptures. As far as it being a “theological term,” that means nothing to me. If something is Scriptural, that is what matters most. There are a lot of theologians who are just dead wrong—the Jesus Seminar being the most obvious example.

By the way, let me ask you a few questions. Do you believe that a person is correct who:

(1) Teaches that Moses did not write the Pentateuch?
(2) Teaches that the Scriptures are not inerrant?
(3) Expresses sympathy for the Jesus Seminar, and its conclusions?

If not, then how do we treat such a person? Is he/she teaching truth, or error?

I await your response.

David

Forgive me if I seem to belabor the point, but it’s essential that we understand each other on something so central. Many use Col 3:17 as a proof text for the Regulative Principle. You seem to be saying that anyone who violates the Regulative Principle will no longer be saved. Is that a fair understanding?

Are you saying that Col 3:17 is an example of those things that might cause a saved person to fall away? Or are you saying this is the only way a saved person can fall away?

You cite several passages that I agree are among those that teach the scriptures’ doctrine of apostasy. They are the same passages from which I teach what I understand the doctrine of apostasy to be. But as I’m sure you know, people disagree as to how to interpret them. I have to think we disagree. What is your interpretation?

You suggest this proposition: “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that a child of God can engage in unauthorized worship practices, such as instrumental music, and be right in so doing.” What does “be right” mean? Do you mean to state that one can commit error and not be in error? Obviously not. If you mean one can commit error and yet remain saved, the answer is: of course, depending on the error. Not all errors cause one to be lost, but some do.

You also suggest: “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that a child of God can preach and teach doctrinal error and be right in so doing.” Again, I’m not familiar with the use of “be right” as a theological term. If by “be right” you mean “be stating a propositional truth,” of course one cannot be teaching error and stating a propositional truth. But if by “be right” you mean “be right with God,” the answer is: of course, depending on the error.

It’s really not necessary to submit propositions for my agreement or disagreement to discern my position. It’s stated at this website at http://graceconversation.com/2009/06/18/a-progressive-position-statement-of-position-on-apostasy/ and Todd and I defend it in the several posts that follow. If you want to understand my thinking, it’s laid out in detail.

Your question: “By what scriptural standard do we distinguish doctrinal error that causes a Christian to necessarily fall away from doctrinal error that does not?”

I gave an answer in a previous post: “As to the Scriptural standard we are to use: Colossians 3:17 applies, I believe. ‘And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.’

“You and I would agree that to do something ‘in the name of’ another means to do it by that person’s authority. Thus, if something is not in the name of the Lord, it is not allowed. I hope that gets to the heart of what you ask.”

You did not touch that passage, nor even acknowledge I said it. So, to say that I am “avoiding the question” is simply false. As for a proposition, that is dependent on your willingness to debate, which you have already made clear previously that you would not.

My position on apostasy in general is what the Hebrews writer teaches in Heb. 6:4-6, what Paul writes in Gal. 5:4, and what Peter affirms in 2 Pet. 2:20-22 (among other NT passages). As far as doctrinal error, Romans 16:17 and 2 Jn. 9-11 applies. Is that enough, or do you want more? I can easily accomodate.

I reiterate: Colossians 3:17 gives the fundamental principle concerning how to distinguish between doctrinal error and matters of judgment. Again, interpretation of the Scriptures is crucial.

Here is a possible proposition to mull over:

“Resolved: The Scriptures teach that a child of God can engage in unauthorized worship practices, such as instrumental music, and be right in so doing.”

And, this:

“Resolved: The Scriptures teach that a child of God can preach and teach doctrinal error and be right in so doing.”

I await your reply.

I disagree with your language. “Damned?” The only places in the NT I see that word used is Mk. 16:16, Rom. 14:23, and 2 Thess. 2:12–in the KJV. And, in only one of those verses (Rom. 14:23) does the word apply to a child of God. I might also add that the ESV never uses the word “damned.”

I think you’re avoiding the question. Again.

May I ask you a question? Can a child of God sin? If so, can he continue in sin to the point where he jeopardizes his soul?

Yes and yes.

I must reiterate: I am not God. Neither are you. All I can do, as a Gospel preacher, is to preach the truth as far as I understand it, without apology or favor, in love for souls. My aim is to save souls–not condemn folks to Hell. I did not grow up hearing that kind of preaching, and neither do I engage in it. I preach Hell, but I also preach Heaven.

I have not accused you of preaching or not preaching anything. You said you wanted to challenge my views expressed at the site and that you wanted to begin with a “carefully worded proposition.” I’ve asked for your carefully worded proposition. You’re avoiding the question.

I just want to know your position on apostasy — if you have one. If you don’t have one, just say so. But since this entire exchange

Brother, we all need to get our heads right. Does error exist? How do we know what is/is not error? Does it matter?

Does error exist? Certainly. Does it matter? Of course. The scriptures tell us what is and is not error. I have never said otherwise.

I take it from some of your PowerPoint lessons elsewhere that youare ready to “mark” those who do not disagree with you. How is that any different from what you seem to want to condemn?

Plainly, we are to obey the command of Rom 16:17. I think the traditional interpretation of that verse in the Churches of Christ is sadly in error, but I do believe that the command, as properly understood, must be obeyed.

How is that different? Well, we agree that the verse should be obeyed. We have differing interpretations as to what the command means.

I repeat my request one more time from several posts ago —

Second, either way, I’d be very interested in seeing your carefully worded proposition. I have stated, and I believe it, that Phil and Mac could not state a coherent position because their position is ad hoc, that is, they change positions depending on the doctrinal error under discussion.

Therefore, I would be very interested to know whether you can do what they could not. By what scriptural standard do we distinguish doctrinal error that causes a Christian to necessarily fall away from doctrinal error that does not?

“Fall away” is used in the ESV multiple times and is the phrase I used when I first asked the question. I trust it suffices.

You began this discussion by saying, “I myself am willing to publicly discuss these issues,” and pointing out how important it is to begin with a carefully worded proposition. I agree that a carefully worded proposition is essential to a fruitful discussion, and so I’m asking for yours.

I disagree with your language. “Damned?” The only places in the NT I see that word used is Mk. 16:16, Rom. 14:23, and 2 Thess. 2:12–in the KJV. And, in only one of those verses (Rom. 14:23) does the word apply to a child of God. I might also add that the ESV never uses the word “damned.”

May I ask you a question? Can a child of God sin? If so, can he continue in sin to the point where he jeopardizes his soul?

I must reiterate: I am not God. Neither are you. All I can do, as a Gospel preacher, is to preach the truth as far as I understand it, without apology or favor, in love for souls. My aim is to save souls–not condemn folks to Hell. I did not grow up hearing that kind of preaching, and neither do I engage in it. I preach Hell, but I also preach Heaven.

Brother, we all need to get our heads right. Does error exist? How do we know what is/is not error? Does it matter? I take it from some of your PowerPoint lessons elsewhere that you are ready to “mark” those who do not disagree with you. How is that any different from what you seem to want to condemn?

My Grandfather left denominationalism in the late 1930s when he heard W. A. Holley preach in Fayette, AL on baptism. He was ready to prove him wrong, and ended up realizing that he himself was wrong. He left the church he grew up in and embraced New Testament Christianity, going on to baptize thousands of people over the years before his death in 1982. We have about 14 preachers in our family because of his one decision. The bottom line? He accepted what the NT says.

In one meeting he held, there were several members of a local denomination that visited one evening. He happened to be preaching on baptism and the church (without knowing they would be there). Everytime he would emphasize what the NT says, sosme of the brethren in the congregation would turn around in their seats and grin at the visitors. Pa Hester noticed this and addressed the members: “Brethren, these folks are our guests. They did not have to comee tonight. You are being extremely rude. If you cocme back tomorrow night, you’ll get yours.” The next night, he shamed the brethren for how they treated those folks. (By the way, he ended up converting most of the visitors who had come). I have tried to follow his example.

What I am saying is that your language is almost foreign to me, because I don’t use it.

I hope we can clarify things better in subsequent posts.

PS — For now, I’m not wanting to debate the position or asking that you defend it. I just want to know what you believe on the subject.