Paul does not, however, hang that requirement out in the air. He gives a method, a basis, a mode of operation whereby the elder can do this. Do you know what it is?
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught (Titus 1:9).In order to qualify as an elder, a man must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught. It is the means by which ("so that") he will be able to both instruct in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict -- those insubordinate, empty-talking deceivers.
Okay? So here's the idea. First, an elder, who must not be a young Christian (1 Tim 3:6), has to have been taught the Word. The text, in fact, literally says he must hold fast the faithful word "according to the teaching". One teaching. A common teaching. It is the sound doctrine Paul entrusted to Timothy (1 Tim 4:6) and told him to pass on to faithful men (2 Tim 2:2). An elder must know the Word and have sound doctrine. Second, he needs to cling to the Word and be able to apply it in order to demonstrate sound doctrine. It is the basis for sound doctrine. (Note, by the way, that the sound doctrine that Paul was referencing was present then and being passed on then. That means it isn't something new, isn't something changing, isn't something recently discovered. Sound doctrine is historical, biblical orthodoxy. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.) Additionally, he must have a firm enough grasp on the Word to be able to recognize error when he sees it and address it.
An elder's job includes both instructing sound doctrine and rebuking those in error. These are both predicated on a firm and continued grasp of the Word. While we may not all be elders, it would be wise, I think, to seek to hold fast to the faithful Word for purposes of sound doctrine and rebuking error. We don't all need to be elders, but we all need the Word, sound doctrine, and response to error.
What are you doing today to improve your grasp of the Word and sound doctrine?
5 comments:
We see the "faithful teachings" changing even within the days of the early church. Debates about eating meat or not, about what meat can and can't be eat (it's not about the rules, as it turns out, it's about the grace), about who can serve in what roles, about how deacons should serve, about giving, about how and where to meet and worship and live together in community... all of these things and more were being worked out as the early church was forming.
It's not like there was ONE God-approved set of teachings that was handed to them complete and with no questions to be asked - if one reads about the early church, one sees a history of great conflict and disagreements as they worked these things out.
It's something we are still to be doing today, with a spirit of love and grace.
Now, we see as through a glass, darkly, but then we shall see clearly. Just sayin'...
Okay. Good. We can correct Paul on that, then. "Paul -- dear, dear Paul -- you are so confused. Don't you know that 'the faithful word as taught' is a moving target? Don't you understand that making a claim that there is such a teaching is, well, wrong? Look, Paul, it's not like there is one God-approved set of teachings. We see through a glass darkly. Eventually -- like 2000 years from now -- we will figure out the truth that no one in your day -- not even you -- got to see. Anything else, dear Paul, is pharisaical and arrogant. And that should be obvious since you were a Pharisee. No, no, Paul, there is no monolithic 'truth', no 'sound doctrine' that lasts through time, no such thing. Indeed, your whole list of rules is really misleading. We have no rules! Fortunately, in terms of elder qualifications, that means that we don't have to worry about that qualification! Good news! To be an elder there is no reason to have to hold fast the faithful word as taught since it is changing. Of course, the bad news is that means you were mistaken. But, hey, we know better now!"
Or ... it might be that while error has always been edging into the Church from the beginning, the truth has always been there (you know ... via the Holy Spirit teaching His own) and the falsehoods have always met with correction and the job of the elder has always been to teach the sound doctrine that has always been there and refute the error that will always occur. But that would mean that Paul was right and ... oh ... you would be wrong.
Please note, by the way, that "a history of great conflict and disagreements" does not require "no ONE God-approved set of teachings" or "the faithful teachings changing". It simply requires a constant influx of false teachers ... which, oh, by the way, was promised from the beginning. On the other hand, if "a history of great conflict and disagreements" does require "no ONE God-approved set of teachings" and "the faithful teachings changing", then the Bible is not God's breathed Word, not a reliable source, and Paul (and all the rest) were mistaken. But you go ahead and stand on your position that you take a high view of Scripture while you carefully eliminate any possible standing it can have.
From Dan's view it would make sense that there is no ONE God-approved set of teachings because in Dan's view God doesn't interfere in any way in Human Free Will, and thus He CANNOT give His Word to men because that would require influencing. In fact, all of Christendom is the hearsay of people that were around Christ's time, but the Bible isn't God-breathed because God refuses to interfere with Man's Will in any way. Of course, that then removes Christianity as a viable religious institution, and I will now become a practical hedonist. Thank you Dan for being an antichrist. If it wasn't for you I wouldn't have seen the "Truth" of the Ultimate Good....ME!
No, Dan, of course I wouldn't publish your comment. You know I have rules against the language you chose to include.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with David's comment, I should point out that "antichrist" is not a singular thing. The most common references to the concept are in 1 John and are not "the Antichrist" that we tend to think of. John references them in plural (1 John 2:18) and indicates that they come from the church and leave behind sound doctrine. You might guess, then, why someone could potentially call you one such a person if they believe you come out of the church and deviate from sound doctrine.
Note, by the way, that calling for grace when you tend to show none in your language and comment yourself is a bit hypocritical.
I find it funny (not really) that Dan uses vulgarity that cannot be published, and still think he is "right on" in his views. He is SO hostile to Christianity, and yet calls himself one. Thank you Stan for your stand against evil.
Post a Comment