One In Jesus

Interesting discussion. Let me add a few points.

1. First, I can’t tell you how much it pleases me for the discussion to have begun with acknowledgment that inferential truths are not fellowship issues. However, I worry about the distinction sometimes made between commands and inferences when so few of us consider all the New Testament commands binding. After all, in the Churches of Christ, hardly anyone washes feet, bans braided hair, practices the Holy Kiss, appoints an order of widows, bans all pearls and gold, or insists that women wear Roman-style veils in the assembly (not hats and not lace doilies but a Roman-style covering — see pictures at this post — think “hoody”). Continue reading →

We’re considering the broader principles of how to distinguish an eternal command from a culturally limited command. In the last post, we considered the basis for concluding that slavery is wrong even though the Scriptures do not condemn slavery, that is, for finding that the Scriptures’ references to slavery are culturally conditioned and not meant to permit slavery for all time.

We next need to consider another principle: Commands that run contrary to the then local culture are unlikely to be culturally conditioned. Continue reading →

Several times in the comments the question has arisen as to how to tell whether a command is temporary (culturally limited) or permanent (not culturally limited). It’s a question that is, of course, much larger than this particular topic.

There are several factors we have to consider in working through this question, and I’ll start with some of larger factors, which may not necessarily apply in the case of the question at hand. I figure it’s worthwhile material whether or not applicable here. But most of it should be very applicable. Continue reading →

Continuing with the line of reasoning presented in the last post, we need to make a list of the possibilities. This what I find in the comments and commentaries, but others may have other possibilities to add.

* The passages about giftedness aren’t relevant, as they deal with a time when the Spirit gave gifts, which is no longer true. Thus, the qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are the only considerations in choosing elders and they are absolutely mandatory.

* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy define who the Spirit gifts to be an elder. That is, anyone who meets these tests should be ordained as an elder.

* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are examples of essential characteristics of someone gifted by the Spirit to be an elder but not the only tests. That is, we should also look at other characteristics that might show him to be or not be gifted as a shepherd, overseer, and elder.

* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are examples of typical but not essential characteristics of someone gifted by the Spirit to be an elder but not the only tests. That is, someone might not meet all the tests but be qualified due to being the sort of person the tests point us to. Thus, DeMeco Ryans is too small to be a top flight NFL linebacker, not meeting the traditional tests for such things, but managed to be NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year and make the Pro Bowl two out of four years — as a linebacker. (Paul being an apostle might be a better example, but this is football season.) The stated rules deal with the ordinary case but there may be extraordinary people who qualify despite not meeting the ordinary tests.

* The qualifications lists are designed for an immature church with little history of appointing elders and no longer applies. Rather, the permanent rule is that the man must be gifted to the task by God’s Holy Spirit.

* The qualifications lists are culturally conditioned, just like the widows list in 1 Timothy 5. That is, the lists are how eternal principles were applied by Paul in First Century culture for young churches. The same principles might produce different results today. [Suggested by reader ao.]

Continue reading →