Conclusion
Absolute truth is the only way to logically understand the world, but unfortunately, so many people claim to have achieved the absolute truth. In love, God grafted an intellect in every person, along with the gift of emotions and a will. God made us in His image, a moral being. With the gifts that He gave us, we are able to process information logically and come to conclusions. It is up to the individual to process the fact that there is an absolute truth, obtain an understanding of absolute truth (because if there is absolute truth, then we can access it), and react accordingly to it. My prayer for my readers is that you engage in a philosophical war until absolute truth has been rooted into the depths of your intellect, emotions, and will so that it can dictate your behavior, attitude, and worldview.
Don't settle for fool's gold while the real stuff is right in your face.
[Resource List: (A place of agreement among scholars that support the idea of absolute truth)
The Truth War – John MacArthur
Fool's Gold – John MacArthur
Truth – Pascal Engel (Secular Source)
Truth – Dave Bordon
Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity – Nancy Pearcy
There are many written works in regard to this topic, but readers should be careful because most do not hold to a biblical mindset.]
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Why so Many People do not Believe in Absolute Truth - Argument #3
Argument #3: Subjectivity of truth gives man the opportunity to ignore his own depravity.
Man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand submission. If truth is subjective, then man will not have to conform to any authority that he did not have any authority in the making. If truth is subjective, then man will not have to find himself in a place of submission to a particular ideal that he doesn't completely understand. If truth is subjective, then man will be completely free to develop his own belief system. Fortunately for mankind, truth is completely independent of all circumstances past, present, and future. Because if the responsibility of truth was dependent upon man, then there would be absolutely no sense of submission among any human beings.
Also, man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand humility. Humility is the single most crucial asset to absolute truth, because if there was no absolute truth, there would be no humility. Humility is always dependent on a person's understanding of himself. If a person thinks highly of himself, he will have no humility. If truth is subjective, then there will be absolutely no reason for man to humble himself because his interpretation of truth is his way and his way is just as good as anyone's way. Absolute truth demands that a person admit that his own truth is not the right truth and a confession like that will require humility. Therefore, the only conclusion is that humility can only be derived from an understanding of absolute truth.
Finally, man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand dependency. Subjective truth places value on the interpreter thereof and not on the truth itself. Therefore, it is selfish and is not a product of the greater authority because the greater authority has created truth without any regard for the interpreter. Therefore, absolute truth demands one interpretation of it and that interpretation is dependent on what the author has intended. Then man can have no opinion that influences the absolute truth because he has no authority in regard to truth unless he speaks in unison with the absolute truth. This creates a dependency on the absolute truth that man will have to accept. Unfortunately, it's not in the sinful nature of mankind to accept anything that would force him into a dependent scenario. Even if he is depending on a source that is consistent with all his needs and resources. Therefore, the only conclusion is that there is absolute truth but man resists it.
Truth must be absolute and independent of human interaction, therefore it requires submission, humility, and dependency.
Man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand submission. If truth is subjective, then man will not have to conform to any authority that he did not have any authority in the making. If truth is subjective, then man will not have to find himself in a place of submission to a particular ideal that he doesn't completely understand. If truth is subjective, then man will be completely free to develop his own belief system. Fortunately for mankind, truth is completely independent of all circumstances past, present, and future. Because if the responsibility of truth was dependent upon man, then there would be absolutely no sense of submission among any human beings.
Also, man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand humility. Humility is the single most crucial asset to absolute truth, because if there was no absolute truth, there would be no humility. Humility is always dependent on a person's understanding of himself. If a person thinks highly of himself, he will have no humility. If truth is subjective, then there will be absolutely no reason for man to humble himself because his interpretation of truth is his way and his way is just as good as anyone's way. Absolute truth demands that a person admit that his own truth is not the right truth and a confession like that will require humility. Therefore, the only conclusion is that humility can only be derived from an understanding of absolute truth.
Finally, man cannot accept an absolute truth because if there is an absolute that dictates, then it will demand dependency. Subjective truth places value on the interpreter thereof and not on the truth itself. Therefore, it is selfish and is not a product of the greater authority because the greater authority has created truth without any regard for the interpreter. Therefore, absolute truth demands one interpretation of it and that interpretation is dependent on what the author has intended. Then man can have no opinion that influences the absolute truth because he has no authority in regard to truth unless he speaks in unison with the absolute truth. This creates a dependency on the absolute truth that man will have to accept. Unfortunately, it's not in the sinful nature of mankind to accept anything that would force him into a dependent scenario. Even if he is depending on a source that is consistent with all his needs and resources. Therefore, the only conclusion is that there is absolute truth but man resists it.
Truth must be absolute and independent of human interaction, therefore it requires submission, humility, and dependency.
Why so Many People do not Believe in Absolute Truth - Argument #2
Argument #2: Subjectivity of truth is the ultimate desire of man.
Subjectivity of truth will give each man the opportunity to control circumstances. Since the beginning of time, man has wanted complete control over whatever he sets his mind to. Why has mankind always wanted to have absolute control? Because there would be no more questionable issues regarding ethics, morals, or human rights. Also, there would be no more value in the life of any other person in a man's eyes because he is only concerned with his own truth. Lastly, mankind will never have to change, humble himself, or depend on anyone else as long as he is in control of his own truth. The reality is, no man can control the circumstances that interact according to his own life.
Secondly, the main reason that mankind desires a subjective interpretation of truth is because it gives man the opportunity to be God. Whether a man will admit it or not, he is completely helpless is the presence of God. God is absolute and anything that He issues is absolute truth whether man likes it or not. Unfortunately, the biggest concern with man and his acceptance of absolute truth is that he will have to admit that there is something greater in the universe than he is. In the garden of Eden, how did Satan tempt Eve? He told her that she would be God-like if she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She ate of it with these hopes, why does man ever try to take things into his own hands? The only reason is to be God-like. Instead of adopting humility, submissiveness, and an attitude of servant-hood, mankind would rather place himself in a position of power to achieve glory, power, and respect. But what are these things if everyone around desires them as well? It only means that the next person in line behind the man in charge is willing to do whatever it takes to be in charge. God is absolute and truth comes from Him, therefore He receives the glory, power, and respect because only He deserves it.
Truth must be absolute because mankind cannot handle the responsibilities of organizing any absolute truth.
Subjectivity of truth will give each man the opportunity to control circumstances. Since the beginning of time, man has wanted complete control over whatever he sets his mind to. Why has mankind always wanted to have absolute control? Because there would be no more questionable issues regarding ethics, morals, or human rights. Also, there would be no more value in the life of any other person in a man's eyes because he is only concerned with his own truth. Lastly, mankind will never have to change, humble himself, or depend on anyone else as long as he is in control of his own truth. The reality is, no man can control the circumstances that interact according to his own life.
Secondly, the main reason that mankind desires a subjective interpretation of truth is because it gives man the opportunity to be God. Whether a man will admit it or not, he is completely helpless is the presence of God. God is absolute and anything that He issues is absolute truth whether man likes it or not. Unfortunately, the biggest concern with man and his acceptance of absolute truth is that he will have to admit that there is something greater in the universe than he is. In the garden of Eden, how did Satan tempt Eve? He told her that she would be God-like if she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She ate of it with these hopes, why does man ever try to take things into his own hands? The only reason is to be God-like. Instead of adopting humility, submissiveness, and an attitude of servant-hood, mankind would rather place himself in a position of power to achieve glory, power, and respect. But what are these things if everyone around desires them as well? It only means that the next person in line behind the man in charge is willing to do whatever it takes to be in charge. God is absolute and truth comes from Him, therefore He receives the glory, power, and respect because only He deserves it.
Truth must be absolute because mankind cannot handle the responsibilities of organizing any absolute truth.
Why so Many People do not Believe in Absolute Truth - Argument #1
Argument #1: The Subjectivity of Truth Will Cause Inevitable Conflict
If every person that has ever lived reacted accordingly to their own interpretation of truth, then they will be judging everything that occurs according to their personal experiences. No two people have ever shared the exact same experiences in life. If two people have experiences that differ, then a conflict has arisen and who is the judge to choose whose truth is greater? Unfortunately, if truth is subjective, then no one can possibly judge between the two of them.
Also, subjective truth will always be reflective of the personal desires of happiness of an individual. If experiences judge the interpretation of truth, then each will consider truth to be what brings the greatest amount of happiness to himself. This mindset poses an issue because differing interest groups will demand particular rights that will always conflict with other interest groups. Here's an example, if a man owns a dog and the dog is a nuisance to his neighbor, then one person's interpretation of truth will see the dog as a problem the other sees the dog as an asset. Again, whose to judge what's true between the two of them? Unfortunately, there is no person that has a greater truth than these two, so unresolved conflict has resulted.
Lastly, governing authorities will always be based upon changing circumstances. Who would want to live in subjection to an authority that changes? When a governing authority is based upon the subjectivity of truth, the laws will always change, selfishness of officials will result in suffering for the common people, and one person, or group of persons, will always project their interpretation of truth above their subjects. When there is no absolute judging authority of truth, then laws, court decisions, code of conduct, restrictions, or peace because these issues will be of no effect in the minds of the people.
Truth must be absolute because conflict will always be the ultimate resolve of a subjective understanding of the world.
If every person that has ever lived reacted accordingly to their own interpretation of truth, then they will be judging everything that occurs according to their personal experiences. No two people have ever shared the exact same experiences in life. If two people have experiences that differ, then a conflict has arisen and who is the judge to choose whose truth is greater? Unfortunately, if truth is subjective, then no one can possibly judge between the two of them.
Also, subjective truth will always be reflective of the personal desires of happiness of an individual. If experiences judge the interpretation of truth, then each will consider truth to be what brings the greatest amount of happiness to himself. This mindset poses an issue because differing interest groups will demand particular rights that will always conflict with other interest groups. Here's an example, if a man owns a dog and the dog is a nuisance to his neighbor, then one person's interpretation of truth will see the dog as a problem the other sees the dog as an asset. Again, whose to judge what's true between the two of them? Unfortunately, there is no person that has a greater truth than these two, so unresolved conflict has resulted.
Lastly, governing authorities will always be based upon changing circumstances. Who would want to live in subjection to an authority that changes? When a governing authority is based upon the subjectivity of truth, the laws will always change, selfishness of officials will result in suffering for the common people, and one person, or group of persons, will always project their interpretation of truth above their subjects. When there is no absolute judging authority of truth, then laws, court decisions, code of conduct, restrictions, or peace because these issues will be of no effect in the minds of the people.
Truth must be absolute because conflict will always be the ultimate resolve of a subjective understanding of the world.
Why So Many People Do Not Accept an Absolute Truth (Introduction and Thesis)
The term absolute can be defined as the unchanging rule of understanding regarding a particular interpretation of anything. Absolutes are often set up in regard to laws that govern a community of peoples. The term absolute is often coined as pertaining to a particular event or idea. For instance, gravity is an absolute, twenty-four hour days is an absolute, and truth is an absolute. Many people groups across the globe will likely oppose to this gesture by saying that truth is subjective. Unfortunately, truth is absolute and cannot be a subjective interpretation.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Principles Outlined Proving a Plurality of Church Leadership
Principles Outlined Proving a Plurality of Church Leadership
Introduction
Ecclesiology is the study of Christ’s Church, the ordinances, the leadership, the goals, etc. As of late, the church leadership that has been adopted by most conservative churches in America has been the senior pastor churches, with some associate pastors that serve beneath him. Basically, this government has no differences from that of the Presbyterian model except for the terminology that supports it. Unfortunately, this practice is directly against scriptural teaching. The Bible indicates that there should be a plurality of leaders in each local church. I’ve also brought a few opinions as to why the Scripture has pointed to this particular leadership.
Argument #1 - Logical Argument
Logically, a decent discussion of local church leadership must include the accountability that whatever governing official the church decides to embrace. It seems apparent that the Bible speaks highly of the concept of accountability. Power will always corrupt if not kept in check. The total depravity of man will completely infect any position of power if the leadership is not held accountable. The main question would be which system of government would be held under the greatest accountability, a senior pastor that oversees all, or a group of pastors with the same authority keeping each other and the congregation in check? Of course the group of pastors would present the greatest amount of accountability because not only is the congregation consistently interacting with them, but the pastors are also involved in each others’ lives. Therefore, a rational conclusion would be that accountability would consistently prevail with a group of godly men keeping check over each other as opposed to a single godly man keeping himself in check.
Secondly, it only logical that decisions regarding indirect means of ministry are better discussed and decided by a group of equally authoritative godly men as opposed to one godly man. When a decision regarding intricate details of ministry, like finances or the calling that God has placed on individuals in the church, it is important that all aspects of the decision to be brought into the light before a conscious decision can be made. Of course prayer and principles of God’s Word are the moderators of each decision, but a group of men can confirm the direction of God as opposed to one man making the decision without seeing all possible areas. Also, who would know if the senior pastor is making the right decision without the multiplicity of authority? God’s ordained purpose is for unity concerning His people with the goal of glorifying His name. Therefore, it would only seem accurate that God would want every possible way to assure unity, and the best possible way to achieve this would be the directed and authoritative decisions of a group of pastors rather than a single pastor.
Argument #2 - Philosophical Argument
On a more philosophical note, keeping a plural governing body will also eliminate the personality centered local church ministry that has plagued so many churches. It seems that a pastor is the undershepherd of Jesus Christ (I Pet. 5:3-4). Therefore, the leadership is supposed to be completely unbiased when making ministry decisions. For instance, if the local church is shepherded by one man, the church will consistently lean toward the preferences of the pastor. In cases of music, liturgy, church bulletin styles, various ministries, even food decisions will ultimately, yet unnoticeably be influenced by the leadership of the church. If the leadership is plural, then these preferences will cover a wider variety. I Corinthians 14:26 says, “How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together… Let all things be done for edification.” If the church is leaning on the preferences of one pastor, then the church will always minister more successfully to people that have similar interests as the pastor as opposed to a variety of leadership that could ultimately minister to a greater variety of people. Based on the evidence, it is only more reasonable to conclude that a plural church leadership with equal authority can make unbiased decisions that keep the church from following after a particular personality.
Secondly, a pastor is the head of the discipleship ministry, therefore it is sensible to conclude that a plural group of pastors can more effectively disciple the “sheep” that God leads to their discipleship ministry. For instance, a single pastor cannot possibly have his role of discipleship in the lives of all those in the flock entrusted to him by Christ effectively if he is involved in “biblical” discipleship in all of the church. As already noted, a single pastor cannot possibly minister to all varieties of people effectively. The philosophy of leadership will always require unbiased leadership and the best way to demonstrate unbiased leadership is to have a plural group of pastors that demonstrate godly decisions with little room for personal preferences.
Thirdly, if the church is being led by a single pastor, then the church is consistently dependent on the relationship that the pastor has with God. The Bible forbids man to place his trust in another man (Mic. 7:5, Jer. 17:5, II Cor. 1:9), therefore, the philosophy of church leadership should honor this principle. When a single pastor is leading the church in a shepherding position, then the church will be dependent on his relationship with God. Should the pastor fall, the entire church will suffer. To prevent this unneeded suffering, the reasonable church governing style, is a plural governing body with equal authority among a number of pastors.
Argument #3 - Biblical Argument
A few notable passages of Scripture can be found that seem to address a plural set of pastors throughout the book of Acts:
1. Acts 11:30 – Multiple elders from one church commissioned Paul and Barnabbas.
2. Acts 14:23 – During Paul’s ministry, multiple elders were placed single churches as Paul planted them.
3. Acts 15:2 – Plural apostles are seated along with the elders of the Jerusalem church.
4. Acts 20:17 – Paul calls the elders of the Ephesian church for a few quick words of exhortation.
Other Notable Passages:
1. James 5:14 – The plural group of elders from the single church are commanded to pray for the sick in the church.
2. Hebrews 13:17 – Plural group of people mentioned as having the authority over the individual.
3. Ephesians 4:11-12 – It would seem that the context and the content are referring to local church; there is plural “pastors (KJV).”
The Bible seems to show several passages that indicate a plural group of leaders ministering authority in the local church ministry. Some have argued that a plural leadership is only necessary if the church is large, but who makes that call? Who decides when the church needs another pastor? Unfortunately, the Bible does not provide this sort of information so it’s my sentiments to say that there should always be a plurality of leadership in the local church.
Conclusion
It seems that there has always been a temptation for mankind to take the easy way in every possible situation. That is why there is always a single leader that leads every institution that man has ever founded. But is the local church an institution that follows after the same foundational principles that the world is founded upon? God’s method of church leadership was founded on the basis of God, and there should be no swaying away from that. In the study of Ecclesiology, the Holy Spirit is the glue that holds the church together, not man. My opinion is that man has had issues in their local churches in the past while under plural leadership and there has been a difference of opinion and a church split because the leadership and the church got their eyes off of Jesus. When that happens, I believe that the separate local churches decided to lean on a single pastor. Instead of walking by faith and trusting God to put the men that He wanted into leadership, the church decided to adopt this new senior pastor mentality and allow him to make the decisions for the church.
Introduction
Ecclesiology is the study of Christ’s Church, the ordinances, the leadership, the goals, etc. As of late, the church leadership that has been adopted by most conservative churches in America has been the senior pastor churches, with some associate pastors that serve beneath him. Basically, this government has no differences from that of the Presbyterian model except for the terminology that supports it. Unfortunately, this practice is directly against scriptural teaching. The Bible indicates that there should be a plurality of leaders in each local church. I’ve also brought a few opinions as to why the Scripture has pointed to this particular leadership.
Argument #1 - Logical Argument
Logically, a decent discussion of local church leadership must include the accountability that whatever governing official the church decides to embrace. It seems apparent that the Bible speaks highly of the concept of accountability. Power will always corrupt if not kept in check. The total depravity of man will completely infect any position of power if the leadership is not held accountable. The main question would be which system of government would be held under the greatest accountability, a senior pastor that oversees all, or a group of pastors with the same authority keeping each other and the congregation in check? Of course the group of pastors would present the greatest amount of accountability because not only is the congregation consistently interacting with them, but the pastors are also involved in each others’ lives. Therefore, a rational conclusion would be that accountability would consistently prevail with a group of godly men keeping check over each other as opposed to a single godly man keeping himself in check.
Secondly, it only logical that decisions regarding indirect means of ministry are better discussed and decided by a group of equally authoritative godly men as opposed to one godly man. When a decision regarding intricate details of ministry, like finances or the calling that God has placed on individuals in the church, it is important that all aspects of the decision to be brought into the light before a conscious decision can be made. Of course prayer and principles of God’s Word are the moderators of each decision, but a group of men can confirm the direction of God as opposed to one man making the decision without seeing all possible areas. Also, who would know if the senior pastor is making the right decision without the multiplicity of authority? God’s ordained purpose is for unity concerning His people with the goal of glorifying His name. Therefore, it would only seem accurate that God would want every possible way to assure unity, and the best possible way to achieve this would be the directed and authoritative decisions of a group of pastors rather than a single pastor.
Argument #2 - Philosophical Argument
On a more philosophical note, keeping a plural governing body will also eliminate the personality centered local church ministry that has plagued so many churches. It seems that a pastor is the undershepherd of Jesus Christ (I Pet. 5:3-4). Therefore, the leadership is supposed to be completely unbiased when making ministry decisions. For instance, if the local church is shepherded by one man, the church will consistently lean toward the preferences of the pastor. In cases of music, liturgy, church bulletin styles, various ministries, even food decisions will ultimately, yet unnoticeably be influenced by the leadership of the church. If the leadership is plural, then these preferences will cover a wider variety. I Corinthians 14:26 says, “How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together… Let all things be done for edification.” If the church is leaning on the preferences of one pastor, then the church will always minister more successfully to people that have similar interests as the pastor as opposed to a variety of leadership that could ultimately minister to a greater variety of people. Based on the evidence, it is only more reasonable to conclude that a plural church leadership with equal authority can make unbiased decisions that keep the church from following after a particular personality.
Secondly, a pastor is the head of the discipleship ministry, therefore it is sensible to conclude that a plural group of pastors can more effectively disciple the “sheep” that God leads to their discipleship ministry. For instance, a single pastor cannot possibly have his role of discipleship in the lives of all those in the flock entrusted to him by Christ effectively if he is involved in “biblical” discipleship in all of the church. As already noted, a single pastor cannot possibly minister to all varieties of people effectively. The philosophy of leadership will always require unbiased leadership and the best way to demonstrate unbiased leadership is to have a plural group of pastors that demonstrate godly decisions with little room for personal preferences.
Thirdly, if the church is being led by a single pastor, then the church is consistently dependent on the relationship that the pastor has with God. The Bible forbids man to place his trust in another man (Mic. 7:5, Jer. 17:5, II Cor. 1:9), therefore, the philosophy of church leadership should honor this principle. When a single pastor is leading the church in a shepherding position, then the church will be dependent on his relationship with God. Should the pastor fall, the entire church will suffer. To prevent this unneeded suffering, the reasonable church governing style, is a plural governing body with equal authority among a number of pastors.
Argument #3 - Biblical Argument
A few notable passages of Scripture can be found that seem to address a plural set of pastors throughout the book of Acts:
1. Acts 11:30 – Multiple elders from one church commissioned Paul and Barnabbas.
2. Acts 14:23 – During Paul’s ministry, multiple elders were placed single churches as Paul planted them.
3. Acts 15:2 – Plural apostles are seated along with the elders of the Jerusalem church.
4. Acts 20:17 – Paul calls the elders of the Ephesian church for a few quick words of exhortation.
Other Notable Passages:
1. James 5:14 – The plural group of elders from the single church are commanded to pray for the sick in the church.
2. Hebrews 13:17 – Plural group of people mentioned as having the authority over the individual.
3. Ephesians 4:11-12 – It would seem that the context and the content are referring to local church; there is plural “pastors (KJV).”
The Bible seems to show several passages that indicate a plural group of leaders ministering authority in the local church ministry. Some have argued that a plural leadership is only necessary if the church is large, but who makes that call? Who decides when the church needs another pastor? Unfortunately, the Bible does not provide this sort of information so it’s my sentiments to say that there should always be a plurality of leadership in the local church.
Conclusion
It seems that there has always been a temptation for mankind to take the easy way in every possible situation. That is why there is always a single leader that leads every institution that man has ever founded. But is the local church an institution that follows after the same foundational principles that the world is founded upon? God’s method of church leadership was founded on the basis of God, and there should be no swaying away from that. In the study of Ecclesiology, the Holy Spirit is the glue that holds the church together, not man. My opinion is that man has had issues in their local churches in the past while under plural leadership and there has been a difference of opinion and a church split because the leadership and the church got their eyes off of Jesus. When that happens, I believe that the separate local churches decided to lean on a single pastor. Instead of walking by faith and trusting God to put the men that He wanted into leadership, the church decided to adopt this new senior pastor mentality and allow him to make the decisions for the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
