Theological Continuity

[Jack Koons]

In the spirit of JR (who so loves to "stir things up"), I have decided to present the readers of this 'forum', one of the questions I posed to my students for a short essay. The question has two parts: 1) What is "Theological Continuity"? and 2) How is it relative to our understanding of Biblical Studies; both of individual doctrines, and as the whole of theology?

I look forward to reading any answers.

Jack

 

[miamited]

Hi jack,

Well, for me, the term 'theological continuity' sounds like a really nice 10cent man-made word that we might use to describe some philosophical concept that we might undertake to explain some seemingly, to us, important and must know idea about what we think needs to be understood about the study of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, it could surely be just as appropriate for the study of any man-made god also.

Beyond that, I don't have a clue what it might mean. I don't know if it might be, in the minds of those who use expensive words, a synonym for God's claim that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

duplicate post

 

[Resha Caner]

It could mean a lot of things. I wonder if it's meant to imply theological consistency - adherence to some logical law such as noncontradiction.

But a more literal interpretation would mean a theology with no gaps. I don't see how that's possible, given we are finite beings.

Regardless, it's really just a guessing game to throw out a phrase like that. If it's a standard phrase with specific meaning within a certain theological school of thought, then it comes down to researching that school to learn what they mean ... if there's any reason to want to know what that school means.

 

[Jack Koons]

Hi jack,

Well, for me, the term 'theological continuity' sounds like a really nice 10cent man-made word that we might use to describe some philosophical concept that we might undertake to explain some seemingly, to us, important and must know idea about what we think needs to be understood about the study of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, it could surely be just as appropriate for the study of any man-made god also.

Beyond that, I don't have a clue what it might mean. I don't know if it might be, in the minds of those who use expensive words, a synonym for God's claim that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hello Ted,

Without getting into anything lengthy, permit me to simply state this is one of those times that the words God gave to Hosea (4:6), come to mind. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." It seems to me that when people like me invest time in the study of God's word, while others are learning everything possible about their favorite sports team, people think we are trying to use "10 cent" words. I assure you this is not the case. When a person studies Soteriology or Eschatology, and then use those words, we are simply using the word that is commonly associated with that doctrine.

Since this is a forum where there are members who have stated that they have more than a "milk" knowledge of the Bible, I could not but assume, at least some of the people in this forum would easily understand, and therefore give their opinion about the subject.

I myself would at least do a minimum research on the subject before making any accusation that someone was trying to use a "10 cent" word. As for both you and Resha making an attempt to define theological continuity, and admitting you have really no idea, honesty, is always a good practice.

This however, is one of those times, when I am reminded of the lack of teaching in "fundamental" churches as a whole.

Jack

 

[standingtall]

Oh boy, now you guys have gone and made Jack upset.

Now, for the next few weeks in several looooonnnngggg posts, Jack is going to display just how smart he is while chastising everybody else for not sharing his zeal in the pursuit of biblical knowledge.

 

[Jack Koons]

Oh boy, now you guys have gone and made Jack upset.

Now, for the next few weeks in several looooonnnngggg posts, Jack is going to display just how smart he is while chastising everybody else for not sharing his zeal in the pursuit of biblical knowledge.

Actually standingtall, I have NO such intentions. I actually thought that due to the fact that some in this 'fundamentalist' forum have actually shown support for reformed theology, I thought it would be a very interesting discussion. I happened to have noticed that some here also hold neither to a strict covenant theology, nor a strict position on Dispensationalism; therefore, a discussion on theological continuity, could be both interesting, and enlightening.

I assure you standingtall, I has never been my intention to show how smart I am, nor do I wish to chastise the people in this forum for having less 'zeal' than I. My mild chastisement of Ted, was simply due to his assertion that I was trying to use a "10 cent" word without reason.

I think it is very apparent that most Christians know little about the actual beliefs of even the church they attend; let alone alone a broad survey of Christendom.

Jack

 

[miamited]

Hello Ted,

Without getting into anything lengthy, permit me to simply state this is one of those times that the words God gave to Hosea (4:6), come to mind. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Hi jack,

Yes, I agree that those words God gave to Hosea are well worth remembering and applying as we search the Scriptures. However, I don't think it is reinforced by using words to describe man-made concepts with great big words. Rather, it is reinforced as we wash our minds with the truths of the Scriptures. It doesn't require any 'theological continuity', but rather a continual reading and studying of the Scriptures. It is merely through them that Daniel came to understand that the days of Israel's captivity was coming to an end. It was through them that the first apostles continued in the faith.

It seems to me that when people like me invest time in the study of God's word, while others are learning everything possible about their favorite sports team, people think we are trying to use "10 cent" words. I assure you this is not the case. When a person studies Soteriology or Eschatology, and then use those words, we are simply using the word that is commonly associated with that doctrine.

Yes, jack, and I think we spend a lot of worthless time naming doctrines. Amil, premil, post mil, calvinist, YEC, TE and on and on and on and on ad infinitum. There is only the Scriptures. That's it! We choose to name all sorts of different understandings and yet, I believe, the truth is that just so many people just want to have some fancy sounding name to claim that their belief is what the Scriptures teach. There is only the Scriptures. That's it!

Since this is a forum where there are members who have stated that they have more than a "milk" knowledge of the Bible, I could not but assume, at least some of the people in this forum would easily understand, and therefore give their opinion about the subject.

I myself would at least do a minimum research on the subject before making any accusation that someone was trying to use a "10 cent" word. As for both you and Resha making an attempt to define theological continuity, and admitting you have really no idea, honesty, is always a good practice.

This however, is one of those times, when I am reminded of the lack of teaching in "fundamental" churches as a whole.

Well, I am one who believes himself to have more than a 'milk' knowledge of the Scriptures. However, I would rather just tell someone in plain english what the Scriptures say rather than attach that belief to some man-made theological concept. I'm glad that you are reminded of the 'lack of teaching in fundamental churches as a whole', but I can't recall 'theological continuity' mentioned in the Scriptures so it's not something I'm particularly interested in studying in my search to know God. There's only the Scriptures. That's all there is!

I try not to associate any belief that I hold with some man-made theological concept. I am more inclined to just say what I believe; point out the Scriptures that I believe support what I believe, and go on from there. I don't care how Calvin understood the Scriptures or St so-and-so or some other 'great christian' writer. I honestly have not confidence that others did understand the Scriptures. After all, the pharisees were supposed to have understood the Scriptures and yet Jesus repeatedly railed against them for their lack of it. What assurance do I have that Calvin or St so-and-so is any different than any of them? I believe what I believe based solely on the Scriptures. After all, all we have are the Scriptures. That's it!

Now, I may say that what I believe is in agreement with what someone else believes, but I don't find that that makes me a believer in that person's name or understanding. I'm just in agreement. That's all. So, if you'd care to define what you mean by 'theological continuity' (and I'm not likely to look it up because I often find that when I google some named concept, it often isn't exactly what the poster on these threads mean and that's if I find only one such understanding of the concept), then I will be happy to oblige you and tell you whether I agree or disagree that the concept is of any value to the soul of men. So, be bold and brave and rather than just throwing out some 10cent word, ask whether or not I believe some specific point or issue regarding the Scriptures. I'll be happy to give you my answer.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I think it is very apparent that most Christians know little about the actual beliefs of even the church they attend; let alone alone a broad survey of Christendom.

Jack

Good morning jack,

I am somewhat in agreement with that statement. However, I don't think an individual's salvation, and let's just get it out of the way now, that's what the Scriptures are all about, is measured by one's agreement with the 'fellowship' of believers they attend. Yes, if one does buy into a lot of what some fellowships work to teach, it can certainly make the way of salvation more difficult to find. It can obfuscate (that one cost me a quarter) and lead one down a lot of rabbit holes, that are the work of many 'well intentioned' men who don't themselves have a clue and teach others to follow them. I believe that it is this very practice that Jesus was referring to when he spoke of a blind man leading a blind man. They both fall into the pit.

I believe that every born again believer, and those seeking to be so, need to be like the Bereans. Fine to listen to what others have to say, but before deciding if it is the truth, check it out!

Anyway, while one would be blessed to be a part of a fellowship that teaches only the truth, attendance in such a fellowship is not the measure of faith that God will be using. As far as I can tell, God is interested in the individual's heart. Whether an individual has discerned and put into practice in their life, the truth of God. As far as I can tell there is probably not a single whole fellowship that will be saved because of their inclusion in said fellowship.

Having said that, my encouragement for anyone is to first know the Scriptures for themselves. You see, unless an individual knows and has treasured in their heart the words of God, they will never know that they are being led astray. They will believe there is a purgatory because that's what the guy standing in front of them, and their overall fellowship, teach them is the truth. They will in fact be the blind man who is being led by a blind man.

I was sharing with someone on these threads just the other day and they commented that the genealogies of the account of lives in Genesis never mentioned years or length of lives. I replied with a mere copy of the first couple of genealogies and showed how it was written in the Scriptures that Adam was x number of years old when he had Seth and then went on to say just exactly how many years Adam lived until his death. The poster fairly quickly replied by withdrawing his statement and agreeing with me that his comment was incorrect. That poster had over 7,500 posts on these threads and didn't really have even the slightest knowledge of what was written in the first few words of the Scriptures. Sadly, I thought to myself, "I wonder how many blind men they had led?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[cubanito]

1- One good side of Obamacare (the un-Affordable un-Caring Act) is that y'all need endure fewer of my harangues (that worth at least a nickel). About a third of patients have been forced to leave my practice, some I've known for DECADES, to random assigned practices. My finances are in chaos and I'm laying off all but one employee. On balance, keeping me from irritating y'all on this forum much, it is probably worth it I guess. So this will be a "drive-by" posting.

2- I have no idea what "theological continuity" means. I think Jack is probably right that as a PCA member, I probably ought know. It will be placed as priority # 158, however, given the utter chaos of what used to be my medical practice, and various other commitments.

3- I sm too busy to dispute about geneaologies at this time. Clearly there is no warning, not a singly mention, of disputing about geneaologies in Scripture, so I am tempted to argue that last point above (as there is no warning against it in Titus 3:9, no none at all).

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

JR,

I can honestly say that I am glad that I am not an MD, depending on the rules of our current administration to try to stay afloat. I will keep you in my prayers.

Keep the faith,

Jack

 

[APMichael]

Wouldn't the term "theological continuity" beg the question, continuity with what? A reasonable answer might be, "with the early church." Most bible-literate Christians assume they automatically possess such continuity because they take for granted that their personal interpretations of the scriptures are in perfect alignment with those of the early church. However, a majority of these same Christians have never read the writings of the early church and thus have no real basis for such an assumption.

Clearly not all the opinions of the early writers are trustworthy, just as not all of our opinions today are reliable. But if we cannot find at least some confirmation of our interpretations and beliefs among the writings of the earliest and best-reputed Christians, I don't think we can rightly claim theological continuity with the early church.

 

[Job8]

The question has two parts: 1) What is "Theological Continuity"? and 2) How is it relative to our understanding of Biblical Studies; both of individual doctrines, and as the whole of theology?

We can look at "theological continuity" (for want of a better term) either from the man-made side or from the Divine perspective.

Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches claim that they have theological continuity which extends back to the apostles. But an examination of their doctrines proves otherwise. Man-made doctrines and practices entered into these churches.

What God intended within each church (autonomously) would be its own "theological continuity" through God-appointed elders. That is why Paul insisted in Titus 1:5 that elders (plural) were to be apponted in EVERY CITY. They were to "hold fast the faithful Word as [they] had been taught" (Tit 1:9) and teach "sound doctrine" (Tit 1:9).

The apostles and their companions taught the doctrines of Christ to these faithful men, who would then teach other faithful men, and thereby maintain "theological continuty": "And the things that thou hast heard of me [from me] among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT THOU TO FAITHFUL MEN, WHO SHALL BE ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS ALSO" (2 Tim 2:2).

So far as we can tell, this New Testament pattern of maintaining theological continuity was abandoned early in the history of Christianity. Local churches came under the authority of "bishops" (which is simply another term for pastor/elder/bishops, but which was misapplied and eventually led to Patriarchates and the papacy) and the autonomy of the local churches, as well as the responsibility for teaching and handing down doctrine was usurped, and eventually eradicated.

Those outside the "traditional churches" also failed to go back to the New Testament pattern, and required their pastors to go to "seminaries" and "bible schools". Today local churches generally require their pastors to be Master's of Divinity, even though the Lord said "Call no man Master, no man Father, no man Rabbi" (Mt 23:7-12).If the Lord and His apostles were to show up in these churches (simple fishermen etc. with no academic credentials) they would simply be thrust out.

So, the whole concept of "theological continuity" has been perverted. Churches "hire" pastors, and rarely (if ever) will you find an elder teaching Bible doctrine systematically and faithfully to "faithful men" within the church, so that they may be able to teach others also. The issue of spiritual gifts in this regard (rather than academic qualifications) is simply ignored, as though God is not concerned with that. If you were to walk into your church and say "Let us return to the New Testament pattern" you would probably get the cold shoulder.

 

[cubanito]

Besides, the new testament pattern was chaos, endless arguments and widely divergent practices by geography less than a decade after Christ's ascension.

We have this naive view of a pristine early Church which is not ANYTHING like what we read in the new testament. Read Galatians as to how "men from James" come in and add circumcision as a requirement. Even close buddies like Paul and Barnabas have a major falling out over Mark. Peter gets told he's a hypocrite publicly. By the time Revelations gets written only 2 out of 7 Churches are not severely condemned by Christ.

Theological continuity with the early Church? Which early Church, the one that abandoned it's first love, the one that had the prostitute Jezebel pulling the strings or the one Christ vomited out of His mouth?

Ladies, our squabbling is nothing new. We have always been a sorry lot. Why He loves us is beyond my understanding.

JR

 

[Job8]

Besides, the new testament pattern was chaos, endless arguments and widely divergent practices by geography less than a decade after Christ's ascension.

No, it certainly was NOT chaos. We need not focus on the conflicts within the churches. As to "divergent" practices, as long as the apostles were on earth, the churches were operating as they should, and multitudes were being saved and discipled. Go through the book of Acts (Acts 5:12-16; 11:21-30; 14:21-28 etc.).

The fact of the matter is, that whether or not Christians follow the New Testament, there is a definite pattern for how local churches should be constituted, and how they should operate. Therefore, with the help of God and total reliance on the Holy Spirit, churches can still follow the New Testament pattern in this day of apostasy.

 

[1watchman]

No, it certainly was NOT chaos. We need not focus on the conflicts within the churches. As to "divergent" practices, as long as the apostles were on earth, the churches were operating as they should, and multitudes were being saved and discipled. Go through the book of Acts (Acts 5:12-16; 11:21-30; 14:21-28 etc.).

The fact of the matter is, that whether or not Christians follow the New Testament, there is a definite pattern for how local churches should be constituted, and how they should operate. Therefore, with the help of God and total reliance on the Holy Spirit, churches can still follow the New Testament pattern in this day of apostasy.

Hello friend. In your various posts on CF it almost seems like you are saying things which I also hold in all my posts. I would be interested in what you are associated with as a church fellowship --not to be critical but to see what differences we have.

As you may have noted, I believe in Bible-only for all Christian authority, belief, and practice. I often refer seekers to the very sound site at Bible Counsel to see much of what God intends for His testimony in the world. I hope you will visit there, and also write me if you would like to have a godly discussion on church truth. Look up always1

- Sincerely in Christ forever, 1watchman Bob

 

[Job8]

Hello friend. In your various posts on CF it almost seems like you are saying things which I also hold in all my posts.

We are pretty much on the same track, and probably in the minority.
(But one should never be concerned whether one is with the majority).
In the day that we live in another "Reformation" or "Restoration" is out of the question.

 

[Jack Koons]

Theological Continuity actually has two aspects: 1) Is there a continuity of theology as pertaining to the doctrine of salvation (Soteriology) throughout the OT and NT as taught by those adhering to Covenant Theology (as opposed to Dispensationalism); and 2) Has there been a general continuity of theology by any church claiming to adhere to the teachings of the first century Church, in Christendom?

 

[7angels]

in my opinion there is only one continuity of theology that is of salvation. but even that has started to get messed up. throughout all the centuries from Christ to present time salvation is basically the only message that has come through the centuries unscathed. all other parts of the bible there have been divisions. is healing for today? can women teach. there are many other parts of the bible which can be debated upon. this is the main reason we have so many different church types.

i have found that there are people out there who are starting to get back to the basics of what the beliefs were when the church was first formed. i have witnessed churches that are having great revivals are ones that allow the Spirit to move freely and do not quench the Spirit. when we listen to the Spirit it allows God to move as he wills. this brings about supernatural things to occur which according to scripture are needed to confirm the truth of the Word. without the confirmation of the signs, miracles, and wonders then christianity is just the same as every other religion. it is the signs, miracles, and wonders that are supposed to be the determining factor that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the bible is true.

it is sad that the churches now a days are getting so watered down that they have no power flowing to show the unsaved that God is real. but the reason for this i believe is because the church is getting selfish. this is probably why according to barna survey that 60% of all evangelical kids when they come of age are leaving the church. unless we are staying hot after Christ we will end up cold and powerless. but thank God there is a remnant that still chases after God and those are the ones that are adhering to the first century teaching of the apostles.

God bless

 

[cubanito]

Theological Continuity actually has two aspects: 1) Is there a continuity of theology as pertaining to the doctrine of salvation (Soteriology) throughout the OT and NT as taught by those adhering to Covenant Theology (as opposed to Dispensationalism); and 2) Has there been a general continuity of theology by any church claiming to adhere to the teachings of the first century Church, in Christendom?

There are always different opinions and outliers in any system. That being said, the bulk of dispensationalists maintain salvation by Grace alone in the OT and NT . Pointing to some outlier here or there does not change that as far as soteriology, dispys and covens agree on the same Gospel for all people at all times (save pre-fall Adam/Eve and the Second Adam, JC).

Please Jack, stop misrepresenting those with whom you disagree.

JR