Dear Brother Stout,
Lynn Ridenhour here. Thank you for your email. Let me respond to some of
your concerns.
First, I want to address (what I understand to be) two underlying themes in
your email:
the spirit of sectarianism versus His Lordship, and
the concept of canonization.
Some Prefatory Remarks
To let you know up front “…where I’m coming from,” I’m not the
least bit interested in polemics. That is, I’m not interested in winning an
argument. I’m only interested in uplifting our Lord & Savior-even in my
response. Especially in my response. I think our beloved apostle Paul said it
well addressing Timothy, “…I know WHOM I have believed, and am
persuaded that HE is able to keep that which I have committed unto him…”
(II Tim.1:12) Paul said he knew in WHOM he had believed-not in WHAT he
believed.
To say it another way-God is the Truth, the Bible is the truth about the
Truth, and one’s theology is the truth about the truth about the Truth. One
can know the truth about the Truth and not know the Truth. Our Lord said it
this way, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto
the Father but by me…” (Jn.14:6)
Ultimate Truth, in other words, is a person, not a doctrine. Doctrine is
“…truth about the Truth…” Which is why I firmly believe--my best &
only defense is my personal testimony. Like Paul, I too say, “…I am not
mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness…”
(Acts 26:25). Paul, a very learned man in the scriptures, a Pharisee who
sat at the feet of Gamaliel, the great teacher of the Law, could have taken
another route--the route of apologetics and exegesis before the king. Knowing
his life was on the line, Paul chose, however, to bear his personal testimony.
“…At midday, O king, I saw…” And Paul proceeds to tell of his
wonderful, amazing personal experience with the risen Christ. The king, in his
disbelief, said, “…Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth
make thee mad…” (vs.24).
Which proves my point: it is not my job (or agenda) to prove anything to
you. That is the duty of the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit of God can confirm
Truth to our hearts. I can only say…there came a moment in my younger years
when I knew Jesus Christ was my Savior and my Lord. I KNEW He
had died not only for the sins of the world, but for MY SINS as well. I knew
He had come into my heart and had transformed my life. I knew He was a Living
Lord, not a “book Jesus.” From that moment on, my life changed. My desires
changed. As a young person, I was a morphine addict bent on destroying my
life. Literally. For a few years I lived in constant sin and degradation. I
slept on the streets. One day the Holy Spirit came upon me, cleansed me, and
set me free. I was set free from the ravages and cravings of sex, sin, and
morphine. My drug addiction went away immediately. I had no withdrawal
symptoms. And I had been “shooting up” morphine every four hours for weeks
& weeks. If not months. Yes,…
I am indeed a new “creature in Christ…” “…old things have
passed away, and all things are become new…” (II Cor.5:17). I have
never doubted that experience. I was passive and acted upon. The Hound of
Heaven had caught me. I did not initiate change. I was changed. And it
happened way back in the early ‘60s. I’ve been clean ever since. Clean for
nearly 40 years now. Clean of cigarettes, booz, sex and drugs and the old life
style. I could go that route today but the pull is no longer there. From that
day forward my utmost desire has been to please the Lord in all that I do and
to love Him with all my heart. He truly is My Life-literally. Some day, should
I be called upon, I hope and pray that I would have the integrity and courage
of soul to literally lay down my life for Him. He did for me. As Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, that great and brave German martyr, so eloquently stated,
“….When Christ calls a man, He bids him ‘Come and die.…’” In
the meantime, by His grace, I will continue to live for Him every day. I truly
love Him with all my heart. He’s my first love. My allegiance is to Him.
Really, when all is said and done, about the only thing I REALLY KNOW is
what the blind man told the Pharisees who kept berating him: “…one
thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see…” (Jn.9:25).
That’s about all I can say too when you come down to it. Polemics pale in
the glimpse of His glory. Nevertheless, I will share some of my thoughts
regarding your email. First, the matter of…
The Spirit of Sectarianism Vs. His Lordship
I truly believe, you can go to heaven without being a Baptist. I believe
there are some Methodists who know the Lord and who have been born again; I
believe there are some Lutherans who are born again, even some Catholics. Even
some Mormons. My point is-I long to see things from God’s point of view. The
Bible tells us to “…be not conformed to this world, but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind…” (Rom.12:2). We’re to, in
other words, “…put on the mind of Christ…” and to think like
God thinks (Gal.3:27).
How does God think?
When He looks down over my city, Kansas City, Missouri, He doesn’t see
Baptist churches or Lutheran churches or Catholic churches or Pentecostal
churches or Mormon churches. He sees His children. That’s it. God is not “denominational.”
We have over 100 denominations in our city but I submit-the Lord recognizes
none of them. That is, His Church is built upon the rock of revelation
that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 13). I
submit-when the Lord looks down upon any city, He sees His Church-and all who
have had a personal revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the
living God, are members of His Church. I’m saying--I want to view His church
as the Lord sees His church--based upon a revelation of His Lordship, not
doctrinal agreement. Why wait ‘till we all get to heaven to think like God
thinks?
I’m also saying-too often we’re divided by doctrine. That ought not be.
He who has confessed Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior is my brother in the
faith. Fellowship is centered around His Lordship, not doctrine. Again--all
who confess Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives, regardless of creed, color,
or class, are my brothers and sisters. I like the way C.S. Lewis said it in
his classic book “Mere Christianity.” Lewis says, “…it’s
not that we Christians disagree; it’s that we disagree on the importance of
our disagreements…” How true! Example…
For some of the brethren, it’s very important that we believe in
baptismal regeneration before we will fellowship; for others it’s very
important that we believe in irresistible grace (the Calvinist point of view
of Salvation) before we can fellowship; with others, the will of man (Armenian
point of view) plays a crucial role in one’s salvation. With some of us, we
embrace the “second blessing” typically known as “the deeper life
experience.” Methodists call it sanctification. Others of us do not believe
in the second blessing experience. Some of us believe in the “baptism or
filling of the Holy Spirit” with the evidence of glossalalia; others
of us don’t. Some of us are pre-millennial regarding our views on the Second
Coming; some of us are post-millennial; a few of us are amillennial. A few of
us think esoteric temple rites have a role to play in the afterlife.
See what I mean? Fellowship too often is based upon doctrine.
Too often I believe the Body of Christ is divided by doctrinal agreement-or
disagreement. Which I believe is based upon a false premise-that we must be in
doctrinal agreement in order to fellowship. I don’t believe that. I like to
put it this way-the fellowship of the saints is not based upon conformity
of doctrine but unity of the Spirit (Eph.4:1-6). In other words,
the Bible does not teach conformity of doctrine but unity of the Spirit. Or to
say it another way--conformity of doctrine is not necessarily unity; neither
is unity necessarily conformity of doctrine. I’ve sat through too many
Baptist church splits to believe otherwise.
I think today we share too often the same assumptions the Pharisees in the
Bible shared. The Pharisees were not wrong in doctrine; they were wrong in
assumption. They assumed-if they knew the Word of God, they knew God. Wrong
assumption. You can know the Word of God and not know the God who wrote it.
Believing the Bible won’t save you. Believing in Jesus Christ in the
Bible will save you. In other words, they didn’t nail a book to the tree
that awful day. The book won’t bleed. It takes a person to save a person. It
takes the spilt blood of Christ to save you. Jesus said an interesting thing
to the Pharisees one day. He said…
“…[Ye] search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life
[but you don’t] and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come
to me, that ye might have life…” (Jn.5:39,40)
Interesting. The Pharisees assumed since they knew the scriptures, they
knew God. But our Lord told them “…ye THINK ye have eternal life…”
Then he concluded, saying in essence, “…but you don’t…” And then
those awful words, “…ye will not come to me, that ye might have life…”
Truly, one of the saddest passages in all of scripture. The Pharisees were
too busy studying the Word to recognize God when He was standing right in
front of them. They were too busy studying their scriptures. So God walked
off.
The Pharisees didn’t understand-you don’t get life out of the Bible;
you get light (Psa.119:115). Life comes from Christ--but they wouldn’t
come to Him. They had their scriptures. But you can shine a flashlight on a
dead person all day long and it won’t do him one bit of good. He needs a
resurrection! He needs life. Then he can see.
In summary--our ultimate goal as Christians is not primarily to be correct
in doctrine but to be rightly related to one another and to God. We can be
right in our hearts while wrong in our heads. (Of course, the ideal is to be
right in our hearts and in our heads.) But our theology can be all screwed up
and God will still accept us and minister to us. I’m thinking of the woman
who had an issue of blood and who thought if she could but touch the hem of
his garment (Matt.9:21), crawling on her hands and knees, she would be
healed. Her heart was right while her head was messed up. Who said we had to
crawl on our hands and knees before the Lord would heal us?! The Lord knew her
heart anyway and responded. He healed her. As one brother put it, “…the
Lord can take a crooked stick and draw a straight line…”
I like that. And believe it.
What’s my point in this whole matter? Don’t judge me and call me a “heretic”
because our doctrines don’t match. Because the two of us don’t exactly
line up scripturally. Don’t ban me from fellowship and the Lord’s table if
we don’t agree upon every doctrine. If Jesus Christ is the Lord of your life
and if Jesus Christ is the Lord of my life, then we’re commanded to
fellowship as brothers in the faith. As said, our fellowship is to be centered
around His Lordship, not certain sectarian agreements. Paul and Peter, for
instance, were at it all the time. Or so it seemed. They certainly did not
agree on matters of doctrine (read Galatians) but they truly knew and
adored the same Lord.
Let’s not make the same mistake the Pharisees made-pouring over our
scriptures while God is standing unrecognized in our midst.
On to the second matter…
The Concept of Canonization
You write, “…to jump from ‘I agree with the doctrines taught there’
to ‘Because I
agree with the doctrines taught there IT IS THEREFORE DIVINE’ is not only
the
height of myopic egocentrism but a gross sophism…”
I think our misunderstanding between us comes from perhaps our
understanding of-the concept of canonization. Your understanding (without
putting words in your mouth) is-the canon of scripture is based upon a list of
God-breathed, inspired writings known as the Old & New Testaments. 66
books. That’s what most theologians refer to as a “closed canon.”
My belief is that the canon is not closed. God’s writings are still an
“open canon.” He’s not through. Even John the Beloved said in the last
verse of his matchless book:
“…And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,
if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written…” (Jn.21:25)
I find that statement fascinating. If the Lord wanted to write more
inspired books, he could. Even the world could not contain them all. That’s
an open canon. Moving on…
Before I point out the two distinctions, (open and closed canon) let me be
quick to say-I believe in verbal inspiration, plenary revelation, and inerancy
of scripture. I believe the words of Paul, the apostle:
“…All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”
(II Tim.3:16).
I believe the Bible, love every word it contains, adore its truths, use it
as my road map to salvation and believe with all my soul-God wrote it. It’s
God-inspired.
But I also believe the early saints looked upon the canon as a Rod
of Truth (as a way of measuring inspiration), not as a list of books. In other
words, the canon was turned from a rod into a list-man’s wisdom, not God’s.
The word “canon” originally meant “rod” not “list.”
We must remember, the concept (canon as a list) became popular around the
time of Constantine. A period when the Church became infiltrated with
nationalism and worldly teachings. There were three councils that solidified
the concept-1) the Council of Hippo, 393 A.D., 2) Third of Carthage, 397 A.D.,
and 3) Sixth of Carthage, 419 A.D.
I am asking a very fundamental question. Why was the authority to canonize
limited to our Apostolic Fathers and to the early Christian scholars; i.e.,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origin? Why limit canon
authority to the early prominent Church fathers, Athanasius of Alexandria,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Amphilocius of Asia Minor, and
Gregory Nazianzus of Cappadocia, Hilary of France, Rufinus of Italy, and
Jerome…etc.?
Why did we put such faith in Church Councils? Was God in a rush? Can we be
sure these men heard from heaven? Were they walking in the Spirit at Augustine’s
Council of Hippo in 393 AD?
I raise these questions, for when I was studying for the ministry at
William Jewell College, a Southern Baptist College in Liberty, MO, very
little, if anything, was said of our early church fathers. We skimmed over the
2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries-critical years.
For years as a Baptist minister, I had no idea that for the most part, our
early church fathers were a mess! The majority of our church fathers came from
a background in philosophy. They wanted to be philosophers and prophets. For
example, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) a platonist philosopher never quite
tossed his philosophical mindset overboard. Then there was Clement of
Alexandria (150-215), pagan philosopher turned Christian theologian,
who taught Origin at the Alexandrian catechetical school. Clement of
Alexandria sees in philosophy God’s preparation of the human race for the
gospel. “…Philosophy prepares the work that Christ completes,”
says Clement.
Origin, Clement’s student, was a thorough-going Hellenist. According to
Origin, cultivated Christians really think just like cultivated heathens, so
that “…anyone would think either that present-day Christians are
philosophers or that philosophers of yore were Christians…” The story
of Moses seeing God is for Origin simply “…one of those old wives’ tales…”
And then there was Augustine who for twenty years absolutely refused to
accept his mother’s Christianity-the God who might have a body.
Many of our church fathers believed only in a spiritual resurrection, not
in Christ literally and physically raising from the dead. And I’ve merely
mentioned two or three.
In a nutshell, our early church fathers tried desperately to “paganize”
Christianity and/or to “Christianize” paganism. And failed miserably at
both. They had yet to recognize that oil and water don’t mix. Never will.
Neither does Christianity and philosophy.
Yet these were the men who shaped our present-day canon. They picked out
the list.
Well…
I said all that to say this-perhaps turning the canon into a list of
books was a product of man’s wisdom. I think it was.
Which brings us to this-if you embrace the canon as a “list” and not as
a “rod” for measuring inspiration and Truth when spoken and written, then
our paradigms are mutually exclusive. That is not to say-we are both not
believers and brothers in the faith. It means our assumptions are at odds.
Your statement,
“…to jump from ‘I agree with the doctrines taught there’ to ‘Because
I
agree with the doctrines taught there IT IS THEREFORE DIVINE’ is not only
the
height of myopic egocentrism but a gross sophism…”
presupposes that I believe in the closed canon (the Words of God are
limited to a list of 66 books) when I don’t believe that.
Again, don’t judge me because our presuppositions don’t match. The
Bible says, “…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…”
(Acts 16:31).
It doesn’t say-“…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and match your
presuppositions, and thou shalt be saved…”
Well…
I’ve rambled on for long enough. I go back to my original thesis:
I can only really say with certainty--once I was blind but now I can see. I
too have seen the Lord.
With Affection,
Lynn Ridenhour
