Modernism and CENI

[Arkstfan]

I am just pondering.

The churches of Christ have for the most part embraced modernism. That is we can apply scientific rational thinking and reach the correct conclusions.

Yet the CENI hermenutic is embraced and by its very nature it is anti-modernistic because you cannot obtain a scientific answer. Once you move past the COMMAND step you can't replicate results.

Disagreement emerges at the example level and even some debate over whether something is command or example.

Once we move to an inference analysis there is great disagreement. Results cannot be reproduced.

Yet modernism insists that the same result should be reached leaving the remaining conclusion to be that those in disagreement are false teachers or have cold selfish hearts that refuse to listen to God.

CENI applied in a scientific, modernistic approach permits for little to no liberty or self-study because reaching a differing conclusion declares that at least one of those disagreeing is in rebellion.

[James.]

CENI applied in a scientific, modernistic approach permits for little to no liberty or self-study because reaching a differing conclusion declares that at least one of those disagreeing is in rebellion.

This is also why hardcore CENItarians get really, really nervous any time the word prefix "re" is affixed to the word "study."  You see, nothing needs to be reexamined because all the issues have already been CENIdized, and the need to "restudy" is an indicator that one is seeking a way to justify untruth...or so the conversation usually goes.

There are some good conversations about CENI going on in the blogosphere.  Too many, in fact, so I'm just reading along on this one: http://oneinjesus.info/2009/05/02/ceni-introduction/

[Barabbas]

CENI applied in a scientific, modernistic approach permits for little to no liberty or self-study because reaching a differing conclusion declares that at least one of those disagreeing is in rebellion.

In rebellion OR just not thinking correctly.  Not much imagination either.  It's similar to a teacher leading students in an experiment in a chemistry lab to obtain a particular result.  If all students start with the same equipment and same instructions - they should come up with the same results.  Differences are due to some not following instructions properly, taking shortcuts, etc.  Your grade is a result of how well you followed the instructions.

The trouble with CENI is it's never as precise as a chemistry lab ... or a math equation.  Even among it's most ardent followers there is much disagreement, which would lead to questioning if foundational assumptions of CENI are even correct.  At least it did with me.

[James.]

Even among it's most ardent followers there is much disagreement, which would lead to questioning if foundational assumptions of CENI are even correct.

Yep, and one of the problems, istm, is that even that question is seen by many as the red flag of heresy, when in fact, it is the spirit of investigation, study, and a "no sacred cows" approach championed by the RM that leads us to this question.

[Barabbas]

Even among it's most ardent followers there is much disagreement, which would lead to questioning if foundational assumptions of CENI are even correct.

Yep, and one of the problems, istm, is that even that question is seen by many as the red flag of heresy, when in fact, it is the spirit of investigation, study, and a "no sacred cows" approach championed by the RM that leads us to this question.

I've witnessed a lot of getting away from that approach among the Church of Christ.  The trouble is they lose some of their distinctive characteristics when that approach is left.  I don't think that's such a bad thing, but it does make you wonder how Churches of Christ will look a couple of generations from now.  For example if the reason you don't use instrumental music is because of CENI approaches to the scripture, and you don't believe in CENI anymore, the only reason you worship without instruments is because of tradition.  Tradition is not a good foundation for a group who believe traditions of men are not from God.

[Arkstfan]

Barabbas, tradition though is an acceptable answer. I was at a non-instrumental congregation and when visited asked why we had no instruments the answer was we prefer it that way or tradition and I don't think any objected. Tell 'em its a sin you get a fight.

Traditions are from men and as long as they don't interfere with the work of the body they are good. They give us comfort and routine. We could walk in to church bless the elements of communion pass them, have a sermon, take up a collection, sing five songs, have a prayer, and go home, but doing it that way would jar most of the congregation. Odds are pretty good that the elders and preacher would be blessed if they are able to get home before they got blasted for their changes.

Nothing wrong with that sort of change other than causing unneeded strife.

[Barabbas]

Sure, I think tradition is an acceptable answer.  It sure beats trying to make a rational argument out of a bankrupt idea.  The question is can a tradition continue to have any weight without the rational underpinnings of that tradition, especially a tradition that is not that old or widespread (even though CoC apologists will attempt to argue that it is... with Herculean effort.  Just b/c 1st cent. Christians didn't use instruments and baptized by immersion doesn't mean the CoC are just like them.) 

I agree that traditions are from men many times ... but I would submit that they can also be from God.  Discernment seems important in this, just as discernment is important in our interpretation of the Bible.  I think open dialogue between Christians facilitates this discernment.  "Where 2 or more are gathered together ..."

[James.]

The Orthodox make the tradition argument all the time for staying a cappella (if you count them, it's not just a 1st century idea, nor is it "not that old"...it's the reasoning of the CofC that appears to be new, not a cappella, just to clarify the matter).

[Arkstfan]

But the Orthodox are going to burn in hell because their understanding of why they don't have instruments is imperfect, or at least that's what I gather reading Pope Lively.

[Barabbas]

The Orthodox make the tradition argument all the time for staying a cappella (if you count them, it's not just a 1st century idea, nor is it "not that old"...it's the reasoning of the CofC that appears to be new, not a cappella, just to clarify the matter).

I agree with that - CENI definitely appears to be a new approach, although elements of it appeared earlier - sometimes centuries earlier.  There were obvious modern influences, such as ruling out the miraculous a priori.  That's an idea that no one would get just from reading the Bible unless they had prejudices against it beforehand.

As far as singing,  I get the impression that Paul was simply encouraging a natural response to praising God.  The argument over instruments, whether for or against, DOES seem to be tradition based.  If Paul was only encouraging singing and not commanding it... then the whole point of the argument seems kind of silly.

But the Orthodox are going to burn in hell because their understanding of why they don't have instruments is imperfect, or at least that's what I gather reading Pope Lively.

 

I'm afraid Pope Lively lost my interest a while back.  Not a whole lotta dialogue going on with pontification.  Communication should go both ways.  Again... "where 2 or more a gathered together..."

[Livelysword]

The Orthodox make the tradition argument all the time for staying a cappella (if you count them, it's not just a 1st century idea, nor is it "not that old"...it's the reasoning of the CofC that appears to be new, not a cappella, just to clarify the matter).

I agree with that - CENI definitely appears to be a new approach, although elements of it appeared earlier - sometimes centuries earlier.  There were obvious modern influences, such as ruling out the miraculous a priori.  That's an idea that no one would get just from reading the Bible unless they had prejudices against it beforehand.

As far as singing,  I get the impression that Paul was simply encouraging a natural response to praising God.  The argument over instruments, whether for or against, DOES seem to be tradition based.  If Paul was only encouraging singing and not commanding it... then the whole point of the argument seems kind of silly.

But the Orthodox are going to burn in hell because their understanding of why they don't have instruments is imperfect, or at least that's what I gather reading Pope Lively.

 

I'm afraid Pope Lively lost my interest a while back.  Not a whole lotta dialogue going on with pontification.  Communication should go both ways.  Again... "where 2 or more a gathered together..."

Lively:  Personal insult noted above...  but I guess that is what some must stoop to when they can not biblically speak against what another has lawfully taught from the word of God...

[Arkstfan]

Please demonstrate how you are not pope.

You hold the perfect truth and none who pray and study earnestly and reach another conclusion are correct.

You have snatched the mantle of pope whether you like the title or not.

[Livelysword]

Please demonstrate how you are not pope.

You hold the perfect truth and none who pray and study earnestly and reach another conclusion are correct.

You have snatched the mantle of pope whether you like the title or not.

Lively:  I do not claim infallibility... if I am right on a subject then I am right... if not, then I am not... same with you...  but its like so many questions asked and answered... most of them having been answered by many on this board have shown to be wrong answers...  trust me when I say... we are not here for your destruction, but for your edification... to help you through some of the false beliefs being held by many on this board...

[James.]

On what issues do you think you may be wrong?

[Livelysword]

On what issues do you think you may be wrong?

Lively:  If I thought I was wrong on an issue, I would change it and not be wrong on it any more...  when I come to better and more perfect understandings, I change to what the bible teaches me to be....  one issue I changed which I once believed but do not hold to now days is that we today are not indwelt with the Spirit of God... I use to hold to that belief, but do not any more...  when I came to a better understanding I changed my position and accepted the truth I was confronted with...  Yet I know many of the brethren do not hold to what I hold to now... they hold to what I once held to...  and I believe they are about as willing to change their view on the Holy Spirit indwelling them as many on here are willing to change the views they hold to...  the change simply is not happening... and I can understand caution to change until one is fully persuaded in his own mind... and I would not ask anything more of anyone on this board... but they do need some serious study and come to the knowledge of the truth on many things they are in error on...