paradigms

[lancelot]

Someone mentioned a new paradigm concerning scripture.

What was wrong with the old paradigm?

What is the new paradigm?

Lancelot

[marc]

What's the old paradigm?  And can you link the post where this was used? 

[Mere Nick]

A paradigm won't buy what it used to.

[lancelot]

What's the old paradigm?  And can you link the post where this was used? 

Sorry, but I don't recall where I saw it.  Someone just referred to a new way of looking at scripture, using the word paradigm.  So, I wondered about what was wrong with the old way of looking at scripture and what the new way was.

Lancelot

[DCR]

What's the old paradigm?  And can you link the post where this was used? 

Sorry, but I don't recall where I saw it.  Someone just referred to a new way of looking at scripture, using the word paradigm.  So, I wondered about what was wrong with the old way of looking at scripture and what the new way was.

Lancelot

We need a little context to know what was being  discussed.  There are many different paradigms on how different groups approach scripture... which basically means different sets of assumptions and points of emphasis, etc.  This leads to different interpretations and application of scripture.

[Arkstfan]

I suspect anyone thinking there is a new view just doesn't know much theology or history.

[James.]

There's a search button at the top of every page.  How about finding the thread with that by searching for "paradigm" and providing some context?  It's not too uncommon a word, and only you will know which thread in which it was used is the one to which you refer.

[lancelot]

There's a search button at the top of every page.  How about finding the thread with that by searching for "paradigm" and providing some context?  It's not too uncommon a word, and only you will know which thread in which it was used is the one to which you refer.

Thanks.  I found it:

Description: Should the use of instrumental music in--and similar issues--be a test of fellowship? For fifteen years the author preached the traditional "conservative" view that biblical unity must be based on doctrinal conformity. In this unique book he explains what led him to finally abandon that long-held position.

With thorough documentation and a respectful tone, Deaver seeks to show the self-contradictions involved in the conservative approach. He pleads with Churches of Christ to acknowledge the failure of the traditional paradigm and open their minds to a different perspective.

(Foreword by Dr. Randy Willingham)

So, what was wrong with the "traditional paradigm"?

And what is the different perspective, or new paradigm?

Lancelot

[DCR]

Thanks.  Good topic starter.  This could actually be an interesting "crux of the matter" discussion.  I don't have time to contribute right now.  So, I'll be interested in seeing other responses and may give some thoughts a little later.

[Fem2009]

I suspect anyone thinking there is a new view just doesn't know much theology or history.

Yes. Not everyone knows everything.

[James.]

There's a search button at the top of every page.  How about finding the thread with that by searching for "paradigm" and providing some context?  It's not too uncommon a word, and only you will know which thread in which it was used is the one to which you refer.

Thanks.  I found it:

Description: Should the use of instrumental music in--and similar issues--be a test of fellowship? For fifteen years the author preached the traditional "conservative" view that biblical unity must be based on doctrinal conformity. In this unique book he explains what led him to finally abandon that long-held position.

With thorough documentation and a respectful tone, Deaver seeks to show the self-contradictions involved in the conservative approach. He pleads with Churches of Christ to acknowledge the failure of the traditional paradigm and open their minds to a different perspective.

(Foreword by Dr. Randy Willingham)

So, what was wrong with the "traditional paradigm"?

To be honest, for that you'd be best served either reading his book, or at least going to his blog where he has an open discussion going.  I've read it, but don't really have time right now to regurgitate it all.  I'd hoped to discuss way back when that thread started, but it was sidetracked in two shakes of a lamb's tail.  Quicker at the moment to point you to these two discussions Deaver's involved in on this very topic:

http://todddeaver.wordpress.com/
http://graceconversation.com/

And what is the different perspective, or new paradigm?

That's kind of the rub.  In Deaver's book, he wants to get at the problem, but purposefully does not offer a prepackaged solution specifically because he believes the churches of Christ need to wrestle with the problem together and work it out, rather than him simply giving a 3-point & a poem solution.

[blituri]

"Modern" is what you always believed about the Bible by being a good disciple.
"Postmodern" means that all truth got sucked up into a black hole. What "you" believe is traditionalism: traditionalism is a vile disease you contracted when your mother took you to Sunday school. However, "we have new spectacles through which we have a new vision for doing church." (Rubel Shelly etal).  For a price and if you learn to hate the olden Bible we can rewrite the old broken text and get you a new set "for a price--always for a price."

Now, you probably grew up learning about PATTERNISM: for instance, if you think there is a logical sequence from hearing the Bible to obedience in baptism, you are a legalistic patternists.  Because your private opinion tends to exclude those who do not agree with you then you are a SECTARIAN.  And because while all of your views of the Bible might be correct you have no right to teach it because we know that you listed after a girl once: if you teach the Bible that makes you a HYPOCRITE.

Now, to remedy all of that, you must abandon and repent in sackcloth and ashes, and hire use because we have a new PARADIGM to replace your old PATTERNISM.  And not being clergy you are supposed to drool and bow to the new paradigms to replace the old patterns.

Now, the catch is that none of them has a clue about what means a paradigm or paradeigma: they read it in a popular book just out by Pastor Jim and think that if they skip reading the Bible and quote Pastor Jim about this new "thingy" called PARADIGMA they will know that I can get by with stealing from the widows this week.

Now you ANTI-patternists I want you to read carefully:

Paradeigma:

I. a PATTERN or model of the thing to be executed, Lat. exemplar, an architect's plan, Hdt.; a sculptor's or painter's model, 
2. a precedent, example, Thuc., Plat.; epi paradeigmatos by way of example, Aeschin.
3. an example, i. e. a lesson or warning, p. echein tinos to take a lesson from anothe
4. an argument, proof from example, 
II. the model or copy of an existing thing,

So a PARADIGM is something you need a doctorate and a huge salary to use: a PATTERN is something for we enlightened who have JUST SAID NO.

The BIBLE is the textbook for the Ekklesia or Synagogue. The direct command, approved example by  Jesus, the commands of Paul and Peter and the historic Church of Christ PREACHED Jesus by READING His Word.  "Private interpretation" OUTLAWS further expounding and Paul outlawed "doubtful disputations" which is what YOU imagine Jesus WOULD have taught if Jesus had been TODD.

Furthermore, lots of people have turned their coats because you need to "follow the money."  However, Paul defined those who CORRUPT THE WORD as "selling learning at retail" and also defines "adultery."  The PATTERN is that Jesus paid it all and give us the free water of the Word. Isa 55.  The direct command by Christ in Isaiah 58 is that a TRUE REST will outlaw "seeking your own pleasure" or even "speaking your own words."

Now another thing the PARADEIGMA's just hate is the old obsolete thing called SYLLOGISM.  But, syllogism is used with paradeigma

Syllogismos. generally, ratiocination, reasoning, putting together of observed facts.

Neither the Greek EKKLESIA or SYNAGOGUE permitted ANY MEMBER to supply the "material to be discussed." In the Synagogue established by Christ in the wilderness the command was to REST, read and discuss the word. That is the command of Jesus and all recorded history before SINGING and PEACHING was introduced "because they were common to all pagan cultls" close to the yer 400.

The Church of Christ -- PRE preacher Era--was redefined by the Campbells to be A SCHOOL OF CHRIST. Worship was defined as READING and musing the Word. That it the only way you can SPEAK THE SAME THING by "speaking that which is written" (Rom 15).

Fellowship is an issue for CHURCH named after CIRCE who is the Babylon MOther of harlots (Rev 17) who uses lusted after fruits (see Amos) as SPEAKERS, singers and instrument players.  John called them SORCERERS who had deceived the whole world.  Disciples could all attend an EKKLESIA and obey Romans 14 and leave doubtful disputations and SELF-pleasure (Rom 15) in the MARKETPLACE where Jesus consigned the pipers, singers and dancers.

A new PARADIGM is an old PATTERN but DON'T tell the The O lites.

[blituri]

Description: Should the use of instrumental music in--and similar issues--be a test of fellowship? For fifteen years the author preached the traditional "conservative" view that biblical unity must be based on doctrinal conformity. In this unique book he explains what led him to finally abandon that long-held position.

You have to be pretty blind to think that NOT using instruments in the SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE was based on TRADITIONALISM. That is one of those RACA words intending to kick you in a soft place to induce the GUILT CLAUSE so that you will be afraid or ashamed to ever NOT make music where the BIBLE never makes music.

If it is traditionalism--a vile disease you caught from your godly ancestors--then ALL of the Chruch theologians and founders of denominations were just SECTARIAN PATTERNISTS.  The serpent in the garden of Eden as a Musical Enchanter(ess) was just a FABLE and "lucifer as the singing and harp playing prostitue in the garden of Eden" is NOT conducive to FELLERSHIP with the masses (and book buyers).

What Todd and friends do is to twist Scripture and the ONLY way to have "fellowship" is to AFFIRM that the Disciples were right for deliberately sowing discord within the DISCIPLES were justified in doing so. Their STATED AUTHORITY was: the Bible, history (church councils which never affirmed instruments but denounced them), TRADITIONALISM and THE LAW OF SILENCE. This is articulated by the then president of the Disciples of Christ.

If you AFFIRM that they were correct with the other POST CIVIL WAR northern churches, THEN you may be tolerated.

However, if you are an ANTI-instrumentalists and will NOT shut your mouth while they hold "unity meetings" then YOU are beyond the pale of Christian tolerance and they are justified in "Taking the AXE to your view."

Fellowship means that you attend, defend, financially support and AGREE with those who introduced "machines for doing hard work" with NO authority and only discovered PSALLO in 1878 which has NO musical content.

To make up sermons you don't have to have read the Old Testament and discovered that Christ spoke through the writing PROPHETS to repudiate the Civil-Military-Clergy Complex and radicallly connected the INSTRUMENTS (Even the lying pen of the Scribes called it NOISE) to telling God to SHUT YOUR FACE.

The word music derives from mystery meaning to MAKE THE LAMBS DUMB BEFORE THE SLAUGHTER. Or to SILENCE the voice of the VICTIM.  It certainly works when you repudiate the direct commands and approved examples to try "to be as much like the world as possible to win the world." 

[lancelot]

However, "we have new spectacles through which we have a new vision for doing church." (Rubel Shelly etal). 

Now, to remedy all of that, you must abandon and repent in sackcloth and ashes, and hire use because we have a new PARADIGM to replace your old PATTERNISM. 

Now, the catch is that none of them has a clue about what means a paradigm or paradeigma: they read it in a popular book just out by Pastor Jim and think that if they skip reading the Bible and quote Pastor Jim about this new "thingy" called PARADIGMA they will know that I can get by with stealing from the widows this week.

That's what I'm wanting to know.  What was wrong with the old way that we looked at scripture and just what is the new way.

Lancelot

[DCR]

Read this article about the "regulative principle," as it may relate to this issue:

http://oneinjesus.info/2008/03/01/the-regulative-principle-history-part-1/