A question that I'd asked previously, which LSM (to my knowledge) has never answered: If Paul told Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus to make sure that they taught things that resulted in God's economy, how can we say that part of the charge included the teaching of intensification? If there's no evidence that Paul included intensification as part of his oeuvre, why did WL say it was part of the teaching of God's economy? It must have been added in later, by somebody else - namely WL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
As a recent example of discrepancy, I found myself reconsidering "God's economy" as taught by WL: where does Paul promote intensification? If not, why pretend that Paul was urging Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach it? And if Paul wasn't telling Timothy (or anyone else) to teach it as part of "God's economy", why the presumption that we should? (And, where to broach such questions as a basis for respectful and mutually profitable exploration? Not in the Local Church!)
|
Perhaps John "saw" or "taught" intensification based on his vision of seven spirits on Patmos, but if we can't see John passing this on to Paul somewhere (and of course Paul was deceased by then), how can we include it in Paul's teaching, or imagine that Paul wanted Timothy to make sure it was taught in Ephesus? Unless we see Paul teaching a sevenfold intensified Holy Spirit, we can't assume that he wanted it taught in Ephesus as part of God's economy. And if Paul didn't, neither can WL or anyone else. It's pure fabrication. The only reason WL got away with this amateur-hour theology is that he preached in an Echo chamber, where all he could hear was "Yes, amen" from the crowd. A critical audience would have called this out.