Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
In post #193 you said:
"When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches. "
Given the context of this topic I thought you were suggesting that Chayil was an example.
So then clarify, why wouldn't Chayil be an example of what you meant in the above soapbox speech of "cancer on the people", "redress of a modern "Acts 15 council", and "the Lord is at the door knocking"?
And just so there is no misunderstanding on your part, Jane and Nell are quite capable of speaking for themselves so they need no spokesperson. I just happen to disagree with them on this topic.
|
You are quite the builder of strawmen. You (or maybe Evangelical) had been suggesting that Chayil should not be taught in any church. And in terms of what gets taught in the church, you may be right.
In fact, most discussions that ultimately result in changes in the thinking of the church tend not to be taught in the church, but discussed and analyzed. In a manner worthy of the discussion and determination that occurred in Acts 15. Of course, given the broader spectrum of persons who will be part of the discussion, and the tendency to be stuck in our reading, it may take longer than a few soliloquies followed by some prayer and an announcement. The problem would appear, based on the manner in which both you and Evangelical simply dismiss the issue and look only at writers that support your position, that there is no desire on the part of too many to even entertain that they could have been wrong. To take the effort to set aside the preconceived ideas and start looking at it with fresh eyes and an open spirit.
NO. The teaching comes after the issue has been hashed through and there is an "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us" kind of conclusion.
Except for those who want to stop the discussion by swaying public opinion (the public that is generally not able to make the decision for themselves, but instead rely on the honest, careful consideration of their spiritual leaders). And thwart the discussion by calling names and setting up strawmen to beat on. So those kinds will preach on the issue before the discussion even starts. They will warn everyone of the "serious danger" of even entertaining the discussion. Paint those that don't heed the warning as lepers.
This all brought to mind the very serious restrictions on teaching (or even writing and publishing) that is placed upon your little sect. One in which the very act of publishing something for the benefit of the people that is not approved by the denomination's headquarters is grounds for excommunication. (Don't bother quibbling over excommunication v quarantine. TC and others are simply cast out. Not a single word spoken about whether what was published was actually "OK." Just cast out.) The Baptists generally do not do such things. Nor the Methodists, Presbyterians, Bible churches, and so many others.
But you don't even want anyone to hear that there is a question being entertained.
It seems that it is only the most seriously sectarian groups within Christianity that so carefully guard their doctrinal positions. Or guard their publishing empires.
And rather than actually engaging in a search for truth, they will close their eyes and send out their minions to try to shut everyone else's. Or bruise them so badly that they can't see through them.