Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You make much more out of the article "the" than a normal person would. The heavenly vision of Paul would seem to be found initially in the vision of God telling him that he would be apostle to the Gentiles. That did not limit the breadth of how that was to occur. But it did focus Paul on a mission. His vision was of his calling. It was not of the limitation of the move of God overall, but the specific declaration of God's moving through him.
There is nothing in this verse that limits God's move to what Paul was doing. Rather it put a limit on what Paul was doing. No limit on what Peter was doing. Or John, James (either), Barnabas (and Paul refers to him positively after their parting), Mark, Timothy, or so many others.
You have a calling. It may be to preach to aborigines in some far land. Or it may be to live the righteousness of Christ in the sight of those around you in urban America. And lots of places in between. But for you or me, it is not likely both. At least not at the same time. So for yourself, you might be ablt to say that God has called you to a specific (and therefore unique from your own perspective) work. But that does not make it God's unique work.
Your whole argument in this post is based on the same kind of logic that got you the doctrine of dirt. Paul said "the heavenly vision" so you declare that there is only one such vision rather than recognize that it was Paul who saw that vision while Peter saw a different one. Yet they all work in God's move. You make universal declarations out of contextually discreet statements that do not make any kind of universal statement. It is among the core errors of both Nee and Lee. And once you make those errors and teach them, the foundation for the next teaching is flawed and therefore subject to taking you someone you shouldn't go. Like declaring that Christ is just the Holy Spirit.
|
As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.
Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.
If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.
I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.
The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.
Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.
But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.
Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.
THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:
Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.
Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:
The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.