First, while I have some now very open reservations, Let's get on with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
It is a major weakness in one of the planks of my hypothesis(John having remaining disciples while Paul does not).
|
The problem is that we don't really know that Paul did not have any "disciples" or that either of them considered those that learned from them as "their" disciples. It could be that Paul's disciples were not prolific writers (if at all) or were mostly dealing with the issues of the assemblies with which they had some direct charge or presence while John's were more like itinerant preachers having no fixed base. One would not need to write letters while the other might. It also could simply be the way it played out.
As for my comments about looking to current errors more than flaws in scriptural understanding, that is not an absolute. While I am more and more convinced that there is a proper place for certain "positions" within the assembly that should be exercised in true "servant" mode, it seems clear that there are things in scripture that have been misinterpreted (willfully or ignorantly) that have lead to some of the errors that we observe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
No, I don't believe I am elevating one scripture or ministry over any others. I am trying to solve a puzzle. The Bible presents a chronological narrative, and the end is not so stellar, at least as far as the "local churches" goes.
|
If we are going to talk about scripture as revealing a general decline, I note that there are only seven epistles. They are to one region that had some of the most strong worldly and satanic influences. Meanwhile there is nothing said to the churches in Judea, Greece, Rome, or other parts of modern Turkey. Was it that these seven represented the problems that all had? Or were they the only ones with problems? Or were they chosen because it was possible to find enough of certain issues that they could be pointed out for everyone to read and heed? In all cases, there were those charged to overcome. All was not lost. Even in what we call the most dire places, the record does not seem to say that all are engaged in the error, or does not provide more than a charge against the assembly as a whole. (That surely means that the "problem" was significant enough that it was not hidden.)
As for the issue of a chronology, maybe that is not the correct analysis. Instead, the issue is how God dealt with what was there. While there may be something to knowing where 2 Corinthians fits into the NT time line, just like where Jonah fit in the OT time line, we might be giving the knowledge of the time (in both cases) more stature than it deserves. Maybe it is how God is dealing with what "is" and what "is" has been recorded in the particular writings. What did God say? Start with the presumption that what Paul, John, Peter, or whoever said or wrote
is God's speaking.
But if the order of the epistles is so uncertain that we cannot reliably use the order as a meaningful fact, then we might be better to presume that the order is not the issue.