Quote:
Originally Posted by Covert
I quoted much scripture that gives one a glimpse of how Lee just forsakes scripture for his uplifting of his Satanic exposition. Read the bible and you will see exactly why I say what I say. My evidence backing my comments, the one and only holy bible. Joseph Smith is a corrupted false prophet, Muhammad is a false prophet, W. Lee is a false teacher.
|
With this one paragraph I will try to show why you are not succeeding in doing what you think you are doing.
Yes, you quoted some scripture. But you were selective in your quoting. There are also verses that refer to the end, or termination, of the law. I am not saying that those cannot be overcome. But by ignoring them, you have given only part of the story. You have cherry-picked verses that speak the words you want to use.
It is a glimpse. Yet it is a glimpse groomed by using verses that are selected to give one aspect of a story. To make a conclusion appear final while a fuller look at all verses on the subject might not be as certain as you think. I may ultimately agree that it is correct. But that agreement will be because of evidence and arguments that include verses that you have ignored. That you did not provide (or even do?) the work of showing how they do not stand in opposition to your position.
You say you don't want a formal debate-style discussion. I am not proposing that. But I do think that adhering to many of those rules is beneficial. Why? Because even if you are bringing forward the verses that we ultimately conclude are of the correct intent, if you ignore those that seem to deal with what might be called conflicting positions, you leave your conclusion in doubt. Especially for readers that do not already know how to deal with the contradictory verses.
Selectively bringing up verses is not necessarily a bad thing. We probably all start with seeing something in particular verses and thinking we have something. But until we have looked more carefully at the full intent of a verse, its context, as well as verses that seem to speak differently on the subject, you cannot truthfully say that you have done your homework. (Or say that the discussion is complete.) For example, Nee went to a lot of trouble to give his spin on terms like "the church in [city]" and "the church which is at/in [city]." But there was obviously some push-back from somewhere saying he had not dealt with all the verses. And that would include the verses referring to the churches that were located in certain individual's houses. We do not know for certain whether some of these might have been outside of any city or were instead within the city to which the particular letter was addressed. But Nee simply dismisses them as unable to overcome his one city one church rule.
In effect, when you choose your verses to fit the narrative you are seeking to push, you do the same thing. You are implying that your interpretation of the meaning of these verses is the correct interpretation, that there is no variation, that the larger context does not undermine your conclusion, and that verses that would appear to say something different are to be ignored.
The Calvinists do this every day when dealing with the Arminian position, and vice versa.
Now you have appeared a little less than 2 months ago with an arsenal of positions and labels and are unwilling to do much more than post them and declare that you are done. You have no desire to support your positions. You don't care about whether you really are right or not because you think you are so that is all that matters.
We were so quick to publically chastise StG and yet this is OK?
And while I somewhat agree with the general conclusions that you have shortcut the process to make, I still do not agree with the general use of inflammatory names and labels that are not directly arising from the source material. It is one thing to declare that Lee's teachings are incorrect. To question his motives for pushing such incorrect teachings in ways that are designed to get otherwise intelligent people to accept grossly altered readings of otherwise clear words, etc. But to resort to throwing around words like "blaspheme" and "Satanic." Unfortunately, these and other terms too often arise in your posts without a context in which they are rightly understood as being relevant. For example, blaspheme generally requires that you in some way lie about the nature of God. To state the opposite of what is known to the true. But if the person believes that they are speaking truthfully about God, even if they are deluded as to what is true, is it clearly blaspheme? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is no more than a theological disagreement about what is true. We may think we have rightly concluded that one side is true and the other is not. But whether their continued belief in what we think is the wrong understanding constitutes blaspheme is not necessarily ours to decide. Instead, the use of the term is too often, like Satanic, inerrancy, and others, mostly a crutch to either shame them into changing without actually convincing them, or to scare people away from them without real evidence.
Let the evidence speak. Save your labels for the headings in your private scrapbook. Labels suggest that your evidence is weak. Protest all you want. That is what is suggested.