[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

As long as you begin with the unproved — such as:

• God's economy is simply God dispensing himself into man
• An assembly must be associated with a city and there can be only one assembly/church for that city having a single, lock-step set of elders.
• Christ became the life-giving Spirit, therefore became the Holy Spirit.
• There is only one ministry in each age and in this age it was from Lee and is now what is being propagated by the so-called local churches

And so on.

If you eliminate those false axioms, your logic fails.

You and others want to start with the null hypothesis of "Denominations are okay" and expect me to prove that denominations are not okay. Yes denominations are the commonly accepted view today but biblically and historically speaking (e.g. early church history, church fathers, Catholic/Orthodox) they are not. The concept of hundreds of different denominations is a relatively new thing (500 years) when considering the
history of the church (2000 years).

Therefore the null hypothesis is that there should be one church (not a denomination/sect) and it is your job to disprove that.

Originally Posted by OBW

Your hypothesis testing is pointless if you start with an unproven that is not to be tested.

And turning it into a disproof of the null hypothesis is not very important when it is a matter of reading words that are clear. It is then clear that there are various legitimate ways to understand words due to more than one acceptable definition, which then potentially paints more than one picture with the totality of the words provided, the answer is not simply tradition v another view. When there is evidence that the tradition itself creates a bias in favor of the inquisitors, then there is a serious question as to whether they are truly able to see beyond that bias.

And if you recall, in the particular discussion, I had problem with both Wallace and Jane (and her source, whatever that writer's name was). Both had a bias that, when read their way created an understanding that was flawed. Jane's that woman was not expelled from the Garden and Wallace's that woman was prescriptively cursed to be dominated by man.

Everyone has bias, even you. The thing is, Wallace is an expert in New Testament Greek, so his bias is more likely to be correct than Janes, yours or mine.

In the discussions I recall some were saying "the English is wrong, only the original Greek is correct and God's Word". That's when I thought to check what a Greek scholar has to say about this. To my surprise they did not agree with Jane's view. Because they are biased? No, because they have studied the Greek language for decades and know what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by OBW

And in the context of this particular thread, the onus is on you to actually prove your positions. you have made may statements concerning how you think it is, but not supported it. You dismiss anything that is not unity on your terms, but cannot provide evidence that your version of unity is what the Bible is talking about. But I clearly point out that unity is in Christ, not anything else. If you want my evidence, I can provide it.

My version of unity is the same as yours - it is Christ. I am not arguing for unity in any other person than Christ. To say otherwise is a strawman. However we disagree on what this looks like practically. You may see it expressed in hundreds of denominations doing and saying different things, doctrines and practices (views on baptism, tongue speaking etc). I see it expressed in one actual church (not de-name-iation) per city as the bible reveals.

Originally Posted by OBW

You said that the bible does not support the care for the widow and orphan, but I can support it if you really want me to. But you cannot support the dismissal of that command other than to point to something that Paul said, probably out of context.

In context, this topic was about supporting and caring for non-Christian widows. Does it mean we have to take care of any and all widows? The bible answer is no (1 Tim 5:3, 5:9, 11-13). Young widows are to find a husband, and widows who have family who can support them don't get church help. In Acts 9:39 the widows are the widows of the church or closely associated with the church.

Pulpit commentary says:

Verse 39. - And for then, A.V.; and when for when, A.V. All the widows. The article may denote all the widows for whom Dorcas had made garments, which the middle voice (ἐπιδεικνύμεναι), found only here, indicates perhaps that they had on them at the time. But it is quite as probable that αἱ χῆραι means the Church widows, as in Acts 6:1 and 1 Timothy 5:9, and that we have here an indication that the model of the Jerusalem Church was followed in all the daughter Churches. Dorcas's almsdeeds would naturally have for their first object the widows of her own communion. As naturally would they all come to meet the apostle at her house.

Those who believe in the "social gospel" or the "social Jesus" and expect the church to take care of every widow in the city from anyone up to the widows of suicide bombers in the name of "love and charity" don't like to hear this because they have no interest in the church, but the bible teaches that the family and the church takes priority, and as they say "charity begins at home".