[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You and others want to start with the null hypothesis of "Denominations are okay" and expect me to prove that denominations are not okay.

I simply start with the null hypothesis that how churches gather and whether there is anything that groups some of them for various reasons is not defined, therefore as long as you can find nothing that is specifically wrong with one group, one assembly, etc., you cannot simply invalidate them because they meet in a particular way that does not comply with a rule that you cannot establish as being there.

I do not suppose that the variety of groups is exactly what was in mind (other than by knowledge of what would be) in the time frame of Christ and the Apostles. Yet at this point, I am compelled to generally meet with those that are "more right" as I understand it than others. Yet in saying that, I do not invalidate those others.

Your group has done no differently — with one exception. You have tried to prop-up a hollow doctrine that makes you "right" no matter how wrong you are. You have devised a system that allows for 1) serious offenses by leadership without consequence, 2) teachings that are questionable at best to be required understanding of everyone all coupled with 3) the edict that they can only meet with you and be a valid church.

Somehow it does not work.

And it presumes that the direction and control exercised by the LSM somehow is to be ignored in the landscape of "denominations." A very "iron skillet calling the copper kettle black." We at least acknowledge that we have differences, but recognize that those do not invalidate what makes us one. And as a result we undertake much as "one" not matter how much you repeat the empty claims that "ecumenicalism is false" or anything remotely like that.

Your whole "null hypothesis" discussion is a way to hide your unwillingness to actually engage in discussion about what might be wrong. I once believed that one church per city, identified by the name "church in [city]" was actually taught in the Bible. But eventually I began to see that it was never there. And that the way we were taught to believe it was to ignore what was actually there and accept that it "simply meant" whatever. And because we were enamored with the speaker, we simply accepted that without any test of veracity.

And, BTW, null hypothesis testing is not always appropriate. You cannot null hypothesis the meaning of a particular word into #2 in Websters v #15. It takes knowledge, skill, and sometimes enough "art" to think beyond bare words. To bring in context, culture, history, etc.

And that is exactly how you got "Christ became the Holy Spirit." The context was eliminated from sight. Words were (very) incorrectly declared to have only one possible meaning. Once you accepted that, it was easy to see that Jesus was simply now the Holy Spirit. But take a better look at the words and the context, and you could never get there. The only part of the Trinity mentioned in that verse or several on either side was Christ. The Holy Spirit was not discussed, or even mentioned. No way to get to that error of theology.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

But the questions mainly were about Hebrew texts. But even that was not really about the translation. And what was from Greek was not really about the Greek, but what it means. And when part of what it means is flavored by the "origin" assumption that Genesis 3 cursed woman with man, then there is reason to be skeptical of where anyone is making that particular logic go.

You are ignoring that, like the decades that debates about slavery, then the equality of various kinds of humans (specifically black humans) went throughout much of the Western world stood up against the writings of many of the most revered theologians of the day and days before. There is, by definition, a requirement to restart all of the thinking. That does not mean that we cannot get to the answer we already have. But when the writing you refer to does not address the new complaints other than to point to tradition and how it has always been understood, there is evidence that there is no engagement of the new problem. It is like Paul coming to Jerusalem to complain about the Judaizers and the response is "we are Jews and this is what we have believed for 1,500 years. What makes you think that you can even question it? Why should we give it the time of day?"

And even if Wallace has never been challenged with the new discussion, therefore we can't blame him, then we can blame you because you are simply repeating the old line without even acknowledgement of the question raised against that line of thinking other than to willfully dismiss it because "that is the way it has always been."

That's just the way it is.
Some things will never change.
That's just the way it is.
Ah, but don't you believe it . . .

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

And once again, I have not claimed that the English is wrong, or materially so. Rather that we choose to misread and misunderstand.

I wrote a little piece on the word "cool" several years ago. In it in noted that in popular usage (unrelated to temperatures) it can mean anything from "wow, that's great," to ""I can live with that." So we both hear the same thing and you say "cool" and I say "cool" but we didn't necessarily say the same thing. You thought it was great and I acknowledged that I could live with it. Now most of the words we are talking about are not like that. But they too often do carry more than a single, obvious meaning. And even in the context of scripture there is seldom some single "theological" way to understand it. But often there has come to be a default understanding that people think of that way. But it doesn't make it right. Just popular.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

And it is your claim that there is a "must" written into the Bible concerning the "practicality" that you still cannot establish. Just say that it is.

And we know why it is claimed. Nee wanted an indigenous church that did not answer to a European or American headquarters. He wanted it to be exclusively Chinese. And based on his progressive revelation (sort of like Mohammed's) he eventually was the "headquarters." And now that indigenous Chinese church is being propagated around the world, answering to a displaced headquarters that is in Anaheim.

Another denomination. I don't say yours should simply disappear. It can go on like all the others before it. But it cannot claim special status as a non-denomination and be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

I do not disagree that there was specific call to care for the widows within the church. It is clearly understood that you don't care for strangers when you are not caring for your own. But there was also always the care for the "sojourner among you." Alms for the poor. Not restricted to only the Jews (then the Christians). These did not get set aside because of the specific command to care for your own.

Even your pull from Pulpit commentary comments that "Dorcas's almsdeeds would naturally have for their first object the widows of her own communion." Surely your community comes first. But not exclusively. Pulpit did not eliminate the "second" and beyond. Just stated and order of service.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Surely there are some who think that that is their primary charge. But there is a social gospel that does not deserve your "scare quotes." It is the one that is stated in the OT and the gospels. And acknowledged by even your own favorite, Pulpit commentary.

And when your leadership mocks any social gospel as the "social gospel," they mock the command of Christ because God's commands are Christ's commands. That is what is wrong with your attitude toward this issue. It is not that you think that any so-called social gospel is secondary to caring for those within the church. It is that you think so poorly of it that you despise it and mock those who do it by pointing to the fact that they cannot take care of every need that exists. Well duh!! Who said we could. But the dishonor is in failing to act, not in acting and failing to succeed.