Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't have a problem with that, if you do or don't use scripture, your posts are very well thought out and good, but I don't think you are discussing with me on the basis of a theological argument, as leastofthese implied. I would feel more "held accountable to" scripture if there was some solid theological argument that proves me wrong.

The problem is that you have understood the process of coming to "truth" incorrectly. You do not have the luxury of simply starting with the claim that what you say is right and must be defeated. Instead, unless you are quite clear that it is just an opinion and not clear doctrine, you must prove that it is what you claim.

I have no requirement upon me to disprove something that I have not seen evidence that it is true. The requirement is on you to make the theological, scriptural, logical, etc. argument, including evidence that does not rely on the writings of Nee or Lee. (Their words are similarly subject to being proved, therefore they do not mean anything on their own.)

You recently claimed that I dismissed "even Wallace." But you are looking back into a topic that is potentially a landmine of biased history that none of us can see through. Therefore, just like the long arduous fight to turn the God-fearing from slave-owners into slave-freers, there is no such thing as finding a prior statement by anyone on the subject and presuming that they are not simply stuck in the old bias. In that context I must have more than a repetition of the tired arguments put forth over the centuries by men who have benefitted from a patriarchal view of everything.

There is significant evidence that you are not engaged in a search for the truth. My evidence is that you make statements without support but clamor for everyone else's support. That shows that you have already concluded that you are right. What I think that you will see is that the only "right" that the rest of us are claiming is that it is not so dogmatic and is based on something simpler. Like love your neighbor as yourself. Or obey the commands of Christ. Oneness — which has become a hot topic in the midst of a discussion of Hank — is not based on a formula other than our common faith in Christ. And if you think there is more to it than that, or that we don't have a "common faith" then there is much to worry about concerning your positions relative to what I see in the scripture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that you have understood the process of coming to "truth" incorrectly. You do not have the luxury of simply starting with the claim that what you say is right and must be defeated. Instead, unless you are quite clear that it is just an opinion and not clear doctrine, you must prove that it is what you claim.

I have no requirement upon me to disprove something that I have not seen evidence that it is true. The requirement is on you to make the theological, scriptural, logical, etc. argument, including evidence that does not rely on the writings of Nee or Lee. (Their words are similarly subject to being proved, therefore they do not mean anything on their own.)

OBW,

All my previous discussions on female preachers involving Wallace did not rely upon the writings of Nee or Lee. I have made it my practice for a while now that I don't quote Nee or Lee, but seek freely available theological resources. Wallace was one of them.

You have it backwards I'm afraid. My approach is mathematically and theoretically sound.

In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis, H0 is the commonly accepted view; it is the opposite of the alternate hypothesis. The task is to reject, nullify or disprove the null hypothesis.

The commonly accepted fact in the discussions involving Wallace was my view, the traditional view, Wallace's view, that Jane and you all were trying to argue against. Therefore it was up to Jane, you and others to reject, or disprove this null hypothesis.

The view that all the bible translations are wrong, and the majority of male theologians, is NOT the "commonly accepted view", therefore the onus is upon you to disprove my view.

If I said "aliens exist", then the onus would be upon me to disprove you, because aliens existing is not a commonly accepted view. But in this case, Jane/you/etc were the ones that believes in the "aliens" (the uncommon view that the bible translations are wrong), so the onus was upon you to disprove me.

On the subject of denominations, the commonly accepted view, is that there were no denominations in the bible. Therefore, it is up to you to disprove me that denominations are okay, by providing a bible verse or theological resource that says denominations existed in the early church.

Originally Posted by OBW

You recently claimed that I dismissed "even Wallace." But you are looking back into a topic that is potentially a landmine of biased history that none of us can see through. Therefore, just like the long arduous fight to turn the God-fearing from slave-owners into slave-freers, there is no such thing as finding a prior statement by anyone on the subject and presuming that they are not simply stuck in the old bias. In that context I must have more than a repetition of the tired arguments put forth over the centuries by men who have benefitted from a patriarchal view of everything.

In the previous discussion you made clear that you distrusted theologians in general.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is significant evidence that you are not engaged in a search for the truth. My evidence is that you make statements without support but clamor for everyone else's support. That shows that you have already concluded that you are right. What I think that you will see is that the only "right" that the rest of us are claiming is that it is not so dogmatic and is based on something simpler. Like love your neighbor as yourself. Or obey the commands of Christ. Oneness — which has become a hot topic in the midst of a discussion of Hank — is not based on a formula other than our common faith in Christ. And if you think there is more to it than that, or that we don't have a "common faith" then there is much to worry about concerning your positions relative to what I see in the scripture.

In previous discussions I quoted from theological resources extensively. My approach is logical, factual, what anyone searching for the truth would do.

A person not searching for the truth would do what you are doing - discount or distrust theologians, bible commentaries, etc and provide little by way of theological counter-argument.

So it was a renowned theologian (Wallace) versus Jane. You could have backed up Jane with a reputable theologian. She quoted a pastor who happens to agree with her views, but is in no way a theologian or expert in Greek.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All my previous discussions on female preachers involving Wallace did not rely upon the writings of Nee or Lee.

You either misunderstand, or want to change the subject. I was talking about discussions of doctrine in general. That you didn't mention things taught by Nee or Lee in the proximity of anything written by Wallace in the discussion about women is irrelevant. I was talking about relying on anything they say for any purpose whatsoever. Their teachings are the great unknown as far as this forum is concerned, therefore are not authoritative in any way, but rather are the subject of significant scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have it backwards I'm afraid. My approach is mathematically and theoretically sound.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The commonly accepted fact in the discussions involving Wallace was my view, the traditional view, Wallace's view, that Jane and you all were trying to argue against. Therefore it was up to Jane, you and others to reject, or disprove this null hypothesis.

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The view that all the bible translations are wrong, and the majority of male theologians, is NOT the "commonly accepted view", therefore the onus is upon you to disprove my view.

First, I never made that claim. In fact, when reading Genesis, I had no problem with the text of any particular version that I can recall now. (Maybe there is one or two that were extreme in forcing the patriarchal view . . . I can't recall.) It was in what it meant that we had differences. There is no "disprove my view" to be had. But in the way it is worded, there is the ability to disprove that it was strictly one way because of any claim of preference of translation.

I think this may have been where I got into the discussion of the meaning of the Greek word "zoe." it is clear that zoe is more than just physical life or psychological life. But it is more clearly the sum total of all that is life, including quality of life, and that when viewed as a totality, a better life could be called "more zoe" in modern-ish lingo. And clearly the life that God supplies would be the "most zoe" that we could have. But that does not make God's life "simply zoe." Or more typically (in Lee's terminology) "zoe" is not "simply" God's life. That is a gross misrepresentation of the meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If I said "aliens exist", then the onus would be upon me to disprove you, because aliens existing is not a commonly accepted view. But in this case, Jane/you/etc were the ones that believes in the "aliens" (the uncommon view that the bible translations are wrong), so the onus was upon you to disprove me.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person not searching for the truth would do what you are doing - discount or distrust theologians, bible commentaries, etc and provide little by way of theological counter-argument.

Actually, a person searching for the truth must start with the presumption that nothing is so sound as to be accepted without scrutiny. I do not distrust scholars. But I am willing to look at the scripture and challenge their thoughts. Make them say more than "this is the way we've been taught to think about this." When you realize that there are several schools of thought on a number of topics, there is no reason to believe that any of them have a lock on the correct thinking in all cases. Therefore even the Catholics have some things better than the guys at DTS. And I go with the guys at DTS probably 99.44% of the time. But I argue with the DTS professor that teaches the class I attend most Sundays on certain things. Not in a major way. But I am not cowed to simply tow the DTS line on theology.

And they don't know it, but I am not a very good Dispensationalist.

[leastofthese]

OBW - I hesitate to write this, and this may be against forum protocol...but I actually want to thank you again for your thoughtful response.

[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".

[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.

[InChristAlone]

Brothers, I am sorry for interrupting your discussion, but I think the news headline is related to the thread:

Hank Hanegraaff Reveals He Has Rare Form of Cancer, Reads Orthodox Prayer Surrendering to God

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ha...ng-god-183034/

Brothers, if you want, maybe we could just stop for a moment and pray for brother Hank (Hendrik). Thank you.

Heavenly Father, physician of our souls and bodies, Who have sent Your only-begotten Son and our Lord Jesus Christ to heal every sickness and infirmity, visit and heal also Your servant Hendrik from all physical and spiritual ailments through the grace of Your Christ. Grant him patience in this sickness, strength of body and spirit, and recovery of health. Lord, You have taught us through Your word to pray for each other that we may be healed. I pray, heal Your servant Hendrik and grant to him the gift of complete health. For You are the source of healing and to You I give glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

God bless.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Brothers, I am sorry for interrupting your discussion, but I think the news headline is related to the thread:

Hank Hanegraaff Reveals He Has Rare Form of Cancer, Reads Orthodox Prayer Surrendering to God

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ha...ng-god-183034/

Brothers, if you want, maybe we could just stop for a moment and pray for brother Hank (Hendrik). Thank you.

Heavenly Father, physician of our souls and bodies, Who have sent Your only-begotten Son and our Lord Jesus Christ to heal every sickness and infirmity, visit and heal also Your servant Hendrik from all physical and spiritual ailments through the grace of Your Christ. Grant him patience in this sickness, strength of body and spirit, and recovery of health. Lord, You have taught us through Your word to pray for each other that we may be healed. I pray, heal Your servant Hendrik and grant to him the gift of complete health. For You are the source of healing and to You I give glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

God bless.

Good prayer ICA, thanks.