Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's because denominations didn't exist then. The bible did not have to address the situation of two different denominations in the one street. But based upon what Paul wrote against divisions and factions, he would never have approved of today's situation. The likelihood of there being some constraints on the meeting is much higher than being no constraints at all. Your version of unconstrained meeting is a kind of lawlessness - meeting however we wish to. Bible says that God is not a God of chaos or confusion.

There is actually nothing in what I said to which "That's because . . ." could be a response.

That is your typical MO. You ignore what is posted and respond to the question you wish had been asked.

But if there was going to be such a problem with denominations (and God surely knew what was coming) you would expect there to have been some kind of statement(s) that actually addressed the situation. No matter how you phrase it, Paul did not address the current situation. He did not define what should be the name. He did not say that this is how you gather. He only said that separating because of differences in favorite teacher was a problem. And it was only a problem because it was clear that they could not get along with each other. They were openly antagonistic with each other. Can you actually say that the various groups that you so despise are openly antagonistic with each other? (And one or two examples using other small exclusivist groups, or pointing to errors of the past cannot be painted onto the whole that is mostly not like that. There is a Reformed (Presbyterian) writer who recently included the following in a blog post:

As a Presbyterian, I think Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals are wrong about some important things, but deviating from Westminster Confession of Faith does not make you another Arius or Pelagius. A false teacher or a wolf is someone who snatches up sheep (John 10:12), draws disciples away from the gospel (Acts 20:28), opposes the truth (2 Tim. 3:8), and leads people to make shipwreck of the faith and embrace ungodliness (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-17).

This is the common view among the various groups, not the exception as you would like to claim.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We all believe we are one with all of the believers. That is very easy to say. Even Catholics can say that. The difference is we see that we are not practically one with all of the believers. Denominations do not see they are not practically one. Is a solution for us to disperse and join our closest denomination, or Catholic church? Of course not. And on any given Sunday, is an Anglican priest going to decide to bring all of his church to join the Lutherans or the baptists? I have never heard of that happening.

And your solution is for everyone else to admit they are wrong and come to you.

And you are clearly not going to disperse and join any of the larger assemblies in your area because they don't believe as you do.

As Igzy has stated, you think that the problem is denominations. The denominations do not separate us. Rather they allow us to meet together with a consistent core of theology that understands that what makes it different from the next nearest one is not the core of the faith, but something else. We join with those of similar thoughts on these particular theological issues but recognize that there is a higher reality in which we are not divided.

- - - -

But I know what the deal is with you and Drake (who has been rather quiet lately). It is not that there is division, but that it is not following you. You presume that there is a magic formula that makes every theological error go away. And while the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith, you declare that they are right but incomplete. And the missing ingredient is "ground." You think that ground will make all things right. That the errors in theology will simply go away because you are "on the ground." Of course, you don't think that they will be simply ignored, but rather it will be shown that your theology (all of it) is correct sufficiently to be the one that all must follow.

And as I keep pointing out (and you conveniently ignore) the history of the LRC is not one of working to get theology right, but digging in your heels and even excluding your own members who do not quietly go along. In my days since first becoming acquainted with the LRC, I know of cases whether they went to a new city, found a group meeting in the way Nee taught. But after a little bit of time, since the group would not accept that Witness Lee's fellowship was superior to some other, they separated from that original group, moved to the next city (two adjacent cities) and started their own group. If you say they didn't violate the one church per city "edict," then you would be technically correct. But they despised such a church in one city because those people did not prefer Lee as the primary teaching source. So they moved to the next city and started a different group.

It would seem to me that while the edict declared by Nee and Lee was not violated, the one that Paul declared was. They divided over teachers while maintaining proper status on the unstated (in the Bible) "rule" of one-church-per-city.

There is the heart of your doctrine of the ground.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is actually nothing in what I said to which "That's because . . ." could be a response.

That is your typical MO. You ignore what is posted and respond to the question you wish had been asked.

But if there was going to be such a problem with denominations (and God surely knew what was coming) you would expect there to have been some kind of statement(s) that actually addressed the situation. No matter how you phrase it, Paul did not address the current situation. He did not define what should be the name. He did not say that this is how you gather. He only said that separating because of differences in favorite teacher was a problem. And it was only a problem because it was clear that they could not get along with each other. They were openly antagonistic with each other. Can you actually say that the various groups that you so despise are openly antagonistic with each other? (And one or two examples using other small exclusivist groups, or pointing to errors of the past cannot be painted onto the whole that is mostly not like that.

God knowing what was coming is an interesting way to put it. Could it also mean God knew the Roman Catholic church was coming and prepared Luther 1500 years later? But we find nothing in the bible about the Reformation.

I don't think the groups I despise are openly antagonistic with each other. Although they used to be, not only antagonistic, but at war. So, given that they are not antagonistic, why do they continue to promote their existence.

You have mistakenly assumed that just because the bible is silent about these church things it means we are free to do as we please and there are no rules.

Commonly held views in Christianity today such as "pray about which church to go to", "go to a church that suits you", cannot be found in the bible. Not because there were no way to do it, but because they were no alternatives than to meet with "the church" in "the city". If you were a Gentile there was not even a "gentile church" that you could go to. There was no "jew church" and "gentile church", there was just "the church".

The bible is silent about these church things because there was no need to think about or consider "how to do it" because there were no denominations. It was just done, in a particular way that everyone agreed to.

Whether it was about female preachers or whether they should meet on a Sunday or a Friday, there was a consistency that united them all together.

This consistency is indicated by "as in all the churches":
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican all believe that the early churches were consistent and things were done in a certain way. This is why they maintain this consistency today. There is also the backing of early church historians and theologians (I have quoted Wallace in previous discussions) on this.

The mistake of the house church movement, baptists, and community churches, is to think that everything can be done independently of other churches and in a way that they think is best for them.

Originally Posted by OBW

But I know what the deal is with you and Drake (who has been rather quiet lately). It is not that there is division, but that it is not following you. You presume that there is a magic formula that makes every theological error go away. And while the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith, you declare that they are right but incomplete. And the missing ingredient is "ground." You think that ground will make all things right. That the errors in theology will simply go away because you are "on the ground." Of course, you don't think that they will be simply ignored, but rather it will be shown that your theology (all of it) is correct sufficiently to be the one that all must follow.

I don't know what sort of reason you think Drake and I would have for wanting them to follow us. We get no benefit from that.

What do you mean by "the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith"? I would say the core of the faith is Christ and we agree on that. I think you show a deep misunderstanding of what the Recovery/local churches are about if you think this is about theological error. "the ground" is a simple way to say that Christians of the one locality should meet with other Christians in the same locality because they are in the locality and not because of other reasons like baptist doing a better church service or Pentecostals allowing tongue worship and hand waving. Or, on topic - because of a belief that they are the continued unbroken line since the apostles. In fact the Orthodox priests today really do wear either simple black or highly decorated and adorned flower pots on their heads, just like the 12 disciples did. Insert verse about men with head coverings in church here.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have mistakenly assumed that just because the bible is silent about these church things it means we are free to do as we please and there are no rules.

I would not agree. There are many rules. But the naming convention for a church was not one of them. Neither was the "boundary" for an assembly.

I would counter by saying that just because you would like for there to be a rule does not mean that an observation can become the rule you seek.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know what sort of reason you think Drake and I would have for wanting them to follow us. We get no benefit from that.

I would agree that you get no benefit from that. At least not personally. But your leaders do. They believe that the turn of people to their rules means a turn of people to their other doctrines. They think that because they were there first, they control the outcomes of all others who might eventually agree with them

But actually you do get a benefit, though you may not realize it. If everyone starts to come your way, you find that you were right to be so dogmatic and are justified in your sense of spiritual superiority. I believe that this may actually blind you to what is wrong with your positions. If you hare wrong, then you have to consider what else you might have been taught incorrectly. Many here have been through that. Some come out thinking that it is just about throwing off the bad leadership of the BBs. But almost all slowly realize that it is much more than that. It is a litany of both small and large errors in teaching that rob us of real Christian fellowship, perspective, obedience, and living.

I know that in my days in the LRC, I was never skeptical of what was told to me by Lee or his underlings. I simply took what he said as if it was coming from the oracle of God. Just ignored any warnings going off inside.

Lee explained a lot by saying "this is simply that" or telling a good-sounding story as if it is better than scripture. I don't buy that anymore.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that in my days in the LRC, I was never skeptical of what was told to me by Lee or his underlings. I simply took what he said as if it was coming from the oracle of God. Just ignored any warnings going off inside.

I'm sure others have shared similar experiences. Wanting to receive fellowship coming from the brothers. Any reservations one might have is due to one's self lacking absoluteness instead of there might be substance to one's reservations.
In hind sight you can say your spirit was inwardly disturbed, but lacking any reasonable explanation at the time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure others have shared similar experiences. Wanting to receive fellowship coming from the brothers. Any reservations one might have is due to one's self lacking absoluteness instead of there might be substance to one's reservations.
In hind sight you can say your spirit was inwardly disturbed, but lacking any reasonable explanation at the time.

We were clearly told that any doubts or concerns was the work of the evil one.

I have to say that after over a year of exposure to the "mysticism" and apparent spirituality of Nee, when someone said they were part of a group that was following one of Nee's closest coworkers, we came without much thought about it.

But the thing about it is that because Nee's teaching had such a naturally spiritual ring to it, and then so did so much of Lee's (at the time) it was too easy to get swept into their snare. Or more accurately, get put in their pot when the fire was off. "The water's fine!"

Then the burner was lit. But we didn't notice.

I find it funny that my Dad often said that if they had called Lee an apostle back then in the early/mid 70s, he would have walked out in a heartbeat. But my remembrance is that calling Nee and Lee apostles was almost commonplace at that time. Just not in a grand way. Part of that "dance around the well" kind of thing. Redefine apostle to be anyone "sent." Then declare that they were sent. Yep. They are apostles. Just under a slightly different definition. But the status remained while the definition changed until they were THE apostles for their "ages."

It should have disturbed our spirits. Or our "Berean" sense of searching the scriptures to verify. But we were warned off of those activities.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

We were clearly told that any doubts or concerns was the work of the evil one.

I find it funny that my Dad often said that if they had called Lee an apostle back then in the early/mid 70s, he would have walked out in a heartbeat. But my remembrance is that calling Nee and Lee apostles was almost commonplace at that time. Just not in a grand way. Part of that "dance around the well" kind of thing. Redefine apostle to be anyone "sent." Then declare that they were sent. Yep. They are apostles. Just under a slightly different definition. But the status remained while the definition changed until they were THE apostles for their "ages."

It should have disturbed our spirits. Or our "Berean" sense of searching the scriptures to verify. But we were warned off of those activities.

Yeah, that's what was said or at least implied. If brothers and sisters have doubts and concerns, it's because they're being poisoned and not something the responsible ones need to account of. I've heard it time and time again.

Regarding apostle status. I've never heard this spoken of Watchman Nee, but as a fact in the early-mid 80's as a high school brother, my serving one would say Brother Lee is like a modern day apostle Paul.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is the common view among the various groups, not the exception as you would like to claim.

And your solution is for everyone else to admit they are wrong and come to you.

Thanks for your posts OBW.

I've typically see 20-40 people viewing this forum at any given time. To a casual reader Evan-gelical is his own worst enemy. Thanks for attempting to hold him accountable to scripture, reason, and logic... but I am afraid it could be a lost cause. Your posts continue to highlight what these readers already clearly see for themselves. It is interesting to see someone so passionate about condemning Christians that he clearly knows so little about.

Col 3:14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Thanks for your posts OBW.

I've typically see 20-40 people viewing this forum at any given time. To a casual reader Evan-gelical is his own worst enemy. Thanks for attempting to hold him accountable to scripture, reason, and logic... but I am afraid it could be a lost cause. Your posts continue to highlight what these readers already clearly see for themselves. It is interesting to see someone so passionate about condemning Christians that he clearly knows so little about.

Col 3:14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

It's interesting that you are speaking on behalf of these "20-40 readers".

"what these readers already clearly see for themselves." that's a presumptuous statement if I ever saw one.

OBW is holding me accountable to scripture? He rarely uses scripture and you would find it difficult to find the last post where he refers to scripture. And don't quote a theologian, they are all wrong especially Wallace.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's interesting that you are speaking on behalf of these "20-40 readers".

"what these readers already clearly see for themselves." that's a presumptuous statement if I ever saw one.

OBW is holding me accountable to scripture? He rarely uses scripture and you would find it difficult to find the last post where he refers to scripture. And don't quote a theologian, they are all wrong especially Wallace.

You don't actually use that much scripture. You hint that there is scripture for your most important points, but the scripture you provide does not actually support it.

And I provide a lot of scripture. I write the words from scripture a lot. Just don't always dig around to find the reference. I presume that you know what I am talking about. I also see this kind of thing in the NT a lot. Sure some of it needs a reference. But some of it is well known. But they only occasionally even say who said it in the OT.

If I say "whoever believes in me shall not perish," I think you know what I am talking about. And if I start asking whether it would mean differently if it read (whever believed in me . . ." I think you would understand. we may not agree on exactly what answering the question means, but there would be no question.

Some like to litter their posts with scripture. They quote long sections but never provide any analysis of what it is in those verses that is supposed to mean any particular thing. They can claim to quote a lot of scripture but don't really use much of it at all.

What is wrong with the posts I write? Do you have a problem with the positions that I take? Is it because you would prefer a different position? If so, can you provide a reason for one? Or find evidence that there is a problem with mine? The study of the Bible is not simply a study finding the answer. It is finding the way to live and think so that what is not in scripture can be dealt with. But while there are often "obvious" choices related to what is not prescribed, it is not always so.

But your little sect is built upon prescribing everything that can be imagined to be thought of. Yet the scriptural basis for much of it is tenuous to non-existent.

But scripture does talk about oneness and unity. And it never uses the boundary of a city as the basis for either. And it is not so simply accomplished that it really didn't need prayer bye Jesus. Or a comment about "arriving" at unity. It is not fixed by simply joining the LRC where you will have a different set of doctrines and forms to learn and live by — often so exacting that you could be excommunicated for failing at one of them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You don't actually use that much scripture. You hint that there is scripture for your most important points, but the scripture you provide does not actually support it.

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.

[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.