Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I think what Evangelical said about us being sons of God bares some further looking into. Are we sons? Sure, as too many scriptures say this.

How about God's glory (a question I believe no one has addressed)? Does He give us that? A king gives his children his glory. Colossians 1:27 says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Christ is in us, as too many verses state. For instance: "When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me."

If you go to Romans 8 you see that the Triune God is in us (vs 10-11), Father, Son & Spirit.

Ephesians tells us we are the temple, a dwelling place of God in Spirit. Do these verses say we become God? Not exactly. But elsewhere in Ephesians it talks about the riches of His inheritance in the saints.

Why is He our Father? Because He loves us and wants us as His family.

Again, regarding the glory question, John 17 has Jesus praying that "the glory you have given Me, I have given them." And then all the talk about "You in Me and I in them, that they may be one in Us."

"As He is so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) Another thing Evangelical said had to do with Jesus being the prototype (the 2nd man & Last Adam). As a Man, He was nothing short of all we were supposed to be, right? He said, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Jesus came to introduce the world to the Father. Why the word "Father?" He wants many sons brought to glory!

So where do you draw the line considering these things?

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

So, i believe many, maybe most, in this forum agree that we are united to God in our spirit when we are regenerated. He who is joined to the Lord is one S/spirit. That is theosis of our spirit. In our past.

Same for the ultimate consummation, the redemption and transfiguration of our bodies for we know we will be just like Him, for we shall see Him as He is in a glorified body. Theosis of our bodies. In the future. Most agree, probably, with that.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

So, i believe many, maybe most, in this forum agree that we are united to God in our spirit when we are regenerated. He who is joined to the Lord is one S/spirit. That is theosis of our spirit. In our past.

Same for the ultimate consummation, the redemption and transfiguration of our bodies for we know we will be just like Him, for we shall see Him as He is in a glorified body. Theosis of our bodies. In the future. Most agree, probably, with that.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

Drake

An interesting article I came across is written by Ben Blackwell
Assistant Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University.

He basically affirms everything I have been saying about Protestants/evangelicals and the biblical origins of theosis in this article:

https://cct.biola.edu/man-god-ruins-...ian-tradition/

In my previous posts I made two points based on Psalm 82:
a) Gods are immortal - in Psalm 82 we see immortality. This was the early church's interpretation of Psalm 82.
b) Sons of God are gods - if we call ourselves "sons of God" we are really calling ourselves gods.

He writes:With this, two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.[/I]

He also agrees with what I have been saying about evangelicals not knowing about these matters:

Christian theologians have long discussed “theosis” (literally, “becoming a god”) as a final stage of salvation, when human beings have real union with God. The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

An interesting article I came across is written by Ben Blackwell
Assistant Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University.

He basically affirms everything I have been saying about Protestants/evangelicals and the biblical origins of theosis in this article:

https://cct.biola.edu/man-god-ruins-...ian-tradition/

In my previous posts I made two points based on Psalm 82:
a) Gods are immortal - in Psalm 82 we see immortality. This was the early church's interpretation of Psalm 82.
b) Sons of God are gods - if we call ourselves "sons of God" we are really calling ourselves gods.

He writes:
With this, two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.

He also agrees with what I have been saying about evangelicals not knowing about these matters:

Christian theologians have long discussed “theosis” (literally, “becoming a god”) as a final stage of salvation, when human beings have real union with God. The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

And that's because the Bible does NOT clearly reveal it!

If divination was so "clearly revealed," then why was WL against it for 60 years?

Why did it take the coverup of scandals caused by his own son Phillip to "clearly reveal" this great "high peak" pseudo-truth?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's because the Bible does NOT clearly reveal it!

If divination was so "clearly revealed," then why was WL against it for 60 years?

Why did it take the coverup of scandals caused by his own son Phillip to "clearly reveal" this great "high peak" pseudo-truth?

Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

Witness Lee for example had many many years to become God in life and nature but could still lie and cheat the saints out of money, put his unregenerate son in charge, castigate good brothers and sisters in the Lord, and condemn all other Christians. If that's what it means to be God in life and nature then I've been God pretty much all my sinful life.

And I'll bet that Watchman Nee was God in life and nature while he cheated with his company, cheated in taxes, visited brothels, and raped sisters.

And that's why I like theosis, and prolly why Hank likes it : it makes us something we're not ... and oh, it sounds good ... but is nothing but wishful thinking, and too good to be true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

Witness Lee for example had many many years to become God in life and nature but could still lie and cheat the saints out of money, put his unregenerate son in charge, castigate good brothers and sisters in the Lord, and condemn all other Christians. If that's what it means to be God in life and nature then I've been God pretty much all my sinful life.

Me too. Not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Compare this to the Apostle Paul -- who still confessed to be the chief of sinners -- until the end.

And Jesus who called Himself "Son of Man" rather than going about proclaiming Himself to be Son of God, God Himself, baby God, God in life and nature, etc. We know who He was thru His life and work.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate.

What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void?

nay, nay.

You're a faulty human... but that doesn't stop you from rendering your faulty advice, offering faulty opinions, and living a faulty life. If being a flawless human is the criteria for being used by God then there is only One who fits that bill. Therefore, with that logic no one should say anything about anything or about anyone.

But things don't work that way in God's economy. God uses faulty humans and it doesn't change that he used faulty humans to author the Bible. God reveals His will to faulty humans but that does not make His will or the things He reveals are not void.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate. What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void?

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you please re-say it in a different way?

And another Hank aside. Hank is hungry. I got another invite in email from him, offering another book. He's now selling Intelligent Design (he must be one of those deified faulty humans I think you are talking about) :
https://www.equip.org/product/cri-re...ion-resources/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate.

What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void? nay, nay.

You're a faulty human... but that doesn't stop you from rendering your faulty advice, offering faulty opinions, and living a faulty life. If being a flawless human is the criteria for being used by God then there is only One who fits that bill. Therefore, with that logic no one should say anything about anything or about anyone.

But things don't work that way in God's economy. God uses faulty humans and it doesn't change that he used faulty humans to author the Bible. God reveals His will to faulty humans but that does not make His will or the things He reveals are not void.

Drake

Oh Drake, there you go again!

What is a "faulty" human? And how many times do I have to ask you to define "mistake?"

Do any of us really think that God would uses a "faulty" minister who appoints his son to rule with a rod of iron? Who protects his son when he molests the female staff. Who destroys the reputations of any who protest? And then God decides it's time to unveil the highest truths of the universe thru this "faulty" minister after all the "naysayers" are cast out, slandered, and quarantined?

Is that what you believe? Is that really how "God's Economy" works?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

Drake, did you intentionally change WL's "become God" to "becoming one with God"? Why the change?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Drake, did you intentionally change WL's "become God" to "becoming one with God"? Why the change?

good catch.

"Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

good catch. "Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.

Clever answer. I almost convinced myself you typed your true belief unintentionally. Just my wishful thinking perhaps.

Anyway, I thank God that when I tried to search what is the exact wordings of WL, the following link popped up and now I know what we believed Athanasius wrote ("become God") could just be mistranslation.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...on/are-we-gods

Where the English translation says, quoting St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God,” the official Latin text reads, Ipse siquidem homo factus est, ut nos dii efficeremur. Literal translation: “For the Son of God became man so that we might be made gods.” The Latin term dii translated “God” in the English translation of the Catechism is nominative plural and is not capitalized. Unfortunately, the English translation of the official Latin text gets it wrong. “God” should be “gods.”

Part of the problem here may well go back to the original Greek of St. Athanasius from which the Catechism quotes. The literal translation of the text from St. Athanasius that the Catechism quotes is, “For he was made man in order that we might be deified.” The Greek verb theopoiethomen is where the problem lies. This is a compound of two Greek words that mean god and to make. So one could see how a translator could translate it as “might be made God.”

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

.... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Maybe that's because Witness Lee is infamous for teaching things that are not clearly revealed in the bible. But this doesn't stop many of his followers extolling him as the only person who spoke as God's oracle on earth. The simple truth is that to Local Churchers, if Lee taught something it was to be considered "recovered truth" or a "high peak truth", even if it was not clearly revealed in the Bible. Oh, they will use the bible...twist and contort it beyond recognition...until it seems to say what Lee is saying. Lee did this while he was alive, and now his followers do this for him in absentia.

Look, this matter of "theosis" or "divinization" is involving heavy-duty, deep theology. Witness Lee, and those "trained" by him, have no business telling us what is and what is not orthodox, biblically sound teaching in this matter. Lee spent his career telling anybody who would listen that professional theologians are all washed up....he called their seminaries "cemeteries". He called them "blind, mooing cows". (but his followers have instituted a number of faux seminaries...but that's ok because when they do it they call them "trainings")

Interesting that Mr E. would use Ben Blackwell's little "Shortread" as some sort of confirmation or proof text for Witness Lee's unbiblical teaching. But since he mentioned Blackwell, let's see how an actual, bonafied, professionally trained theologian handles such advanced concepts:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical

To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense. These interpreters knew that God did not have numerous children by nature (this status is reserved for his only-begotten Son). Reading this passage within the biblical narrative, they affirmed that these gods were children in a different way—by adoption and by grace.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.
(all emphasis mine)

Notice how Blackwell is careful to point out that the biblical concept of divinization (theosis) is "ALWAYS METAPHORICAL". Notice his precise language of "Because they are gods by grace, AS OPPOSED TO NATURE". Compare and contrast this precise and accurate exposition to Witness Lee's sloppy and confusing development of this advanced concept. Again, Lee had no business getting into such theological matters as theosis. He was totally unqualified.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.
Drake

That is what I'm seeing too! And to paraphrase a brother I meet with, I don't think I want that much responsibility (i.e., being part of the Godhead)!

Another brother just reminded me of the old book, "The God-Men" that got the LC all stirred up back in the late 70s (I think). I guess even back then there were plenty of accusations along those lines.

I think bottom-line it is a mystery much like trying to figure out the Triune God. I believe our future is much higher and brighter that any of us have come close to knowing, and I think it is foolish talk if anyone says they knows for sure exactly what that entails!

So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That is what I'm seeing too! And to paraphrase a brother I meet with, I don't think I want that much responsibility (i.e., being part of the Godhead)!

Another brother just reminded me of the old book, "The God-Men" that got the LC all stirred up back in the late 70s (I think). I guess even back then there were plenty of accusations along those lines.

I think bottom-line it is a mystery much like trying to figure out the Triune God. I believe our future is much higher and brighter that any of us have come close to knowing, and I think it is foolish talk if anyone says they knows for sure exactly what that entails!

So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)

All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

Drake

[UntoHim]

-
...and there is also a reason that God has given gifts of discernment to the Body as well. This is why the apostle John, in his first epistle, implored his followers to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God."(4:1) Later, in Revelation, a similar admonition was given: "but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."(2:2)

This is why I keep reminding us about the problems and dangers of holding out any one man to be "the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age", or "God's Oracle on earth", or "Acting god"....once this kind of authority and adoration is bestowed upon any man, he (and by extension his teachings) becomes virtually unassailable, which in our context here would be synonymous with virtually infallible, and the Body of Christ (individual members, churches or the Body at large) is denied and deprived of any and all discernment regarding such a man.

So when it comes to such an impactful teaching such as theosis or divination, we should...no...we must "consider the source". Does this person(s) have the qualifications, education and track record of teaching in a fundamentally biblical, orthodox and sound manner?.....
....to quote our friend Drake here....nay, nay.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

Drake

I agree. The pure milk of the word is still milk not meat. Hebrews 5:12. What many people dont know is that Theosis or glorification was only an elementary truth for early Christians akin to how justification is an elementary truth today. In other words peoples doctrine is even more elementary than in Paul's time.

Well in 2000 years it seems Christianity has gone backwards not forwards. This stuff was elementary and foundational doctrine in the early church but apparently still well known in theology and Lees footnotes.

[Sons to Glory!]

Post #325 by me you responded to: So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)

Originally Posted by Drake

All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

Drake

Please clarify what you are referring to.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Please clarify what you are referring to.

Sure StG,

Me with my Bible soaking up the pure milk of the word is not the complete NT revelation to build up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4. The building up of the Body of Christ has an arrangement (gifts given) accomplished by Christ in His resurrection, ascension, and enthronement. The gifts in v11 become enablers according to their function to build the Body. They do not build the Body directly but enable others to build the Body.... (e.g. you, me). If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

It sounds spiritual to say we are only going to take in the pure milk of the Word without any teaching of man to influence our thinking but God uses man exactly in that capacity through the gifts He gave to the Body for its building up. There is a time for the sweetness of feeding on the milk of the Word with the Lord one on one but that does not replace the rich supply from the banquet going on in the Body. After all, it’s there for a reason.

Thx
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

Couple points here.

Firstly, Drake, is it not hypocritical to ascribe to a policy which condemns the writings of all gifts from the Head to His body, except for Nee, Lee, and the Blended We? Have not LSM LC's ditched "ALL footnotes and commentaries" except those sanctioned in the Rec. Version and the HWfMR?

Secondly, does not the church which is His body consider the writings of scripture alone as "The Holy Word of God," so that it alone could be considered the source of the "pure milk of the word"?

To receive the ministry of the "post-apostolic-age" apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers (the Ephesians 4.11 "gifts") as the "pure milk of the word" is frighteningly dangerous. That alone is the defining characteristic of 2 millennia of cults and aberrant sects.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure StG,

Me with my Bible soaking up the pure milk of the word is not the complete NT revelation to build up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4. The building up of the Body of Christ has an arrangement (gifts given) accomplished by Christ in His resurrection, ascension, and enthronement. The gifts in v11 become enablers according to their function to build the Body. They do not build the Body directly but enable others to build the Body.... (e.g. you, me). If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

It sounds spiritual to say we are only going to take in the pure milk of the Word without any teaching of man to influence our thinking but God uses man exactly in that capacity through the gifts He gave to the Body for its building up. There is a time for the sweetness of feeding on the milk of the Word with the Lord one on one but that does not replace the rich supply from the banquet going on in the Body. After all, it’s there for a reason.

Thx
Drake

Thanks for the clarification. My point was not that we don't look at any "footnotes or commentaries" at all, but more about looking to the word first. The thing about looking at some other persons word first is that it can then easily influence how we frame and see something. (After consulting the scripture and Him in a prayerful way 1st, then look at various commentaries, etc.)

And Evangelical, there is nothing wrong with the "pure milk of the word!" I understand what you are saying about going on from milk to meat and all. But too often what is meant by meat is perhaps just some dead knowledge which kills and is devoid of love. Personally, whenever the Lord has shown me something in the word, I get excited and also a little puffed-up that I have seen some lofty thing. Then I try to convey it to others usually in a prideful way (sorry, that's my immaturity in Christ). This is not love; it is knowledge, which fails (inverse - love doesn't fail). So because of this, I'm actually learning that I'd rather experience love than knowledge. If it comes down to the priority between love, pure milk and meaty knowledge - knowledge is (dead) last! We must ask ourselves: "Is what I'm doing and conveying to others really building them up in love?" Meaty dead knowledge is by far well down the building-up list (somewhere between wood & stubble), and is really just a form of entertainment in my estimation.

And Ohio I agree with what you asked/stated:

Have not LSM LC's ditched "ALL footnotes and commentaries" except those sanctioned in the Rec. Version and the HWfMR?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the clarification. My point was not that we don't look at any "footnotes or commentaries" at all, but more about looking to the word first. The thing about looking at some other persons word first is that it can then easily influence how we frame and see something. (After consulting the scripture and Him in a prayerful way 1st, then look at various commentaries, etc.)

And Evangelical, there is nothing wrong with the "pure milk of the word!" I understand what you are saying about going on from milk to meat and all. But too often what is meant by meat is perhaps just some dead knowledge which kills and is devoid of love. Personally, whenever the Lord has shown me something in the word, I get excited and also a little puffed-up that I have seen some lofty thing. Then I try to convey it to others usually in a prideful way (sorry, that's my immaturity in Christ). This is not love; it is knowledge, which fails (inverse - love doesn't fail). So because of this, I'm actually learning that I'd rather experience love than knowledge. If it comes down to the priority between love, pure milk and meaty knowledge - knowledge is (dead) last! We must ask ourselves: "Is what I'm doing and conveying to others really building them up in love?" Meaty dead knowledge is by far well down the building-up list (somewhere between wood & stubble), and is really just a form of entertainment in my estimation.

And Ohio I agree with what you asked/stated:

Reasonable, except your last point....

God works through the Body. We each are but a single member of the Body. Are you all the hearing? Is another member an ear in the Body perhaps more so than you might be.... your hearing is limited.... so is mine.

However, I did not say not look at the Word.... first is already past unless you mean first thing every morning. I said there is a time for personal time in the Word...... but what you said was ditching... ("ditching" implies tossing it like trash that you never expect to use again)

get rid of; give up.
"it crossed her mind to ditch her shoes and run"
synonyms:throw out, throw away, discard, get rid of, dispose of, do away with, deep-six, shed; abandon, drop, shelve, scrap, jettison, throw on the scrapheap;
informaldump, junk, chuck, pull the plug on, trash
"she ditched her old curtains"

So, my response was to that definition. Had you said " I like to read the Word, muse on it, pray over it, and let the Lord speak to me, before I read what others have to say on that verse.... then I would have said "Amen".

This concept of me and the pure word was expressed before you were born with this cowboy tune "Me and Jesus got our own thing going.. and we don't need nobody to tell us what's its all about".

That whole notion is anti-Body of Christ. There are different versions of it in various circles. The Body of Christ and its building up needs every member and every member to function according to their measure. Every member has a personal time with the Lord in the Word one-on-one and every member honors and takes the supply from the other members especially the joints of the rich supply, the gifts given by Christ to the Body.

Drake