Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
IWe have to consider the scope of the "surrounding passages" we wish to include. We have to consider the weight of those prescriptive or descriptive examples themselves and what is actually said.
|
I think this says enough. When you are seeking the truth, what you do or do not include is not based on a wish or a desire. It is not based on the expectation of a particular outcome, or merely the desire to avoid a particular outcome.
Instead, it is based on the analysis of all relevant information and evidence. If there is found to be cause to classify some of the apparent evidence as not relevant, then that is fine. But the reason that is not relevant is not that you want (or wish) there to be a different result that the evidence stands in the way of.
Sort of like Nee in Further Talks. He effectively dismisses the house churches as relevant to the discussion because at face value they would contradict the one-city-one-church rule. But until you weigh all the evidence, there is no rule to apply. But he had a rule he wanted and he could not dismiss this contrary evidence without declaring that since it violated the rule, it must mean something else. But that proves that he had a bias in favor of the rule such that he used an as-yet un-established rule to dismiss any evidence that would cause it to fail to become the rule.
Begging the question. Using a rule to shut out evidence that the rule is invalid.
So you can't just include or exclude evidence because you don't like what it does to your expected outcome. You have to deal with it head-on.