{
  "trx_id": "004609f8316736bd4d092c38fa32be575807a2b0",
  "block": 106149935,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2026-05-18T05:41:00",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "7114.522541 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a19618a1bf5a28be2b19703b6780d435b4b9ba2b",
  "block": 106002142,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2026-05-13T01:55:00",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "4402.312136 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "588315522fdda0da7f8929b37fb4e93de36dad27",
  "block": 105517437,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2026-04-26T04:53:42",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "7127.038297 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9c66f1f77c0d6b0405d7c3ace274a3533428f304",
  "block": 99370377,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-09-24T03:15:48",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "4491.636915 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a5e725b070025d160826b7df12e813500a32d9b2",
  "block": 96769929,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-06-25T14:59:42",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-authority-of-the-local-church-revisited-and-reviewed",
      "title": "The Authority of The Local Church, Revisited and Reviewed",
      "body": "@@ -1289,64 +1289,8 @@\n  age\n-%0AAnd most importantly for the sake of this discussion --\n %0A%0AEv\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"ecclesiology\",\"bible\"],\"links\":[\"https://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-authority-of-local-church-part-1.html\",\"https://lightandheat.substack.com/p/the-authority-of-the-local-church\",\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E03A2YhvvNg\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "218017076130d6d75b1f5f1ab785050a6cf8426d",
  "block": 96757865,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-06-25T04:55:30",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "16159.022970 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "094a2b8b47e534c787bdf3bf48b17e89015d6923",
  "block": 96756653,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-06-25T03:54:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "goodtree",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-authority-of-the-local-church-revisited-and-reviewed",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "593ae059e7da8d3fff1fb93e9436ec427e108fa5",
  "block": 96755274,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-06-25T02:45:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-authority-of-the-local-church-revisited-and-reviewed",
      "title": "The Authority of The Local Church, Revisited and Reviewed",
      "body": "Brandon Scalf’s attempt to rebut [my article](https://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-authority-of-local-church-part-1.html) reconsidering church authority [appears here](https://lightandheat.substack.com/p/the-authority-of-the-local-church). I encourage the reader to read them in sequence before continuing here.\n\nLet us first review my own article and its stated intention. It is true that I did not define precisely what \"(local) church authority\" is, and that is for a very good reason - I have never been given a clear definition of the concept myself by anyone who professes that such a thing exists. I will, however, remedy that now and clarify my provisional conclusion on the matter, pending a convincing argument from someone else. \n\n## Defining \"Authority\" In Inter-Christian Relationship\n\nIn general, **a person is exercising authority when they issue a directive to another person and that other person has a duty to obey the directive.**\n\nHow is this statement relevant between Christians? Let's explore a few examples:\n\n* One Christian is the supervisor of another Christian in an employment or similar situation\n* One Christian is another Christian's commanding officer in a biblically-defined military context \n* A Christian is the parent of another Christian of minor age\nAnd most importantly for the sake of this discussion --\n\nEven in these contexts, it is easy to see that the directive must not command what is evil nor prohibit what is good. In either of those cases, the Christian must disobey the directive in order to obey God. The employee is not in the right if he refuses to jump on the conference call. The private is not in the right if he declines to do twenty pushups when the drill sergeant tells him to. The child is not in the right if he refuses to clean his room when instructed to do so. \n\nBut the employee **is** in the right to decline sexual favors to the boss.\nThe private **must** refuse to pillage an innocent civilian's property.\nThe child **is right** to accept baptism as a born-again believer though sprinkled as a baby by a clergyman.\n\nSo even when an interpersonal relationship carrying authority (in some other context than a peer-to-peer Christian relationship), the content of the directive remains paramount. **What is the message and does it accurately communicate a duty from God?** is the foremost question.  \n\nNow, the most important example for this discussion:\n\n* Two or more Christians have a relationship only in the sphere of Christian fellowship\n\nIn a peer-to-peer Christian relationship, can one Christian issue an authoritative directive to another? Can one priest of God impose a duty on another priest of God? Put simply: **Only if that directive sums up Scriptural teaching, enjoining a God-breathed duty or communicating God's prohibition of an action.**\n\n## Scalf Never Defined \"Authority\"\n\nSince he never defined \"authority\", nor \"local church authority\", nor \"authority of church elders\", we are left wondering precisely what Scalf thinks \"local church authority\" is. He alludes to it several times, criticises my article for suggesting that employing the phrase \"local church authority\" is counter-productive and unbiblical, and suggests that \"elders exercise ministerial, not magisterial authority\",  but never tells us what it actually is or means. I wholeheartedly invite him to give us specifics at his next opportunity.\n\nWhat we can say is that my own article has told us what \"local church authority\" **is not**, and yet Scalf believes my resistance to authoritarian tyranny (the behavior and position I explicitly identified) warranted a written response, and that I have evinced \"erroneous and harmful thinking\". Yet if I am simply exposing authoritarian tyranny that does not apply to him or the clergymen he knows, it is unclear what precisely is so dangerous.\n\n## Some Key Questions\n\nFrom Scalf:\n\n> Elders can rightly have authority without the biblical authors needing to use ἐξουσία to vindicate that authority. \n\nbut we are not told what it means that \"elders rightly have authority\". Here are some questions about that. \nWhen? To command what? To whom? Under what circumstances? \nAnd probably most central:\n**If a \"church elder\" tells you to do something good, are you more duty-bound to do it than if someone else told you to do it, simply because he is a \"church elder\"? If a \"church elder\" tells you to stop doing something bad, are you more duty-bound to stop it than if someone else told you to stop it, simply because he is a \"church elder\"?**\n\nAn answer to those questions would go a very long way in clarifying just what Scalf is trying to teach us here. Yet if the answer to those last two questions is \"No, he is **not** more duty-bound just because it's a 'church elder' instructing him\", then my own thesis is affirmed, and it is far from clear what is so dangerous about my ideology. My own ideas are pretty simple - Let God be true and every man a liar. The unfolding of God's words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. We must obey God rather than men. \n\nIn addition, I believe Scalf has shown his thinking to be somewhat muddled here, especially since...\n\n## Scalf Offered Virtually No Biblical Exegesis\n\nIn my article I examined numerous passages in context and drew conclusions from them that would fit into a larger whole so as to produce a harmonized systematic biblical teaching on the topic. At most, we see Scalf drop some Greek words, but there is no interaction with any of my own exegesis, no exposition of why he pasted those words into his own article. It is also notable that he fails even to understand my argument at several points. For example:\n\n> The argument that states, “unless the exact Greek term “ἐξουσία” is applied to elders, they cannot have any form of authority”\n\nThis quotation never appears in my article, and it just does not approach the thrust of my argument.\nAnother example:\n\n> Alan’s argumentation rests almost wholly on the meanings of πρεσβύτερος (elder), ἐπίσκοπος (overseer), and ποιμήν (shepherd)\n\nMy argumentation does not rest at all on those terms or meanings. I believe upon examination, one will find that it is Scalf's argument that rests partly on those terms and their meanings, not my own.\n\nNow, for the claims that I engaged in logical fallacies. \n\n## Straw Man Fallacy\n\nScalf does not appear to be aware that something cannot be a logical fallacy if it is not an **ARGUMENT**. My comment about authoritarians is not an **argument**. It is an **observation based on considerable experience** on the part of myself and many other abolitionists. Scalf is in no position to tell us that our firsthand lived experience did not happen. He has no access to it. Ask any abolitionist who has run afoul of such ecclesiastical tyrants, like the apostle John did:\n\n> I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not welcome what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his deeds which he does, unjustly disparaging us with wicked words. And not satisfied with this, he himself does not welcome the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church (3 John 9-10).\n\nOr like the Lord Jesus did:\n\n> And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the marketplaces, and being called Rabbi by men (Matthew 23:5-7).\n\nOr like the prophet Jeremiah did:\n\n> Then Pashhur the priest, the son of Immer, who was ruling overseer in the house of Yahweh, heard Jeremiah prophesying these words; and Pashhur had Jeremiah the prophet struck and put him in the stocks that were at the upper Benjamin Gate, which was by the house of Yahweh (Jeremiah 20:1-2).\n\nDoes Scalf think that such men don't even exist? If so, he can count his blessings since ignorance is bliss, yet at the same time one should consider whether Scalf has ever done anything that might cause the ire of wicked false brethren to wax hot against him. The prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus lived lives such that they were under no illusion that that kind of man was out there. Scalf referenced Acts 20:28 (which is not relevant to any of my arguments), and the very next verses display a concern for precisely the same thing:\n\n>  ...know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30). \n\n\n## False Equivalence Fallacy\n\nOnce again, the statement he identifies as a fallacy was not even an argument. It was merely an observation and a comparison. A conclusion based on other arguments, which he did not interact with.\n\nScalf complains that I \"equate the Biblical office of Elder with Roman Catholic hierarchicalism\". I said that many of these office-holding men **resemble** papists in their behavior. I also intended to communicate that the way Roman Catholicism thinks about its hierarchy and offices **resembles** the way Scalf and other Reformed clergy think about their hierarchies and offices. There is no denying that Rome proposes the clergy-laity distinction and refers to its clergy positions as **offices**, so the comparison is apt in multiple ways.\n\n\n## Selective Evidence\n\nScalf complains I did not interact with Hebrews 13:17 and yet my article provides a link to extensive interaction with the passage, which [I link (again) here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E03A2YhvvNg). The video presents a serious exegetical case from the context of the verse. Where has Scalf provided any such thing? Or where does his article actually interact with my own exegesis? \n\n> he completely neglects key texts like... 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13\n\nTrue, I haven't gotten around to it yet, but please keep in mind an important point of studying the Word of God -- **Just because you can \"counter-cite\" different passages does not overturn the conclusions drawn by proper exegesis of another passage.**\nRather, the responsible and respectful handler of the Word of God, as someone trained by Steve Lawson should be expected to be, would know that one must take **all** the relevant passages and harmonize them **all**. This is as shallow a response as a papist immediately blurting \"James 2! James 2!\" when he is exhorted to adhere to justification by faith alone.\n\nScalf is welcome to present an argument based on exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. Remember that, to create a doctrine drawn from Scripture, he must harmonize it with the content I have presented, with Jesus' words to the disciples as mentioned in my first article, and with passages such as Ephesians 5:21, answering precisely how it is that \"a pastor has authority\" and yet we are all commanded to submit **one to another**. My paradigm can account for all of that data. Can his?\n\nFinally on this point, 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 20:28, and Matthew 18:15–20 are irrelevant to this discussion. \n\n\n## Equivocation Fallacy\n\n> Alan continually makes the argument (in various ways throughout the article) that “Authority (ἐξουσία) is never used of elders in the in the New Testament”. Therefore, he concludes “elders have no authority.”\n\nI have endeavored to flesh out my argument above. I do not believe it is appropriate to say \"elders have no authority\". I also do not believe it is appropriate to say \"elders have authority\". \nWhy is this?\nBecause I do not believe that in the context of Christian-to-Christian peer relationships, the idea that a man \"has authority\" can be coherently explained. **Messages** carry authority in those relationships. **Men** do not. We should say things that make sense. I invite Scalf to make the attempt.\n\n\n## Category Errors\n\n> Alan dismisses Titus’ authority because it was unique and temporary and therefore not relevant today\n\nI do not see how I \"dismissed\" Titus' authority. It is not a dismissal to say that his situation was pretty unique; why is that controversial? Was any man alive today hand-picked by an apostle of the Lord and sent a New Testament epistle to help instruct him with God-breathed words specific to his situation?\nScalf argues that Titus and Timothy are \"patterns for pastoral ministry\". The term \"pastoral\" and \"ministry\" are heavily baggage-laden. Does Scalf present an argument for this, or mere assertion?\nWhat is his argument that 2 Timothy 2:2 has anything to do with \"authority\"?\nWhat is his argument that Titus 1:5 necessarily teaches that \"elder\" is an **office**, since \"office\" is translator gloss in English, not in the original Greek text?\n\nCrucially, Scalf says this:\n> their function includes authoritative teaching and correction\n\n**What does \"authoritative teaching\" mean?** Scalf never defines it. Indeed, he had earlier dropped this line indicating great self-unawareness:\n\n> depending, again, on how one defines the term authority\n\nThis is essentially a concession of the argument so far. \n\nI above raised key questions. To help illustrate further, I offer here some more:\n\n1. Consider a serial rapist in prison who hears the Gospel, is convicted of sin, and is born again. One hour later he tells a fellow convict: \"Repent and believe the Gospel.\" Is this authoritative teaching?\n2. If Pastor Scalf tells that convict the same thing, is that authoritative teaching?\n3. Is the \"authoritative\"ness different in those two cases?\n4. Suppose that convict is visited the next day by a Southern Baptist prison chaplain who tries to guide this newly born-again believer into Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The convict tells the chaplain to repent and believe the Gospel. Is this authoritative teaching?\n5. Is the \"authoritative\"ness different from when Scalf excoriates the Southern Baptist Convention from his pulpit for the same (assuming he would ever do so)?\n6. Does the authority rest in the **message** or the **messenger**?\n\n> Then Amos answered and said to Amaziah, “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs. But Yahweh took me from following the flock, and Yahweh said to me, ‘Go prophesy to My people Israel’ (Amos 7:14-15).\n\n \n## Argument from Silence\n\n> To repeat his refrain that ἐξουσία is never used for elders, therefore elders have no authority is to argue from silence.\n\nThis was not the argument from my article.\n\n\n## Either-Or Fallacy\n\n> the Bible teaches both mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and authoritative eldership (Heb 13:17)\n\nHebrews 13 does not mention \"elders\" (indeed, the word is absent from the entire epistle, as are the words \"pastor\" and \"overseer\"), and whether it is teaching \"authority\" is the very question at hand! And who has provided the exegesis so far? Only one of us.\nScalf would need first to define \"authority\" as he is using it, then show how it is possible to construct a scenario of church life, etc, and the interaction between \"clergy\" and \"laity\" such that \n1. he has described a paradigm in which no caste system is in place, no Christian superior nor inferior to another positionally, in terms of rank,\n2. the availability of a \"layperson\" to bring correction to a \"clergy\"man is upheld, and\n3. he can present a coherent idea of what (mutual) submission means, based on his own paradigm. He has so far defined neither \"authority\" nor \"submission\". \n\nIn reality, the word \"authority\" has a meaning and a definition. The tyrants whom I criticise in my writings understand that and operate accordingly. Scalf suggests he is different than they. Clarification is welcomed.\n\n\n## Begs the Question\n\n> It goes something like this, “There is no biblical authority for elders because church authority is unbiblical”... Alan assumes that all ecclesiastical authority is unbiblical...\n\nHopefully on further reflection, Scalf will realize the difference between\n-a (provisional) **conclusion** which is given **after considerable exegesis** \nand\n-an assumption I start with. \nI started with \"Bible = God's Word\" and **arrived** at \"we find the phrases 'church authority', 'authority of the local church'... and 'authority of the pastor(s)/elder(s)' to be without biblical support.\" If Scalf disagrees, some carefully-handled Scripture would be most welcome to demonstrate my error(s). \n\n\n## Reductionism\n\n> Alan’s article artificially flattens all New Testament teaching about leadership into mutual humility and denies genuine authority in church government.\n\nJust what is \"genuine authority in church government\"? We're still waiting for the definition. That's where his argument can begin. As it is, he hasn't really even taken the first step.\n\n\n> Reducing the entire concept of church government to “just be humble” ignores the functional instructions in the Pastoral Epistles...\n\nWhich instructions were beyond the scope of my article. Yet remember, again, the keys to producing a harmonized and systematic whole when considering a biblical topic. Truth is not arrived at with a knee-jerk counter-attack of a passage that seems to teach the opposite of what another teaches. The truth of Scripture/tradition is that Scripture is the ultimate authority and judge of all traditions, not that zero tradition should ever be considered.\nThe truth of the mechanism of justification is that it is by grace alone through faith alone, not that good works are never expected to be present in the life of a born-again follower of Jesus.\nThe truth of the Hypostatic Union is that Jesus is **both** God **and** man, the God-man, not that He is a created being nor that He never became tired or hungry nor was tempted. \n\nSimilarly, the truth of this question is that leadership can (and should) be present in a local assembly, but it should not look like the ways Jesus condemns among the \"Benefactors\" among the Gentiles. Scalf's ideas seem to include some element of leadership as office-possession, where a given man is supposed to be trusted to be a leader apart from his having earned that trust and demonstrated that leadership. Take for example the common scenario, including Scalf's own move to Tulsa, where a clergyman is hired/\"called\" to \"pastor\" a congregation before the congregation knows him. But we will leave it to Scalf to define his own position, which he didn't do this time. \n\n\n## Review\n\nIn my first article, I gave considerable attention to what \"authority\" **is not** in peer-to-peer Christian contexts. \nIn this article, I have defined what authority **is** in those contexts, while reminding you that Scalf never did so. \nI have shown that Scalf misunderstood my argument in multiple ways, while pointing out that he barely made an argument himself beyond simply nay-saying me. \nI have exhorted Scalf to pay close attention to his next response, repeatedly reminding him and you that we must read **all** that Scripture has to say on a topic before conclusively forming doctrine.\nI have, finally, contended that the oft-used phrase \"church authority\" is almost completely incoherent, and invited Scalf to show how I am mistaken. \n\nMay the Lord Jesus be glorified in the exposition of His Word and in His people now and forever. \n\n\n> Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:11-14).",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"ecclesiology\",\"bible\"],\"links\":[\"https://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-authority-of-local-church-part-1.html\",\"https://lightandheat.substack.com/p/the-authority-of-the-local-church\",\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E03A2YhvvNg\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5100f077a3f06b95b024d3d68e120af6c183ee0a",
  "block": 91315540,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2024-12-17T17:35:18",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "4608.078152 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "4dd76e65333360a2bd1a8cac1848542a6bd98e87",
  "block": 79869689,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2023-11-14T09:16:30",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "4777.211684 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2771deb05aedefb56ff9ea425c923f53ecdb4901",
  "block": 78362011,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2023-09-22T09:40:39",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "7714.120470 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "38bdf09de51be6f0b30b2b7ee02399f120e26b5c",
  "block": 69119861,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-11-03T17:13:48",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "7936.171908 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "fa96409ce74591e6d0db2e339912aa49be95d3b9",
  "block": 65510018,
  "trx_in_block": 11,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-06-30T13:44:00",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "26663.257655 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "50b73758b89a8d7f890980c4d4c9d3052e197038",
  "block": 63476318,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-20T15:25:54",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "some-helpful-discussions-of-conditionalism",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "ran9j6",
      "title": "",
      "body": "And another set:\nhttps://ourcommonsalvation.wordpress.com/rethinking-conditionalism/",
      "json_metadata": "{\"links\":[\"https://ourcommonsalvation.wordpress.com/rethinking-conditionalism/\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7351639bd5bf12e1dbc06058d120ced9d92900f3",
  "block": 63219902,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:32:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "conditionalism",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "some-helpful-discussions-of-conditionalism",
      "title": "Some Helpful Discussions of Conditionalism",
      "body": "Please find the following resources in order: \n\n[Reasoning through Annihilationism](https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/reasoning-through-annihilationism)\n[Series on Conditionalism, Part 1](https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-1)\n[Series on Conditionalism, Part 2](https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-2)\n[Series on Conditionalism, Part 3](https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-3)\n\nUntil conditionalists provide answers to these challenges that **uphold** the righteousness of God and the atonement of Christ, conditionalism should most definitely be avoided.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"conditionalism\",\"annihilationism\",\"bible\",\"theology\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/reasoning-through-annihilationism\",\"https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-1\",\"https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-2\",\"https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-3\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "048d2ab37788f68df5c6f14dc03657de2dcaba75",
  "block": 63219881,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:31:15",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "26844.557557 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8867b64d4a6d898d5918782adecc59df1aa6fda0",
  "block": 63219783,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:26:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "conditionalism",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "series-on-conditionalism-part-3",
      "title": "Series on Conditionalism, Part 3",
      "body": "Let's pick up where [my last post on conditionalism](https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-2) left off.\n\nSo far we have seen that, on conditionalism, the sinner appears to be able to discharge his own sin debt via his own sufferings, because he undergoes unpleasant experiences until God annihilates him, and of course, losing consciousness at the tail end of unpleasant experience is very obviously to be considered preferable to the ongoing continuance of said unpleasant experience. \n\nWe also compared this pseudo-atonement to the Roman idea of Purgatory and saw how the mechanism is the same. \nNow let's consider a less-frequently discussed angle to both concepts, conditionalism and Purgatory. These sinners who did not cease from sinning nor repent nor place their faith in Christ during their earthly life… shall we consider that in whatever conscious existence follows physical death, these unrepentant sinners **shall** be holy in behavior, thought, and motivation? After living their whole lives unrepentant? \n\nIf so, did God monergistically regenerate them? When He did not do so during their earthly life? And then He's going to condemn to eternal destruction, regenerate people who are holy and repentant? Of course not. \n\nSo, these unrepentant sinners are **not** going to be holy after their physical death. But they will undergo some kind of unpleasant experience until their annihilation. Our conditionalist friends suggest this unpleasant experience will be prolonged/worsened in some way according to the sin debt they have accrued during their physical life, and then they are released from that unpleasantness into what is obviously relief - the passage from (temporary) conscious torment to total cessation of consciousness. (I pause here to remind all reading that the proposition that unconsciousness is NOT relief from torment is a very silly proposition.)\n\nGet this, though - **they never stopped sinning the whole time**. They will **continue** to sin because they are not born again. So their sin debt will always be increasing. The pile of sin never diminishes. It grows. Thus, either their torment will never come to an end (ergo, ECT is true), or God will relieve sinners from their temporal purgations by the act of eliminating their conscious existence. Thus He leaves sin unpunished. The Judge of all the Earth will neglect to pour out wrath on the one who commits sin. The one in Roman Purgatory never gets to Heaven. The one in conditionalist \"Purgatory\" never is released from torment.\n\nEither that, or God simply ignores a bunch of sin, leaving it unpunished, which is a central tenet of Islam and highly unbiblical, cutting to the very heart of the atoning death of Christ. I mean, if God is down for simply ignoring sin, why doesn't He just save everyone and the Son of God never even would have had to die for it? \n\nI don't see any answers to these challenges. Previous comments on my and others' posts from knowledgeable conditionalists have not presented any answers, and neither have the numerous lectures by Fudge, Date, and others I've listened to. Until they provide answers that **uphold** the righteousness of God and the atonement of Christ, conditionalism should most definitely be avoided.\n\nActs 24:14-15 - \n> But I confess this to you, that in accordance with the Way, which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that **there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.**",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"conditionalism\",\"annihilationism\",\"bible\",\"theology\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-2\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "48dc4e0ca7454769082221954342226f55dc683d",
  "block": 63219669,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:20:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "conditionalism",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "series-on-conditionalism-part-2",
      "title": "Series on Conditionalism, Part 2",
      "body": "Following up on [my previous post about conditionalism](https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-1), let's move further.\n\nIn that post, I was commending all of us to think through the implications of a sinner experiencing judgmental torment at God's hands before a final event that eliminates their consciousness and existence. I compared this pre-annihilation experience to flogging, an ongoing unpleasant experience, and then considered that anyone undergoing an ongoing unpleasant experience would consider the cessation of that unpleasant experience to be **relief**. I also poked justified fun at those who would claim that such sleep (ie, cessation of torment) would also be punishment, because the claim is laughable. \n\nI then went on to explore how that relates to the idea of atonement. You see, the conditionalist is caught in a dilemma, wanting for some reason to consider that surely God isn't THAT mean and nasty as to consign people to eternal conscious torment. Yet at the same time, the prospect that your kindly (pagan) grandma might experience literally the exact same \"punishment\" (ie, immediate cessation of existence) as Mengele experiences rubs people the wrong way who want to take God's justice seriously. So they stretch for this apparent middle ground - Mengele will **temporarily** suffer a more intense and/or longer-lasting unpleasant experience than kindly grandma before they both end up entirely eliminated, annihilated, totally unconscious and non-existent. And why do Mengele and grandma eventually end up released from their unpleasant experience into sweet, sweet oblivion? Because their relative amount of sin has received what appears to be its due and corresponding penalty. Their sin has been taken care of, and now their unpleasant experiences are done with. They are released, no longer to suffer anymore. (Or, God just ignores their sin, which is its own heresy. You might find Islam more to your liking.)\n\nA direct and striking parallel exists to the Roman Catholic distinctive dogma known as Purgatory. You see, in RC theology, an individual who has been baptised and confirmed into the RCC lives in a state of grace unless and until they commit a so-called mortal sin. If they die in a state of mortal sin, to hell they go. If they perform appropriate penances, they are restored to a state of grace. \n\nIf they do not commit a mortal sin, most people are committing lesser sins, known as venial sins, which build up a negative balance on their 'account'. These sins can be removed from their 'account' via sacraments and other means of grace. If an individual dies in a state of grace, with only a balance of venial sins on their 'account', they are not holy enough to enter into Heaven. Thus they are sent to Purgatory first. \n\nThe Catechism of the Roman Harlot says this in section 1030:\n> \"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.\"\n\nAnd in 1031:\n> \"The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned... The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: 'As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire…'\"\n\nPut simply, the sinner undergoes a temporary unpleasant experience of duration and/or intensity appropriate to the lack of holiness in them. This is to \"achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.\" Two important elements of this idea:\n 1. The work of overcoming the sin in the sinner's life is accomplished by the sinner, NOT BY CHRIST'S SACRIFICE.\n 2. After the sinner has completed his passive suffering, he is RELEASED FROM THE SUFFERING into a less unpleasant status.  \n\nThis is virtually indistinguishable from how, on conditionalism, the sinner suffering prior to annihilation achieves the holiness/lack of unholiness necessary to enter the relief of eternal unconsciousness. Obviously entire annihilation/elimination is not heaven. The mechanism is the same. The sinner discharges his sin debt before he becomes eligible for an improvement in his situation, and that discharge of debt is brought about **apart from Christ's sacrifice**.\n\nConditionalism results in atonement for sin being discharged by something other than the work of Christ on the cross. That's some ugly stuff, friends.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"conditionalism\",\"annihilationism\",\"bible\",\"theology\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/conditionalism/@rhology/series-on-conditionalism-part-1\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e349dcc6f8f49d28979a814642d44c07d953c099",
  "block": 63219539,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:14:03",
  "op": [
    "transfer",
    {
      "from": "executive-board",
      "to": "rhology",
      "amount": "0.001 STEEM",
      "memo": "❗ Hello rhology, great that you are using the STEEM blockchain. The Executive Board is publishing insider infos at https://discord.gg/KyBbmhh on how you will be earning the most coins. It's easy, just follow the instructions. THE 1000X BOOSTER KEY is already waiting for you over there too. 😉 Warm regards, The Executive Board."
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a9a491d3ef3655080be98de9627512d37d3bc5ff",
  "block": 63219510,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-04-11T15:12:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "conditionalism",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "series-on-conditionalism-part-1",
      "title": "Series on Conditionalism, Part 1",
      "body": "Picking up from [my previous post on conditionalism, aka annihilationism](https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/reasoning-through-annihilationism), let's discuss this matter in greater detail.\n\nAdherents to the idea of Conditionalism or Conditional Immortality do not necessarily all agree, it would seem, on the exact proceedings once an unrepentant person passes out of this earthly physical life. Some seem to claim the wicked are virtually immediately entirely destroyed, which is to say that their existence and consciousness come entirely to an end, forever.  In my experience, more often, conditionalists suggest that the unrepentant dead will experience a time of experienced punishment or torment before their existence and consciousness are eliminated. Which leads to the question: is it all the same quality and quantity? Does my well-mannered and kindly (but unregenerate) grandma experience the same quality of punishment and the same quantity as Josef Mengele? \n\nMost conditionalists in my experience will suggest that Mengele's punishment before his annihilation will incorporate greater suffering than a kindly grandma will, because his sin was greater. He was more brutal, for a very long time, and caused many thousands to suffer greatly. His sin debt is way worse than grandma's. \n\nSo Mengele will suffer greater torment for a longer time at God's hands, than kindly grandma will. Both will suffer because of sin. One will suffer more because his sin was worse, weightier. And then after that, their consciousness and existence are entirely eliminated. This elimination is also said by conditionalists to be a punishment.  Such a suggestion is downright silly. Ask anyone who is being actively tortured or flogged or something - hey, would you like to continue to receive floggings or would you like to sleep? Which option do you think they'll pick? Then tell them OK cool you're going to sleep and that's punishment too! Laughable. It's a **relief** to no longer experience torment. \n\nNow consider that this relief comes at the end of the sin debt being in some sense poured out on the sufferer. Grandma suffers a finite amount of time, and a finite amount of torment, before being put to sleep. Mengele suffers more before the same eventual fate. Why? Because his sin debt was worse. And then when they have suffered in accordance with the sin debt they accrued during life, they are **released from suffering**. Because they suffered enough. They worked off their debts. They end up in the same state.\n\nThis is nothing less than atonement - the sinner has atoned for his sin. Not a total or entire atonement. It is a partial atonement, or if you will, it is an atonement of a different quality. The suffering is released. Much like I, as a redeemed individual, suffer during this physical life, and Jesus atones for my sin, and at the end of life my suffering ceases. The unrepentant leaves this life, goes into a more intense suffering, and once he atones for his sin, he is released from it (unto a different eventual fate, of course). \n\nIn my next post I will discuss this issue from a different angle.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"conditionalism\",\"annihilationism\",\"bible\",\"theology\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/reasoning-through-annihilationism\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.2\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e66e6b7a40fc9be63c8235743fc9d68c2e2eed40",
  "block": 60823181,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2022-01-17T22:29:18",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8156.279509 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8155b9f80a193e7944d426a380cb678f55511ee2",
  "block": 54613540,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2021-06-14T05:41:48",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8340.473797 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e5a3776e2c950fc639ed05e3c708f092ea0484de",
  "block": 49360820,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-12-11T15:54:33",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8527.895771 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "44d830e5a172606348e506ab1d9d8288723b1c29",
  "block": 49212349,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-12-06T09:30:30",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "1912.543513 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "6119f8195a9930dff1296a4d13a41507607f579d",
  "block": 49195908,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-12-05T19:32:33",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8534.103625 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "86cb198ea7222a7f2a13de8880061c5e529e94f1",
  "block": 48269557,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-11-03T01:37:21",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "1920.017158 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "356e2d236570936903c3f67621bb5a9b160641c9",
  "block": 43222667,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-05-09T10:32:57",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8736.908984 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "aa1a264c05c6e18a3120f9a1a7a716a72150cc80",
  "block": 43199620,
  "trx_in_block": 17,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2020-05-08T14:52:30",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "1953.311140 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "07c2b5b404459ebac20e191428b166ff71ef759c",
  "block": 37029789,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-10-05T22:34:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "discussion-on-sola-scriptura-with-chris-the-papist",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-rhology-20191005t223403000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @rhology! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@rhology/birthday2.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 2 years!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@rhology) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=rhology)_</sub>\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1caad01a612a792cb194aceb3ad05de53858dd9b",
  "block": 35722507,
  "trx_in_block": 21,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-08-20T16:40:12",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8886.370542 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "79c0104ffd669c7c432b0440568eed48d629b382",
  "block": 35046583,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-07-28T03:38:57",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "28760.307088 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "10cb29db9f82e6c1a57d164d60a23d50ba4b29a9",
  "block": 33105632,
  "trx_in_block": 32,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-05-21T15:49:36",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "a-biblical-case-against-open-borders",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "re-rhology-a-biblical-case-against-open-borders-20190521t154936048z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "[Another whole litany of things that could have been avoided](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-20/spain-sees-surge-migrant-crime-because-political-cowardice)",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"immigration\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-20/spain-sees-surge-migrant-crime-because-political-cowardice\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7b2d988339545c8f756a9da93d95a8852f76f087",
  "block": 31784981,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-04-05T17:19:18",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "28958.958770 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "4ccf367bac153be298739b48440a6418130a9b79",
  "block": 31781735,
  "trx_in_block": 38,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-04-05T14:36:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "discussion-on-sola-scriptura-with-chris-the-papist",
      "title": "Discussion on Sola Scriptura with Chris the Papist",
      "body": "From this post, a papist decided to speak up and I decided to find out whether he had any answers: \nhttps://www.facebook.com/mark.kreslins/posts/10218452290755847\n\n\n\nChris Standley the Papist: Sola Scriptura fails.\n\n\nME:  Not if it is properly understood. It is the only consistent epistemological and theological foundation.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle umm..not if it’s understood.\n\nME:  The alternative is a system in which epistemology and theology are based on human reasoning. So no, it doesn't fail. The competition fails.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle ...to believe in Sola Scriptura is to believe something that none of the Church Fathers, doctors of the Faith, martyrs, councils, etc. believed. In short it is, in hindsight, saying those that founded the faith were wrong for 1500 years. The entire body of scripture was founded using something besides Sola Scriptura. The Apostles themselves did not utilize SS. St. Paul, commends those that cling to the traditions both written and oral etc. The truth is that while SS is better than nothing it “fails” because the Church is much more than the scriptures and SS can not present the whole of Orthodox faith. \nBut then again maybe the fathers of the faith (Jesus and the Apostles) were wrong. Or maybe we have to use scholasticism to “interpret” what they meant...(hyperbole).\n\nME:  **_none of the Church Fathers_**\nPeter, Paul, John, and Jesus are all Church Fathers. \nAlso you'd do well to read this. Your assertion is false. \nHoly Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.\n\n\n**_saying those that founded the faith were wrong for 1500 years._**\nSome were, yes. Others weren't. And you're talking about people who ended up instituting the papacy and rampant idol worship. Your understanding of history is too simplistic. \nAnd it doesn't change what I said about foundations. Maybe those people were indeed wrong. \n\n**_The entire body of scripture was founded using something besides Sola Scriptura_**\nAn irrelevant statement. \n\n**_commends those that cling to the traditions both written and oral etc._**\nBegs the question that those messages were not identical.\n\n\n\nME:  Gonna need you to tell me what the ultimate authority is, if not God's revelation to mankind. Thanks in advance.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle it’s the Word of God. Period. But Sola Scriptura is not simply that. Even the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is servant to the Word of God.\nFYI: this debate has been ongoing for 500 years and none here will end it. \nI officially tap out for reasons of personal sanity. \nIt’s like party affiliation...it’s psychology...humans have an innate need to be affirmed in what they believe. I have my “proof” and others have theirs. God’s Grace is sufficient. I simply have chosen to continue in the Faith of the founders of Christianity instead of the reformers. Instead of reading scholastics (theologians) maybe we all would do well to read from the fathers and founders themselves...\nEarlychristianwritings.com\n\n\nME:  What constitutes the Word of God and how do you know?\n\n**_Even the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is servant to the Word of God._**\nHypocritically, for the Magisterium can neither consistently define what the Word of God is nor is subservient to it. \n\n**_I simply have chosen to continue in the Faith of the founders of Christianity_**\nPaul, Peter, John, and Jesus taught things the Roman church condemns and vice versa. You have done nothing of the sort; rather you have gone aside into novel perversions that God spits out.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle sorry to say you’ve proven my point.\nGod bless.\n\n\nME:  Your point was on the one hand \"we can't know\", but on the other hand you said I was wrong and out of step with \"the faith of the founders of Christianity\". \nA religion that leads you into hypocrisy and affirms you in it is one you should avoid. God seeks those who will worship Him in Spirit and in TRUTH.\n\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle John 6:56 \n1 Cor 11:2\n2 Thes 2:15\n2 Thes 3:6\n2 Tim 2:2\nPapias, Irneaus, Eusebius, clement, Origen, Cyprian, Basil and all the martyrs and Saints of the early Church are who I will choose over Luther, Calvin and their successors...but that’s my choice. I respect yours too. But for me...\nJohn 6:56\n\n\n\nME:  None of those verses establish your position in any way. They are actually quite deadly to your Romish perversions.\n\n\n\nME:  I don't choose Luther or Calvin, etc. I go with Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus. The astute reader will note that I have been consistently saying that from the beginning and that you are the one who mentioned irrelevant people like Luther.\n\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle okie dokie. Do you at least thank the early Church for compiling and giving you the Bible you have at the councils before anything except Orthodoxy existed? Your view seems to forget who actually gave you the Bible and Western Civilization. But that’s beside the point. By “gave” I mean only that they were the instruments not the composer.\n\n\n\nME:  If you mean modern Eastern Orthodoxy, that too is a strain containing numerous novel perversions of the faith once delivered to the saints. \nThe Councils to which you refer are irrelevant to the Bible. The Bible doesn't depend on them. \nI thank everyone who stood firm on Scripture throughout history. \nGod gave me the Bible. I thank Him most of all, not the people who perverted the faith over time like Roman and Constantinopolitan religious hierarchs.\n\n\n\nME:  Chris Standley \nPlease let me know how you know what the Word of God is.\n\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle okie dokie. \nEarlychristianwritings.com\n\n\n\nME:  Cool. Irenaeus said that Jesus was crucified at an age older than 50. \nWord of God or nah?\n\n\n\nME:  \"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit.\" \n--\"Saint\" Athanasius (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)\n\nDifferent Canon of Scripture than modern Rome. \nWord of God or nah?\n\n\n\nME:  \"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture\" \n--Athanasius (De Synodis, 6)\n\n**SUFFICIENT ABOVE ALL THINGS** is Scripture, he says. \nWord of God or nah?\n\n\nPAPIST: Biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm\nHow Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality\n\n\nME:  What do you have to say about my other examples? Examples like these could be multiplied. \n\"'Early' 'Church' 'Fathers'\" said all kinds of things, only some of which agree with the modern Roman position. I asked you what THE WORD OF GOD is and how you know, and you pointed me to a website that contains patristic writings. So what you're telling me is that you believe contradictory things are the Word of God. \nThe Roman position is hopelessly confused and is literally absurd and impossible. You should jettison it and believe the truth.\n\n\nME:  \"Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.' Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.\" - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)\n\n\nME:  \"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.\" - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)\n\n\nME:  \"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?\" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)\n\n\nME:  All that stuff ^^^\nWord of God or nah?\nChris Standley\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle how many books are in the Bible?\n\n\nPAPIST: crickets\n\n\nME:  Chris Standley LOL \"crickets\", after I posted several paragraphs of material and you haven't interacted with any of it. \n66 books are in the Bible. \nNow your turn - how many books in the Bible? Special bonus points if you can tell me whether 1 Esdras is in the Bible, since the Council of Trent \"passed over in silence\" whether it is canonical. \nhttps://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-roman-catholic-canon-and-book-of.html\nShortcut to the end - you won't be able to tell me for sure how many books are in the Bible b/c even the Magisterium doesn't know. What's even more hilarious to me is that the Magisterium, being The Living Voice Of The Church®, could declare the Canon for sure with zero equivocation or vagueness, and they could declare it today. \nThe fact that they won't tells you all you need to know about how much they care about these matters. They don't think the Canon of Scripture question is important. \nSo, why do you think it is important? \nYou think it is important b/c deep down you know that it is essential to be able to distinguish what God said vs what He did not necessarily say. But that takes us back again to the question of what God's Word is, and it isn't \"early Christian writings\".\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle why do you have 66?\n\n\nME:  Because God breathed out 66 and no more and no less. \nWhy do you have __ books?\nOh wait, you don't know how many books there are in the Bible, do you?\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle you stand on the shoulders of great men and when you survey the landscape of the past you point and say “look they messed this up or that up” and yet without them you never would have what you have. It’s quite ironic.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle y r u so angry? Is anger Godly in your Church?\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle 73....there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible. When did the Church go wrong on the other 7? How do you know they are wrong? If they were wrong how do you know you are right?\n\n\nME:  **_you stand on the shoulders of great men and when you survey the landscape of the past you point and say “look they messed this up or that up” and yet without them you never would have what you have._**\nI affirm that statement, yes. \nBut I'm not asking you whether these people were generally good and faithful. I'm asking you WHAT THE WORD OF GOD IS. And when we're talking about the Word of God, one single mistake or inconsistency is a disqualification. Only Scripture stands firm. \n\n**_Is anger Godly in your Church?_**\nNot sure why you capitalised \"C\"hurch. \nSome anger is godly, sure. Witness Christ's anger multiple times in the New Testament for example. \n\n**_there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible._**\nWhy do you keep avoiding questions? Is avoiding questions godly in your Church? \n1 Esdras - yes or no?\nAnd how do you know there are 73? \n\n**_When did the Church go wrong on the other 7?_**\nFirst prove it's 7 additional books and I'll be happy to answer that question. 1 Esdras - yes or no?\n\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle yes there are 73. Have a great life! God bless!\n\n\nME:  1 Esdras\n\n\n\nME:  Have the courage to critically examine your beliefs. \nYou've signed over your brain to the whore of Rome when you should be trusting in Jesus. Please repent, Chris. You may not have another opportunity.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle your character is reflective of your heretical views. I won’t lower my standards and reciprocate your vitriol. May the Holy Spirit direct your path and hopefully that path will include the fullness of faith and truth of the only Church instituted by Christ and the apostles. Your presumption that I’ve not critically reviewed my beliefs is excusable. As for the whore of Rome comment...well I’m reminded of how Christ treated “whores” and I’ll ignore that vitriolic and ignorant slander. Some would say it’s better to die a whore than a heretic.\n\n\nME:  I believe I am using the same level of \"vitriol\" that Jesus used toward the Pharisees and moneychangers and that Paul used toward the Judaisers. Probably less. \nI encourage you not to gripe about \"tone\" and to critically examine the fact that you flat out do not have answers to my challenges. Your faith is on sinking sand, and I don't want you to be condemned. \nChrist showed merciful compassion toward REPENTANT whores, not inveterate ones who lead people to become twice the son of hell that they are. Be neither a whore nor a heretic, and place your faith in the Christ of the Scriptures, being adopted into His family. Cease your rebellion against God.\n\n\nPAPIST: Alan Maricle listen heretic...I’ve been nice. Your questions are petty and sophomoric to me. Your heart is hardened and you won’t accept the Truth. So I don’t cast my pearls before the swine...justify your sinful nature all you want to help you sleep at night but the fact is that it’s you not I who has a faith built on sand..my faith is built on the rock which is his one true Church...Orthodoxy that is the Catholic Church. You are like the prodigal son. You are the one in rebellion and you are the one that needs to do some intense reading because you do not have the faith of the fathers doctors martyrs of the early Church but rather a hodgepodge of tripe developed generations and centuries later in open rebellion to the faith that civilized the west. Don’t worry heretic; I’ll be blocking you so you won’t have to waste your heretical time on me. Good day.\nEarlychristianwritings.com\n\n\n\nME:  **_Your questions are petty and sophomoric to me_**\nThen shouldn't they be easy to answer?\n\n**_justify your sinful nature_**\nI don't see how I've done that.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"romanism\",\"catholicism\",\"religion\",\"scripture\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/mark.kreslins/posts/10218452290755847\",\"https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-roman-catholic-canon-and-book-of.html\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "bee3aa741a5eb392f30e3861cb4cbac0e944915a",
  "block": 30489332,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-02-19T16:53:54",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "8992.679941 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "af632b868bddbfe699d49571da54ef05f4deaaf3",
  "block": 28045997,
  "trx_in_block": 16,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-11-26T19:12:48",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "29180.624863 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "756d0217ad780309c26e68328139dec1d31bebdb",
  "block": 27869781,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-11-20T16:17:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "raise-me-up",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "is-that-a-prophetic-message-or-are-you-just-promulgating-comfort",
      "weight": 1
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5984cc04624dcbe5831018236da099690aa251df",
  "block": 27869596,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-11-20T16:08:00",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "is-that-a-prophetic-message-or-are-you-just-promulgating-comfort",
      "title": "Is that a prophetic message or are you just promulgating comfort?",
      "body": "I intend to express my disagreement with John Reasnor and by extension Joel McDurmon who approved of [this article about tactics related to exhorting churches to love and good deeds](https://americanvision.org/17125/is-that-gospel-provocation-or-are-you-just-being-a-jerk), sometimes called \"The Church Repent project\". \n\nAll in all, Reasnor's article does not take into account the **urgency** of the matter when we approach a church. In Oklahoma especially there is no reason to give benefit of the doubt to any church that styles itself \"conservative\" and/or \"Bible believing.\" \nIf you haven't read this, please do so now: [The Guilt of the Churches of Oklahoma, 2018](www.churchrepent.com/oklahoma2018)\n\nMcDurmon's intro says:\n> Michael Green in his book Evangelism in the Early Church makes the point that Evangelism frequently succeeds best when the Gospel flows naturally across already-existing relationships.\n\n1) It \"frequently\" does so? How does Green know? Maybe that's covered in his book, maybe it isn't. \n2) What is the standard of success, since McDurmon is mentioning \"succeeds best\"? Converts? Numbers? How do we measure faithfulness to God if not by obeying His commands and following His example? \n3) In the context of calling churches to repentance, how would McDurmon or Reasnor suggest we \"flow naturally across existing relationships\"? \n4) Can the babies, or the lost going to hell, afford to wait for us to do so?\n5) What if that has already been tried and nothing changed? \n6) Did Jesus or the prophets or apostles do that?\n7) What does that say about the consistency of our method with our message, when we calmly and quietly say \"hey, I don't want to bother you or distract from your cute little programs, but babies are dying, if you don't mind\"? Do you go into a man's house that is on fire and WHISPER to him that he is in danger? \n\nNote that McDurmon is the author of [a totally unfair and wicked hit piece on Ray Comfort, for the worst of which he never apologised.](http:rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2014/03/joel-mcdurmon-almost-apologises.html) He has a longstanding bias against public-facing Gospel proclamation. What's the alternative? It would seem the alternative is the [much more comfortable friendship evangelism](http://timetowinabattle.blogspot.com/2018/11/friendship-evangelism.html). That should tell you a lot about American Vision. \n\nOn to Reasnor's text--\n\n> As a starting point for church repent, sending an email or writing a letter is a better option.\n\nWhere is the proof? \nReasnor has agitated a handful of churches a handful of times. He is no authority on this matter. You want an authority on the matter? Talk to Todd Bullis. Talk to Mike Gulley, Scott Herndon, Danny Ehinger, Troy Buccini and Matt Wiersema. \nAnd as for Oklahoma specifically, that has been done over and over again. Operation Rescue in the 80s. The Personhood amendment 5 years ago. [Senate Bill 1118](http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2016/03/oklahoma-senate-bill-1118-first.html) 3 years ago. Dan Fisher. On and on, the churches **do not care**. And Reasnor says \"hey let's just keep talking calmly and be respectable\". Based on what? He has no practical evidence that it's \"better\" and no biblical argumentation (I would happily debate him on that topic) either.\n\n\n> Remember that holding signs is just one tactic out of many\n\nObviously. How do we know which one is best?\nThe Bible is how.\n\n\n> Remember that doing something like talking to the leadership first could be wise\n\nWhat is the argument? I don't see one.\nAnd God \"could have\" used Darwinian evolution to bring about the variety of organisms we see on Earth today. What IS wise? What DID God say? That is the question.\n\n\n> A simple and easy attempt will quiet many criticisms and ease the path to persuasion (if persuasion is even the goal).\n\nSuch attempts have already been made. \nAnd why would we want to \"quiet\" these \"criticisms\", when they are borne out of ecclesiolatrous traditions of man? Speaking of goals, is it the goal to get a few people out to the abortuary, or is it to wage war against the worldview that makes abortion acceptable in the first place? If the latter, the ecclesiolatry and associated apathy of the churches is perhaps the single weightiest reason, but we should cede ground to those evil traditions even as we pretend to chip away at them? \n\n\n> But most of us were pretty normal conservative Christians doing the best we knew, until we knew better. And knowing better didn’t happen right away.\n\nDid anyone approach Reasnor in this way? Have most Christians even had a chance to interact with abolitionist rhetoric brought in this way? No. The tactic Reasnor criticises has barely been tried. You know what has been tried? Relaxed, calm communication with the ecclesiastical gatekeepers. 3500 babies dead today, yesterday, and tomorrow, and Reasnor says we should calmly talk to men who set themselves up over other men in the church of the Living God. \n\n\n> That is all the more reason to go about this with the utmost humility and charity.\n\nThe implication is that public exhortation lacks humility and charity, but no argument is given. It is a false dilemma. \nWe lack humility when we refuse to follow God's Word because we think we know better, and we enable lack of humility on the part of the ecclesiocrat gatekeepers when we restrict ourselves to calmly addressing them in the way Reasnor suggests.\n\n\n> both the abolitionist that believes that holding a sign out in front of a church building is the whole point of abolitionism\n\nLiterally not a single person thinks that.\n\n\n> Is it our goal to expose abortion to the world? Is it our goal to rebuke a pro-choice “church”? Is it our goal to reason with fellow believers and persuade them of the importance of loving their neighbor?\n\nWhat if the goal is to glorify God by obeying His commands to expose evil, oppose the prideful, call for repentance, and repeat prophetic exhortations? \nThe implication is that exhorting the whole congregation (which exercise Reasnor describes in a well-poisoning manner, \"holding signs\", as if that were all it is) is opposed to reasoning with fellow believers. Reasnor would have us ASK the ecclesiocrat gatekeepers if we can reason with our brethren, thus perpetuating a major plank of the very evil we claim to oppose. \n\n\n> It wasn’t a surprise to me that most became abolitionists through talking to friends, reading articles, watching videos, and listening to lectures.\n\nAgain, very few people have ever come into contact with an abolitionist church exhortation. Exhorting churches actually gives rise to many articles and videos, as well. The ideology has been laid out there; now it is time to apply it. How many videos will emerge from calmly sitting across from an ecclesiocrat gatekeeper?\n\n\n> Don’t become impatient. This is a long fight\n\nTell that to the babies whose lives were lost today while the churches ignore them.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"abolition\",\"abolitionism\",\"abortion\"],\"links\":[\"https://americanvision.org/17125/is-that-gospel-provocation-or-are-you-just-being-a-jerk\",\"www.churchrepent.com/oklahoma2018\",\"http:rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2014/03/joel-mcdurmon-almost-apologises.html\",\"http://timetowinabattle.blogspot.com/2018/11/friendship-evangelism.html\",\"http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2016/03/oklahoma-senate-bill-1118-first.html\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "8a2794d28244739ea4676e5787a40eb8dcf42611",
  "block": 26897469,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-10-17T21:27:45",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "reasoning-through-annihilationism",
      "title": "Reasoning through annihilationism",
      "body": "When an unrighteous, unrepentant, unregenerate person dies, they face either eternal conscious torment or eventual cessation of existence, ie annihilation.\nIf annihilation, upon death they will either entirely cease to exist immediately or they will undergo a period of suffering. \n\nIf they cease to exist immediately, then they escape justice and there is no degree of severity in God's punishment of evil. The nice Roman Catholic lady suffers the same fate as Adolf Eichmann, who was directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of horrible deaths, Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi perpetrator of live vivisections, and Genghis Khan. Jesus' statements about weightier matters of the law, the greater sin, millstones, and it being better had that man not been born are meaningless.\n\nIf they suffer for a time and at a level of intensity corresponding to their sin, the length and intensity either varies or does not vary.\n\nIf it does not vary, there is no degree of severity in God's punishment of evil. See above.\n\nIf it does vary, it either comes to an eventual end or it does not. If it does not, then eternal conscious torment is true and annihilationism is false.\n\nIf it does come to an eventual end, it ends either because their sin has been punished sufficiently or not.\n\nIf not, there was no point to their suffering and they have escaped justice. See above.\n\nIf their sin has been punished sufficiently such that their suffering can end, the implication is that once they died and began their suffering, this unrepentant unregenerate person who hated God during life was totally sanctified AFTER he died. Thus God overturns the free choice of the sinner after death, totally sanctifying them and perfecting them, only to totally destroy and annihilate them later once the punishment for their sins was attained (by their own suffering). God thus pours out wrath on perfect people, whom He allowed to live their whole lives in rebellion against Him before violating their wills to perfect them, which He could have done during their earthly life but chose not to do. \n\nIf they continue to sin in rebellion against God during their suffering, then their suffering cannot come to an end without violating principles of justice as stated above, for they keep sinning on an ongoing basis during their God-inflicted suffering. They do not stop sinning.\n\nThus they will never exhaust their punishment, suffering conscious torment for eternity, as even though they may somehow atone for their sin committed during life by their own sufferings, they continually sin more and more. \nWhich means that people who are in the process of sinning consistently and repeatedly against God can somehow reduce the wrath against themselves.\nWhich means that people atone for their own sin by their own works, apart from the atoning death of Christ. \n\nAnnihilationism is false.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"hell\",\"christianity\",\"eternity\",\"jesus\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e6eb27b2d9ae0e3254420ae62a26992abb898a9f",
  "block": 26555345,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-10-06T00:08:51",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "epistemology-of-history-appealing-to-church-tradition",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-rhology-20181006t000850000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @rhology! You have received a personal award!\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@rhology/birthday1.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@rhology)  1 Year on Steemit\n<sub>_Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor._</sub>\n\n\n**Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:**\n<table><tr><td><a href=\"https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/introducing-steemitboard-ranking\"><img src=\"https://steemitimages.com/64x128/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmfRVpHQhLDhnjDtqck8GPv9NPvNKPfMsDaAFDE1D9Er2Z/header_ranking.png\"></a></td><td><a href=\"https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/introducing-steemitboard-ranking\">Introducing SteemitBoard Ranking</a></td></tr></table>\n\n> Support [SteemitBoard's project](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)! **[Vote for its witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1)** and **get one more award**!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "949bd099515c57ffb78b4bafccb95549131952cf",
  "block": 25324038,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-23T16:20:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "obaku",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "epistemology-of-history-appealing-to-church-tradition",
      "weight": 60
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7e12d9871c9ef0a78e868313a316f7886708a8cd",
  "block": 25323952,
  "trx_in_block": 24,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-23T16:15:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "dumnebari",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "epistemology-of-history-appealing-to-church-tradition",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "aba01e6ba019228546abe546f5759c09fb8e41c5",
  "block": 25323941,
  "trx_in_block": 38,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-23T16:15:24",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "epistemology-of-history-appealing-to-church-tradition",
      "title": "Epistemology of history, appealing to church tradition",
      "body": "Brother James Kip Farrar [continues to interact with me](https://www.facebook.com/preacherkip/posts/1923702461021053) about the office of deacon. \n\nHe says:\n\n_ You have, again, missed the point. Scripture was written in a historical context. It was practiced in a historical context. Understanding that historical context helps one understand Scripture. You seem to think that just because people with wrong doctrine advanced the idea of deacon that it somehow means that to agree with the office of deacon means that we agree must with their flawed theology? That's one fierce paper tiger. If that was actually true, then following your logic, it would mean that you would be forced to renounce the Trinity seeing as how the doctrine was defended by a deacon named Athanasius. But I won't hold you to that. The fact is that the early Church found an awful lot of things to fight about. Almost immediately they divided over important theological issues. Heretics were recognized and denounced. But one thing that seemed to be a non-issue was the offices of overseer and deacon. That's because everyone recognized their validity. Now if you want to pretend that Scripture can be interpreted in a vacuum, I suppose that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised when others find your hermeneutic unpersuasive._\n\n_Also, it seems that your main argument has been basically, \"show me why we should prefer translating diakonos as Deacon rather than servant.' Perhaps you believe that I have failed to do that. Even if I have, that still does not mean that your alternate interpretation is true. You still need to make the case of why your reading is to be preferred to the ubiquitous witness of the last two millennia._\n\nI reply: \n\n_Scripture was written in a historical context. It was practiced in a historical context. Understanding that historical context helps one understand Scripture._\n\nNo argument there.\n\n\n_You seem to think that just because people with wrong doctrine advanced the idea of deacon that it somehow means that to agree with the office of deacon means that we agree must with their flawed theology?_\n\nI'm afraid, brother, it is you who have missed the point. We need to dig deeper to more foundational questions since you are appealing to \"church tradition\" as part of your case. HOW WE KNOW what is flawed theology and what is correct theology is at issue here. I contend that the reliability of the opinions of (((the extant manuscript tradition of))) \"Church Fathers\" is only as good as the arguments they marshaled in favor of their position. Telling me that those guys took for granted that \"deacon\" was an office and then quoting them using \"diakonos\" (in the case of those whose MSS survive in Greek) here or there doesn't get us anywhere. Even if in their usage of the word \"diakonos\" it seems clear that they meant to describe an office to which men are appointed rather than a more general \"servant\" sense, you still have most of your work in front of you. HOW DO YOU KNOW that this author's position on the office of deacon is not \"flawed theology\"? You certainly do not hesitate to disaffirm the teachings that (((the extant manuscript tradition of))) Irenaeus brought to the table when we're talking about transsubstantiation and apostolic succession. But then when it comes to the office of deacon, you're all like \"Irenaeus believed in it!\" You have to be consistent, and with your appeals to historical theology you're not. And you haven't even answered my original challenge questions; that's because you and I both know you couldn't begin to do so. And you're arguing exactly like papists and Eastern Orthodox argue - they too know that their teachings can't be substantiated from Scripture, they don't care, and they want to try to appear to have rational justification for what they practice and believe. So they appeal to \"tradition\", and their appeals are just as specious as yours here are.\n\n\n_If that was actually true, then following your logic, it would mean that you would be forced to renounce the Trinity seeing as how the doctrine was defended by a deacon named Athanasius._\n\nThe logic I am employing would actually have no connection whatsoever to this inference. Even assuming that Athanasius was a deacon in the sense you mean it, just because he was in error in that area has no necessary connection to how accurately he systematised the doctrine of the Trinity. I am being consistent - I say let us examine Athanasius' arguments as to the Trinity AND as to the office of deacon (if indeed any arguments purportedly from his pen in the extant manuscript tradition survive), and let us examine them FROM SCRIPTURE. \n\nMany errors are very old. So are many truths. You can tell them apart by examining them in light of Scripture. That has been my insistence from the beginning; you are the one who introduced these arguments from historical theology, and so I am obliged to correct your flawed epistemology of history.\n\n\n_But one thing that seemed to be a non-issue was the offices of overseer and deacon._\n\n1) That is your assumption, based on the extremely limited extant manuscript tradition.\n2) Very large amounts of Christians from this same time period seemed to agree with prayer for the dead, and with infant baptism. But you reject those teachings, based on Scripture. Be consistent.\n3) Because it doesn't actually matter what a billion people believe; if Scripture says they are mistaken, they are mistaken.\n\n\n_You still need to make the case of why your reading is to be preferred to the ubiquitous witness of the last two millennia._\n\nLet the reader indeed judge.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"ecclesiology\",\"church\",\"deacon\",\"bible\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/preacherkip/posts/1923702461021053\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5f49f455f228dce88027558952043d1e17d32189",
  "block": 25307165,
  "trx_in_block": 19,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-23T02:16:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "james-farrar-s-appeal-to-church-history-to-prop-up-the-deacon-teaching",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-rhology-20180823t021605000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @rhology! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x80/http://steemitboard.com/notifications/posts.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@rhology) Award for the number of posts published\n\n<sub>_Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor._</sub>\n<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>\n\n\n\n**Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:**\n[SteemitBoard and the Veterans on Steemit - The First Community Badge.](https://steemit.com/veterans/@steemitboard/steemitboard-and-the-veterans-on-steemit-the-first-community-badge)\n\n> Do you like [SteemitBoard's project](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)? Then **[Vote for its witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1)** and **get one more award**!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c85dd496b1918f26748a572faa0355e303f835cd",
  "block": 25305601,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-23T00:57:51",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "sensation",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "james-farrar-s-appeal-to-church-history-to-prop-up-the-deacon-teaching",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "16357042f47c6974e2308c36e849d3badfea15ef",
  "block": 25301294,
  "trx_in_block": 23,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-22T21:22:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "fastresteem",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "james-farrar-s-appeal-to-church-history-to-prop-up-the-deacon-teaching",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "1be95f51d509b0754c905b548c311cea645cd4c5",
  "block": 25301291,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-22T21:22:09",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "james-farrar-s-appeal-to-church-history-to-prop-up-the-deacon-teaching",
      "title": "James Farrar's appeal to \"church history\" to prop up the deacon teaching",
      "body": "Brother James has replied thusly on his Facebook page to [my previous rebuttal to his article on the office of deacon](https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/the-office-of-deacon-is-still-imaginary):\n\n_I think that perhaps you have missed my overall argument. The point is that the early witnesses were very much closer to the original writing of the text and the practice of the apostles. The fact that this office was clearly a part of the Church in this time shows that the Church today is justified in holding to the same practices. As I also said, or I believe that I said, in my post, citing early witnesses was not to endorse their particular ecclesiology, but rather to demonstrate that such an office was common practice in the Church of that day. Considering Church history, a common hermeutical principle is that if a practice is widely employed among various groups who all understood the text to read a particular way, that reading is to be preferred over and against a novel reading. We are, after all, nearly 2000 years removed from from the original writing, culture, and language. The case that you present is, in fact, a novel reading of the text that virtually no early witness, not to mention the almost unanimous testimony of current scholarship, contests. That is not to say that it is necessarily in error, but it is to say that yours is an uphill battle to say the least, and the argument that you have presented simply does not stand in the face of these things. The primary reason being is that even if we do apply a uniform English translation, that still would not negate the possibility of a deacon office. And given the rather strangeness of some texts that would result, I see no reason to prefer such a translation._\n \n_Btw, you would benefit greatly from a reading of the Church fathers rather than simply dismissing them based on the 'you don't know' arguments. A more in depth study of Church history would greatly enhance your interaction with the text. In any case, if you read beyond the short quotations that I mention you would notice that the assumption of both deacons and elders as an office is so ubiquitous that to take the time to cite them all would have been far beyond the scope of a simple blog post._\n\nI reply:\nI don't get the feeling that Brother James has moved beyond a surface-level understanding of how one must read \"church history\". He shows no indication of having interacted seriously with the fact that (((the extant manuscript tradition of))) Irenaeus' \"Against Heresies\" asserts with a straight face that Jesus died at age 50. And if you think that's bad, consider the other bizarre and often heretical teachings that (((the extant manuscript tradition of))) \"Church Fathers\" (read: early 1st-millennim AD authors who claimed Christ) taught. Let's start with more Irenaeus, quotations (((from his extant manuscript tradition))) in which apostolic succession is taught pointedly:\n\n_It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about_ (Against Heresies, 3:3:1).\n\n_But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition_ (Against Heresies, 3:3:2). \n\nAnd in which transsubstantiation is taught:\n_He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?_ (Against Heresies, 5:2)\n\nLet not brother James push back against us now from taking on the papist doctrines of apostolic succession and transsubstantiation of the Eucharist, as he himself has told us that \"the early witnesses were very much closer to the original writing of the text and the practice of the apostles\". After all, \"the fact that this (practice) was clearly a part of the Church in this time shows that the Church today is justified in holding to the same practices.\"\n\nExamples could be multiplied in the dozens and dozens. Brother James is functionally denying Sola Scriptura, and I can only declare my appreciation that he has enunciated such thoughts out loud so that we may all know how seriously to take his teachings. Now, don't forget my not-qualification qualification - citing early witnesses was not to endorse their particular ecclesiology, but rather to demonstrate that ideas of apostolic succession was common practice in the Church of that day. Citing early witnesses was not to endorse their particular doctrine of the Mass, but rather to demonstrate that transsubstantiation was common belief in the Church of that day.\n\nFinally, brother James says:\n_a common hermeneutical principle is that if a practice is widely employed_\n\nThis claim begs the question - the ubiquity of the practice is what I am challenging. What is the evidence, and if \"Irenaeus or someone said it existed\" is evidence, then apostolic succession and transsubstantiation.\n\nIt usually doesn't take long before those who hold to ecclesiology that I would describe as well-nigh papist reveal that they actually do hold quite a bit more papist beliefs than is immediately evident. You just have to know what questions to ask. Brother James has not interacted with almost any of my arguments. If he thinks the case is made for the office of deacon, I can only sit back satisfied that the truth has been seen clearly.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"ecclesiology\",\"church\",\"deacon\",\"bible\"],\"links\":[\"https://steemit.com/theology/@rhology/the-office-of-deacon-is-still-imaginary\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "73151667a218ec46d2ee51a1e7799cfbab8869cf",
  "block": 25299519,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-22T19:53:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "sensation",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-office-of-deacon-is-still-imaginary",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "f6d692dbae8d6d342e2301eab26634d14384379e",
  "block": 25298193,
  "trx_in_block": 8,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-22T18:47:15",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "alphabot",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-office-of-deacon-is-still-imaginary",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cf22c1001b3f06cb4d39f6f2a8e14070862e4002",
  "block": 25298189,
  "trx_in_block": 15,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-22T18:47:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "theology",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "the-office-of-deacon-is-still-imaginary",
      "title": "The \"office of deacon\" is still imaginary",
      "body": "A brother in Christ, [James Kip Farrar](https://www.facebook.com/preacherkip), has [stepped up to disagree](http://aletheiachurchindy.com/iconoclast/deacons) with [my study disproving the mistaken notion that \"the office of deacon\" is a biblical teaching](http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2015/07/greek-and-imaginary-biblical-support.html) (though without linking directly to it in his rebuttal article). I thank him for obviously putting forth significant effort to address the matter, with admirable tone and equanimity. Let us endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace even when we disagree on secondary matters such as this. My review of his article follows.\n\nBrother James bases part of his case in favor of the biblical teaching of the existence of the so-called \"office of deacon\" on Acts 6, in which he contends that the setting apart of the seven to serve tables \"has all of the signs of ordination\". Yet \"ordination\" is another extrabiblical idea imposed on the text of Scripture. I would like to see an argument in favor of his ideas that ordination is a thing and a biblical exegetical case made indicating how one gets ordained, by whom, based on what qualifications, for what reason, and unto what purpose. For example, such an argument would need to show, not assume, that the laying on of hands (\"_in verse 6 the Apostles pray and lay their hands on the men to commission them for the fulfillment of this task_\") is part of that ordination. Until then, it is a leaky bucket under another leaky bucket.\n\nBrother James continues (in italics):\n_There are qualifications for these men that, like the qualifications for overseers and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, relate more to virtuous character than technical and administrative skills of those offices._\n\nThis statement gets us off to a bad start, begging the question that these passages have \"deacons\" in mind.\n\n\n_These men are then given authority to fulfill this duty by the Apostles._\n\nWhere is authority mentioned in the Acts 6 passage? These guys were supposed to get down and do some dirty work. No real authority to do anything like that. By the way, as I mention in my article, they are never described in action of doing said dirty work; rather, we see two of these Acts 6 men (Stephen and Philip [\"the Evangelist\"]) appear later in Acts, and what they are doing is preaching the Gospel, causing a general ruckus, healing people, and hosting traveling missionaries. \n\n\n_The act of the laying on of hands is one that, in Scripture, is always done in order to set someone apart to a particular ministry._\n\nThis is not the case. Consider the following counter-examples:\nActs 8:17-18 - Then they began laying their hands on them, and **they were receiving the Holy Spirit**. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands...\n1 Timothy 4:14 - Do not neglect the spiritual **gift** within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the older men.\n2 Timothy 1:6 - For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the **gift** of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.\n\nHere we see the Holy Spirit, and a **gift** (not an office or \"particular ministry\") given through laying on of hands. Any argument thus based on this contention \"always done in order to set someone apart to a particular ministry\" fails for that reason. Another argument in support is needed.\n\n\n_It is rather unlikely that so much ceremony would have gone into choosing men if all that they were going to do was wait on tables. If that’s the case, what did they do for the people who swept the floors?_\n\nWhat ceremony in Acts 6, let alone enough that would make us think it was \"so much\"? Where is it in the text?\nAs long as we are speculating, why not speculate that \"serving tables\" included all manner of menial tasks that needed doing? \nAnd Acts 6 doesn't say that sweeping floors was being neglected; it says that certain widows were being neglected. Thus some men were set apart to take care of fulfilling with integrity a certain task whose neglect had led to roots of bitterness starting to creep into the people of God. It's easy to see why the apostles took such a thing seriously. A temporary need, to be temporarily filled by some guys who needed to not be thieves or grifters.\n\n\n_one wonders why, then, decades later, after years of evangelistic ministry, Philip is still known in Acts 21:8 as, ‘one of the seven.’_\n\nOn its surface, this can appear to be a point worth considering, but can we say that the evidence is ironclad that he was known that way by the people at large? Why not rather suggest that Luke referred to him that way in the narrative retelling so that we don't confuse him with, say, the apostle Philip or someone else, since \"Philip\" was a popular Greek name?\n\n\n_It is often argued that the term ‘deacon’ is a fabrication of early English translators of the Bible_\n\nI'm not sure how often that is argued. Seems to me the existence of the office of deacon is far more often assumed to be the case rather than my own position. \n\n\n_Words have a semantical range (a range of meanings), and the meaning of a word from among its semantical range in a particular usage is determined by the context in which it is used._\n\nPrecisely. The context must indicate a need to translate a given word differently than what the word usually means and how it is most commonly used. Part of my argument is that no contextual requirement arises in any of the examples of \"_diakonos_\" in the New Testament.\n\n\n_The same is the true of the word 'deacon'._\n\nWhat Brother James is missing is that there has to be a reason to have invented \"deacon\" that does not involve creating the word and then imposing it in retrospect on the text. We have not seen an exegetical reason to do so.\n\n\n_In the New Testament, context drives when the word diakonos is translated ‘deacon’ verses when it is translated ‘servant.’_\n\nTo substantiate this contention, Brother James needs to show where \"servant\" or \"minister\" would **not** be a suitable translation whereas \"deacon\" **would** be. I don't think he can do so.\n\n\n_The passages in which the context most clearly speaks of the office of deacon include 1 Timothy 3:8ff. and Philippians 1:1_\n\nBoth passages I dealt with at length in my article; I see no interaction from Brother James with my ideas expressed therein and so I see no need for further comment.\n\n\n_19 centuries of Church tradition_\n\nAppealing to \"Church tradition\" is highly, highly problematic. There is no reason for confidence that we in modern times, so far removed from the context in which these teachers of \"Church tradition\" lived, taught, and wrote, have sufficient understanding of their writings. [Here are some challenges](http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2015/07/church-fathers.html) to hubristic overestimation of what can be gleaned for our use today from their extant writings:\nYou don't know that what these guys said is what most Christians of their time believed.\nYou don't know how many Christians of their time would have agreed.\nYou don't know how what they wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to \"we believe thus\" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and  more proof than their say-so.\nYou don't know whether they were held in the highest respect by their contemporaries.  Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad in certain ways, but pretty bad in others, and quite shallow compared to other people, most of the time. Maybe you're reading Joseph Prince, a lesser-known heretic. It could be anyone. Point is, you don't know (and neither do I).\nYou don't know whether you have all their writings.\nYou don't even know what percentage their today-extant writings constitute of the total things they wrote over their lifetime.\nThus you don't know if they ever took it all, or part of it, back, in a book or letter that has since not (yet) become widely known to have been recovered.\nYou don't know whether what they said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.\nYou don't know whether the names we usually assign to these writings are correct. In the case of writings where the name is included in the text, you don't know whether it's pseudonymous.\n\nThese are just some of the challenges that must arise when critically assessing how much we can learn from these writings. It is of course acceptable to say \"this is what we have to work with, and when I cite, say, Chrysostom, it's generally assumed I am referring to his extant writings.\" Yes, quite so, that's fine, as long as the discussion in which you cite them centers around \"What do Chrysostom's extant writings say?\" and do not ascribe too much authority or certainty that you have good answers to the above challenges. Because, let's face it - you do not.\n\n\n_The Epistle of Clement of Rome (c.95 A.D.), Chapter 42_\n\nSince this Epistle was written in Greek, Brother James still has all his work in front of him to give us a reason to translate \"_diakonos_\" in 1st Clement as \"deacon\".  \n\n\n_“judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.”_\n\nAre we to believe that a man who ordered the torture of two Christian women to faithfully represent Christian doctrine at the time?\n\n\n_“And those likewise who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ must please all men in all ways. For they are not deacons of meats and drinks but servants of the Church of God.\"_\n\nI am sorry, but I have no idea how any translator thought it was a good idea to force \"deacon\" into this text. It doesn't make much of any sense in English, whereas \"servant\" would make quite a lot of sense. \n\n\n_Ignatius mentions Deacons as the office_\n\nWhere is that assertion substantiated from the text of Ignatius' epistle? I don't see it. \n\n\n_“In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.”_\n\nIsn't it much, much more in the spirit of the New Testament to think not of respecting deacons, men who fill some office, as Jesus Christ, but rather to respect **servants** as Jesus Christ? \n\nLuke 22:24-27 - And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.\"\n\nGuess which word is translated in this passage as \"serve\"? _Diakoneo_!\n\nPhilippians 2:5-8 - Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.\n\n1 Peter 5:5 - all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.\n\nWhere the author (possibly Ignatius, possibly not) proposes that \"not even the name of a church\" is found where there is no deacon nor bishop nor presbyter nor college of Apostles... what then would he have made of the church in Acts 5 before there were deacons? What of the church(es) Barnabas planted in Antioch in Acts 11:19-25, as he appointed no overseers at that time but rather quit the city to look for Paul? What of the church(es) of Pisidian Antioch when Paul and Barnabas were driven out after only a week of preaching in Acts 13:44-52? What of the converts in Athens in Acts 17:32-18:1, as Paul did not stay to train up any deacons, let alone overseers? What of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? What of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and other Reformers? What of the millions of persecuted Christians in modern times? Would \"Ignatius\" claim there is \"not even the name of a church\" in those contexts? Would Brother James claim such?\n\nTo cite this as a positive example of one's doctrine of the office of deacon is actually pretty disgusting. \n\n\n_Shepherd of Hermas: Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons_\n\nIs \"teacher\" now an office, that it should be mentioned alongside \"deacon\"? \nWhy not translate this as \"servant\"? \n\n\n_Irenaeus is a noteworthy witness. His particular theological pedigree can be traced through Polycarp_\n\nThat being the case...\n_So, likewise, he was an old man for old men … Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher... those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information... Some of them [i.e., those who teach this], moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement._ (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6)\nIreneaus said it. We should believe it, yes?\n\n\n_According to Irenaeus, Stephen (the first of the seven) was chosen to be the first deacon_\n\nSomeone repeating the same error 18 centuries ago does not make it any more true than someone repeating it 18 seconds ago.\n\n\n_For example the Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in 380’s A.D._\n\nInsofar as Latin is able to make a distinction between \"servant\" and \"deacon\", I would make the same challenges toward Jerome or another translator into any other language. This is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum.\n\n\n_is an indispensable part of healthy Churches today_\n\nIt is probably fitting that Brother James caps off his article that is full of unsupported assertions with an assertion he did not even bother to try to substantiate in the article. Add to that the fact that while he attempted to prove that \"deacon\" is a word that should be used, we have not seen any exegetical defense of the concept that it is an office (as in \"the office of deacon\"). \n\nIt is far from clear to me that the office of deacon is indispensable, or even useful. I would suggest that the negative consequences of accepting the concept of \"the office of deacon\" include the fact that, like the office of \"pastor\" or \"overseer\", it creates different tiers, or castes, of Christians within the Body of Christ. Related to that, it can lull and assuage the consciences of some to see less of a need to work hard and sacrifice for the kingdom of God. The role of the deacon is often seen as one who concentrates on making sure that the church building remains in good shape, which in turn feeds pastor power complexes, which in turn makes people feel like it is justified to be among a congregation of more than approximately 100 people. In many cases, the board of deacons constitutes a governmental body within the congregation (there's your caste system again), and often that governmental body competes for power with the \"elders\" and/or the head pastor. These are just the facts, and they are what one would expect to see when people entertain unbiblical ideas without examining them faithfully in light of Scripture. Sometimes God lets us taste the consequences of our unwise actions. \n\nLet us move forward in this light to a more biblical church structure, thus casting off all related encumbrances.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"theology\",\"ecclesiology\",\"church\",\"deacon\",\"bible\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/preacherkip\",\"http://aletheiachurchindy.com/iconoclast/deacons\",\"http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2015/07/greek-and-imaginary-biblical-support.html\",\"http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2015/07/church-fathers.html\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e1ccae38482c45a1ed9489e326bbce630d3067c8",
  "block": 23727751,
  "trx_in_block": 35,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-06-28T20:54:03",
  "op": [
    "delegate_vesting_shares",
    {
      "delegator": "steem",
      "delegatee": "rhology",
      "vesting_shares": "29424.777626 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "cb06508e7a715b4729598d2c2f812419f9d5dd0f",
  "block": 23441695,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-06-18T22:27:39",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "re-rhology-a-biblical-case-against-open-borders-20180419t133155099z",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "re-rhology-re-rhology-a-biblical-case-against-open-borders-20180618t222739139z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "The illustration, to replace the dead link above - https://web.archive.org/web/20180310083347/http://www.wannalol.com/p/763380",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"immigration\"],\"links\":[\"https://web.archive.org/web/20180310083347/http://www.wannalol.com/p/763380\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "547553975fd1d8f2da5dd2ed1e8f567132d1ddb6",
  "block": 23067170,
  "trx_in_block": 10,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-06-05T21:48:42",
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "rhology"
      ],
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"reblog\",{\"account\":\"rhology\",\"author\":\"abolitionist\",\"permlink\":\"let-s-make-oklahoma-the-first-abortion-free-state-vote-dan-fisher\"}]"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7ceb3bdaec5e4b48931a6f717afe7d6c6012d082",
  "block": 23067168,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-06-05T21:48:36",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "abolitionist",
      "permlink": "let-s-make-oklahoma-the-first-abortion-free-state-vote-dan-fisher",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ca898b577d6f9caed6068af40a429574c21a5b02",
  "block": 22485369,
  "trx_in_block": 30,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-05-16T16:33:18",
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "rhology"
      ],
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"reblog\",{\"account\":\"rhology\",\"author\":\"abolitionist\",\"permlink\":\"when-the-feds-come-for-your-guns-who-do-you-want-as-governor\"}]"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3f505624a71173c050cb70ac5a7d29bd14cf4455",
  "block": 22485367,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-05-16T16:33:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "abolitionist",
      "permlink": "when-the-feds-come-for-your-guns-who-do-you-want-as-governor",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "7af8272e6aef7eb8714a1a67a5db5308ff3283f5",
  "block": 22261622,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-05-08T22:04:42",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "all-lefties-have-always-been-for-closed-borders",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "re-rhology-all-lefties-have-always-been-for-closed-borders-20180508t220441298z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "[Another reason to doubt Marinov on this matter.](http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/07/keith-ellison-may-day-no-borders-shirt-democrat-illegal-immigratoin)",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"immigration\"],\"links\":[\"http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/07/keith-ellison-may-day-no-borders-shirt-democrat-illegal-immigratoin\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 22139184,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 11,
  "timestamp": "2018-05-04T16:00:48",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "do-you-go-to-church",
      "sbd_payout": "0.039 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "22.397550 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "block": 22021626,
  "trx_in_block": 4294967295,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 12,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-30T14:01:33",
  "op": [
    "author_reward",
    {
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "sbd_payout": "0.046 SBD",
      "steem_payout": "0.000 STEEM",
      "vesting_payout": "24.438853 VESTS"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "05471930d33128b2802aff2e5b77ebce3f580bcb",
  "block": 21956013,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-28T07:20:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ironmanmatt",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "do-you-go-to-church",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "fc463aa2e031f12f3c9a13feb98d75276200f02d",
  "block": 21940089,
  "trx_in_block": 62,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-27T18:03:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "natxlaw",
      "permlink": "investing-in-goldmoney-com-one-of-the-worst-financial-decisions-of-my-life",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ddd4225d8834a17d370f4fc2451abe45e9cf271f",
  "block": 21937627,
  "trx_in_block": 48,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-27T16:00:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "steemitchurch",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "do-you-go-to-church",
      "title": "Do You Go To Church?",
      "body": "While preaching the Gospel outside a Judas Priest concert at Tulsa's BOK Center last night, I was approached by a few self-righteous people, one with a laughably overinflated sense of his own biblical literacy and the rest a family who proudly lord their church attendance over those who call to repentance those who fund and enable concerts put on by purveyors of filthy, blasphemous music.\n\n[Video of our encounter here](https://youtu.be/HoKb-f8ozZc)",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"steemitchurch\",\"christianity\",\"gospel\",\"evangelism\",\"abolitionism\"],\"links\":[\"https://youtu.be/HoKb-f8ozZc\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "61510179ddcb8f9c69d43675c6e1b30071d0ff6b",
  "block": 21936112,
  "trx_in_block": 9,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-27T14:44:57",
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "rhology"
      ],
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"reblog\",{\"account\":\"rhology\",\"author\":\"abolitionist\",\"permlink\":\"judas-priest-concertgoers-heard-the-gospel-last-night-in-tulsa\"}]"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "e17404ae5369d0a8c0d39a1a06d07bb45adc6992",
  "block": 21936111,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-27T14:44:54",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "abolitionist",
      "permlink": "judas-priest-concertgoers-heard-the-gospel-last-night-in-tulsa",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9ca4b8b062ecb8655d67237181049b8f8166d6f7",
  "block": 21831014,
  "trx_in_block": 28,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T22:56:18",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "bolomazov",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "674d9263a9f665597935e908ffbbd5bd0f6c77f5",
  "block": 21829239,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T21:22:00",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "re-rhology-are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22-20180423t144158097z",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "re-rhology-re-rhology-are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22-20180423t212159342z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Thankfully, John Reasnor then re-pasted a comment from before that I had not seen, which clears it up.\n\n//A few notes on this. The Theonomic position (which, by the way, is hotly debated among theonomists) is not that there is no need for witnesses. Rather, the Theonomic position is that one witness is sufficient for a bare minimum conviction **given other factors and given an actual judicial deliberation**. It is not an automatic conviction based off of no witness or one witness. It is the principle that in some circumstances wherein witnesses aren’t possible apart from the one abused or assaulted, and the abused is someone under the power and authority of the accused abuser, then the sole witness of the alleged abuse victim can be taken into account. It’s not that one witness seals the deal. It’s that the one witness can be seen as legitimate testimony and if all other things are deliberated and judged, that one eye-witness is sufficient for conviction.\n\nIt is important to remember that God’s Law is not a wooden equation wherein we input a witness’s testimony and that it is automatically believed and there’s an automatic conviction. There’s an actual trial. Especially for crimes worthy of death. In certain specific situations the minimum requirement (and it’s just a minimum requirement) is lowered. This principle by no means would imply that someone could just lie and the person that is falsely accused doesn’t stand a chance. It’s not like that at all.\n\nI don’t know if others consider themselves theonomists or not, but I certainly do. Either way, I can only speak for myself and my views.//\n\nEven on the basis of two or three witnesses people are not to be stoned without due process, deliberations, other considerations such as physical evidence, and so on. This is about a BARE MINIMUM standard. Not about quickly killing people because one person said they were raped.\n\nHow easy would it be for two close friends collaborate and accuse someone of rape? It’s the same problem. Which is why there’s due process, whether it’s the standard two or more witnesses or the exception of one witness.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"christianity\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "503f85b31a3692e4a0c3d25e8889af79e6348a9a",
  "block": 21826455,
  "trx_in_block": 14,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T18:58:09",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "ironmanmatt",
      "permlink": "3reasonswhychristiansarentcaringfortheorphanpureundefiledreligion-5iq42agk7r",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "30e8d81bab044f410db6e8841cf9926d9a6fb762",
  "block": 21826452,
  "trx_in_block": 25,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T18:58:00",
  "op": [
    "custom_json",
    {
      "required_auths": [],
      "required_posting_auths": [
        "rhology"
      ],
      "id": "follow",
      "json": "[\"reblog\",{\"account\":\"rhology\",\"author\":\"abolitionist\",\"permlink\":\"the-pastor-al-chronicles-april-19-2018\"}]"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "240ef1d5b4193939a1468bca20506c72abbc835d",
  "block": 21822986,
  "trx_in_block": 17,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T15:55:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "sensation",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "bcd25c07f8d11e369a7ccce8bcf189748950760f",
  "block": 21821521,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:41:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "re-rhology-are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22-20180423t144158097z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "### John Reasnor replies:\n\n that’s exactly how the liberals interpret v28 and v29. According to your understanding of v28 and v29 as being a non-consensual sexual act with a virgin, what do you think the Theonomic punishment for a raping a virgin is?\n\n\n### I reply:\n\nIt would appear it is to marry her and pay a fine to her father.\n\nI'm not sure why you're bringing up \"liberals\" though. You're not trying to poison the well, are you?\n\n\n### He replies:\n\nNo. It’s just a fact. You’re interpreting the text only how modern liberals interrupt it. It’s a fact. Not “well poisoning”. It’s exactly what RHE says. This is revealing. Thanks.\n\n\n### Me:\n\nOK",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"christianity\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c78bc6f33c88958322f517098e45b37d129a5ac3",
  "block": 21821503,
  "trx_in_block": 33,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:41:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "rhology",
      "author": "magic8ball",
      "permlink": "20180423t140141418z",
      "weight": -10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a481d3eea7110636de5b8151335fcac08d856d63",
  "block": 21821494,
  "trx_in_block": 51,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:40:36",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ironmanmatt",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ac7e51499b5b4ceef80eee2e26a605e42c324bbe",
  "block": 21820743,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:03:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "christianity",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "title": "Are multiple witnesses always required to condemn a man accused of rape to death, in Deuteronomy 22?",
      "body": "@@ -43,16 +43,77 @@\n  Radio%5D(\n+https://www.facebook.com/warroompodcast/posts/765490690310329\n ) podcas\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"christianity\",\"ethics\",\"rape\",\"bible\",\"debate\"],\"links\":[\"https://www.facebook.com/warroompodcast/posts/765490690310329\",\"https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8610&t=KJV\",\"https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2388&t=KJV\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\",\"format\":\"markdown\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ebaeb5d645c90e73d249ed930f84c75e97ba2ecb",
  "block": 21820726,
  "trx_in_block": 22,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:02:12",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "rhology",
      "parent_permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "author": "magic8ball",
      "permlink": "20180423t140141418z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:<blockquote>My reply is no</blockquote><hr>*Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check [this post out](https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@magic8ball/introducing-the-magic-8-ball-bot) for more information.*",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"test\"],\"app\":\"steemjs-test!\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "088470cec5110baded26e4dcb7d45fddc4a3f69f",
  "block": 21820717,
  "trx_in_block": 20,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-04-23T14:01:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "ax3",
      "author": "rhology",
      "permlink": "are-multiple-witnesses-always-required-to-condemn-a-man-accused-of-rape-to-death-in-deuteronomy-22",
      "weight": 100
    }
  ]
}