Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
If you want to get a meaningful answer, just ask them if the speaking lines up with the Bible.
|
Jane,
I would agree. While it may take some leading of the Spirit to initially see something from scripture, once you think you have something, it should be objectively consistent with scripture. Therefore, the seeing for others should be less difficult since the pathway has been found.
But that pathway needs to be there in the scripture, not just in an extra-scriptural overlay. This is why so much of Lee’s teachings are being rejected in hindsight. If you reject the overlay as being inconsistent with scripture, then the place that overlay took the scripture is also suspect, if not clearly incorrect.
How often do we suddenly see something in scriptures that we have read many times in our lives, but having seen it, find it impossible to miss and others who then look at those scriptures also see the same thing after you speak of your revelation. Other times, we may think we see something, but others are unable to see it. In those cases, it may be relevant to you, but without that revelation becoming apparent to others, it can hardly be called a clear teaching of scripture. That is what Peter was talking about when he said what he did about private revelation/interpretation (don’t have the verse in front of me).
We may not be able to discern whether the one teaching us is filled with the Spirit with respect to his utterances, but we can determine whether the place he attempts to take scripture is consistent with that scripture. In this way it is reasonable to say that it is ultimately the church that determines the meaning of scripture and not the individual. I’m not suggesting that the meaning of scripture is subject to a vote of the congregation, but do contend that the revelation that one thinks he receives is then confirmed or called to question by a larger consideration in concert with the Holy Spirit.
I think this is even consistent with a reading of the account of the giving of the keys of the Kingdom to the church rather than just to Peter. The ultimate authority was not to one person, but to a group. Even if you contend that it was not to the church at large, it was at least to the disciples in general. This is how the record in Acts 15 came about. They were faced with the inconsistency of demanding old Jewish rituals of gentile believers. Together they determined to change. They did not yet have Paul’s writings to consider, but they considered their decision to be consistent with what they heard of Christ and of the Holy Spirit speaking within the group.