Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".
|
I agree with with some of this.
I almost view allegorizing as a "
privilege" and not a "
right" of ministers and expositors. Once the minister crosses the line and uses his allegories for self-serving purposes, then his "privileges" are removed and even his "acceptable" allegories are suspect. This is why the Reformers took their extreme position. With Romanism gone wild, every single allegory was discarded and the Spirit of God demanded a literal translation of every verse as a way to purge the leaven of centuries of abuse.
Paul was a called and proven Apostle. Thus he had "privileges" in expounding scripture which obviously others do not have. None of his allegories ever damaged the church. By making himself the one unique MOTA, the "acting God," and even "
today's Paul," WL attempted to usurp Apostolic privileges which were not rightfully his.
There is no doubt that WL and the Blendeds have abused their "
privileges." They have now allegorized the "
right to destroy churches," based on obscure renderings of Levitical leprosy. Because of their careless, abusive, self-serving ways, all of their allegories are now suspect. Every LSM book is suspect. At this point, it's almost impossible to develop acceptable guidelines for allegorizing which everyone would agree with. Nigel's article proposed the strictest guidelines, returning to the days of the Reformers, because of his background with LSM, and witnessing first hand their back-stabbing hypocrisy in Toronto.