Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But to do as Lee did and take many different passages and create meaning that is not there for the purpose of creating teaching that is not otherwise given anywhere directly is a problem. Lee was constantly reading into scripture and declaring it to have come out of scripture. In other words representing eisegesis as exegesis.
|
I would agree that WL did not use this approach in moderation, and as a result you could argue that he abused this approach. But I don't find that as justification to condemn the use of this approach.
I know that some of the abuses (either by WL or the BBs) involve creating meanings that are offensive and perhaps clearly not true. But the literalists are the ones that would have refused Ruth an entrance into the nation of Israel based on her being a Moabitess. So I feel that abusive teachings can come from both literalists and allegorizers.
If this was an easy road to walk the Lord wouldn't have said it is a narrow way and that few there be that find it.