Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Yet when you think about it, it should sound rather strange that we would favor the Gospels over the writings of the apostle Paul, or the other way around. They are both "the living and abiding Word of God" and both "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness".
|
I understand your point. And I do not disagree. But even within the "living and abiding Word of God" there is a difference between the direct speaking of God and the indirect speaking through men. Between the actions of God, the Son, and analysis provided by others when dealing with specific issues.
My point is that Lee took Paul as the core of the New Testament and reread everything in light of his reading of Paul. (I can't say "in light of Paul" because I see too many errors in his reading of Paul.) But if I have a choice to read what Christ directly said and did, and seek to understand Paul's words in that light, or conversely take what Paul wrote and try to read the gospels as modified by my understanding of Paul, I choose the former. I choose to read the gospels as the source and Paul as commentary. If there seems to be a problem, it is probably a misreading of the commentary because the source was rather direct in his speaking.
After reading Paul, you can argue about whether we are or are not required to fulfill the righteousness of the law, and whether the whole Bible is about dispensing. But read the gospels and Jesus said to be as holy as he is. To love your neighbor as yourself. To care for the poor, widows, orphans, aliens among you, etc. To not even think about adultery. To not even hate your brother.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus starts his discussion of righteousness with the following:
Quote:
|
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
I'm convinced that so much of Lee's "soak up God an don't just try to do it" theology is a variation on setting aside more than one of "these commands." The penalty falls to him for doing it. But there is a consequence to our lives, even if not as severe as Lee's, for continuing to live as if it is all about being spiritual, and just abiding, and never doing (at least until is just falls on you). Funny thing is that if you are waiting for it to fall on you, I suspect that you will never do — because it doesn't just fall. We actually have to do. Not just abide. Or "care for life."
Jesus didn't suggest that we should be seeking dispensing before doing any of his commands. He said to obey and there would be an abiding. Lee claims Paul said the opposite (in so many words). Who do you take as the source and who the commentator? And if someone is wrong in their analysis, I suggest it is the one who says that you don't have to do. Why? Because Jesus said you do have to do. That means that whoever thinks Paul said otherwise is misreading — unless you want to argue that Paul really shouldn't be in the scripture (which I do not intend to do).
The answer is Christ is the source. Paul is just the commentator. Lee turned so many of Paul's specific comments about how various groups were effectively being unrighteous into theology about how to be spiritual. All while ignoring the righteousness.
There is a significant group today that actually kind of ignores all that Paul wrote. I think this is too much. We really would not understand it all without the commentaries that Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews had to say. But without the gospels, there is nothing to comment on. But without the commentaries, I bet we could make a pretty good pass at the kind of spiritual and practical obedience that Jesus called for.