Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
OBW, this is mostly splitting hairs and picking nits.
Kind of like saying we should teach things that result in healthy marriages, but not teach about healthy marriages. Kind of hard to have one without the other.
|
You give an example in which the description of what you are talking about is phrased in the same terms as a general description of the outcome. But if you teach things that result in controversial speculations, you don't necessarily conclude that the teaching that brought it on was simply "controversial speculation." Let's even take Lee's conclusion that "God's economy" should have wide-ranging authority to affect the reading of other scripture. As a result, many people have begun to question the basis of that teaching. To question whether he even bothered really reading other scripture for what it actually said, but instead forced it to say what he wanted it to say. There is definitely controversy arising from that teaching. And a lot of speculation as to how it arose and what was the purpose.
But you don't teach a controversial speculation to cause controversial speculations. You teach something that ends out making people disagree on things, get into controversies about what is right or what is wrong. etc.
On the other side, look at all the teachings in the New Testament. Most of them link in some way to the things that Jesus actually said, did, and taught. Those are the teachings. All those things Jesus taught. That Paul taught. That John taught. And so on. Yes, every one of those should result in God's economy. But like so many of Lee's "simply" this or "just" that, once you distill it down to a small phrase, the fullness of what is represented by it becomes hidden. What aspect of the teachings of Jesus would suggest that the things James said in his book would be inconsistent and therefore should be understood as example of missing the mark? Or Paul's teachings? Or John's? Provide some. Then we can talk about James. But throw out some phrase like "didn't have a proper understanding of God's economy" and what are you saying? What aspect of that huge and robust library of teachings makes this true? We still don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Lee taught that God's economy was His plan, His administration, His household law for His family. Lee taught that God accomplishes this plan through His sovereign arrangement and His dispensing of Himself as life and grace.
This is hardly minuscule and it is hardly baloney.
|
Lee occasionally taught in general terms that God's economy is something more than just "dispensing." But I do not recall it ever being specific in any way. And the "simply"fied version was what was mostly spoken of the rest of the time.
And it
is baloney to suggest that everything can be distilled down to just dispensing. Down to something so small and simple that you don't need to worry about all those pesky commandments. Oh, I forgot, commandments are all part of the law, and it was abolished. But I still don't see where it is that this claim is true. Where it is that doing the requirements of commandment is eliminated. If it is true, then what was Jesus telling the disciples to teach the future believers to
obey when he spoke to them right at the end of Matthew? Surely "all that I have commanded" was not just to believe in Jesus and get more dispensing.
As has been the case too often lately, you are missing the point. It never was that God getting into us is not
part of God's economy. But while it is true that many of the teachings that would result in God's economy could be said to
be God's economy, what good is it to say "teach God's economy" when you don't want to specifically allow that certain teachings are even part of it? Do you think that the words in James do not reflect God's economy? If they do, then why would "God's economy" be a basis for disparaging those words? And does that not call into question (there's that pesky controversial questionings again) what Lee meant by "God's economy"?
How can something that justified the claim of error in the book of James be understood as less than controversial? It puts the Bible truly at odds with itself.