Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Sure, here is a sampling . . . .
|
I can see the various verses make it clear that any kind of teaching that is inconsistent with existing scripture does not stand. They clearly speak against so much of the kinds of things that Lee taught, making it clear that even if there were such a thing as a MOTA, it wasn't Lee.
But none of them defined the boundaries of scripture so neatly as to extend those two verses in Revelation to define what is scripture. And since there were many things already written that were not inconsistent with what we have as the Bible now, yet are not included as scripture, then it does not seem that simple — unless we are prepared to join the ranks of those two guys who visited here a year or so ago claiming that if they wrote, it was scripture.
The verses in Revelation obviously speak concerning that one writing of John. Whether they are speaking concerning anything else still appears to be speculation.
The other verses make it clear that scripture is of the inspiration of God. By extension, unless we have a fickle, arbitrary, and capricious God, the whole of his words should not lead us in contradictory ways. But they don't define the boundaries of the sum of scripture, just the boundaries of the content of scripture.
Whether there could be more scripture is not defined. Neither whether all of the 66 books that we now call scripture are required to be called scripture is defined.
My recollection is that when they got together to try and agree on a single definition of the whole of scripture, it was not exactly a unanimous decision. In part, they left some out as redundant (although this was mostly from the epistles rather than the gospels). They provided nothing insightful that was not already found in other writings. They argued over the inclusion of some, including James. And in the end, the appearance of unanimity was somewhat an illusion brought on by the fact that there was an external, secular power that would make those who did not agree into heretics who could be banned and even punished.
I do not allow that last part to dissuade me from what we got. It is coherent, and consistent. Yes, Paul did write some more (or it is said to be so). But it was restating what he or others already said fairly clearly. But just because he or others said it does not make it scripture-worthy. They must speak from and for God. While Paul's writings were often very different from all that had gone before, they still synthesized what was already there in a way that was consistent in message.
And Lee's teachings too often were not consistent in message.
For me, even without the expansion of the Revelation edict, I take the NT a little like the Jews did (and still do) the old. The Torah is the law. Everything else is interpretation. (I probably got that somewhat wrong, but it is still how they say it.) In other words, it starts with the basics — the foundation. Then come the details and understanding. But no matter how new the details and understanding may seem, they are not inconsistent.
Same with the NT. The gospels provide the base of truth. Acts records host that was begun to be lived out. The rest fills in details and explains, but does not change the base.
So, at some level, good writers who deal with the nuances of today's issues are like the writers of the epistles. They take our uncertainty of living righteously in this particular version of a perverse and crooked generation and fill in details. And some do it better than others. And some do it quite poorly. But if they can't measure up to, and remain faithful to the core — the scripture — then they get discarded. Or we surely hope so.
The earliest of those writings became scripture. They were found to be clearly the speaking of God to the people and situations at hand. This does not lessen the importance of similar writings of current times except to say that we do not elevate any of it to the level of scripture. And we inspect it to determine whether, and to what extent it reflects a reasonable application of God's constant word to the changing situation of man.
I've said a lot. I am convinced that "scripture" is the 66 books we have. No more or less. But I don't see any of these passages defining that as true. Just defining the rational bounds of what would be included.
And clearly speaking against the nonsense that Lee taught.
Thanks for trying. I'll just keep it to myself next time it comes up.