Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I would put it another way: Lee did believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. But he also believed his own inspiration could over-ride that of the writers of scripture. Using his interpretation(1) of "God's economy", for example, he parsed away large sections of text, even including the NT (Jude, James, parts of Peter). Rather than being subject to the revelation of the Bible, he subjected the Bible to his own revelation.
|
(
1)I would like to add a sort of footnote here, rather than bogging down my previous post. Lee asserted that "God's economy" was what we should focus on. Since Paul didn't offer much commentary on the phrase "God's economy", Lee offered his own.
But I would like to make the point that "God's economy" as explicated by Lee is not inspired text but rather Lee's interpretion of text. And as a balancing interpretation I would offer Jesus' teachings on "oikonomia", which is usually translated as "stewardship" (see e.g. in parables in Luke), rather than "economy". Stewardship requires faithful obedience. Lee instead used his "God's economy" teaching to instead focus on "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God".
So my point is that you may think your teachings and practices are "from the Bible" when in fact they are a result of "fallen" and "natural concepts" overlaid on the Bible. That applies with me; it applies with all of our commentaries -- and it certainly applies with Lee.