[Paul,
Don’t freak out about quoting someone else. This is really to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
Make plain. The teaching that we need the "interpreted word" etc... to understand "God's economy" basically implies that Paul failed in his stewardship because he failed to "make it plain" what the oikonomia was.
Witness Lee is needed because Paul failed in his stewardship. That's the implication, isn't it?
|
While I would disagree that we do not need to interpret the Word at times, I fully agree that whatever that interpretation is, it must be consistent with the Word.
And Lee's interpretation leaves much to be desired. His interpretation of 1 Tim 3-4 is, on its face, inconsistent with the very scriptures he sought to interpret. How we managed to let that get past our good minds back then is beyond me now.
Sort of like your list of 9 items that you called the "Divine Economy." a few posts back. The first item has a verse in it. But beyond that fact that the next 8 probably have some linkage to some verse(s), the insertion of "economy" into the discussion is strictly Lee's doing. It is not there. It was a series of statements about scripturally factual things that Lee, now having us impressed by his ability to point to Biblical truths, will simply say is about God's economy. No support.
But it must be true. Lee said it.
No Paul. You may not have quoted Lee verbatim, but you merely paraphrased what he said. You have devoted important years of your life learning what Lee said at the expense of truly understanding scripture. All of those pages of illogic that carried us from scripture to Lee's theology had little substantive use of scripture in them. So reading and learning Lee's theology is to basically ignore scripture. Yes, many are quoted, but they are not relevant and are not really used.
For example. In your 9 points the only scriptural mention of economy is in the first point. The other 8 are fluff. Each one makes mention of economy. But this is because Lee was busy saying that it was what it was. He did not establish that it was so from scripture. He just said it was so. Each of the scriptures that support the first 6 items (I won’t discuss the last 2 because they are almost purely Lee’s speculation and not actually scripture) are valid concerning the actual issue discussed. But there is no mention of economy in them. There is nothing about them that says that they are simply about dispensing. Lee said that. Not the scripture.
If you started with his definition of the “economy of God” those things might be shoehorned in as relevant. But given the poor translation job that “simply” ignored the better and broader meanings of the word (over which Lee waved his oracle hand and it was so) you might be able to make Lee’s leaps. But to readers of the scripture (as opposed to readers of Lee) this is not evident.
Worse than that, it is not reasonable. No amount of talk about “spiritual discernment” turns black into white. We must start with the actual scripture, not the one Lee reinvents.