[cityonahill]

Igzy, I reckon you just hit the nail on the head! All the other logical conclusions others and myself have brought forward have yielded no logical response. Why? We are dealing with circular reasoning here.

1)I bring up "God's economy"
2)I'm answered with every Lee teaching Paul assumes I might disagree with...
3)I bring God's economy up again more thorough...
4)I'm answered with accusations that I'm just against everything of Lee(how sad that I've missed out...)

It appears to me Igzy has rightly noted that:
"If "economy" is meant to mean "the way God accomplishes his purpose" then, of course, he operates according to his economy. Because of course God is going to always operate according to the way he operates. He's always going to do things the way he does them.

So using the word "economy" over and over ad nauseum issues in a tautology, that is, the repetition of a factoid as if it were profound that is true by definition. Most people know God does things the way he always does them. They don't need the word "economy" repeated over and over when talking about God's ways. "

Once again, by twisting the text of the NT to create your own context for a particular passage (or specific word in Lee's case) it is easy to make complicated that which was not complicated.