Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I do believe that the Spirit of God had inspired the entire NT for the entire church age, in contrast to those who declare that we should not read "some else's mail." So John's letters were to us, regardless of what some have taught.
|
I would definitely agree with this proposition. John said, "Blessed is that one who both reads and keeps the words of this prophecy." (Rev 1:3) So there was a universal character delineated at the outset. And Paul told the Colossians to read his epistle to the Laodiceans, as vice versa (4:16). Paul was already "looking beyond" his recipients, and writing to posterity. As with the gospels, obviously; they are deliberately and openly universal in character. See e.g. John 11:52, and 17:20.
But at the same time the letters were conveying meaning within a shared context, which we should attempt to recognize and respect. One of my main arguments is that Lee came from a tradition which missed this "contextual, historical" view. He came from the tradition "Protestant rationalism", which birthed the Brethren and many other independent, separatist thinkers. Ironically, Lee's rationalism eventually positioned himself as the posessing the ministry of the age, which then superseded all need for context! So he could even go into the NT and over-ride Paul, and John, and ignore Jesus' teachings and example. Remember the poor? What? The hermeneutic, the "interpreted word" was now the king. And obviously Lee had no use for new word studies. Whatever book he had once used was "the best". Why? Because it was the one he used. And he said it was the best, so it was.
Like I said, when you begin to poke at this stuff critically, it tends to fall apart pretty rapidly. The only thing really holding it together was Lee telling us it was so, and the constant warnings telling us not to be "negative" and to "question"... maybe it's too easy to be impatient with the deprogramming of the GLA assemblies, not sharing the degree of their "historical context" (ha-ha). I did note Tomes' mention of this issue, at the end of his essay. Still, I'm interested to see where, if anywhere, his critique goes. Where is mention of the alternative(s)? Where does his critique lead, if anywhere? I don't really even see any hints.