Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
True.
But, in this context, makes no sense.
|
I thought it was the analogy provided that was senseless.
It was busy describing two schools of nutrition (of sorts) and the differences in their outcomes. But it is being set up against two versions of what we would call seminaries and assuming that one, like the school of nutrition that really taught exercise with nutrition on the side, was superior because it claims to teach an experiential side of theology that is superior to academic knowledge.
But there are two problems and they stem from errors in the comparison.
First, the claim that the experiential learning is actually beneficial or correct is a presumption that is debatable.
Second, the claim that regular seminaries are simply there to teach academic studies is, from what I have learned from students at a local seminary (of national and international renown) to be a false claim. Surely the kind of experience that they learn is not identical to the kind that would be taught be the LCM and its seminary, the FTT, but they do not simply teach knowledge.
And when it comes to seeing what kind of understanding of scripture is seen in the graduates, I would suspect that those from the FTT are very poorly taught since the general lines of teaching (as we already know) are highly suspect. Therefore, the nature of the experience that they learn would also be subject to question.
And thus, the truth claimed to be supported by the analogy is suspect.
And this was a flaw in many of both Nee's and Lee's teachings. They told stories, and because the story seemed to make sense, the spiritual parallel that was then claimed to be supported by the story was determined to be true. Irrelevant that it was not in scripture, or even contrary to it. Great story — bad theology.
Analogies should only be accepted as supporting or explaining something that is already accepted as truth. It should never be the basis for making it true.
And so . . . an analogy does not establish something as true just because it seems to look like the analogy. It requires more than an analogy to make it true.