Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
n 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified... I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.
|
A recent unregistered poster wrote that no one on this forum has come out with a compelling narrative which captures the complete arc of scripture, from start to finish, to which replied that hardly had Lee, either. Lee's method was to take a few passages or clauses, often out of context, and put them together in a make-shift attempt at systematized theology. Then he re-imposed this conceptual grid, this "larger narrative" back onto scripture. And the fact that he had to reject large swaths of scripture as "fallen human concepts" in order to keep his theology whole, speaks volumes to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdawg
What can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?
Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?
Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?
|
Now to
Sheepdawg's quote. Why did Paul write his epistles? What was the kingdom of God, as presented by Paul, by Jesus, and in Second Temple Judaism? Who is our Father, and why are we so separated from Him? And how many "parts of man" are there, and how do they fit into the larger narrative? How does the "spirit" versus the "soul" help us navigate our way back to the celestial realms, and escape the chains of fallen flesh?
I won't try to answer that, but will simply make one small point about the larger context, which I believe Lee completely missed. How can Lee and now his Blended Lieutenants say that the spirit of Man and the Holy Spirit are somehow entirely divorced from the spiritual realm, i.e. the "world of the spirits", to coin a phrase? Lee told us that Jessie Penn-Lewis tried to address this spiritual realm in an unbalanced way. So he rejected it, and that was that. We got the mingling of the Holy Spirit with the spirit of man, presented from "The Lord be with your spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with our spirit", gleaned from Paul's writings, but no "when a spirit goes out of a man, it flies about looking for rest", as Jesus taught.
And on and on. I could present 50 verses which were ignored because they weren't convenient to Lee's narrative arc. And I could present 350 verses that were panned by Lee & Co as "fallen" and "ignorant men's concepts" because Lee couldn't reconcile them with his theology. Including verses from the NT (!!).
I conclude that the "Tripartite Nature of Man" isn't invalid as an avenue of discussion, of itself, but our feeble attempts to systematize it may end up creating small prisons of conceptual thought, which actually cut us off from the scriptures themselves. So be awfully cautious as you try to read larger meaning into small phrases of 6 or 8 Greek words. The enemy is extremely subtle. Don't presume that you can think your way past the gates of Hades. They are not called "adamantine gates" for nothing. They are indeed strongholds.
Peace and God bless.