Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
It's interesting that Galatians 5 talks about the "works of the flesh" vs. the "fruit of the spirit." Matthew 7:16 also says, "You shall know them by their fruits" (which can pertain to either flesh or spirit).
So why the picture of fruit trees in the Bible? Is it because we ingest/eat fruit, thereby taking something that is outside of us, into us - to become part of us? Just because the only mention of the TOKOG&E is in Genesis, doesn't mean it's not still around and strongly influencing us . . . or is that not the thought you are trying to put forth?
|
Coming out of our background with LSM, we were on a diet of extreme inference mixed with steroids. By that I mean that the "true" meaning of every O.T. story, teaching, song, prophecy, event, etc. was never found in the plain text of scripture, but what Lee could read into it. Of course, much of this may be legitimate, with both Jesus and the Apostles applying these types, shadows, figures, examples, etc. to Christ, the church, the believer, etc. It was the Brethren who ramped up this practice well beyond the boundaries of scripture. Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds just followed in their footsteps.
Let me give one blatant example of extreme inference. Recently we have discussed the teaching that "honey" related to the OT offerings referred to "natural affection." Obviously this is a
false inference since Paul speaks of those in the church "without natural affection." (2 Tim 3.3) The entire N.T. is filled with examples and exhortations to love one another warmly with brotherly affection, with citations too numerous to mention.
Is there any indication whatsoever in the N.T. that "honey" refers to our natural affection? I didn't think so. Somebody just made this one up.
Furthermore, we learn that this bogus teaching on natural affection, both among the Brethren and with LSM, was regularly employed in the aftermath of quarantine and excommunications as a method of halting the departure of the saints. In other words, forget about how lovely John Ingalls is, and how much he ministered the living word to your faith, "
he is a leper, get over it, because we said so." The Brethren used this same rotten tactic on George Muller.
So what are the guidelines to
inference in Bible commentary? This is definitely a much needed discussion. The Bible regularly employs inference to teach us, yet we know that
inference gone crazy can also destroy God's people. So all Bible commentary must have certain boundaries and limitations. I prefer to limit inference to the boundaries of the N.T. In case of doubt, less is more. I believe that our primary focus must firstly examine the plain words of scripture. This entire notion that the plain text of scripture is part of the "low gospel," and that the "high peaks" are hidden in the text only to be "recovered" in these final days is just foolishness, and a means of deception.