Authority and Submission

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy, how would you know? Whichis why one should not unconditionally submit. Rather couldn't one go along with the speaking of a brother, just has long their speaking is confirmed by what the Bible teaches us?
Conversely when their speaking is contrary to the Bible is when one should not go along with the speaking of a brother.

Terry

Terry,

Agreeing that a brother's speaking is according to the Bible is far different than unconditionally submitting to him.

And even if you do submit, you're not submitting to him, you're submitting to the Word. The point to realize is that he is not the Bible, no matter how accurating he quotes it or interprets it.

But again, were you implying that we could know whether someone is fully or partially filled in their spirit?

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

The dimension has to be added that in the LCS they are not asking you to submit to the Word they are asking you to submit to Lee's interpretation of the Word as the official interpretation and the only correct interpretation because any different interpretation = the person giving it is not "holding the Head" i.e. to accept and promote Lee's interpretation = holding the Head.

In this situation I really don't see much material difference in just admitting that they view Lee as the Head of the Body and the real Head at best is a mere ceremonial figurehead.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Terry,

Agreeing that a brother's speaking is according to the Bible is far different than unconditionally submitting to him.

And even if you do submit, you're not submitting to him, you're submitting to the Word. The point to realize is that he is not the Bible, no matter how accurating he quotes it or interprets it.

But again, were you implying that we could know whether someone is fully or partially filled in their spirit?

Igzy by no means was I implying anything. Would it help to say if a brother's speaking doesn't line up according to the Bible, is a lucid indication he's speaking according to his soul and not according to his spirit.

Terry

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Igzy by no means was I implying anything. Would it help to say if a brother's speaking doesn't line up according to the Bible, is a lucid indication he's speaking according to his soul and not according to his spirit.Terry

Dear Terry,

Why not just forget about trying to say whether someone's speaking is according to his soul or according to his spirit? What's the point?

How about just simply saying the speaking doesn't line up with the Bible? It is possible to determine this more objectively. Determining where someone is speakng from is way too subjective and is a waste of thought processes. Why do we need to think or talk like this?

If you want to get some strange looks, ask any believer (who wasn't taught by Lee), "Is that person speaking from their soul or their spirit?" If you want to get a meaningful answer, just ask them if the speaking lines up with the Bible.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Didn't we used to be able to delete our own posts, Admin?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

If you want to get a meaningful answer, just ask them if the speaking lines up with the Bible.

Jane,

I would agree. While it may take some leading of the Spirit to initially see something from scripture, once you think you have something, it should be objectively consistent with scripture. Therefore, the seeing for others should be less difficult since the pathway has been found.

But that pathway needs to be there in the scripture, not just in an extra-scriptural overlay. This is why so much of Lee’s teachings are being rejected in hindsight. If you reject the overlay as being inconsistent with scripture, then the place that overlay took the scripture is also suspect, if not clearly incorrect.

How often do we suddenly see something in scriptures that we have read many times in our lives, but having seen it, find it impossible to miss and others who then look at those scriptures also see the same thing after you speak of your revelation. Other times, we may think we see something, but others are unable to see it. In those cases, it may be relevant to you, but without that revelation becoming apparent to others, it can hardly be called a clear teaching of scripture. That is what Peter was talking about when he said what he did about private revelation/interpretation (don’t have the verse in front of me).

We may not be able to discern whether the one teaching us is filled with the Spirit with respect to his utterances, but we can determine whether the place he attempts to take scripture is consistent with that scripture. In this way it is reasonable to say that it is ultimately the church that determines the meaning of scripture and not the individual. I’m not suggesting that the meaning of scripture is subject to a vote of the congregation, but do contend that the revelation that one thinks he receives is then confirmed or called to question by a larger consideration in concert with the Holy Spirit.

I think this is even consistent with a reading of the account of the giving of the keys of the Kingdom to the church rather than just to Peter. The ultimate authority was not to one person, but to a group. Even if you contend that it was not to the church at large, it was at least to the disciples in general. This is how the record in Acts 15 came about. They were faced with the inconsistency of demanding old Jewish rituals of gentile believers. Together they determined to change. They did not yet have Paul’s writings to consider, but they considered their decision to be consistent with what they heard of Christ and of the Holy Spirit speaking within the group.