View Single Post
Old 12-15-2008, 05:21 AM   #99
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
Default Re: "Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

Gubei,

Are you trying to replace Lee? That is just the kind of logic he would use. He would start, as you did in the first of three, by saying something preposterous with no support, yet in a manner that causes the listener/reader to be compelled to accept it. Then he would argue by saying scriptural-sounding things and linking them together as if the various things were controls for one another. But note that you actually only referenced one passage — 2 Cor 12:12. And this one does not establish anything concerning your main points. Instead, it establishes the uncertainty of your point. The rest is opinion as to what it means because unrelated things that are extrapolated from unmentioned passages are strung together as if they are fact. This is how Lee created his doctrine of the economy of God. There are only 2 verses in chapter 1 of TEOG where he defines the doctrine, and he doesn't even understand them properly (generous) or he intentionally misrepresented what they said (more likely). The doctrines of "ground of locality" or "ground of oneness" are no different.

Discussing doctrines must be done in the light of the actual scriptures available. They cannot be based upon the words supplied by the very person whose doctrines are being questioned. That would be Lee. You must start with the scripture, and from the scripture establish what scripture actually says and rest on that. Lee started with his concept and found scriptures that he could twist to say what he felt was true. His claim of being an apostle was his justification for saying non-scriptural things. He called non-scriptural as scriptural.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote