Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
|
OBW,
Basically, I am trying to say that WN or WL's teachings should be considered one of diverse teachings in fundamentalists' camp. I know there are some questionable teachings or practices in them, but I do not think they have really gone far as to be called "heresy."
Getting back to the ground of locality, what matter is that you cannot say the truth is unbiblical any more than you can with Trinity. I recognize your right to reject that truth, but I do not recognize your right to call it "unbiblical" as long as you accept Trinity on which really a lot of understandings exist among sincere Christians and a few descriptive verses exist.
OBW, please think about this. How many crucial truths in the Bible are supported by "prescriptive" verses? The Bible is not a well-written systematic theology textbook or US Constitution-type mandate. They are histories, epistles, and so on an so forth, but not least so prescriptive as Wesminster Confession.
One error of some Christians is that they do not distingush between having different interpretations which are still in the boundary of fundamentalists' camp and calling other fundamentalists' interpretations "unbiblical, heretic etc." Of course, WL himself repeated this error. As I alrerady several times made it clear, "the ground of locality" is not an essential element in our Christians life. Any Christian who even belongs to Catholic can be a overcomer for God who will expedite the second coming of our Lord Jesus.
Gubei