[OBW]

TAT,

First, the Quote button was not working today, so bear with my makeshift attempt to comment.

Almost 7 years ago on your blog . . . commenting on Eph. 5:21-25, you still considered Paul's words as God's words.

You are inferring your understanding of what I am saying and not mine. Although I said exactly what you quoted, it is not so hard to understand it differently. When I say "acknowledging that they are also God's words" I was not intending to imply that in the sense of dictation, therefore the precise words, rather that they are, under inspiration, revealing more concerning God and our relationship with him.

And even in what I said, I clearly indicate a preference for the words of Jesus as the starting point of consideration rather than those of Paul. Not that I find anything deficient in what Paul said, but that since it is a revelation of God, but spoken in the words of a man (not God) there is a need to put those words into a framework and place within the large "story" of God. Where better to get the story of God more succinctly than in the words that he spoke in his Son, Jesus. Therefore, the meaning, even then, is that while it is all "God's word," if there is any question in understanding parts of it, what God said in his owns words rises above those spoken in the words of various men no matter how we think inspiration works.

If there is something that should be clear in the speaking of Jesus, then the words of Paul should not be understood as altering that. Rather the other way around. Paul was commenting, under inspiration, on the core that God has more directly provided — both in the OT and in Jesus. His intent was to take what was delivered to the apostles and find words to apply it to the needs of the current situation of the Ephesians, or the Philippians, etc. It was not to expound unique revelation of God that could be used to reinterpret otherwise clear speaking of Jesus.

And the quote that I provided should have indicated that even 7 years ago I thought generally as I am speaking now. I was clear that Paul was not the starting point. No. It was and still is Jesus.

And if you think that what I thought 7 years ago, even if different, is important to this discussion, then are you suggesting that what I thought in 1973, 1977, 1982 or even 1986 are important to know to question what I think today? If that were the criteria for reviewing the past, then no one could claim to leave the LCM and be in any way more than a wishy-washy person with no strength of conviction. Instead, I am fairly strong of conviction. But with a loose hold. Not a loose hold on Jesus, but a loose hold on doctrine. and that loose hold is not because of lack of conviction, but because I understand that we are easily lead astray, and more so when we are unwilling to challenge what we think we know about anything.

But let me ask you a question, which gospel do you preach today?

Are you suggesting that there is a hierarchy of gospels and that there is a "one" to preach today? Or is the gospel the good news. And everyone needs the good news. And the good news has many layers. At the lowest layer (not meaning low in a degrading way as some would, just primary, or starting point) is the need to be forgiven of sins. But it goes so much further. It is not just about a ticket to heaven (or however people want to describe the eternal part of our existence). Neither is it just about this life. But it is all aspects. Salvation as an initial thing is a matter of grace. And a matter of decision. But also a matter of confession of Christ as Lord, and a following, which means obedience. It should ultimately affect how we live today. This will work toward how we live in the time to come.

Why is the truth of God's revelation parceled into distinct "gospels" that one must chose or ignore — like having to pick one over another?

These words come "close" (if they do not excuse me for posting them) to the belief in what is called different dispensations, do you agree that there are different ways of God dealing with different people, at different times, etc.?

While I find my home for worship among those who are heavily under the dispensationalist belief, I do not particularly hold to it. On the other hand, there is some truth in their teaching.

But what I said, "The thing is that the verses that you have quoted were all things said to people at a particular time and place, not statements made in a manner that indicates permanence and ongoing fact," is that much of what is often taught as the only way to understand certain things, especially words, is not supportable. The so-called paradoxes that Lee so often pointed to were not paradoxes, they were different situations that were treated differently despite being able to find a common fact among them, like a particular word. For example, we are warned not to judge, yet admonished to judge. But the contexts in which the two are spoken are different. Therefore judging is not simply forbidden nor encouraged.

In an example with which we are all familiar, Lee made a lot of hay about speaking the same thing. And making it a rule among all of the leadership. But Paul did not simply say the same thing. He spoke differently to almost everyone. So despite one place making reference to speaking the same thing, it was clearly not of universal application because he was one of the more constant violators of any such absolute edict. So it must be that there is a truth in what has been spoken, and is being spoken, that is constant and unwavering. But the specific things that need to be expounded upon are different in all the cases. Otherwise, why would he suggest that eating meat offered to idols is unimportant, and yet also say that you shouldn't do it?

Context. There is a difference between context and dispensationalism. Context recognizes that there are reasons that what you think is the obvious, or "same," answer is not what is given. Leaven is not simply bad. The kingdom of heaven is like leaven placed into a lump of dough, clearly something positive. Yet the Pharisees are leaven to be avoided. So is the issue with some constant meaning of leaven, or the understanding of what it is being used in reference to?

You don't have to be a dispensationalist to consider the understanding of scripture in the manner that Miles Coverdale (whom you quoted) seems to.