Lists of unbiblical teachings and practices in the LC

[Kevin]

What are some doctrines and practices in the Local Church that you see as unbiblical?

Is their teaching on the nature of God aligned with the historic Christian doctrine?

[least]

Is their teaching on the nature of God aligned with the historic Christian doctrine?

I think we should find out : -
'Is their teaching on the nature of God aligned with Jesus's doctrine?'

For the reason that, there is no 'A'/'ONE' historical Christian doctrine.

Only a suggestion from me. This is Kevin's thread. He decides.
-

[least]

I think we should find out : -
'Is their teaching on the nature of God aligned with Jesus's doctrine?'

For the reason that, there is no 'A'/'ONE' historical Christian doctrine.

Only a suggestion from me. This is Kevin's thread. He decides.
-

John 7: 16
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

***
Best to know what God's doctrine is, that concerns God Himself.

-

[JJ]

What are some doctrines and practices in the Local Church that you see as unbiblical?

One is “get out of your mind and turn to your spirit”. I don’t know if Witness Lee ever said it, but I heard it many times from saints in TLR. Check out 1Cor 14:15 to see why I say this is unbiblical.

[aron]

When Witness Lee died, we were told that the age had turned. It was now the age of small potatoes.

No Bible verses were given.

[Ohio]

The practice of rebukes and public shaming by the maximum leader.

Supposedly this is based on sister M. Barber.

[UntoHim]

Is their teaching on the nature of God aligned with the historic Christian doctrine?

For the reason that, there is no 'A'/'ONE' historical Christian doctrine.

Admittedly, historic Christian doctrine is by definition somewhat of a moving target. This does not mean, however, we cannot trace the development and establishment of the essential doctrines, such as the basic doctrines of God, of the Trinity and the nature of Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man. We could also include the essential doctrines regarding original sin, the nature of man and God's major salvific actions throughout history. (aka The Gospel)

Just because someone uses the Bible in their teachings does not necessarily mean that their teaching is biblical. There should always be a basis in historical Christian doctrine. These historic, orthodox doctrines serve as a protection and safeguard against false teaching and heresy. So when someone like Witness Lee comes along and says he is "recovering" what was originally taught by the apostles, these "recovered truths" should be compared and contrasted with what has been historically accepted over the centuries.

There is much danger in following a man who claims to have rediscovered "higher truths" or a "higher gospel" apart from what has been considered and taught as the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Witness Lee was not the first to go off the rails and he won't be the last. He is the one we are most familiar with so I think this is a great thread. Let's discuss!
-

[ZNPaaneah]

I think the obvious "unbiblical" teaching is the teaching from Witness Lee that some parts of "the word of God" are actually man's concept, imagination, or short of the vision.

I think the term "unbiblical" is too vague. Is the "Ground of the church" doctrine Biblical? Sure. They use lots of Bible verses to build this doctrine. But is it based on a sober mind view of the Bible? No.

There are black and white doctrines, those are doctrines that are plainly stated in the scriptures. These are crucial, fundamental doctrines, items of the faith that were once for all delivered to us. The "ground of the church" is not in black and white, it is inferred. Inferential teachings are derivative. It is acceptable to have an inferential teaching, but these cannot be items of the faith. You can infer 3 wise men because there were 3 gifts. But it isn't stated and it isn't an item of the faith. However, we have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. This is stated plainly. It is an item of the faith.

One critical error made by Witness Lee is to raise inferential teachings up to items of the faith.

Then there are types and shadows. These fall into two categories, one are the types that are clearly stated to be types in the NT. David and Solomon are stated to be types of Christ. Hebrews talks about the items of the Earthly tabernacle being a shadow of things above. So if the Bible says David is a type of Christ it is quite fundamental to teach that David is a type of Christ. Types are not exact replicas. David's sin is not a type of Christ. Therein lies the danger in using types, you can over allegorize. Cult leaders like David Koresh did this. Witness Lee does this with his MOTA doctrine. The Bible clearly states that Moses is a type of Christ who is to come. You can therefore teach that Moses was the "minister of his age" just as Christ is the "minister of the age of grace". But Witness Lee over allegorizes this to have micro slices of the age each with their own "MOTA", 99% of whom have never been identified.

This danger gets amplified when you leave the types that are clearly stated in the NT to go and discover your own. No longer are you directly tied to the Bible. Witness Lee did this to the extreme. Hence Peter's warning that no scripture is of its own interpretation. The Ground of the Church doctrine is an excellent example. He takes types that are mentioned (Temple type of Church) extends this to what is not mentioned -- the ground, runs up and down the OT with this, and then with wildly ridiculous inferences ties it into the NT and then elevates it to an item of the faith.

[aron]

Lists of practices that are warned against in the Bible:

1. "I am rich and need nothing". How often is the LSM telling us about the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee.

2. "You cannot buy or sell unless you have the mark of the beast". In the LSM-affiliated church, the One Publication Edict essentially says the same, only instead of the "beast" you have the "LSM".

3. In the tower of Babel, the bricks are identical; by contrast Peter instead says we are to be "living stones". Witness Lee in his footnotes to Revelations 2 & 3 says the only problem is we are not "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever".

4. Jesus taught, if you want to be great, be the least. Those who are greatest in this age will be least in the next. By contrast, in the LSM-affiliated churches, we were told that Nee and Lee were "spiritual giants". But the only giants shown in the Bible are the evil off-spring of the fallen angels and humanity.

[Ohio]

Lists of practices that are warned against in the Bible:

1. "I am rich and need nothing". How often is the LSM telling us about the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee.

2. "You cannot buy or sell unless you have the mark of the beast". In the LSM-affiliated church, the One Publication Edict essentially says the same, only instead of the "beast" you have the "LSM".

3. In the tower of Babel, the bricks are identical; by contrast Peter instead says we are to be "living stones". Witness Lee in his footnotes to Revelations 2 & 3 says the only problem is we are not "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever".

4. Jesus taught, if you want to be great, be the least. Those who are greatest in this age will be least in the next. By contrast, in the LSM-affiliated churches, we were told that Nee and Lee were "spiritual giants". But the only giants shown in the Bible are the evil off-spring of the fallen angels and humanity.

Wow! And let me say again, "wow!"

In Lee's effort to be "better" and different from the rest of the entire body of Christ, it is pretty incredible where he led us to: Laodicea, the Beast, Nimrod's Babel, and Noah's Nephilim.

[Freedom]

Wow! And let me say again, "wow!"

In Lee's effort to be "better" and different from the rest of the entire body of Christ, it is pretty incredible where he led us to: Laodicea, the Beast, Nimrod's Babel, and Noah's Nephilim.

These are excellent points that aron made and they point to a more subtle aspect of WL's teachings. What WL taught encouraged pride. It encouraged hypocrisy. It encouraged the development of double-standards. The state that the LCM finds itself in today is that of embracing unbiblical teachings/practices without even realizing it. Or in other cases, they realize it and will provide a rationalization for why it's okay.