Originally Posted by aron

On another thread, I challenged another person to find one minister that Witness Lee acknowledged between the years 1945 - 1995. That's 50 years. As far as I know, there were none.

The poster challenged me to come up with someone that Witness Lee should have listened to. I gave some names, and my reasons:

1. They spoke Greek and Hebrew, and could access the text themselves, without Vincent or Vine or Wuest to coach them. Not a minor thing, to actually be able to read the text yourself.

2. They also learned from one another, and none of them presumed to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth. Lee with his various scandals easily showed fruit (to me) that he was not the end-all and be-all he claimed, and was thus a charlatan presiding over naifs and dupes.

Now, are there any ministers out there between the years 1965 and 2015 worth listening to... or is the LSM the only source of truth and light? I'd like to open the floor..

Originally Posted by Skarsaune

In the early stages of this work, our common perception was that we were concerned with a category of people who by their very existence somehow refused to take in in the reality of what was happening around them – the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity. Then, in 1999, Daniel Boyarin published his intriguing book Dying for God: Martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism, in which he challenged the paradigm of the parting ways in a groundbreaking manner.

In 2003 a new book appeared; challenging the traditional paradigm already in its title: The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Eary Middle Ages (ed. A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed), a conference volume based on a joint Princeton-Oxford conference in 2002. These were not the only publications to signal a shift in scholarly attention… prior to any of these, Simon Claude Mimouni had published his magnificent survey Le Judeo-Christianisme ancient: essays historiques (1998). One could add several more titles to these, including Boyarin’s own follow-up of his pioneering work mentioned above: Border Lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (2004).

With regard to the present volume, the process behind which has been quite independent of any of the above projects, this has meant that while we were at work, a paradigm shift was going on around us. From the marginal position described by Visotzky, Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile Christian Judaizers moved to the very center of scholarly interest. The present volume, however, is not meant to be a programmatic programmatic statement of scholarly debate about old and new paradigms. There is hardly any one position in regard to this question among the contributor of this volume. What unites us is a common conviction that the phenomenon of Jewish believers in Jesus has its own significance in the history of Christianity, and also for the history of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Neither authors nor editors think of this volume as a definitive history of Jewish believers in Jesus during the early centuries (first to fifth centuries C.E.). Nor have the editors made any attempt at unifying and streamlining the points of view expressed in the different contributions. We have regarded it an advantage that the book contains more than one opinion on some of the problems treated. There is, at present, no established scholarly consensus on the different themes treated in this volume. This goes for the many large as well as many of the smaller questions. In this way it’s hoped that this volume, rather than summing up current scholarship, may in some measure contribute to it. A continuation of this history through the centuries until our own time is at an early stage of planning. This is a report on plans, not a binding promise.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Once you're forced to stay in a bubble, it's hard to realize you are getting shafted when there are way better options outside your myopic world...

The same happened to me when I lived in the LC bubble. I thought we were the cream of the crop among all Christians growing up. The only comparison I had were the televangelists I saw on TV which validated my narrow LC Christian worldview. It wasn't until I started reading authors outside of WNee/WLee and meeting other Christians that this bubble popped and I realized these guys had something that was way better.

I'd been deceived all along into thinking that Witness Lee was the MOTA and every other Christian had shallow and superficial relationships with Jesus. It was quite a startling realization to know that it was the other way around. I was the one with the superficial relationship, and a whole bunch of other Christians who were living by faith and practicing God's word and not just parroting it were the ones with the real relationship.

Luke 11:28
But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

James 1:22
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Originally Posted by aron

"In many counselors is safety, and success", said Proverbs. Watchman Nee drew on this motif heavily, and his use of multiple sources was celebrated by Lee and other followers. Yet somehow with Nee, this adage was fulfilled and completed, and a new age had dawned? Somehow, after Nee, many counselors would only bring in confusion?

Does this make any sense? It makes no sense to me.

And there are many counselors out there; they're there. God promised something; don't you think the means to obey His commands are not present among us? There are indeed many good counselors. But if we think none exist, we'll never look. Lee and LSM got us to stop seeking. No; the command is to seek. It's a command, and a promise. We just need faith. Faith and effort.

Originally Posted by aron

...what if LSM-affiliated local churches could draw from other contemporary sources, and make their own syncretistic picture, just as Watchman Nee did from his?

Originally Posted by aron

Where's the mutuality? What would happen if LSM allowed their publications to receive the same treatment, or critique, as to every other publication?* Or, what if LSM-affiliated local churches could draw from other contemporary sources, and make their own syncretistic picture, just as Watchman Nee did from his? What if local church members treated WN and WL merely as two exegetical sources among many, to be drawn from at will, modified and rejected as need be?

*"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" &c

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned before about receiving the ministry of Philip Comfort as a young Christian in the LC in Columbus....

After his book came out, perhaps his first, LSM's A&C reviewed it. Of course they knew Brother Comfort from his tenure in several LC's during the 70's. A&C basically dismissed the entire book with comments like "others have seen this before."

Originally Posted by Paul in Galatians 1 and 2

Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--

to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood,

I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I spoke privately to those recognized as leaders, for fear that I was running or had already run in vain.

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

The difference between this and LSM's "Affirmation and Critique" is that Wright actually learns from his experience with Boyarin. He allows Boyarin to critique Christianity as he knows it, and has received it. Wright is willing to be challenged. He doesn't just use Boyarin as a prop - the figurative "other" - for his own tightly-held dogmas. He's willing to discuss, to consider, to learn, to probe, to inquire. Where did Witness Lee evince any of that over the 40 years we knew him (1965-95)? At the end he made a statement about "receiving others", and being wrong, but it was too little, too late, and the Good Ship Ministry sailed on, with captive assemblies in tow.

Originally Posted by aron

I recently read a review by NT Wright of Daniel Boyarin's book on the apostle Paul. Clearly Wright disagreed with most if not all of Boyarin's conclusions. Yet he respected Boyarin's work as valuable, as a needed part of the discourse, if only to help us understand our thinking.

Originally Posted by OBW

As I have studied other words, such as those used for life, I note that the Greek word zoe has been given some pretty hefty religion-specific meaning that it did not otherwise carry. And Lee took it one step further by declaring it to simply mean "God's life."

But there is no evidence that the word is not intended to be understood exactly as any Greek (or someone understanding Greek) would understand it. In its purest form, it means something like "the fullness of life." Like what a Bud commercial would call "gusto." I have to admit that if we are looking for the fullness of life, then it is best realized through a life lived in Christ. But that does not alter the meaning of zoe.

Originally Posted by aron

Once one sees it, one is hard-pressed not to; in fact one wonders why the "seer of the age" did not.

Originally Posted by aron

One of the things that I see in the "grace on steroids" post-Protestant world . . . My point is this: we can get deluded by focusing on our "enjoyment" in grace, not his righteous suffering.

There are a lot of Christians out there who can teach us a lot. Witness Lee could have taught us a lot as well, but he presumed to teach everything, and thus (imho) is only to be rejected. The "eat the chicken but toss the feathers" idea is no good if you choke to death on the feathers. If WL had allowed his testimony and teaching to be "salted" by other believers like TAS and other gifted servants, he had much to recommend.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Job shows us that God uses suffering to perfect us. Thoughts taken from Job are sprinkled throughout the Bible. Did not even Jesus learn obedience thru His sufferings? (Hb 5.8)

Originally Posted by aron

Once one sees it, one is hard-pressed not to; in fact one wonders why the "seer of the age" did not. Well, it's no matter, what matters is to press on. There is much more Christ in front of us, waiting to be found. "Seek and ye shall find", is the adage, and never more true than now.

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee taught that Psalm 1 showed vanity and Psalm 2 showed Jesus. No; Psalm 1 shows Jesus and Psalm 2 shows Jesus. Deuteronomy 17 is the "golden thread" that binds the two..

Originally Posted by aron

So why did Watchman Nee read 3,000 christian classics and we are not supposed to? Why did Nee get a pass to study, and then when he put pen to paper, suddenly all Christian scholarship was rendered null and void? Why could Nee do it in 1923 but Joe Christian can't do it in 2017?

Originally Posted by J.C.Calaway

Finally, most of the essays dealt with a recurrent question for scholars of both testaments, but especially New Testament scholars: the relationship between the New Testament and Israel's scriptures. Many of the essays dealt explicitly or implicitly with issues of continuity and discontinuity between testaments, using the Psalms in Hebrews to illustrate this broader issue. While some saw alignment, others saw divergence. Others delineated how, as Frevel argues, Hebrews updated the Psalms to new circumstances. It is here that the volume finds its strongest contribution.

Originally Posted by Drake

The king in Deut 17 is not a type of Christ as you claim. Where did you get that from?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee wrote in the footnote that the king of Deuteronomy 17 was a type of the elders in the LSM/lc, "enjoying grace". So the elders in the LSM/lc are a type of Saul, chosen by people who want someone to rule over them, manipulate them and dominate them, and all this to God's displeasure? I suppose there's a strange kind of logic there, actually.

But I'm not sure how you'd define 'grace', in that case.

Originally Posted by Drake

Saul was not a type of Christ.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

aron>"I assume you're aware Boyarin is a historian and not a theologian, and as such represents a sidebar to this thread, probably already overdone by me. Sorry."

aron,

Not a sidebar. Your theology depends on Boyarin's historical views. That is clear from your posts.

More specifically, on my previous question.....

1. What did Boyarin says about Jesus' divinity?
2. What did he say about sin for both mankind and Jesus?
3. What did he say the church was?

Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

And we can't know very much about all three ... not with absolute certainty, or honest conscience. .

Originally Posted by Drake

Exactly what does Boyarin say about Christ and the church?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible is a love story between two parties - Christ and the church. It's about the husband and the wife, not just the husband.

It's not wrong to say the bible is about Christ. But it's not wrong to say the Bible is about us. And anyone is not wrong to say the bible is about Satan either. The Garden of Eden has 3 parties - God, man, Satan. The Bible is about all three. From Genesis to Revelation, all 3 are present. The bible teaches us about God, about ourselves, and about Satan.

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical says scriptural narrative is all about Christ and the church; one could just as easily say add another party and say that the Bible is about Jesus, the church, and Satan/Mystery Babylon. After all, S/MB enters prominently in Genesis 3 and never quits the scene until Revelation 20! S/MB is creation that stops looking at her Creator, and begins to regard herself. (In the church, by contrast, the narrative is all about her Husband).

People who make the Church the linchpin of their teaching remind me nothing so much as this - MB saying, "I sit a queen and am no widow". All pretension and no reality. Jesus is the reality. Period.

No, it's about Jesus Christ. He's the one who loved and obeyed the Father's law, since he loved the Father and saw the Father always before him. He loved every word that proceeded out of the Father's mouth! Yes, even in the law. He was the tree planted by streams of water, whose leaf never withered, bearing much fruit in season. Whatever he did, he prospered. Our job is to see him, and not ourselves. "To me, to live is Christ".

To me, Psalm 1 is about Jesus Christ, not about the law, the vanity of the psalmist's mind, or Lee's "NT believer enjoying grace". We can avail ourselves of other Christian-oriented scholars. As an example, I've referenced Guy G. Stroumsa. If you want to see the Epistle to the Hebrews' use of psalms to show Christ made a little lower than the angels, then raised to glory and honour, Stroumsa has done useful work.

"I am determined to know nothing while I'm among you, save the crucified Jesus".

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or maybe what you have been told about the church is wrong.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5). The church is the people, the church is us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And who is "us?"

Lee taught it only includes those who bought books from LSM.

Otherwise I might not be quarantined, and still be "us."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5). The church is the people, the church is us.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No one can keep the law and this phrase is always understood to mean fallen mankind not Christ. Just Google the phrase and you will see how often it is used in the vernacular.

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church. Its contrary to the evangelical gospel of grace.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My local church is talking about the law right now and has been for some weeks.

In my experience, evangelical churches embrace loving the law.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We love the law but not to keep it for pleasing God. That was Davids natural concept. We can love the law as a type of Christ.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My local church is talking about the law right now and has been for some weeks.

In my experience, evangelical churches embrace loving the law.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church. Its contrary to the evangelical gospel of grace.

Originally Posted by aron

No I'm not. Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing of Me", and no where does it state that this is limited to explicit citations. So open your eyes.

When the psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law", Lee would say, "Vain. No one can keep the law", and my reply is, "No one EXCEPT JESUS". I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Lee's RecV is an inedible half-baked potato. We should look elsewhere.

And, Peter made it clear that David was not a perfect type. David was a sinner, and he died, and his grave remains with us to this day. But that doesn't make Psalm 16 natural or fallen, does it?

Why did Lee brazenly overturn apostolic precedent, and 2,000 in an auditorium sat there passively? What did he do to these people?

Originally Posted by aron

No I'm not. Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing of Me", and no where does it state that this is limited to explicit citations. So open your eyes.

When the psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law", Lee would say, "Vain. No one can keep the law", and my reply is, "No one EXCEPT JESUS". I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Lee's RecV is an inedible half-baked potato. We should look elsewhere.

And, Peter made it clear that David was not a perfect type. David was a sinner, and he died, and his grave remains with us to this day. But that doesn't make Psalm 16 natural or fallen, does it?

Why did Lee brazenly overturn apostolic precedent, and 2,000 in an auditorium sat there passively? What did he do to these people?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nonsense.

We know David is a type of Christ the King of Israel, though he was still a sinner.

Witness Lee, however, discredits the Word of God, insisting that much of David's writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus merely fallen, human sentiments.

Meanwhile, Lee exalts his own teachings. Is he not also a fallen sinner, or have you canonized him without sin? Which of his writings have you also declared to be merely fallen, human sentiments?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then I dont see the problem with Lee saying David was natural or fallen. Aron seems to want David to be a perfect type of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then I dont see the problem with Lee saying David was natural or fallen. Aron seems to want David to be a perfect type of Christ.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Duh!

Classic LC-speak ... telling us what we all know ... but in LC-land, everyone's "failures" are known ... and discussed ... except the MOTA.

NEWS FLASH: No one is a perfect type of Jesus Christ.

What I find truly amazing is that any fallen sinner (Jonah, David, Solomon, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, etc. and etc.) could actually teach us of God's Son, the holy Lamb of God.

"But we see Jesus" in all these poor types, shadows, and figures.

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, and so was a porpoise skin. Similar in some ways but dissimilar in others. And Lee got to tell us whoch was which? Where did he get off?

If you look at the interpretive metric established by Peter on Pentecost, with Psalm 16&c, where did Lee get off? His hubris knew no bounds.

The King of Israel in Deuteronomy 17 is not a type of Christ? Think about it - John 1:49 calls Christ the King of Israel. Witness Lee finds Christ in the window of Noah's ark!!

Or, the tree growing by the streams of water, whose leaf never withers, bearing fruit in season. Why is the tree growing by the river of water in Revelation 22, whose leaf heals the nations, bearing fruit each month, a type of Christ, but the tree in Psalm 1:3 is vain?

Or the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 1:5? Not worth mentioning? But the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 22 is the church? Oh - I forgot - there is none righteous, right?

What is amazing is that Lee could stand in front of thousands of paying customers who've flown in from all over, and speak this tripe. And they all sat there, not one of them ever said, Um, maybe this is a type of Christ?

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the interpretive metric established by Peter on Pentecost, with Psalm 16&c, where did Lee get off? His hubris knew no bounds.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

David was a type of Christ in some ways but in other ways he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

David was a type of Christ in some ways but in other ways he wasn't.

Originally Posted by aron

You're right. But the book of Romans does. And Paul would have put it in 3:23 if he knew what amateurs like Lee were going to do with scripture. "David was a sinner & God didn't delight in him; his writing is natural & fallen concepts." Um, there's this guy named Jesus. . .

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Romans 3.23 does not say "except Christ".

Originally Posted by aron

When the NT writer says all have sinned, they must IMMEDIATELY say "except Christ", which Paul to his credit does. Witness Lee, on the other hand, blithely dismisses "mankind" as failures, and moves on, looking for his subjective "Christ".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cite custom and convention in the English language and the Recovery version of the bible is not meant to Recover the English language.

If a person says mankind sinned or mankind could not keep the law most people would understand this to not include Christ and refer to fallen mankind.

Even the bible does this e.g.

Romans 3.23 says all have sinned. Do you think the all includes Christ?

Clearly you have no argument.

It seems you don't understand how bible prophecy works. Often spiritual truths about Christ are hidden or embedded in very natural sounding things. For this reason it is no surprise to find hints about Christ within natural verses. But a lot of the old testament is historical relating to Israel and that's why we have the new testament. There is not enough Christ in the old testament alone to be sufficient.

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical,

Defending your assertions of Christless humankind, you cite custom and convention. So much for the idea of recovery. Then you say Lee did "no worse" than Matthew Henry and the 19th-century Bible studies he cribbed from. So much for the vision of the age.

The text of Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the king of Israel's relation to God via the binding tie of scripture, and Psalms 1and 2, perhaps not coincidentally, show us the righteous man and his relation to God's law, and then that righteous Man being installed as King of Israel and as God's Son. So the impetus is repeated NT use of [OT] scripture - the use of Psalm 2, for example, is well known. This isn't unconventional but follows apostolic precedent. The epistle to the Hebrews extensively cites [OT] text and says that Christ learned obedience, though He was the Son. Lee declined this open invitation to "see Jesus" in the [OT] text, but I'd rather not. (And Hebrews 5:7,8 doesn't focus on the cross but rather on the "days of his life.")

So an example of "untethered scripture" is exposition of Psalm 2 divorced from that of Psalm 1, Deuteronomy etc. I recall reading Psalm 34 Life-Study. . . Lee wrote, "Natural, natural, natural. . . " then came to the verse "not one of His bones will be broken" and said, "Voila!! A revelation of Christ!!". Then we went back to "natural, natural, natural. . ." It was borderline schizophrenic. What makes us think Jesus and the writers of the NT read scripture that way?

Lee with his "scripture was written by people with fallen concepts" teaching was the one who broke with apostolic precedent.

As far as learning from a non-Christian historian, if early Church Fathers were indeed tainted by anti-semitism then I should find independent corroboration from Christian sources. And any peril of having itching ears is more than balanced by that of the mark of the beast: the One Pub Bull says, with eerie similarity, that no one can buy or sell in the local churches without the imprimateur of LSM. What lies behind such controlling despotism is merely fear: "If I could just get everyone else to do exactly what I say, then I can be happy." The beast is afraid because the beast is mortal, and numbered.

In and of itself LSM/lc exposition isn't that bad. I've seen much worse, and done worse. But Witness Lee's claim to be the end-all of contemporary Christian ministry is farcical and delusional. That's why I started this thread, to see if there are viable alternatives to his megalomania. It's a sort of challenge. Drake and Evangelical say, No. Well, okay, then. Let's see.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

At least by sticking with Lee/Nee, you can't accuse us of having itching ears!

Originally Posted by aron

But you don't see His obedience in Deuteronomy 17:14-20? It's not even implied, in the RecV footnote. His PRESENT obedience is then based on your vain human imagination. Your scripture has become untethered - where then is your "grace"? Your "enjoyment"?

The problem isn't in our ignorance, but rather when we're so blinded by presumptions that our ignorance remains. John 9:41

Originally Posted by aron

But only the Christ in the carefully vetted, approved, and "interpreted" scriptures. Not the fallen natural scriptures. And there are a lot more of the latter than you'd be willing to admit. A lot more. I am not being inconsistent at all. Lee was being consistent. His "Christ only Christ" didn't carry all through the text. Instead it was, "This writer has vain concepts". Well my interpretation is that Lee had vain concepts. The scripture stands firm.

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, you are looking at mankind without Christ. What vanity. And suddenly "Christian literature" is your prop, your fallback position.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ and we gain everything He is and has done including his PRESENT obedience to the Father.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The statement "Mankind could not keep the law" clearly implies sinful or fallen mankind born of Adam and similar statements can be found throughout Christian literature, that do not go into such detail.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

if you come to the meetings this Sunday the only name you will hear, pray and sing, above all others is Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ and we gain everything He is and has done including his PRESENT obedience to the Father.

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio, I was helped by a non-Christian (Jewish) historian to see that anti-semitism may have taken root early in the process. The spirit of wisdom and revelation requires that we read everyone carefully, not just the epistle of James!! So Justin and Cyril became fair game. Irenaeus. Etc.

Your observations are not incorrect, but the process of converting the Christian faith from 100% semitic to 100% non-semitic and even fairly anti-semitic (antagonistic, adversarial) may also partly rest on the bias of Church Fathers.

Originally Posted by aron

So you say, but your statements reveal otherwise. "Mankind could not keep the law" - was Christ not a man? Or, did Christ fail at the law? Again and again, you reveal your training. Lee taught us to look away from Jesus, not unto Jesus.

Again and again, his interpretations dismiss scripture as "fallen human concepts" or segue neatly - far too neatly - into the "NT believer enjoying grace". Yet the NT points us to Jesus, a man born under the law. It is this Man, and only this Man, who saves from the consequences of disobedience.

Lee's exposition has a big hole in the middle, full of fallen human concepts. But the NT exposition itself has no such hole. On the contrary. It's constant theme is Jesus Christ, and this theme is fully built on exposition of scripture pointing us to Jesus. Obedient and righteously suffering on our behalf. "Everything he is and has done" was missed by Lee. I've already gone into this in tedious detail, not only in Psalms but in Deuteronomy. Who is the obedient king of Israel, hiding God's word in his heart that he might sin not? The LSM/lc elder "enjoying grace", says the footnote. Yet the NT plainly says Jesus is the King of Israel. (Deut 17:14-20; Gal 4:4; John 1:49)

The footnote never mentions Jesus Christ. Just our "enjoyment".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

You say grace trumps obedience, which is true, but only because of the obedience of Christ. Lee taught us to look away from the obedience of Christ. His OT footnotes are full of mis-aimings, looking at the writer or the "NT believer enjoying grace", but not at Jesus the Nazarene, the Obedient Son.

So I don't consider Lee to be a "wise counselor", and feel free to look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My take was two-fold. First, most Jews quickly returned to the law, especially those in Jerusalem. Those scattered among the nations learned from the Galatians that it's hard to be both Jewish and Christian.

Second, Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Lord's prophecy.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think anything you say is incorrect, it's looking at it from another angle, even a more foundational angle, as you are correct that Christ's obedience comes before grace. You feel that Lee overemphasized the dispensing rather than the obedience. The obedience is definitely in there, but grace trumps obedience, or His dispensing trumps our ability to obey. Looking at it from the angle of grace, unmerited favor, our participation and inclusion in God's household or "house order" 'oikonomeia' because of that grace, accessible to us because of Christ's obedience to the Father. God's house-order, in practice, means what? The local churches teach and practice responsibility, stewardship, more than any denomination - everyone can function, not just a few, and accountability.

Originally Posted by Drake

In the last half of that century Witness Lee was faithful to that vision, expounded and built on it.

Originally Posted by aron

But mankind did eventually obey. Jesus was a man, obedient even to the death. Without this there is nothing.

Even our faith is His faith, transposed. "He [Jesus] trusted Him [the Father]; let Him [the Father] save Him [Jesus the Christ] now"

Notice that the NT calls it the "faith of Christ", not the "faith in Christ"; it is His faith now operating in us that saves.

It is not our obedience but His. Jesus is forevermore the Obedient Lamb of God. It is only through this that He is our Great Shepherd. Our so-called grace without His faith and obedience is nothing.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

I feel that the 'ekklesia' should be teaching the 'oikonomeia' of Luke 16. The stewardship, the kingdom, the obedience of one lonely Man. But the Father was always with Him. The distribution or dispensing that Lee always referenced requires stewardship: continual, diligent, sustained responsibility. Jesus is ever before us, showing us the way.

Originally Posted by aron

Well I guess I have not done a very good job. Sorry.

Just find it surprising that there were 3,000 quality Christian works for Nee to draw on in the 1920s, and none since. Something worth remarking upon, no? Once Nee began to write, "fallen and degraded Christianity" had its inspirational well run dry. Right? Or, no?

Originally Posted by aron

Why did the church go from being 100% Jewish to 100% non-Jewish so quickly? What was lost in the transition? Did that connect with the schisms that erupted (Chalcedon)?

Originally Posted by aron

So if Witness Lee counsels me that Jesus Christ was a prophet like Moses, and that is because he was a human being like Moses and he prophesied like Moses, do I have the right to say this is poor quality counsel? Do I have the right to find other counsel? Or is that "rebellion" and "division"?

The LSM/lc line is that God raised up Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to shed the light on darkened humanity in this last age. All other Christian counsel was rendered moot by these ministers.

But I find them as unsatisfying as Drake & you find them satisfying. And I find others as satisfying as Drake and you say they're poor quality. So it is a subjective assessment. Neither you nor I are "right" perhaps, it is a preference thing. And you outvote me 2 to 1 so congratulations.

I just think it is interesting that a movement that was 100% Jewish became 100% gentile. And if a writer points out the anti-Jewish cant of some of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Cyril, Jerome) it really doesn't matter to me what that person's nationality or culture is.

Now, it may be that writer is incorrect. It may be that they have a bias, and are pulling me away. But the fact that it caused me to consider something, I take from the Holy Spirit. And the fact that none of the Christian writers that I'm familiar with have covered this, in this case Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Protestant writers, makes me very interested.

Why did the church go from being 100% Jewish to 100% non-Jewish so quickly? What was lost in the transition? Did that connect with the schisms that erupted (Chalcedon)?

I'm amazed that nobody is curious. "We love the Lord!!" we cry in unison, but we are studiously indifferent to our own history, to questioning. Well, that is my counsel. Perhaps it isn't wise. But what can I do? I must follow my path. Peace.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not the quantity of counselors but the quality.

Originally Posted by Drake

Let’s put to rest this point.......this is not about reading, listening, or watching other perspectives.

Originally Posted by aron

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you telling me the Proverbs are not scriptural? Or are the Proverbs are against a "NT principle" that you've derived? If so, why did Paul allow many counselors in Acts 15? Wasn't he the Big Boffo Apostle at that point?

Well Lee didn't, and I'm wondering why he told us he hadn't learned anything in 45 years from anyone? Was he really that enlightened, and spiritually mature? Or was he hiding his ignorance? I strongly suspect the latter. But if nobody comes forward with anything, maybe you are right. Maybe "Christianity" is the barren wasteland Lee and his Blendeds told us it was.

But I believe they're trying to hide their impoverishment - that's what's behind the One Publication Edict. Don't let the sheep know there's food out there. It's a way to hide ignorance. Don't let your children go to school. Then they'll never be ashamed that Mommy and Daddy can't read.

Here's what we give the LSM/lc sheep instead -- Jesus was a Prophet like Moses. Acts 2 and 7 quote Deuteronomy in this. Why? Because Jesus was a human, and Moses was a human, and also because Jesus prophesied, as Moses did. They both "spoke forth God". There's your high peak ministry. "Here we have all His riches, here we have given up our search."

Maybe Drake is right. Maybe there is no Christian ministry out there, circa 1965 - 2015 that added anything of merit. Maybe that's the best we can do. I leave it open to the forum.

Originally Posted by Drake

I prefer the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee because they include in them three parts. First, they incorporate the best of the scriptural and orthodox teachings that have been recovered since Martin Luther, those are the shoulders we are standing on.

Originally Posted by Drake

Secondly, they include the revelation of the building of the Body of Christ through the local churches as the basis of the unity of all believers to bring the Lord back and establish His kingdom on earth with a His bride.

Originally Posted by Drake

Third, they impart the life of Christ that we may grow in Him and participate in the building up of a His Body by the experience of grace upon grace with all those who meet in mutuality.

Originally Posted by aron

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel,
****but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you telling me the Proverbs are not scriptural? Or are the Proverbs against a "NT principle" that you've derived? If so, why did Paul allow many counselors in Acts 15? Wasn't he the Big Boffo Apostle at that point?

Originally Posted by Drake

Wait. No flip flopping. We are talking about two different things. One is surrounding a ministry with counselors. The other is reading, watching, or listening to different perspectives.

Originally Posted by Drake

I myself read many authors ancient and contemporary.

Originally Posted by aron

So why did Watchman Nee read 3,000 theologians? And we are not supposed to? Why did Nee get a pass to study, and then when he put pen to paper, suddenly all Christian scholarship was rendered null and void?

To me you are flip-flopping. Why could Nee do it in 1923 but Joe Christian can't do it in 2017?

Originally Posted by Drake

To be precise.... what I said is that your idea of a Christian ministry surrounding itself with theologians, believers and/or unbelievers alike, as advisers and counselors to carry out that ministry is unscriptural and violates the NT ministry principle.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

To be precise.... what I said is that your idea of a Christian ministry surrounding itself with theologians, believers and/or unbelievers alike, as advisers and counselors to carry out that ministry is unscriptural and violates the NT ministry principle.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

The denial of their Jewish roots was ultimately as devastating for Christian (and world) history as the denial of their Messiah was for the Jews. Witness Lee never suggested that to me. Boyarin suggested that. In Ephesus the love for abstract philosophy (very Greek) may have already been supplanting the love for God, which is our faint reflection of God's love for us in sending His Son.

In Ephesus the light was already dimming.

Originally Posted by aron

Okay so where are the Christians who advised Lee circa 1945-1995? I see none. Where are the 'many counselors' that the scripture repeatedly recommends? You say none existed to counsel Lee. I started this thread to address that assertion.

Maybe you are right. We shall see.

Originally Posted by Drake

How does Boyarin show us how Ephesus degraded?

Originally Posted by Drake

Try again, aron.

In Acts 15 those in fellowship were all in the same ministry.. The law mentality was the problem in the first place as stated plainly in v5. They did not invite unbelieving scribes and Pharisees to advise them. That would have been against the NT principle. In the same way, your idea to include Boyarin or unbelieving scholars like him as a counselor to a christian ministry is unscriptural and violates the principle of the NT ministry.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I also don't think it is helpful to your argument, aron, that you would choose an unbeliever as your first example.

Originally Posted by Drake

"I agree with their use of the word assembly. The word assembly is better than the word church."

Conclusion of the New Testament, Message 207, Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The whole point of salvation is that mankind could not obey, .

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ekklesia, or the called-out ones assembling together are existing and depend on God's grace, and not their own obedience..

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

In the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem there was "much discussion" before consensus was reached.

Originally Posted by aron

... where is the documentation you say exists? I've never seen it.

Originally Posted by aron

Lee and now Kangas and Philips say, "The church became degraded". They don't show how. Boyarin shows us how.

Originally Posted by aron

On the matter of Oikonomia I do not find Lee to be valuable because in the parable of Jesus (Luke 16:1-8) Oikonomia is not about grace but about stewardship, or responsibility, or obedience. (See the Greek of verse 3: "Oikonomian") It goes all the way back to the fall in Genesis 3. Obedience.

Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God. He was the Obedient Steward. We see Him by faith, and live. That is grace. But even then He asks us to obey.

The Lee-esque cheap grace is worthless, because we don't see Jesus' obedience. It's just the Processed Triune God. A conceptual, abstract smoothie.

No value to me.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

In the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem there was "much discussion" before consensus was reached. In the Lee Model - One Ministry Solo - much discussion is akin to rebellion, or at least uncertainty. Decisions are made by fiat.

The Lee Model is not biblical. It is Oriental Despotism.

That's fine when the Despot is Jesus. Not fine when the Despot is a fellow sinner, struggling to make it home to the Father. In the Lee Model we have to naively assume that the Max Minister Solo is somehow transformed beyond failure.

Instead we have Max Minister Solo installing his sinful son who ravages the churches. Failure. This does not "build up the church", all the published books notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example Rick Warren's purpose driven life has nothing on Lee's book "The Purpose of God’s Salvation" which starts with Christ being the purpose which I think is a fundamental truth. Warren's book is more about us using our gifts and talents and becoming what God wants us to be.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Thanks for starting this thread.

The above is correct. The called out assembly definition iwas one of the first changes to my understanding of "a church" when I came into the Lord's Recovery.

It's well documented.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron has said that he found Boyarin valuable. On the matter of oikonomia I find Lee to be valuable because he ties it back to God's grace. .

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

... you never offered the scriptural basis for a ministry needing surround themselves with other ministries or theologians.

Originally Posted by aron

Now, to my scholars. I will pick one, and open it up to the floor.

Boyarin. Teaches at Berkeley. Knows more about early Christian history than I do, and Lee and the Blendeds. Not a believer. But what a read!.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On this matter I think you have no case because "called out assembly" is Lee's preferred definition for the word ekklesia, not church. If you had read Lee's books you would have understood well that ekklesia means assembly. In a number of his books Lee defines ekklesia as the assembly or congregation. Lee writes it is best to translate ekklesia as assembly, not church. He also cites Darby who renders ekklesia as "assembly".

Originally Posted by aron

But there can clearly be more than one assembly per city. In the LSM/lc they do it all the time - they just relabel them meetings. But the Greek is the same.

Do you think anyone out there besides Lee had value, in the years 1965 - 2015?

I give Boyarin as my example.

Originally Posted by aron

Second, I learned that "oikonomia" meant "Stewardship", which implied responsibility and obedience. Look at the parable of the "unrighteous steward" that Jesus taught. Lee instead focused on Paul's use, and ignored Jesus' parable. Lee said it was "dispensing". Again, ignorance is okay if your audience is more ignorant than you, and you can convince them of your word tricks.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On this matter I think you have no case because "called out assembly" is Lee's preferred definition for the word ekklesia, not church. If you had read Lee's books you would have understood well that ekklesia means assembly. In a number of his books Lee defines ekklesia as the assembly or congregation. Lee writes it is best to translate ekklesia as assembly, not church. He also cites Darby who renders ekklesia as "assembly".

Originally Posted by aron

First off, the perils of being a teacher in a subject you don't know. On the forum, I learned that 'ekklesia' meant 'assembly', or 'meeting', not 'church'. Lee never told me that. He translated 'ekklesia' one way or another depending on if he could call it 'church' or not. So "one church per city" is based on a false premise, not knowing what the Greek actually meant.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concordant translations attempt to remedy this apparent translation incongruity by fixing one English word to each Greek word.

Originally Posted by aron

First off, the perils of being a teacher in a subject you don't know. On the forum, I learned that 'ekklesia' meant 'assembly', or 'meeting', not 'church'. Lee never told me that. He translated 'ekklesia' one way or another depending on if he could call it 'church' or not. So "one church per city" is based on a false premise, not knowing what the Greek actually meant.

Originally Posted by Drake

Let’s stay with the argument you introduced and there is ample and endless time afterward for you to revert to your usual talking points.

You have recommended 5 men that should have guided Brother Lee between 1945 and 1995. Why these 5? What focus or insight would they EACH bring to the ministry of Witness Lee or to him personally?