Originally Posted by Ohio

When they started calling WL the "Commander in Chief" of the Lord's Army, it was more than obvious that they had gone far off course. Such was the pattern of the Recovery of Nee and Lee. Much was good and Bible based, but then they would take scriptural metaphors to the extreme for their own personal gain.

Originally Posted by JJ

Let’s test the myth that we are to be a corporate warrior.

Soldiers of God Rather Than Corporate Warrior

In the last 10 years I was in TLR I repeatedly heard the blended brothers and saints talk about being “a corporate warrior” and this was based on Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s erroneous teachings that Song of Solomon verses and Ephesians 6:10-20 applied to Christians as being “a corporate warrior” and we were not to fight spiritual battles individually, but in the body of Christ as one warrior. This always troubled me, as it seemed to be more mindless rhetoric than thoughtful truth, and shirked our individual responsibilities laid out in scripture to be soldiers, plural, rather than soldier. And more importantly miss the point of Christ the Victorious and wonderful bridegroom leading us in battle, then marrying us as his sanctified and loving bride.

Originally Posted by JJ

Speaking of the book “Fermentation of the Current Rebellion”, my twin brother, who is still in the LC, mentioned it to me recently while he was defending Witness Lee’s version of history with respect to how John Engles, John So, and Bill Mallen were branded as rebels. My brother said he was living in Anaheim at the time going through FTTA. He said their big offense was “giving conferences on how local churches are autonomous, and not subject to “the apostles”.

Were any of you at any such conferences? And if yes, what was really taught at them?

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.

fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.

Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Originally Posted by zeek

A trivial note: The title of Witness Lee's screed "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" strikes me funny. Given the context I think "fermentation" is a malapropism. "To ferment is to cause a chemical change to food or drink, like turning grapes into wine, but to foment is to stir up trouble, like turning a group of people into an angry mob." https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/...%20angry%20mob.

Originally Posted by aron

If it were so, there should be some issue: if all you have to do is "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God" and then you "become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)" there should be some indicators along the way. Evidences, as JJ calls them.

Where is the transformation? Where is the perfecting? We see endless meetings, trainings, conferences. Where is the issue in human living?

When the supposed Guru starts dunning the flock to bankroll his son's motor home business, where is the transformation? When he puts the other, admittedly "unspiritual" son in charge of business operations, keeps him there even after this steamrolls the flock and the son's caught repeatedly in compromising situations with female parishioners, where's the transformation? Instead of repentance and transparency we got "fermentation of the present rebellion".

Theology doesn't matter if your behavior's bad. Jesus told the disciples of John, "Tell John what you see - the sick are healed, the dead raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them". He didn't say, "Tell John of the theology we are teaching here." The proof is in the pudding and the LC pudding stinks.

The Lord Jesus gave plenty of evidence that he was God's Messiah. Up to and including the resurrection from the dead, and the out-poured Spirit "which you now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). Not conferences, trainings, booklets for sale. Real, actual lives changed. I don't see any more of that in the LC than in "poor, poor, Christianity". And I see as much weird stuff in the LC as in "degraded Christianity". So the theology doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by Where is it?

I found interesting quotes from WL about people he calls demon possessed. When I was in LC there was interesting to see how many people actually believed this myth told by Lee.

Originally Posted by aron

If it were so, there should be some issue: if all you have to do is "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God" and then you "become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)" there should be some indicators along the way. Evidences, as JJ calls them.

Where is the transformation? Where is the perfecting? We see endless meetings, trainings, conferences. Where is the issue in human living?

Originally Posted by JJ

evidence the “high gospel” of the LC isn’t so high after all.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm not sure if this thread has moved on, but I didn't see a verse referred to that came to me as I was reading through this thread: "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim 4:22) I have long accepted that grace is more than simply "unmerited favor." To be sure, it is that, and just this alone is more than amazing! But the word certainly has the connotation of both favor and enjoyment. If you look up the Strongs definition for it (charis; Strong's 5485) the definition uses words like acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, gracious, joy, liberality, pleasure, thank-worthy.

Many commentators have explored the depths of "grace" in the written word without coming to a nice, neat & tidy conclusion of what all it means. I just know that grace came through Christ to us, and we haven't nearly begun to plumb the depths of what all that means in our lives here and now! ("Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we consider everything Lee wrote we can realize that low gospel refers to how the gospel of salvation is preached and the purpose of the gospel. Nowhere does Lee mean that salvation or the good news of Jesus Christ is "low". What is low is how it is preached in a diluted way. Low gospel means the way the gospel of salvation is preached in a low, superficial and diluted way.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we consider everything Lee wrote we can realize that low gospel refers to how the gospel of salvation is preached and the purpose of the gospel. Nowhere does Lee mean that salvation or the good news of Jesus Christ is "low". What is low is how it is preached in a diluted way. Low gospel means the way the gospel of salvation is preached in a low, superficial and diluted way.

Originally Posted by JJ

So perhaps “unmerited favor is too low” is plausible at this point? At least until further evidence?

I recalled the song http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0537.html
which stated Witness Lee’s emphasis on the subjective Christ. But, our audience suggested checks and balances as to where that subjective experience of Christ might lead.

I recall that Paul used the term grace when describing participating in the donation of money to help the saints in war torn Jerusalem.

While looking for that verse I found this: http://biblehub.com/philippians/1-11.htm.

Originally Posted by JJ

It is interesting that Witness Lee talked about the High gospel during his Life Study of Hebrews because Hebrews is not about the gospel of our initial salvation but rather a call for Jewish believers who had fallen from grace back to the law to realize the superiority of Christ to everything of Judaism and to come forward to Him, the initiator and perfecter of our faith, the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Regarding "the low gospel" Witness Lee was obviously angry about confusion between the things that have been associated with Christmas (Santa Claus, Christmas trees, gift giving, etc) and "the gospel" in the church. Apparently that's what he took away from his childhood in a denomination.

Also, I didn't find the words "high gospel" in my Word search.

I haven't found such confusion to be universal in "Christiantity" since I left TLR. Most Protestant churches understand that "the gospel" is the good news of Jesus Christ, his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascendant position to save His people from sin, death and every negative thing into His grace and glory. And, even into the body of Christ (yes that is preached). How about you? Have you seen Christianity preaching something less? About Santa Claus, toys, stockings, ornaments?

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been reading your posts on how gentile Christians excluded Jews and whole regions of earth suffered darkness and oppression from the consequences. That’s an entirely new thought to me. But, I don’t know near east history very well.

Originally Posted by JJ

OK, good suggestion. I’ll do that as time permits. Big topic and busy (and great) life to get back to.

Originally Posted by aron

Do what Nigel Tomes does: just do a synopsis with a citation.

Originally Posted by JJ

LSM’s threatening warnings about copying without their written consent prohibits me from picking out some of them to start with!

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks for the suggestion and great points related to it, guys. I was struck by exactly what it was the apostles preached throughout Acts, and what they weren’t recorded saying recently. And it was along these lines.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't have scripture in front of me, so forgive me for being vague. I believe that both epistles to Hebrews and Ephesians talk about peace and reconciliation, and Christ's role therein.

Ephesians in particular is interesting. There was a wall in the temple, separating the outer and inner courts. On the wall hung a sign: "No gentiles can go beyond here". Christ broke down that wall between the "holy people of God" and the "unclean gentile dogs", so making peace. Read Ephesians 2:14 - it's quite explicit.

Then the gentiles kicked out the Jews. Cyril of Alexandria (re: riots and murder of Hypatia), John Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, and others were judgmental and adversarial. It seems as if every tribe and tongue and nation were indeed invited into to kingdom, except the original one.

Then, not surprising, the gentile nations began warring. The "Chalcedon rift" of the 4th century was ostensibly over the " nature" of Christ, but it was really about power- who got the last word, Antioch, or Rome, Constantinople, or Alexandria?

The peace was gone, interestingly while Christianity was ideologically ascendant. Syria, Ethiopia, Libya, Persia(Iran), Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Italy - all were heavily Christianised.

Today it is still "the way of the gentiles" from what I can see. Organisational formulations and doctrines are the pathways to power. "Do what I say and there will be peace". . . .hello Mssrs Dong. Chu, Nee, Lee, and Blendeds Wee.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Couple this with Paul's desire to preach "Christ and Him crucified," and we have the highest gospel of all.

Where's that verse in the great commission charging us to preach the "proper ground of the church?"

Originally Posted by aron

JJ,

To me the most popular program might be the most profitable. I'd recommend busting the myth of the "high peak gospel"; conversely the proposition that there is a "low" gospel. Those are subjective assessments made by a man whose self interest (promoting his ministry and himself as minister) caused bias in terms like "high" and "low".

If you look at Paul's epistle to the Roman's, he repeatedly associated the word "gospel" with the resurrection. See e.g., Rom 1:1-4 with verse 16 (connecting word is 'power' - the power that raised Jesus from the dead). See also the confession of faith. "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved"

Originally Posted by aron

JJ,

To me the most popular program might be the most profitable. I'd recommend busting the myth of the "high peak gospel"; conversely the proposition that there is a "low" gospel. Those are subjective assessments made by a man whose self interest (promoting his ministry and himself as minister) caused bias in terms like "high" and "low".

If you look at Paul's epistle to the Roman's, he repeatedly associated the word "gospel" with the resurrection. See e.g., Rom 1:1-4 with verse 16 (connecting word is 'power' - the power that raised Jesus from the dead). See also the confession of faith. "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved"

Originally Posted by JJ

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

Originally Posted by JJ

So for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 2 let's take up what awareness posted (Post #20) on the DCP thread from the DCP's copyrighted quote of "what Ron Kangas really said about "The Acting God" (please read that Post in its entirety for the complete DCP quote):

Following quotes and commentary on Phil 1:20-21; 3:9, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 2:20, John 17:17 and John 14:6 then concerning 2 Cor. 5:20 - "On behalf of Christ then we are 'ambassadors, as God entreats you through us ; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God" footnote 1 on verse 5:20 "The apostles were commissioned with a definite ministry, to represent Christ to accomplish God's purpose

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

So in the context of 2 Cor. 5:20, is the bolded part (I bolded it) Myth?

Acceptable tests to prove validity include Bible verses (plural) and actual "church life" testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no one clear definition of grace. Even Pauls is different from others.
It is explained in detail here..
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/

Here are 7 definitions:

Grace [T] [B]:
Of form or person ( Proverbs 1:9 ; 3:22 ; Psalms 45:2 ).
Favour, kindness, friendship ( Genesis 6:8 ; 18:3 ; 19:19 ; 2 Tim 1:9 ).
God's forgiving mercy ( Romans 11:6 ; Ephesians 2:5 ).
The gospel as distinguished from the law ( John 1:17 ; Romans 6:14 ; 1 Peter 5:12 ).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues ( Romans 15:15 ; 1 Corinthians 15:10 ; Ephesians 3:8 ).
Christian virtues ( 2 Corinthians 8:7 ; 2 Pet 3:18 ).
The glory hereafter to be revealed ( 1 Peter 1:13 ).

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

Originally Posted by JJ

So perhaps “unmerited favor is too low” is plausible at this point? At least until further evidence?

I recalled the song http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0537.html
which stated Witness Lee’s emphasis on the subjective Christ. But, our audience suggested checks and balances as to where that subjective experience of Christ might lead.

I recall that Paul used the term grace when describing participating in the donation of money to help the saints in war torn Jerusalem.

While looking for that verse I found this: http://biblehub.com/philippians/1-11.htm.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, it is plausible at least and you have not followed your own "ground rules" of an acceptable test. Let me remind you what you defined as the "acceptable test" in the OP:

"Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials".

This seems an acceptable test to me given that Scripture could be considered "theory" and testimonies could be considered "observations" or "data gathering". Yet you have made your decision without considering Scripture.

It seems one needs both Scripture and testimony to be able to call the myth busted or confirmed. Given that I have provided solid foundation of scripture then the myth is at least plausible because no scripture can be found to deny the plausibility.

I provided a plurality of scripture as you requested, and no other poster so far has provided such a thing and in particular, nothing which refutes or denies the Scripture I posted. Every other poster so far has provided only running commentary and opinions, not personal testimony. This is not empirical evidence from experimental observations, this is opinion. On the real TV show they never confirm or bust a myth based only on the collective opinion of the group.

Here's a little challenge for you all:

Please provide a plurality of Scripture verses which defines Grace as "unmerited favor". Since I know you would not be able to find such a definition in the Scripture I cannot see how the myth can be busted. It is at least plausible and with the addition of general support from the idea found in Christianity leads to it possibly being confirmed.

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are simply examples of LC leaders who obsess over the definition of grace yet completely miss the reality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you support Lee's definition it seems:

“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”

Originally Posted by HERn

I would rather enjoy God's grace than define God's grace.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned on many occasions the lifelong deleterious effect this rotten pattern has had on the LC's in the Midwest. I watched an endless trail of beloved brothers, all gifts from the Head to His body, leave the LC's all with one unique "sin": they had a problem with Titus Chu after being shamed and demoralized by him publicly.

And what did that do to the conscience of those who supported TC during those public humiliations? ("Whew! Sure am glad it's not me!") Should not our conscience have been properly trained according to natural human affection and empathetic honor to stand up for the oppressed and bullied.

Read John Myer's comments on this in his Future and Hope:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=Navy]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK

Thanks to all of you for following the ground rules and refraining from name calling.

Not surprising we have disagreements on this.

I’m going to call the Myth busted due to empirical evidence.

Anyone care to propose a myth for Show #2?

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

Originally Posted by aron

Or, public shaming, aka "perfecting" and "training"? What does that do to the conscience of the participants and witnesses, and how much enjoyment do you really get with a damaged conscience. I saw WL go after TC in public, and it was formalised, almost ritualistic. TC even said, "I am ashamed" because his troops were not sufficiently inured in The New Way coming out of Anaheim.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

an actual test which might arrive at some conclusion.

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?