|
| 10-11-2016 08:54 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
So basically this is called Sola Scriptura, only the Bible (or The New Testament in the case of the apostles teaching). Concerning deification there is one article by the Christian Research Institute. I post it in full. I think it is very instructive. "Ye Are Gods?" Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. from the Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring 1987, page 18. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller. Is the belief that men were created to be "gods," either in this life or in some future exaltation, a Christian teaching? Is it in any sense Christian to speak of the "deification" of man -- to say that God created or redeemed man in order to become deity? What do various religious groups who use such language today mean? Are they all saying the same thing? Are all who use such terminology heretics? If not, how do we tell the difference? All of these questions will be addressed in this article. DIFFERENT IDEAS OF DEIFICATION The first step in answering these interrelated questions is to recognize that talk about men being gods cannot be isolated from basic world views, or conceptions of the world and its relation to God. Norman Geisler and William Watkins have pointed out that there are seven basic world views: atheism (no God), polytheism (many gods), pantheism (God is all), panentheism (God is in all), finite godism (a finite god made the world), deism (a God who does not do miracles created the world), and theism, or monotheism (a God who does miracles created the world), which is the biblical view (and is held by orthodox Jews and Muslims as well as Christians).[1] Not all doctrines can be neatly categorized into one of these seven world views, since some people do hold to combinations of two views; but such positions are inherently inconsistent, and usually one world view is dominant. In this article our concern will be with doctrines of deification which claim to be strictly Christian. (This means that we will not discuss, for example, New Age concepts of deification.) Varieties of such "Christian" views on deification can be found among adherents of monotheism, polytheism, and panentheism. Monotheistic Deification It may surprise some to learn that a monotheistic doctrine of deification was taught by many of the church fathers, and is believed by many Christians today, including the entire Eastern Orthodox church. In keeping with monotheism, the Eastern orthodox do not teach that men will literally become "gods" (which would be polytheism). Rather, as did many of the church fathers,[2] they teach that men are "deified" in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God's perfect moral character. It may be objected that to classify as monotheistic any doctrine which refers to men in some positive sense as "gods" is self-contradictory; and strictly speaking such an objection is valid. Indeed, later in this study it shall be argued that such terminology is not biblical. However, the point here is that however inconsistent and confusing the language that is used (and it is inconsistent), the substance of what the Eastern Orthodox are seeking to express when they speak of deification is actually faithful to the monotheistic world view. The language used is polytheistic, and in the light of Scripture should be rejected; but the doctrine intended by this language in the context of the teachings of the fathers and of Eastern Orthodoxy is quite biblical, and is thus not actually polytheistic. Thus, it should not be argued that anyone who speaks of "deification" necessarily holds to a heretical view of man. Such a sweeping judgment would condemn many of the early church's greatest theologians (e.g., Athanasius, Augustine), as well as one of the three main branches of historic orthodox Christianity in existence today. On the other hand, some doctrines of deification are most certainly heretical, because they are unbiblical in substance as well as in terminology. Polytheistic Deification Two examples of polytheistic doctrines of deification are the teachings of Mormonism and Armstrongism, although adherents of these religions generally do not admit to being polytheists. The Mormons are very explicit in their "scriptures" that there are many Gods; for example, the three persons of the Trinity are regarded as three "Gods."[3] Since they believe that many Gods exist but at present worship only one -- God the Father -- at least one Mormon scholar has admitted with qualifications that their doctrine could be termed "henotheistic."[4] Henotheism is a variety of polytheism in which there are many gods, but only one which should be worshipped. Thus, the meaning of deification in Mormonism is radically different than that of the church fathers who used similar terms, despite Mormon arguments to the contrary.[5] The Worldwide Church of God of Herbert W. Armstrong (who died early in 1986) claims to believe in only one God. However, Armstrongism defines "God" as a collective term (like "church" or "family") referring to a family of distinct beings all having the same essential nature. Presently this "God family" consists of two members, God the Father and Christ, but it is their plan to reproduce themselves in human beings and so add millions or even billions to the God family.[6] Therefore, by the normal use of words on which our categorizations are based, Armstrong's world view is also polytheistic. Panentheistic Deification An important example of a panentheistic doctrine of deification within professing Christianity is Union Life, founded by Norman Grubb, who at one time was a respected evangelical leader. In 1980 Cornerstone, an evangelical magazine, ran an article arguing that Union Life was teaching pantheism or panentheism.[7] Union Life has attempted to argue[8] that panentheism, unlike pantheism, is not heretical (despite Grubb's admission that he does not know the definition of pantheism![9]). However, neither pantheism nor panentheism separates the creation from the essential nature of the Creator, though panentheism does posit a differentiation in which the creation is the expression of the Creator. The heretical nature of Union Life is made evident by such statements as, "there is only One Person in the universe," "everything is God on a certain level of manifestation," and "Nothing but God exists!"[10] Therefore, Union Life's claim to following the tradition of the church fathers[11] is no more valid than that of the Mormons. Positive Confession: Monotheistic or Polytheistic? Not all views of the deification of man are easily classifiable. Perhaps the most difficult doctrine of deification to categorize into one of the seven basic world views is that of the "positive confession" or "faith" teachers, including Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Frederick K.C. Price, Charles Capps, Casey Treat, and many others. In brief, the "faith" teaching maintains that God created man in "God's class," as "little gods," with the potential to exercise the "God kind of faith" in calling things into existence and living in prosperity and success as sovereign beings. We lost this opportunity by rebelling against God and receiving Satan's nature. To correct this situation, Christ became a man, died spiritually (receiving Satan's nature), went to Hell, was "born again," rose from the dead with God's nature, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should experience success in everything we do, including health and financial prosperity. Some aspects of this teaching have been documented and compared with Scripture in articles published in previous issues of this journal.[12] Regarding the claim that men are "little gods," there is no question (as shall be demonstrated shortly) that the language used is unbiblical, but are the ideas being conveyed contrary to Scripture as well? Specifically, is the world view of the "faith" teaching monotheistic or polytheistic? A simple answer to this question is somewhat elusive. The positive confession teachers have made statements that seem polytheistic, and yet often in the same paragraph contradict themselves by asserting the truth of monotheism.[13] At least two positive confession teachers, Frederick K.C. Price and Casey Treat, have admitted that men are not literally gods and have promised not to use this terminology again.[14] In many cases, the dominant world view appears to be monotheism, with their teachings tending at times toward a polytheistic world view. It seems best, then, to regard the "faith" teaching as neither soundly monotheistic nor fully polytheistic, but instead as a confused mixture of both world views. This means that the "faith" teaching of deification cannot be regarded as orthodox. Their concept of deification teaches that man has a "sovereign will" comparable to God's, and that man can therefore exercise the "God kind of faith" and command things to be whatever he chooses.[15] At least one "faith" teacher, Kenneth Copeland, seems to regard God as finite, since he says, speaking of Adam, "His body and God were exactly the same size."[16] Again, it is the context in which the doctrine appears that determines whether the teaching is orthodox or heretical. In this case, there seems to be significant evidence to show that some, at least, of the "faith" teachers have a heretical view of God, as well as a heretical view of the nature of the believer. Nevertheless, there also appears to be evidence that not all of the "faith" teachers are heretical in the same sense as, say, Mormonism or Armstrongism. At this point we will turn to the biblical teaching relating to this subject to see whether the Bible teaches deification at all. THE BIBLICAL TEACHING All of the various doctrines of deification discussed above appeal to the same passages of Scripture and the same biblical themes to validate their teaching. Besides the passages where men are called "gods" or "sons of God," there are the biblical themes concerning men in the image of God; the close relationship between Christ and Christians; and the statement in 2 Peter 1:4 that Christians are "partakers of the divine nature." In this article we shall discuss briefly each of these texts and themes. Are Men Called "Gods" in Scripture? The Bible in both Old and New Testaments explicitly and repeatedly affirms that there is only one God (e.g.,Deut. 4:35-39; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Therefore, the Bible most definitely rejects any sort of polytheism, including henotheism. The Scriptures also very clearly teach that God is an absolutely unique being who is distinct from the world as its Creator (e.g.,Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 11:3). This teaching rules out pantheism and panentheism, according to which the world is either identical to God or an essential aspect of God. Since He is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, God is totally unique, so that there is none even like God (e.g.,Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40-46; Acts 17:24-28).[17] The Bible, then, unmistakably teaches a monotheistic world view. In the face of so many explicit statements that there is only one God, and in light of His uniqueness, it may seem surprising that anyone would claim that the Bible teaches that men are gods. However, there are a few passages in Scripture which seem to call men "god" or "gods." Most or all of these, however, are irrelevant to any doctrine of deification. In practice, the question of whether the Bible ever calls men "gods" in a positive sense focuses exclusively on Psalm 82:6 ("I said, 'you are gods'") and its citation by Jesus in John 10:34-35. The usual view among biblical expositors for centuries is that Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges by virtue of their position as judges representing God; it is, therefore, a figurative usage which applies only to those judges and does not apply to men or even believers in general. If this interpretation is correct, Psalm 82:6 is also irrelevant to any doctrine of Christian deification. An alternative interpretation agrees that the "gods" are Israelite judges, but sees the use of the term "gods" as an ironic figure of speech. Irony is a rhetorical device in which something is said to be the case in such a way as to make the assertion seem ridiculous (compare Paul's ironic "you have become kings" in 1 Corinthians 4:8, where Paul's point is that they had not become kings). According to this interpretation, the parallel description of the "gods" as "sons of the Most High" (which, it is argued, is not in keeping with the Old Testament use of the term "sons" of God), the condemnation of the judges for their wicked judgment, and especially the statement, "Nevertheless, you will die as men," all point to the conclusion that the judges are called "gods" in irony. If the former interpretation is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus would be understood to mean that if God called wicked judges "gods" how much more appropriate is it for Him, Jesus, to be called God, or even the Son of God. If the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus' point would still be basically the same. It is also possible that Jesus was implying that the Old Testament application of the term "gods" to wicked judges was fulfilled (taking "not to be broken" to mean "not to be unfulfilled," cf. John 7:23) in Himself as the true Judge (cf. John 5:22,27-30; 9:39).[18] Those wicked men were, then, at best called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in a special and figurative sense; and at worst they were pseudo-gods and pseudo-sons of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is truly God (cf. John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20) and the unique Son of God (John 10:36; 20:31; etc.) Neither the representative nor the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82 allows it (or John 10:34-35) to be understood to teach that men were created or redeemed to be gods. Nor is there any other legitimate interpretation which would allow for such a conclusion. The Israelite judges were wicked men condemned to death by the true God, and therefore were not by any definition of deification candidates for godhood. If, then, the deification of man is to be found in Scripture, it will have to be on the basis of other biblical texts or themes, as Scripture gives men the title of "gods" only in a figurative or condemnatory sense. The Image of God: An Exact Duplicate? One biblical teaching upon which great emphasis is usually laid by those who teach some form of the deification of man is the doctrine of man as created and redeemed in the image of God. Of the many examples that could be given, two will have to suffice. Casey Treat's claim that man is an "exact duplicate" of God is based on his understanding of the meaning of "image" in Genesis 1:26-27.[19] The Mormon apologetic for their doctrine that God is an exalted Man and that men can also become Gods typically appeals to the image of God in man, and to the parallel passage in Genesis 5:1-3 where Adam is said to have begotten Seth "in his own likeness, after his own image" (Genesis 5:1-3).[20] These claims raise two questions. Does the creation of man in the image of God imply that God Himself is an exalted man (as in Mormonism), or perhaps a spirit with the physical form or shape of a man (as in Armstrongism)? And does the image of God in man imply that men may become "gods"? There are several reasons why such conclusions are incorrect. First, there are the biblical statements which say that God is not a man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Hos.11:9). Second, there is the biblical teaching on the attributes of God already mentioned, according to which God obviously cannot now or ever have been a man (except in the sense that the second person of the triune God became a man by taking upon Himself a second nature different from the nature of deity). Third, in the context of Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-3 there is one very important difference between the relationship between God and Adam on the one hand and Adam and Seth on the other hand: Adam was created or made by God, while Seth was begotten by Adam. To create or make something in the image or likeness of someone means to make something of a different kind that nevertheless somehow "pictures" or represents that someone (cf. Luke 20:24-25). It is therefore a mistake to reason backwards from the creation of man in God's image to deduce the nature of God. Genesis 1:26-27 is telling us something about man, not about God. Besides the passages in Genesis (see also 9:6), the Old Testament says nothing else about the image of God. The New Testament teaches that man is still in God's image (1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9), but also says that, in some unique sense, Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Christians are by virtue of their union with Christ being conformed to the image of God and of Christ resulting finally (after this life) in glorification (2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29-30), which includes moral perfection (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and an immortal physical body like Christ's (1 Cor. 15:49; cf. Phil. 3:21). Orthodox biblical theologians and scholars do have some differences of opinion as to how best to define and explain what these passages mean by the "image of God."[21] However, these differences are relatively minor, and do not obscure the basic truth of the image, which is that man was created as a physical representation (not a physical reproduction or "exact duplicate") of God in the world. As such, he was meant to live forever, to know God personally, to reflect His moral character -- His love -- through human relationships, and to exercise dominion over the rest of the living creatures on the earth (Gen. 1:28-30; cf. Ps. 8:5-8). From the biblical teaching on the image of God, then, there is nothing which would warrant the conclusion that men are or will ever be "gods," even "little gods," as the "faith" teachers often put it. Sons of God: Like Begets Like? Although men are never called "gods" in an affirmative sense in Scripture, believers in Christ are called "sons" or "children" of God (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14-23; Gal. 4:5-7; 1 John 3:1-2; etc.). Based on the assumption that sons are of the same nature as their father, some conclude that since believers are sons of God, they must also be gods. This reasoning is thought to be confirmed by those passages in John's writings which speak of believers as being "begotten" or "born" of God (John 1:13; 3:5-6; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18). As convincing as this argument may seem, it actually goes beyond the Bible's teaching and is at best erroneous and at worse heretical. The above Scriptures do not mean that the "sonship" of believers is a reproduction of God's essence in man for the following reasons. 1/ In one sense all human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28), so that even Adam could be called God's "son" (Luke 3:38); yet this cannot mean that human beings are gods or have the same nature as God, for the reasons already given in our analysis of the "image of God". 2/ Paul speaks of our sonship as an "adoption" (Rom. 8:15,23; Gal. 4:5), which of course suggests that we are not "natural" sons of God. 3/ John, who frequently speaks of Christians as having been "begotten" by God, also tells us that Jesus Christ is the "only-begotten" or "unique" Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). At the very least, this means that we are not sons of God in the same sense that Christ is the Son of God, nor will we ever be. Christ was careful to distinguish between His Sonship and that of His followers (e.g., John 20:17). For this reason Kenneth Copeland's assertion that "Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God"[22] must be regarded as false doctrine. 4/ Finally, the New Testament itself always interprets the spiritual birth which makes believers sons, not as a conversion of men into gods, but as a renewal in the moral likeness of God, produced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and resulting in an intimate relationship with God as a Father who provides for His children's needs (Matt. 5:9, 45; 6:8, 10, 32; 7:11,21; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:6-7; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-5). The biblical doctrine that believers in Christ are children of God is a glorious teaching, to be sure, and what it means we do not yet fully know (1 John 3:2). But we do know something about what it means, as well as what it does not mean. It does mean eternal life with Christ-like holiness and love, in which the full potential of human beings as the image of God is realized. But it does not mean that we shall cease to be creatures, or that "human potential" is infinite, or that men shall be gods. Union with Christ: Are Christians Incarnations of God? The doctrine that Christians are adopted sons of God is closely related to the doctrine of the spiritual union between Christ and Christian believers. This union is expressed both as a union between Christ and the individual believer and as a union of Christ and the church. Paul in particular teaches that Christians are "in Christ" (a phrase which occurs over 160 times in Paul's letters), "with Christ" in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Rom. 6:3-8; Eph. 2:5-6), corporately the "body" of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:12; Col. 1:18), that they have Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, dwelling within (Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:17-20; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 3:16-17), and that Christ Himself is their "life" (Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:4). On the basis of this teaching, many have concluded that Christians are in fact either a corporate extension of the Incarnation (as the church) or replications of the Incarnation (as individual Christians). Such a conclusion is often tied to the teaching of some concept of deification. The question is, does the Bible support such a conclusion? As with the doctrine of Christians as the sons of God, such ideas go far beyond the teaching of Scripture. To say that believers are "in Christ" means that they are somehow spiritually united to Christ, not that they are Christ. When Paul says that we have been crucified, buried, raised, and ascended with Christ, he is not speaking literally, but means simply that by virtue of our legal identification and close spiritual relationship with Christ we benefit by His death and resurrection. The teaching that the church is the body of Christ is also not to be taken literally, and should not be pressed to imply that the church is Christ or even an essential part of Christ. That the relationship between Christ and the church involves a substantial union without the church becoming Christ is best seen in the figure of the church as the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:28-32): the bride is physically united to her husband, yet they remain distinct. The Spirit indwells the believer, to be sure, but the believer does not become divine as a result, any more than the temple under the old covenant became a part of God simply because His presence filled it (cf. 1 Cor. 3:17). Christ is our life, not in the sense that our individuality is replaced by His person, but in the sense that we have eternal and spiritual life through our union with Him. Finally, the notion that each believer is somehow a duplicate of the Incarnation deserves a closer look. The rationale for this view is that an "incarnation" is defined as the indwelling of God in a human being; and since, we are told, this is as true of the Christian as it was of Christ, it follows that the Christian, as Kenneth Hagin puts it, "is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth."[23] The error in this reasoning lies in the definition of "incarnation." Christ was not merely God dwelling in a human being, a heresy (known as Nestorianism) the early church condemned because it meant that the Word did not actually become flesh (John 1:14) but only joined Himself to a human being. Rather, the incarnate Christ was one person in whom were perfectly united two natures, deity and humanity; the Christian is a person with one nature, human, in whom a separate person, God the Holy Spirit (and through Him, the Father and the Son as well), dwells. Does Partaking of the Divine Nature Make Us Gods? In 2 Peter 1:4 we are told that through God's promises Christians may "become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." This text, even more so than Psalm 82, has suggested to many a doctrine of deification. And indeed, if by deification one means simply "partaking of the divine nature," then such "deification" is unquestionably biblical. The question, then, is what does Peter mean by "partakers of divine nature"? Since the word "divine" is used earlier in the same sentence ("His divine power", verse 3), where it must mean "of God," "divine nature" must mean God's nature. The word "nature," however, should not be understood to mean "essence." Rather, as the context makes evident, Peter is speaking of God's moral nature or character. Thus Christians are by partaking of the divine nature to escape the corruption that is in the world because of sinful lust, and are instead to exhibit the moral attributes of Christ (cf. verses 5-11). DISCERNING ORTHODOX FROM HERETICAL TEACHINGS It is not always easy to tell the difference between heretical and orthodox doctrines. Often people of different religions use the same or nearly the same words to express widely different ideas. One of the marks of the "cults," in fact, is the use of Christian terminology to express non-Christian concepts.[24] This is very much the case with deification. How, then, can Christians tell the difference? There are four essential elements to an orthodox view of the relationship between God and man, and any doctrine which compromises or denies these teachings is less than soundly orthodox. These four elements are monotheism, trinitarianism, incarnationalism, and evangelicalism. Monotheism, as has already been explained, is the view that a single, unique, infinite Being (called God) created all other beings out of nothing, and that this Creator will forever be the only real, true God. Trinitarianism is the distinctive Christian revelation of God, according to which the one God exists eternally as three distinct but inseparable persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[25] Incarnationalism is the teaching that the second person of the Trinity (called the "Word" in John 1:1, 14, and the "Son" in Matthew 28:19), without ceasing to be God, became flesh, uniting uniquely in His one undivided person the two natures of deity and humanity. Evangelicalism is the belief that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. With these four criteria of orthodoxy in mind, how do the various doctrines of deification measure up? The doctrines of the church fathers, as well as of Eastern Orthodoxy, are, as we have already indicated, thoroughly orthodox on all four points. Mormonism and Armstrongism fail on all four counts, and are therefore heretical. Union Life appears to hold to the Trinity and salvation by grace, but sets these doctrines in the context of panentheism; therefore, it too is heretical. But what shall we say about the "faith" teachers? They do affirm a monotheistic world view and generally affirm the Trinity (though there is some evidence of confusion on that score). Some at least of these teachers consider the Christian to be as much an incarnation as Jesus, and thus fail the third test. Most speak unguardedly of man as existing in "God's class," of being the same "kind" as God, and so forth, even while occasionally making disclaimers about men never becoming equal to God. Are these teachers heretics, or are they orthodox? It may be that a simple black-or-white approach to this question is inappropriate in some cases. Certainly these teachers are not to be placed in the same category as Mormonism and Armstrongism, since the "faith" teachers affirm monotheism and trinitarianism. Yet too many statements have been made by these teachers which can only be called heretical, though it may be that such statements are due to carelessness or hyperbole and not actual heretical belief. It is to be hope that the "faith" teachers will recognize the errors of their unbiblical statements and repent of them. Until that time, their doctrine of men being "little gods" is so far from being orthodox that it should not be placed in that category either. How, then, should we categorize such teachings? In recent years ministries which specialize in discerning orthodox from heretical teachings have been using the term "aberrational" to describe teachings which do not fit neatly into either the orthodox or heretical category. Specifically, "heretical" teaching explicitly denies essential biblical truth, while "aberrational" teaching compromises or confuses essential biblical truth. Both are in error, but a heresy is an outright rejection or opposition to truth, while an aberration is a distortion or misunderstanding of truth only. Aberrational teachers affirm the essential doctrines of orthodoxy, and then go on to teach doctrines that compromise or are otherwise inconsistent with orthodoxy, while heretics actually deny one or more of the essentials. It we apply this distinction to the cases at hand, their usefulness becomes apparent. Mormonism and Armstrongism both explicitly reject certain essential teachings of orthodoxy; they are therefore heretical. Union Life rejects monotheism in favor of panentheism; it is also heretical. Many of the "faith" teachers affirm the essentials, but then go on to teach doctrines which undermine their professed orthodoxy; their doctrine is aberrational and false. On the other hand, there are, unfortunately, at least some "faith" teachers (for example, Kenneth Copeland) whose teachings are so opposed to orthodoxy that they can only be regarded as heretical. It is not always easy to decide whether a teaching is orthodox, aberrational, or heretical. Nevertheless, it can be done, and we should not allow the unpopularity of making doctrinal judgments to deter us from the necessary (if sometimes unpleasant) task of evaluating questionable teaching. In doing so, we must avoid the extreme of labeling as heretics absolutely everyone who uses the term "deification," as well as the extreme of regarding as Christian any doctrine of deification which makes reference to Christ. It is the substance of each doctrine which must be examined as the basis for discerning whether it is orthodox, aberrational, or heretical. Only in this way can the church's calling to "test the spirits, to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1) be fulfilled. NOTES 1 Norman Geisler and William Watkins, Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today's World Views (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1984). 2 See, for example, Gerald Bonner, "Augustine's Conception of Deification," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 37 (Oct. 1986): 369-386. 3 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 317. 4 Van Hale, "Defining the Mormon Doctrine of Deity," Sunstone 10, 1 (1985), 25-26. 5 See especially Philip Barlow, "Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History," Sunstone 9 (Sept.-Oct. 1984), 13-18. 6 See "A Summary Critique: Mystery of the Ages, Herbert W. Armstrong," elsewhere in this issue of CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL. 7 "A Case in Point: Union Life," Cornerstone, 9, 52 (1980), 32-36. 8 Norman Grubb, "The Question Box," Union Life 6 (May-June 1981), 23. 9 Norman Grubb, "The Question Box," Union Life 6 (July-Aug. 1981), 23. 10 See "A Case in Point: Union Life," 32-33. 11 Tom Carroll, "The Mystery According to St. Augustine," Union Life 10 (Nov.-Dec. 1985), 20-21. 12 Brian A. Onken, "A Misunderstanding of Faith," FORWARD 5 (1982), and Onken, "The Atonement of Christ and the 'Faith' Message," FORWARD 7 (1984). 13 E.g., Casey Treat, Complete Confidence: The Attitude for Success (Seattle, WA: Casey Treat Ministries, 1985), 319-324. 14 At private meetings between Walter Martin and Larry Duckworth with Frederick K.C. Price on May 1, 1986, and between Walter Martin and Casey Treat in early April, 1987. 15 Treat, 82-83, 306-327; Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1972), iii. 16 Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition, lvi. 17 On the biblical teaching on the nature of God, see The Nature and Attributes of God, by Robert and Gretchen Passantino of CARIS (write to CARIS, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA 92628), or this author's outline study, "The Attributes of God," available from CRI (order #DA-250). 18 E. Jungkuntz, "An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36," Concordia Theological Monthly 35 (1964):560. 19 Casey Treat, Renewing the Mind: The Arena for Success (Seattle, WA: Casey Treat Ministries, 1985), 90. 20 Barlow, 17. 21 See G.C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 37-118. 22 Kenneth Copeland, Now We Are in Christ Jesus (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1980), 24. 23 Kenneth E. Hagin, "The Incarnation," The Word of Faith (Dec. 1980), 14. 24 Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), 18-24. 25 Introductory literature on the Trinity is available from CRI. End of document, CRJ0018A.TXT (original CRI file name), "'Ye Are Gods?' Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man" release A, February 7, 1994 R. Poll, CRI A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation. Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute. COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words. If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../crj0018a.html |
|||||
| 10-11-2016 04:53 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Paul told Timothy to charge certain ones to “not teach differently”. In Revelation John said anyone who added or took away from the vision would be cursed. Peter and Paul warned of those who “teach differently”, “Preach another gospel”, have “another Jesus”, etc. To me the teaching and fellowship of the apostles is the New Testament. This is the authority in the church. A big unanswered question is whether or not there are any more apostles. I tend to think there are, but I have to admit the “fellowship of the apostles” is complete, so that function for apostles is no longer open. |
|||||
| 10-10-2016 11:19 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer to ZNPaaneah what do you mean by "the teaching of the apostles", or "the apostles teaching?" |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 07:54 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I will continue in the new thread that has been started. |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 07:41 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Evangelical, do you not know that the body of Christ is not limited to the Catholic church? It was not during the dark ages either? You really need to read church history. Read some good church historians. Every bit of church history which I received from Lee was tainted by his self-serving bias. Sorry to break the news to you. Do you not agree that LSM is as degraded as the Christians you condemn. LSM sues those who speak against their teachings. LSM slanders those who expose their unrighteousness. LSM quarantines those who serve God and refuse to submit to their subjugation. LSM allows no liberty of the Spirit. Are you listening? |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 07:36 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
This question requires a detailed and careful response, not some superficial response. I will create a new thread "Do you think Christianity is degraded?" Where we can do that. The brief response is that I disagree with much of what Witness Lee said and did on this topic. That said, I do agree that many of the verses he referred to do in fact refer to failings of Christians and Christian congregations. I do not disagree with the interpretation that the 7 churches in Revelation can be viewed from the idea of church history. I don't think that this is the only way to view this portion, nor is this my preferred way to look at these verses, but I can agree that there are some reasonable points with this approach. |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 06:15 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If you don't believe in the degradation of Christianity, then why not? Do you believe Christianity is not degraded? |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 06:11 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 10-09-2016 01:51 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Knowing how pathetic LSM has become, you should be ashamed of yourself for continually condemning the body of Christ, calling it "Degraded Christianity." |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 12:01 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Degraded Christianity is the justification for everything that this "MOTA" does in separating himself from all other believers in the Body. Deification is one way in which this "MOTA" separates himself from all other believers, and it pushes his narrative that "we have the truth, they don't". If you oppose this teaching they jump up and down with all the NT verses and Witness Lee caveats, and special definitions to prove they are fundamental in their understanding. What they fundamentally don't understand is Jesus word that "whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea." They don't understand that taking this liberty is to sin against Christ "9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. 10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ." What do you think happens if you sin against Christ? "But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 06:40 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer The connections between deification and vision of the age and degraded Christianity is quite weak. Vision of the age is about one master builder and one vision of the age. Degraded Christianity is because it has fallen away from Christ. Almost everything Christianity does has nothing to do with Christ. These things do not depend on deification. In themselves these two matters would be enough to distinguish from Christianity. |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 05:15 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Yes, it is a deeper, trickier form of deceit than just some marketing ploy to get a pagan to buy into Christianity (i.e. Christmas) No, deification is a marketing ploy to get a Christian to buy into a cult. Here is how it works. 1. I read all of the verses in the Bible on Sanctification -- we are partakers of the divine nature, we are sons of God, we are one Spirit, etc. 2. I run with those verses with all of the implied meaning -- life and nature of God. So far this is fine, but it doesn't distinguish you from other Christian teachers. You can't claim a "vision of the age" if you are teaching the same thing. Also, you can't claim "degraded Christianity" if you are teaching the same thing. 3. So he now needs something to distinguish "we from they". So he teaches "deification" and "we are being deified". He teaches that "we are becoming God only not in the godhead" (what does that mean, who knows). Well this can certainly be seen as heretical, abominable and the teaching of idolatry. So he walks it back with lots of caveats, he redefines the term, so as long as you are using the Witness Lee dictionary the term is not idolatrous. What does this accomplish? First, it provokes a lot of response both within and without the local church of heresy. John So and others from within are concerned that the use of this term could stumble new believers and that it is completely unnecessary to the teaching of Sanctification. Many argue that this goes beyond the teaching of the apostles, which is is the authority in the New Testament. Others argue that it is heretical, abominable and idolatrous. So, he has clearly provoked the "we know the truth, they don't" paradigm he is going for. He can argue, as you have done, that it is not any of these things, etc. Is there any concern about new believers being stumbled? No, if anyone is stumbled it is their fault because they didn't read his teaching carefully. So then, is that a fair argument? A new believer, by definition is one that hasn't read all of Witness Lee's books carefully. They are one, who by definition was not at that particular conference. No, they simply hear someone making a loud testimony "We are being deified". They might be in a home meeting with someone saying that we are being deified and becoming God. Should Witness Lee be held accountable for how everyone in the meetings and home meetings presents this teaching? Yes, he should. That is what it means when James said that teachers "will be judged by a stricter judgement". Witness Lee made it very clear in his teaching that the fellowship of the Apostles is the authority in the church. Did the apostles fellowship that it is not a sin to eat something that has been sacrificed to an idol (like the term deification). Yes. However they also said that if my use of this were to cause someone weaker in the faith to be emboldened to sin, say to partake in idolatry, then I would not touch it. The issue is not whether or not Witness Lee was idolatrous and taught idolatry. The issue is whether or not his teaching caused those under it to partake in idolatry. Can we see examples of an idolatrous attitude, like the famous quote "even when he is wrong he is right" or that "we owe him even our life". Did we see people in the Lord's Recovery come to him, concerned about the new believers, like John So. Yes. Now according to the Lord Jesus it is better if you put a mill stone around your neck and jump into the sea than it is to stumble the new believers. But that is not the attitude from Witness Lee and his minions. No, they attacked, demeaned, and slandered all that were concerned about this teaching. Once again, clearly outside of the fellowship of the Apostles. So then, Jesus said you would know them by their fruit. What is the fruit of this teaching? First, they will have the "we know the truth, they don't" arrogance typical of all cults. Second, they will not have a concern for any who might be stumbled by their teachings. Third, they will learn to ignore the fellowship of the apostles, a pride that will precede their fall. Fourth, blinded by their pride they will view any who oppose this teaching as someone who opposes the "Minister of the Age" and the "Vision of the Age" and evidence that they are fighting some spiritual warfare. |
|||||
| 10-09-2016 12:52 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
so what you are basically saying is that it was a marketing ploy, a deliberate word choice. Maybe it does attract pagans and others who want to hear about deification. So let's consider the consequence of that - if someone read the material hoping to find that they could actually become a god and be worshiped, they would be disappointed, because it doesn't teach that at all. So you've got one disappointed pagan as a result. Consider "Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, by Witness Lee", it says we will be like Him. That is no different to what the Bible teaches about becoming like Christ. So I wonder why you make such a fuss about word choice when the doctrine itself is harmless. That doesn't seem logical to me. Whether the word choice was deliberate or unfortunate, doesn't change the fact that no where does Lee teach that men become gods to be worshiped in any sort of pagan (or other) sense. So the idea to use the word deification to attract pagans (and others) to a Christian teaching seems like something you should be supporting to me. I know you see some sort of similarity between this and Christmas, but the different is clear to me. Christmas is about putting a Christian label on something pagan. The substance of that thing is still pagan, whether we give it a Christian name or not. But this matter of deification seems to be about putting a pagan label (the word deification) on something Christian. That means the substance of the doctrine is still Christian, no matter if we call it theosis or deification or sanctification. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 05:09 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Witness Lee's outrageous, provocative, inflammatory statements were those that built the "they don't have the truth" side of the argument. His caveats, qualifiers and special definitions all demonstrate, not that he has the truth or that the doctrine is sound, but that he knows that his statements, on the surface are blasphemous, heretical, and abominable. He is a false prophet, not because the doctrine is false, but because he is false. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 10:08 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
 Full-Time Training very good.  Quote:
Old Lee teaching very bad. New Lee teaching very good.
|
|||||
| 10-06-2016 09:33 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Acts 14:15 "Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them." Interesting that when Peter and Paul had the 'golden opportunity' to declare that they were becoming 'baby gods' they didn't take advantage of it. Lee could also have used such reticence, but circumspection wasn't really his strong suit. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 09:27 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
In considering that, how coincidental is it that most of the extreme pseudo-Christian cults in mainland China apparently came out of the Shouters sect? And notice that some of them apparently used Lee's more outrageous statements as their foundational premises. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 06:23 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
That is the booklet I referred to, but it doesn't appear to be complete, at least not in English. That PDF includes only Ed Marks' Introduction pp. 4-9. The missing sections are: 2. Ron Kangas pp 10-18, "The heart of J.S.'s Accusations and the crux of Brother Lee's teaching."Is there more of that PDF? If not, I will look into scanning the remainder of my copy, or I could mail a copy to another poster who could. For me personally, I had lots of problems with the "high peak" stuff of the '90's. It was outside of the Biblical norms, never seemed to be anointed spiritually, and at best it was just plain boring. I did spend lots of time in Robichaux's historical overview, and it somewhat persuaded me on the matter. I think I was fairly representative of the GLA. Since we never knew the facts surrounding Ingalls' or So's departures, we reluctantly accepted Lee's version of events, and somehow felt that God released some "new" teachings thru His "persecuted bond servant" in his final days on earth. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 05:01 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Witness Lee's teaching on "Deification" goes beyond the apostle's fellowship. If that is true then that is the proof that he is a hypocrite. I gave you several very clear quotes from him that he acknowledges that no Bible teacher is to go beyond the fellowship of the apostles, that they are the authority in the NT. Because of this his "definition" of deification is irrelevant. Likewise the fact that some Christians in the past also taught this is irrelevant. Neither is the authority. 1. Paul makes it clear that you can eat something that has been sacrificed to an idol, but he also makes it clear that you have to consider those who are watching and what will happen to their conscience. It doesn't matter to Paul that it isn't a sin to him, he is concerned what the impact will be on a brother or sister who is weaker in the faith. That is a very key criteria. Sure, Witness Lee redefines the term in a way that is not heretical and provides lots of caveats. But you cannot expect that those reading these books, those fellowshipping these teachings and those in home meetings under his ministry will do the same. How often have I been in a meeting where someone asked a question about a word and they pulled out a dictionary to define that term. If that were to happen with deification it would be the same as putting a stumbling block before the babes in Christ. Jesus, in Matt 18 said that it were better to have a millstone hung around your neck than to do this. How many meetings will have people shouting "We are being deified" as a testimony. You cannot assume that everyone sitting in a church meeting has read the books, and got down all the caveats. 2. So then, the second key criteria is to teach "according to" the fellowship of the apostles. A. Quote that we are "partakers of the divine nature" -- B. Quote that we are "one spirit" C. Quote that we are "sons of God" All of these quotes are safe for the babes in Christ. 3. We are also to "follow after" the fellowship of the Apostles. Every one uses the term "Sanctification" and "Sanctify". What is the process that is happening to us? We are being sanctified. This means we are being made holy, fit to serve God. That is equivalent to God's life and nature. You give up nothing. The word is rooted in the Bible. There is no danger of a babe in Christ looking up a definition of this word. Proof that Witness Lee is a hypocrite: 1. Does Witness Lee realize the danger in the term Deification? Yes. 2. Does Witness Lee know the prohibition against placing a stumbling block before the babes in Christ? Yes. 3. Did Witness Lee warn others of the danger in this term? Yes. 4. Is Witness Lee aware that things he ministers can be taken out of context, read by new believers, or used in a superficial way? Yes. 5. Did Witness Lee use the term "sanctification" for the first 50 years of his ministry instead of Deification? Yes. 6. Did Witness Lee give any compelling reason why he decided, after so many years, to adopt this term? No. 7. Is Witness Lee faithful to his teaching on "the fellowship of the apostles" being the authority in the New Testament? No. I think what you don't understand is that those who teach the Bible are judged with a stricter judgement or higher standard than others (James 3:1). Teaching pantheism is a very low standard, the fact that he didn't do that is not the standard by which we judge Christian teachers. ("This teacher is good, he doesn't teach pantheism" would not be considered an endorsement). This document that Ron Kangas, Ed Marks, Kerry Robichaux, and Andrew Yu published makes it very clear that the term "deification" was stumbling some believers because they were seeing it in the blasphemous sense. That alone was more than enough justification to stop teaching it. Using Witness Lee's definitions and referring to church History are both not a valid response. Based on the fellowship of the Apostles the correct response is "if it stumbles my brother I won't eat meat". Drop the term "deification" and use "sanctification" and the issue goes away. Their response shows a complete lack of concern for the effect of their teaching on new believers or the potential for believers to be stumbled. |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 04:59 AM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Found this PDF on Internet. The second section is English. Is this the pamphlet that Ohio mentioned? |
|||||
| 10-06-2016 04:45 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 10-06-2016 12:29 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Thanks Freedom. It's just like LSM to write a rebuttal to an attack that never existed. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 07:52 PM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
As to accusing JS of having allegedly written a book entitled “The Worst Blasphemous Words of Witness Lee against God.” I feel sick and sad. And the claim that 'God knows that I never wrote a book with such a title! I just ignored the whole matter. ' I believe these words, according to what I realised LSM people can twist things. SAD. Very sad. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 07:13 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
the burden of proof is on you, not on me. It was you who tried to paint Lee as an hypocrite, and I have no objections to your aim. My objection is about the proofs you have brought as charges against him. You may continue in your pursuit as you wish. As I said in another post even if the Devil had been misrepresented or misquoted I would object. The words we speak today might become our condemnation in that day. As I said to another poster in another thread, I am not here to defend W. Lee (I might have to say something on certain points, though). I am actually trying to prove (with success or not, I don't know), in my two threads, his wrong interpretation (in my opinion) of various passages of the Bible. Just give the man a fair trial, that's all I am asking for. We will not have a bad surprise in that day. So, thanks for the invitation, but I think the task you propose to me is for someone else. Maybe for someone who knows Lee inside and out, who believes his every word and every term. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 07:12 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
http://theologychina.weebly.com/3348...015412299.html According to JS, he published the article and was later accused of publishing a book titled The Worst Blasphemous Words of Witness Lee. He says the following: In the course of our fellowship, these concerned young believers earnestly requested that I write a paper on these verses to help others to be clear regarding the context of these scriptures. Due to the urgency of the situation, and in order to avoid confusion and division in the church in Pasay City, I quickly wrote a four-page article entitled “I Myself Am Just a Man” on October 12, 1994, and an explanation of these verses. To my utter surprise, I was told a couple of months later that four people had written a whole book accusing me of having allegedly written a book entitled “The Worst Blasphemous Words of Witness Lee against God.” God knows that I never wrote a book with such a title! I just ignored the whole matter. There were even some individuals who wrote me to request copies of the alleged title after reading their book. It just came to my attention recently that some of Witness Lee’s followers had even taken the trouble to travel to Paris to confuse the brothers by spreading the allegation. Therefore, after much consideration before the Lord, I feel the need to print the article which I wrote last October in the Philippines to clear up some confusion. I do hope that whoever reads this may receive some help regarding scriptural truths. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 06:55 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The second paper by JS I Have never seen. I think the other paper by JS is available for download. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 06:41 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
May God enlarge our capacity to strive more and more for charity. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 05:23 PM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
"The Truth Concerning The Ultimate Goal of God's Economy; A Refutation of J.S.'s Slanderous Accusations," and "The Worst Blasphemous Words of Witness Lee against God" by JS. Thanks. |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 01:57 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer It would be nice if we could document a time line. Also, on a related note. I know the legal defense team has "won" some lawsuits. But have they won money? Has LSM made money or is it merely empty victories? |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 07:32 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It is my contention that Lee used these so-called "high peak" teachings from the early '90's in order to "refocus" the attention of the remaining saints during the aftermath chaos of the quarantines and so-called rebellions. For me personally it is highly suspect that the Spirit of God would thus anoint these suspicious teachings following the coverup of Phillip Lee's numerous scandals and the slander inflicted upon many men of God (Ingalls, Mallon, Fung, So, et.al.) who stood up to speak their conscience on the Lord's behalf. As evidence, I still have a 37 page copy of "The Truth Concerning The Ultimate Goal of God's Economy; A Refutation of J.S.'s Slanderous Accusations," dated November 1994. This "Refutation" by RK, EM, KR, and AY allegedly addresses an article entitled, "The Worst Blasphemous Words of Witness Lee against God" by JS. By the end of 1994, the tract wars with rejections and counter-rejections had already moved from small arms fire to heavy artillery. Obviously "J.S." was most certainly John So, who was actively rebutting Lee's teaching. Lee had been promoting this teaching for several years, and prior to this John So addressed this "serious heretical teaching" in a short paper dated Oct. 12, 1994 "I Myself Also Am A Man" referencing Peter's words in Acts 10.26. In a later letter in August 1995, John So provided a foreword to his tract mentioning events which occurred at a LSM young people's training in Manila. One young brother was dismissed from the training, branded as "rebellious," for refusing to stand up and declare loudly, "Hallelujah, I am a baby God, I am a holy God, I am God." |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 07:11 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 10-05-2016 05:33 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I would like to address your central premise, which is that Witness Lee's teaching was not hypocritical but consistent. But all the apostles were very strict in the teaching of the apostles. In 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul urged Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach differently from God's New Testament economy. The apostles would not tolerate any teaching that was different from God's New Testament economy. The aged Apostle John, in his second Epistle, told the saints not to receive anyone who brings a teaching other than the teaching of Christ (vv. 9-10). He said that these ones went beyond the teaching of Christ. This means that they went beyond the teaching concerning Christ, which is the basic teaching of the New Testament, the teaching of the apostles. John was strict to the extent that he even charged the saints not to greet such ones. In the matter of the teaching of the apostles, the apostles were very strict. This proves that the teaching of the apostles actually is the real leadership in the New Testament. (Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 09: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (1), Chapter 4, Section 10) Let us agree first and foremost that our focus must be on the Apostles' teaching. That, according to Witness Lee and the New Testament, "is the real leadership in the New Testament". So then, if Witness Lee was consistent and not hypocritical his teaching of Deification must be 1. Not different from God's New Testament Economy 2. Is not a teaching other than Christ 3. Does not go beyond the teaching of Christ The New Testament is very strict on this point. If after we examine his teaching we determine that it is fine on these three points then you will have proved that Witness Lee was consistent and not hypocritical. The degradation of the church through the centuries has been a result not only of organization and division but also of mixture with heathenism and paganism. After Constantine the Great accepted Christianity, many pagan things were brought into the church and given a Christian name, including Christmas, Easter, and the worship of Mary. G. H. Pember clearly defined the pagan things brought in by Catholicism in his book Mystery Babylon the Great. In Matthew 13:33 the Lord likens this mixture to leaven, “which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.” (The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 4, Section 2). I think we can agree that the fact that Christianity taught "deification" does not in any way make it a fundamental truth of the New Testament, even Witness Lee pointed out that there were many teachings brought in as a mixture. So, please, lets agree that for Witness Lee to be proved consistent and not hypocritical that we will only use the teachings of the Apostles and not resort to teachings in Christianity to bolster the doctrine. As Witness Lee said, the apostles teaching is the true leadership here. If tens of thousands of saints in six continents are all doing the one work, who then is taking the lead? It is very mysterious to say that Christ is taking the lead. In practice, the real leader is the teaching of the apostles. We all must serve according to, follow, and be based on the teaching of the apostles. (Witness Lee, Words of Life from the 1988 Full Time Training, Chapter 8, Section 3) Since our goal is this matter of hypocrisy vs consistency Witness Lee must demonstrate that his doctrine is according to, following and based on the teaching of the Apostles. So, why don't you start and I'll respond to you. (PS -- I have no issue with Witness Lee using a term that is not in the NT, that would be an onerous requirement that would be unreasonable. That said, the doctrine is, the apostles taught it, so let us begin there.) |
|||||
| 10-05-2016 05:13 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 10-05-2016 01:39 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If we want to strain at the outer limits of Christianity, we should do so with our charity, not our theology. |
|||||
| 10-04-2016 08:26 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
books or magazines; to be or not to be." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/or?s=t Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is the truth concerning deification and there is an heretical and blasphemous understanding. The word Trinity can have negative connotations. This does not mean that every time theologians, or simple believers, talk about the Trinity they have to add a disclaimer. Here you are correct when you say that deification "can be understood as blasphemous, it can be understood as heretical". So you were aware that the term could also be understood in a non blasphemous and non heretical way. Then, why did you focused only on its negative connotation? |
|||||
| 10-04-2016 05:22 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I also defended Lee against charges of modalism for many years. He had his verses, and he just loved the challenge of a public debate. He definitely was, as ZNP said, the classic "provocateur." |
|||||
| 10-04-2016 01:24 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I think I have made it very clear that there is a lot about Witness Lee that bothers me. I agree that Justyn's theology was not persuasive. But in my opinion there are certain approaches that get to the heart of the matter with Witness Lee, his theology on the Triune God is a rabbit hole and will not help those who buy into it to see the error. What does work is the unrighteousness, the bias, the hypocrisy. These things lead directly to the heart of the matter. |
|||||
| 10-04-2016 12:55 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I don't think Lee was a modalist. So Justyn was just determined to make that stick. But I think Lee was something else. I think that he believed all the Trinitarian stuff, except for his insistence on rejecting anything that smacked of "persons" that he could point at anyone and declare them to be tritheists. But while he had a lot to say in this place or that about Christ independently of the Spirit or the Father, when you get down to it, his theology was only marginally Trinitarian. He thought that the distinctions were nearly unimportant and that it was all about them simply being "one." I know you've heard my shtick about how he didn't say they weren't separate in any way. He just had not use for it. But at the same time, the Bible gives a lot of ink to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. If God wanted to suggest that the separate persona were essentially irrelevant, then why so much talk about them separately, or with different characteristics and meaning? "I and the Father are one" is not an invitation to call Jesus the Father. Why would I say this? Because Jesus prayed to the Father that we would be one as He and the Father were one. And if he was praying only about some time in the age to come, then it would not have had a context about our testimony to the world in this age. So that would seem to define the oneness of the Father and the Son as something more like that of husband and wife — significant but not so absolute that the two were effectively each other. Or like two people joined in mind toward a common goal. My point is that all that is revealed as separate within the Godhead is made of no consequence in a theology that has little use for the separateness and insists that each is really just both of the others. That gives lip service to a separateness, then declares it to be functionally irrelevant. Doesn't that bother you just a little? I mean defending Lee's theology from Justyn was one thing. But Justyn was focused on the wrong things. There was plenty wrong with Lee's triune theology because he didn't seem to really find a reason for there to be a trinity. Just an alleged three that are really just each other. Not modalism in the traditional sense. But something else that is equally dismissive of much of the nature of God. |
|||||
| 10-03-2016 05:37 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, due to his exegesis of every single book and verse of the Bible I am sure you can find many very fundamental quotes of his on the Father. |
|||||
| 10-03-2016 03:50 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I know that he essentially talked both sides of this issue. The whole Christ is the Spirit and Christ is the Father thing was a really big deal for him, especially that Christ is the Spirit. He insisted in dealing with the "persons" of the Godhead as simply being One. Not in the sense that the Trinity is a mystery of Three and One, One and Three, but in the sense that the Trinity is almost a game of semantics. Of course he would always point at his claim that the Son rose out of the water, the Father spoke (not the Son) and the Spirit descended as a dove. But other than referring to this and insisting that this was proof that he was not modalist, did he hardly ever really talk of the Father separately from the Son and/or the Spirit? Jesus said to pray "our Father who is in heaven" but Lee said just pray to whoever you like. I guess it doesn't matter which if they are really just the same. In a sense they are, but in a sense they are not and I think that Lee did not really admit to that side. If he said "the Son is the Father" did he really mean this rather than just want a controversy? I think he meant it. There is way too little saying otherwise. His love for Trinity stew rather than the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit is too significant relative to his love for the Spirit (other than when sevenfold intensified), or the Father, or the Son as being in any way separate. |
|||||
| 10-02-2016 05:22 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 10-02-2016 04:40 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If that is the case this post will be an appropriate response. If not, could you be more specific? When you go onto the LSM website the warnings about lawsuits are in your face. They prohibit. to the fullest extent that they are legally able to, the use of quotes from Witness Lee. As a result I have had to repeatedly consult the law on this issue. Legally we are allowed to discuss his works using quotes in the manner that we are, especially since this is not for profit. But that said, the percentage of the work that is a quote is very important. As a result of my concern over the litigious nature of LSM I try to do both a thorough quote and at the same time quote the fewest words possible. There are many times I would have preferred to quote a bits and pieces of an entire message, but instead I'll just pick a single paragraph and quote that. If you are complaining that I have not quoted enough but should have included the paragraphs with Witness Lee's caveats, one of the key reasons is the constant threat of litigation every time you go on their website ("we know your IP address", etc.) The second point is that if you have read all of my posts I have acknowledged that Witness Lee's MO is to say something that is highly controversial, even heretical but then to walk that statement back with numerous caveats. He does this with his teaching on the triune God, and other topics. I feel that this modus operandi of his is designed to provoke outrage and disputes so that he can claim that there is a spiritual attack over his ministry. If you were to remove a few sentences of the most offensive statements he has made, "The Son is the Father", "we are being deified", "the Catholic church is the Great Babylon", then no one would care about his ministry and it would be irrelevant. In the same way I have not disputed the fact that Witness Lee's doctrine of Deification is essentially equivalent to the doctrine of Sanctification he taught in the 70s and which I accepted. I have not disputed the fact that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine includes this term and that therefore it is part of Christian historical teaching. What I am saying is that Witness Lee warned against using this term in the 70s, he taught that the Eastern Orthodox teachers had made a mistake (not in teaching that God became man so that man could become God) but in using this term because it can be heretical, idolatrous, and has a pagan root. I provided the quote from the Galatians training, but his spoken word was much stronger than what has made it into print. What I am saying is that I am not buying this "higher peak of divine revelation". Instead, I see this as his MO to say something very controversial. I am saying that this fits into a pattern of MOTA, Deputy Authority, and degrees of Sanctification. It is much harder for a new believer to question a doctrine like this if they think the person teaching it has become "deified" over the last 60 years. This is not sanctification, it is "holding the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons". I would agree with someone that you cannot prove Witness Lee is heretical from his "deification" doctrine or from his doctrine on the Triune God. No, in my opinion you prove he is heretical from his ground of the church doctrine, his MOTA doctrine, his fabricated story about Watchman Nee, and his practices of making merchandise of the saints (Daystar, etc). But once you have that at its core, then deification and his doctrine of the triune God fits the pattern. |
|||||
| 10-02-2016 01:57 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer To ZNPaaneah "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire.) and I would like to add, and I will never misquote or misrepresent you, even if you were the devil himself. Using quotations is the only chance we can give to our "opponents" to defend their point of view. An accurate and contextualized quotation is our Christian duty to avoid misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc., especially when quoting those who are not more able to defend themselves (that is those who passed away). Unfortunately sometimes, due to the intensity of the discussion and the numerous posts to reply to, we might unintentionally be less accurate than we usually used to be. I am sure it happened to me, somehow and somewhere, so I would be glad if someone could point out my mistakes in order to amend them. Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, that every idle word which men shall say, they shall render an account of it in judgment-day: Mat 12:37 for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. The words we speak and write today will not be unnoticed in that day. So it is better to be very careful, and as James says, Jas 3:1 Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment. Jas 3:2 For we all often offend. If any one offend not in word, *he* is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body too. W. Lee treatment (or mistreatment) of other Christians (or Christianity) has become proverbial. Imagine someone complaining about the products sold in a supermarket. A: Your products are !@#$$%%#! There is nothing good in this supermarket. This is !@#$%^&! and that is !@#$%^&! I will never buy anything from you !@#$%^####!#! This goes on for years, maybe decades. Finally, this very person buys few products from the so despised supermarket. Logically the reaction of Mr. B. would be something like this, B: You #!#@@$%@^%$#!!#@ hypocrite!!!! You !!@@##$#!! and !!###!##^%@%! We all have the right to shop were we want and to buy what we want (after all even the best companies do not manage to produce all excellent products, so it is unavoidable to pick here and there), but it would be polite, and much more Christian attitude, to avoid useless criticism. I can never forget when I heard W. Lee (in a video. Sorry I don't remember which one, and I doubt I will ever watch it again. So for this story you have only my word. Can I be trusted?) relating how he met a missionary to China. Lee asked him, Do you know Madam Guyon? Do you know...........[another famous Christian]? Do you know ….... [another famous Christian]. The “poor” missionary answered no to all those questions. Then Lee said, “A nothing has come to China!” (if he said those words to the missionary or to the audience of his message I cannot tell). This were shocking words. This are words a Christian should never say. This was very different from W. Nee's attitude towards missionaries. I answered, "I dare not criticize your mission, though I do not believe it is according to the full thought of God. I believe it was God's will to establish it so that the servants of God in Western lands could come to China to preach the gospel. I have nothing to say regarding the mission as a body, for the Scriptures speak of companies of workers, and if you feel it should be organized, should have officers, and should bear a specific name, you must answer to God and not to man for that. Who am I that I should criticize the servants of the Lord? But while I do not criticize, I cannot copy, because God has not revealed that as His will and way for me. Regarding the mission as a mission, I have nothing to say, but I have serious questions regarding the churches formed by the mission. (Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 30: The Normal Christian Church Life, Chapter 10, Section 6) We all make mistakes, as you said. How true. I had my share in it. In my opinion, you yourself made some inaccurate statements, too. I write this not to shame you but to exhort you. |
|||||
| 10-01-2016 02:34 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The point is that for 20 years in the US Witness Lee warned that although he taught that "God became man that man may become God" it is not advisable to use the term "deification" because it can be interpreted as idolatrous, heretical and goes beyond the teaching of the apostles. This came up more than once and was recorded in his printed ministry. But he didn't just say this, he condemned Eastern Orthodox Christians for mixing pagan practices and teachings with Christian doctrine. No doubt Christmas would be one example, Easter another, but it was understood by many of us that deification was another example. This was not inferred. Witness Lee said that the term "deification" had pagan roots, every bit as much as Christmas or Easter. He equated them with the Great Babylon and these teachings were evidence of their idolatrous practices. Not only so, but both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee taught that "word choice" was very important. This was something particularly stressed to those editing the written ministry. So then, my question is "what changed"? The only thing that changed with his doctrine on Sanctification that I can see is that after 1994 he taught that we could use the word "deification". That was very different from warning about the dangers of its use. Also, he used the Eastern Orthodox use of it to justify this. Using Eastern Orthodox teachings to justify his teachings was unthinkable to those of us from the 70s. Why? If this question about why he changed was answered in an honest and thorough way it would need to include a repentance for "slandering" the Eastern Orthodox Christians for so many years. People have the right to change their minds, they have the right to make a mistake. But when you do make a mistake you have to admit it and repent of it. There is no admittance of a mistake and there is no repentance. Instead there is hypocrisy. |
|||||
| 09-30-2016 08:15 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer “If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (Chapter 2, Aristotle and Greek Science, Part 3, The Foundation of Logic). W. Lee did clearly defined what he meant by using the word deification (theosis). In some dictionaries the word has only one negative meaning. There are other dictionaries that actually list the theological meaning. theosis image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.61/images/...onary-logo.png Noun 1. (theology) The likeness to or union with a god; deification. 2. (theology) The process of attaining this state. Origin From Medieval Latin theōsis, from ecclesiastical Ancient Greek θέωσις (theōsis). English Wiktionary. Available under*CC-BY-SA*license. Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/theosi...8uuGmtFp0CJ.99 Theosis Also found in: Dictionary, Medical. Theosis Theosis may refer to: Divinization (Christian) Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology) is the process of coming into union with God. This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by its online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information, please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Theosis theosis* (Theosis ) (Language:**Greek) Alternate Spellings: Short Description: "deification," participation in the nature of God (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) Long Description: "deification," participation in the nature of God (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4); in Eastern Christian theology, the supreme goal of human life. Source(s): The Fullness of God: Frithjof Schuon on Christianity, by Frithjof Schuon, edited by Dr. James S. Cutsinger Provided By: Dictionary of Spiritual Terms http://www.dictionaryofspiritualterm...ms.aspx?ID=360 Overview Theosis Quick Reference (θέωσις), or deification in the Byz. tradition, is the goal of man to which he is naturally destined and which is realized through the grace of God. In a Christian ... From:* Theosis* in* The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium » History — Early history (500 CE to 1500) Related content in Oxford Reference Reference Entries Theosis in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium Length: 539 words View all related items in Oxford Reference » Search for: 'Theosis' in Oxford Reference » http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/...10803103854783 Theosis: (a.k.a. deification, divinization, participation in God) The concept that Christians can become participants in the life of God, while not sharing in God's essence. The precise definition varies among Christian denominations and theologians. This is based, in part, on 2 Peter 1:4: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature..." 2 http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_t.htm The doctrine of deification ( theosis ), explicit in 2 Peter 1:4, ‘so that through these you might become sharers in the divine nature’, was taken up by early Christian theologians. Together with apophaticism , deification became a central pillar of Byzantine theology. For the Greek fathers Christ is the paradigm of human deification, an idea summarized in the dictum: ‘God became human that we might become divine.’ Christ's humanity is deified humanity. Christians are called to participate in Christ's divinity, not to become disincarnate spirits but to attain a more authentic humanity. This participation ( methexis ) is a gift of grace we are called to accept. In Eastern tradition deification is understood as eucharistic and ecclesial as well as a matter of personal, moral and spiritual life. Ideas of deification are also found in Western theology, not least in the Roman mass. ( 1984 ), The Deification of Man: St Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition . Crestwood , NY : St Vladimir's Seminary Press . ( 1979 ), Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes . New York : Fordam University Press . ... log in or subscribe to read full text I guess that in Greece and Russia it is easier to find in common dictionaries the Christian meaning of the word deification than in, let's say, U.S.A. After all the teaching of theosis grew up in the East. In any case it is better to refer more to specific tools like theological dictionaries, church history, etc.. There are/were some exception though. Take for example the meaning of SIN from the first edition of Webster's*Dictionary*1828 - Online*Edition American Dictionary OF THE English Language SIN, noun 1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law. 1 John 3:4. Matthew 12:31. James 4:17. Sinner neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. Original sin as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam's apostasy; and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of Christ and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31. 2. A sin-offering; an offering made to atone for sin He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin 2 Corinthians 5:21. 3. A man enormously wicked. [Not in use.] 4. sin differs from crime, not in nature, but in application. That which is a crime against society, is sin against God. SIN, verb intransitive 1. To depart voluntarily from the path of duty prescribed by God to man; to violate the divine law in any particular, by actual transgression or by the neglect or non-observance of its injunctions; to violate any known rule of duty. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:9. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. Psalms 51:2. 2. To offend against right, against men or society; to trespass. I an a man more sinn'd against than sinning. And who but wishes to invert the laws of order, sins against the' eternal cause. SIN, for since, obsolete or vulgar. I must say that today the Merriam-Webster dictionary has lost most if not all of this spiritual explanation of the term. After all, we live in a less religious society. “Webster in early life was something of a freethinker, but in 1808 he became a convert to Calvinistic orthodoxy, and thereafter became a devout Congregationalist who preached the need to Christianize the nation.[46] Webster grew increasingly authoritarian and elitist, fighting against the prevailing grain of Jacksonian Democracy. Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts. His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order. As he grew older, Webster's attitudes changed from those of an optimistic revolutionary in the 1780s to those of a pessimistic critic of man and society by the 1820s.[47] His 1828 American Dictionary contained the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered education "useless without the Bible."[48] Webster released his own edition of the Bible in 1833, called the Common Version. He used the King James Version (KJV) as a base and consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries. Webster molded the KJV to correct grammar, replaced words that were no longer used, and did away with words and phrases that could be seen as offensive. In 1834, he published an apologetic book in defense of The Bible and Christianity itself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster I have more to say but this post is already too long. Maybe I'll say it in a future post. P.S. If anyone wants the Bible definition of sin turn to 1 John 3:4 (Darby). |
|||||
| 09-30-2016 04:11 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Your logic is ridiculous. You have pointed out repeatedly that Witness Lee's teaching didn't change, except in one point. Previously he had warned about using this word, now he uses it. Yes, that is what I am accusing Lee of: intentionally poor word choice. I am accusing him of intentionally choosing a word to satisfy itching ears. My point has been that his teaching has been "sanctification" and that there was no basis at all to now call it "deification" except for satisfying itching ears. Also stop pretending this was "an unfortunate choice". It was deliberate. It drew a big response. These written messages are edited by several people. First, by English teachers and those who are skilled in grammar. Then, by those familiar with the ministry. Then, finally by the top editors, perhaps Ron K, Kerry R., etc. There was nothing accidental about this. They were all on board and had been consulted prior to it going into print. I was involved with the editing process of his written messages when I was in Houston. I helped and I knew others who also helped. These were other very well educated saints from elite Universities who had been in the Lord's Recovery for 10 years or more. Some were English teachers. Kerry, Clem, James Fite, Pat Fite and myself were all Rice grads. Ron K is a Princeton grad. This was not "an unfortunate word choice" it was a carefully planned out way to satisfy itching ears. |
|||||
| 09-29-2016 06:40 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-29-2016 06:26 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If you want to be proved right, all you gotta do is quote Lee once where he said that man is to be worshiped. The most you can accuse Lee of is an "unfortunate choice of words". |
|||||
| 09-29-2016 05:23 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Not my argument, Watchman Nee's argument: "Let me speak a frank word to all of you. Many improper words in the church would disappear if all the brothers and sisters learned the lesson of listening. The church has so many improper words because there are many brothers and sisters who want to listen to them. There is the demand; therefore, there is the supply. There are so many defiling words, criticisms, evil speakings, slanders, double-tongued speakings, because many people want to hear them. Man's heart is deceitful, wicked, and defiled. Because the heart wants to hear these words, someone is always ready to speak them. If God's children know the kinds of words they can and cannot speak, they will know the kinds of words they can and cannot hear. One brother put it aptly when he said, “Many people's ears are like trash cans.” Does anyone ever dump trash into a rice pot? No one would do such a thing. If you accept all kinds of lecherous words and do not consider them harmful, clearly you are a trash can; that is the kind of person you are. Only a certain kind of person will listen to certain kinds of words." (WN, Message for building up New Believers, Vol 3, Chapter 2, Section 6) |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 11:48 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-26-2016 11:47 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-26-2016 11:41 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The website is Jewish but the sources it references are not from them. For example this one: Clement Miles, Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance, New York: Dover Publications, 1976, pp. 178, 263-271. |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 05:10 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus. Not a good source of information. Not at all. In your judgmental mind, since most of the posters here are former members of the Local Church, you can only conclude that we all "have left genuine Christianity for paganism." You have no idea how, what, why, or where we worship the Lord Jesus. You could care less. You condemn people indiscriminately without knowing anything about them. This is the primary reason I left the local church. It is led by LSM, which is prideful, arrogant Laodicea, filled with know-it-alls who condemn every other church and child of God outside their little irrelevant sect. You are no different than the Exclusive Brethren, just a few years behind. You can't get along even with people just like yourself! Look at how many have been quarantined in the past decade. And, btw, there is no agape love in Laodicea. Pride blinds people. Think about it. |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 02:23 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
WL speaks of a common association with the term deification. He knew how that term would be interpreted, yet he proceeded to use it anyways, claiming that everyone was somehow 'misunderstanding' him. It defies logic. It shows a lack of sincerity on his part. He wanted something that would 'shock' people. He wanted a teaching that he could claim for himself as 'unique'. |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 05:58 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Witness Lee said that the Eastern Orthodox mixed pagan practices and teachings with Christian ones. Christmas was a prime example, deification was an example of how they went beyond the apostle's teaching. Witness Lee himself warned the saints about the term "deification" as being pagan and idolatrous. I gave you the quotes already, from Witness Lee. I was there, you apparently were not. Stop confidently affirming what is false. Everyone has the right to change their mind. I used to think that "the ground of the church" doctrine as taught by Witness Lee was scriptural, now I don't. But when you change your mind be honest about it. 2nd, he condemned the very Christians who he later used to support his ministry. He condemned them for using pagan terms that could be interpreted as idolatrous and then he used their use as support for him to use it. If he changed his mind he needs to confess and repent for condemning them before. |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 05:28 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
That he is speaking about terminology is evident by his quote (emphasis mine) "Perhaps what comes to mind most commonly when people hear the term deification is the practice among the ancient pagan religions of elevating mere men to the status of gods..." He is explaining that his use of the term is not the pagan one but in line with the Orthodox or Catholic use of the term. This is a terminology issue not a doctrinal one. You have tried your best to make it a doctrinal one but clearly his statements are regarding the terminology. |
|||||
| 09-26-2016 05:22 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-26-2016 05:09 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Christmas on the other hand has a pagan history. The pagan origins of Christmas is a historical fact and for this reason Christmas cannot be found in the early christian writings or the Bible. Mark 7:8 Jesus condemned the Pharisees for "holding the traditions of men" - "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." All of the Christmas practices today have pagan origin which explains why we open gifts for ourselves on Christmas and not for Jesus (His birthday, supposedly, not ours) and why we have Christmas trees and why we sing carols and do all these things. You cannot explain why people do these things from the Bible because they have no basis in Scripture. But paganism has an answer for why people do these things: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...eRealStory.htm Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc. Many of the most popular Christmas customs – including Christmas trees, mistletoe, Christmas presents, and Santa Claus – are modern incarnations of the most depraved pagan rituals ever practiced on earth. In leaving the Lord's recovery you have not left one version of Christianity for a better or worse version of Christianity, rather you have left genuine Christianity for paganism. That the whole of Christendom is characterized by pagan practices is found in the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna. It is the unfortunate fact that the things churches and individuals practice today is not because of what the Bible says but because of pagan traditions. These are proven historical facts. As the book introduction says "Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we “dress up” for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, and choirs? This ground-breaking book, now in affordable softcover, makes an unsettling proposal: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is rooted, not in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles". |
|||||
| 09-25-2016 06:16 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
My point which you continually ignore, is that Witness Lee's stance towards Christmas is completely opposite his stance on deification. Christmas has a pagan history so we must be absolute to reject it. Deification also has a pagan history, but WL simply redefines it. Does that work for Christians who redefine Christmas to be "an opportunity to share on Jesus incarnation"? Nope, once pagan, always pagan. What about deification, the heart of the pagan religion, the heart of idolatry. Nope, as long as there is a caveat somewhere that although Witness Lee is being deified that doesn't make it idolatry then it is OK. Once I went to Taiwan and the pagan festivals were very clearly not treated in the same way. So whereas you might look at Christmas lights as merely pretty colored lights that are nice in the dead of winter, Witness Lee condemns them as pagan. Yet, the lantern festival is fully enjoyed by everyone in Taiwan including the saints without any suggestion that its pagan roots condemns it. In your mind the Local church is so pure from Pagan practices, but for those of us who lived in the church in Taiwan (I was there for 8 years) we saw a completely different side of Witness Lee that completely ignored pagan and sinful practices (Chinese New Year is celebrated by drinking whiskey and playing poker all night with money given in red envelopes). How do you explain this? I have come to the conclusion that Witness Lee's teachings were designed to serve Witness Lee. In the US he knew that Christmas was a big holiday, if he could get all the saints to ignore their family and spend the time at his training, 10,000+, each paying a $50 fee, then he could make $1 million a year with two trainings. It would be even better when you throw in "training materials". Soon, the Recovery Version at $100 a pop would be a very big money maker (every single member, more than 10,000 needed a copy -- another $1 million). But when interest in him began to wane and he risked becoming irrelevant he would instigate a firestorm over nothing. "The Son is the Father", a statement clearly designed to be perceived as heretical, but then explained away in the fine print. This was done over and over with Deification being the last and greatest example. |
|||||
| 09-25-2016 12:53 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
What does the Christmas tree symbolize? I'm not so sure that it has a well-defined symbolic meaning. Christians and non-Christians alike have Christmas trees. The same is true with the celebration of Christmas itself. At the very least, the different practices and customs of Christmas have different meanings to different people. For me, this throws the argument of such customs having some subversive 'pagan' influence out the window. A Christmas tree could represent something pagan if it were being used as a symbol in that way, but by the same token, it could also be a symbol of God the Father as is even done in the LSM hymnal - "Our Father as the evergreen..." |
|||||
| 09-25-2016 02:38 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 11:51 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I'm not familiar with it, so I looked for info. Some, including Lee, say 5 is the symbol for man, i.e. 5 fingers, 5 toes, etc. Some say it was a Christian symbol, i.e. the 5 wounds of Christ. |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 09:40 PM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer WOW! There are 'hypocrisy' and 'Genuine hypocrisy'. ?! 
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 09:39 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 09:27 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Please don't speak to me about hypocrisy because you do not know the meaning of the word. Genuine hypocrisy is claiming to be a Christian yet following pagan practices that are not commanded by God or found in the Bible. Genuine hypocrisy is also claiming to be a Christian yet supporting the gay rights movement. Some on this forum claimed that the Bible is your only authority, and I find this not to be the case at all. Rather, you are supporting practices not found in the Bible. So the Bible is not your authority at all. |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 05:16 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 05:01 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Does Evangelical celebrate his birthday? |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 07:37 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 07:34 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer There's nothing pagan about Witness lee's nor the early churches description of deification. To worship men as gods would be pagan, but Lee clearly states that is not acceptable. But the practice of celebrating Christ's birthday not on his real birthday but on a pagan festival day with pagan objects is clearly pagan. |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 07:20 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Let me quote you: "Deification as Witness Lee defined it does not involve pagan things." You are not concerned that deification has a pagan history, nor are you concerned that it involves pagan practices. You are happy to limit your discussion to the way in which Witness Lee defined it, ignoring all the other baggage. You also are not interested in how this teaching is practiced in the Local Church (MOTA, etc). Yet with Christmas it is not about how it is defined. Nor is it good enough that some practice this holiday in a way that is not pagan. Nope, if one Christian, anywhere on this earth goes home to their Christmas tree and unwraps gifts, then the practice is condemned as pagan. Are you so blind that you cannot see your hypocrisy? |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 06:56 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer That doesn't mean adopting their practices and pretending it is Christ's birthday on a pagan day when it actually isn't. Congregations do what? Do nothing. Everybody knows that churches hold Christmas services, the attendance swells with people who don't normally go to church, they go home to their celebrations and gift unwrapping. That is nothing like the gospel preaching that verse you quoted describes. |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 05:39 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer What did God tell us to do? To go out into the whole pagan world and preach the gospel, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. So then, if a congregation is doing just that why would you have a problem? I have been to a number of Christmas and Easter plays that do not have any mention or reference to Santa or the Easter bunny. You are so focused on the negative you can't see any other options. Like realizing that a smart phone or computer has become an "idol" to some that you don't realize it is the tool you are using to post on this forum. |
|||||
| 09-24-2016 02:12 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-24-2016 02:04 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-19-2016 09:24 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
 We are just not allowed to get drunk! And keep your clothes on! 
|
|||||
| 09-19-2016 07:52 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
What are we allowed to drink? |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 07:51 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
What hypocrisy! |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 06:02 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Do you know that computers and cell phones are built by pagans and atheists. Better not use them either. I am not just being facetious here. Marble Mary is almost completely irrelevant to today's youth. Smart phones are everything. Have you any idea what an idol they have become? Think about how much evil they can promote to the moral decay of an entire generation. Not to be rude, Evangelical, but worrying about pagan yule logs is a little out of date, don't you think? |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 05:58 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It was OK for him to use this pagan festival to hold a training in Chinese, but not OK for Americans to do the same during Christmas. |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 05:14 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Making a man a god is paganism. That is the definition. Whether it is the Pharaoh or Caesar. Witness Lee could have chosen to use the word sanctification, and did do that for the first 50 years of his ministry. During this time he warned about avoiding the term deification because it was pagan. But then in 1994 he all of sudden switched saying this was a "high peak truth". He referred to traditional Christian teachers (Athanasius) who earlier in his ministry he condemned for mixing pagan practices and teachings with the Christian worship and saying that these teachings resulted in divisions. On the other hand Jeremiah refers to the Christmas tree as a vain idol. It was a celebration that took place to celebrate the rebirth of the sun God. It was originally part of a pagan holiday. Traditional Christian teachers adopted this holiday, changed the name to Christmas. The story of Jesus birth is not in any way pagan, nor does it have pagan roots. The name "Christmas" is not pagan. Placing a star on top of the tree is not rooted in paganism but in the NT story of Jesus. There is nothing pagan about colored lights. So then, what is pagan about Christmas? 1. The date -- certainly not the day that Jesus was born. December 25th is the first day when you can see the Sun rise in the sky with the naked eye. 2. The use of a tree can be seen as a vain idol. 3. The purpose of the holiday to make merchandise of you. Since Dec 25th is a national holiday it is a very convenient time for a church to meet. No one is complaining if they meet on other holidays. No one has to use a tree and no one has to buy stuff they don't want. There is nothing pagan about using this day to tell the story of Jesus birth. Since I teach Earth Science I have learned that very few, if any of my students know that December 25th is the first day you can see the sun rise with your eyes. They all know about Christmas, they all know about Jesus birth, they all know about the wise men and the star. Yet none of them know about the winter solstice. They have not been celebrating a pagan holiday, they have been celebrating Jesus incarnation. |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 04:34 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
You know some of the denominations are those that celebrate Christmas and Easter but ignore the biblical commands of the Lord. For example they will never fail to observe Christmas and Easter but they do not observe the sacraments of baptism and Communion. This is clear proof they have degraded into paganizing ways, away from Christ and the bible. |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 04:25 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If not, why not? |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 04:19 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
That's true it has some benefits. |
|||||
| 09-19-2016 02:11 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Christmas is an opportunity to preach the gospel about Jesus incarnation to unbelievers. |
|||||
| 09-18-2016 11:46 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The concept of deification as Lee explained it, is not pagan. Christmas on the other hand, involves many actual pagan things such as decorated trees, yule logs, spiced drinks etc. |
|||||
| 09-18-2016 04:48 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Yes, according to Christian tradition the word is used. But Witness Lee condemns this Christian tradition. He says that this tradition concerning Christology has divided the Body of Christ. He says that we can never be reconciled with Christian tradition because of this damage to the oneness. So then, once again he condemns himself with his own words. Quote:
Quote:
I have provided the references for each quote and I have presented them in a different color so there would be no mistake. Stop saying that I am the one who is suggesting the sinister reason, it is not me, it is Lee. Stop saying that i am the one who is arguing semantics, it is not me, it is Lee. Stop saying that I am the one saying that the word can never be used in the Christian sense, again that is Lee. My point, which you have repeatedly ignored is that Witness Lee is a hypocrite. He has been caught condemning the very things he approves. He is a deceitful worker. |
|||||
| 09-17-2016 09:02 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer If you read the full context you can see that he is saying there is a pagan sense of the word and a Christian sense of the word. He is not saying that the word itself can never be used in a Christian sense, as it has for centuries, as testallthings has rightly pointed out. Lee defined and explained the real meaning of his view, and it is not heretical. You are just arguing semantics without understanding the context, in the hope of discrediting the teaching. Why he used the word deification? It may not be a sinister reason as you suggest. He may not have liked the word theosis or alterantives as that is the Catholic version. But deification truly is an acceptable synonym for the benign. |
|||||
| 09-17-2016 04:52 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
From what I can gather "God became man that man may become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." is the complete summation of Witness Lee's teaching on Deification. Now he taught this through his entire ministry. He supported it with the all of the same verses. The only difference between his "deification" doctrine and his earlier teaching that I can see is that he warned that the term "deification" is associated with pagan religion, and the cult of worshipping man. "Perhaps what comes to mind most commonly when people hear the term deification is the practice among the ancient pagan religions of elevating mere men to the status of gods. Historically, this became most prominent in the Roman Empire, where reverence for the Caesars as gods united the multi-national and multi-religious empire." (The Truth Concerning the Ultimate Goal of God's Economy, Chapter 1, Section 9). So then, what is the difference between the "high peak revelation" that we will be "deified" which he taught during the training of Job and onwards, and his earlier ministry where he warned about not using the word as it was blasphemous? The only difference I can see is the word. What used to be referred to as "sanctification" and "transformation" and "perfecting" and "maturing in life" is now being referred to as "deification" and "being deified". Am I missing something or is the sum total of the "high peak revelation" the terms "deification" and "deified", two admittedly pagan terms that refer to the Roman Caesars now refer to Witness Lee? Witness Lee said that "pagan indicates something demonic, devilish, and idolatrous." (Life Study of Exodus, Chapter 74, Section 3). So beginning in 1994 it was now a "high peak" to teach that a "demonic, devilish, and idolatrous" term applies to Christians? Concerning the church in Thyatira Witness Lee said "In using the name Jezebel, the Lord was reminding us of what Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, did: she came from a heathen background and brought pagan things into the worship of God by His people. This is the crucial and most central point in the epistle to Thyatira. The principle of the deeds of the apostate church is to mix the heathen, pagan things with the worship of God by His people." (Life Study of Revelation, Chapter 13, section 2). How is using the term "deification" not a mixing of pagan things with the worship of God? "The church should be different. As the unique place chosen by God, the church should have no division. This means that the church should not follow the customs of the nations or the pagan practices of human society. Nevertheless, from the time of the second century, the church has been divided over such things as opinions concerning the Person of Christ. The different schools of Christology, the study of the Person of Christ, became "mountains" and "hills." Thus, the church was divided not mainly by evil things, but mainly by good things, even by opinions about Christ." (The Genuine Ground of Oneness, Chapter 5, Section 1). So here the early church teaching on "deification" is referred to by Witness Lee as a pagan practice, an opinion concerning Christology, that divided the church. His teaching on deification is hypocrisy. "One of our critics has said that the origin of Christmas is not pagan. He even denied the fact that the Christmas tree is pagan. The Christmas tree is pagan, evil, and idolatrous. There can be no reconciliation between the Lord's living testimony and the traditional church. We are opposed because we, as the disciples following the Lord today, would not keep such traditions." (Life study of Matthew, Chapter 45, Section 1). So then, would you say that Witness Lee's teaching on "deification" is his attempt to reconcile the Lord's Recovery Movement with the traditional church? Does the Christmas tree have a "true sense" or not? According to Witness Lee it is pagan, evil and idolatrous. According to a billion other people it can be used in different ways and does not have a true sense. Wow, this mumbo jumbo about true sense is so confusing. Lev 20:6And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. 7Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God. A wizard is a “man with magical powers”, a “deified man”. Imagine you teach something that you know can be misinterpreted as blasphemy and idolatry, you use pagan words with “no true sense” to them. The definition is very clearly pagan and idolatrous. The history of the word is clearly pagan and idolatrous. How do we describe a person like that? The serpent was crafty. That means he was clever, cunning, and subtle. He was pretending to be what he was not in order to deceive Eve. We need to beware of anything that is crafty. We should be cautious of anyone who is clever, for it is easy for clever people to be taken over by the serpent. (Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 18, Section 3) Imagine the hypocrisy that you teach others to “beware of anything crafty” yet you yourself are very crafty in your use of words “without a true sense” that you know and have stated clearly could be misunderstood and could be blasphemous. The Corinthians thought that the Judaizers were wonderful and that they did an excellent work in helping the Corinthians. Actually, the Judaizers did exactly the same work as Satan. They transfigured themselves as ministers of righteousness, into apostles of Christ. Therefore, Paul uses four terms to describe them: false apostles, deceitful workers, super-apostles, and ministers of Satan. (Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 52, Section 2) A false apostle is one who fabricates stories in order to make merchandise of the saints. For example saying that Watchman Nee was excommunicated because his mother was living with him when in fact it was his mistress. A deceitful worker uses crafty words, like words that have “no true sense”. They know that pagan practices like deification are evil and demonic, they know that mixing these pagan practices with the worship of God is what Jezebel did and is condemned by the Bible, but they also do it. What is a “super apostle”? It is a “Minister of the Age”. So then, what is a minister of Satan? These are ones that have given themselves, pledged themselves to serve someone other than Jesus. Someone who is crafty, a false apostle, a deceitful worker. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 05:46 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=556753 |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 05:43 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The orthodox church use of the word essence means God's person. Lee's use of the word essence means something which comes from God's nature (see "GOD’S NATURE BEING DISPENSED INTO US FOR OUR LIVING IN SPIRIT, LOVE, AND LIGHT"): When love as the nature of God’s essence is dispensed into us, we shall react to others in love. "Then through these promises, we can partake of God’s nature and enjoy God’s essence which is love". So Lee does not believe that we participate in God's essence in the same sense as the Orthodox use the word essence. Rather, it is the nature of that essence, God's love, that is infused into us. So we can't really claim that Lee's is not the orthodox view because, well, no one really knows what the orthodox view is, and it's more complicated than you describe. It is as complex as the Trinity, and has not been as well defined or agreed upon between the two major denominations of Catholic and Orthodox. The Orthodox church divides God into an essence and energies, in which humans can participate in the energies but not in the essence. Now if essence means nature (which it can) and if someone would say we can participate in God's essence/nature, then this would be heretical. However the Catholic church rejects this, saying that God cannot be divided in this way. Their view is a life long process of katharsis ( purification or removal of sin), theoria (illumination), and theosis (deification or union with God). Now Protestants tend to stress katharsis and may call it sanctification, but they miss the other stages particularly theosis. Protestants generally fail to realize that God not only wants to purify us but also have intimate union with us. As the article you presented shows, In order not to fall into pantheism, they do not speak at all about deification (gr. theosis). What then, according to them, remains as the purpose of man's life? Simply moral improvement. In other words, since man cannot be deified by means of divine Grace, the divine energies, what purpose does his life have? Only that he becomes morally better. But moral perfection is not enough for man. It is not enough for us simply to become better than before, to perform moral deeds. We have as our final aim to unite with holy God Himself. This is the purpose of the creation of the universe. This is what we desire. This is our joy, our happiness, and our fulfillment. This sounds very much like what Lee would teach, that salvation is not the goal, the goal is God Himself. The website you quoted makes an interesting and somewhat strange read! I was surprised to read that Orthodox consider God's love towards man to be EROS love whereas we would normally consider it to be AGAPE love. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 09:16 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Here is an example of what others teach: So, we unite with God through His uncreated energies, and not through His essence. This is the mystery of our Orthodox faith and life. http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_how.html WL taught that we can become God in life and nature. Nature means essence. Going back to Acts 14 again, Paul explicitly spoke against that saying: We also are men with the same nature as you... It seems clear that what others teach, particularly views which have been held by the Orthodox Church are not the same as what WL taught. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 07:26 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
And yes, Logos was a term used by the Greeks, but once the Apostle uses it you can use his definition and you are still within the fellowship of the apostles. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 06:41 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Logos is another “pagan” term that has entered the N. T. , and maybe the list can continue... An alternative for the word deification seems to be Christification. I was not aware of this term. Maybe this is a viable term. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justand...ristification/ |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 05:03 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
So then you agree with me that he chose a word which could be misinterpreted and he used it, not in its true sense. So I think I am almost clear. But what do we call that when a person uses a word, not in its true sense, a word that is likely to be misinterpreted? Tell me what we call that person and then I can answer your question. PS -- I have responded to Tesltallthings post. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:58 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
1. We do have words that are not in the NT -- Trinity, Triune are two that come immediately to mind. So yes, using a non NT word is not in and of itself a forbidden practice by the NT nor is that in and of itself proof that you are going beyond the teachings of the apostle. That said, look at how much debate there is on these terms with regards to tritheism, monotheism, heresy, etc. These words have been created, in part, to explain a mystery which the apostles do not explain. Trying to explain this mystery is a temptation that will lead you to heresy. In my personal opinion I do not like the term "trinity" but do like the term "triune". I find that those who refer to the "Trinity" will often appear to be referring to three Gods, which is clearly a heresy. But here is the difference with the word "deification". The word "Triune" is unique to Christians, just as the word "Christian" is. The definition is essentially a reference to the NT mystery. The word "trinity" is not unique to Christians and therefore has the potential for misunderstanding. The word "deification" is pagan. It is a term that is used to describe pagan worship. To adopt this term for a Christian doctrine would be similar to using Buddhist terminology for a Christian doctrine. That is the first major error. You have chosen a term that will certainly cause believers to stumble. The second major issue with this word is that their definition is the equivalent definition for a unique Biblical term -- sanctification. Why do they not use sanctification? What is the reason? Sanctification comes with the emphasis on holiness, another unique Biblical term. Deification ignores all that and focuses on becoming God. Witness Lee wants to change the focus of sanctification from holiness to "becoming God". The word "holiness" exposes his profligate ways, whereas "becoming God" was his modus operandi. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:48 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If he didn't, then he was not teaching deification, but merely used a word which could be misinterpreted. However in actuality deification does have two meanings, as testallthings has rightly pointed out. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:44 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
His books never told them to shout his name I'm sure, because there is nothing of the sort in his books. We cannot know what to trust they could have been part of the communist propaganda. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:42 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
If that is what you are saying it seems to me that you are equating the teaching of deification with the teaching of worship of men. Which is what I have been saying the entire time. So then, we are coming to an agreement. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:37 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Things like this just don't happen to guys like you and me. It was Lees's own books in China which started that movement. |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 04:10 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-16-2016 02:48 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Let me say it again (explicitly, now) that personally I have no problem with the word deification. I don't believe we can accept a doctrine by referring to a dictionary (maybe a good theological dictionary or a good volume on systematic theology, or... yes). If that is the case we should get rid of many other terms like Trinity, for example. Every community of people has a personal, special language. Think about doctors, engineers, chemists, and so on. A special term is understood by their group without the need to explain every time what it means. Many church fathers believed and taught deification. Even the reformers had this doctrine. In a 1526 sermon Luther said: "God pours out Christ His dear Son over us and pours Himself into us and draws us into Himself, so that He becomes completely humanified (vemzenschet) and we become completely deified (gantz und gar vergottet, "Godded-through") and everything is altogether one thing, God, Christ, and you."' "Deification" is part the church's traditional vocabulary... http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/marq...andtheosis.pdf Personally I never told anyone, and I will continue to tell no one, that God became man to make man God/god in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Many people like to drink coffee but some cannot take in caffeine. Knowing that I prepare a decaf coffee for my friend. Alarmed he says that he cannot drink coffee, because coffee contains caffeine. I tell him that his coffee does not contain caffeine. He replies that coffee is coffee. I repeat that his coffee is decaf. He …. Then I'll serve him orange juice! (sorry for this bad example, there is not such a thing as 100% decaf coffee. And I am sorry too to bring in this serious discussion such a low example. You can justly scorn me.) |
|||||
| 09-16-2016 01:35 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Have you been to China recently? Ever observe or read about the Lord Changhou(sp) cult? |
|||||
| 09-15-2016 08:05 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Athanasius was the one who said man can become God, and he was largely responsible for defending the faith from heresies (see the Athanasian creed). So there's nothing wrong with saying that. Lee's understanding of deification then is no more than the orthodox view of theosis. It is also my observation that no one in the local churches worships Lee. |
|||||
| 09-15-2016 07:41 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Your constant reference to whether or not WL taught anyone to worship man is a bit of a red herring. God is synonymous with worship. We worship God. God and worship are inseparable. For WL to say that we can become God, implies he believed in the acceptability of man-worship. There is no way around that. I understood that he spoke against it, but such a disclaimer is negated by the fact that he taught deification. If WL didn’t want to deal with the worship issue, then he shouldn’t have taught deification. It’s that simple. Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-15-2016 06:26 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
So maybe someone can quote Witness Lee saying we should be worshiped. That is the only real proof that he taught deification. |
|||||
| 09-15-2016 04:55 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Are you saying that every time that Witness Lee did teach that the believers are being deified he didn't mean deified? Are you saying that when Kerry Robicheaux defended this teaching saying that "deification" is an orthodox teaching, that Witness Lee is aligned with Athanasius, that Witness Lee was not teaching deification? |
|||||
| 09-15-2016 12:15 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Evangelical, using Acts 14:11 said that, The NT shows that people considered Paul to be a god to be worshiped (see Acts 14:14) because Paul had God-like qualities. My point in quoting from Rom 1:18~25 was to show that those pagans had a corrupted knowledge about God, that's why they tried to worship creatures and not God the Creator. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 11:57 PM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
 Thanks anyway. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 11:03 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Sorry if that was not clear enough. My fault. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 06:11 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Well if you or anyone can quote Lee as saying we should or could worship him, please post it. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 06:08 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 06:01 PM | ||||||
| least |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Can you explain what you are trying to say in the above post? Thank you. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 05:15 PM | ||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Hey least, Please make sure you are signed in under your UserName so that all your posts appear with your UserName at the top right. Don't you want to get credit for all those great posts?  - |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 05:10 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The only thing that you can debate is what the word means. But you don't use a dictionary, you use WL's own special definition. I am not slandering him. I have quoted him completely, thoroughly and with context. I have made it clear that he always has his caveat there. My point is simple. 1. Using this word is forbidden by the Bible. (A point that WL made in 1984). 2. Using this word is to "go beyond what the apostle's taught" and manifests that WL is not of the apostle's fellowship. 3. Trying to use a highly provocative word by creating your own special ("limited") definition is deceitful, subject to strict judgement, and typical of a false prophet. These points are not "straws". They completely discredit his ministry from the point he began to teach this and they expose his modus operandi. What you probably don't understand is that I am not interested in debating if a particular ministry is scriptural or not. To me that is not profitable. My only concern is if Witness Lee is a false prophet or not, that is important. 1. The key indicator of a false prophet is that the ministry will be built on a fabricated story designed to make merchandise of the saints (according to Peter). When I realized that Witness Lee had fabricated the story about Watchman Nee's discipline in Shanghai I became alarmed. I realized his motivation was his own ministry as the "closest coworker of Watchman Nee" wouldn't mean anything if Watchman Nee's legacy was adultery. You have trivialized very key issues of Witness Lee making merchandise of the saints. 2. According to the Gospels you know a tree by its fruit. This is obviously the most important criteria for Igzy as he refers to the fruit of Witness Lee's ministry frequently. The fruit is abhorrent. 3. You trivialize 419 elders being forced to sign a "loyalty pledge" as not being sin. Christians were willing to die in the Colosseum rather than sign a similar pledge to the "deified" Cesar. The term "666" is known by all as being the sign of the AntiChrist but indicates a kind of "loyalty pledge" to him. Hitler used this tactic on the German Army. This is clearly offensive, it is an insult to Jesus authority, and in my opinion is what Paul means when he talks of "another Jesus". 4. Any reasonable and objective reading of the Bible would realize that "the ground of the church" doctrine is nothing but a sham attempt to create a monopoly for Witness Lee's ministry. It is the establishment of a "damnable heresy" for the express purpose of making merchandise of the saints. Any objective reading of Witness Lee would realize he never had any legitimate concern for the oneness of any believers that did not accept him as "the apostle". His doctrine is nothing but a deceitful way to say that only churches that he establishes and submits to his authority are legitimate, condemning the other 99.9% of Christians as wrong. The Pride and arrogance are truly astounding. 5. The MOTA doctrine is certainly the most utterly offensive. To use Moses word about there being another minister, like unto him and then to build this doctrine with OT types of Jesus is despicable. He takes types of Jesus Christ, and applies them to Watchman Nee. This is outrageously offensive. This is precisely what Paul meant when he talked of "preaching another Jesus". My interest in understanding Witness Lee is because he gives me tremendous insight into Balaam and Jezebel. The Sister's rebellion, and numerous other rebellions, excommunications, etc have helped me understand Jezebel's use of slander to steal vineyards. Being in NYC has given me a very close view of this as this is what he did with the congregation here. Also, my close association with Kerry R., Ed M., Ray G., and Benson P. has helped me understand the whole compassing the entire world to find a disciple and make them twofold a son of Gehenna. When I look back on the entire experience I realize that the one thing that would have been a huge safeguard, the one thing that would have prevented any false prophet from deceiving me or a congregation, would have been to embrace James word that pure religion is to visit orphans and widows in their trouble. Not as some kind of "good works" program, but as someone who through faith is obedient to the Lord's word to "love your neighbor as yourself". When a church embraces this there is no way for a false prophet to "make merchandise of them". Instead of Witness Lee's legal defense team, and anti charitable works campaign, you would have a group of Christians, receiving the Spirit by faith, expressing Jesus in their life, and being doers of the word. As someone who served in Living Stream Ministry from 1980 to 1995 in various capacities I saw first hand that the goal of the ministry was to make the saints hearers of the word only. The New Way was designed to create a new market for the ministry. Any pocket of success was leveraged for book sales, which in turn salted the field and wiped out the fruit. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 05:04 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It is mind boggling. I can see that you also are trying to connect his dots, but what a gordian knot this is! |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 04:52 PM | ||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Only worship HIM (WL). (My word from my observation). Sorry for mixing the two sentences, to read as if WL said 'only worship him'. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 04:19 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 03:34 PM | ||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 03:29 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Paul fled to the cities of the Lycaonians, where he miraculously healed a lame man. Seeing the miracle of a real apostle, the pagan Lycaonians thought that the gods had visited, and the city priest of Zeus wanted to sacrifice animals to them. Hearing what they were doing, Paul rushed on the scene proclaiming, "we are just men like all'ya'all." Evangelical said this was "an example of a person being deified as in god-like but not to be worshiped as god." To which I thought, "Huh?" And then wrote "then only a few Lycaonian pagans are willing to accept this teaching?" To which you replied that the event is "an example of the "Limited definition" of deification." To which I concluded that for Evangelical to use this event as an example of "Deification Lite," then probably Lee should also have the experience of signs and wonders in causing the lame man to walk. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 02:39 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
. In order to slander and discredit Lee and his ministry, you are clutching at straws to prove he taught deification just because he used that word, when he explicitly taught many times we are not to be worshiped.
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 01:21 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 01:20 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 11:39 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Or perhaps Witness Lee was supposed to prove his modern day apostleship by telling some lame man "to stand on his feet." |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 07:03 AM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer BLESSED BE THE CREATOR FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN Quote:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. BLESSED BE THE CREATOR FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 06:39 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Like Paul Witness Lee never taught that we should be worshiped. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 06:00 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-14-2016 05:47 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer It's an example of a person being deified as in god-like but not to be worshiped as god. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 04:21 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Acts 14:11 And when the multitude saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. 12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Jupiter whose temple was before the city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the multitudes. 14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: The record in Acts and of the Apostles makes it very clear that this action by the pagan worshippers was horrifying to Paul and Barnabas and they did everything in their power to put a stop to it. You are correct in referencing this as an example of the doctrine of "deification" in the NT. But is your reference in support of the fact that this is blasphemy? That was not clear. |
|||||
| 09-14-2016 04:17 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Clearly Witness Lee's teaching changed from 1984 to 1994. By 1994 he had embraced the word "deification" as a "high peak truth". So I would imagine they went back and made changes to the electronic version, eliminating the "we should replace the word deification with a more suitable term". I agree with this and have said that "Sanctification" is the more suitable term. |
|||||
| 09-13-2016 11:30 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-13-2016 07:35 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Think for example about the word flesh and all its negative connotations. Nevertheless, John and Paul do not shy away in using it. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. But Paul was careful to specify what kind of flesh was that. The word lion is used to “describe” Satan and the Lord Jesus. The word thief comes to my mind. Rev 16:15 (Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.) The Lord didn't say He was a thief, but that He will come as a thief. Words can be extremely negative in their connotation and yet with some caveat (as you said) they can be used. I did my little search on the word deification. This is what Lee said in the printed LS message, “Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the “deification” of the believers in Christ. I would advise against the use of such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But it is correct to say that the believers are deified in the sense of possessing the divine life and the divine nature. If at all possible, we should replace the word deification with a more suitable term to convey the fact that we have been born of God to become sons of God.” [emphasis added] Witness Lee, Life-Study of Galatian, page 175, first edition May 1984 Living Stream Ministry This part is different from the electronic text on the LSM website (why the difference? I don't know). From what I read, it is clear that he didn't like the term, either. Did he look for an alternative? Maybe. Did he find a more suitable term? No. Would you say that all who believe deification are false prophets? |
|||||
| 09-13-2016 04:15 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Yet the definition of the word "deification" means the process of deifying an object or person. So he is teaching that we are going through the process of "deification" yet it doesn't mean deification. The argument put forth by Evangelical and Kerry Robicheaux and Witness Lee to defend this is that he is using a "limited definition" of the term deification. Yet when you look at credible dictionaries there is no such "limited definition". So then, why does he use a word that means "to make a person an object of worship" and which does not have another definition, and then say this isn't his intended definition? This is just deceitful. He could easily use the term "sanctification" which is the process by which we are made holy. Holiness refers to God's divine nature. Therefore, if your "limited" definition of deification is that we have God's nature but not his position, the correct term is sanctification. This is also the term used by the NT apostles and is within the "fellowship of the apostles". All Christian ministers should limit themselves by the fellowship of the apostles. The response that I have read from Evangelical, Kerry and Witness Lee is essentially that "this is how we have defined the term, if you don't like it, tough luck". This attitude is a very cavalier attitude towards the potential for stumbling new believers, something that is severely rebuked by the Lord Jesus in Matt 18, and coincidentally an abusive attitude that is typical of false prophets. So then, what is the harm? It is very clear in the Lord's Recovery practice that they view a "degree of sanctification" or a "degree of perfecting" or in this case a "degree of deification". We see this in Evangelical's use of the term "2nd class apostle" for James. It is the basis for "having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons" which James tells us not to do, and it results in "partiality", a heinous evil which taken to its logical extreme was seen in Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow south. |
|||||
| 09-12-2016 08:42 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-12-2016 07:33 PM | ||||||
| testallthings |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
would you please clarify why at the beginning of your post you conceded that Lee "Every time he uses the term he makes it clear he is not teaching about believers becoming an object of worship", but at the end you seems to disagree with what you said earlier, "To say that believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But then he does say that believers need to be deified, and the definition of deified is to become an object of worship." Thanks |
|||||
| 09-12-2016 06:27 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
M.E. Barber apparently resurrected "perfection by abuse" and, after a period of trial in the 1940's, Nee learned to follow Darby in the way of subjecting all others to himself. Obviously Lee watched carefully and continued the terrible pattern. |
|||||
| 09-12-2016 12:30 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
2. And what of John the beloved disciple? Was he subservient to Paul, later to rise to primacy when Paul passed on? I daresay John would never subject to Paul, or any other, and find no basis for this kind of thought. 3. Any cursory reading of Christian history will show fatal flaws in the MOTA template. Was Wesley subject to Edwards, or both of them to Whitefield? No, the right hand of fellowship was sufficient. Nee had an oriental bias, and a clear disposition to be first - notice that he maneuvered the SCA away from his previously senior fellows like Leland Wang, after leaving Margaret Barber's tutelage. With this kind of disposition (i.e. Lee's "natural concepts") Nee read too hopefully into OT types, which had little if any bearing in the NT age; and in fact were arguably contravened by the clear NT word: "be subject to one another" and "whom would be great, be least of all" etc etc. 4. By definition, Jesus alone has the Ministry of the Age, and revelation of and faith in Jesus Christ forms the sole basis or ground of the 'ekklesia', in any form, and it is Jesus alone who is the One who walks before the throne, ministering among the seven golden lampstands. There is simply no other name for us. There is no other faith, no other Spirit, no other gospel. None. |
|||||
| 09-12-2016 12:11 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I think that's a clear indication the LCM are not about local churches, but about ministry churches. Even the high school the ground taking meeting was held in, has been in existence since 1911. What can be held as true, when a church calls itself the church in Renton, it's just a name....even for those who claim, "we don't take a name". |
|||||
| 09-12-2016 09:48 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-11-2016 05:02 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I think it is a mistake to create a "black and white" doctrinal truth that is based on a typology. Instead, if the teaching was based on the New Testament word that "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" he could then explain what does it mean to be "one spirit" and use Leviticus as a type. The teaching would be about being "one spirit" which is not heretical and at the worst he would misapply a type. Why not take this approach? Because it doesn't separate him from the pack, it doesn't make a clear distinction between him and all other Bible teachers. First and foremost he was a salesman selling his ministry as the "unique" ministry. His use of "mingling" distinguished him and was used by him to promote his ministry. He makes this same mistake with the "Ground of the church" doctrine. The teaching should have begun, at its core, with a New Testament, black and white teaching, like the 7 ones in Ephesians 4. What does it mean that all Christians have one Lord? It means that our gathering is built upon one ground, just like the temple in the OT. This is why, in any given city we only see one church, because all the believers in that city only have one Lord. That is what makes us one. He makes the same mistake with the "Minister of the Age" doctrine. The kernel of this teaching is Moses word that there will be a minister like him. This is then further supported by a thorough review of the OT (still more typology). There is no black and white New Testament teaching to support this, only the assertion (which in my mind is very flimsy) that at one point Peter was the leading apostle (I am unable to see this, James clearly was, but I never see that Peter was) and then later Paul was (why, because Paul rebukes Peter? That is absurd, Peter was rebuked for being subservient to James, so the teaching is that Peter was supposed to be subservient to Paul instead?). Once again, Witness Lee has built a teaching with a typology at its kernel, a teaching that is not taught in the New Testament. Why? Because Jesus is the minister that is like Moses, not Watchman Nee. Witness Lee's teaching is akin to teaching another Jesus. But what does this show us? A false teacher will use the OT typology to misapply types that should apply to Jesus to themselves. This is the most deceptive approach that will work on many, many groups who are relatively ignorant of the Bible. So the false prophet will have an "Old Testament flavor" and the result will be that the Christians who wander after them will become "tribes in the dispersion". Mingling -- straight from Leviticus, MOTA -- straight from Deuteronomy, Ground of the Church -- straight from the books of Moses. |
|||||
| 09-11-2016 02:55 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer "mingling" is another classic case of Lee using one word that often means something heretical but explains that his use of the term is not in the heretical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_...rsies#Mingling Witness Lee’s view of God’s organic salvation is related to his understanding of Christology, specifically, the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ. Witness Lee cited the example of the meal offering in Leviticus which is composed of oil mingled with fine flour (Lev. 2:5), a type that other Bible teachers, including the Plymouth Brethren, also understood to refer to the dual nature of Christ, that is, His divinity and His humanity.[125][126][127] Lee explained his use of the word mingling as follows: But in Him both the divine essence and the human essence remain and are distinguishable. These essences are mingled in Him as one person without the producing of a third nature. As the God-man He possesses two natures, and in Him each nature is distinguishable.[128] Critics claimed that mingling of necessity involved the producing of a third nature, which is known in history as the Eutychian heresy.[129] However, Witness Lee stated that his use of the term mingle was consistent with dictionary definitions (e.g., “to bring or combine together or with something else so that the components remain distinguishable in the combination”[130]). He also pointed out that the Eutychian heresy was rejected at the Council of Chalcedon.[131][132] More recent articles in A&C have addressed this controversy Lee's appeal to the dictionary definition is insufficient, as the dictionary definition of mingle is to "mix or blend" in many dictionary versions. The Eutychian heresy is about God and man being confused or mixed together to produce a third substance. This is addressed in Athanasian creed by: "Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person." Does Lee believe in the Eutychian heresy? Well no, he is careful to say that a third substance is not produced, anytime he explains mingling: "We need to be very clear, however, that the mingling of tea and water does not produce a third substance" - Life Study of 2 Corinthians. However his use of the flour-oil or the tea-water analogy cannot lead to a anything else but a third substance. Mixture of flour and oil produces a third substance called dough, mixture of tea and water produces a third substance called tea. The way we can know whether some process results in a third substance or not, is if the two substances can be separated again. It is impossible to separate dough back to flour and oil, and it is impossible to do the same with a cup of tea. So clearly, Lee's analogies and use of the word mingle are heretical, but his belief that a third substance is not produced, is not heretical. Why does Lee appeal to obscure analogies supposedly borrowed from the Plymouth Brethren? Who knows, but there is no need for it as the Bible already adequately explains the union between God and man, as have the early church fathers. The biblical analogy for God's union with man is marriage (1 Cor 6:16-17). To marry something means to join it together with something else. Rather than use the biblical analogy of marriage to describe how God and man are joined together as one, Lee prefers to use the flour-oil analogy which is heretical if applied to how God and man are joined together. The biblical analogy of marriage can describe the objective aspects of the union but does not quite describe the subjective aspects. To try and explain the subjective aspects, another appropriate analogy is iron and fire which was used by some early church fathers: The Example of the Union of Iron and Fire: St., Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man". In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. THE NATURE OF CHRIST By: H.H. Pope Shenouda III, 1999. The analogy of iron and fire is ideal for describing God's subjective union with man, because it describes the union of two substances without those substances being changed into a third substance, and importantly the fire (God) imparting some change into the iron (to be heated until the iron is glowing with light), but the iron cannot affect the fire. That is, when God joins man, God imparts something which changes man, but man cannot change God and nothing from man is imparted into God. In this sense, when man is joined with God, he is permeated with God's life and nature, as iron is permeated with heat in the flame, yet the fire does not change the iron into something else. If the fire is taken away, the iron becomes cold, and remains the same as it was before. That is, the iron and the fire can be separated again into two distinct and unchanged substances. Because it is impossible to change dough into flour and oil again, or tea back into tea leaves and water, both of these analogies are inadequate and in fact heretical to describe man's union with God. So what is a better understanding of the significance of the flour mixed with oil grain offering in Leviticus 2:5? As an offering it is symbolic of Christ's sacrifice on the cross being acceptable to God. The fine flour is symbolic of Christ's humanity who as the "wheat" (wheat signifies Christ or His believers, Matt 3:12) was "pounded" to dust by the cross, and the oil signifies the Holy Spirit. The flour and oil mingled together creates unleavened bread which presents a pleasant aroma to God. Christ often refers to himself as unleavened break (John 6:35) and of course it is the chief symbol in communion representing Christ's body. In other words, Leviticus 2:5 is meant to signify Christ as a "grain offering" to God which satisfies Him. The two items of significance are the flour/wheat and the oil. There is nothing particularly symbolic about the mingling aspect other than it being a necessary process to produce bread. It is not meant to explain how God and man are joined together, for that we have the symbol of marriage. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 11:52 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-10-2016 11:50 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-10-2016 09:49 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Because of the unfamiliar language that WL chose to use, the items that he defined as his "high peak" deserve precise definitions. As an example, one thing that WL taught is that believers need to become "divine and mystical persons". What does this mean? I remember being in a meeting where we were told that to be divine and mystical is to be a normal Christian. If so, then why in the world use such a peculiar phrase? Is it for shock value? If nothing else, it seems indicative that certain words and phrases used by Lee might have double meanings. This is the problem that I have with his "high peak". |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 08:31 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
However, a verse in the New Testament really helped me which is "No temptation [regardless of its source] has overtaken or enticed you that is not common to human experience [nor is any temptation unusual or beyond human resistance]; but God is faithful [to His word—He is compassionate and trustworthy], and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability [to resist], but along with the temptation He [has in the past and is now and] will [always] provide the way out as well, so that you will be able to endure it [without yielding, and will overcome temptation with joy]". (1Cor 10:13 Amplified version) It occurred to me that things like Witness Lee, LRC, LSM, etc, these are not some new and strange temptation. I felt that if this is so, then surely the apostles should have given us a word to help us deal with this. Every book in the Bible has a purpose, just like every part in a car has a purpose. Which part of a car is "2nd degree" and which part is "1st"? You might think that the jack in the trunk is not as important as the engine, until of course, you need the jack. Now I see that James did in fact fall prey to this judaizer doctrine, they were like a case of the flu that the church suffered. After repenting James had a burden to help (heal) all those affected (sick). What happened to the early church is not much different from what happens with any cult or with any false prophet. So the vision that James has is very similar to the vision anyone would need to "lay hands on the sick" or to "turn back those who wander from the truth". To me it is the "perfect gift of God" just as much as penicillin. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 06:24 AM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
...But what I've seen is there is very little talk or concern about what a transformed person actually looks and acts like. The LCM focuses on the process and assumes if they have the process then whatever results happen from that are transformation. So if the "transformation" you get is being more for Lee's doctrines, more staunch for the LCM, more opposed to the rest of Christianity, it is never questioned whether that's really what it means to be more like Christ. But the Bible clearly tells us what the fruit of the Spirit looks like. It looks like 1 Cor 13. It looks like Galatians 5:22-23. It looks like the way Jesus went out among the most undesirable people and loved and served them. It looks like humility, care and genuine selflessness. It looks like love. The problem I have with the LCM is so much of their behavior does not look like this. Their behavior looks a lot more like pride, aloofness and rejection of those they think are undesirable. They often come across more like Pharisees than Christians. I'm not saying they are all bad, but their testimony makes me less impressed with all this being caught up in "God's economy," seeing so little evidence of transformation among them. Ironically, in all the LCM brothers I know, I don't see that "God's economy" has resulted in much transformation. The transformation I see in each of them seems to have come about "the old-fashioned way," by going through trials, praying desperately to God and learning something unexpected about trust in God and humility in the experience. Sorry, I'm not much impressed with the results of the so-called "economy of God." Not in myself or anyone else. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 05:25 AM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer One of the LCM's early WOW! moments was the a conference in the 60s or 70s where Lee began the teach on Revelation 1:4, where it mentions "the seven Spirits." Lee began to talk about the "sevenfold intensified Spirit for the completions of the age." He sold this as one of his most unique revelations, and evidence of his special ministry. Then one day I was looking at the Amplified Bible, and right there in Revelation 1:4 was the following: So Lee probably pulled "the sevenfold Spirit" right out of the Amplified Version. A footnote in the AV attributed the idea to a "Richard of St. Victor," who lived in the 12th century. So the Amplified Bible knew about the sevenfold Spirit long before Lee did. But we believed this was an on-the-spot direct revelation of God in that conference. Lee never gave credit to either the AV nor Richard of St. Victor. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 05:05 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
But the other 5%, the "mingling", "ground of the church", and "MOTA". These were his, if you told him they were heretical and violated the apostle's teaching it wasn't a small fix, adjust 2-3%, it was to condemn his entire ministry. So he had no choice but to attack those that raised these issues. Although he didn't call them out by name in the meeting, those in the know knew. His other option was to twist and contort the teachings -- deification becomes "limited deification" which is deification without deify. Mingling is supported by some obscure verse in Leviticus that doesn't confuse the two entities. This is the problem with being a fraud. This is why I have determined he was a false prophet. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 03:38 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I found a good explanation of the orthodox definition of "mingling" or divinization in post #63 in http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...8571#post48571 There are actually two possible heresies here. One is about the confusion, and the other is about the confused things becoming a third thing. Lee tries to justify himself by saying: "Nevertheless, the oil and the flour are mingled together to produce one entity. But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour". "the oil and the flour are mingled together" - this is the first heresy, which Lee does not attempt to justify. Possibly he is unaware that this is a heresy. "But this entity is not a third nature, something that is neither oil nor flour" - he doesn't believe in this second heresy. He is probably aware of this and tries to make clear he does not believe this. The Athanasian Creed states "One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.". Lee believes in confusion of substance, and that is the problem. He believes in unity of person by confusion of substance. Even though he does not believe that a third entity is produced, his view of the relationship as a confusion is a problem. Lee's idea of oneness is God and man being confused together into one thing. The correct idea is God and man being joined together. What is the problem with saying God and man are confused together? The problem is that it means God and man cannot be separated, and that God and man cannot easily be distinguished. This precludes his belief in eternal security. I personally believe Lee held to this example of flour and oil mixing together, in order to justify or support his belief in eternal security. With language, one example of bad language choice would be to equate deification with sonization. Sometimes he replaces the word deification with sonization, which isn't even a word. The high peak revelation is more about all these things put together as "God's economy". God's economy involves salvation, mingling, "sonization"/deification, and then finally the corporate aspect of that, the New Jerusalem. Possibly, he is the first to tie all of these things together under one umbrella term "God's economy" or "God's plan". But, he is not the first to see each of these matters individually. All of these matters can easily be explained using normal terms that most Christians are familiar with: mingling = prayer and bible reading sonization = renewing of the mind/sanctification/transformation, the flesh/old man being crucified etc. |
|||||
| 09-10-2016 03:07 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer My concern about Witness Lee is not just the specific errors of this particular doctrine, which you do a nice job on identifying. My concern is the errors in his process as a Bible teacher that led to all this. 1. "His use of the English language is terrible, imprecise and bound to be misinterpreted." It is reasonable to give him a pass here since English is not his first language, but you would be completely wrong. I was involved behind the scenes with the editing process involved in his written ministry. I never quote his spoken ministry, I only quote his written ministry which has gone through an extensive multi phase editorial process. His messages go through numerous edits by several editors, people who have been vetted based on their precise use of the English language. The reason his language use is terrible, imprecise and bound to misinterpreted is because he has made a conscience choice to do so. Much like Trump appreciates his controversial statements because he gets free press, likewise Witness Lee decided he was smarter than everyone else because his controversial statements are the only reason he was even relevant. His error is his arrogance in not allowing anyone to counsel him. 2. The Local Church leadership was unaware of the impact of certain hot button words would have on cult wary evangelicals. Again, that was definitely not true from the time I was involved in 1978. If you notice I did not quote anything prior to this time. There were a number of people who were well read and did come from leadership positions in Christianity. I knew one brother in Houston who also came to Irving with us. My back still hurts from helping him move all of his books. He had a remarkable personal library and yet Witness Lee would mock him and others with their knowledge. In my opinion when James says that those who teach are subject to "stricter judgement". He should have been aware of the potential issues and if he wasn't he should bear the full responsibility for this. He mocked those that tried to advise him. His folly in mocking Christians and those who had studied makes it a fitting judgement on him. Imagine the hubris to portray yourself as a "minister of the age", an expert on the Bible, someone who despises those who study, and you ignore and mock all those who try to support you. 3. "This is heretical". This is one reason why you don't "go beyond the apostle's teaching". What has Witness Lee or Athanasius added to the concept of "child of God", "sons of God", and "partaker of the divine nature"? For all of their blather I don't see any insight that has been added. However, by using these terms not used by the NT apostles they created heresies (schools of thought) among Christians. It is arrogance to think that you, as a Christian teacher, can go beyond the apostles. Why would you even be tempted to do this except to help "distinguish" your ministry from others. Think of the time wasted by so many believers (best case scenario) not to help them in their growth but merely to help these teachers appear to be unique. The apostles make it very clear "we do not know what we will be" yet Witness Lee's teaching always hinted that somehow he did. Now in hindsight, when you examine it closely, it is clear he had no idea. But at the time it always seemed like this was something that was about to be revealed. That is just deceitful and a direct contradiction to the apostles. After all why do you even teach this is a "high peak revelation" if in fact there is no revelation? |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 11:30 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer ZNPaaneah, I know what he means, I will take you through it. To Lee, deification is the end result. We will not understand what he means by the end result if we don't understand the process he believes in. This may come as a surprise to you but I believe he is wrong in this matter and I will show you where he is clearly and indisputably wrong. Before I do so, I will say that his use of the English language is terrible, imprecise, bound to be misinterpreted. This is summed up in this paragraph: "The Local Church leadership was unaware of the impact the use of certain “hot button” words would have on cult-wary evangelicals in America, while Western Christians were unaware of the tremendous impact that labeling a group a cult had on the Chinese. " http://www.gotquestions.org/Witness-...al-church.html This gives him the benefit of the doubt. But regarding the process there is no doubt that what he believes is wrong. To try and answer your question about what he means to be deified or "become God", we cannot understand Lee's view about "deification" unless we understand mingling. Mingling is the process and deification is the end result. This view is best explained here: http://www.theopedia.com/the-local-church Mingling Witness Lee taught that his adherents could be changed from man to God through a process he called mingling. As the process took place, the two natures of man and God would mix together, producing a God-man hybrid like Jesus, according to Lee. This teaching is usually justified by a saying of Athanasius of Alexandria, an early church father, that "God became man that man could become God." So what he means by "become God" is a "God-man hybrid like Jesus". In other words, a clone of Jesus. This is more than what many teach, that we merely "look like" Jesus, more like a copy than a clone. Believing we become a clone of Jesus is not really heretical, it is in essence what it means to be conformed to Christ's image. What is really wrong is his belief about the mixing or mingling. This is heretical. The website further says: "In point of fact however, Athanasius specifically ruled out the possibility of mingling the natures of God and man in Jesus Christ. For example, regarding Jesus Christ the Athanasian Creed reads, Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae, meaning "One altogether, not by mingling of the natures, but by the unity of Person." Confusione (< Latin confundere) literally means "pouring together, mixing, mingling; joining together,"^ [1]^ which is exactly the way that Witness Lee defines his doctrine of "mingling".^ [2]^^[3]^ Thus ironically, Athanasius refuted the doctrine of mingling as dangerously heretical as early as the 4th century." So you see, he is right in his view of deification, but he is wrong in his view about mingling. It is because of his view about mingling that he is wrong about what deification will look like. So how does he come to the conclusion that we are mingled or mixed together with Christ? The answer is found here: http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...an/mingle.html Also, in 1 Corinthians 6:17 the fact of a believer’s spirit being mingled with the Holy Spirit is clearly stated: “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” How could man’s spirit be one spirit with the Holy Spirit without being mingled? Let the speaker answer and describe the nature of this oneness of spirit with the Lord. It is correct for them to say that God and man are joined together as one. This is true. But it is incorrect for them to claim that mingling is the only way that man and God could be joined together. They then use this verse to support the claim: Leviticus 2:4: “And when thou offerest an oblation of a meal-offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil” It makes sense, oil represents the Spirit, and flour represents humanity. But the mixing or mingling part is wrong. Lee's use of the metaphor of tea mixing with water is clear enough evidence in what he believes about this. The problem with this view is that when tea and water is mixed together, we cannot separate them again, and we cannot tell them apart, which is which. So, he cannot explain away his meaning of "mingling" or claim it is due to cultural or language barriers. He really believes that man and God are mixed together, to form a sort of hybrid God-man clone of Jesus. This was declared to be heretical by the early church fathers. So what is the alternative to mingling? It is joining or union. It is the joining of God and man together, but God and man is never confused with each other - the human part and the God part are clearly distinguishable. There is an aspect of the union in which God and man are indistinguishable - but this is what Lee does not understand, we do not have to be mixed together like flour and oil to be indistinguishable. The metaphor that was used in the early church to describe this, is iron which is forged in fire. The iron (humanity) glows red hot in the fire (God). When the iron is hot, God and man are indistinguishable, but the iron is never mixed or confused with the fire. The best example in the Bible to describe this is the burning bush which Moses saw. For Lee to miss this is remarkable given that Lee teaches that the burning bush is a figure of God and Moses being joined together, he says in his commentary "The thornbush represents Moses", "the fire burning signifies God burning within and upon Moses". Why he prefers to focus on some abstract mixing of flour and oil I don't know. To me the burning bush example is much clearer and in line with the early church fathers. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 06:42 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The doctrine of deification is not contrary to anything that Witness Lee or other Christian teachers teach -- partakers of the divine nature -- we all teach that. Sons of God, again a very standard doctrine. Every time he uses the term he makes it clear he is not teaching about believers becoming an object of worship. In fact, when you look at it the only thing different about the teaching is the word deification. In 1979 he taught that the term "deification" was equivalent to pantheism. Regarding the mingling, some have gone so far as to accuse us of teaching pantheism or the deification of man. (Life Study of Exodus, Chapter 106, Section 2). In 1980 he taught to be careful about the term because it is blasphemy. Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the “deification” of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 20, Section 2) When we teach this, some accuse us of teaching the deification of man. We definitely do not believe or teach that as sons of God we shall become God Himself. Nevertheless, it is a fact that we have the divine life and nature. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 44, Section 2) Now in 1984 he waffles on the use of the term. Does he teach it? Yes, No, or does he sit on the fence? Because we are children of God born of Him, we possess God’s life and also His nature for our enjoyment. Because I have proclaimed this truth according to the Bible, some have condemned me and falsely accused me of teaching deification. (Conclusion of the New Testament, Chapter 7, Section 2) "falsely accused me of teaching deification" sounds pretty clear that he denies teaching this. Some of the church fathers have used the term “deification” to describe the fact that we have been mingled with God and that we are partakers of God's life and nature. When you use the word deified, though, if you mean that you have been made God in His Godhead to be an object of worship, this is heresy. On the other hand, if your denotation is that through regeneration you have received God's life and nature and that now you are a son of God, this is altogether safe and scriptural. (God’s New Testament Economy, Chapter 42, Section 1) On the other hand, maybe he does teach this. But in June 1992 he teaches that we need to be "deified". The early church fathers used the term deification to describe the believers' participation in the divine life and nature of God, but not in the Godhead. We human beings need to be deified, to be made like God in life and in nature, but it is a great heresy to say that we are made like God in His Godhead. We are God not in His Godhead, but in His life, nature, element, essence, and image. (The Christian Life, Chapter 12, Section 5) And then in June 1993 he refers to "the truth concerning deification" The church fathers taught the truth concerning deification in the first four centuries. They pointed out clearly that deification means that the believers in Christ have been made God in His life and in His nature but not in His Godhead. He is the unique God for people to worship in His Godhead, but we are God only in life and in nature, not in the Godhead. We all have to be clear that today we are God-men. (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 2, Section 6) What changed? Absolutely nothing except for the term deification. No new bible verses, no new doctrine, nothing except now he uses a term that he is well aware of can cause problems, it can be understood as blasphemous, it can be understood as heretical, but instead of warning others concerning this term which he used to do, now he is referring to the "truth concerning deification". This is his Modus Operandi, bring in something really controversial because of the blasphemous implications, explain it away, start a big firestorm to get everyone distracted and not talking about something else. He uses a term that is a form of pantheism, a term that refers to people becoming an object of worship, and then he explains it away with some astounding gymnastics. "We don't believe that man will become God himself", but on the other hand "God became man so that man may become God". What exactly does that mean? What is the difference between becoming God and becoming God himself? Who knows? He certainly never explains what changed. It doesn't matter as long as no one pays attention to the sins of his house. If it can distract you then it worked. To say that believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But then he does say that believers need to be deified, and the definition of deified is to become an object of worship. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 03:22 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Remember Watergate? Nixon had just won a landslide election, with his popularity soaring. What took him down was not the actions of low-level operatives, but his own lies and coverups. In context then, the saints probably could understand WL having a reprobate son. What godly would never accept was WL's action to coverup for his bad kid, keep him in charge of LSM, and then destroy the reputation of anyone who spoke up about it. At this point, Lee used the bully pulpit to exalt himself, draw the line in the sand, and basically threaten the whistleblowers with retaliation. Lee taught that trials bring out our true character, who we are for others to see. Perhaps Lee's attitude was all wrong at that Pasadena Conference due to the stress and pressures caving in on him. I'll grant him that, even though he did set himself up as the exemplary pattern of the god-man living. But ... where was the repentance afterwards? Where was his change of heart? Never happened. Then at the end of Fermentation of the Present Rebellion his concluding remarks were that all his "facts" were accurate, and the case was officially closed. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 03:09 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Remember Watergate? Nixon had just won a landslide election, with his popularity soaring. What took him down was not the actions of low-level operatives, but his own lies and coverups caught on tape, due to his own paranoia. In context then, the saints probably could understand WL having a reprobate son. What godly men would never accept was WL's action to coverup for his bad kid, keep him in charge of LSM, and then destroy the reputation of anyone who spoke up about it. At this point, Lee used the bully pulpit to exalt himself, draw the line in the sand, and basically threaten the whistle-blowers with retaliation. I guess you could call that a "uniting factor." |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 02:25 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
I personally don't agree with this view. It doesn't explain his fabricated story about Watchman Nee's mistress. It doesn't explain his actions in the Sister's Rebellion. Both of those actions demonstrated that he was more for power and rewards than for God's purpose. In my opinion he was double minded, trying to serve both God and Money. It isn't possible. As a result he was unstable in his ways, further evidence that he was double minded. He was hypocritical, further evidence that he was double minded. There is far too much evidence that rewards and power were motivating factors for Witness Lee. So then, being motivated by God's purpose and plan only demonstrates that he was double minded, trying to serve both Mammon and God. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 12:24 PM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
In my humble opinion, I do not think Lee really wanted worship for himself. But I think he approved of, let us say, the veneration of himself as a uniting factor in the movement he formed. So convinced he was that unity was the answer to God's plan getting accomplished that he became willing to use questionable means to achieve that unity. Some people think Lee was all about power and its rewards. I don't believe that. I believe he really wanted to accomplish God's purpose. But he looked at history and saw the ongoing disunity and "herding of cats" that was the Church and, given his organizational and controlling temperament, decided that the end justified the means. He resorted to, or at least went along with, things that would unify the movement, hoping that this unity would eventually grow into a greater unity of Christians in general. And one of the things that united the movement was unity around him and his teachings. And so he accepted veneration, not because he was on an ego trip, but because he thought this could evolve into something greater. It was a massive miscalculation, much like the similar ones Nee made before him. This worked for awhile, just like other bad but well-intentioned practices sometimes work in the short term. Chinese communism moved China from an agrarian society to an industrial society in record time. But the end did not justify the means. China is still reeling from Maoism. The LCM and those it affected are still reeling from Leeism. Lee was right about one thing. Unity is the key to the Church's ultimate effectiveness. He was just wrong about the way he tried to achieve unity. Twenty years after his passing, people and the Church are still suffering because of it. It's time to admit, learn from and recover from the mistake. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 11:28 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The brothers in the Los Angeles area invited him to have a conference and arranged the place in Pasadena. He said that when he heard that it would be in Pasadena he was happy. These people, he said, "exalt" me: I am happy to be exalted. -John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love Consider the title of a book that WL published - Watchman Nee - A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. Is this not the uplifting of a man? Lee obviously viewed Nee as some sort of larger than life figure, and there are hints that he viewed himself as such also. To exalt someone is only a step away from worship, and in certain cases it may already be synonymous. So what I'm getting at is this: WL spoke against the worship of man, but in LC practice, there is something that strikingly resembles this. The question here is not even whether or not the worshiping of man actually happens. It's a question as to whether or not WL was really against it. He of course spoke against it, but can we take is word for it? When we consider the evidence that contradicts his LSM published statements, these kinds of difficult questions arise. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 07:34 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer You have a good point, we can see Christ in many old testament verses. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 07:16 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Peter, a fisherman, and unlettered, had a revelation. David wasn't speaking concerning himself! David, being a prophet, knew that God had promised him a Seed. David was uttering "in spirit" (see Jesus' words on this effect, as well) concerning the One who was to come. God had promised, and when God speaks, it will be done. Paul the ex-Pharisee used the same argument 11 chapters later, in Acts 13. The promise made to David was fulfilled in Jesus. Yet when Lee studies the Bible, and sees the promise to David, he overturns clear NT convention and sees nothing but natural concepts. So who has the natural concept, here? Whose fallen human soul has transposed the divine promise? Who can't see Jesus, here? |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 06:35 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Regardless of the word he used, Witness Lee clearly stated he does not believe in being worshiped. He clearly stated it means to be a son of God. He clearly stated that it is blasphemy to say we should be worshiped. Clearly, he is not teaching "believers become objects of worship". So what's your problem? Given Lee clarified himself, you cannot claim he taught that we should be worshipped. |
|||||
| 09-09-2016 03:53 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Sure, there are groups like the Mormons who agree with the doctrine of deification, but you can't condemn this group for being a cult on one hand but then use them to support your doctrine by saying "see, these other Bible teachers agree with me". (And Witness Lee did do this when he brought in the New Way). Witness Lee condemned many of the church fathers and orthodox catholics repeatedly, but now we are supposed to use these same ones as evidence that his doctrine is fundamental. I am rejecting the hypocrisy of this. I am also rejecting "having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons". This does not mean that I don't read what they say. Very often another Bible teacher will say something that is inspired, makes something very clear, etc. But just because "so and so" taught this doesn't make it so. You claim that it is a "fact" that Witness Lee agrees with other Bible expositors. There is a lot of debate about that, see Nigel Tomes discussion on this, but that "fact" is essentially irrelevant. The "fact" that is relevant is if Witness Lee agrees with the Apostles? You appear to want to base your faith on the "expert opinions" of these so called "experts" like Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. BTW, what made them experts? According to you a 6 year study by CRI has said that the doctrines of "Ground of the Church", "Minister of the Age" and "Deification" are all within the accepted norms. If this is in fact what they determined then they are wrong. I can prove that and I have already done that. Quote:
Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the “deification” of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But it is correct to say that the believers are deified in the sense of possessing the divine life and the divine nature. We may use the word deification in a limited sense to convey the fact that we have been born of God to become sons of God. Praise the Lord that God is our Father and that we are the same as He with respect to the divine life and nature! However, we emphatically state that we shall never be the same as God in the sense of deserving to be worshipped. It is blasphemy to claim that, as sons of God, we should be worshipped along with God. But it is not too much to say that because we are sons of God, we have the very life and nature of our Father. Far from being blasphemy, it is a glory to the Father to declare this fact. Witness Lee makes it very clear that if you teach that "believers become objects of worship" that "is blasphemy". That is the definition of deification, that is the only definition of deification. Witness Lee claims that he uses the term "deification" in the "limited sense". There is no "limited sense". There is no obscure definition or limited definition. Either Witness Lee is a complete idiot or he is deceitful, take your pick. I asked you to provide me with this "limited sense" definition from a credible dictionary and you told me "you don't care". So even a staunch supporter of this doctrine does not care that it is blasphemy. What should I do? You told me to stone you. Jesus talks about tying a millstone around your neck. My point, which I have made repeatedly is that "making a person an object of worship" is the only definition of deification. There is no other definition in any credible dictionary. Therefore, regardless of how Witness Lee wants to redefine the word it is very reasonable that some person listening to his teaching on deification would understand that he is referring to deification. You may not care but Jesus does: 6 but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea. When you teach the Bible you must consider if your teaching might stumble a little one. Even the staunchest defender of gun rights would condemn a person who left a loaded pistol around for a 2 year old to play with. This is why I complain that Witness Lee's teaching "goes beyond" what the apostles taught. He knows that teaching that a person becomes an object of worship is blasphemy, yet he uses a word where that is the only definition. He thinks that because he is "redefining" the word he can weasel his way out, but it is undeniable that he has gone beyond the apostles, and that he has gone into a realm where he might stumble new believers. This is his MO, he uses extremely provocative statements, because that will cause debate and make him appear relevant. As for the context I quoted the entire paragraph. "Sons of Gehenna" I find it amazing that those who hold the controversial Witness Lee doctrines will resort to "I don't care, stone me" when asked very simple, logical questions like "can you give me a definition from a dictionary"? But what choice do they have? To follow Witness Lee requires that you not care about the possible damage to new believers. You have to slander those who raise issues about Watchman Nee's mistress, or Phillip Lee's lasciviousness, or Witness Lee's mocking sin. You have to say that those who are "taking heed to the doctrines they have received" are rebellious, or that their questions look like little snakes. Subservient is labelled "loyal". You have to be hypocritical. On the one hand you are taught to condemn christian teachers, and Christianity as the "Great Babylon the mother of whores". On the other hand you reference these very same ones to support your doctrines, and claim that hey "we are orthodox" in our beliefs. You have to condemn seminary because Witness Lee never went to one, so they are unimportant. On the other hand if someone asks a simple question like "can you show me the dictionary with that definition" you are ridiculed as "not being an expert". Which is exactly the point, show me the dictionary because that is a credible source for what this word means. So you have no choice, if you are a disciple of a false prophet you will, of necessity, have to become two times the son of Gehenna. On the one hand you must defend his lawsuits, on the other hand you must condemn all others as being corrupt. You must ignore the sins and falsehood, yet at the same time claim that all other Christians are "blind" and "poor" and "miserable". |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 08:39 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
"One take on this is that other respected Bible expositors agree with Witness Lee." - so why don't you accept that? "I think that is far too generous to Witness Lee." - your unexpert personal opinion of the experts. It is illogical to rely upon your personal opinions over the facts. "unique doctrines completely outside of the accepted norms" - the 6 year CRI study by experts disagrees with you, they found it was orthodox. It is illogical for you to disagree with that. "Your logic is fantastic. Let me see if I follow. It is OK for Witness Lee to teach that James didn't have the vision because Luther did to. Luther even said he wished James wasn't in the Bible. Therefore the warning in Revelation could be assigned to Luther. What about Witness Lee, shouldn't that warning be assigned to him as well? If the warning applies to Luther how do you use Luther to support Witness Lee's teaching?" Lee respected James. Lee did not want to change the Bible, that is the difference. Consider what Lee writes in life study of James, "Luther said that the Epistle of James was an epistle of straw. In saying this, Luther was both unfair and wrong.". "Witness Lee taught that the "deification" doctrine was blasphemy in the Galatians training but later adopted it" - has this already been discussed? Where is your proof? Have you taken his words in the right context? |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 08:07 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-08-2016 07:58 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
That to me is a fair and balanced assessment of Lee's view towards James and the Psalms, to go beyond that is unfounded slander in my opinion. |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 07:06 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Now, it does apply to us, as followers of Christ. But to put us first, conceptually, is to completely miss the point of scriptures. Yet this is what I repeatedly see. A complete mis-orientation, by a supposed NT exegete. Quote:
Quote:
Should Samuel not have killed Agag? How uncharitable Samuel was! No grace! Complete rubbish and everyone knows it. How could anyone sit quietly through these training sessions? Were they that befuddled, and out of their wits? Quote:
And He was a fighter. He destroyed the devil, sin and even death. Demons cried out with fear when He approached them. "Have You come to destroy us before our time!?!" Paul said, "We fight". We fight not against blood and flesh, but against spiritual forces. Paul used military terminology: strongholds, tearing down, arrows and shields and darts. The One who led the charge, and still leads, is Christ. Why do we read the Psalms and forget Christ? But Lee did just that. He read the text and saw the church, and he saw the NT believer enjoying grace, and he saw the vanity of the psalmist, in his "natural concepts". But he missed Jesus Christ. So he missed everything. |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 03:17 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I have a question concerning the following: Quote:
(I know that I read some kind of reference to this today, but didn't want I am not questioning whether there is open-season on changing words, or adding to or taking away from the canon of scripture. I am fully on-board with the Bible being the Bible and it is not our job to alter it (like certain teachers have a bent to do to get things to work out their way). I am simply questioning whether this particular statement was intended to extend beyond the writing in which it was originally placed? For starters, when this was written, was there anything like a set idea of what would eventually come to be called the NT? Maybe a decent list that was sort of close. But not complete. So while I know that whatever God wanted to be in there would eventually be there. But are we sure that it only took the few centuries that it did? Or that it wasn't complete some time prior. Either way, God can get to the "right" canon at some point. But what makes this one "it." Again, not questioning the canon of scripture. I like it. but evidently Luther did not. Probably Lee didn't either. Just too careful to say it out loud. Doesn't make them evil or reprobate. But is it right to throw these two verses around at every misunderstanding of scripture that we run across? Someone misinterprets a verse and therefore they are in violation of this passage. Is this maybe just a cry of "cult" in different clothing? And maybe even using terms like "biblical." We use them to mean that it means what we think it means. If you think differently, then your thinking is "unbiblical." Proving the interpretation wrong by claiming the Bible simply says otherwise. Isn't it better to just have the discussion about what is the right way to understand things? Rather than decrying Evangelical as being "unbiblical," show what we believe to be the errors in his understanding. (And since I don't think anyone has said that yet, I am hoping to not be stepping on anyone's toes here. In any case, it is not my intention. And if "your" toes feel stepped on, then take on the idea, not me. I'm just thinking out loud about this. Let's discuss it.) |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 02:26 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
James was not discussing eternal salvation. He was discussing the outward testimony of those who claimed to be Christians. Some like to think that the outward testimony is not important. Only the inward "reality." But if our initial creation was, among other things, to bear the image of God, then the outward testimony is quite important. If we claim that Jesus changes lives, then it would behoove us to demonstrate lives that are not just like everyone else. And being more "spiritual" does not do it. You have to actually live in the manner that God would desire. And that means to be righteous. So when you are being observed, your faith is of no consequence if your living is like someone who does not believe. Who feels free to be unrighteous. Belief is more than thought. The thoughts are irrelevant if there are no actions. Jesus said that those who obey are the ones who believe. Not those who think the right thoughts. And reading the scripture doesn't teach you the truth that sets you free. Truly following (obeying) does. There is no flaw in the book of James. As for the parts of the Psalms that you choose to despise, You should note that Lee despised many more parts. Not just those where David wanted his enemies destroyed. BTW. Are you aware that in those times hyperbole of speech was the norm. Victors always destroyed the losers. But destruction implies annihilation. Yet that never actually happened. There is one time that it appears it was actually supposed to happen and it still didn't. Do you think that God is a monster because he intended that the Canaanites were supposed to be destroyed? And if God promised that he would defend Israel against their foes, and promised David that he would be king, then why would a prayer to God to take the steps necessary to ensure that both happened be wrong? I do not simply wish evil on my enemy. But neither do I just let them run over me or refuse to defend myself against attack. Once again, the statement concerning love of neighbor was not simply absolute. It was not "love them without condition." It was "love them as you love yourself." Difficult to deal with that kind of statement. I don't think we love ourselves in a way that we would allow ourselves to be run over by evil. But we also don't (or shouldn't) love ourselves at cost to others. So even defense has limits. To be honest, I understand the ancient idea that if someone is simply unwilling to abide by societal rules, then they forfeit their right to live in that society. And in the larger context of nations, you could say the same thing about whole groups, like ISIS. But I do not believe that the logical result of that kind of thinking — simply fire-bomb everything from one border to the other of what they control and destroy them all — is acceptable within the context of "love as I love myself." But that does not mean that war is simply not to be fought even if pushed upon you. (Or at least that is the way I understand it.) You have to declare that you are an absolute pacifist to rightfully declare that David praying concerning God's intervention to stop the persecution of His people by its enemies is anything but just. We are commanded to love. But there is a demand for righteousness by the One (God) who has the full right to punish the unrighteous, or refrain from such punishment. It is hard to see Lee's declarations concerning James as much more than a need to not be held to that standard. As long as you are only held to a theoretical or positional standard of deemed righteous, then actual righteousness is unimportant. And there is evidence that Lee learned from one who was almost openly unrighteous. And then Lee himself had to deal with his unrighteous business ventures and his openly sinful sons being put in charge of the LSM and therefore in charge of much of the affairs of the local assemblies of the LCM. I know you will make some hollow claim about slander. But these are far from slanderous. They are far from statements of untruth. They have been established as absolutely true over and over. Only the ignorant could say such things. Ignorant because the truth has been blocked from them. Or ignorant because they have forced their hands over their ears as they close their eyes tightly and shout "blah blah blah blah" over and over to drown out the words of truth that they refuse to hear. |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 09:03 AM | ||||||
| micah6v8 |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
For example, John 14 v 14 says "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." It is possible for someone to not consider this verse's context and pray that God will make him a millionaire. Regarding Psalm 143:12, perhaps there is no need to view David as being a self-serving man. Perhaps David was at that point doing God's work and these people were opposing God's work. It might be that the level of evil was so great that destruction might have been an appropriate end for these people. Destruction of nations was common in the Old Testament. As to why this is so, I am still trying to understand. There are some websites that try to explain this http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/...ent-so-violent One commentary (which I googled) on this verse says, "But the enemies who are relentlessly persecuting Jehovah’s servant to the death are the enemies of Jehovah; they are traitors to His kingdom who have forfeited their right to live; they give no quarter and deserve none themselves; if they triumph, Jehovah’s faithfulness to His promises would seem to have failed and his lovingkindness to have been exhausted or defeated (Psalm 77:8-9). For such hardened and impenitent offenders nothing remains but extermination." |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 04:53 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I would characterize my comments as "stricter judgement". It is true that I am much more strict concerning things that Witness Lee said than if it had been said by someone else, but that is because he was a teacher who taught these things to others and led others astray. I would also characterize the discussions on this forum as "taking heed to things that you have been taught". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for 'we are just as much at the mercy of false teachers outside the recovery as in it'. I am much less at the mercy of these false teachers today than I was 40 years ago. That is why we fellowship, we study, we take heed to the doctrine given to us by the apostles. |
|||||
| 09-08-2016 04:22 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Where are the false statements? Just because you are ignorant of the facts and the truth surrounding Witness Lee and LSM does not give you the ground to accuse others of being slanderous. Your defense of Lee here is simply to prove that he was better than Luther. Only someone who thought Luther was the first MOTA and originator of the Recovery would attempt that. Neither can you ascribe Luther's errors to every so-called Protestant living today. |
|||||
| 09-07-2016 11:20 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
James 2:24 "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." But instead of outright rejecting the whole book of James and calling it an epistle of straw or trying to remove it from the canon like Luther did, Lee has tried to reconcile this difference, more than most. The book of James has been a "thorn in the side" of Protestantism for a long time. We would do well to admit that. |
|||||
| 09-07-2016 11:14 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It is a historical fact that the great theologian and reformer Martin Luther was one of the first to despise James, not Witness Lee. Martin Luther wrote of James: In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvation for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. (LW 35:362) Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon Luther inserted the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to his German translation to support his doctrine of "faith alone". For this reason Luther may be subject to this warning: Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. We are just as much at mercy to the whims of men's doctrines and deceits outside of the Recovery as in it. Every Bible version we read has been tainted by men. To leave Lee's doctrines is merely to replace him with someone else's, even unconsciously as we read the Word of God biased by the doctrines of men. Now consider that Lee, unlike Luther and the Lutherans, respected James and tried to understand it much more than any of them. In fact Lee's life study of James is quite good and gives it far more attention that most Protestant denominations care to give it. So I think you are all very unfair and biased to try and pin a claim of "rejection of James" onto Witness Lee. This is not the case at all, or no worse than that done by Protestants in general. |
|||||
| 09-07-2016 10:10 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Many times Jesus said "but now I tell you": Matt 5:44-46 ,to love your enemies. Not because loving enemies was not in the old testament, it was. There is no teaching about hating your enemy in the old testament, rather: Pro 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: Pro 29:10 The bloodthirsty hate the upright: but the just seek his soul. The problem was people, like David, were not always following it. David, wanted God to destroy his enemies, he prayed for that. Psalm 143:12 In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant. So if we blindly pray this psalm to God, we will not be following God's will, even though this verse is 100% God inspired, doesn't mean we should blindly follow it. Similarly if we blindly pray and follow the verses about the temple and sacrifices, we will be in error as well. In fact the disciples, knowing God's Word, the old testament, tried to call down fire from heaven on their enemies Luke 9:54. But Christ rebuked them. Further proof that blindly following Scripture by the letter, and not the Spirit, will lead to error. |
|||||
| 09-07-2016 06:02 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It does not mean that you do nothing. It means that the thing that provided the salvation had nothing to do with your own actions. It was the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But that only refers to His actions in providing it. It still requires that you have faith. And it requires much of you once you have received that salvation through his grace. And James, as well as the Psalms, are not talking about the base of salvation, but the living-out of the life God calls us to. Even in the OT, in Psalms, we see much of the truth of the life we are called to. To dismiss it as error is, in itself, error. As for the calls for God to exact vengeance, the very promises of God to Abraham and then to the Children of Israel in general included protection from evil. I am probably more of a proponent of loving others as anyone here. But I recognize that there are situations in which people and situations are severe upon God's people. I would say that you have the requirement to love your neighbor as yourself. But that is not the same as saying that they can run you over with impunity. I don't love myself that poorly. Do you? |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 06:50 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
And he [Paul] went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. In WL’s mind, for James to mention the word synagogue is indicative of ‘mixture’, but the fact that Paul remained in a synagogue for three months does not indicate any ‘mixture’ whatsoever in the mind of WL. The fact is, WL was intent on discrediting James, and it seems to be for the reasons that ZNPaaneah has mentioned. |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 06:15 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
James also uses the term "synagogue". This is a word that refers to a building where a Jewish congregation meets for religious worship. All this indicates is that the Lord has given him the gospel for the circumcision, just as He gave Paul the gospel to the uncircumcision. The New Testament opens the gospel to the gentiles, that does not mean that it closes the gospel on the Jews. Finally, James talks about keeping the royal law. This law refers to the two commandments Jesus gave us: To love God with our whole heart and to love our neighbor as ourself. If you read the Life Studies of Witness Lee on this book you will see that this is the portion where he is strongest to condemn James as not having a clear vision of the New Testament Economy. I go over this portion in careful detail in the book "Carry Up My Bones From Here". It is evident that in that portion James refers to 4 things: the two commandments from Jesus and the two ordinances given to us by Jesus (Baptism and the Lord's Table). This portion, more than any other examination of Witness Lee's ministry, proves that it is Witness Lee that does not have a clear vision of God's New Testament Economy. In addition, nothing exposes Witness Lee's lack of faith more than James' word about the proof of Abraham's faith. Finally, what we are doing here on this forum can be compared to the proof of Rahab's faith. No book deals with the catastrophe that is a false prophet better than the book of James. |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 05:59 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-06-2016 07:34 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
And I am one more brother who has learned to treasure James since leaving the LC. And let me say further, that those who elevate the writings of Paul above the rest of the N.T. are some of the least healthy Christians. |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 07:05 AM | ||||||
| micah6v8 |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
They do not contradict. Do take a look at Eph 2v 10 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do We are not saved by our good works but we are saved to do good works. Good works are not the cause of our salvation, but the fruit of our salvation. |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 05:25 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-06-2016 05:18 AM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Different dispensations for Psalms, and James leans towards Judaism. Lee was not the first to doubt the authenticity of James because of its more works-based slant than "faith alone". There is a reason why faith-alone Protestants prefer to quote Ephesians 2:8 "grace alone" than James 2:24 which says we are righteous not by faith alone but also by works. They would never write James 2:24 in a gospel tract, because it is not fitting with their views, or they will try and explain it away. Other examples is that the Psalms appeals to ones own righteousness on occasion, and also calls for God to kill their enemies. Both of these violate the NT truth of salvation by grace through faith alone, and loving our enemies as Jesus taught. So these Psalms would be "in error" according to the New Testament revelation and how we should apply them today. Of course they are not in error where it concerns the truthfulness of God's Word and their application to the Old Testament period. So it is possible for a person to "follow the Bible" and yet not follow the truth, if they are following the parts of the bible that don't apply to them today, or apply them in the wrong context. The Bible being God's 100% inspired and perfect Word, does not prevent a person from incorrectly using it. |
|||||
| 09-06-2016 03:37 AM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-05-2016 08:24 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 09-05-2016 05:20 PM | ||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Yes, according to Witness Lee the purpose for the book of James in the Bible is to show us the possibility that a godly man may lack a clear, heavenly view of God's New Testament economy. This is how a deceitful person can reconcile his claim that "all scripture is God breathed". Witness Lee's attitude toward the book of James is what first alerted me to the fact that this book, more than any other, exposes his deceit. |
|||||
| 09-05-2016 05:13 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With James, he questions whether or not James had a “clear view” of what he calls “God’s New Testament economy.” He is basically challenging James’ credibility. This is not the way that we read the Bible, and I reject such nonsense. |
|||||
| 09-05-2016 01:51 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Either all scripture is God-breathed, or it is not. This nonsense about really being statements in error allowed to remain as an example of error is to dismiss those portions as not being from the breath of God. |
|||||
| 09-04-2016 09:05 PM | ||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Umm, life study of the Psalms and James? Your claim that "they don't care about books in the Bible like Psalms or James" is probably an overstatement. They don't care about what other Christians are doing because many other Christians are building great cathedrals, selling music Cd's, holding rock concerts and providing "godly" entertainment to the masses. They may not care about what other locality based churches are doing because they don't know there are any. |
|||||
| 06-06-2015 05:28 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Second is the Ministry. The Promulgators of God's Plan for Modern Man. The Living Stream Ministry. The Publishing House in Anaheim, CA. The Fresh Bread from Heaven Factory. Why, the Maximum Brothers used to have Lee on speed dial, so who's to question them? They used to eat lunch with the Man! Third is the ground. If you're on the ground you're okay. If not on the ground, you're sick and impure. Only on the ground do you have a real hope to "make it". Only on the ground is the life-flow, the blessing. Those not on the ground are wasting their time, and doing "absolutely nothing" for God's kingdom. Beyond that, you can ignore the Bible, ignore the testimony of Jesus Christ, and ignore your neighbor, and safely dismiss your conscience and your God-given common sense. Just spout spiritual gibberish to each other like, "We're going on to glory, brother!" and "I'm a baby God" and "the divine will imprinted into tripartite man" (I made the last one up but it's easy - just randomly pick 3 spiritual-sounding terms and jam them together. Syntax is optional). |
|||||
| 06-06-2015 05:03 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-06-2015 02:11 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-06-2015 12:46 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
With Nee and Lee, it wasn't necessarily that they set out to judge anyone. It was more of an issue where they could look at others and claim that since other groups didn't "see" what they supposedly saw, there was reason to not associate with so many other groups. The issue of the ground of locality was Lee's main justification for separating from others. I'm afraid that LC leaders are in a position where they see themselves as being more important than they really are, after all they are leaders of "the Lord's Recovery". So with that kind of attitude, they are in the prime position to judge others. When someone speaks up, speaks their mind or protests something, now that person is "rebelling" against churches that represent God's move on earth. The attitude of superiority becomes justification for anything and everything. |
|||||
| 06-05-2015 12:15 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
As I have said before many who come into the recovery bring their baggage from previous fellowships. For Nee and Lee, that baggage was the exclusive (aka Plymouth) Brethren. Judging supposed sin indicates judging without having the facts. A brother may be removed from fellowship for his preference to read from the Bible and not the ministry publications. Brothers like Mario Sandoval and Steve Isitt are put out not because they're trying to stir up division, but because of offending elders in Ontario and Seattle unwilling to repent and reconcile with them. It's confronting "the brothers" that's considered worthy of "judging sin" in the context of Titus 3:10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, Question, who is being factious? |
|||||
| 06-04-2015 09:15 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
It discusses some interesting facts related to how Nee was excommunicated from the Exclusive Brethren, and while I do not agree with Nigel's notion of "the Recovery", it is interesting to consider how Nee saw the problems with exclusivity, yet 70 or so later, exclusive is exactly what the LCM has become. I thought a lot about the whole subject this week. I have to say that the most reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that Nee actually didn't see the fundamental problem with being exclusive. Sure he saw that the Exclusive Brethren were too exclusive, but I have to wonder, did he see a problem with their exclusivity other than the fact that it resulted in his excommunication? In other words, would he have remained primarily associated with them had he not been kicked out? The whole notion of "the Recovery" is based on the idea that certain persons or groups "recovered" certain things. While it is true that certain people and groups have made valuable contributions to Christianity, the Bible says that God is not a respecter of persons. What I think this means for the LC is that their notion of God needing particular people or groups to "recover" something is fundamentally flawed. With Nee and even Lee, I think they placed too much faith in what the Brethren had supposedly "recovered". Nee saw the Brethren as the prerequisite step or group to his ministry. He was building on what they "saw". When you take a step back and realize that Nee held onto some of the negative teachings of the Exclusive Brethren, all the sudden some serious issues arise. The quote about judging of sin is an example of that. Yes, certain sin should be judged within the Church, but that shouldn't translate into the practice of judging supposed sin as the LC so frequently does. |
|||||
| 06-02-2015 06:07 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 07:12 PM | ||||||
| HERn |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-01-2015 03:12 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
In a nutshell, I could find no justification whatsoever, and was forced to arrive at the simple conclusion that Darby basically lynched what he thought was his two biggest rivals in the movement. He seemed to follow no spiritual principles nor governing scriptures. Exactly the same thing then occurred with the GLA and Brazil. |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 02:19 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I agree, this whole business of judging sin in order to achieve oneness is something where they have gone way out of bounds. If there is sin that needs judging (such as what's mentioned in 1 Cor 5), then, yes there is basis to judge. Like you said, they tend to judge things at a granular level, and not just sin, but also anything that they perceive to be worthy of judging (which they might also label as sin). Things like "division", denominations, failing to adhere to their locality doctrine, publishing books, having your own ministry, "rebelliousness", etc, etc, etc. I could make a big list of the kinds of things they judge. To go with the theme of this thread, Lee used the judging of the perceived division in different groups to justify division to form his own group. It was all hypocrisy. LCM history indicates how adherence to the ground of locality was often a means by which Lee judged others (Nee too?). It leads to the mindset of "that group doesn't adhere to our doctrine, so they are in division and should not be tolerated." Employing the locality doctrine was a form of judging of others, and it did not result in oneness. Nee's poem "He (not locality)", seems to indicate that maybe Nee had begun to see the err of his ways, or at least that it didn't produce the intended result. It's hard to say for sure. |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 12:42 PM | ||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
LSM's Sacrament - the "Ground of the Local Church" Nigel Tomes April 2013 http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=4066 - - |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 11:59 AM | ||||||
| HERn |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-01-2015 11:51 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-01-2015 11:45 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-01-2015 11:23 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Rom 14:10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. Rom 15:7 Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. Obviously some of Nee's views were extensions of the teachings of the exclusive brethren. To what extent I don't know, as I am no expert. I would speculate that after his excommunication from the exclusive brethren, he sought to create a similar group. It wouldn't surprise me if there were many parallels. |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 10:10 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
One of Darby's earliest writings with a pamphlet called "Separation From Evil: God's Principle of Unity." In that title you can see exclusivism and judgmentalism in its earliest stages. Darby did not consider the positive things of the Spirit (Eph 4) as our uniting bonds, but the common agreement of judging evil. Eventually it was Darby alone and his successors who defined what evil was for all the assemblies. Think about how powerful that is! |
|||||
| 06-01-2015 09:27 AM | ||||||
| HERn |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 06-01-2015 07:14 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-31-2015 09:06 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer The following is an excerpt from Herald Hsu's testimony and it includes a poem that Watchman Nee is said to have written: Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-20-2015 06:09 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I see nothing inherently wrong with spirituality or spiritual people. The problem as it relates to the LC is that they attempt to define what it means to be spiritual or the way in which someone should be spiritual. When people become too spiritual, they say that the age of "spiritual giants" is over, and conversely when people are deemed to not be spiritual enough, they have to put on an act of pretense. |
|||||
| 05-20-2015 05:56 PM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|||||
| 05-20-2015 03:42 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-20-2015 01:07 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-20-2015 01:04 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
No one ever considered Nee, Lee, or Chu as a brother, a friend, or a companion. They must be your "spiritual father," or nothing. Then, when it comes to their failures and unrighteousness, one can always say, "the problems of my spiritual father are none of my business." So convenient. |
|||||
| 05-20-2015 11:43 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
In the local churches, so much emphasis on "being an overcomer" that brothers and sisters feel inadequate, at least I have for having an inability to remain in your spirit 24/7. Having lived in a brothers house I have seen the "gnashing of teeth" from my brothers when they or others have just dedicated several hours of our evening watching a Mariners game. In the meetings, the facade of being spiritual, is proclaiming a phrase in a loud voice. The fallen concept is if you're not being heard, you're not in spirit. |
|||||
| 05-19-2015 09:52 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Acts 19:13-16 13 When some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” 16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. |
|||||
| 05-19-2015 05:32 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Nee knew the latent power of the soul because he used it. Lee knew it too ... obviously. And because spirituality operates in the unknown realm it is very dangerous. It can reek havoc on your life. I've seen it. |
|||||
| 05-18-2015 09:45 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-18-2015 07:12 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Now, somebody took authority and then the others began to submit to the authority and really desired for that authority and that authority became more authoritative, until finally you find that if any person, no matter how spiritual he is, if he should take the place of Christ, sooner or later wrong teaching will come out. You know, it can’t be avoided. He will teach something that is extra-spiritual or scriptural and the result you find is: instead of real spiritual, it is a kind of pseudo-spiritual. He tried to maintain a form of spirituality: ‘Now, if you do certain things then you are spiritual.’ You strive for spirituality and yet it is a kind of pseudo-spirituality in two ways: one is, you become more and more legalistic; it is bound to be that way. You become more and more legalistic, you do certain things and you are “alright”. The other is, you become less and less human, you cannot be a normal person any more. They take the abnormal, abnormal as spiritual, so if any one tries to be normal, you will be considered as “not spiritual”. That kind of feeling will be created. It is inevitable. Every cult or semi-cult are all that way and furthermore you will find that the teaching invariably will be: “This is the Lord’s best, the only place, if you leave it you’re finished” and that kind of thing is brainwashing. After you have been brainwashed for a few years, whenever you leave that group, you are spiritually wrecked. I have met people completely wrecked. That guilty feeling is always there, because they fell, they have left God’s will, and now they are finished. I’ve met people like that, who began to see some things wrong and they come out of it and yet the effect upon them is so strong, they’ve never been able to shake it off and they are a misfit everywhere. They cannot fit in anywhere else, they just become a misfit. It’s very sad, it’s very, very sad. Some people came out and saw what is wrong and yet when you talk to them you can see that they are still bound. It’s very difficult. You have to realize Stephen Kaung is speaking to Church of Bible Understanding. If you thought he was speaking about the local churches, if the shoe fits....
|
|||||
| 05-18-2015 12:45 PM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
"And I think the deliverance begins with first not trying to be spiritual, but try to be human." |
|||||
| 05-18-2015 09:04 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Actually there was an article I saw about a week ago containing something that none other than Stephen Kaung spoke to a group of people who had come out of a cult. What he says is interesting and it ties into the dependency issue. Also notice how quickly parallels can be drawn from what is said to the legacy of Lee that Kaung would have been well aware of. I will just post part of it, the rest is at the link: Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-18-2015 06:39 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-17-2015 08:56 PM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I discovered this at a local Church of Christ (Campbellites), in Sunday School class. When I pointed out Peter was naked a sister freaked out and said that couldn't be true. And when the preacher who was leading the class confirmed what I said she freaked out even more and said, "Why would they put that in the Bible?" Then she continued to work the matter up into a lather with other sisters, after the class. A sort jibber-jabbering, like a bee hive, was traveling at the speed of memes, passed to other sisters, before the worship service. Like naked Peter was just discover, in the Bible, no less. So I got a call after church services by the pastor telling me that I was trying to feed meat to milk drinkers (I'm thinking, 'naked Peter is meat' but didn't say anything). These milk drinkers have grown children, and gray hair. How long are they going to remain milk drinkers? Sadly, even in this little local church, dependency is being enabled. And both the dependents and the enablers are to be blamed. There's a comfort zone found in the two-sides-of-the-same-coin dynamic. But I have no room to speak, and shouldn't judge. If honest I have to admit that, I once was a co-dependent on Witness Lee. Shame shame on me ... that I found a comfort in that. If I can depend on Lee then I'm off the hook. |
|||||
| 05-17-2015 04:42 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Like I mentioned before, I don't think that the following of a leader immediately creates a problem, it just increases the likelihood of there being a problem down the road. I agree regarding some mega-churches. There are plenty of groups out there who are "leader-centric". It's not a problem limited to the LC, but for everyone who has come out of the LC, following a leader is probably a much bigger concern than to the average person. |
|||||
| 05-16-2015 09:38 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Now you know why I don't trust mega-church leaders, and those gurus coming from India. They look to me to be highly motivated to make dependent followers. When ... real teachers of God are always working themselves out of work ; by teaching followers to become followers of God ... not themselves. You speak of the early days of the LCM (LSM ; LC-S-M, or maybe LCSM, better yet LSCM), in the early days -- my days -- it was Stream Publishers -- don't think for a moment that gives me a leg up on ya ... just more years ... and they're both just Lee publishing houses). One of my best friends, known on these LC forums as the iconoclastic Hosepipe, was in the early days of the infamous Elden Hall (with our dear member Elden1971). I say infamous because Witness Lee didn't like it. According to Hosepipe Lee killed Elden because it was being moved by the Spirit to the point that it wasn't any longer under Lees' control. (Elden1971 is not sure about that ... says Lee wasn't much around at Elden). I said individual thinking doesn't work in any cult. That also goes for being a true follower of the Spirit. Lee wasn't going to stand for either. Except for maybe Nee, Lee has a long history of disdain for the independent types ... of either type ; individual thinkers, or, independent followers of the Spirit. And Tozer was just one of 'em ; he had a mind AND the Spirit ... it so appears. Either way Lee wasn't going to stand for it. Tozer wouldn't become his follower. God was with Lee, not Tozer. God couldn't work thru two at the same time. That would be chaos. If ya want to go with God, ya gotta go with Lee. Or that's the way it turned out in the LSCM. |
|||||
| 05-16-2015 08:46 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The problem is that the standard by which they operate is different from the standard that the rank and file members are held to. I can guarantee had I at any point mentioned a non-LSM book or ministry, it would have been met with skepticism and probably made for an uncomfortable conversation. The fact of the matter is, only the BB's are seen as having the "discernment" to read non-LSM titles. You can't have just anyone reading non-LSM books. They might get "confused" or dare I mention "poisoned". Of course, the real issue is that non-LSM ministries have the ability to lead people to independent thinking or critical thinking. That to them is a dangerous prospect. |
|||||
| 05-15-2015 08:59 PM | ||||||
| HERn |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-15-2015 07:56 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
 Actually, when I was growing up, all the older brothers in the LC that I looked up to had collections of non-LSM titles. Thus, it never occurred to me that the LC was exclusive in regards to what ministries were accepted. Over time, I realized that the present LCM was not the LCM of the past. The attitude had become that WL "unlocked" the whole Bible and thus there was no need to waste time with the various ministries that even he himself referenced. I think your post brings up a good point, ministries should lead people to think independently as individuals. Groupthink ministries like Lee's ministry are the complete opposite of that. Everyone was happy to soak in what he said without thinking twice, without ever objecting. Really the point of any ministry should not be to produce followers. The purposes of a ministry as I see it is 1) To help people understand the Bible better, also bringing to light Biblical issues that need consideration, and 2) to help people in their Christian walk. If a ministry helps someone in that way, it is worth following. A ministry is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. |
|||||
| 05-15-2015 01:33 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
That's why brother Phil was effectively dumped. |
|||||
| 05-15-2015 12:58 PM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Come to think of it, maybe that's why I managed to spot that what I was in was a Christian version of a cult. All those other theologians managed to perchance shape some independent individual thinking in my mind. So I got out of my mind and into my spirit -- as advised, and chided, a million times if once -- but because I was entertaining other Christian thinkers -- than Nee and Lee -- individual thinking stuck to my ribs, so to speak. And Individual thinking just won't work in any cult. That's one reason I think those like Tozer are so badly needed, if for no other reason than to instill individual independent thinking in the believer/reader. Turns out that, "Brother, get out of your mind and into your spirit" is, cult speak. It turns the followers into zombies, looking for a leader to point their arms out to, and to call out to, with dazed blank eye sockets. Think and be free ... "you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." Some great remarkable thinker said that, possibly, I like to think. But true nonetheless, either way. Whoever said it must have hit the taproot of truth. |
|||||
| 05-15-2015 11:34 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-15-2015 11:23 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
As I understand it, in the early LC days, saints were allowed to reference other ministries, but it still seems like it was limited to a particular set of ministries that would be considered as part of the Nee/Lee lineage. Because of my background in the LC, I see referencing even a particular set of ministries as being a better alternative to just a single ministry. Some might say that's not going far enough. Maybe not, but I ask: are people out there really following a vast array of ministries for the sake of "proving" that they're not too narrow in following ministries? I think it's fair to say that most Christian leaders are primarily concerned with whether or not their congregants are reading the Bible on a regular basis. Just doing that alone can be a struggle for many people, so I would consider referencing different ministries as being "extra-curricular". Obviously there is no pressing need to reference or follow any ministries at all, but my point is that with those who do make a point to consult different ministries, it is probably less broad that what would be considered as ideal. To summarize, I'm more inclined to take the position that following relatively few ministries isn't a big problem if it results in something positive. It's a big problem when it results in a cult of personality. With those who have come out of the LC, the issue of following ministries probably something more of concern than your average Christian. To Christians who have never been obligated to follow a single ministry, I don't think the whole issue of follow ministries is given a second thought. People will follow what ministries they find helpful. |
|||||
| 05-15-2015 07:04 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-15-2015 05:52 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-14-2015 10:13 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-14-2015 10:08 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-14-2015 08:44 PM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
But in Nee/Lee legacy land, being a "follower" means that the teacher is your major, if not only, influence. This is problematic because in this day and age there are so many good teachers and so much information available at our fingertips that majoring in any one teacher is really relic of the day when information was not so available. These days, majoring in one ministry is a sure sign of intellectual laziness. It's a kind of wishful thinking, wanting to believe that one person has somehow cornered the market on God's revelation, which implies we no longer have to work, because Super Brother has figured most of it out for us. There might have been a day when finding alternatives to Super Brother was so difficult that resting in the assurance that he had most of it figured out was a reasonable comfort. But that day has passed. I "follow" many teachers. I could name them but it doesn't matter who they are. Rest assured there are a lot of them. If Kaung is still, after all these years, majoring in what he learned from Nee then I'm disappointed in him. It shows he hasn't been growing much after all. |
|||||
| 05-14-2015 06:59 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I’m not aware of any attempt that Kaung has made to elevate Nee to that same level. Kaung’s publishing house is the main publisher of Nee books besides LSM, so it can be said that Kaung holds Nee in high esteem. Perhaps what he is most guilty of is following Nee too closely. I’m sure Nee’s ministry has been helpful to many, but there are also a number of issues in his ministry worthy of critique. |
|||||
| 05-12-2015 08:15 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-12-2015 04:49 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
But being a follower of Nee is still problematic, just not in as extreme a way as being a follower of Lee. I'll leave it at that for now. |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 10:15 PM | ||||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer According to brother Kaung's statements, he was trying to avoid further conflict with brother Lee. Obviously there was personal disagreement and some type of "misunderstanding" between the two. Now a person may speculate as to what this misunderstanding might have been but this appears to be something personal. I seriously doubt that it had anything to do with there being two assemblies or churches in the same city. I believe that brother Kaung would have said so. After listening to brother Kaungs tapes and videos for several years I have never heard him speak concerning the doctrine of locality. Brother Kaung's burden is about presenting ourselves a living sacrifice to God; The eternal purpose of God which is centered in Christ Jesus; The heading up of all things in Christ; the manifestation of the sons of God, and especially to encourage us to be a people who love His appearing and love Him with incorruptible love. This thread was taken on a "it would seem" ride and everyone else followed along not even being aware that there was no evidence presented for some of the unreasonable and far reaching assumptions that were presented here |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 06:07 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-11-2015 06:05 PM | ||||||
| Cal |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-11-2015 06:04 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Lee and Kaung were both trying to implement a church model according to their understanding of what Nee taught. I've said before that I don't think Nee was even aware of what would be the result of his local church model, and he never was around to see it. The whole idea of one church, one city was bound to create conflict sooner or later. Kaung doesn't strike me as someone who see's himself as a "MOTA". That is probably the big difference between him and Lee. The both could be considered as "successors" to Nee, but I'm sure that Lee viewed himself as the heir apparent over Kaung. Was there any rivalry? I don't know. |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 03:31 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
Why? Because both groups appear to conclude that they are unable to meet separately within the same city. Kaung, who saw no freedom to claim to be the church in a city with a very robust presence of Christian assemblies, could coexist with them all, but evidently not with Lee's group. It is not entirely clear whether that was strictly Lee's fault of being openly beligerent and forcefully subsuming the other group, or a position that they had such a similar understanding of the church that neither could separately meet in the same city with the other. Of course it seems that Lee and the LCM got over that problem. They just added the following of the ministry of the age and defined the other away, even those who had been of their own group before they excommuncated them. I do note that in the earlier days, the LCM would go to a city where a Kaung group was already meeting and begin by meeting with them. Then slowly they would insist on one thing after another until they either took over the original group, or found "ground" to ignore them and meet separately (pun intended). |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 01:30 PM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
"Where, in all of this, is Jesus Christ?" He was gone. He's been long gone for quite some time. I could tell by the lack of joy, the lack of love, the lack of answered prayers. I could tell by all the suspicious talk, the whispered backbiting, the obvious innuendo from the pulpit, the sleeper cells in our midst which would activate upon hearing certain code words from the ministry. I could tell because we had become everything we condemned Christianity for being. We had become "them," and now they were better off than we were. What goes around, comes around, as they say, and all those curses which we had heaped on them, were now coming home to plague us instead. We were more divided than they. We were more Christ-less than they. We had more dead objective doctrines than they. Our meetings were more predictable than theirs -- so much for the liberty of the Spirit, which we always boasted in. We had quenched the Spirit long ago, perhaps in some distant "storm," as we were made to believe. We always were told about the work of the "enemy," coming in to damage us. The enemy would disguise himself in "ambitious" men, men who wanted to overthrow the ministry and God's New Testament Economy. Actually we created our own "enemy," fabricated like a bogey man to divert probing eyes from the truth, to create a diversionary smokescreen until a story could be made up to keep us in blinders. |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 12:44 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Where is Jesus, here? He's reduced to a generic "Christ" who's "for the Body" and "for the church" and "for the work" and so forth. Even though we proclaim on Sunday morning that Christ is the all in all, a danger here is having organizational models and efforts that essentially reduce Him to a one-dimensional bit player on the scene, useful only as a referent point to validate ideas of "church" or "work" or "ministry". |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 11:44 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Kaung rationale, how could an assembly of 200 call themselves the Church in New York City at the exclusion of all Christians in New York City not meeting with them. Same in the city where a live, how could an assembly of 30-40 call themselves the Church in _____ at the exclusion of all Christians in ______ who have been meeting prior to the "ground being taken in 2010"? Unless the response is "it's just a name" coming from believers who say "we don't take a name"? |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 11:19 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-11-2015 10:19 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
The first thing I was thinking about is what exactly would be the difference between the Lee's view of local churches and Kaung's view of local churches? They supposedly both tried to practice what Nee taught. The main difference between them was obviously the issue of the needing to "take the ground". I went and skimmed through The Normal Christian Church Life and I can see that Nee talked about one church, one city. There is also mention of the ground. Because I was born and raised in the LC, it's hard for me to look at Nee's teaching objectively and see what are the alternative interpretations to what he taught. Yet divergent interpretations is exactly what is seen with Lee and Kaung. There are two different ideas on how the idea of "local churches" should be practiced. This is just me hypothesizing now, but I think there is a very subtle distinction between the two groups. First of all, it seems like both groups would agree that there should be one church per city. It also seems that both groups would also say that they hold to the idea of rejecting denominations and "not taking a name". Where I think the distinction lies is that those in the LC believe they have to declare themselves as being the "church in X" in order to be the "church in X". It seems Kaung was more inclined to the idea that the "church in X" already exists and there is no need for anyone to declare themselves as such. The churches influenced by Kaung call themselves things like "Christian Assembly" or "Church Assembly". To me, those kind of names imply that they want their "name" to be held as a designation in the same way that the LCM tries to use "the church in X" as a designation. Those influenced by Kaung might say that there designation is that they are an "assembly of the church in X". That is how I tend view the difference, and I have no idea whether or not this is an accurate assessment, but that seems to me that's the primary distinction between the two groups. One other thing I would add is that I have seen Nee's church called both the "Shanghai Assembly" and "the church in Shanghai". Obviously LSM calls it the latter, but it begs the question of which "name" did Nee actually use? I would love to know whether or not in practice Nee insisted groups declare themselves as being "the church in X". |
|||||
| 05-11-2015 09:00 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Romans 1:7 "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Where's "the church in Rome"? I don't see the name. Why make it a legal requirement, which Lee did? 1 Corinthians 1:2,3 "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Why is it "the church of God in Corinth"? Didn't Paul get the message? And so forth. I won't belabor the point. But it seems that the "church in 'X'" was not followed by the apostle in any formal way. Yet as OBW notes, it seems that Lee insisted on it, and was willing to part company with other laboring Christians over it. |
|||||
| 05-10-2015 02:45 PM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-10-2015 01:42 PM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-10-2015 09:12 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Brother Don Hardy speaking of a private conversation with Samuel Cheng (co-worker with Nee and Lee) provides an example (emphasis mind): "Anyway during that time we worked HARD; and we would take "tea breaks": Soooo, Samuel Cheng took me for a walk. He loved me (...we ended up working 17 years together, “leg tied to leg,” and God very richly blessed us with at least 3 churches coming into being) Anyway S. C. was VERY burdened, and started groaning deep within, praying. Then he said: "Don, I want to share something with you for prayer, and you must keep it to yourself. Brother Lee LOVES the Lord, and is ALL-out for God and His recovery. BUT Don, he has a weakness, a big hole in his side, which we have to keep covered much in prayer: you see, his CHILDREN (7 of them) suffered very much in CHINA, and they are "always after him"; and he has a burden to HELP them as much as he can. But W. L. is very POOR right now. So he has tried to help Timothy in business, BUT .....""" Then SC did a "strange" thing: he slapped his mouth with his hand, and told me: "Oh, I SHOULD KEEP QUIET!! Forgive me Brother Don!" Just pray. Let's go back to the hymnal."" Contact me privately for citation and reference. |
|||||
| 05-10-2015 06:46 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Quote:
But thank God there's a church in New York City, right? I mean, if there's nobody calling themselves the church in New York City then there's no building up. Absolutely nothing. |
|||||
| 05-10-2015 04:39 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Seems that at some level Lee and Kaung really did agree because Kaung didn't see how he could operate in the same city — even one that is such a size as NYC that there are high=level portions of government that are separated by borough. So at some level, Kaung did believe in the same kind of ground and oneness requirement. Just not the name. And interesting that Lee insisted on the name. And it would appear that they parted company over it. |
|||||
| 05-10-2015 01:17 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-09-2015 07:16 PM | ||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer S Kaung: "In 1972, I moved to Washington D.C. And during that period, he tried to work upon the brothers in New York, through family relationships, so he finally took over New York. So that's the meeting in Jamaica. But when this happened, I was in Washington DC. A few brothers and sisters they felt uneasy about it. So they left. And they began to come together for prayer...eh... in... here. I did owe them a lot, because I didn't visit them in the beginning. I want to avoid any conflict. Because to me I feel, a building, earthly things, are nothing. .... important? ... is the presence of the Lord. So I tried to avoid any conflict with brother Lee. I wouldn't try to go to anywhere where he was. As a matter of fact he took over several places where i began. But that's alright because there's plenty of place to serve. But anyway, after several long while, I began to visit several brothers and sisters in Queens. And by the grace of God, you'll find finally it is situated right here. So this is your past history. It is not something recently happened. It has a long history." Me: Remember the hymnal -"From the beachhead in Los Angeles, To the New York City bay, ..." S Kaung: Why talk about history? I Corinthians chapter10, Paul talked about the history of Israel. verse11: Now all these things happened unto them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Admonition for 2 things. for encouragement and for warning. that we may not fall into the same fall. Kaung: I hope that we do not look at history as :'let begone be begone'. Let us learn from our past history. To follow the Lord is not an easy matter. There are lots involved. Our Lord Jesus says, unless you deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy to be my disciples. Our Lord Jesus for His love towards us, it cost him everything. It cost him his eternal glory and honor as the Son of God. He emptied himself. . |
|||||
| 05-09-2015 02:17 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I found the part starting about 40:15 to be particular interesting, so I took the liberty to provide a rough transcription of what he says: Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-09-2015 11:26 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer This thread details what many have known already; Witness Lee had peers (Sparks, Tozer, Kaung, etc) , but he choose not to accept them as peers since they did not embrace his over-emphasis on locality. |
|||||
| 05-09-2015 07:12 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-09-2015 01:11 AM | ||||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Along those lines some additional details can be heard at http://s3.amazonaws.com/CTM/audio/tape3133.mp3 About 35 minutes into the tape |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 10:20 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer I decided to do a little digging to get a better understanding of what happened when Lee came to the U.S. along with his interaction with Stephen Kaung. I found an interesting article titled "The Ecclesiology of Witness Lee" written by a Norweigian scholar, Geir Lie. It is in a Norwegian journal, but the article itself is in English. It gives some of interesting insight regarding the TAS and Nee groups which were in the U.S. before the church in Lost Angeles formed. Here is the link: http://ifphc.org/DigitalPublications...C/2007_6-1.pdf The article indicates that Stephen Kaung arrived in the U.S. in 1952 and joined a group in New York City who were associated with the ministry of TAS. Obviously, he would have brought some “Nee influence” with him. There is also mention of a similar group on the west coast, the Westmoreland Chapel in Los Angeles. This group was associated with the ministry of TAS. Apparently, they even had a man come from Honor Oak to help lead the group. Stephen Kaung is said to have recommended the group to Chinese immigrants who arrived on the west coast. Of course, John Ingalls and Samuel Chang were also at the Westmoreland Chapel. Samuel Chang would have been a connection to Nee (I think he arrived around 1958?). The article mentions a third group in San Francisco that had been initiated specifically by Lee, and was supposedly already meeting as the church in San Francisco as early as 1958. What I find interesting is that in the beginnings of the local church movement in the U.S. can be traced back to Kaung, not Lee. Lee came into the picture a bit later. The article gives an interesting description of what Lee came in and did at the Westmoreland Chapel: Quote:
The article also indicates that the group Kaung was with was left alone by Lee until the 70’s. Here is what the article describes what happened in New York City: Quote:
I find Lee’s legacy to be tragic. When you really think about it, he thought he was “recovering” something, yet as he was out doing his thing, he was really causing problems and tension between members of various groups all for the sake of “the ground”. |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 10:57 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
To give some secular context, in China today you still can lose your job if you make a public joke about Mao, even though he's been gone 40 years. Reverence for authority is deeply ingrained into the social fabric. In this cultural context, giving your all to God became giving your all to support the church, which was run by the Maximum Brother, the Deputy God. We were fooled in the west to think this was highly spiritual; in WN's terms "the normal christian church", but really it was just religious formalism. Human culture filtered through a veneer of spirituality equals religion. And in that religious and cultural context Kaung has had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth about WL. So he's kept his quiet, as have many others. Some may see this as a kind of advanced spiritual level, and it may somewhat reflect that, but it also has a strong cultural component. |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 09:23 AM | ||||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
As for his relationship with brother Lee ( to answer an inquiry in this thread ) he has spoken briefly of it in the tapes concerning "our past", specifically New York. They are available on the site |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 08:19 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
When Benson, Ron, and Company quarantined Titus Chu and the GLA, many asked how could these brothers work together for 30-40 years, and then become bitter rivals? For me, the answer is simple. That exclusive program breeds rivalries, conflicts, suspicions, back-bitings, man-pleasings, politics, etc., especially among the leaders. That program also transforms beloved brothers into belligerent bullies. For years and years under Lee's leadership, suspicions were regularly sown concerning gifted leading brothers. It was merely part and parcel of life for LC leadership. It was the absolutely by-product of MOTA methodology -- as soon as one man rises to the top, other ambitious men will want to be next. How else could the Papal lineage become so corrupt? The mere thought of MOTAs, Popes, and Deputy Authorities in the church age of grace is absolutely contrary to the Lord's teachings in the gospels. For every ounce of good they have done, kilotons of damage have been inflicted upon the church. |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 07:45 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-08-2015 07:32 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Interestingly, the narrative about the encounter does not include Tozer's response to Lee's question. The way it's worded, it almost sounds like Lee asked a rhetorical question. I'm 99.9% certain that Tozer gave Lee a response. Why isn't that response included? Probably because they had a discussion about the reasons that Lee's local church model wasn't so feasible. Let me put it this way. There have been situations over the years where I've had to explain to outsiders why I meet with a church called "the church in X". Almost invariably, the response is that of taking up the issue of having a church with no name, rather than saying that it sound like such a great idea, or that they can't believe they never saw that in the Bible before. In other words, the doctrine that Lee though was so great was likely something that was met with much skepticism. I believe that in the encounters that Lee had with those like Tozer and TAS, they called him out, or challenged his teaching. I think I saw something posted that Lee and TAS had such a discussion at one point. In the LC, they will say that those like TAS were "against the ground of the church". What I think would be more fair to say is that they were against Lee pushing his teaching and even making it into a divisive issue. |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 07:26 AM | ||||||
| Lisbon |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
What I really wanted to say, does anybody know Stephen Kaung well enough to ask him about 1950 Lee? He has to know a lot and he has to know Lee was leading group of people astray. It would be hard for LSM to gainsay a brother who worked for years with Lee. I suppose if the Lord wanted a prophet Nathan in our day, He could have had one and if He didn't, we just have to say Amen. looks like the Lord didn't do much about King Solomon during his life. Our God is sovereign. Lisbon |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 05:05 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I didn't say he completely ceased all ministry. But from the standpoint of the group in Clearwater, we was essentially out of the picture. Not because they rejected him, but because he was no longer the focal point of the ministry. And their understanding was that this was somewhat common occurrence for other similar groups. So he may be a speaker at a conference. And he may have an association with a ministry. But he is not longer truly active in a regular way. Let's admit it, he's too old to do it constantly. |
|||||
| 05-08-2015 04:33 AM | ||||||
| aron |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Tozer was fond of saying, "I refuse to allow any man to put his glasses on me and force me to see everything in his light." He literally burned the midnight oil in his quest for truth. Giving himself to the study of the great classics in religion, philosophy, literature, poetry, the church fathers and Christian mystics. His special love for poetry and the hymns of the church gave wings to his preaching and writing. A voracious reader, he would read a bit, then think and meditated on what he had read. He often said, "You should think ten times more than you read." He never read a book merely to say he had read it. Always a book was to lead him on in his quest for God. In an editorial on the subject Tozer said that the best book was the one that starts the reader on a train of thought and then bows out, its work finished. from http://www.awtozerclassics.com/page/page/4891821.htm So Tozer refused to put Lee glasses on, and be forced to see everything in Lee's light. I say, good for him. |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 06:29 PM | ||||||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
http://www.christianfamilyconference.org/index.php He resides in Richmond and is part of the Christian Testimony Ministry http://www.christiantestimonyministry.com |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 02:51 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
 . Here is a link to the post: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=285
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 02:22 PM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 11:42 AM | ||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
For Nee, Lee, etc it was their time with the Exclusive Brethren. For a dear family friend, it was the Mennonites. For others Baptists For another brother, Jehovah Witness and so on. |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 11:26 AM | ||||||
| awareness |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 09:42 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 09:34 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 09:32 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-07-2015 09:13 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
For me, this all got exposed just prior to our departure. The sisters had an awful time making a bread that wouldn't crack prior to the official "cracking" by the brothers. One young sister, assigned to make the bread that week, mistakenly used whole wheat flour. For shame, for shame! Oh how we loved our traditions, making void the word of God. The leading sister saw it and broke it up so that it could not be used in the meeting, and then demanded that a "proper" bread be made. |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 07:36 AM | ||||||
| OBW |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
There isn't even a lampstand in a city unless the LCM is meeting there. It's worse than their use of "saints" only with respect to LCM members. A few years ago, back when I was looking at facebook more than once every month or so, someone posted how the first Lord's table in Rome had just occurred. Really? Doesn't matter what you think about the RCC. It and many other churches throughout that city have had the Lord's table monthly, weekly, and even daily. But without having a LCM present with their specially-prepared, bleached flour chalupa (minus the beans and lettuce, etc.) and goblet of wine, sitting in their circle, singing a collection of songs that always follows a specific pattern (only noteworthy because of their disdain for tradition), they believe that the church is not present. And if the church is not present, then the Lord can't be moving there. Funny how in their view the Lord seems to only work in a very few who essentially interact with no one but themselves. While numbers are not evidence of the Lord's work, if the Lord was really working only through them, I would expect something that resembled meaningful increase. |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 07:30 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
How dare any of them think there was anything "common" about Lee, his work, or his ministry! |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 06:40 AM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
I noticed the site is called "Lord's move in Canada". Imagine how convenient it was for Lee and now the BB's to label anything they do as "the Lord's move in X". That's not to mention the fact that there were ministers doing works in places long before Lee showed up in town. I guess that's not considered as part of the "Lord's move". |
|||||
| 05-07-2015 06:13 AM | ||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
|
|||||
| 05-06-2015 10:17 PM | ||||||
| Freedom |
Witness Lee and AW Tozer Quote:
Given their commonality, Tozer (and his group) were those that Lee hypothetically could have worked with. It's interesting though, according to this website Lee didn't feel Tozer was practicing the New Testament church life and made a point about it to Tozer. This is the same thing that Lee did with T. Austin Sparks. Frankly speaking, I think Lee missed out of great opportunities to work with like-minded individuals, by making such and issue out of his view of the church. He obviously thought his view was worth dividing over. Something that's interesting to consider is that as Lee was ministering in this country, others were also ministering with ministries that were very similar to his. If you take "the ground of the church" out of the equation, there were other ministries covering the same themes as Lee was during that time. There may have even been commonalities on ideas related to the New Testament church minus "the ground". The conclusion that leads to is that Lee's ministry wasn't so "unique" after all. |
|||||
