Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.
And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."
Yes, we do need eyesalve - I agree. But RK and MR and MC also need eyesalve. WL and WN desperately - desperately! - needed eyesalve. When witnesses came forward over the years to warn them, they were castigated as "rebellious" and shunned. In Chinese culture, it's simply unthinkable to correct the head of a Guanxi network. WL told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Lord. That statement was wishful thinking, and today we can clearly see the effect of that. The untrammeled subjectivity + the fallen human soul = a trap. When WL corrected someone it was an adjustment, but when someone corrected him it was an accusation and an attack.
|
aron,
Your post appears to exemplify the very points asserted in the base note! Don't they?
The thought -- yes, I need eyesalve but so do they! --is that not finger pointing? What is blaming if not your characterizations about WL? It may not be hate, I can't tell for sure, but certainly the mocking "Gunaxi network" characterization lacks the tone of Christian love.
Isn't that what
Unreg means? Look, you might not have intended it, just sayin it looks like it.
Be that as it may, the more important point is this: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius all taught the deification of His believers and the matter is laid out carefully in the ministry of Brother Lee. Other church fathers were also mentioned by both Brother Nee and Brother Lee when it was relevant to a topic. Brother Lee and Brother Nee's messages are available in a few clicks at lsm.org ....free to anyone who wants to understand when they said and why, including citations and commentary about the church fathers.
This came out when deification was being
opposed.. you said "promoted" as if Brother Lee was running a marketing campaign of some sort. As it often occurred in the sacred canon and evidenced throughout church history biblical truths were unveiled due to opposition. For instance, when the spirit of antichrist appeared in the early church and some began opposing the deity of Christ, the very eternal God come in the flesh, then the writings of John were released. Opposition to Martin Luther helped recover the biblical truth of salvation and justification by faith. The truth was already there, but the opposition to it facilitated its unveiling. And no, their writings are not scripture and may or may not be teachings
from the Bible but they are instructive either way.
As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider factually representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it when you were there. All the opposition research needed is just a few clicks away that can be used as a factual base to criticize their teachings and present an informed opinion.
Happy to continue conversation on this last point in a separate note. There is probably one on the topic already. Believe this one is applicable:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...7&postcount=38
Thanks
Drake