Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I will say, however, after much study and many deliberations, that the “right ground,” the so-called ground of oneness, which we heard so much about, was a false teaching. The “local ground of oneness” was a teaching adapted from JNDarby and the Exclusive Brethren of 19th century England. Ironically, using these identical justifications for MOTA, these Darby churches still exalt one leader, called by diverse titles. They have a lineage of leaders. The third? in line was James Taylor Jr who banned WN, and that story can be found. His son James Taylor Jr., the fourth? in line, the “heir apparent,” was every bit as loathsome as Philip Lee. The “ground” teaching is an offshoot of the Recovery teaching, as is this “minister of the age.”
Back to the “ground.” This teaching was developed as a false standard, a cudgel, by which all other churches could be discredited and forever judged. Quite convenient, except that the ground of oneness was never taught in the Bible. Paul never taught it nor followed that pattern of ecclesiology. In Revelation 2-3, John *describes* it but never *prescribes* it. Huge difference here in faithful Bible exposition.
|
I can't agree objectively that the ground isn't biblical or the right thing. I've stated many times on this site before that it is and given the Bible verses that back it up. No the Bible doesn't say exactly "the local ground is one church per one city." But it gives a clear picture of it
Now it's possible that Lee for many years of his ministry was wrong in his personal life and how he handled the situation with his sons. And it looks as if he was very wrong with finances. But I can't say his theology is wrong. The only thing I could say is that it does seem like you all have a point on the MOTA thing and he for sure leaned into that moniker and he propped himself up like he was the head guy of the whole recovery while also claiming he wasn't. I'm certain that all major LC business flowed through him like all the business of a mafia flows through a godfather. I'm quite certain that he gave the yes or the no on many many matters in the entire LC, and to say he didn't is not truthful. But that's as far as I can go to critique Lee. I can't say anything about his doctrine or his theology aside from maybe that and maybe certain things about the authority of the church and the authority of the leading ones, which concept probably stemmed from Nee. And it seems those concepts were and are being abused by the leadership. That's as far as I can go, and that is a very large thing though. A very large thing to misuse. But the rest of his theology I find wholly biblical including the ground of the church. If he overemphasized it then probably that was part of his major sins and errors. But WE shouldn't underemphasize it either. I believe it's very important