[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

A more recent article (about Etymological Errors) , also posted here in this forum, reveals Dr. Tomes departure from respected and credible scholars and his embracing of scholars who question the inerrancy of the Bible.

Respected and credible scholars? What on God's green earth would that have anything to do with Witness Lee and the Local Church? Lee had zero regard for ANY contemporary scholar, no matter how respected or credible. And this is the crux of this and so many of the professor's polemic writings. You see, when one considers himself the ONLY PERSON SPEAKING AS GOD'S ONE ORACLE ON EARTH, then you cannot afford to give any respect or credibility to any other living Bible teacher because...well then your whole house of cards will come tumbling down and you might just lose that exalted status of The One Minister with the One Ministry for The Age.

In revisiting this article it is evident that it is very much like the more recent one in that is packaged as an attack on the Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, and LSM... but in reality this article is a dismissal of established and respected biblical interpretation of Rev 2 and 3 in favor of..... ????....well, frankly, it is not clear what Dr. Tomes' interpretation is of Rev 2 and Rev 3.....he never makes that clear nor makes a case for it.

Oh he makes his case, and he makes it big time...but, like Ohio said, you just don't like the case he makes so you start changing the subject and propping up one straw man after another. No biggie, if you didn't do this I would wonder if it was really you, and be concerned that maybe somebody stole your forum Id!

"established and respected biblical interpretation of Rev 2 and 3"? Right, established back at least 150 years ago - and this is another main cog of Tome's polemic - Lee and his followers are as frozen in time. They cannot seem to bring themselves to recognize that the great and glorious God of heaven and earth might just be moving in, among and through anybody else who is outside or apart from their infinitesimally limited theological or historical understanding or perspective. Just another one of the numerous reasons why the Local Church of Witness Lee is growing in insignificance as each day passes.

Here are a few issues of credibility with this article:

1) Dr. Tomes is infatuated with this notion that modern scholars are more credible than older scholars (those before the middle of the last century). That whole premise is anti-biblical as the Scriptures clearly state that in the last days apostasy would prevail... using the same "time" logic as Tomes one could make the case that the apostates are the more progressive and modern scholars that he now embraces.

I don't see where he says they are more credible, only that there are other points of view to be considered, especially in light of recent history. Surely you aren't implying that all (most?) modern scholars are "progressive"? Why don't you save us all a lot of time and energy and actually give us an actual quote from one of these "progressive and modern scholars" that you disagree with. You jump up and down and claim that Tomes is only telling us what he is against....you seem to be doing exactly what you claim Nigel is doing...you are only telling us what you are against in his writings (all the while totally misrepresenting what he says) but you never give us any substantial quotes/teachings from Witness Lee that would counteract Tome's polemic. Is it because you are not as familiar with Nee/Lee as you present yourself to be, or is it that you realize that you are firing blanks?

2) Dr. Tomes never offers an interpretation of the prophecy in Rev 2 and 3. In spite of the fact that the bible clearly intimates the prophetic nature of this book. Rev 1:3 and 22:7. He offers no alternative views and relies on the persuasion of his argument that if Witness Lee embraced it then it must wrong... if LSM publishes it then he will find fault.

Just addressed this above. Read it and weep.

3) Other christian groups are named (Pentecostal, Independent) and suggests that they would not fit into the four categories of churches that remain at the Lord's return. On the contrary, those easily fit those into the category of Protestant churches. Besides, Rev 2 and 3 do not have 8 and 9 categories of churches.... there are 7.

You're right, Lee did fit them all in rather nicely with his "Christianity is Christess" declaration, now didn't he? One size daughter of the whore fits all!

4) Dr. Tomes deploys irrelevant facts to shore up his argument. For instance, he mentions white man's religion, and European worldviews, and African churches... yet , none of that is relevant to a biblical interpretation of Rev 2 and 3.

Of course it's relevant....to those of us who have been living in the past 150 year or so. Get with it bro! God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. I hate to break the news to you my friend, but just because Nee, Lee, Darby and anybody else you might consider the one minister with the one ministry for the age is pushing up daisies, does not mean that God has gone out of the business of building his Church. Hang on to your hat son, you ain't seen nothin yet. We westerners are about to get past up big time. Be careful to whom you preach the glorious Gospel of the living God...they might just actually believe it and do something with it! You go African brothers, you go! You go South American brothers, you go! You go Chinese brothers, you go!

5) Tomes appears to mock the watchfulness of believers in past times and cites an example of where people thought the end was near but now in hindsight we know that the end was not near. Yet, he seems oblivious to the arrangement that the Lord Himself conveyed to His church... Watch and pray because the day and the hour are not known. Shouldn't every believer have the aspiration that the Lord will return at any moment? Surely, the Lord's return is imminent and believers throughout the century have been preserved from evil things and the world by holding the view of is imminent return.

Nice. Not responsive to the article, but can't blame you for trying.

6) Dr. Tomes is disingenuous when he argues the case that the suffering church of Smyrna is not the only body of believers that have suffered and therefore Smyrna must not represent a stage in church history only. This is a fallacy of argument because neither Lee or Nee ever said that believers would not suffer persecution except in Smyrna..... and in fact, they explicitly stated that believers in the tribulation would suffer.

Wow, ok. I'm not sure what you're missing, the forest or the trees. You seem to be blowing past both so fast that it's hard to tell what you're actually trying to address. Try again? (no, I take that back)