Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:3-5
Practice of deputy authority is a different doctrine. It produces "envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions", etc. Other behavior traits produced is pride, arrogance, unaccountable, etc.
The teaching and practices of deputy authority results in damage. It's a tool that enables and pardons bad behavior due to removing checks and balances from the church. If the practices of a deputy authority doesn't bring out the worst of a person, it at least dulls the heart and causes the heart to be calloused and insensitive. Practices of a deputy authority creates an inability to distinguish between opinion and fact.
If a brother is truly wanting to be a servant to the brothers and sisters, he's not going to care if he's a coworker, elder, deacon, serving brother for the young people, or the janitor of the meeting hall.
By contrast I had heard Ron speak at a Puget Sound blending conference a few years ago where Ron said, he's not going to step aside for anyone. To me that's an indication of a brother concerned about his position and about his status. That's not serving.
|
I understand all that you are saying and do not disagree with it. But my question was whether just trying to tie good or bad fruit to a singular thing in the midst of many things is always clearly linked.
Whether someone is concerned about his status does not necessarily make bad fruit found in the vicinity linked to that bad doctrine v another one.
What I am trying to get at is whether it is clearly bad doctrine. The verse you quote starts by making reference to "different doctrine." Then Paul continues by making reference to things about the kind of person who would engage in teaching such different doctrines.
But before you get to the nature of the person doing it (and that nature should be a significant warning sign), Paul is suggesting to Timothy that he already knows it is a different doctrine. The rest is to make it clear that the ones pushing the kind of different doctrines that are being discussed is not some legitimate difference of understanding of the truth, but of a serious character flaw of the ones holding that doctrine. They are trying to create controversy in which they are ready to stand out as the ones with the answers. To become something in such a way that they gain from the desire of others to be godly.
I am not suggesting that there is not plenty of bad fruit littering the ground, rotting on our sidewalks and even roofs of our cars. Rather that you don't have to wait for fruit to know the doctrine is bad. The fruit is the result of the people who hold to it. Or to some bad doctrine/practice.
But Paul already knew the doctrine was bad before he started pointing out the fruit. It was bad because it was incorrect. It was a misaiming of the gospel. It was misapplication of the words of Christ. Paul didn't need to wait for the stench of the rotten fruit to know it. Before the frit began to form on the tree, the doctrine was wrong.
My question to this entire thread is whether there is actually an example of deputy authority in the form that Nee and Lee taught in the Bible. They used examples from mostly OT stories. But do the stories support and align with the doctrine they got when they threw it into the fire? Or is it just another golden calf formed by sleight of hand, whether intended or just from their ignorance? Did they rightly consider the scripture when they said it supported their nonsense? It is obvious what I think about it.
So the real question is whether the thing that Nee and Lee taught was ever actually practiced in the Bible. Is there actually one example? Not saying that there were not prophets raised up. Leaders. Kings. And so on. But were any of them what Nee/Lee described as deputy authority? If the answer is "no," then RK and the others have nothing to stand on now. You don't need a fruit-o-meter to know that they are wrong because they are already tied to positions through a bad doctrine.