[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.
...
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.

With doctrines such as deputy authority, I don't think it's always immediately clear what is a bad doctrine and what isn't. For starters, there are thousands of people in the LC who buy into such a doctrine, and I'm sure that many would be willing to justify their doctrine if called upon to do so.

You are right, deputy authority is a construct invented by Nee, however, he made a case for this doctrine. For example, in the CFP version of Spiritual Authority, Nee references the case of Ham being cursed as an example of what happens when someone disobeys the the "deputy authority" (Noah). Another example Nee gives is that of Nadab and Abihu overstepping Aaron to offer up strange fire. The point is that Nee attempted to make an argument for his doctrine and even if it was a little bit of a stretch, its hard to throw it out immediately as bad doctrine. Nee saw these cases as issues of authority. I see these cases more than just a black and white issue of overstepping authority. Either interpretation has its merits.

I think there are several issues that have to be considered. Some of the questions that come to mind in evaluating a doctrine like deputy authority are 1) Do the cases in the Bible that Nee referenced mean what he claims they do? 2) Is this practice something in the Bible? 3) Is this teaching practiced outside the LC? Those questions have to be considered in conjunction with one another. Just because a practice isn't in the Bible doesn't mean you can't do it. By the same token, practices that aren't in the Bible should probably be more heavily scrutinized.