Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
to ZNPaaneah
...We all make mistakes, as you said. How true. I had my share in it. In my opinion, you yourself made some inaccurate statements, too. I write this not to shame you but to exhort you.
|
It is difficult to discern what you are talking about. I guess, based on some of the quotes, that you feel some of Witness Lee's quotes provided by me do not give the full context.
If that is the case this post will be an appropriate response. If not, could you be more specific?
When you go onto the LSM website the warnings about lawsuits are in your face. They prohibit. to the fullest extent that they are legally able to, the use of quotes from Witness Lee. As a result I have had to repeatedly consult the law on this issue. Legally we are allowed to discuss his works using quotes in the manner that we are, especially since this is not for profit. But that said, the percentage of the work that is a quote is very important. As a result of my concern over the litigious nature of LSM I try to do both a thorough quote and at the same time quote the fewest words possible. There are many times I would have preferred to quote a bits and pieces of an entire message, but instead I'll just pick a single paragraph and quote that. If you are complaining that I have not quoted enough but should have included the paragraphs with Witness Lee's caveats, one of the key reasons is the constant threat of litigation every time you go on their website ("we know your IP address", etc.)
The second point is that if you have read all of my posts I have acknowledged that Witness Lee's MO is to say something that is highly controversial, even heretical but then to walk that statement back with numerous caveats. He does this with his teaching on the triune God, and other topics. I feel that this modus operandi of his is designed to provoke outrage and disputes so that he can claim that there is a spiritual attack over his ministry.
If you were to remove a few sentences of the most offensive statements he has made, "The Son is the Father", "we are being deified", "the Catholic church is the Great Babylon", then no one would care about his ministry and it would be irrelevant.
In the same way I have not disputed the fact that Witness Lee's doctrine of Deification is essentially equivalent to the doctrine of Sanctification he taught in the 70s and which I accepted. I have not disputed the fact that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine includes this term and that therefore it is part of Christian historical teaching.
What I am saying is that Witness Lee warned against using this term in the 70s, he taught that the Eastern Orthodox teachers had made a mistake (not in teaching that God became man so that man could become God) but in using this term because it can be heretical, idolatrous, and has a pagan root. I provided the quote from the Galatians training, but his spoken word was much stronger than what has made it into print. What I am saying is that I am not buying this "higher peak of divine revelation". Instead, I see this as his MO to say something very controversial. I am saying that this fits into a pattern of MOTA, Deputy Authority, and degrees of Sanctification. It is much harder for a new believer to question a doctrine like this if they think the person teaching it has become "deified" over the last 60 years. This is not sanctification, it is "holding the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons".
I would agree with someone that you cannot prove Witness Lee is heretical from his "deification" doctrine or from his doctrine on the Triune God. No, in my opinion you prove he is heretical from his ground of the church doctrine, his MOTA doctrine, his fabricated story about Watchman Nee, and his practices of making merchandise of the saints (Daystar, etc). But once you have that at its core, then deification and his doctrine of the triune God fits the pattern.