Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

ZNPaaneah · 10-09-2016, 05:15 AM

Yes, it is a deeper, trickier form of deceit than just some marketing ploy to get a pagan to buy into Christianity (i.e. Christmas)

No, deification is a marketing ploy to get a Christian to buy into a cult.

Here is how it works.

1. I read all of the verses in the Bible on Sanctification -- we are partakers of the divine nature, we are sons of God, we are one Spirit, etc.

2. I run with those verses with all of the implied meaning -- life and nature of God.

So far this is fine, but it doesn't distinguish you from other Christian teachers. You can't claim a "vision of the age" if you are teaching the same thing. Also, you can't claim "degraded Christianity" if you are teaching the same thing.

3. So he now needs something to distinguish "we from they". So he teaches "deification" and "we are being deified". He teaches that "we are becoming God only not in the godhead" (what does that mean, who knows). Well this can certainly be seen as heretical, abominable and the teaching of idolatry. So he walks it back with lots of caveats, he redefines the term, so as long as you are using the Witness Lee dictionary the term is not idolatrous.

What does this accomplish?

First, it provokes a lot of response both within and without the local church of heresy. John So and others from within are concerned that the use of this term could stumble new believers and that it is completely unnecessary to the teaching of Sanctification. Many argue that this goes beyond the teaching of the apostles, which is is the authority in the New Testament. Others argue that it is heretical, abominable and idolatrous.

So, he has clearly provoked the "we know the truth, they don't" paradigm he is going for. He can argue, as you have done, that it is not any of these things, etc. Is there any concern about new believers being stumbled? No, if anyone is stumbled it is their fault because they didn't read his teaching carefully.

So then, is that a fair argument? A new believer, by definition is one that hasn't read all of Witness Lee's books carefully. They are one, who by definition was not at that particular conference. No, they simply hear someone making a loud testimony "We are being deified". They might be in a home meeting with someone saying that we are being deified and becoming God.

Should Witness Lee be held accountable for how everyone in the meetings and home meetings presents this teaching? Yes, he should. That is what it means when James said that teachers "will be judged by a stricter judgement".

Witness Lee made it very clear in his teaching that the fellowship of the Apostles is the authority in the church.

Did the apostles fellowship that it is not a sin to eat something that has been sacrificed to an idol (like the term deification). Yes.

However they also said that if my use of this were to cause someone weaker in the faith to be emboldened to sin, say to partake in idolatry, then I would not touch it. The issue is not whether or not Witness Lee was idolatrous and taught idolatry. The issue is whether or not his teaching caused those under it to partake in idolatry. Can we see examples of an idolatrous attitude, like the famous quote "even when he is wrong he is right" or that "we owe him even our life".

Did we see people in the Lord's Recovery come to him, concerned about the new believers, like John So. Yes. Now according to the Lord Jesus it is better if you put a mill stone around your neck and jump into the sea than it is to stumble the new believers. But that is not the attitude from Witness Lee and his minions. No, they attacked, demeaned, and slandered all that were concerned about this teaching. Once again, clearly outside of the fellowship of the Apostles.

So then, Jesus said you would know them by their fruit. What is the fruit of this teaching?

First, they will have the "we know the truth, they don't" arrogance typical of all cults.

Second, they will not have a concern for any who might be stumbled by their teachings.

Third, they will learn to ignore the fellowship of the apostles, a pride that will precede their fall.

Fourth, blinded by their pride they will view any who oppose this teaching as someone who opposes the "Minister of the Age" and the "Vision of the Age" and evidence that they are fighting some spiritual warfare.

10-09-2016, 05:15 AM	#270
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Witness Lee and AW Tozer Yes, it is a deeper, trickier form of deceit than just some marketing ploy to get a pagan to buy into Christianity (i.e. Christmas) No, deification is a marketing ploy to get a Christian to buy into a cult. Here is how it works. 1. I read all of the verses in the Bible on Sanctification -- we are partakers of the divine nature, we are sons of God, we are one Spirit, etc. 2. I run with those verses with all of the implied meaning -- life and nature of God. So far this is fine, but it doesn't distinguish you from other Christian teachers. You can't claim a "vision of the age" if you are teaching the same thing. Also, you can't claim "degraded Christianity" if you are teaching the same thing. 3. So he now needs something to distinguish "we from they". So he teaches "deification" and "we are being deified". He teaches that "we are becoming God only not in the godhead" (what does that mean, who knows). Well this can certainly be seen as heretical, abominable and the teaching of idolatry. So he walks it back with lots of caveats, he redefines the term, so as long as you are using the Witness Lee dictionary the term is not idolatrous. What does this accomplish? First, it provokes a lot of response both within and without the local church of heresy. John So and others from within are concerned that the use of this term could stumble new believers and that it is completely unnecessary to the teaching of Sanctification. Many argue that this goes beyond the teaching of the apostles, which is is the authority in the New Testament. Others argue that it is heretical, abominable and idolatrous. So, he has clearly provoked the "we know the truth, they don't" paradigm he is going for. He can argue, as you have done, that it is not any of these things, etc. Is there any concern about new believers being stumbled? No, if anyone is stumbled it is their fault because they didn't read his teaching carefully. So then, is that a fair argument? A new believer, by definition is one that hasn't read all of Witness Lee's books carefully. They are one, who by definition was not at that particular conference. No, they simply hear someone making a loud testimony "We are being deified". They might be in a home meeting with someone saying that we are being deified and becoming God. Should Witness Lee be held accountable for how everyone in the meetings and home meetings presents this teaching? Yes, he should. That is what it means when James said that teachers "will be judged by a stricter judgement". Witness Lee made it very clear in his teaching that the fellowship of the Apostles is the authority in the church. Did the apostles fellowship that it is not a sin to eat something that has been sacrificed to an idol (like the term deification). Yes. However they also said that if my use of this were to cause someone weaker in the faith to be emboldened to sin, say to partake in idolatry, then I would not touch it. The issue is not whether or not Witness Lee was idolatrous and taught idolatry. The issue is whether or not his teaching caused those under it to partake in idolatry. Can we see examples of an idolatrous attitude, like the famous quote "even when he is wrong he is right" or that "we owe him even our life". Did we see people in the Lord's Recovery come to him, concerned about the new believers, like John So. Yes. Now according to the Lord Jesus it is better if you put a mill stone around your neck and jump into the sea than it is to stumble the new believers. But that is not the attitude from Witness Lee and his minions. No, they attacked, demeaned, and slandered all that were concerned about this teaching. Once again, clearly outside of the fellowship of the Apostles. So then, Jesus said you would know them by their fruit. What is the fruit of this teaching? First, they will have the "we know the truth, they don't" arrogance typical of all cults. Second, they will not have a concern for any who might be stumbled by their teachings. Third, they will learn to ignore the fellowship of the apostles, a pride that will precede their fall. Fourth, blinded by their pride they will view any who oppose this teaching as someone who opposes the "Minister of the Age" and the "Vision of the Age" and evidence that they are fighting some spiritual warfare.