Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You are a hard guy to figure out. You think that Lee really is grounded well in scripture. But lately I have been seeing that the "important" doctrines that he pushes (the ones that are so different from the rest of Christian thought) often have little more than lip service given to the scripture that he uses to dress the discussion.
|
I meant volume more than content. Before I went into the LCs, maybe 4 verses on Sunday morning was my exposure to the written word. I had little appetite. After coming into the LCs, my exposure went up to probably 8 or 10 or 15 verses a day, on average. Of course, all of it was covered, line by line, by Lee, but again that is my point. I am not referring to the "later Lee" of I-am-becoming-God-in-life-and-nature-but-not-the-Godhead, or the 4-in-1-God teachings, etc. When I say he stressed the written word, I am comparing it to my previous experience; I am being relative here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Here we are reading three chapters (primarily in the first concerning the lampstands) and Lee simply claims the scripture says something that is not there. This is a recurring pattern in his teaching. I will admit that he was not alone. Even Nee did this at some level. It is quite visible in Further Talks on the Church Life.
|
Yes, but this is the exception to me (more or less), and the rule to others less sanguinary in view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Yet you refer to Lee as having "success among the christian community." Can you explain how it was that Lee had any success among the Christian community? His organizations, the LSM and the LCs, have been busy for decades suing anyone who says even one word against them. And there are writings at which they can take aim. They are spoken against in cult books, and ministers and theologians who have any knowledge concerning the LCs warn Christians to be careful in contacts with them.
Where is the success?
|
By the christian community, I meant the thousands who buy the LSM published material and go to the conferences and support the various "moves" promulgated by the Lee curators. I didn't mean to infer popular support by anyone else. G. Pallantino & H. Hannegraf don't count here. I can understand that you would misinterpret my statement to mean something beyond what I meant it to be.