Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Ohio,
Witness Lee's different gospel and Witness Lee's different Jesus were discredited and debunked by Christian apologists and writers without knowledge or regard for his personal sins. The Daystar debacle has little to nothing to do with the different gospel that Lee preached. Phillip Lee has little to nothing to do with the different Jesus that Lee taught. Take a look at Open-Letter.Com The concerns that are expressed are altogether focused on Lee's another gospel and Lee's another Jesus, and there is no mention of his personal sins. Sorry, but your argument here is without merit.
|
Looks like neither you nor
Ohio understood, which is perhaps on me, because I tend to state my gut reaction or end point and then enumerate why, at least to my satisfaction. But it often doesn't work, so I'll try again.
The basis of the Christian faith is repentance. In the Bible, humankind is separated by sin. Separated from God, from self, from each other, from creation. The call of the NT gospel is to repent - Jesus and John the Baptist both came out of the desert calling all people to repent. Those who wouldn't repent - scribes, lawyers - were singled out for approbriation.
So where to we find NT scripture to lead us to think this is no more relevant? Where do we see one single special brother or sister, to whom the Matthew 18 rules don't apply? It's not about sin, but about repentance. Where do we see justification for saying, "Brother 'X' is always right, even when he's wrong." Where do we see, "I don't care for right and wrong [read, sin] but only for the sense of life"?
Ohio brings up Jimmy Swaggert... good example, actually: suppose Witness Lee and Philip Lee had publicly repented, with tears, like JS did? Then there might be some hope for this movement. They did not, and there is none. It is a different gospel. Suppose WL and son Timothy sat down in front of the church, post-Daystar, and said, "The money's gone. Here's what happened." .. and gave a full accounting, transparent? Then there might be hope for their gospel. They did not, and there is none. Until there is repentance there is no hope.
Suppose Jimmy Swaggert, post-exposure, had buried or relocated the involved parties, run all the witnesses out of town as "rebels", and terrorised the church not to speak of his affairs? Then he'd be preaching a different gospel. Not the gospel of Jesus Christ but the gospel of self. Just like WL did.
That's why all the open letters about theology don't really impress me. They are not wrong, but they are unnecessary. I don't care how many apologists like Hank H they dredge up to say it's just a misunderstanding, if we just realize what is meant by 'persons' and 'energies' and 'essences' then it's all good. No, Hank, it's not all good. It's all bad.