A System of Error

[aron]

I believe Paul at one time used the phrase "a system of errors" in reference to the traps which Satan used to snare the unsuspecting minds of people. An error is a sin, a mistake, a defect, a shortcoming. A system of errors is a self-reinforcing group of mistakes which collectively "cover" for one another and create a self-perpetuating system which traps the practitioner in endless loops of thought and behavior.

An easy example for me is the kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. "Well, we better do what he says because Witness Lee is the minister of the age."

Why is Witness Lee the minister of the age? On what do you base this statement? "Because what he teaches is the revealed truth, based on the Bible."

How do you know his teaching is THE truth, the only correct interpretation? "Why, because he is the minister of the age!"

This is an oversimplification, obviously, but I am trying to make the point that an error is one thing; we make them in our daily lives, and when we are exposed, we repent and learn and go on and hopefully don't repeat the thought or behavior. But a system of errors can perpetuate itself indefinitely. The practitioner builds a house of mirrors in which he or she continually sees the same 'truth', over and over again. And any new "light" which might change the system of thought is not allowed into the "house" that has been built.

I have 2 questions: One, does anyone know the reference from the Bible that I am talking about? I think it is in one of Paul's epistles. The phrase I remember was "with a view to a system of error..." I did a search but didn't find anything. I remember learning that 'system' in Greek is "kosmos", which is the Satanic "world" that opposes God, but that didn't help me in my search.

Two, what is the system we are dealing with here? I am trying to deal with "cause" versus "effect". If we just hash over the symptoms, we will be here 13 or 15 years from now, still pointing out the shortcomings of the LCS. Everyone has shortcomings. But, what are the causes of what we see here? What mutually reinforcing set of errors is rolling across the landscape in front of us?

I have a couple of possibilities. >>>Thankful wrote in one post that we start off following Christ, and eventually we follow a system. That, to me, is a good characterization of the drift into continual and self-reinforcing error.

>>>My idea is that when we get distracted, and "look away" from the Great Commandment, to love God with our whole heart and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Eventually some "thing" becomes our goal, instead of loving God and the person next to us. This is evident when we try to follow some good, orthodox Biblical teaching but instead of loving one another we bicker, quarrel, and castigate one another over some so-called "truth". We pursue things, even seemingly good things, that eventually "leaven" our love for God and one another.

>>>YP's ideas on "local assembly" of /ekklesia/ as the rescue from the errors of seeking to create a "universal church" organization here on earth. The "stone cut without hands" in Daniel chapter 2, which destroys the great image and eventually fills the earth, is to me a clue. The stone must not be cut (formed, fashioned, shaped) with human hands. Any organization has human hands inevitably on it. If we meet locally, love neighborly, testify to the nearby sinners, God can build universally.

>>>OBW made the point recently about the validity of Biblical authority in the assembly versus the error of "deputy authority". Somehow I was touched that this idea, heretofore unconsidered by me, is worth delineating.

Just some thoughts here. We all err; it is in our nature. Nobody except God is without error. But here we are dealing with a self-reinforcing system of errors. What is this system we are dealing with? I would like to flesh it out, and have a look at it. "The truth shall set you free."

p.s. Readers may notice that I am "left of center" when it comes to organized religion. Perhaps, but I don't advocate leaving whatever assembly you happen to meet with, however organized (or disorganized) it may be. "Leaving christianity" as a directive merely creates new systems, which I am obviously not interested in doing.

[YP0534]

Eph 4:11 and *he* has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to [the] work of [the] ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at [the] full-grown man, at [the] measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ;
Eph 4:14 in order that we may be no longer babes, tossed and carried about by every wind of *that* teaching [which is] in the sleight of men, in unprincipled cunning with a view to systematized error;
Eph 4:15 but, holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ:
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, fitted together, and connected by every joint of supply, according to [the] working in [its] measure of each one part, works for itself the increase of the body to its self-building up in love.

I love these verses. Darby's translation given here.

[OBW]

Aron,

Well said. I think that many of us are saying this without articulating it so succinctly. We are constantly pointing to particular details that make up the circle of error, but seldom to the full circle. But I will admit that discussing the fact of the circle of error, or the “system of error(s)” is something that I had uncertain thoughts concerning.

On one hand, I think it is a little like saying the LC is a cult (sorry Ohio). It may be true, but being so blunt may be too harsh and alienate those who might be “listening,” causing them to tune out our message. For this reason I am sometimes conflicted about being so bold and blunt to attack the root problems in the presence of the average LC member. (Obviously I am not always conflicted in that manner.)

On the other hand, I know that many are able to accept that there are some specific errors in the LC teachings and practices. They either know of some of them and ignore them as isolated things, or merely accept that it could be, but know of no particular instance. For these, the establishment of the system that falls when the small errors are eliminated might be the thing that opens their eyes.

First, when Paul made mention of a system of error, I don’t think he was simply talking about getting some non-essential doctrine wrong. So immersing or sprinkling was not his concern. It was about the introduction of things that misrepresented the very person, teachings, and work of Christ. It was about teachings that were directly in opposition to the righteousness that should be flowing out of a walk according to the Spirit. That is what Paul spoke against when he said that we have freedom in Christ, but that we should not use that freedom to turn back to sin. To teach that sin is OK would be a system of error. To think that the rapture (if it is actually anything like many say it will be) is pre, mid, post, or pan tribulation is not a system of error, though to use that teaching to reinforce some true error could make it part of the system of error.

I do agree that it is the local assembly that is the focus. And that assembly need not have a particular name or form of identification. And that assembly need not be homogenously like other assemblies within sight, within a city, a region, a country, or the whole world.

As individuals, I agree with TJ that we start off following Christ, but can easily turn to follow a system. But I do not agree that it is simply a natural progression to self-reinforcing error. I believe that even if all assemblies do not practice the same, or tend to follow the same peripheral teachings, the difference is not something to wring our hands over as error. It is simply something to better demonstrate the practice of generality among believers who have differing thoughts. (true it might be considered a better testimony if we all just met with whoever even when we don’t agree, how is the natural collection of “likes” an error if we understand them a merely likes and not “musts.”)

As individuals, we may turn the assembling together into a ritual with nothing spiritual inside. As individuals, we can be prone to doing group practices in a robotic way that robs us of the opportunity to see Christ in it and learn.

As assemblies, we may not be perfect, but most are not truly “systems of errors.” They are collections of imperfect believers who sometimes do things rather than seek and worship Christ. But it is not a system of error. They may have decided to accept some direction from outside their assembly (e.g., a denomination) but that is not, in itself, a system of error. They may disagree with a nearby assembly concerning the certainty of salvation, but it is not a system of error.

Of course there are systems of errors. They consider others to have misunderstood salvation and be headed for perdition despite their claim of faith. They have elevated teachings that lead away from Christ. They have elevated their teachers beyond the healthy respect that Paul suggests is warranted. And they have gone to extremes that get them mentioned in the ECNR — some more than others. They are somewhere in one or more of these descriptions. The LC is somewhere in this paragraph. It is far from a member of the top ten in the ECNR, but it is in this paragraph.

[YP0534]

naturally, I would appreciate my own view above all the others but I would also attempt to explain that all the others find their source in the error of "universal church" versus \ekklesia\.

The gifts to the Body becoming titles and offices?
universal church error damaging the assembly

Failing to care simply for loving God and loving neighbors?
neglecting the assembly due to universal church error

Starting with Christ and diverting to a system?
neglecting the Head in the assembly in favor of the universal church error

It's all in these verses from Ephesians.

All of it.

The whole enchillada.

The Body is the only universal element and that is under the direct, complete and unique Head always and in every way. As soon as you make the unscriptural equation of the Body with "universal church" you open the door to everything else that flows. This is the very foundation of catholicism and all the other historic errors have been based upon and extracted from that unique one.

Just consider it before the Lord.

[Cal]

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

Hebrews 12 also speaks of a "universal gathering, the church of the firstborn"(vv.22-23), which may be the "universal" aspect of the Body of Christ, which we participate in(locally) by receiving Jesus as Lord and then receiving one another.

Obviously there is universal aspect of the assembly, each gathering is not an entity only unto itself. It is clearly part of something larger. It is part of the universal body of Christ, which is the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

He did not say that.
He said that He would build His assembly.

And Peter was surely the first living stone.
And Jerusalem was indeed built up as the first and unique assembly.

But then Jerusalem was scattered into so many other places.
And although it took them some time to recognize it, the Lord built His assembly in each new place they went to. And the believers eventually recognized that assembling wasn't just for Jerusalem. Everywhere you go, the Lord is there building His assembly. But to consider that He's building His "universal church" is just misunderstanding the entire process.

In a sense, each new assembly in a new place was just an extension of that first assembly, but the Bible is clear about the existence of the many assemblies. Therefore, this doesn't imply universality. We shouldn't try to stretch the meaning of the Bible to fit our concept. The Greek word \ekklesia\ implies locality within itself. To change this meaning to suit a pre-conceived notion about universality is the catholic error and I've only been recently impressed with this point, which is the reason I can't seem to shut up about it.

[aron]

Ephesians chapter 4; thanks YP. I like how verse 14 has "winds of teaching" leading into "the sleight of men" leading into "in craftiness with a view to a system of error"...the craftiness is Satan, not men. Men are the dupes here.

...then look at verse 15, "But holding to the truth in love". Love has departed in verse 14; it was replaced by winds of teaching. Love is in verse 15, holding steadfastly to the truth, which includes love itself. Truth is not a doctrine or an idea, rather it is an experience, and the greatest experience is love. What teaching could distract us from this? Or conversely, what teaching could add to love? God loved us so much, He sent His Son while we were yet sinners, unloved, unlovely, and unloving. It is enough, I think, for us to receive this love in Christ Jesus, and receive one another in the love of Christ.

Sometimes I think of Philip, sent down to the road south of Jerusalem by the voice of an angel of the Lord, and led by the Spirit to approach and climb on an Ethiopian's chariot. This seems to be clearly a continuation of the flow of God's move in love, which Philip had experienced with Jesus.

But what if Philip decided that every Tuesday at 2:15 pm he should go down to the south road and find a chariot to climb into? That would be an error; only the voice of the Lord is the guide, not some outward directive like that. What if Philip controlled the church in Jerusalem and decided that everyone should go out and run up to chariots and tell them about the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies, or some such? "Every saint does 5 chariots per week; we'll evangelize Judea in less than 4 years." That would be a systematized error, on par with "The God-Ordained Way" which we endured.

The God-ordained way is to believe into Jesus, to love one another, and to follow the leading of the Spirit. I believe our template, our guide, is a flowing Spirit, and as such it resists "systems" which we in our ignorant good intentions try to create in our fallen effort to serve God.

All of the above is of course to be taken as my fragmentary, rambling thoughts and not some "truth" to be wrangled over.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

My idea is that when we get distracted, and "look away" from the Great Commandment, to love God with our whole heart and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Eventually some "thing" becomes our goal, instead of loving God and the person next to us. This is evident when we try to follow some good, orthodox Biblical teaching but instead of loving one another we bicker, quarrel, and castigate one another over some so-called "truth". We pursue things, even seemingly good things, that eventually "leaven" our love for God and one another.

Good stuff, aron.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Two, what is the system we are dealing with here? I am trying to deal with "cause" versus "effect". If we just hash over the symptoms, we will be here 13 or 15 years from now, still pointing out the shortcomings of the LCS. Everyone has shortcomings. But, what are the causes of what we see here? What mutually reinforcing set of errors is rolling across the landscape in front of us?

Aron, one significant "cause" of the "system of error" is the "interpreted word." Francis Ball stood up in one training about 10 years ago and announced to all, that the Recovery now has the completed "interpreted Word" referring to the ministry of WL, specifically the Life Study messages. This should be considered as similar to the teaching of the woman Jezebel, who usurped God's place among His people. (Rev 2.20) The "ministry" has replaced the word, thus perpetuating error, and opening the door for further error, as we have seen continually.

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub.

Any teacher who comes along, and attempts minor course corrections from the scripture, such as Nigel Tomes tried valiantly, will be condemned and considered of the devil. ("That Nigel, he is inspired all right, but it is not of the Spirit of God!" -- Dan Towle paraphrased at Whistler.) Ingalls and Tomes proved once and for all, that no matter who you are, no matter who you knew, no matter what your reputation, no matter how many years of faithful and fruitful service, no matter who you labored with, no matter what your credentials were ... nothing at all ... if you "protest the program," as defined by LSM, they will "get you," smear your name, ruin your reputation, destroy all semblances of your past labors, remove your name from all their books, etc.

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aron, one significant "cause" of the "system of error" is the "interpreted word." Francis Ball stood up in one training about 10 years ago and announced to all, that the Recovery now has the completed "interpreted Word" referring to the ministry of WL, specifically the Life Study messages. This should be considered as similar to the teaching of the woman Jezebel, who usurped God's place among His people. (Rev 2.20) The "ministry" has replaced the word, thus perpetuating error, and opening the door for further error, as we have seen continually.

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub.

Any teacher who comes along, and attempts minor course corrections from the scripture, such as Nigel Tomes tried valiantly, will be condemned and considered of the devil. ("That Nigel, he is inspired all right, but it is not of the Spirit of God!" -- Dan Towle paraphrased at Whistler.) Ingalls and Tomes proved once and for all, that no matter who you are, no matter who you knew, no matter what your reputation, no matter how many years of faithful and fruitful service, no matter who you labored with, no matter what your credentials were ... nothing at all ... if you "protest the program," as defined by LSM, they will "get you," smear your name, ruin your reputation, destroy all semblances of your past labors, remove your name from all their books, etc.

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

You go, bro'.

[Guest1]

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub

this is shocking..and the fate of all who have any other source than the Word of God the bible.. Lord have mercy on us and thank you that we have your Word today.. may we use every minute to stuff ourselves with it.. Praise you Lord.. the Lord is able to make each and every one of us understand and assimilate by the Holy Spirit ..Word of God..
and Amen brother Aaron

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

Yes, this is my point. If we merely focus on brother Lee or one of his Blended Lieutenants today we may miss the point, and then go round in circles after them! I would much rather learn something from the experience beyond the 'personalities' and so forth. What type of a system rewards, even creates such personalities, and places them at the 'top', after years of purges and (figurative, thankfully) bloodletting in the ranks?

The 'interpreted word' trumping scriptures, the 'minister of the age', the primacy of being 'one' with headquarters even at the loss of our love for each other, all these are parts of an interlocking system which cannot allow fresh light or fresh air. If threatened it merely squeezes tighter and tighter.

I find the best thing is not to struggle against such edifices, but rather to understand them. One, it preserves me from falling into such unrelenting and continual error, and two, it allows me to point out salient features to others who are themselves trying to figure out what they are dealing with.

Witness Lee was a master at painting 'the big picture', and then filling in enough detail to prop the thing up. I likewise find it helpful to stand back and get an overall view for myself, as well. What is not of God will vanish like dust, carried away by the wind. The truth will set us free.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

I find the best thing is not to struggle against such edifices, but rather to understand them. One, it preserves me from falling into such unrelenting and continual error, and two, it allows me to point out salient features to others who are themselves trying to figure out what they are dealing with.

I wrestle with the line between being an edifice-pointer-outer and one who takes and has that understanding, solely by the Lords mercy, as a spur to find Him in everything, but in humility. One who has, by his mercy, moved beyond edifaces, but one who simulatneously doesn't trust that he won't make more sophisticated, personal, unintelliglble to the outsider, edifaces of judgment and spiritual isolation which he won't admit as being judgment or isolation. One can get lost in the self-assured world of "understanding" for years without looking at themselves.

There aren't lines in this particular arena. Fortunately. When there aren't lines, we remember that we need Him. And that's the point. Judicial salvation newby or mature elder, we all start each day needing a savior. The hard part is realizing it, or rather allowing Him to expose us.

I wish I could take back some of my early post on the Bereans. Sometimes, the judgaholic turns too judgmentally on those who taught him to judge. It makes for great literary complexity and irony, but it hurts.

A system of error? Yes. That's not the question, though. The question is: how and when do you point it out. Be it to yourself or others...


Peter

p.s. (aron, this post is not specifically in response to you, it is just spurred by your post - thank you).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I wrestle with the line between being an edifice-pointer-outer and one who takes and has that understanding, solely by the Lords mercy, as a spur to find Him in everything, but in humility. One who has, by his mercy, moved beyond edifaces, but one who simulatneously doesn't trust that he won't make more sophisticated, personal, unintelliglble to the outsider, edifaces of judgment and spiritual isolation which he won't admit as being judgment or isolation. One can get lost in the self-assured world of "understanding" for years without looking at themselves.

There aren't lines in this particular arena. Fortunately. When there aren't lines, we remember that we need Him. And that's the point. Judicial salvation newby or mature elder, we all start each day needing a savior. The hard part is realizing it, or rather allowing Him to expose us.

A system of error? Yes. That's not the question, though. The question is: how and when do you point it out. Be it to yourself or others...

I seem to be driven by a compulsion, a need, an "unscratchable itch" to understand. I keep asking myself why, why, like the little kid who wants to know why all the time. "But why, daddy?"

When I left the LC ambit I studied science for about 2 years. Compulsively. Everything that "explained" the universe we live in. Niels Bohr became my new hero, among others. Eventually, I was left with one burning quote in my mind, and it was from the teachings of Jesus. It burned through all the science that I had been stuffing myself with. "Hear, O Israel, there is One God, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".

This was the correlate, to me, of Bohr's wave/particle 'complementarity' dilemma.

Question: Do we love God, or do we love the person next to us?
Answer: It's the same thing.

So I needed a couple of years of science to reframe Jesus, to me, apart from the shadows of Lee.

I am still asking why, though. It seems to be my hobby. I love it when I find "the answer", then the answer prods the next question, and I have to abandon my new surety for the unknown again.

The one "answer" I have never been able to let go of is the quote from Jesus about loving God and one another. The rest, I wander in and out of confusion. So I think it's okay to point out to one another aspects of our journey. It's not necessarily 'truth', it's merely my experience. How much what I experience is 'real' or not is up to God. I just do my best and repent when my experience is lacking (often), and praise Him when He covers my failures (again, often). Judging others is an empty and joyless task.

Lee created a cage out of his journey, and a lot of people climbed in. I was there, for a time. But it turns out the 'truth', for me, is not as static as Lee's theology. Occasionally I have fallen into the judgment trap, also. But more and more I simply try to point out the salient features that interest me today, the 'main question' I am turning over in my mind at the moment. What aspect of 'reality' it opens to others, if any, is not my purview.

So at some point in my ruminations the phrase 'system of errors' and my thoughts on the 'edifice of Lee' overlapped and I began to question...

One thing I like about YP's /ekklesia/ = "assembly" perspective is that it has a lot of 'legs', it opens more questions, related to my idea of 'systems'.

The "universal church" needs a lot of props. It needs "maximum leaders", it needs "headquarters" on the earth standing in for God (as if that is an improvement --ech!), it needs occasional synods (in the LSM we call them "emergency elder/co-worker meetings", right Hope?), it needs reams of doctrines to justify its activities, and emerging bureaucratic structures. It creates a 'system' of non-biblical "essentials" to sustain its furtherance.

Instead of Christ it becomes "Christ and the church life" (see footnote 5 in verse 14 of Ephesians chapter 4, RcV as a perfect example). The "church life" is of course the "interpreted" church life, under the aegis of the Headquarters and the Maximum Leaders. And so on. Nuff said. I am not judging so much as I am trying to explain to myself what is going on. I am certainly open to the 'explanations' of others. Peace, and thanks for sharing, Peter.