Does Proverbs 26:4 contradict verse 5?

[77150]

26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I don’t think so. Look at verse 4, if you don’t answer a fool according to his folly then you won’ t be like unto him. But, he will be wise in his own conceit.

So how does this apply to the LRC?

Many saw abusive acts done in the LRC but kept quiet because they didn’t want to be like the abusers. (The Meek will inherit the earth?) However the result was that the folly increased and more saints were abused. (Please note in this discussion I am using abuse to refer to the type of abuse TC dished out not PL).

I think Proverbs is very clear, if you have someone like TC you are better off not responding to the abuse lest you also become like him. However, if that does not become tenable at some point you have to rebuke him so that he will not be wise in his own conceit, though that might necessitate your exit from the LC.

Why would you be concerned with him being wise in his own conceit? One reason would be you see that he is causing damage to others. I have seen saints do this on numerous occasions (rebuke leading ones who were foolish).

Also, according to Proverbs it is wise not to rebuke a fool because if you do you will become like him. What if that is no longer an issue, what if the entire LRC has come to look like fools? What happened to those that wrote about the LRC being a cult, they got sued, dragged into ugly litigation and went bankrupt. They were fools. But what if the LRC has become a house of fools? For those who are still there it is no longer wise to not rebuke them. At that point it is time to answer the fools according to their folly.

This is what Abigail did when she kept silent while Nabal partied, but in the morning when he had his hangover she spoke. Now that the LRC has spent so much money on the lawsuits and made themselves a byword, and all the prophesies of WL being the MOTA have proved to be bogus, and the LRC is splitting apart at the seems, now is the time for Abigail to speak.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

So how does this apply to the LRC?

Many saw abusive acts done in the LRC but kept quiet because they didn’t want to be like the abusers. (The Meek will inherit the earth?) However the result was that the folly increased and more saints were abused. (Please note in this discussion I am using abuse to refer to the type of abuse TC dished out not PL).

I think Proverbs is very clear, if you have someone like TC you are better off not responding to the abuse lest you also become like him. However, if that does not become tenable at some point you have to rebuke him so that he will not be wise in his own conceit, though that might necessitate your exit from the LC.

Why would you be concerned with him being wise in his own conceit? One reason would be you see that he is causing damage to others. I have seen saints do this on numerous occasions (rebuke leading ones who were foolish).

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

In my experience there was no way to confront the abusive behavior without getting bogged down in the mire. There was the teaching of deputy authority, but I never took that to mean that any elder was a "pope". On the contrary I understood that to mean that if I submitted to the Lord and had my head covered by him, then I also had His authority. So if my conscience told me to speak, and I went to the Lord, and searched diligently to make sure I wasn't being motivated by something other than the Lord, then I was fully in line with the teaching of deputy authority. I don't think I was ever in fear of offending the deputy, nor did I really fear "getting it". Probably my biggest fear was that I had been duped by the LRC.

I think if you look on the behavior from the viewpoint of eternity it is easy to see it as folly. After all, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

[OBW]

I think we have to understand the verses before we are able to decide how to apply them. I have noted this tendency in many cases in the past. We find something we don't think we understand, make a singular suggestion, then run with it.

So let's start with the verses rather than with TC or BP or anyone else, defining them as the fool.

I will throw out a consideration. I have no clear thought that it is correct, but here goes.

Might it be that how you read "according to his folly" in the two verses is the difference? In the first instance "according to his folly" is to step down into it and join the fool and his folly while trying to answer? In the second, it is to understand and respond to the error in thinking that has led to such folly? In other words, "according to his folly" is a somewhat vague statement that could mean both something like "fall into his folly" or into his way of thinking, his error, or it could mean to analyze and respond to the error in his way of thinking that is leading to folly. One is to join the folly. The other is to dissect the folly. Yet it is the folly that is engaged in either instance — one from the inside as a participant, and the other from the outside as one with an understanding of the error.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think we have to understand the verses before we are able to decide how to apply them. I have noted this tendency in many cases in the past. We find something we don't think we understand, make a singular suggestion, then run with it.

So let's start with the verses rather than with TC or BP or anyone else, defining them as the fool.

I will throw out a consideration. I have no clear thought that it is correct, but here goes.

Might it be that how you read "according to his folly" in the two verses is the difference? In the first instance "according to his folly" is to step down into it and join the fool and his folly while trying to answer? In the second, it is to understand and respond to the error in thinking that has led to such folly? In other words, "according to his folly" is a somewhat vague statement that could mean both something like "fall into his folly" or into his way of thinking, his error, or it could mean to analyze and respond to the error in his way of thinking that is leading to folly. One is to join the folly. The other is to dissect the folly. Yet it is the folly that is engaged in either instance — one from the inside as a participant, and the other from the outside as one with an understanding of the error.

I think this approach has merit. However, you have to realize that the writer intentionally put these two proverbs directly next to each other. It is a logical construct very similar to mathematical formula. To then come in and say that the expression "according to his folly" in one part of the construct has a different meaning from its use in the second part of the construct is a violation of basic principles. It would be viewed as being deceptive.

Instead, if we say that the world is not black and white. Situations change, circumstances change, etc. In such a world you have to do a cost benefit analysis. In one verse the writer is giving you the cost, in the other he is giving you the benefit. If the benefit outweighs the cost, then rebuke a fool. If not, don't.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

I think this approach has merit. However, you have to realize that the writer intentionally put these two proverbs directly next to each other. It is a logical construct very similar to mathematical formula. To then come in and say that the expression "according to his folly" in one part of the construct has a different meaning from its use in the second part of the construct is a violation of basic principles. It would be viewed as being deceptive.

Instead, if we say that the world is not black and white. Situations change, circumstances change, etc. In such a world you have to do a cost benefit analysis. In one verse the writer is giving you the cost, in the other he is giving you the benefit. If the benefit outweighs the cost, then rebuke a fool. If not, don't.

I would argue that the situation changing is just as altering to the formula as to how you read the phrase. It is quite common to hear phrases stated in different contexts and realize a different meaning from it. And to create the contexts back-to-back demonstrates that it takes more than a fool's view to deal with a fool. You can answer according to (in the manner of) his folly and join him. Or you can answer according to (with understanding of) his folly and correct him.

I am not disagreeing that what you say is not also true. But any deception would only be toward those who are not trained in wisdom. And the Proverbs are attempting to do some of that training. The one actually learning from it would stop and seek to discover the difference that makes both true while the simple would more likely just throw up their hands in despair and move on.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

My thoughts was primarily based on:
the teaching of deputy authority
the fear of being marked as divisive for responding
to take abuse is to take the cross

Going off topic for a moment based on the premise all elders are deputy authority. How did they get to be elders? As I've stated on other threads my oberservation of a local church elder is not much different than an elder from a non-local church. That being they embrace responsibility and it takes endurance and commitment to that particular assembly before being chosen as an elder. Differences I see for example in a non-lc church you don't know who the elders are until their oversight is required. Whereas in the local church, for the most part they are easily identified.
Where I see the local church elder being different than any non-local church elder is in the ability to move their eldership from city to city. For example from Los Angeles to Detroit or from Anaheim to Denver.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

My thoughts was primarily based on:
the teaching of deputy authority
the fear of being marked as divisive for responding
to take abuse is to take the cross

Going off topic for a moment based on the premise all elders are deputy authority. How did they get to be elders? As I've stated on other threads my oberservation of a local church elder is not much different than an elder from a non-local church. That being they embrace responsibility and it takes endurance and commitment to that particular assembly before being chosen as an elder. Differences I see for example in a non-lc church you don't know who the elders are until their oversight is required. Whereas in the local church, for the most part they are easily identified.
Where I see the local church elder being different than any non-local church elder is in the ability to move their eldership from city to city. For example from Los Angeles to Detroit or from Anaheim to Denver.

I found it very interesting that the story of Nabal and Abigail seems to be quite applicable to this, in which case it isn't off topic since it was the example used in the first post.

Nabal is of Caleb's house, no doubt a very highly respected name at the time. He was also quite wealthy. He rebukes David and his men saying "there are many men that break away from their masters", clearly in contrast to the teaching on deputy authority. No doubt for someone churlish like Nabal the teaching of "Deputy authority" was a great comfort, it justified his being someone that, as his own servants said "is such a son of belial that no man can talk to him". That is one version of the teaching of deputy authority and it is clearly a despicable teaching.

Another version is that of Abigail, who said " the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days." Fighting the battles of the Lord supersedes any "deputy authority" likewise, having "evil found within thee" would void any so called service to the Lord. So with this, those who claim deputy authority can do so, not based on their lineage going back to Caleb, but to actually fighting the Lord's battles themselves. However, if you find evil within them, say false accusations, or a false measure, or a deceitful way, etc. then that would void any claim they would have to "fighting the Lord's battles" much like Saul's claim was voided by the bleating of the sheep.

[77150]

The obvious question becomes this:

Since this site is rebuking the folly of WL, LSM and the LRC does it follow that this site must "be like them"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

The obvious question becomes this:

Since this site is rebuking the folly of WL, LSM and the LRC does it follow that this site must "be like them"?

The "obvious question" is not at all obvious to me.

Both your presumption and your conclusion are flawed. LSM has their issues, but "folly," as Solomon used the word, is not even on the radar.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "obvious question" is not at all obvious to me.

Both your presumption and your conclusion are flawed. LSM has their issues, but "folly," as Solomon used the word, is not even on the radar.

1:1 The proverbs of Solomon are given for us to know wisdom (and the absence of wisdom – folly).

1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

WL treated WN as his spiritual father. This site has gone through WN’s teachings to show where WL contradicted, and forsoke that instruction. That would be, by definition, folly.

3:29 Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee.
3:30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm

There is very good evidence that the so called “sisters rebellion” was devised by WL as a way of turning the attention away from the misdeeds of himself and his children. This by definition is folly.

6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

By definition the “arrogance of WL” is folly. The lies and fraud of WL and his sons is folly. The damaging of names and reputations by WL was folly. Devising the “sister’s rebellion” was folly. Sowing discord among brethren was folly.

6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
6:33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
6:34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

An apt description of PL whose behavior was, by definition, folly.

8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

WL’s pride by definition is folly. His arrogancy is folly. His evil way is folly. His forward mouth was folly. On this site we have rebuked all of these things. (Froward – easily irritated by unimportant things, unyielding, disobedient, I would use the term “litigious” to describe forward). You have made much of these character traits of WL on this site, hence you could lump these posts under the category “WL’s forward mouth”.

11:7 When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth.

Compare this verse to the teaching of MOTA. How did WL’s death impact this teaching, how did it affect the hope of the BB’s and LSM?

11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour:

How many times on this site have we discussed how many were destroyed by WL, LSM and the LRC? You have talked about TC doing this.

11:18 The wicked worketh a deceitful work

Let’s be honest, the entire thread “Good Lee/Bad Lee” is portraying WL’s ministry as a deceitful work.

11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD:

How much have we talked about WL’s propensity to sue other Christians despite the clear NT prohibition?

11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished:

Compare this verse with the emphasis on “being one with the ministry”. Do you think their “joining hands” to be “one with the ministry” will save them from being punished?

11:28 He that trusteth in his riches shall fall:

Compare this verse with WL, LSM and the BBs talking about what a “rich ministry” they have.

12:1b he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Remember WL’s response when JI went to him about PL?

12:5b the counsels of the wicked are deceit.

Remember the counsel RG and BP gave JI concerning the PL affair? How about the book that was written as fellowship and counsel but was really just a whitewash. This also has been a major topic on this site and it is referring to folly.

12:11b but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.

How many have wondered on this site how PL could be running LSM and how those associated with LSM would follow him.

12:18 There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health.

Doesn’t this word apply to posts you have made concerning TC?

13:1b a scorner heareth not rebuke.

Did WL ever allow himself to hear rebuke?

13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

Didn’t the righteous elders in Anaheim resign because they hated lying, isn’t PL a loathsome man, how would you describe the elders that wrote and signed the letter apologizing to PL? This is all a major topic on this site, it is a discussion of folly and wisdom.

13:10 Only by pride cometh contention:

What about the excommunication of TC? “Sister’s rebellion”, “Max’s rebellion”, etc. These are all topics covered here and at the root it is a discussion of WL’s pride.

13:13 Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed:

If all this is true, then how can this verse not apply to WL, LSM, BBs, etc?

13:19b it is abomination to fools to depart from evil.

Now BP and RK have made it clear that it is an abomination in their mind to depart from this ministry. This has been discussed on this site. So then, does this verse call them fools?

14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride:

Have we applied this verse to WL and TC? So then haven’t we discussed their folly?

14:9 Fools make a mock at sin:

Didn’t WL once say that the Daystar event was when the saints lost their virginity? Hasn’t this been discussed on this site?

14:17 He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a man of wicked devices is hated.

Doesn’t this verse refer to the litigious nature of the LRC? Isn’t this a topic of this site?

14:18 The simple inherit folly:

Haven’t we discussed how the saints in the LRC have been stuck with the bill for this folly, and how in some cases their meeting halls have been taken from them?

14:21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.

Hasn’t this site discussed how the LRC has forgotten the simple things like mercy, and taking care of the poor?

16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Doesn’t this describe the pride of the LRC in their “ground of oneness teaching” and also the the entire teaching of “being one with the ministry”.

16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

Isn’t this a common theme among the testimonies of those that have left the LRC?

16:22b but the instruction of fools is folly.

Doesn’t this verse describe some recent posts comparing WL’s ministry to that of other Christian teachers?


17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Surely this verse applies directly to the discussion on this site concerning Daystar, TL and PL.


19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.

Do you think that the Lord Jesus might be using this site to make sure that this verse is fulfilled?

19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.

Isn’t this the thesis of some, that the ministry of WL causes you to err from the words of knowledge? Wasn’t that the whole issue over the interpretation of “becoming one flesh” that the deemphasis of relationship caused the saints to err?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

WL treated WN as his spiritual father. This site has gone through WN’s teachings to show where WL contradicted, and forsoke that instruction. That would be, by definition, folly.

How can that be by definition, folly? How can WN be his spiritual father? WL was saved for years before meeting WN. Since when does some supposed "spiritual father" take the place of our heavenly Father?

Originally Posted by 77150

WL treated WN as his spiritual father. This site has gone through WN’s teachings to show where WL contradicted, and forsook that instruction. That would be, by definition, folly.

I beg to differ here. This site has attempted to show where WL differed from the scriptures in his teachings and actions, many of which have damaged God's children. WN may have been a great teacher, but his teaching was never our standard. He often taught this too.

If the rest of your post expounds the scripture like this, then I really don't have time to read it all.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

The obvious question becomes this: Since this site is rebuking the folly of WL, LSM and the LRC does it follow that this site must "be like them"?

I'm surprised it took you all of three days to come up with this dandy. You could have saved yourself the trouble and just posted this right from the start.
Sorry to be so hard on you but you are not posting in good faith, and I'm not certain that it has ever been your intention to do so. Those who feel that the criticisms of Witness Lee and the Local Church are too harsh are free to register and participate, but they must do so in good faith. Starting a thread in a manner which appears to be in good faith, then using it to be subversive (poisoning the well) will not be allowed on this forum. And no this is not open for debate.

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm surprised it took you all of three days to come up with this dandy. You could have saved yourself the trouble and just posted this right from the start.
Sorry to be so hard on you but you are not posting in good faith, and I'm not certain that it has ever been your intention to do so. Those who feel that the criticisms of Witness Lee and the Local Church are too harsh are free to register and participate, but they must do so in good faith. Starting a thread in a manner which appears to be in good faith, then using it to be subversive (poisoning the well) will not be allowed on this forum. And no this is not open for debate.

I don't understand, can you expound on this?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

I don't understand, can you expound on this?

Originally Posted by 77150

The obvious question becomes this: Since this site is rebuking the folly of WL, LSM and the LRC does it follow that this site must "be like them"?

"this site must be like them"?

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"this site must be like them"?

Answering a question with a question is evasive and ironically calls into question whether you are answering in good faith.

You said, with certainty, "Sorry to be so hard on you but you are not posting in good faith, and I'm not certain that it has ever been your intention to do so."

My question is quite simple, what did you mean when you said "you are not posting in good faith"

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm surprised it took you all of three days to come up with this dandy. You could have saved yourself the trouble and just posted this right from the start.


Sorry to be so hard on you but you are not posting in good faith, and I'm not certain that it has ever been your intention to do so. Those who feel that the criticisms of Witness Lee and the Local Church are too harsh are free to register and participate, but they must do so in good faith. Starting a thread in a manner which appears to be in good faith, then using it to be subversive (poisoning the well) will not be allowed on this forum. And no this is not open for debate.

Maybe I misread 77150 but asking critical questions of ourselves in the midst of critical examinations of others is worth doing. I do it all the time.

Jesus said that it is easy to be aware of the splinter in the others' eyes while missing the beam in our own. So if we perchance do espy a splinter in another's eye, is it not worth our time to ask if the same manifestation of the fall of the human race is also within us (we after all belonging to the same species), and being expressed also?

To be more precise (although this may veer from 77150's thought), if we note that Mr Lee was rather contentious and adversarial with his fellow believers; instead of being inclusive calling them "dark" and "degraded" and "Babylonian", etc, mayhaps we also are being unduly contentious with the LRC die-hards and true believers? We wave the differences high in the air while downplaying the many commonalities?

Most here would quickly reply "no"; okay, but am I "in bad faith" if I raise the question in a discussion? Because I do, occasionally, think that question.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

To be more precise (although this may veer from 77150's thought), if we note that Mr Lee was rather contentious and adversarial with his fellow believers; instead of being inclusive calling them "dark" and "degraded" and "Babylonian", etc, mayhaps we also are being unduly contentious with the LRC die-hards and true believers? We wave the differences high in the air while downplaying the many commonalities?
Most here would quickly reply "no"; okay, but am I "in bad faith" if I raise the question in a discussion? Because I do, occasionally, think that question.

Thanks aron for this post. There are some good points you raise. "unduly contentious" is something that a forum administrator has to deal with on a daily basis. Yet, one man's unduly contentious is another man's righteous indignation. And when it comes to matters surrounding Witness Lee and The Local Church there is plenty of both to go around. You are correct about there being more waving of the differences high in the air as compared to emphasizing the many commonalities. This, I believe, is a function of the high ratio of former LC members as compared to current and recently former members. I have hoped and prayed for this ratio to be brought closer together, but so far it has not happened:verysad:

Now getting to the heart of your post.
am I "in bad faith" if I raise the question in a discussion?

The answer is absolutely, positively.....maybe, maybe not.
Let me give you a hypothetical (maybe not so hypothetical)
Let's say you have a person who enters into a conversation with you about you and your wife. The conversation (innocently enough) initiates with the subject of spousal abuse. You carry on a lengthy conversation for a considerable amount of time, both agreeing on the evils of spousal abuse. Then, out of the blue the one party inquires “so, when did you stop beating your wife?”. Even IF the one party was indeed beating their wife the other party was having the conversation in bad faith. This is to say nothing of the instance where the other party was not beating his wife at all.

Good faith is good faith. Bad faith is bad faith. Only the offending party really knows in their heart whether or not they are acting in good faith or bad faith. Unlike God, I do not have the luxury of knowing what is in somebody’s heart. I can only look on “the outward”. That is all I can judge upon, and that is all God can expect me to judge on. What God does expect of me, I believe, is to “judge with righteous judgement”. This is a hard thing for me, and I take it very seriously. Currently, I am the only person administering this forum. I have asked others to help me out with this burden but thus far have had no takers. I am not asking for the congressional medal of honor here, only for some understanding that I am just one man, with one man’s heart and mind.

All this being said, the member/poster in question has not been censored or banned in any way. I have publicly questioned their good faith in posting in a particular thread. I was asked for an explanation and I gave one (albeit not to this person’s liking). As usual with this member/poster, the retort contained too much information to discern what the retort actually was. Such is life on an internet forum I suppose.

[77150]

Originally Posted by 77150

26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I don’t think so. Look at verse 4, if you don’t answer a fool according to his folly then you won’ t be like unto him. But, he will be wise in his own conceit.

So how does this apply to the LRC?

Many saw abusive acts done in the LRC but kept quiet because they didn’t want to be like the abusers. (The Meek will inherit the earth?) However the result was that the folly increased and more saints were abused. (Please note in this discussion I am using abuse to refer to the type of abuse TC dished out not PL).

I think Proverbs is very clear, if you have someone like TC you are better off not responding to the abuse lest you also become like him. However, if that does not become tenable at some point you have to rebuke him so that he will not be wise in his own conceit, though that might necessitate your exit from the LC.

Why would you be concerned with him being wise in his own conceit? One reason would be you see that he is causing damage to others. I have seen saints do this on numerous occasions (rebuke leading ones who were foolish).

Also, according to Proverbs it is wise not to rebuke a fool because if you do you will become like him. What if that is no longer an issue, what if the entire LRC has come to look like fools? What happened to those that wrote about the LRC being a cult, they got sued, dragged into ugly litigation and went bankrupt. They were fools. But what if the LRC has become a house of fools? For those who are still there it is no longer wise to not rebuke them. At that point it is time to answer the fools according to their folly.

This is what Abigail did when she kept silent while Nabal partied, but in the morning when he had his hangover she spoke. Now that the LRC has spent so much money on the lawsuits and made themselves a byword, and all the prophesies of WL being the MOTA have proved to be bogus, and the LRC is splitting apart at the seems, now is the time for Abigail to speak.

If we agree that the behavior of WL, LSM and the BBs can be characterized by the term "folly" in Proverbs 26 then we can all agree that verses 4 and 5 refer to how to respond to their folly.

At some point you may have taken the route "not to answer a fool according to his folly" but I would argue that this strategy is no longer tenable.

Can you stay quiet while saints are being defrauded?
Can you stay quiet while all manner of evil is being said of saints falsely?
Can you stay quiet while elders bow down and apologize to the workers of iniquity?
Can you stay quiet while you see the hypocrisy of WL and LSM in the "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" in which they cast those who stood up to sin as being rebellious?
Can you stay quiet while the LSM devours meeting halls belonging to the saints?
Can you stay quiet while LSM extorts the churches to subscribe to their books and services or else suffer the same fate as TC?
If you stay quiet does that mean that you also will be held accountable for their sins?
At some point you have to decide will you bend your knee to the Lord and proclaim that Jesus is Lord, or will you bow down to the LSM and BBs.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

If we agree that the behavior of WL, LSM and the BBs can be characterized by the term "folly" in Proverbs 26 then we can all agree that verses 4 and 5 refer to how to respond to their folly.

At some point you may have taken the route "not to answer a fool according to his folly" but I would argue that this strategy is no longer tenable.

While I agree with you overall, the real question is "to whom are we actually responding?" In other words, are we responding to the LSM, the BBs, etc.? Or are we making response for the consumption of others who are affected by the positions that they take, either as members of the LRC or as those harmed?

The reason I ask is that I have noted in a different place that there are some for whom responding to their folly is never the wise choice because they so clearly are not thinking and reasoning in a clear manner, therefore anything directed at them in any way outside of agreement is meaningless to them. On the other hand, there is a chance that others who may be swayed by the rhetoric of the fool's folly have enough rational capacity to recognize sound words.

So responding to the fool may constantly be contraindicated in some cases, yet, if done with wisdom, of great value to others. I do not believe that it is possible to let an "untenable" position force you into the error of responding in a manner that violates v 4 without providing the sound response required of v 5. And when the fool will remain in his arrogance and pride, no response is capable of refusing him his self-declared rightness.

I am not saying that there is no way to respond to the BBs relative to these verses. I am just suggesting that it could be true. I am aware of another person (in another context) that is clearly in that position. The only reason to even respond occasionally is to make it clear to the lurkers that their near insanity is not accepted as true. It makes no impact on the fool who is the subject of the response.

And so, with that, I have forced these two verses to remain as opposites with no clear answer to how to use them. It takes wisdom.

And I pray that we have the wisdom it would take to respond to some of the fool's folly that we are faced with.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I agree with you overall, the real question is "to whom are we actually responding?" In other words, are we responding to the LSM, the BBs, etc.? Or are we making response for the consumption of others who are affected by the positions that they take, either as members of the LRC or as those harmed?.

Leaving the LRC is a response. I see no reason to direct the response specifically to the LSM, BBs, etc.

However, if you remain in the LRC I think it is imperative that you make a clear testimony that you do not condone or agree with their sins. Otherwise, your silence allows them to continue and I believe you will be held accountable.

So you may have had absolutely nothing to do with Daystar, yet you continue to uphold LSM as a NT Ministry. That to me is an insult and slap in the face of those defrauded by them and you will be held accountable for that.

Or, if you know that JI, JF, and BM were standing up for righteousness sake and as a result were scorned and persecuted by WL how can you in good faith close your eyes to that. At the very least you should object to the book "the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" being sold in your locality. Otherwise you also take part in their sins and hypocrisy by distributing the lie.

How can you not be offended at the letter of apology to PL? If you are, then how could you allow one of the brothers who signed that letter to conduct a training of saints that you or members of your church attend. Your action makes you one with their sin.

Their are other possible responses, but I think the ones I have mentioned should act as a reasonable guide.