Myth Busters LCD Style Program 1

[JJ]

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

[aron]

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

Your post resembles the annoying running and repetitive commentary of Myth Busters that they do to draw out the length of the show, rather than an actual test which might arrive at some conclusion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

an actual test which might arrive at some conclusion.

Here's a test: let's ask some people how much they enjoyed Christ at the hands of Philip Lee.

Or, public shaming, aka "perfecting" and "training"? What does that do to the conscience of the participants and witnesses, and how much enjoyment do you really get with a damaged conscience. I saw WL go after TC in public, and it was formalised, almost ritualistic. TC even said, "I am ashamed" because his troops were not sufficiently inured in The New Way coming out of Anaheim.

Third question: how much does the "Christ" that is "enjoyed" in the local churches affiliated with LSM resemble the actual person in the NT, you know the one who Peter said "went around doing good works"? I've already gone into this before.

I apologise for my unfamiliarity with the television show in question

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Or, public shaming, aka "perfecting" and "training"? What does that do to the conscience of the participants and witnesses, and how much enjoyment do you really get with a damaged conscience. I saw WL go after TC in public, and it was formalised, almost ritualistic. TC even said, "I am ashamed" because his troops were not sufficiently inured in The New Way coming out of Anaheim.

I have mentioned on many occasions the lifelong deleterious effect this rotten pattern has had on the LC's in the Midwest. I watched an endless trail of beloved brothers, all gifts from the Head to His body, leave the LC's all with one unique "sin": they had a problem with Titus Chu after being shamed and demoralized by him publicly.

And what did that do to the conscience of those who supported TC during those public humiliations? ("Whew! Sure am glad it's not me!") Should not our conscience have been properly trained according to natural human affection and empathetic honor to stand up for the oppressed and bullied.

Read John Myer's comments on this in his Future and Hope:

The Midwest, though, typically revolves around one worker, who sets the pace and direction for the ministry of the entire region. This was a pattern personally lived out by Witness Lee while he was still alive. Eventually, sub-lieutenants influenced by him each went to various parts of the globe where there were no peers on their same level and thus few serious checks or balances to their teaching, leadership, and direction.

The belief that this arrangement is somehow spiritual unfortunately rolls out a welcome mat for frequent bad behavior. We must all grant our leaders the grace to have bad days. However that does not include bad patterns. Patterns develop when behaviors go unchallenged, and they go unchallenged because of teachings that tell us to fear, above all else, the spiritual authority allegedly residing in some man.

Under that erroneous assumption, if said authority uses intimidation, public rebukes, temper tantrums, and mocking, it is acceptable because it is all part of the package. Indeed, I have seen godly, senior men bullied and scolded as though they were children.

[aron]

Here's a line from the "Pesher Habakkuk", a commentary on Habakkuk found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was written about the priests in Jerusalem (who btw were "on the proper ground").

For the sake of (self) glory they lead many to serve vanity and for their own profit.

It's a commentary on Habakkuk 2:13, if you want to read it.

http://www.moellerhaus.com/peshtran.htm

Witness Lee got you to focus on how you were feeling, (i.e., your "enjoyment"); that put a hook in to lead you by the nose. It was all about the self - once you focus on yourself, then he can manipulate you into the kingdom of himself. It's a house of mirrors.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned on many occasions the lifelong deleterious effect this rotten pattern has had on the LC's in the Midwest. I watched an endless trail of beloved brothers, all gifts from the Head to His body, leave the LC's all with one unique "sin": they had a problem with Titus Chu after being shamed and demoralized by him publicly.

And what did that do to the conscience of those who supported TC during those public humiliations? ("Whew! Sure am glad it's not me!") Should not our conscience have been properly trained according to natural human affection and empathetic honor to stand up for the oppressed and bullied.

Read John Myer's comments on this in his Future and Hope:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=Navy]

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a test: let's ask some people how much they enjoyed Christ at the hands of Philip Lee.

Well, since you asked - let me share with you a first hand account by a (then teenage) woman who got "enjoyed" by Witness Lee's son in 1987:

"During those years of sibling abuse, I was also molested by the then-manager of the Living Stream Ministry in 1987.
30 years later, I came to learn that responsible ones (elders and co-workers) in the church knew that this happened to me and discussed the incident among themselves, yet never approached me about it, let alone encouraged me to go to the police or to get professional help."

If anyone is mature enough to read more of her story, here's a link to Ruth's blog.

P.S.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Well, since you asked - let me share with you a first hand account by a (then teenage) woman who got "enjoyed" by Witness Lee's son in 1987:

"During those years of sibling abuse, I was also molested by the then-manager of the Living Stream Ministry in 1987.
30 years later, I came to learn that responsible ones (elders and co-workers) in the church knew that this happened to me and discussed the incident among themselves, yet never approached me about it, let alone encouraged me to go to the police or to get professional help."

If anyone is mature enough to read more of her story, here's a link to Ruth's blog.

P.S.

PriestlyScribe, when you consider in the context of Local Church history, this is really quite maddening. After all ten years earlier WP was an eyewitness to another Phillip Lee incident. Appears the only one who took WP seriously was Max R.
Another brother I knew from my New Mexico days (at least 4 families from New Mexico migrated to Anaheim end of 1975), Phillip Lee was the reason he and his wife ceased meeting with the Local Churches. JC and his wife DC have each passed on in recent years.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

To be simplified, having positive feelings you're considered to be in your spirit. If it's negative, you're likely in your mind. For example if something one reads in scripture causes their spirit to be inwardly disturbed, get out of your mind.

[JJ]

OK

Thanks to all of you for following the ground rules and refraining from name calling.

Not surprising we have disagreements on this.

I’m going to call the Myth busted due to empirical evidence.

Anyone care to propose a myth for Show #2?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK

Thanks to all of you for following the ground rules and refraining from name calling.

Not surprising we have disagreements on this.

I’m going to call the Myth busted due to empirical evidence.

Anyone care to propose a myth for Show #2?

No, it is plausible at least and you have not followed your own "ground rules" of an acceptable test. Let me remind you what you defined as the "acceptable test" in the OP:

"Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials".

This seems an acceptable test to me given that Scripture could be considered "theory" and testimonies could be considered "observations" or "data gathering". Yet you have made your decision without considering Scripture.

It seems one needs both Scripture and testimony to be able to call the myth busted or confirmed. Given that I have provided solid foundation of scripture then the myth is at least plausible because no scripture can be found to deny the plausibility.

I provided a plurality of scripture as you requested, and no other poster so far has provided such a thing and in particular, nothing which refutes or denies the Scripture I posted. Every other poster so far has provided only running commentary and opinions, not personal testimony. This is not empirical evidence from experimental observations, this is opinion. On the real TV show they never confirm or bust a myth based only on the collective opinion of the group.

Here's a little challenge for you all:

Please provide a plurality of Scripture verses which defines Grace as "unmerited favor". Since I know you would not be able to find such a definition in the Scripture I cannot see how the myth can be busted. It is at least plausible and with the addition of general support from the idea found in Christianity leads to it possibly being confirmed.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, it is plausible at least and you have not followed your own "ground rules" of an acceptable test. Let me remind you what you defined as the "acceptable test" in the OP:

"Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials".

This seems an acceptable test to me given that Scripture could be considered "theory" and testimonies could be considered "observations" or "data gathering". Yet you have made your decision without considering Scripture.

It seems one needs both Scripture and testimony to be able to call the myth busted or confirmed. Given that I have provided solid foundation of scripture then the myth is at least plausible because no scripture can be found to deny the plausibility.

I provided a plurality of scripture as you requested, and no other poster so far has provided such a thing and in particular, nothing which refutes or denies the Scripture I posted. Every other poster so far has provided only running commentary and opinions, not personal testimony. This is not empirical evidence from experimental observations, this is opinion. On the real TV show they never confirm or bust a myth based only on the collective opinion of the group.

Here's a little challenge for you all:

Please provide a plurality of Scripture verses which defines Grace as "unmerited favor". Since I know you would not be able to find such a definition in the Scripture I cannot see how the myth can be busted. It is at least plausible and with the addition of general support from the idea found in Christianity leads to it possibly being confirmed.

Sorry in my rush to get to work I didn’t explain my reasoning for considering the original statements as Busted Myth. And, EV you are right the second of the two part statement “unmerited favor is too low” wasn’t thoroughly reviewed.

I loved that EV provided multiple scriptures to prove Grace is associated only with the person of Christ. However, I agreed based on multiple personal testimonials of actual local church events (also allowed by the rule) that “to be enjoyed by us”, which no one gave scriptural support for, was indeed supported by actual events to be too subjective versus the attributes of the person of Jesus we saw lived out in Jesus and His apostles “who went about doing good”, healing and raising the dead.

OK I’m not the only judge on this. I’m open to other assessments. But hate beating a dead

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

That Grace is a person is Confirmed based on

2 Tim 1:9

9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

and

2 Tim 2:1
You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

We can see that this grace is given to us in the person of Christ and is not a separate entity that exists outside of Christ. God may show "unmerited favor" to a Muslim or Hindu but without Christ, this is not the New Testament definition of grace but an old testament definition.

It is not as if God gives us Christ and then gives us some grace as a separate thing. The common definition is that "grace" is some special favor or blessing that God bestows on people after they have become Christians. However I think the "unmerited favor" that God bestowed on the world was His own dear Son Jesus Christ Himself, who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

The premise is that Grace is in fact a person and not just a mere theological definition (unmerited favor). I say "not just" because Witness Lee did not reject the common definition. It is a true definition but it is not a complete definition if it omits Christ.

Other supporting verses are:

1 Cor 15:10
Gal 2:20-21
John 1:17
Galatians 6:18
2 Cor 13:14
Rev 22:21

and is confirmed by this acronym:

G - God
R - Received
A - And
C - Christ
E - Enjoyed


We have positive affirmation in general Christianity such as this one:

https://www.christianity.com/theolog...-is-grace.html

“Grace” is the most important concept in the Bible, Christianity, and the world. It is most clearly expressed in the promises of God revealed in Scripture and embodied in Jesus Christ.

Michael Horton writes, “In grace, God gives nothing less than Himself. Grace, then, is not a third thing or substance mediating between God and sinners, but is Jesus Christ in redeeming action.”

Let's not confuse grace and mercy, or Old Testament grace (God's good intentions and blessings including forgiveness) versus New Testament grace (in Jesus Christ).

[Ohio]

Lee's lengthy definitions are not "wrong" in themself, and many over the years have developed by others. But as aron noted, Lee's feel goodisms often became smokescreen for nefarious activities at headquarters.

And we must not forget the context -- his new and improved definitions were contingent upon the general condemnation of all others. He was never content to merely add to the wealth of Christian commentary, rather he had to replace it with his own, at least within his own shrinking sect of adherents.

"Unmerited favor" or "getting what we don't deserve" at least points us in the right direction -- which is God Himself -- rather than this superior attitude as we bought another ministry book on standing order.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

There is no one clear definition of grace. Even Pauls is different from others.
It is explained in detail here..
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/

Here are 7 definitions:

Grace [T] [B]:
Of form or person ( Proverbs 1:9 ; 3:22 ; Psalms 45:2 ).
Favour, kindness, friendship ( Genesis 6:8 ; 18:3 ; 19:19 ; 2 Tim 1:9 ).
God's forgiving mercy ( Romans 11:6 ; Ephesians 2:5 ).
The gospel as distinguished from the law ( John 1:17 ; Romans 6:14 ; 1 Peter 5:12 ).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues ( Romans 15:15 ; 1 Corinthians 15:10 ; Ephesians 3:8 ).
Christian virtues ( 2 Corinthians 8:7 ; 2 Pet 3:18 ).
The glory hereafter to be revealed ( 1 Peter 1:13 ).

[JJ]

Thanks for posting the link to the excellent review of the Old and New Testament uses of the words translated to English as grace Evangelical and more Bible references.

After all this, I have to say regarding the original Lee definition of grace:

First sentence - “Busted”, again as being too subjective without the objective proofs of God’s outworking of His grace in our lives evidenced by:

1. sanctification and righteousness in all we do
2. power of the Holy Spirit
3. ministry to felllow members for building up
4. good works to our neighbors
5. giving all credit, praise, and glory to God for anything and everything He does through us

Second sentence: Plausable

Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion. I believe this is an example of the power of dialogue among believers with different views, which this web site promotes, toward gaining more insight into Bible truth.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no one clear definition of grace. Even Pauls is different from others.
It is explained in detail here..
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/

Here are 7 definitions:

Grace [T] [B]:
Of form or person ( Proverbs 1:9 ; 3:22 ; Psalms 45:2 ).
Favour, kindness, friendship ( Genesis 6:8 ; 18:3 ; 19:19 ; 2 Tim 1:9 ).
God's forgiving mercy ( Romans 11:6 ; Ephesians 2:5 ).
The gospel as distinguished from the law ( John 1:17 ; Romans 6:14 ; 1 Peter 5:12 ).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues ( Romans 15:15 ; 1 Corinthians 15:10 ; Ephesians 3:8 ).
Christian virtues ( 2 Corinthians 8:7 ; 2 Pet 3:18 ).
The glory hereafter to be revealed ( 1 Peter 1:13 ).

All of these lie within the Greek meaning of grace as used at the time of writings.

[JJ]

So for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 2 let's take up what awareness posted (Post #20) on the DCP thread from the DCP's copyrighted quote of "what Ron Kangas really said about "The Acting God" (please read that Post in its entirety for the complete DCP quote):

Following quotes and commentary on Phil 1:20-21; 3:9, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 2:20, John 17:17 and John 14:6 then concerning 2 Cor. 5:20 - "On behalf of Christ then we are 'ambassadors, as God entreats you through us ; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God" footnote 1 on verse 5:20 "The apostles were commissioned with a definite ministry, to represent Christ to accomplish God's purpose
For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

So in the context of 2 Cor. 5:20, is the bolded part (I bolded it) Myth?

Acceptable tests to prove validity include Bible verses (plural) and actual "church life" testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

And recall I liken this to the TV show Myth Busters:
https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

So for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 2 let's take up what awareness posted (Post #20) on the DCP thread from the DCP's copyrighted quote of "what Ron Kangas really said about "The Acting God" (please read that Post in its entirety for the complete DCP quote):

Following quotes and commentary on Phil 1:20-21; 3:9, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 2:20, John 17:17 and John 14:6 then concerning 2 Cor. 5:20 - "On behalf of Christ then we are 'ambassadors, as God entreats you through us ; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God" footnote 1 on verse 5:20 "The apostles were commissioned with a definite ministry, to represent Christ to accomplish God's purpose

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

So in the context of 2 Cor. 5:20, is the bolded part (I bolded it) Myth?

Acceptable tests to prove validity include Bible verses (plural) and actual "church life" testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

I say there are at least three ways to answer.

1. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. All other mediatory agencies are obviated. ~1 Timothy 2:5

2. The Centurion said to Jesus (through his ambassadors), "I also am a man under authority, and I tell this one, 'Go', and he goes, and another, 'Come', and he comes, and another, 'Do this' and he does it."

The Centurion was the ambassador of Caesar, and everything he spoke had the weight of Caesar. Thus the servants obeyed without hesitation. He knew Jesus was also an ambassador from God ("No one can do the things you do unless he comes from God" ~John 3:2). The Centurion knew that Jesus could simply speak a word and his servant would be healed. Jesus' response clearly validated the speaking of the Centurion.

3. God also uses messengers as mediators. "God made it known by sending His angel to His servant John" ~Revelation 1:1

Also look at the angel Gabriel speaking to John's father Zecharias, and to Mary, and the angels to the shepherds keeping watch over the flocks at night, as the gospel narratives opened. None of this disappeared from the consciousnesses of the writers of the NT, as we can see in Revelation 1:1. It was understood and continually referenced from the start of the gospels to the end of the NT (see, e.g., where the angel let Peter out of jail).
_____________________

God uses mediators, or agents. All of us are "anointed"; all can proclaim the good news, and heal, and teach, and shepherd, and comfort. All of us should. There is no "deputy God" the way the LSM teaches. This supposed elevation of Paul as some 'super-apostle' above all the rest is pure fiction. Only the simple and gullible would bite on that hook. By now this is plain (see Steve Isitt's 'Hiding History' essay) that it's a vehicle for some to dominate the flock. Only those who are willing to be dominated will let themselves be sucked in by the argument. The rest should see that this is a ruse, used by those who wish to spy out our freedom and lead us back into slavery. ~Gal 2:4-13

When the disciples began to argue about which of them was deputy God, Jesus put an end to it, right quick. Why re-visit the subject? It's dead; it's busted myth. Drop it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

IIRC, the first time I heard mention of this "acting God" nonsense came during the I Samuel Training, and referred to Samuel. WL may have introduced this locally prior to that, referring to Paul.

This evil myth is no different than the Catholic teachings concerning the Pope. Supposedly he is the "Vicar" of Christ, His earthly representative, conflicting with the Spirit of Jesus, who is His true representative. Coupled with this is their "infallibility" doctrine which both the Pope and the MOTA enjoy, which only serves to place their own teachings above that of Scripture.

Those of us in the Midwest LC's watched this unfold first hand. Lee's minions at LSM were permitted to violate scripture regularly to carry out their heretical and divisive quarantines and lawsuits in all the Midwest LC's.

One little known irony about this is when Israel clamored for a king, which btw was offensive to Jehovah, it was because Samuel's children were so bad, "turning aside after lucre, taking bribes, perverting justice." ( I Samuel 8) In this regard the sons of WL were similar to those of Eli and Samuel. (I Samuel 1)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

I guess we'd understand Paul better if we had transcripts of his speaking's to the churches. Then we'd be on the 'inside' of his words, of the little bit that have come down to us today.

There's been attempts to fill that missing information in. There's the 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, and a letter back to Paul, from the Corinthians, that are pseudepigraphal and apocryphal, respectively.

But Evangelical has got it when it comes to the meaning(s) of grace. I can look up every use of the word grace in my Bible study software, and it verifies all the meanings Evangelical listed.

Maybe we can't know what Paul was thinking, concerning the word grace, but we do have context to help us understand what he prolly meant.

Personally, and I suppose subjectively, I'm delighted that I'm saved by grace. Cuz if it depended on me ... there'd be no hope.

[PriestlyScribe]

Awareness pointed out a well hidden truth in post #28 that I would like to highlight.

"Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
There's a serpent in every paradise."

This truth - "There is a serpent in every paradise" - is directly related to something Jesus commanded us in Matthew 10:16 - "Be Wise As Serpents". This important topic (to my knowledge) was never included in any of Witness Lee's trainings. But how could it be because the emergence of such a skill set in the congregation would eventually result in Lee's downfall!

Here is my favorite collection of messages on this topic. These teachings help me to jettison a little bit more of the LC programming every time I hear them.

P.S.

[JJ]

Let’s test the myth that we are to be a corporate warrior.

Soldiers of God Rather Than Corporate Warrior

In the last 10 years I was in TLR I repeatedly heard the blended brothers and saints talk about being “a corporate warrior” and this was based on Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s erroneous teachings that Song of Solomon verses and Ephesians 6:10-20 applied to Christians as being “a corporate warrior” and we were not to fight spiritual battles individually, but in the body of Christ as one warrior. This always troubled me, as it seemed to be more mindless rhetoric than thoughtful truth, and shirked our individual responsibilities laid out in scripture to be soldiers, plural, rather than soldier. And more importantly miss the point of Christ the Victorious and wonderful bridegroom leading us in battle, then marrying us as his sanctified and loving bride.

I believe they were correct that we should not fight the enemy alone, but together with other believers (members of the body of Christ), but scripture reveals we are each to be soldiers, warriors, in God’s army and each have the individual responsibility to put on the whole armor of God upon ourselves so that together as soldiers we can follow our commander-in-chief Jesus (typified by David and Solomon) to fight Satan, and his armies (not flesh and blood, i.e. human beings) and be His bride.

Following are verses and references to support this view, and hopefully encourage believers reading this to have a right understanding of the personal accountability God gives us to do this together as God’s powerfully armed army in Christ Jesus, His son, The Son of Man, our God and Savior (The lion of the tribe of Judah, The Root of David), and The Bridegroom:

2 Timothy 2:1-7 NASB

You therefore, my son be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be eable to teach others also.
Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.
Also anyone who competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.
The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.
Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

Philippians 2:20-30 NASB

For I have no one else of a kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare.
For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.
But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.
Therefore I hope to send him immediately, as soon as I see how things go with me;
and I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly.
But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and aminister to my need;
because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick.
For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.
Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you.
Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard;
because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.

The Old Testament type (warriors in David’s army): type “warrior” into Biblia’s Logos app

Read Song of Solomon (again with renewed eyes, it is about the bridegroom (Jesus Christ, typified by Solomon, coming to take his bride!). Doh! (That’s me talking to myself).

https://biblehub.com/songs/3-7.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/16-13.htm (see also the cross references)

Ephesians 6:10-20 World English Bible

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace, above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

with all prayer and requests, praying at all times in the Spirit, and being watchful to this end in all perseverance and requests for all the saints. Pray for me, that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the Good News, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Revelation 5:5 and cross references:

https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-5.htm

Helpful article:

https://encouragementsthroughtheword...-armor-of-god/


Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Let’s test the myth that we are to be a corporate warrior.

Soldiers of God Rather Than Corporate Warrior

In the last 10 years I was in TLR I repeatedly heard the blended brothers and saints talk about being “a corporate warrior” and this was based on Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s erroneous teachings that Song of Solomon verses and Ephesians 6:10-20 applied to Christians as being “a corporate warrior” and we were not to fight spiritual battles individually, but in the body of Christ as one warrior. This always troubled me, as it seemed to be more mindless rhetoric than thoughtful truth, and shirked our individual responsibilities laid out in scripture to be soldiers, plural, rather than soldier. And more importantly miss the point of Christ the Victorious and wonderful bridegroom leading us in battle, then marrying us as his sanctified and loving bride.

When they started calling WL the "Commander in Chief" of the Lord's Army, it was more than obvious that they had gone far off course. Such was the pattern of the Recovery of Nee and Lee. Much was good and Bible based, but then they would take scriptural metaphors to the extreme for their own personal gain.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When they started calling WL the "Commander in Chief" of the Lord's Army, it was more than obvious that they had gone far off course. Such was the pattern of the Recovery of Nee and Lee. Much was good and Bible based, but then they would take scriptural metaphors to the extreme for their own personal gain.

Great point. When and who called WL Commander in Chief of the Lord’s army? Such an obvious usurpation of Jesus’ place! Quite blasphemous really.

I found this short excerpt from the locals online, and if this is their gospel message, it sure is totally different than what you find on the pages of Scriptures. This sounds like some Greek mythology, wrapped into a Christian terminology. I don’t see anything related to sin, human responsibility. I guess sin is somewhere way down on the pecking order when is comes to the local churches, it’s all about feel good romance and desires to be god. Sounds like the furthest thing from the truth, rather than the highest purpose of God.

THE HIGHEST PURPOSE OF GOD CONCERNING MAN

In this conference we definitely have a burden to focus on the unique, highest, deepest, most mysterious, and most glorious subject in the Holy Scriptures, that is, God’s highest purpose concerning man. God has a purpose concerning man, which is clearly revealed in the Bible. The Bible is a book concerning God, especially concerning God’s relationship with man. In God’s relationship with man we can see that God has a heart’s desire and a purpose; that is, God wants to make Himself man and to make man God that the two—God and man—may become altogether the same. God is God, yet He made Himself a man and lived a human life exactly the same as man in the human nature and the human life. On the other hand, man is man, yet God wants to make man the same as He is, of the same kind and the same likeness as He is in life and in nature, except that we human beings have no share in His person. Thus, His attributes become our human virtues and His glorious image is expressed and lived out through us. Eventually, God and man become a matching pair in the universe. This couple look like man, yet actually they are God. This is truly mysterious to the uttermost. This is God’s highest and ultimate purpose in man.

THE STEPS GOD TOOK FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF HIS HIGHEST PURPOSE

In order to accomplish His purpose, God already did three great things. The first thing is that God created man. He created man in His image and according to His likeness (Gen. 1:26). God created man not in the image of the birds nor in the image of the beasts, but in the image of God. What God created was man, but what came out was God. Today, we are not only man; we are also God. We are man yet God. Likewise, today God is not only God; He is also man. He is God yet man. As a result, both God and man, both man and God, are completely alike and become a matching couple. How wonderful this is!

When God created man, He also created man with a spirit that man may contact Him. Since God is Spirit, those who worship Him must use their spirit (John 4:24). God created man outwardly in His image, and He created man inwardly with a spirit (Gen. 2:7; Zech. 12:1) that man might contact Him. After He created man, God put man in front of the tree of life and charged man not to eat of the other tree. If man ate of the other tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the result would be death (Gen. 2:16-17). This means that God’s intention was for man to eat of the tree of life and receive God as life. Man was created in the image of God and with a spirit to receive God and contact God as man’s life. However, instead of contacting God, man took in the tree of knowledge and thus became fallen.

The second thing that God did for man is that He Himself became a man. This took place four thousand years after He created man. How did He come? He entered into the womb of a virgin and was conceived there for nine months, and then He was born as a child. The Bible says that the child who was born in the manger was the mighty God (Isa. 9:6). He came to the earth, and in His life of more than thirty years He accomplished His mission and expressed God. Then He went to die on the cross. Through His death He accomplished an eternal, perfect, and all-inclusive redemption to solve all the problems and release Himself as the Spirit of life for man to receive.

The third great thing that God did is that through His resurrection He became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). As God, He became a man to accomplish redemption. In resurrection, He further became the life-giving Spirit. This One, God who became man and man who became the Spirit of God, is our Savior, our God, our Christ. Today He is the life-giving Spirit waiting to be received by us. Once we receive Him, immediately He begins His dispensing of Himself into us.

Therefore, first, God created man in such a way that man had His image outwardly and had a spirit inwardly to contact and receive God. Second, God became a man and accomplished redemption to solve all the problems between God and man and release the divine life. Third, He became the life-giving Spirit. This is the Triune God in whom we believe today. When He enters into those who believe in Him, He dispenses Himself into them. How does He give Himself to us? When He as the life-giving Spirit comes into us, He is begotten in us. When He is born in us, we are regenerated to become another person, no longer the original person. Such a person is born of God and has the authority to be a child of God (John 1:12-13). Now we not only are created by God and have His image; we also are born of God. He Himself is born into us to be our life, our person, and our everything. He and we become one entity—God yet man, man yet God.

(The Dispensing, Transformation and Building of the Processed Divine Trinity in the Believers, Chapter 1, by Witness Lee)

https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...RNING-MAN.HTML