Does it even matter?

[leastofthese]

ZNPaaneah gave us a thoughtful response in the thread discussing unbiblical teachings and practices of the LC (pasted below). If we assume that Z's premise is solid - what are the implications for the "Local Churches"? If Lee's vision is not divine, if his "ministry" is not the move of God... where does that leave the "Lord's Recovery" Church movement? Where does that leave the followers of Witness Lee? Does it even matter? Is God OK with it all?

This isn't a bait or some type of rhetorical question. There are many really smart people on this forum that have probably thought through this before and can articulate themselves much better than I could.


(Quote from ZNP)
I think the obvious "unbiblical" teaching is the teaching from Witness Lee that some parts of "the word of God" are actually man's concept, imagination, or short of the vision.

I think the term "unbiblical" is too vague. Is the "Ground of the church" doctrine Biblical? Sure. They use lots of Bible verses to build this doctrine. But is it based on a sober mind view of the Bible? No.

There are black and white doctrines, those are doctrines that are plainly stated in the scriptures. These are crucial, fundamental doctrines, items of the faith that were once for all delivered to us. The "ground of the church" is not in black and white, it is inferred. Inferential teachings are derivative. It is acceptable to have an inferential teaching, but these cannot be items of the faith. You can infer 3 wise men because there were 3 gifts. But it isn't stated and it isn't an item of the faith. However, we have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. This is stated plainly. It is an item of the faith.

One critical error made by Witness Lee is to raise inferential teachings up to items of the faith.

Then there are types and shadows. These fall into two categories, one are the types that are clearly stated to be types in the NT. David and Solomon are stated to be types of Christ. Hebrews talks about the items of the Earthly tabernacle being a shadow of things above. So if the Bible says David is a type of Christ it is quite fundamental to teach that David is a type of Christ. Types are not exact replicas. David's sin is not a type of Christ. Therein lies the danger in using types, you can over allegorize. Cult leaders like David Koresh did this. Witness Lee does this with his MOTA doctrine. The Bible clearly states that Moses is a type of Christ who is to come. You can therefore teach that Moses was the "minister of his age" just as Christ is the "minister of the age of grace". But Witness Lee over allegorizes this to have micro slices of the age each with their own "MOTA", 99% of whom have never been identified.

This danger gets amplified when you leave the types that are clearly stated in the NT to go and discover your own. No longer are you directly tied to the Bible. Witness Lee did this to the extreme. Hence Peter's warning that no scripture is of its own interpretation. The Ground of the Church doctrine is an excellent example. He takes types that are mentioned (Temple type of Church) extends this to what is not mentioned -- the ground, runs up and down the OT with this, and then with wildly ridiculous inferences ties it into the NT and then elevates it to an item of the faith.