LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overall, I find it to have little merit.

But the most deleterious thing about it was that it was the reason supplied for many dismissal of the plain reading of scripture in favor of something that you just couldn't find there. I recall a thread that Steve I started back at the other forum concerning all the teachings of Lee that he agreed with. Seems that everyone of them invovled a novel reading, or ignoring of scripture to get there. When asked why, there was something in a Life Study Message where Lee said it was because of God's Economy.

Toss James. Reinterpret the early verses in Colossians. Pan major portions of the Psalms. All in the name of God's Economy.

And his source was one of these word games in which he essentially dismissed the plain meaning of the term, coupled with a logic error in which he insisted that it was God's economy that was the thing Paul instructed to be taught.

But it was not. It was the result of good, healthy teaching. It was not a construct or idea (or one ring) that would rule all others. It was the outcome of right teachings. But Lee used it as the rule to dismiss right teaching. So his teaching on the subject can hardly be seen as not deleterious. It is part of the system of error.

In fact, it is ultimately one of the primary tools of his system of errors.

That's why I explained that the danger was in its excessive promotion and not the teaching itself.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why I explained that the danger was in its excessive promotion and not the teaching itself.

I think that the teaching itself, while remotely possible as an explanation of the use of the term in the preferred setting (in the letter to Timothy), is too suspect in that setting, and further, is not supported by the remainder of the passage which describes it as something unlike Lee's dispensing theory. It is forced through tricks of rhetoric. It is part of the system by which we learned not to step out in faith and walk by the spirit. It was a reason by which we could skip reckoning ourselves as anything but a child of God. It was the excuse to not worry about being righteous because we did not yet have enough dispensing.

As taught, it was a nice-sounding ruse. It was enough like something actually true that we didn't see the error that it was wrapped in. We were taught not to obey and be righteous, but to claim that we have been declared righteous and skip the obedience part.

To the extent that we actually are declared righteous, it was not so that we did not have to actually be righteous. Since our living is supposed to be the witness to the world, any claim that actual righteousness visible to the people around us is of no use is not teaching the gospel of Christ. It is another gospel.

And that is where Lee should be found. Teaching a different gospel. Dismissing the one that Jesus actually taught. Dismissing the righteousness of the law by declaring that the law is now abolished.

It is not. That is not true so that we will become legalistic authoritarians, but so that we will take care for ourselves to hunger and thirst for that righteousness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is where Lee should be found. Teaching a different gospel. Dismissing the one that Jesus actually taught. Dismissing the righteousness of the law by declaring that the law is now abolished.

I disagree with this extreme view of Lee. Perhaps it's just because in the GLA we received a "sanitized" version of Lee, like a "Lee-Lite."

Paul exclusively used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought. We should not indiscriminately throw that judgment at others.

[zeek]

Kittel's racism fit right into Lee's system. Lee taught us that we were a kind of master race, a different species from mere mortals. We were God-men! Hallelujah!

The God-men, as the chosen race of God, consummate the New Jerusalem, as God’s eternal expression, with the glorifying life. (The God-Men, Chapter 1, Section 2)

God-man living is God living. This kind of teaching is much higher than the teaching concerning how to be holy or victorious. In my early days as a believer, I saw many books on how to live the Christian life, but these books did not really reveal the way. How can you be holy? You can be holy by living a God-man life. How can you be victorious? It is only by living a God-man life. Never forget that you are a God-man, born of God and belonging to God's species.(The God-man Living, Chapter 1, Section 4)

You heard the man: ""Never forget it!" Nothing extreme about that.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Kittel's racism fit right into Lee's system. Lee taught us that we were a kind of master race, a different species from mere mortals. We were God-men! Hallelujah!



You heard the man: ""Never forget it!" Nothing extreme about that.

In the years before I left the LC, whenever I came across Philippians 2:5-6 it always disturbed me how much it contradicted this "proud to be a God-man" spirit that seemed to be pervaded every other church meeting.

Philippians 2:5-6
"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to."

I'm thankful that Jesus emphasized our identity as sons of God, highlighting our relationship to God as our Father and we as his children. Even humanly speaking I'm sure most people would rather be known as the sons of their father as in many middle eastern cultures, rather than being labeled as a member of a species such as homosapien.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

In the years before I left the LC, whenever I came across Philippians 2:5-6 it always disturbed me how much it contradicted this "proud to be a God-man" spirit that seemed to be pervaded every other church meeting.

Philippians 2:5-6
"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to."

I'm thankful that Jesus emphasized our identity as sons of God, highlighting our relationship to God as our Father and we as his children. Even humanly speaking I'm sure most people would rather be known as the sons of their father as in many middle eastern cultures, rather than being labeled as a member of a species such as homosapien.

So, do I have this right, you think Lee's attitude was wrong, but you agree with him that we are a different race and species than homo sapien?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, do I have this right, you think Lee's attitude was wrong, but you agree with him that we are a different race and species than homo sapien?

I'm actually not sure how I feel about this God-man business anymore but I don't know if I care very much. Even if it was true I don't think it is something to proclaim. Jesus never trumpeted his equality with God though he implied it many times, instead it seems he was wanted to let others come to that revelation for themselves. Regarding our status he said we could call God our Father, or Daddy/Abba even and he paid a very heavy price for taking that stand.

Peter says we are a chosen race and royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:9, but his point in saying this was so we could give God the glory. The God man doctrine seems to emphasize glorifying ourselves rather than God who gives us much more than we ever deserve.

I think whether or not we are God's species would maybe depend on if we are sons of God via adoption or life. I think I lean towards adoption because scripture says Jesus was God's only begotten son. However Jesus talks about our new birth by being born again by the Holy Spirit. So I guess you could say I'm undecided.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree with this extreme view of Lee. Perhaps it's just because in the GLA we received a "sanitized" version of Lee, like a "Lee-Lite."

Paul exclusively used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought. We should not indiscriminately throw that judgment at others.

Might it be more accurate to say that "Paul used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought"? On what basis are we certain that it had a unique and exclusive domain as a label?

That the term was not actually used in another context does not mean that it had not other potential use, or that the one supplied was "exclusive." The only thing exclusive about it (for sure) is that it was not actually used with respect to anything else. To say that it is exclusive in meaning is to assert it from silence.

Now don't think that I am picking on you in particular. I think that I have recently gotten a glimpse of how we do this all over the place. (All of us — even people who never heard of Lee or the LRC.) For example, we say that we are saved by grace alone. Some take it further and assert that we don't even have our own faith — it is supplied for us. Yet some argue that we must have faith for Christ's salvation to be applied. I am beginning to think that saying that me having faith is a work for salvation is an overreach. Me having faith is a necessity. Based on that, God applies salvation. But the salvation is not because I believed, but because of the work of Christ. I did no works to become saved.

So if I assert that I must believe, do you say that I have done a work, therefore I cannot be saved? That is what some people seem to think.

And they somehow determine that this applies to everything after that. But there is no such prohibition in scripture.

Neither is there some edict that preaching a "get more dispensing" theology is not "another gospel." It clearly stands in contradiction to Peter's claim that we have all we need for life and godliness. So while that is not Paul talking, it is part of the scripture. And it stands in opposition to Lee's "get more dispensing" theology.

I will say that I am a little concerned about the emphasis on the law by another poster. But I am not sure that it is not at least mostly warranted. (Of course, coming from me, that is not entirely unexpected.) Grace provides a shift from darkness to light. It is the basis for our salvation. But after that, grace teaches us to obey (I think that is found in Titus). Mean time we are expected to begin to live the righteousness that was always the intent of our existence as the bearers of God's image. That is not an excuse to beat the heathen over the head with our version of righteousness. It is the basis upon which we live righteousness in the sight of the world. That is what Jesus was praying about when he prayed that we would be one as the Father and the Son are. (And I note that essentially no one has caught on that this statement hints that God, in terms of person(s) is not singular because we cannot be one as God is one if that is the standard.)

And to blame a lack of dispensing as the reason that we are not living that righteousness seems to be a cop-out. I realize that we always find oursleves failing. But that should not cause us not not try. There is no prohibition against this kind of work. To suggest otherwise is to gut the meaning of obedience.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Might it be more accurate to say that "Paul used this expression to relate to the Judaizers who used the LAW to bring the Galatians to nought"? On what basis are we certain that it had a unique and exclusive domain as a label?

So if I assert that I must believe, do you say that I have done a work, therefore I cannot be saved? That is what some people seem to think.

Firstly, I said not to use the expression "another gospel" indiscriminately.

Second, "Jesus answered him, This is the work of God -- that you believe in Him whom God has sent." John 6:29

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, I said not to use the expression "another gospel" indiscriminately.

And I would agree. Justyn over at the Bereans was big on throwing that around.

But a gospel in which sin is never confronted is not the gospel I see in the "gospels" or in the epistles. There was a reason Lee hated James and it was because it confronted sin rather than just dismissing it as having been covered by God's grace. It is covered, but it is also something that continues, and we are not told to just keep applying grace, but to confront it. Waiting for the dispensing is avoidance of that confrontation. That is not the gospel that Jesus taught.

Unless the gospel is just about initial salvation. About making that decision.

And I don't think you believe that. You believe that the gospel is the whole thing. The good news is not just salvation and heaven. It is changed lives right here on earth.

And lives unworried about righteousness — that are putting off that problem until there is enough dispensing — are not followers of Jesus in that aspect. I do not think it makes them unsaved. But it does mean they are following a different gospel. Either altered or incomplete. Yes, the salvation of Christ is the center and the starting point. But the LRC's gospel really skips this life — at least the part that you live in the world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And lives unworried about righteousness — that are putting off that problem until there is enough dispensing — are not followers of Jesus in that aspect. I do not think it makes them unsaved. But it does mean they are following a different gospel. Either altered or incomplete. Yes, the salvation of Christ is the center and the starting point. But the LRC's gospel really skips this life — at least the part that you live in the world.

Lee was quite concerned about the kingdom of God and righteousness. This was evident from his books, but, and I say BUT, this was eclipsed by his megalomaniac notions of deputy authority and MOTAism.

But In this regard he also has lots of company. The airwaves are filled with preachers who stress morality, yet have affairs, and stress sowing your last farthing, yet have epic homes.

We need to honor those who preserve a servant-heart their whole life.