The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Please show what else Witness Lee taught as necessary to salvation from hell other than faith in Jesus Christ? I want quotes, books, etc. Not caricatures or secondary issues.

Ok, InOmnibusCaritas, I'm going to have to ask you to give the other new guy a little slack here. I don't know if you caught Amcasci's first number of posts, but he has been away from the Local Church for over 40 years, so exact page and paragraph quotes for are going to be a little hard for him to produce. Also you may want to appreciate the fact that Art was in the Local Church at a vastly different time and place than you. If you read my opening post, I did request that we all stay away from such caricatures and secondary issues, and I don't see where Art has intentionally stepped out of bounds in this regard.

Anyway, he is apparently on vacation so let's let him enjoy it without having to worry about playing defense until he gets back home.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, InOmnibusCaritas, I'm going to have to ask you to give the other new guy a little slack here. I don't know if you caught Amcasci's first number of posts, but he has been away from the Local Church for over 40 years, so exact page and paragraph quotes for are going to be a little hard for him to produce. Also you may want to appreciate the fact that Art was in the Local Church at a vastly different time and place than you. If you read my opening post, I did request that we all stay away from such caricatures and secondary issues, and I don't see where Art has intentionally stepped out of bounds in this regard.

Anyway, he is apparently on vacation so let's let him enjoy it without having to worry about playing defense until he gets back home.

My apologies to Art.

I would like to redirect everyone back to the original question:

"Does the Local Church Teach/Preach Another Gospel and Another Jesus?"

UntoHim thinks so. He writes, "it is in the interpretation of these epistles that we see Witness Lee's departure from the historic Christian Gospel."

Believing in the Gospel is results in one being saved.
Departure from the "historic Christian Gospel" results in one in danger of being unsaved.

This question is for ALL THE MARBLES and trumps every other thread in this forum.

So far, I'm reading that:
1) "In Lees case it is the local ground, membership in the local church, and thus being an overcomer." (Amcasi)
Lee never claims that membership in LCs is precondition for being an overcomer - thus the point of his interpretation of the 7 churches in Rev. 2-3. Lee believed that Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum refer to ages up to perhaps the Great Schism. The existing ones are Thyatira (Lee: Roman Catholicism), Sardis (Lee: Protestantism), Philadelphia (Lee: Recovery), and Laodicea (Lee: post-Recovery??). Although Lee believed that the Philadelphians stood the best chance of overcoming, he concedes that overcomers are called from all 7 churches. At any rate, the ground of locality is secondary when it comes to salvation.

2) "The local churches practice a different gospel than what's seen in this passage of Matthew 9:10-13. Generally viewed and termed as "good material", attention and efforts are labored on college campuses. One of the goals is to attract college students and eventually sent them as college graduates to FTTA" (Terry).
Targeting college campuses is always a good strategy for any Christian group. Again, this has nothing to do with the content of the gospel.

3) "I don't know how common some of these notions are, but I've seen enough indication that there are many in the LC who are not satisfied with simply introducing someone to the gospel." (Freedom)
I suppose that's not my LC experience but let's say this is more often than not the case. This is still not a departure from the gospel. If one doesn't use the RcV, at most they'll say you don't have an accurate Bible (though they can't pinpoint why) or that you need to read the footnotes because they provide the best interpretation of scripture. But they will not dispute whether you are saved. They will not put RcV and knowledge of the "high gospel" as a necessity for salvation. These are all post-salvation stuff.

4) "I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee." (Awareness)
Awareness was referring to Gal. 3:1. It is true that we have all been under Lee's spell, subscribing only to his interpretation of scripture, many of which is suspect. But Paul was talking about the gospel -- the Judaizers were telling the Galatians that, "No, faith in Jesus Christ crucified is not good enough. You also need to be circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant people". What are criteria other than the gospel did Witness Lee imposed on us in order to be God's people?

5) "Maybe from highly compromised "apologists" like Hank Hanegraaff, but I doubt you will hear anything like "we were wrong" from the likes of the 75 Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations who signed the Open Letter at http://www.open-letter.org/- most of them have probably seen and heard too much about what Witness Lee actually taught to swallow the "but we are actually just misunderstood orthodox Christians" ruse."
I wonder whether the 75 Christian scholars will be so quick to denounce Lee for preaching a different gospel. They would have left LCs alone had LC/LSM not sued Harvest House and instead speak well of denominations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

4) "I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee." (Awareness)

Awareness was referring to Gal. 3:1. It is true that we have all been under Lee's spell, subscribing only to his interpretation of scripture, many of which is suspect. But Paul was talking about the gospel -- the Judaizers were telling the Galatians that, "No, faith in Jesus Christ crucified is not good enough. You also need to be circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant people". What are criteria other than the gospel did Witness Lee imposed on us in order to be God's people?

But was Paul just referring to salvation alone in the epistle to the Galatians? Or was there a "high" gospel (to the Jews) and a "low" gospel (to the gentiles), and likewise a marginally-covenanted people (gentiles) and a fully-covenanted people (Jews) emerging? Was there in fact a sort of de facto tiered gospel going forth, that Paul struggled to combat? We know there's one gospel, and that to sinners. But in those days with the clear delineation of separation of peoples, ingrained deeply in centuries of teaching, culture and practice, there was a challenge for the Good News of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Look at Peter in Acts 10, after the resurrection, in reply to the voice from heaven, that had told him to "arise, slay and eat". Peter exclaimed, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Gentiles were unholy and unclean. This was a Jesus follower speaking! That "unclean" was gone with the blood of Christ, but the centuries of deeply ingrained Jewish practices struggled with that. So in those first decades, a new gospel arose, one with tiers of covenanted people: those who kept the law and those who didn't. Both were saved as we understand the word. But one had a "higher calling" as God's originally covenanted people. (I note that some Evangelicals still consider Jews as special, even after the blood of Christ).

So perhaps InOmnibusCaritas is oversimplifying. And perhaps Lee offered a "new Christ" with a "new covenant" of the local ground, which made you the equivalent of the law-keeping Christian Jews of the early NT era. Lee used to say, "Of all creatures, it is best to be a man because we are made in God's image. And of all men, it is best to be Christian because we receive God's life and nature. And of all Christians it is best to be on the local ground because we receive God's blessing."

So Lee was selling a supposedly higher gospel, which delineated he and his followers from "darkened" and "fallen" Christianity, which was called "demonic" etc. This "tiered Christianity" alone is a borderline bewitching, if not fully so. Salvation aside, it is a perversion of the gospel, just as keeping the law made the Jews somehow "special Christians" in Paul's era. "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and "special sauce #1" is the best"

(Please note that this is an argument that I am making for consideration's sake. I have no emotional attachment to the idea, and may abandon it or modify it. I'm just considering how Paul's Galatian warning may be applicable in the Christian faith and polity today, specifically with the LC case).

[Amcasci]

Something to keep in mind in this discussion is that it is the teacher of the different christ who is anathema. While it is an argument from silence the implication is the teacher not the receiver is the one in trouble.

I don't know that anyone owes me an apology but I appreciate the thought. I think I need to listen more at this point. you folks are way more familiar with Lee and LC than I. I do love Galatians and have taught it a number of times over the years

Art

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So Lee was selling a supposedly higher gospel, which delineated he and his followers from "darkened" and "fallen" Christianity, which was called "demonic" etc. This "tiered Christianity" alone is a borderline bewitching, if not fully so. Salvation aside, it is a perversion of the gospel, just as keeping the law made the Jews somehow "special Christians" in Paul's era. "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and "special sauce #1" is the best"

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

I keep trying to hold Lee to the same standard as other ministers. If what he did was common place, I hate to justify it, but we have to at least be fair.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

Yep, I think it is, but let's stick with the teachings/practices established by Witness Lee. Lee didn't teach that such things were a higher blessing so let's leave this one alone.

I keep trying to hold Lee to the same standard as other ministers. If what he did was common place, I hate to justify it, but we have to at least be fair.

Let's be fair to the Word of God first, then maybe we can get into being fair to anything or anyone else....fair enough? Not much of what Witness Lee taught was common place, and this is why he is not accepted as a orthodox Christian teacher except among his followers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yep, I think it is, but let's stick with the teachings/practices established by Witness Lee. Lee didn't teach that such things were a higher blessing so let's leave this one alone.

Let's be fair to the Word of God first, then maybe we can get into being fair to anything or anyone else....fair enough? Not much of what Witness Lee taught was common place, and this is why he is not accepted as a orthodox Christian teacher except among his followers.

We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.

Or am I misreading you?

Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.

Or am I misreading you?

Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.

And you are correct here. Lee could never have gotten the leaven past us if he did not start with some good orthodoxy.

But when it comes to the idea of simply tossing Lee and his teachings aside, the way I think of it is not to throw everything out and start over. But whenever I am faced with teaching post-LCM that does not square with something I think is right and I note that its source is in my LCM past, I start with the rejection of the Lee/LCM teaching and make it prove itself as true.

I know that I have made a lot of statements to the effect of throwing everything from Lee out. But it was really meant to imply that anytime there is a potential conflict, I presume that the non-Lee source is correct until I re-investigate and prove Lee correct.

And so far I don't think that I can remember finding Lee correct over anything that I am now learning outside the LCM.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

The problem with labeling everyone else as "different", i.e. defective, incomplete, lacking, "poor", etc is that you risk being the worst of all. I think the "full gospel" includes not judging others, not comparing oneself, not pointing out others' faults, and in being magnanimous (accepting and generous) toward all, if possible.

The one who says, "Everyone is divisive but me!" is probably the most divisive of all. While LCs are peculiar, so are many of us. They're not preaching a "different gospel" or presenting a "different Jesus."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

It's OK if he does that, but not Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.
But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

But it does speak to the fact that today many have different ideas of what the gospel is.

I posit that, if we use 2 Cor 11:4 to determine what a different Jesus, spirit, and gospel are, we aren't going to be able to put our finger on it, so to speak, and so can't determine if Lee brought another Jesus or gospel.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

First, Paul speaks of others coming to the Corinthians preaching another Jesus ; a Jesus Paul & Timothy didn't preach to them. Of course the Corinthians knew what Jesus Paul was talking about, that was originally preached to them. They were there, when they preached it to them. But we weren't there, and we prolly have no possibility of ever knowing what Jesus Paul preached to the Corinthians, before writing this letter to them.

Same with the "another spirit." We don't know what spirit they originally "received," and can't possibly ever know.

And also it's the same for "another gospel." We can't know what gospel the Corinthians originally "accepted." That preaching, or preaching's, we have no record of.

We weren't there, and as far as we know the Jesus, spirit. and gospel, Paul was speaking of was never recorded. At least his earlier preaching, prior to this letter to the Corinthians, is not recorded in our canon of scripture.

So how can we ever hope to determine if Witness Lee preached another Jesus, spirit and/or gospel?

[OBW]

The following respond to a comment by awareness passed on from a Pentecostal pastor.

Originally Posted by aron

The problem with labeling everyone else as "different", i.e. defective, incomplete, lacking, "poor", etc is that you risk being the worst of all. I think the "full gospel" includes not judging others, not comparing oneself, not pointing out others' faults, and in being magnanimous (accepting and generous) toward all, if possible.

The one who says, "Everyone is divisive but me!" is probably the most divisive of all. While LCs are peculiar, so are many of us. They're not preaching a "different gospel" or presenting a "different Jesus."

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's OK if he does that, but not Lee.

And both are correct in their assessment of the charge being laid at the feet of Lee.

So, as has been asked elsewhere, what is "the same" to begin with. How much wiggle room is there within "the same," and what, even if somewhat different, is still "the same."

It is clear that almost every group latches onto certain aspects of the details surrounding Christ and the gospel at the expense of others. There may or may not be true problems in that, but at least they are talking about the same person and the same basic message. I believe that when Paul starts talking about "different" he does not mean just that they are emphasizing different things that are true, but emphasizing things that are not true. The gospel is by faith alone in Christ alone and accomplished by the once-for-all death on the cross, not by any of our works.

So for the Galatians to assert that they needed to do anything other than have faith is another gospel. Now as long as faith is included, it is not as if they were denying others the opportunity to salvation. But they did give salvation many more hurdles than is actually required. Will someone who gets circumcised and also has faith in Christ be denied salvation? Of course not. But will some balk at the prospect of being a convert if they have to do this thing? Therein is the problem. It is not that they are not becoming Christian, but that they are not preaching and living the true gospel. The gospel of salvation by grace, and of changed lives through that faith.

When I think of the kind of "different gospel" that Lee taught, it does not rise to a non-Christian gospel. And the Christ they preached was not a different person. Just not the whole person. When the teachings of Christ that called for obedience, justice, righteousness, etc., are set aside in favor of waiting for enough dispensing, and the requirements concerning the law are simply abolished, then the Christ I see preached is missing arms and legs. He needs no action. Just basking in the dispensing. It sounds nice. It makes us feel better. But it is not the gospel. And it is not "the Christ."

So if we teach a Christ/gospel that easily ignores the very commandment of Christ and of the scripture, how are we to assess that?

Do not sue your brother. But if we first send them our demands, since we are "the church" they have been served and we can treat them as heathen and sinners.
Do not do as the Pharisees do, demanding the best seats at the table. Seems that these are exactly the things taught by Deputy Authority.
Do not think more highly of yourselves than you ought. Yet we thought we were the highest.
You have everything you need for godliness. But instead we were taught that you shouldn't even bother trying to reckon yourself dead to sin.
I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But they spend most of their time looking for the already-saved who are on the college campuses because they are "good material."

Can you name more? Each one of these is not decisive in itself. But there is a pattern of setting aside the clear command of Christ for something else.

No. They are not teaching that Christ is not God, or the brother of Lucifer. But they gut so many parts of who he is and what he teaches.

And when Paul talked about a different Christ, was he talking about something that literally denied the faith, or that gutted important parts of its impact? No, Lee was not teaching a Christ so different that he is not the Christ of the Bible. But he was teaching enough difference that the life we were called to was literally denied as the truth in some cases. I know that Yoda's "there is no try" is a popular mantra these days. But that is not what the Bible says. It tells us to do, and supplies the pardon if we fail. So there must be try. If it is "do or do not" then there would be no requirement for grace after salvation. Well, not entirely, because those who "do not" will surely need grace. But this notion that we are not to try, therefore if you consider that you might not succeed you should not try, then you are shrinking back from trying. But that is precisely what Lee taught.

If we are only talking about the "onset" of salvation, Lee did not teach a different gospel. But after that, his gospel was very different. And as for Christ, he taught a Christ that denied his own requirement to live a higher law than the 10 commandments.

It was still the Christ of the Bible — but gutted of important teaching. At some level, a "different Christ."

I don't know how else to say it.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

But was Paul just referring to salvation alone in the epistle to the Galatians? Or was there a "high" gospel (to the Jews) and a "low" gospel (to the gentiles), and likewise a marginally-covenanted people (gentiles) and a fully-covenanted people (Jews) emerging? Was there in fact a sort of de facto tiered gospel going forth, that Paul struggled to combat? We know there's one gospel, and that to sinners. But in those days with the clear delineation of separation of peoples, ingrained deeply in centuries of teaching, culture and practice, there was a challenge for the Good News of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Look at Peter in Acts 10, after the resurrection, in reply to the voice from heaven, that had told him to "arise, slay and eat". Peter exclaimed, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Gentiles were unholy and unclean. This was a Jesus follower speaking! That "unclean" was gone with the blood of Christ, but the centuries of deeply ingrained Jewish practices struggled with that. So in those first decades, a new gospel arose, one with tiers of covenanted people: those who kept the law and those who didn't. Both were saved as we understand the word. But one had a "higher calling" as God's originally covenanted people. (I note that some Evangelicals still consider Jews as special, even after the blood of Christ).

So perhaps InOmnibusCaritas is oversimplifying. And perhaps Lee offered a "new Christ" with a "new covenant" of the local ground, which made you the equivalent of the law-keeping Christian Jews of the early NT era. Lee used to say, "Of all creatures, it is best to be a man because we are made in God's image. And of all men, it is best to be Christian because we receive God's life and nature. And of all Christians it is best to be on the local ground because we receive God's blessing."

So Lee was selling a supposedly higher gospel, which delineated he and his followers from "darkened" and "fallen" Christianity, which was called "demonic" etc. This "tiered Christianity" alone is a borderline bewitching, if not fully so. Salvation aside, it is a perversion of the gospel, just as keeping the law made the Jews somehow "special Christians" in Paul's era. "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and "special sauce #1" is the best"

(Please note that this is an argument that I am making for consideration's sake. I have no emotional attachment to the idea, and may abandon it or modify it. I'm just considering how Paul's Galatian warning may be applicable in the Christian faith and polity today, specifically with the LC case).

Yes, Paul was referring to salvation.

The Judaizers' teaching can be found in Acts 15:1, "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

Paul's intimation of his journey to Jerusalem in Gal. 2:1-10 makes it clear that Acts 15 backgrounds Galatians.

The Judaizers weren't saying, "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and special sauce #1 is the best". They were saying, unless you have special sauce #1, you cannot be saved. This is ANOTHER GOSPEL.

For Judaizers there are no tiered Christianity - it's Jesus + circumcision or nothing. You cannot be saved!

While Lee has many faults as evidenced by many testimonies in this forum, preaching another gospel and deserving anathema goes way too far. There is a thread somewhere in this forum where I said we must be careful and very, very slow to say Lee preached another gospel because that is anathema -- you are saying that Lee is going to hell. Someone replied, "No, I don't mean Lee is going to hell". That's news to me. Everything I've read on anathema tells me it means exactly that. The NIV even translates it as "let him be eternally condemned!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Yes, Paul was referring to salvation.

The Judaizers' teaching can be found in Acts 15:1, "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

Paul's intimation of his journey to Jerusalem in Gal. 2:1-10 makes it clear that Acts 15 backgrounds Galatians.

The Judaizers weren't saying, "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and special sauce #1 is the best". They were saying, unless you have special sauce #1, you cannot be saved. This is ANOTHER GOSPEL.

For Judaizers there are no tiered Christianity - it's Jesus + circumcision or nothing. You cannot be saved!

Thanks for taking the time and effort to carefully address my remarks. I'm content to let the question drop as resolved. But I do think WL's "new, new, new" mantra was an opening for dangerous forces, which may have seemed "fresh" initially but eventually led to imbalance, and lawsuits with the cult-watchers. As I said, WL claimed to be fully grounded in historical, orthodox Christianity through WN's extensive reading. But there's a tad of hubris in such a statement, and pride comes before the fall. And there was a fall.

On the idea of "tiered Christianity", WL had a habit of saying that not many Christians know this or that, or have experienced some aspect of the rich Christ. So while I don't think it cost him or his listeners their eternal salvation before God (if we can in any way understand the term, and we should, or at least should try) I do think it cost him, and them. Jesus taught that those who elevate themselves will be thrown down. The first will be last. Maybe not to eternal perdition, but there is a loss. Those who claim they are "rich" are really poor (Google "the rich ministry of Witness Lee" and see how many hits you get), and those who claim to be great in the kingdom of God will be the least. Notice that Jesus doesn't say, "Those who claim to be great won't get in", but that they will be the least. And Jesus told the Pharisees, "The harlots and sinners will get into the kingdom before you", He didn't say that the Pharisees wouldn't ever get in. Just that they tried to be the first and best but were thereby the least and the worst.

The LC's had a phrase: "God's best". I heard it in some of the songs. It wasn't clear if it was to some aspect of Jesus' salvation, which I can understand (we can make value judgments there) or to our experience of that salvation, or to our group itself. Certainly we talked about ourselves as if we were the latest and greatest. And I think that entails loss. Not of salvation but of the true enjoyment of salvation. Because if you think that you are something, on this side of the Bema (the Judgment Seat), you risk unpleasant surprise. Either way God will surprise you. God apparently likes to surprise people.

Isaiah 2:9-11 "So the common man has been humbled And the man of importance has been abased, But do not forgive them. Enter the rock and hide in the dust From the terror of the LORD and from the splendor of His majesty. The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.…"

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks for taking the time and effort to carefully address my remarks. I'm content to let the question drop as resolved. But I do think WL's "new, new, new" mantra was an opening for dangerous forces, which may have seemed "fresh" initially but eventually led to imbalance, and lawsuits with the cult-watchers. As I said, WL claimed to be fully grounded in historical, orthodox Christianity through WN's extensive reading. But there's a tad of hubris in such a statement, and pride comes before the fall. And there was a fall.

On the idea of "tiered Christianity", WL had a habit of saying that not many Christians know this or that, or have experienced some aspect of the rich Christ. So while I don't think it cost him or his listeners their eternal salvation before God (if we can in any way understand the term, and we should, or at least should try) I do think it cost him, and them. Jesus taught that those who elevate themselves will be thrown down. The first will be last. Maybe not to eternal perdition, but there is a loss. Those who claim they are "rich" are really poor (Google "the rich ministry of Witness Lee" and see how many hits you get), and those who claim to be great in the kingdom of God will be the least. Notice that Jesus doesn't say, "Those who claim to be great won't get in", but that they will be the least. And Jesus told the Pharisees, "The harlots and sinners will get into the kingdom before you", He didn't say that the Pharisees wouldn't ever get in. Just that they tried to be the first and best but were thereby the least and the worst.

The LC's had a phrase: "God's best". I heard it in some of the songs. It wasn't clear if it was to some aspect of Jesus' salvation, which I can understand (we can make value judgments there) or to our experience of that salvation, or to our group itself. Certainly we talked about ourselves as if we were the latest and greatest. And I think that entails loss. Not of salvation but of the true enjoyment of salvation. Because if you think that you are something, on this side of the Bema (the Judgment Seat), you risk unpleasant surprise. Either way God will surprise you. God apparently likes to surprise people.

Isaiah 2:9-11 "So the common man has been humbled And the man of importance has been abased, But do not forgive them. Enter the rock and hide in the dust From the terror of the LORD and from the splendor of His majesty. The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.…"

Yes, I think so too and I'm worried sick for the people I know including my family members who are still in the system. My mom is the most humble woman I know and she tries her best to be charitable to "other Christians" but even she cannot but betray the subtle air of superiority that LSM tries so hard to inculcate. Modern-day gnosticism.

So, I agree that LC teaches a tiered-Christianity. In any outreach event, it's normal to categorise people this way:

1) Brothers and sisters in the Lord's recovery
2) Christians in denominations
3) Gospel friends

Of course, all denominations categorise people that way but no. 1 and no. 2 are organisational categories in the Methodist church that I'm ministering. In LCs, these are not just organisational, these are qualitative categories.

I've heard this repeatedly, "As a creature, it's best to be human. As a human, it's best to be Christian. As a Christian, it's best to be a Christian in the Lord's recovery."

Having said all these, LC still doesn't preach another gospel.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

2)

Targeting college campuses is always a good strategy for any Christian group. Again, this has nothing to do with the content of the gospel.

But it is coupled with open criticism of any kind of benevolence to the elderly, homeless, etc., therefore is part of a larger context.

Just sending people to college campuses to preach the gospel is not a problem. But to say that it is a waste of time to go trying to pursue others (in so many words) and to ignore what the Bible calls "justice" gives it that larger context in which there is a general error in emphasis.

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

5)

I wonder whether the 75 Christian scholars will be so quick to denounce Lee for preaching a different gospel. They would have left LCs alone had LC/LSM not sued Harvest House and instead speak well of denominations.

Since the text is a little terse here, I am not sure what you are saying. But if you are suggesting that the 75 scholars would have left the LCM alone if they had not sued Harvest House and made such a huge fuss about the evils of denominations, you are probably right. Just like they mostly leave a lot of even more truly heretical groups alone outside of their internal teaching and preaching. Groups like even the JWs.

But since the LCM was busy making a spectacle of itself in the public eye through its lawsuits and openly critical remarks concerning things that are generally considered either benign or truly correct, they did speak up. They did not choose to dig into more of the LCM's errors than was thrust in front of them by the LCM, so a "different gospel" was not on the table. Not sure how they would have responded on that issue. I personally know one of the 75 and am sure that he would not have been flippant with the charge, so if it does not fit, he would have withheld his signature.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it is coupled with open criticism of any kind of benevolence to the elderly, homeless, etc., therefore is part of a larger context.

Just sending people to college campuses to preach the gospel is not a problem. But to say that it is a waste of time to go trying to pursue others (in so many words) and to ignore what the Bible calls "justice" gives it that larger context in which there is a general error in emphasis.

I've not personally heard any denigration towards preaching the gospel to the elderly and the homeless but I agree that the focus is on the campuses. For example, my LC creates "brothers' houses" and "sisters' houses" for campus students but never for the elderly and homeless.

Alas, truth be told, it's a survival strategy for many evangelical churches. It is true that LCs, or at least the LCs that I know, do not in general fulfil the sadiq/sedeqah (justice/righteousness) corollary of the gospel, the same can be said of many, many evangelical and fundamentalist churches. If we are unprepared to accuse these of preaching another gospel, we must also be slow in affirming that LC teaches a different gospel.

Originally Posted by OBW

Since the text is a little terse here, I am not sure what you are saying. But if you are suggesting that the 75 scholars would have left the LCM alone if they had not sued Harvest House and made such a huge fuss about the evils of denominations, you are probably right. Just like they mostly leave a lot of even more truly heretical groups alone outside of their internal teaching and preaching. Groups like even the JWs.

But since the LCM was busy making a spectacle of itself in the public eye through its lawsuits and openly critical remarks concerning things that are generally considered either benign or truly correct, they did speak up. They did not choose to dig into more of the LCM's errors than was thrust in front of them by the LCM, so a "different gospel" was not on the table. Not sure how they would have responded on that issue. I personally know one of the 75 and am sure that he would not have been flippant with the charge, so if it does not fit, he would have withheld his signature.

If I have the eminence, these lawsuits alone will have resulted in me putting my signature to the open letter. So I'm all for that. My guess is that many of these scholars have not done anything more than a cursory reading of Lee. But I digress.

So we have to investigate what doctrines they dispute and whether, if they correctly represented Lee's teachings, those misaimed doctrines constitute teaching a different gospel. A fine point on the Trinity (I wonder if anyone ever gets the Trinity right) and another one on anthropology and hamartiology. OK. What will really be teaching another gospel, I suppose, is if some of what Jim Moran said were true. Then LC is a cult.

[Freedom]

Even though my own experiences aren't indicative of anything, I want to discuss them for a moment. First of all, I spent the better part of my life questioning the salvation and sincerity of Christians outside the LC, and especially those in the RCC. Second of all, I have always had the fear that if I didn't live my life according the LC standards, "outer darkness" was imminent. Such notions didn't come out of nowhere. Whether or not these are common held beliefs in the LC, I don’t know. Regardless, when I come to this issue of whether Lee and the LCM teach another gospel, I have to consider how I viewed things throughout my LC experience.

I don’t have a definite position as to whether the Lee did or the LCM does teach another gospel, but what I want to do here is to address some of the things that could lead me to believe that they teach another gospel.

The following are points of concern to me that come to mind about the gospel that Lee taught:
• Lee consistently de-emphasized salvation as an event and overemphasized salvation as a process.
• Lee instilled doubt as to what kind of gospel “other” Christians believe in.

Lee’s teaching on “God’s full salvation” is a subject in and of itself, but one concept that got ingrained in me was that initial salvation is somewhat insignificant. The thing that is important to those in the LC is reaching “full salvation”. I feel that there is danger to the notion that initial salvation is in any way insignificant. Now, it’s not for me to say how many in the LC actually feel that is the case, but it’s certainly a view I’ve encountered.

Regarding Lee’s teaching on the “low” and “high” gospel, I found some quotes that are insightful into his views. I don’t think that these quotes lead to any particular conclusion, however, I can see an argument being made either way. First of all, Lee did admit that the gospel Christians preach is the gospel:

We should not preach the shallow gospel that Christianity preaches... Although this is the gospel, it is a low gospel...

A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, ch 2, pp. 29-30

It’s good that Lee admits that the gospel that Christians preach is the gospel, however he is quick to qualify it as a “shallow” or “low” gospel. He says “we should not preach the shallow gospel”. I would ask the question, what about the “shallow gospel” should we not preach? If Lee really did have something better than just the plain ol’ gospel, wouldn’t an understanding of the basic of the gospel still be necessary? Not according to Lee. That is of concern to me, because if the basic message of the gospel is neglected, then it makes me wonder what Lee thinks should be preached? Is he saying to skip over the fundamentals completely, or just to de-emphasize them?

Here is another quote of Lee on the “low gospel”:

However, most Christians today preach a low gospel, telling others, "You have no peace or joy, and you will perish in hell, but God loves you and has been merciful to you. Now you must believe in Him to have peace and joy to go to heaven." This is today's poor, low gospel, a gospel without any glory.

A General Sketch of the New Testament in the Light of Christ and the Church, ch 1, p. 8

Here Lee calls the “low gospel” a “poor gospel”. The word poor can be defined as: of a low or inferior standard or quality. Is this how Lee really intended to describe the gospel that all Christians believe in? An “inferior” gospel? A “low quality” gospel? This is opposite to how Paul describes the gospel in 1 Tim 1:1, where calls it “the glorious gospel”. Lee, on the other hand, essentially says that the gospel Christians believe in is “a gospel without any glory”. Obviously, the implication is that only the “high gospel” that Lee teaches is a glorious gospel.

Here Lee uses a different adjective to describe the “low gospel”:

and we will not speak the superficial and low gospel, but we will be able to speak God's economy, which is mysterious and high.

Being Up-to-date for the Rebuilding of the Temple, ch 13, p. 148

The fact that Lee describes what he calls the “low gospel” as being superficial is concerning to me. Superficial can be taken to be meant “shallow”, but another definition is as follows: appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely. This brings up the question, did Lee really view the “low gospel” as something shallow, or did he possibly see it as something along the lines of a fake/false gospel? His statement could be taken either way, especially by someone like me who wasn’t there to understand the context in which it was spoken. At any rate, to imply that anyone who isn’t in the LC is following or hearing a “superficial” gospel should be a point of concern. The word superficial has strong implications.

Finally, here is one last quote of Lee on the “low gospel”:

Today the educational standard in Taiwan is high. If you preach the gospel only of going to heaven and not going to hell, people will not be interested. This kind of preaching can frighten the very old and the very young. In this age you cannot preach this kind of low gospel. This does not mean that the Bible does not speak of heaven and hell, but that people today do not need this...

The Full Knowledge of the Word of God, ch1, p. 13

Here Lee says the “low gospel” may frighten certain people (?!?!?) and he also says that “In this age you cannot preach this kind of low gospel… people do not need this”. Did he intend to say that people only need his version of the gospel? His statement can be taken to mean that he thought preaching the basic gospel is unnecessary, or not something people really need. Also, the way Lee classifies the gospel that other Christians preach is an oversimplification of the gospel that other Christians preach. He think that other Christians are only concerned with heaven and hell. That is absolutely a false statement. This leads to the question of what exactly he feels is “better” than the gospel that all Christians accept? Is it his teaching on God’s economy? Is it what he calls “God’s full salvation”? There are a lot of unanswered questions.

My main concern is whether or not Lee really felt that his "high gospel" was necessary to really have a genuine form of salvation. Obviously, each of these statements was spoken in a different context which I do not fully understand. I don't want to come to any hasty conclusions, but I do feel that any of these statements that Lee made should be cause for concern as to what he actually believed was the gospel.

[Amcasci]

Now that is some eye opening stuff! It not only sounds like "another gospel" it sounds a bit like Gnosticism and of course only Lee's teaching can initiate you into the realm of the true gospel.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Yes, thank you, Freedom. Finally we have something central to this topic to really chew on

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following are points of concern to me that come to mind about the gospel that Lee taught:
• Lee consistently de-emphasized salvation as an event and overemphasized salvation as a process.
• Lee instilled doubt as to what kind of gospel “other” Christians believe in.

I think what is in view here is "God's Complete Salvation", which is an update on "God's Full Salvation". Let's discuss this in detail.

"Salvation as an event" and "salvation as a process" will be what Witness Lee calls "judicial redemption" and "organic salvation" respectively. "Judicial redemption" is Lee's equivalent to "penal substitution atonement" (PSA) and does not require more elaboration.

"Organic salvation" consists of the following steps or groups of steps:

1. Regeneration (the end result of judicial redemption)
2. Renewing of the mind
3. Sanctification
4. Transformation
5. Conformation
6. Glorification

Renewing, sanctification, and transformation concern the soul and happens concurrently.

I'm not quite sure even after reading Lee what he understands as conformation ontologically. At any rate, the Bible verse used to underpin this step is Rom. 8:29. I suppose what he meant is that renewing, sanctification, and transformation results in being conformed to the image of Christ.

Glorification is for the physical body when the Lord comes back as per 1 Cor. 15.

This process is "organic" in terms of growth towards maturity.

Stripped down, this model is not very different from the very, very, very standard Western model of regeneration --> sanctification --> glorification. All that Lee did was to split sanctification into three aspects and have them merged into conformation before glorification on that day.

What Lee did was to accuse Christianity of having abandoned the full truth of salvation and dumbed it down to "going to heaven/hell". To a large extent Lee was correct, especially given the televangelism of the 80s. So Lee said he "recovered" God's complete salvation although the truth is that it was never really lost but only very few people have access to it. The man in the pew doesn't know it. All he knows is that he believes in Jesus and is waiting to go to heaven. This, Lee calls the "low gospel". Thus, Lee was simply parroting the millennia old "deification (or, glorification) is the goal of soteriology".

All over evangelical Christianity, people are now talking about what happens after initial redemption.

A lay thought can be found here: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/...-not-a-formula

A recent PhD thesis:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/219/1/BCB_C...nal.pdf?DDD32+

This is actually state-of-the-art contemporary discourse in certain quarters of evangelical Christianity. I was actually encouraged by a couple of lecturers who knew my LC background to do my post-graduate studies on deification as the goal of soteriology from a Johannine perspective but I am not all that interested in that topic. What I'm saying is: this is quite standard and not all that revolutionary. No scholars will bat an eye.