Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just like with the Noah/Ham/Canaan curse, you seem obsessed with arguing points for which the scriptures are entirely silent. The Gospel which Apostle Paul brought to the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth was entirely based upon all the promises of God concerning the long-awaited Messiah. The entire Old Testament focuses on these promises. The Book of Acts makes this abundantly clear. Read all the gospel messages recorded in this book! Not just Paul's but Peter's also. They all center on the Christ of God.

Who cares whether the Bereans would classify themselves as "sola scriptura?" Who cares whether or not we now have adequate proof concerning classifying the noble Bereans "sola scriptura" or oral- and written-tradition Jews like everyone else?

Isn't this what LSM has long taught us? The plain story of scripture is never enough. We must "recover" the hidden story, that which every other Christian has missed for two millennia. Then once we find this long lost hidden meaning beyond the printed page, we can then proceed to condemn all of poor, poor Christianity for being fallen, degraded, shallow, and blind "moo cows."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just like with the Noah/Ham/Canaan curse, you seem obsessed with arguing points for which the scriptures are entirely silent. The Gospel which Apostle Paul brought to the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth was entirely based upon all the promises of God concerning the long-awaited Messiah. The entire Old Testament focuses on these promises. The Book of Acts makes this abundantly clear. Read all the gospel messages recorded in this book! Not just Paul's but Peter's also. They all center on the Christ of God.

I can show an example from scripture where extra-biblical information was required, ie. Scripture alone was not enough.

Read carefully what the eunuch said to Philip in Acts 8:34-35

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?

In other words the eunuch did not have a clue who the scripture is speaking of.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

Notice how it says Philip began with Scripture, and then told him about Jesus.

There is no way that Ethiopian would know that Jesus was the Messiah based upon the Scripture alone.

Scripture was used, but Philip had to provide extra-biblical information and revelation so that the Eunuch would know that Jesus was the Messiah, and not someone else.

That is all true what you say about the Old Testament. But Paul reasoned with many people from the Scriptures, some listened, some didn't. Why?
Not because their bible's had footnotes and his didn't.

The difference is not how and they used the scripture, literal or otherwise, but whether God's Spirit opened their hearts and minds to receive it, and whether they themselves had open hearts and minds, which is why the Bereans were called "more noble". It was not as if the Bereans chose to throw away their "footnotes" (oral traditions etc) and use Scripture alone.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who cares whether the Bereans would classify themselves as "sola scriptura?" Who cares whether or not we now have adequate proof concerning classifying the noble Bereans "sola scriptura" or oral- and written-tradition Jews like everyone else?

Isn't this what LSM has long taught us? The plain story of scripture is never enough. We must "recover" the hidden story, that which every other Christian has missed for two millennia. Then once we find this long lost hidden meaning beyond the printed page, we can then proceed to condemn all of poor, poor Christianity for being fallen, degraded, shallow, and blind "moo cows."

In this instance it's not about recovering lost or hidden meaning. This is about establishing the context.

Just like Philip had to explain to the Eunuch that Jesus was the Messiah (and not someone else) and that Jesus had in fact come (and was not yet to come, as so many Jews believed)... Paul had to explain to the Bereans who Jesus was, and used the Scriptures to do so. There's nothing actually obvious or literal in the Old Testament that specifies that the Messiah would be named Jesus and arrive in the year 0 AD (or whatever their calendar was at the time). Any further information Paul provided them would be classed as extra-biblical interpretation/revelation.