afazio - Spiritual Authority

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find the term "chock-full" to be far too vague.

I do too, and only used it because Drake used this term to characterize the Bible's deficiencies. My point is, if it's true for the Bible then it's doubly or trebly true for the one (WL) who's criticizing the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For all the errors we can claim WL had, "ignoring scripture" in his teaching is not one of them. He did a verse by verse exegesis of the entire Bible.

If you look at your RecV, from Psalm 3 to 7 there is only a passing comment that it is "mixed". With one footnote he dismisses 5 chapters as irrelevant. And the trend continues with chapters 9 through 15, and 17 through 21. Only what NT reception forces him, does he cover.

I don't see this as someone who treasures the Bible. Drake suggests that he wasn't 'inspired' to cover it. Well, maybe he should have gone out and gotten a regular job, then, like everyone else; not pass himself off as a professional Bible teacher and interpreter.

I'm ignorant but don't pass myself off as an expert, and try to sell books and messages and trainings; perhaps the most ignorant person is the one who says everyone but them is ignorant: they can't learn from anyone. WL once told us he hadn't learnt anything from anyone for 45 years.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, perhaps the task of writing footnotes for the Psalms falls to someone the Lord inspires. Is that you? Exactly, how many footnotes have you written on the Psalms? As many as Brother Lee wrote? I’m not trying to embarrass you... but instead of criticizing Brother Lee for not writing more footnotes to Psalms than he did... then why don’t you do it instead of sitting on a quasi Internet Bema and passing judgment? What if you are held to the same standard as you hold Brother Lee to on number of footnotes written at the judgement that matters most....will you pass that exam?

What's needed on this forum is not a verse-by-verse exposition (though posting as an amateur on the Psalms thread I may have seen more Christ than the professional WL did in his RecV footnotes); what's needed is for someone to point out that ignorant charlatans may cover their ignorance by dismissing the work they're supposedly unveiling (the Bible [!!!]) as, what did you call it - 'deficient', or 'erroneous'. That's a clear 'red flag' which should be called out.

Because 20-somethings are often too naïve to see this, and being gullible and easily coerced, may find themselves in a college conference, trembling with emotion, pledging their lives to "serve Christ", which means to henceforth slavishly consume this charlatan's output, and peddle it to others.

So someone needs to point out the obvious, here.

Originally Posted by Drake

But, you still have not shown us where the Bible states about itself what you think it should say. Where?

Drake

Psalm 12:6 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.

The Bible has been purified seven times, which is more than we can say for WL's corpus, or yours or mine for that matter. If there's a challenge between the expositor and the Word, I'll go with the Word.

Watchman Nee's supposed classic, the "Spiritual Man", didn't even make it past the second printing, and the publisher had to put out a note in the forward that he'd cribbed without attribution from Jessie Penn-Lewis' writings. The publisher said, "That's what the Chinese custom is, when they like someone's writing; it's a compliment". Yes, and sell it as their own.

Same with WL. His oeuvre needs some purification. And, you're welcome.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 12:6 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.

Since this is the case I don't agree with the claim that the Bible is "chock full" of errors.

[ZNPaaneah]

This thread seems to have gone off track, becoming a debate over whether or not WL's teaching that certain books lacked the divine revelation is a valid teaching.

I think if we can all agree that WL did not have the authority to determine which books were and were not part of the divine revelation then we can all move forward with the thread.

Drake feels that some of these books were given to us as examples of the kind of errors that can be made. He believes that every scripture is God breathed but that does not preclude recording human ideas and opinions. Certainly we all have to agree that the book of Job records human ideas and opinions, and we have to agree that this is a view held widely, perhaps even by a majority of believers.

As long as we all agree that WL didn't have the authority to declare this book is God's word and that book isn't, how does any further debate apply to this thread?

Aron has gone into Psalms extensively already on another thread. I have gone into Job and James, and 77150 did a nice job on Proverbs.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread seems to have gone off track, becoming a debate over whether or not WL's teaching that certain books lacked the divine revelation is a valid teaching.

I think if we can all agree that WL did not have the authority to determine which books were and were not part of the divine revelation then we can all move forward with the thread.

Drake feels that some of these books were given to us as examples of the kind of errors that can be made. He believes that every scripture is God breathed but that does not preclude recording human ideas and opinions. Certainly we all have to agree that the book of Job records human ideas and opinions, and we have to agree that this is a view held widely, perhaps even by a majority of believers.

As long as we all agree that WL didn't have the authority to declare this book is God's word and that book isn't, how does any further debate apply to this thread?.

The issue was WN "recovering the Jerusalem Principle"; i.e. imposing external control on local assemblies. James and the Jerusalem church came to mind for some. Some came to Antioch, Peter drew back, afraid, etc.

My point was merely, Be careful how broad a brush you paint with, because in Acts you see many "law-abiding Jesus-following Jews" besides James. Some of them rather close to home, if you know what I mean. The issue was not legalism versus "Gods economy" but rather imposition of one's mores and values on others. And I'm stressing that it goes both ways - it's at the core of Jesus' teachings. "Do unto others". . .

And related, it's worth noting those whose "authority" extends to making broad-based, disparaging assessments of the writers and speakers of scripture.. We're not talking marginal issues here on one or two obscure verses. We're talking wholesale dismissal, which is completely against apostolic precedent.

If you don't get scriptures, maybe it's not defective; maybe your understanding is defective. And maybe in the rush to protect "Antioch" from Jerusalem's incursions, we created the opposite. We just shifted earthly centres.

And that's relevant to the experience of Chinese believers and the Christian West. Two wrongs don't make a right. Denominationalism, though real, doesn't excuse the Little Flock and what it became.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since this is the case I don't agree with the claim that the Bible is "chock full" of errors.

Who said that?


Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Who said that?


Drake

You said that.

Originally Posted by Drake

The Bible is chocked full of people expressing wrong ideas, misguided thinking, human issues, mistakes, failure, sin, sins, evil, calling out deceptions and erroneous teachings.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You said that.

What I said was:

"The Bible is chocked full of people expressing wrong ideas, misguided thinking, human issues, mistakes, failure, sin, sins, evil, calling out deceptions and erroneous teachings."

and that is not the same as...

"The Bible is chocked full of errors."

.. nor do I believe that the Bible is deficient. Both you wrongly ascribed to me. I believe neither.

Of course, if I did believe those then that would make your conversation much easier....but since I don't you'll have to form an argument around what I actually said. It's better that anyway, don't you agree?

Thx
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

What I said was:

"The Bible is chocked full of people expressing wrong ideas, misguided thinking, human issues, mistakes, failure, sin, sins, evil, calling out deceptions and erroneous teachings."

and that is not the same as...

"The Bible is chocked full of errors."

.. nor do I believe that the Bible is deficient. Both you wrongly ascribed to me. I believe neither.

Of course, if I did believe those then that would make your conversation much easier....but since I don't you'll have to form an argument around what I actually said. It's better that anyway, don't you agree?

Thx
Drake

Okay, now we're finding common ground. The Bible is not deficient; it just contains deficient writings. Not the same thing. Okay, good.

By the same token, I can say that the published work of Witness Lee isn't erroneous per se, but rather that it contains many errors. So let's narrow it down, shall we?

One of the chief errors of WL was to miss Christ. Instead, he either saw "the NT believer enjoying grace" or he saw the OT writer vainly trying to please God. Yet the clear NT record, in gospel, Acts of apostles, and epistle, is to see Jesus (Heb 2.8).

It was a kind of freudian slip, to ascribe error to those who expose oneself. (In this I'm often guilty as well, I know).

The other erroneous concept that we see in the ministries of WN and WL is the "it's ok if I do it, but don't you dare" idea. One can preach decentralization one day, and centralize things the next. "Freedom" one day, "restrictions" the next. Depends on the mood of the moment. The MOTA can do this because he's the MOTA, with special needs.

Another erroneous teaching is that God is, after all, a respecter of persons. The MOTA never makes mistakes. The church might crumble, if so.

Which brings us full circle - if the Bible is full of people saying dumb things, can we say the same thing for the ministry? And if not, why is it exempt from the same measure it holds on scripture? After all, ''as ye measure, so shall ye be measured" is the word.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Who said that?


Drake

Aron ascribed this to you, but you have cleared that misunderstanding up.

[Drake]

...in documenting the God-breathed Word of God, God used imperfect human instruments as inspired channels to record His thought, then used imperfect scribes over the centuries from different schools to copy manuscripts, then He raised up imperfect ministers to recover the divine truths over the last few centuries, and today he still uses imperfect expositors to expound His written Word and consequently enable the Holy Spirit to speak to us.

Doesn't work like that. Even those who claim to own the pure Word are using that to mask the fact that they are just holding onto their own opinion and interpretation of God's Word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

First, the definition for "words" in Psalm 12:6 is not that used for "scripture" (i.e. the record..). So, it is a bit careless on your part to translate it that way and but I understand your mindset so we'll leave it there.

So now you differentiate between the word of God and all scripture which is God-breathed?

Slippery slope indeed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So now you differentiate between the word of God and all scripture which is God-breathed?

Slippery slope indeed.

Only the MOTA can do this, for fun & profit. The rest have to get in line.

My comment all along has been, Where in the NT reception of scripture do we see invitations to parse it thus? If the whole thing boils down to, my opinion/ interpretation versus that of WL, at least my opinion has the backing of apostolic precedent. His has none.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Doesn't work like that. Even those who claim to own the pure Word are using that to mask the fact that they are just holding onto their own opinion and interpretation of God's Word.

Drake

Nowhere does the NT treat the OT the way WL did. But he did so anyway. I point out the peril - so sue me. And even though there's clearly tension between the nascent wings of the Christian movement in the NT, it doesn't mean we should declare one the 'victor' and write off the other testimony as erroneous. Satan loves it when we cavalierly dismiss the testimony of the book.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Nowhere does the NT treat the OT the way WL did. But he did so anyway. I point out the peril - so sue me. And even though there's clearly tension between the nascent wings of the Christian movement in the NT, it doesn't mean we should declare one the 'victor' and write off the other testimony as erroneous. Satan loves it when we dismiss the testimony of the book. He loves it.

That's not an invite one should make to LSM.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Nowhere does the NT treat the OT the way WL did. But he did so anyway. .

How did Brother Lee treat the OT? He opened it up thoroughly. As ZNP observed verse by verse.

But you mean Psalms... well, I took your advice and thumbed through the RcV and on almost every page in the book of Psalms there are footnotes. Psalm 1:1 is really comprehensive and takes up two pages in fine print all by itself. Quite a treatise for those who care about the Psalms.

Now, granted these footnotes in Psalms are not extensive as you would find Brother Lee wrote in Ephesians, Hebrews, Matthew, Revelation, Romans, because frankly, there is much more concerning the dispensation we now live in those NT books than in the Psalms. The revelation of the church, the Body and Bride of Christ was not revealed in the Old Testament so clearly so of course more time is spent studying God's NT economy. In retrospect, we can see now in the OT what was a mystery to the OT readers and Brother Lee has drilled down on the Pentateuch and other OT books extensively to connect the dots to the NT economy.

Even the book of James has over 150 footnotes. Quite a labor for someone whom you accuse of wanting to shrink it out of existence. Au contraire.. James has its place and Brother Lee labored on that too. You may disagree with how he positioned it but it is disingenuous to claim he tried to get rid of it.


Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Now, granted these footnotes in Psalms are not extensive as you would find Brother Lee wrote in Ephesians, Hebrews, Matthew, Revelation, Romans, because frankly, there is much more concerning the dispensation we now live in those NT books than in the Psalms.

Of all the mistakes Brother Lee made, probably the worst was this: he thought the Bible was about himself. It's not- it's about Jesus. It's not about "the dispensation we now live in" - it's about Jesus. It's not about your subjectivistic, self-obsessed "enjoyment" or your "church life" - so sorry!

Paul, to his credit, said, "we do not preach ourselves". WL did nothing but preach himself: his faith, his ministry, his church, his teachings, his interpretations, his recovery.

All those footnotes - chock full of mixed human sentiments and fallen human concepts. Full of self - the fallen human self, all the unmet needs and unresolved anxieties, writ large and imposed on the deluded collective. Like another collectivist prophet (Karl Marx) said, "We step back and see ourselves in the world we have created." I couldn't have put it better myself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

The broader point you miss, aron, is that in documenting the God-breathed Word of God, God used imperfect human instruments as inspired channels to record His thought, then used imperfect scribes over the centuries from different schools to copy manuscripts, then He raised up imperfect ministers to recover the divine truths over the last few centuries, and today he still uses imperfect expositors to expound His written Word and consequently enable the Holy Spirit to speak to us.

So I find it ironic, brother, that you would convince us and yourself that your viewpoint is of the Word while others viewpoints who disagree with your viewpoint are simply of an expositor. You make it sound as if the Bible was handed to us down out of the sky or with a booming voice from the heavens and that now you are choosing THAT Bible verses someone's interpretation of the Bible we all own.

Doesn't work like that. Even those who claim to own the pure Word are using that to mask the fact that they are just holding onto their own opinion and interpretation of God's Word.

Drake

The bottom line is lets' not be arrogant about our own interpretation while condemning the arrogance of others.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The bottom line is lets' not be arrogant about our own interpretation while condemning the arrogance of others.

Yep. I agree.

Thx
Drake