Four Areas where W. Lee was Flat Wrong

[Cal]

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

In my experience, psychology is very important to spirituality. In fact, much of what we consider spirituality is actually, legitimately, mostly psychology. Paul instructs us how to think in Philippians 4. Proverbs 23:7 says as a man thinks, so he is. Our mind is a very powerful tool for modifying our behavior. Habits are a matter of our mind. Our subconscious mind affects us more than we realize. To dismiss psychology wholesale is to put oneself at an extreme disadvantage. Psychology is simply the way people manifestly operate. To disdain it is to disdain man himself and God’s creation.

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

This is one of Lee’s biggest errors, that the actual element of God is somehow being fused into our souls. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that such a thing is going on. And experience does not support it. Transformation is being made more like God in our soul. That means, primarily, learning to value things and think about things the way God does. I.e., it is primarily a matter of what we think about and how we think about it. Where our thoughts go, the rest of our being follows. As we become more obedient, naturally the Spirit is manifested more in our lives because He flows more freely through us, but that doesn’t mean He’s been “worked into our being.”

Note: 1, 2 and 3 above show a pattern whose cumulative effect is to put listeners in a compromised mental state.

First they are taught to mistrust knowledge itself, thus embracing ignorance. Second, they taught to mistrust the way their minds are manifestly designed to work, thus becoming dull of mind. Thirdly, they are taught to trust a vague and unverifiable process which operates beyond the scope of their experience. So even though there is no evidence that God is infused into anyone’s soul, they believe this is happening, to the disdain of anything else shown to be more accurate and effective. It is only years or decades later that they realize that none of this had the effect that was promised.

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

The Bible never teaches either. Rapture is taught by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 as one event and he never suggests any believers will be left behind. Time and again, reward in the Bible is taught as based on faithfulness, not growth. This error leads believers to focus on their own condition, rather than on service to the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

Comments

1. I don't buy the first one. To be balanced you should also point out that WL often emphasized a college education. All young people in the LRC were encouraged very much to develop their mind. And he would often rebuke the idea that "knowledge = evil" as an understanding of his teaching. I think you couldn't be a full timer in the FTTT unless you had a college degree. I think there is a lot of documentation to support WL's emphasis of the need for a sound, well trained mind.

2. I agree with you that WL's stated opinion was that psychology was relatively worthless. In his defense I would point out that the science of psychology has come a very long way in the last 40 years as has our understanding of the brain. So if you are going to say this it should be emphasized that the context was the 70s and 80s.

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh. At present I believe there is a very good basis to support the idea that Christ in you, the hope of glory is something organic. I expect that this point is where the debate will focus, but that is just my first impression.

4. I don't buy this. The NT very clearly talks of growth and maturity. The two OT examples of rapture, Moses and Elijah, could certainly be examples of growth and maturity. No doubt faithfulness is also a critical factor. But just because the heart is critical for life doesn't make the liver a non factor. Likewise even though faithfulness is critical, there is a big difference between a believer who has only been saved for a month being "faithful" and one like Moses who is faithful in all His house.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Comments

1. I don't buy the first one. To be balanced you should also point out that WL often emphasized a college education. All young people in the LRC were encouraged very much to develop their mind. And he would often rebuke the idea that "knowledge = evil" as an understanding of his teaching. I think you couldn't be a full timer in the FTTT unless you had a college degree. I think there is a lot of documentation to support WL's emphasis of the need for a sound, well trained mind.

2. I agree with you that WL's stated opinion was that psychology was relatively worthless. In his defense I would point out that the science of psychology has come a very long way in the last 40 years as has our understanding of the brain. So if you are going to say this it should be emphasized that the context was the 70s and 80s.

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh. At present I believe there is a very good basis to support the idea that Christ in you, the hope of glory is something organic. I expect that this point is where the debate will focus, but that is just my first impression.

4. I don't buy this. The NT very clearly talks of growth and maturity. The two OT examples of rapture, Moses and Elijah, could certainly be examples of growth and maturity. No doubt faithfulness is also a critical factor. But just because the heart is critical for life doesn't make the liver a non factor. Likewise even though faithfulness is critical, there is a big difference between a believer who has only been saved for a month being "faithful" and one like Moses who is faithful in all His house.

Z,

1. Lee talked out of both sides of his mouth. But the fact is he misrepresented knowledge by calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the tree of knowledge. Then there is the song that's still in the hymnal: "Knowledge, knowledge, fruit of knowledge isn't good to eat."

Sure Lee encouraged secular learning. For one thing he knew people needed to be employable. But when it came to spiritual knowledge, he blunted real learning by dismissing the function of the mind in favor of simply taking his interpretation of everything.

2. I don't think your point makes a difference. Lee wasn't just dissing the science of psychology. He was dissing any psychological techniques used to modify behavior. Everything for him had to be "the Spirit's working." I even heard him once scoff at positive thinking, calling it "cooperating with demons," even though Paul teaches positive thinking in Philippians 4.

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

4. Z, I'm going to ask you a favor because you have a real problem with this: Please try to follow the point a poster is making and don't comment on a point he didn't make. Can you do that for me in this thread? Thank you.

I never said growth is not important. I said the Bible never says growth per se is necessary to be rewarded or be an overcomer. Faithfulness, endurance and obedience are. But the Bible never says that reward will be handed out based on who grew the most. The thought is just not taught in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Z,

1. Lee talked out of both sides of his mouth. But the fact is he misrepresented knowledge by calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the tree of knowledge. Then there is the song that's still in the hymnal: "Knowledge, knowledge, fruit of knowledge isn't good to eat."

Sure Lee encouraged secular learning. For one thing he knew people needed to be employable. But when it came to spiritual knowledge, he blunted real learning by dismissing the function of the mind in favor of simply taking his interpretation of everything.

2. I don't think your point makes a difference. Lee wasn't just dissing the science of psychology. He was dissing any psychological techniques used to modify behavior. Everything for him had to be "the Spirit's working." I even heard him once scoff at positive thinking, calling it "cooperating with demons," even though Paul teaches positive thinking in Philippians 4.

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

4. Z, I'm going to ask you a favor because you have a real problem with this: Please try to follow the point a poster is making and don't comment on a point he didn't make. Can you do that for me in this thread? Thank you.

I never said growth is not important. I said the Bible never says growth per se is necessary to be rewarded or be an overcomer. Faithfulness, endurance and obedience are. But the Bible never says that reward will be handed out based on who grew the most. The thought is just not taught in the Bible.

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching. Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

2. My point is simply that to say psychology was not useful in spiritual ministry is not as egregious 40 years ago as saying it today might be. I have heard many Christian teachers speak far worse than that.

3. Once again WL taught extensively on this point, and used many NT verses. If you want to say that his teaching is flat wrong I think you should be quoting his teaching. Also I would disagree with your assertion. I think that Jasper is a critical type in the NT of Christian transformation, and petrified wood is an excellent picture of the type of Christian transformation that WL taught. Jasper replaces the carbon of the wood molecule by molecule, even if some of the wood is rotten or corrupt. WL often used this NT example when teaching about transformation.

4. What you didn't do is quote WL saying that the only factors in the rapture were growth and maturity. Without a quote from WL to discuss we are not anchored anywhere and can feel free to flap in the breeze. My point was simple, Moses was an example of both faithfulness and maturity in growth, and he was also one of only two examples of rapture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh.

If the last one you mention here is representative of what we are talking about, then I would say that it is not some "organic union." The analogy of one flesh is (at least in one place) given in terms of husband and wife. No matter how much they may influence each other's behavior, and even health (in various ways), they remain literally separate. The union is in commitment, focus, goal, etc. It is not "organic." This is how God comes to us. He is there as a resource to lean on. As a teacher. As a guide. As the one to follow. But he does not organically join in and cause it to happen. It is in the alignment of mind and will. The relegating of our own egos to second place. This is how it is worked out in this time and space.

I do not deny the aid we receive from aligning with the Spirit in our taking action. But if it is organic, we would have nothing to align. It would simply be so.

Why is there divorce? Because the union is not organic. Outside influences can come to bear and tear things apart. There is nothing that simply causes us to submit to one another. It is not automatic. It is not organic. It takes will. "Organic" needs no will. Organic will do what it will do.

However, if you want a critique of "the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union" then i suggest that you supply them (at least the references). No matter how much you may think they should roll off our tongues, they may not. (And in my case, they do not. It has been too long.) And point us to the book(s) or messages where Lee's statements are found, that would be ideal. While my time has been limited lately, I have generally enjoyed looking back into the meat of some of these topics. Pray that I come to it with the same open mind that I so often suggest that we have about Christianity, denominations, clergy, etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching.

You can't possibly really be this naive. Tell me you are just taking the devil's advocate's position.

No, Lee didn't write it. But Lee micromanaged everything. I'm sure he reviewed every hymn that was put in the permanent supplement. Which where this hymn is.

Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

The difference is "the apple" was never mentioned to make people suspicious of apples. But Lee clearly meant to take a swipe at "knowledge" and affect people's opinions about it.


My reference is Lee's book, The Tree of Life. I'll gather some quotes, but don't have it with me.

2. My point is simply that to say psychology was not useful in spiritual ministry is not as egregious 40 years ago as saying it today might be. I have heard many Christian teachers speak far worse than that.

So you are asking me for quotes, but are not going to provide any yourself?

3. Once again WL taught extensively on this point, and used many NT verses. If you want to say that his teaching is flat wrong I think you should be quoting his teaching. Also I would disagree with your assertion. I think that Jasper is a critical type in the NT of Christian transformation, and petrified wood is an excellent picture of the type of Christian transformation that WL taught. Jasper replaces the carbon of the wood molecule by molecule, even if some of the wood is rotten or corrupt. WL often used this NT example when teaching about transformation.

So you go from the picture of jasper, to petrified wood (which is not related to jasper, nor referred to in the Bible), to the process of how petrified wood is created, to arrive at a doctrine of transformation which is never alluded to lterally in the Bible? Creating doctrines from the whole cloth of type is risky. But creating one from a type which is not even in the Bible (petrified wood) is, well....

4. What you didn't do is quote WL saying that the only factors in the rapture were growth and maturity. Without a quote from WL to discuss we are not anchored anywhere and can feel free to flap in the breeze. My point was simple, Moses was an example of both faithfulness and maturity in growth, and he was also one of only two examples of rapture.

Z, I think you are just arguing to argue. Anyone who sat at the feet of Lee knows he likened the rapture to a harvest, and that the ones that matured early would be raptured early. And he also taught that if you didn't mature, you would spend time in the "dark closet" to get the growth you lacked. Everyone knows this, as do you.

[OBW]

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why is there divorce? Because the union is not organic. Outside influences can come to bear and tear things apart. There is nothing that simply causes us to submit to one another. It is not automatic. It is not organic. It takes will. "Organic" needs no will. Organic will do what it will do.

Jesus likened divorce to amputating a member of your body. Since the union of my hand to my arm is organic, amputation proves that you can have "divorce" in an organic relationship. The same holds true with the analogy of being branches in a vine that are pruned or "taken away".

It is not for me to supply the verses, the thread was started by Igzy, he asserts that WL was "flat wrong" in four areas. All I am asking is that WL's teachings be put on the table. How am I to know which teaching he feels is "flat wrong". He has already responded that "WL spoke out of both sides of his mouth" to prove that teaching one thing in one place does not balance out some teaching somewhere else.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are asking me for quotes, but are not going to provide any yourself?

About Christian teachers teaching worse than this? Sure, I have sat through messages where people preach against the teaching of evolution and assert very strongly that the Earth is 6,000 years old and many other things that I consider to fly in the face of sound knowledge.

I have read Christian teaching that justified slavery in this country, though most of it predated the Civil War.

The Monkey trial is a pretty good example of what I would consider "worse than this".

These come to mind, but there are many more.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you go from the picture of jasper, to petrified wood (which is not related to jasper, nor referred to in the Bible), to the process of how petrified wood is created, to arrive at a doctrine of transformation which is never alluded to lterally in the Bible? Creating doctrines from the whole cloth of type is risky. But creating one from a type which is not even in the Bible (petrified wood) is, well....

Petrified wood is often petrified with Jasper. Which is why the Petrified Forest in Arizona, a National Park, is also called the Jasper forest.

The apostle Paul relates our experience of transformation to that of a precious stone. The apostle John gives us 12 precious stones in the New Jerusalem and by analogy closely links them to the transformation the 12 apostles went through.

The doctrine of transformation is based on the plain word of the Apostle Paul in Corinthians. Once you have the teaching by Paul and the analogy with precious stones and you are presented with Jasper as being a prime example of a precious stone then it is perfectly reasonable to look more carefully at how Jasper is formed.

In order for wood to be petrified it must be immersed, or baptized if you prefer, into a liquid that is saturated with Jasper. Jasper is a molecule that is formed of three atoms, two oxygen and one silicon. It is a "triune" molecule, three atoms but one molecule. Silicon is the most abundant earth element comprising about 50% of the crust. It is very close to carbon in structure. Oxygen is the source of our life form on earth. Although blue green algae predated oxygen, it was oxygen in our atmosphere that began the explosion of life that separates the precambrian from our current age. Interestingly, this boundary in Earth's history is marked by a major deposition of Jasper. Oxygen can also signify the breath or wind. Therefore it is not difficult to see these three atoms typifying the three of the Triune God: The father as the source of life, the Son as being of the Earth, and the Spirit or breath of life.

What is also interesting about this molecule which is most definitely presented as having the appearance of the New Jerusalem is that it has two crystal structures, one is called "Low quartz" and the other "high quartz". To discuss the symmetry of these two crystal structures would probably not be of much interest to most, but I would argue that the symmetry is quite similar to that of the two ministries of Christ, His earthly ministry and His heavenly ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

The word is used in Corinthians to say that if you are joined to a prostitute you sin against your own body. How could that sin not refer to diseases like AIDS? How can the transmission of AIDS not be organic?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Z, I think you are just arguing to argue. Anyone who sat at the feet of Lee knows he likened the rapture to a harvest, and that the ones that matured early would be raptured early. And he also taught that if you didn't mature, you would spend time in the "dark closet" to get the growth you lacked. Everyone knows this, as do you.

This is where I do get quite upset. The Bible likens the rapture to a harvest. The word tribulation is taken from the word that means sickle, an instrument for reaping the crops. Revelation talks about a first fruit and a harvest. It talks about putting in your sickle. Jesus talked about the kingdom being likened to planting seeds. John 15 likens God's work in this age to farming and running a vineyard.

Jesus also talked about some being cast out to where there would be "weaping and gnashing of teeth". WL, unlike many others, taught that those verses applied to born again Christians, not to unbelievers. He made a very compelling case. Are you now saying that those verses don't apply to genuine Christians?

WL didn't create these parables, He only commented on them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

I was reading the thread on "becoming one flesh" because it seemed relevant to this discussion and I discovered something you said in post #45 in that thread:

Igzy "You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic."

So if these two posts of yours are consistent you are saying that Christ is in us, that is organic, but it is restricted to the spirit and does not include our soul, our mind, our heart, our emotions or our will. Is that accurate?

[UntoHim]

Ok guys. Let's slow down a little bit.

Let's slow down and take each point in the order that Igzy placed them in the first post.

If at all possible, let's try to stay away from side issues and concerns and try to focus on each issuel.

First one:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.
Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching. Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

How's this reference for ya --

Get of your mind, bruuuuuuther!!

Sorry, don't have a page number, just memories of practically shouting this in each other's faces...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

How's this reference for ya --

Get of your mind, bruuuuuuther!!

Sorry, don't have a page number, just memories of practically shouting this in each other's faces...

Fine with me, is this the error that Igzy is referring to in #1?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was reading the thread on "becoming one flesh" because it seemed relevant to this discussion and I discovered something you said in post #45 in that thread:

Igzy "You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic."

So if these two posts of yours are consistent you are saying that Christ is in us, that is organic, but it is restricted to the spirit and does not include our soul, our mind, our heart, our emotions or our will. Is that accurate?

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

I believe the Holy Spirit transforms us by teaching us and softening our heart. Yes, some of this is a supernatural process we cannot understand. But some of it is quite understandable. He draws us with his love and beauty and wisdom. The change is one which comes by virtue of us being drawn to him and wanting more and more to please him. How "metabolic" it is is secondary at best. The leading part is the relational aspect. We love him and want to be like him.

I'm saying that the doctrine "God wants to work himself into our being" is flatly inaccurate.

Who else teaches this but Lee? I've haven't seen anybody else but Lee and his disciples who teach that God "is being worked into our being." That should tell you something.

This is one of those teachings that we bought into that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even with the far-blown typology of jasper and petrified wood.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys. Let's slow down a little bit.

Let's slow down and take each point in the order that Igzy placed them in the first post.

If at all possible, let's try to stay away from side issues and concerns and try to focus on each issuel.

First one:

Hey, UntoHim. Since we are talking about point #3, can we run with that for now and then go to the others? These are all related to me anyway. Thanks!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is where I do get quite upset. The Bible likens the rapture to a harvest. The word tribulation is taken from the word that means sickle, an instrument for reaping the crops. Revelation talks about a first fruit and a harvest. It talks about putting in your sickle. Jesus talked about the kingdom being likened to planting seeds. John 15 likens God's work in this age to farming and running a vineyard.

Jesus also talked about some being cast out to where there would be "weaping and gnashing of teeth". WL, unlike many others, taught that those verses applied to born again Christians, not to unbelievers. He made a very compelling case. Are you now saying that those verses don't apply to genuine Christians?

WL didn't create these parables, He only commented on them.

Let's talk about this one later.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hey, UntoHim. Since we are talking about point #3, can we run with that for now and then go to the others? These are all related to me anyway. Thanks!

Sure. That's the most interesting one anyway.
I find this notion of "organic" versus "relational" very key to the whole subject. Of course these two concepts are not antithetical, but maybe just "two different sides of the same divine truth". Witness Lee was very big on this, yet for some reason he had a bad habit of over-emphasizing one side of any given truth. Then he would compound the error by insisting that the side that he emphasized was "recovered truth", and then by extension, those who emphasize the other side are "blind", "teaching dead doctrines of man", "poor", etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

I believe the Holy Spirit transforms us by teaching us and softening our heart. Yes, some of this is a supernatural process we cannot understand. But some of it is quite understandable. He draws us with his love and beauty and wisdom. The change is one which comes by virtue of us being drawn to him and wanting more and more to please him. How "metabolic" it is is secondary at best. The leading part is the relational aspect. We love him and want to be like him.

I'm saying that the doctrine "God wants to work himself into our being" is flatly inaccurate.

Who else teaches this but Lee? I've haven't seen anybody else but Lee and his disciples who teach that God "is being worked into our being." That should tell you something.

This is one of those teachings that we bought into that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even with the far-blown typology of jasper and petrified wood.

Thanks for clarifying this. To me this is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of interpretation. You believe that Christ is in you, I also believe that.

I don't have any interest in convincing you of "the far blown typology of Jasper". What I would be interested in is how you can say with certainty that the teaching that God wants to work Himself into you is flatly wrong. I will agree to stay away from "far-blown typology" if you will stay away from your own logic. Simply, where in the NT do you have the basis to say that this interpretation is flat wrong.

For example, why is it unreasonable to understand "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" to mean that God wants to work Himself into your mind?

I would say that Paul's expressed desire here is one and the same as God's desire, hence this is something that God wants. The context of "let" is basically to say Amen to various experiences of the cross, for example humbling yourself. Why can't this process be described as "work" since just like the Lord Jesus it might result in long prayer vigils in the garden. Why is it flat wrong to think that the Mind of Christ is equivalent to the Mind of God and that for this mind to be in you it suggests that God has now renewed your mind with His?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I read this verse to say that the renewing of your mind allows you to prove what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God. When I fellowship I do so in my spirit, hence the objectionable expression “hey brother, get out of your mind” but that does not mean that I don’t use my mind when I fellowship. The mind should be under the direction of the spirit. An unrenewed mind would suggest carrying the ark of the covenant in an ox cart instead of by the levitical priesthood. An unrenewed mind would suggest lying to a maid about knowing Jesus. An unrenewed mind would rebuke the Lord for saying that He must be crucified.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thanks for clarifying this. To me this is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of interpretation. You believe that Christ is in you, I also believe that.

I don't have any interest in convincing you of "the far blown typology of Jasper". What I would be interested in is how you can say with certainty that the teaching that God wants to work Himself into you is flatly wrong. I will agree to stay away from "far-blown typology" if you will stay away from your own logic. Simply, where in the NT do you have the basis to say that this interpretation is flat wrong.

Trading logic for typology is not a even trade. We all use logic. It makes no difference whether it is "my own." The question is, is it good logic. And I think it is. You are employing a different logic. You seem to be saying if there is the outside possibility something is true then we need to take it as seriously as something which is more likely true. I don't go along with that.

When there is no direct teaching in the Bible regarding something, it is incumbent on us to use all our resources to come to a sensible conclusion, not find a type and use that to imagine a new teaching that the NT doesn't put forth plainly.

There is no word in the NT regarding this matter of transformation which cannot be taken in a manner different and more in keeping with (1) the general tenor of the NT, (2) other more direct teaching, (3) the consensus of history, (4) the consensus of our experience.

Sure, I guess there is an outside chance Christ is being "worked into" my soul. But my questions are, why doesn't the NT make it more clear, why doesn't my experience support it, why don't more Christian teachers teach it?

If this is "my logic," then I hold to it, thanks very much.

For example, why is it unreasonable to understand "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" to mean that God wants to work Himself into your mind?

I would say that Paul's expressed desire here is one and the same as God's desire, hence this is something that God wants. The context of "let" is basically to say Amen to various experiences of the cross, for example humbling yourself. Why can't this process be described as "work" since just like the Lord Jesus it might result in long prayer vigils in the garden. Why is it flat wrong to think that the Mind of Christ is equivalent to the Mind of God and that for this mind to be in you it suggests that God has now renewed your mind with His?

The short answer is given all considerations, it makes more sense that "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" means we are supposed to think like Christ thought. Mind means thoughts. Paul is telling us how to think. It is unnecessary to add the layer of that somehow Christ gets fused into our soul as the mind of God. 1 Corthinians says we have the mind of Christ, but that likely refers to the leading of the Spirit. It doesn't necessarily mean it gets fused literally into our soul. I think such a far-reaching idea needs to be supported by more clear and direct teaching from the Bible. It isn't.

In general, I think it is a mistake to push fringe ideas which don't have the clear support of the bible, history, experience, and respected teachers, particularly teachings that have such a potential for impacting our perception of our experience and what is required of us.

How does thinking Christ gets fused into your soul help you? In my experience it made me more passive. Much like OBW has argued, we are not to sit around waiting for God to move into our souls to change our behavior. We are to repent, which means to use our wills to change our thinking, BTW, and follow him. Sure, we have grace, thank God, but grace empowers us to use our wills to decide to be obedient. It doesn't take over and make decisions for us. God never forces himself on us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I read this verse to say that the renewing of your mind allows you to prove what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God. When I fellowship I do so in my spirit, hence the objectionable expression “hey brother, get out of your mind” but that does not mean that I don’t use my mind when I fellowship. The mind should be under the direction of the spirit. An unrenewed mind would suggest carrying the ark of the covenant in an ox cart instead of by the levitical priesthood. An unrenewed mind would suggest lying to a maid about knowing Jesus. An unrenewed mind would rebuke the Lord for saying that He must be crucified.

Again, I think this verse supports my case. It establishes that transformation is a matter of the mind being renewed. That to me means we learn to think differently (of course, as taught by the Spirit and the Word). What else would mind renewal mean except that our thinking is changed?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Trading logic for typology is not a even trade. We all use logic. It makes no difference whether it is "my own." The question is, is it good logic. And I think it is. You are employing a different logic. You seem to be saying if there is the outside possibility something is true then we need to take it as seriously as something which is more likely true. I don't go along with that.

When there is no direct teaching in the Bible regarding something, it is incumbent on us to use all our resources to come to a sensible conclusion, not find a type and use that to imagine a new teaching that the NT doesn't put forth plainly.

There is no word in the NT regarding this matter of transformation which cannot be taken in a manner different and more in keeping with (1) the general tenor of the NT, (2) other more direct teaching, (3) the consensus of history, (4) the consensus of our experience.

Sure, I guess there is an outside chance Christ is being "worked into" my soul. But my questions are, why doesn't the NT make it more clear, why doesn't my experience support it, why don't more Christian teachers teach it?

If this is "my logic," then I hold to it, thanks very much.

That is fine, so I also will stick to my use of Jasper to illustrate our transformation.

1. I would contend that the NT does use the 12 precious stones to illustrate the principle of transformation. Using these 12 stones is in line with the general tenor of the NT. I do take exception to those who use Diamonds to illustrate the process of transformation, Diamonds are not in line with the general tenor of the NT. Chrysolite yes, but not diamonds.
2. If you are going to use precious stones I feel quite strongly that you must begin with Jasper. I could see someone feeling that Sardonyx would be appropriate, but certainly not the first stone, because sin and our salvation from sin did not come first. Chalcedony would be a great stone to illustrate the importance of growth and maturity, but I figure that might just be offensive. This is not just because of the prominence that the book of Revelation gives to Jasper, and it is not just because Jasper, like half of the 12 precious stones in the NJ is composed of SiO2, a molecule that can easily and clearly depict the triune God, nor is it because wood has to be immersed into a solution of water that is saturated with the Jasper element in order for the wood to be replaced molecule by molecule. No, I would start with Jasper because Jasper is metamorphosed from Red Clay, and Adam was made from Red Clay, so it typifies the transformation of the first creation into the New Creation.
3. According to the general tenor of the NT, many direct teachings and the consensus of history all of creation testifies of God. As a result Bible teachers of the New Testament, beginning with Jesus and his parables have used examples from nature to explain spiritual truths. To now discount what is clearly a Biblical example given to illustrate a truth is not a sound approach.
4. The molecular structure, crystal symmetry and processes by which Jasper form have not changed since it was listed as a precious stone, and according to the plain word of the Bible all things came into being as a result of the word of God and they were created by and for Jesus Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, I think this verse supports my case. It establishes that transformation is a matter of the mind being renewed. That to me means we learn to think differently (of course, as taught by the Spirit and the Word). What else would mind renewal mean except that our thinking is changed?

Well there are two ways to change your mind, one is "conformed to the world" and the other is "renewing of your mind".

According to Paul our mind became new when we were saved, in fact "all things were made new". Likewise we are now a new creation which must include our mind. According to Paul and you Christ came into my spirit when I was saved and made me a new creation. It was this process of Christ coming into us that made us new.

So to me it is reasonable that "renew" refers to every experience you have of Christ, similar to when you first had faith to receive Him, that has a renewing effect on your mind as well. Therefore, in my understanding the process of Christ coming into me didn't just make my spirit new it made all things new, and every subsequent experience I have of Christ has a similar "renewing of my mind". Therefore I feel it is unreasonable to say that Christ does not infuse, saturate, work himself into your mind, or whatever terminology you wish. I don't think this is a matter of the faith though. If someone disagrees with the teaching I think they are free to do so, but I think it is offensive to say that this teaching is "flat wrong".

This is my understanding based on my experience. It doesn't bother me that you see it differently, but I don't understand why my experience is "flat wrong".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general, I think it is a mistake to push fringe ideas which don't have the clear support of the bible, history, experience, and respected teachers, particularly teachings that have such a potential for impacting our perception of our experience and what is required of us.

So then, by "flat wrong" you don't mean "clearly contrary to the Apostle's teaching" but "bad judgment"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How does thinking Christ gets fused into your soul help you? In my experience it made me more passive. Much like OBW has argued, we are not to sit around waiting for God to move into our souls to change our behavior. We are to repent, which means to use our wills to change our thinking, BTW, and follow him. Sure, we have grace, thank God, but grace empowers us to use our wills to decide to be obedient. It doesn't take over and make decisions for us. God never forces himself on us.

I don't think this teaching had this effect on me at all.

I changed many behaviors after being baptized. But I didn't try to change any of them, the Lord would speak a word and a shirt would go into the garbage, I would put on shoes, I would stop a bad habit, etc. I remember trying to stop a bad habit about 6 months prior to being baptized (my girlfriend's prodding). In my dreams I would be doing this thing, then wake up in a sweat realizing I had failed only to realize I had been dreaming. It turned into a nightmare for about a month before I just said forget it.

Then I came into the church, the Lord spoke a word, I dropped it, and never gave it a second thought. No dreams, no nightmares, just dropped it like a sack of sand being cut loose and falling into the ocean.

The point is, if you never had the slightest problem with wearing a shirt prior to being baptized, but now all of a sudden you take a look at that shirt and think "what is this?" How did that happen. If that is the Lord within you, then amen, throw the shirt away and move on.

When I first met with the church in Houston I was bare foot. I would sit on the front row of the meeting hall in bare feet. It never bothered me and no one in the church ever said it bothered them. One day I just felt I should start wearing shoes and did. Inwardly the saints in the meeting hall all said "hallelujah". I know this because the testimonies began to come out about a year or two later. Everyone sharing testimonies about how they were praying and then their prayers were answered.

There was no "waiting" there was trusting in prayer and trusting in the Lord.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think this teaching had this effect on me at all...

The indefatigable Ni ZNP never let them get to him...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, by "flat wrong" you don't mean "clearly contrary to the Apostle's teaching" but "bad judgment"?

I would say that given what we know the odds are not all good that it's true. In my book, that's flat wrong because if you buck the odds, in the long run you'll lose. The probabilities will always get you. So if you arrange you beliefs based on typology long shots, rather than on what the Bible plainly says, you are sure to lose in some way. Why play that game?

Look, Lee taught us to jump to these conclusions. He taught us to try to see hidden meanings in the Bible. If you look at many of his non-standard major teachings, they are based on typology or patterns, not on plain teaching. I'm not against typology, I'm just against letting the tail wag the dog. Take away typology and patterns, and Lee would be much more orthodox.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is my understanding based on my experience. It doesn't bother me that you see it differently, but I don't understand why my experience is "flat wrong".

You haven't shown how your experience shows Christ is now part of your soul. All you've shown is that Christ has had an effect on you. That doesn't prove he's become part of your soul. Neither have you addressed my question of if Christ is part of your soul now, where in your soul is he? Can you talk directly to the Christ in your soul? If not, why not? When your soul sins, where does the Christ in your soul go? You are not thinking about any of these questions. You just keep making the claim and referring to types.

See, the "Christ has moved out into my soul" meme sounds good. It sounds all warmly mystical. I realize the attraction of that. But when really examined, it falls apart. It starts to look like unverifiable, abstract mumbo-jumbo.

It may be true, may not. We have no way of knowing. So why go there?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would say that given what we know the odds are not all good that it's true. In my book, that's flat wrong because if you buck the odds, in the long run you'll lose. The probabilities will always get you. So if you arrange you beliefs based on typology long shots, rather than on what the Bible plainly says, you are sure to lose in some way. Why play that game?

Look, Lee taught us to jump to these conclusions. He taught us to try to see hidden meanings in the Bible. If you look at many of his non-standard major teachings, they are based on typology or patterns, not on plain teaching. I'm not against typology, I'm just against letting the tail wag the dog. Take away typology and patterns, and Lee would be much more orthodox.

Good point. I think that the odds are excellent that when Paul says "do not be conformed to this age" that this is something we can all understand experientially. There is a constant pressure on us to be conformed to the current age. Likewise when he says "but be ye transformed by the renewing of the mind" that this also is something we can understand experientially, but it is fundamentally different from the way the world works. The world tries to "conform" us, whereas the Lord "transforms" us. So my first requirement in understanding transformation is that it is something different from what happens in the world. So although I don't feel I "know" what transformation is, I do feel I know that it is not what takes place in the world.

I think the odds are also excellent that the precious stones are a NT type of this transformation. Therefore, even though I understand that looking at types is not the same as the clear word, I still feel that these stones should accurately illustrate my experience. Also, there are 12 stones, all with different experiences, so I see no reason why we as Christians can't have different experiences. Yet I would say that I personally feel like I have had many of these experiences, so I also see no reason why we can't experience many if not all of them.

So then, how do types work? Why is a seed being planted into the ground a type of the resurrection? I have come to the conclusion that this is because we believe, by faith, that the entire universe has been framed by the word of God. This is why the Lord could pick up so many parables from nature, all of nature was framed by His word. Since the word of God frames the creation it is not surprising that creation illustrates spiritual truths. Now I have to believe that a process as fundamental as "baptism into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" can not be a coincidence, but is the result of all creation testifying of God. Surely something as fundamental to our Christian walk as Baptism must be part of the transformation process.

You say that the NT does not talk about petrified wood. Yet the NT makes it clear that all believers are to be "baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and in typology this is how wood is transformed into "Petrified" wood. Petra here is the greek word for stone, but of course you knew that since Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter to signify his being transformed into a precious stone.

So if your interpretation of transformation follows this criteria then I am certainly interested in considering it.

1. Something quite different from the world's process of conforming people to a particular age.
2. Something that is illustrated by the precious stones
3. A process like being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (like petrification of wood that requires the baptism of wood into water saturated with the Jasper molecule) that is clearly depicted in the NT that all Christians are to experience.

To me, if your interpretation doesn't meet those three criteria then the odds are nill that you understand transformation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You haven't shown how your experience shows Christ is now part of your soul. All you've shown is that Christ has had an effect on you. That doesn't prove he's become part of your soul. Neither have you addressed my question of if Christ is part of your soul now, where in your soul is he? Can you talk directly to the Christ in your soul? If not, why not? When your soul sins, where does the Christ in your soul go? You are not thinking about any of these questions. You just keep making the claim and referring to types.

See, the "Christ has moved out into my soul" meme sounds good. It sounds all warmly mystical. I realize the attraction of that. But when really examined, it falls apart. It starts to look like unverifiable, abstract mumbo-jumbo.

It may be true, may not. We have no way of knowing. So why go there?

I have shown how my mind has changed, and that the process of that change was different than that of reforming yourself. I have never used the terminology "Christ has moved out into my soul", I assume your quote marks are for WL/LRC jargon. In my experience Christ resides in my spirit. When I sin Christ doesn't go anywhere, He objects and makes me miserable until I repent.

I have heard many things from many Christians both within the LRC and without that I may not agree with or that I may not understand what they are saying. If it is not a tenant of the faith I don't make a big deal of it. Perhaps they know something I don't, perhaps they don't. My feeling is that the worst thing is to be tossed to and fro with every wind, instead I file it away and if the Lord wants to reveal something to me He can. My primary objection was that you said the teaching was "flat wrong" and I don't see that. Second you gave an explanation of what transformation is really about and I didn't see that at all. I feel it fails my test on the three criteria.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Something quite different from the world's process of conforming people to a particular age.

Yes, it is different in many ways. But the essential effect is similar. One's thinking is changed, which affects ones feelings, which affects one's actions, which affects what one expresses to the world around oneself. The world and God approach it quite differently, but their target is the same--the mind of man.

2. Something that is illustrated by the precious stones

Fair enough.

3. A process like being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (like petrification of wood that requires the baptism of wood into water saturated with the Jasper molecule) that is clearly depicted in the NT that all Christians are to experience.

To me, if your interpretation doesn't meet those three criteria then the odds are nill that you understand transformation.

I got as far as "a process." The rest of 3 is just speculation. There is no clear evidence that transformation is necessarily accomplished by the process you describe. Really, what is your proof that things must happen this way? The type? Not even close to being good enough.

Transformation means change. That's really all we know. The Bible isn't specific on what this means. Whether it is "metabolic," or "organic," or mystical, or magical, or simply the result of God's Spirit teaching us a new way of think and feel, we can't be completely sure. I opt for the last because it's the only thing I know does happen, because the Bible teaches it and that's what I experience.

The rest I don't know for sure because I have no way of verifying it. I used to think I experienced it, I wanted to believe I did, but time has told me it probably doesn't happen that way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, it is different in many ways. But the essential effect is similar. One's thinking is changed, which affects ones feelings, which affects one's actions, which affects what one expresses to the world around oneself. The world and God approach it quite differently, but their target is the same--the mind of man.

Transformation is a process, talking about the end result does not explain the process.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I got as far as "a process." The rest of 3 is just speculation. There is no clear evidence that transformation is necessarily accomplished by the process you describe. Really, what is your proof that things must happen this way? The type? Not even close to being good enough.

Transformation means change. That's really all we know. The Bible isn't specific on what this means. Whether it is "metabolic," or "organic," or mystical, or magical, or simply the result of God's Spirit teaching us a new way of think and feel, we can't be completely sure. I opt for the last because it's the only thing I know does happen, because the Bible teaches it and that's what I experience.

The rest I don't know for sure because I have no way of verifying it. I used to think I experienced it, I wanted to believe I did, but time has told me it probably doesn't happen that way.

Poorly worded, sorry. I do not mean that transformation has to be tied somehow to Baptism. What I do mean is that transformation is a process that all Christians go through, therefore any explanation of this process should include processes that all Christians go through. Hence the example of Baptism. By definition you must be baptized to be saved. It is fair to describe baptism as a process. This process is central to both the Old and New Testaments. The other excellent example would be the Lord's table. Both sacraments can be described as processes, they are both vital, they are both common to all believers. These are the things I am looking for in my 3rd criteria.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My primary objection was that you said the teaching was "flat wrong" and I don't see that.

Okay, let me officially change the title of this thread to:

Four Areas where W. Lee was Most Likely Flat Wrong

Will that make you happy?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, let me officially change the title of this thread to:

Four Areas where W. Lee was Most Likely Flat Wrong

Will that make you happy?

I have been happy ever since you started this thread. Do you mean "will that make you more happy?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Transformation is a process, talking about the end result does not explain the process.

Who said we need to explain the process?

Besides, in my experience I understand something of the process. It is this:

1. The Lord speaks to me about something.
2. Because I love him, I obey.
3. The more I obey, the more my thoughts, feelings, tastes and habits change to be aligned with him.
4. The more this happens, the more I love him.
5. The more I love him, the more He speaks to me.
6. Go to step 1.

This is all I know. The mystical being replaced by Christ, Christ being infused into my soul, yadda, yadda, I don't understand, neither can I verify.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Who said we need to explain the process?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

This is one of Lee’s biggest errors, that the actual element of God is somehow being fused into our souls. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that such a thing is going on. And experience does not support it. Transformation is being made more like God in our soul. That means, primarily, learning to value things and think about things the way God does. I.e., it is primarily a matter of what we think about and how we think about it. Where our thoughts go, the rest of our being follows. As we become more obedient, naturally the Spirit is manifested more in our lives because He flows more freely through us, but that doesn’t mean He’s been “worked into our being.”

If I say that "this does not seem to explain the verses on transformation" or "this does not seem to be supported by the NT" then no, you don't have to give your own explanation. But if I am going to say that this is "flat wrong" then I can only do that if I can put the puzzle together in a manner that is indisputable. In that case you must put forth your own explanation of transformation, and that "tion" suggests a process.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I say that "this does not seem to explain the verses on transformation" or "this does not seem to be supported by the NT" then no, you don't have to give your own explanation. But if I am going to say that this is "flat wrong" then I can only do that if I can put the puzzle together in a manner that is indisputable. In that case you must put forth your own explanation of transformation, and that "tion" suggests a process.

You tend to miss the point, Z. I mentioned that at the beginning. No offense, but you do.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

1. The Lord speaks to me about something.
2. Because I love him, I obey.
3. The more I obey, the more my thoughts, feelings, tastes and habits change to be aligned with him.
4. The more this happens, the more I love him.
5. The more I love him, the more He speaks to me.
6. Go to step 1.

This is all I know. The mystical being replaced by Christ, Christ being infused into my soul, yadda, yadda, I don't understand, neither can I verify.

So let me flesh this out a little. Suppose the Lord speaks to you about a post, it was too harsh. So, because you love the Lord you obey and apologize for the post. As a result of your obedience your thoughts, feelings, tastes and habits change to be more aligned with Him. As a result the fellowship is strengthened which in turn "renews" the process.

So then, wouldn't spending time in ways that "strengthen the fellowship" between you and the Lord optimize the process? For example, wouldn't reading the Bible help? Wouldn't fellowship with other Christians help? Wouldn't singing, praying, worshipping all help? Isn't this how you understand "Baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", that it means we live a life immersed in a realm full of the Triune God?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let me flesh this out a little. Suppose the Lord speaks to you about a post, it was too harsh. So, because you love the Lord you obey and apologize for the post. As a result of your obedience your thoughts, feelings, tastes and habits change to be more aligned with Him. As a result the fellowship is strengthened which in turn "renews" the process.

So then, wouldn't spending time in ways that "strengthen the fellowship" between you and the Lord optimize the process? For example, wouldn't reading the Bible help? Wouldn't fellowship with other Christians help? Wouldn't singing, praying, worshipping all help? Isn't this how you understand "Baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", that it means we live a life immersed in a realm full of the Triune God?

I'm not disagreeing, but this is off the subject of whether or not "Christ is worked into our being." Please stay on topic. Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You tend to miss the point, Z. I mentioned that at the beginning. No offense, but you do.

Yes, you said that at the beginning, but you also said these 4 areas were "flat wrong". This must apply to area 3. That statement took your point further and superseded saying that it wasn't supported by the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not disagreeing, but this is off the subject of whether or not "Christ is worked into our being." Please stay on topic. Thanks.

No it's not. This process that you describe is also the same process that the NT describes and that WL taught. WL taught that this results in Christ spreading into your soul, you said "yada, yada yada".

This is the context of the teaching of WL on point 3. Filling in the context is not off topic.

[Cal]

okay this is cool I'm now using my droid phone. I'm using voice recognition in this I'm speaking this.

z, is christ be worked into arby's or not?

wait a minute

is christ be worked into our soul or not?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You tend to miss the point, Z. I mentioned that at the beginning. No offense, but you do.

I don't miss the point, I ignore it. An argument is built on a foundation that must have at least 3 supports. I look for weaknesses in the foundation. If its solid then it is worth investing in. If not, perhaps it can be tweaked. Otherwise why waste your time?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't miss the point, I ignore it.

well that explains a lot. Lol

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

okay this is cool I'm now using my droid phone. I'm using voice recognition in this I'm speaking this.

z, is christ be worked into arby's or not?

wait a minute

is christ be worked into our soul or not?

I don't eat at Arby's. I never worked there. Aren't these questions off topic?

As for our soul I feel my soul is different than it was prior to my being saved.

One brother shared a testimony with me in the Peter Training in Irving. The context was that I had stood up to share a testimony about the varied grace of God. WL got upset and told me to sit down. But later many saints said "hey, wait, that is the varied grace of God", even BP talked to WL about it. Then WL during the rest of the training got really frustrated feeling "he had been tricked". So this particular brother watched all this play out and then took me aside and shared this testimony.

He said he was in the petrified forest, he knew the "wood" was actually stone, but one little twig look so convincing he just kicked it. He was wearing sneakers and broke his toe. So how does a "twig" become stone if their isn't an organic change in nature. So yes, I think the Triune God, who is very weighty, has, to some extent, been worked into my soul.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

well that explains a lot. Lol

Always here to help.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He said he was in the petrified forest, he knew the "wood" was actually stone, but one little twig look so convincing he just kicked it. He was wearing sneakers and broke his toe. So how does a "twig" become stone if their isn't an organic change in nature. So yes, I think the Triune God, who is very weighty, has, to some extent, been worked into my soul.

So a brother breaks his toe and that was the moment of enlightenment for you?

Anyway, petrification isn't an organic process. It's a fossilization process. It happens to dead things. Are you saying that God has been fossilized into your soul? Come to think of it, that would explain your hard head.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

I am kind of surprised you would say this. Does not Christ desire to make home in our heart? If indeed our soul is only mind, emotion, and will, can you assert that your mind, emotion, and will have not changed with each experience of the Lord? Do you think differently, feel differently, or choose differently?

Anyways, not interested in another course on the "Parts of Man 101." I just don't think we can slice and dice our souls up to see which is Christ and which is still us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

How's this reference for ya --

Get of your mind, bruuuuuuther!!

Sorry, don't have a page number, just memories of practically shouting this in each other's faces...

Fortunately this saying was properly debunked in my neck of the woods. I now think that this saying was only used to manipulate the members. Did you really shout that in each others' face?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sure, I guess there is an outside chance Christ is being "worked into" my soul. But my questions are, why doesn't the NT make it more clear, why doesn't my experience support it, why don't more Christian teachers teach it?

Couple verses that have helped to persuade me concerning this teaching --

Phil 2.12-13 " ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who operates in you ..."

Gal 4.19 "my little children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How does thinking Christ gets fused into your soul help you? In my experience it made me more passive. Much like OBW has argued, we are not to sit around waiting for God to move into our souls to change our behavior. We are to repent, which means to use our wills to change our thinking, BTW, and follow him. Sure, we have grace, thank God, but grace empowers us to use our wills to decide to be obedient. It doesn't take over and make decisions for us. God never forces himself on us.

This phrase caught my attention, "In my experience it made me more passive." Just wondering, but it seems that this topic has come up before. Kind of like that brother who refused to help his sick wife do dishes, because he didn't want to do things of his natural life, or some stupid reasoning like that.

Igzy, do you equate "God worked into our soul" with being afraid to "do things out of our natural man?" If so, then I can understand your point of view.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

okay this is cool I'm now using my droid phone. I'm using voice recognition in this I'm speaking this.

z, is christ be worked into arby's or not?

wait a minute

is christ be worked into our soul or not?

Igzy, Christ be worked into McDonald's, Arby's, and Burger King, yo.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This phrase caught my attention, "In my experience it made me more passive." Just wondering, but it seems that this topic has come up before. Kind of like that brother who refused to help his sick wife do dishes, because he didn't want to do things of his natural life, or some stupid reasoning like that.

Igzy, do you equate "God worked into our soul" with being afraid to "do things out of our natural man?" If so, then I can understand your point of view.

This reminds me of Ron Kangas' short prayers, Lord, wrought more of yourself into my beee-iiing today!!!

I remember leaving these conferences with the mental image of a little God-dropper, drip-dropping "liquid God" into our beings. A few more drops each day...a lifetime of drippity-drop transformation...

Sounds kinda passive to me. But hey, maybe that's just me...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So a brother breaks his toe and that was the moment of enlightenment for you?

Anyway, petrification isn't an organic process. It's a fossilization process. It happens to dead things. Are you saying that God has been fossilized into your soul? Come to think of it, that would explain your hard head.

Hard head, me!? You're the one with the hard head.

OK, let me ask you a question. You described the process of transformation as hearing the Lord's speaking, obeying, being changed, loving the Lord more, which in turn causes you to fellowship more, causing a positive feedback to the cycle.

What about backsliders? Can they undo whatever changes that have taken place with their thoughts, likes, etc.

Let's say for example, you had a college student who is an unbeliever, living a typical life of an unregenerated college student. This person is genuinely saved, spends 4-5 years in genuine fellowship with Christians, pursuing the Lord, reading the Bible, praying, etc. But for whatever reason they are offended, stumbled, backslide and cut off all contact with Christians. Can they go back to their previous life without any trace of the changes that had taken place?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This phrase caught my attention, "In my experience it made me more passive." Just wondering, but it seems that this topic has come up before. Kind of like that brother who refused to help his sick wife do dishes, because he didn't want to do things of his natural life, or some stupid reasoning like that.

Igzy, do you equate "God worked into our soul" with being afraid to "do things out of our natural man?" If so, then I can understand your point of view.

I was hoping this discussion would lead here. In my experience there are many saints in the LRC who speak out of competition, or envy, or feigned faith. I feel it is the downside of having a testimony style meeting. There are saints who want to be "the burning brother" or the "burning sister", then there are those who want to be "the faithful one" etc. I think this is why there are so many meaningless expressions bandied about and why so many parrot footnotes (it used to be that giving a good quote from a spiritual book you were reading to support a message was a good testimony. That is too hard, so having footnotes that you can quote as soon as you see what verses are being shared makes it so much easier. So footnotes became the canned testimonies.) So the question then becomes would the LRC be better without these? Or more to the point, would the NT be better without Judas, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians? I don't think so, they are a "necessary evil".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hard head, me!? You're the one with the hard head.

OK, let me ask you a question. You described the process of transformation as hearing the Lord's speaking, obeying, being changed, loving the Lord more, which in turn causes you to fellowship more, causing a positive feedback to the cycle.

What about backsliders? Can they undo whatever changes that have taken place with their thoughts, likes, etc.

Let's say for example, you had a college student who is an unbeliever, living a typical life of an unregenerated college student. This person is genuinely saved, spends 4-5 years in genuine fellowship with Christians, pursuing the Lord, reading the Bible, praying, etc. But for whatever reason they are offended, stumbled, backslide and cut off all contact with Christians. Can they go back to their previous life without any trace of the changes that had taken place?

Obviously we can backslide. This has happened to everyone, at least in minor ways. Our thoughts and feelings can be influenced and changed, and our decisions can follow. Plus there is an enemy out there who seeks to deceive us. We can stumble. Circumstances can cause our faith and trust in God to flutter.

The mind is a funny thing. We can believe lies, even when we are saved and have some growth. We are living persons, not pieces of stone. Jewels are metaphors, we should not take the picture too far.

This is another reason I think the "Christ has moved into my soul" idea is bogus. If Christ has taken over part of someone's soul, how could he ever backslide? But we know people do backslide.

But I doubt anyone can slough off the effects of any major experience they have had, let alone a genuine encounter with God. So, no, I don't think anyone can go back to exactly the way they were before.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am kind of surprised you would say this. Does not Christ desire to make home in our heart? If indeed our soul is only mind, emotion, and will, can you assert that your mind, emotion, and will have not changed with each experience of the Lord? Do you think differently, feel differently, or choose differently?

----

Couple verses that have helped to persuade me concerning this teaching --

Phil 2.12-13 " ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who operates in you ..."

Gal 4.19 "my little children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you."

---
This phrase caught my attention, "In my experience it made me more passive." Just wondering, but it seems that this topic has come up before. Kind of like that brother who refused to help his sick wife do dishes, because he didn't want to do things of his natural life, or some stupid reasoning like that.

Igzy, do you equate "God worked into our soul" with being afraid to "do things out of our natural man?" If so, then I can understand your point of view.

Ohio, There are several reason I reject the “Christ has moved into my soul” meme.

1) Not enough scriptural support.
2) Does not match my experience.
3) Doesn’t add up.
4) Complicates things.

I believe we are being changed, but I think it meshes more with the idea that God is showing us a new way to think and feel, rather than that some kind of mystical transference of himself into our soul is happening.

Think about it. If what is going on is simply a metabolic process, why does God need to teach us anything? Why does he need to speak to us, or have a relationship with us? But in my experience, my heart is being changed because I getting to know the Lord and loving him more and more, not because I’m getting irradiated with the divine nature. Now, the beauty of the shining of the Lord's face definitely affects me (2 Cor 3:18), but that is because I'm enthralled by him, not because of divine radiation.

To me Lee's transformation teaching is complicated and confusing. And that speaks to your point about being confused about whether something “is me or Christ.” I think WL created a whole mythology about transformation that is flat false. I think it is really much simpler. That is, God is in us teaching and guiding us. We get to know him and love him and we change in the way we think and feel. There is no need for a “metabolic” change. We are already new creatures. We just need to learn to think like new creatures. So the Holy Spirit teaches us how. It’s a matter of mind and thought and habit, not metabolism. You might say, well that sounds “natural.” But how can it be only natural when it is the Holy Spirit himself who guiding us into this new way of thinking and feeling?

As for Christ being formed in us, I think it’s unnecessary for Christ to move into our soul for this to happen. Think of it this way. Before we were saved our soul was like a hard rubber ball around our spirit. After being saved, the ball softened some, but it was still quite hard. It could not adapt to the shape of Christ in our spirit. As we grow, the ball becomes softer and softer, and more adept at conforming to the inner shape of Christ. Thus it more and more shows the form of Christ. That’s what I think Christ formed in us means. It means we are more able to reflect the form of Christ. How does this happen? Not by mystics, but by being captured by Christ and wanting to please him more. It’s a change of thought and feeling. I’m not saying there is no “magic” involved. I'm saying it makes sense that God would change our souls the way the soul was designed to be changed, by learning a new way to think, of course taught by a supernatural Teacher.

This has greatly simplified things for me. And I feel my spirit bears witness with it. I no longer worry about what part of me is “Christ.” I know there is Christ and there is me, and he is teaching me and guiding me. He is my Friend. I can hear his voice now. We have a relationship. It’s not about metabolics anymore.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I doubt anyone can slough off the effects of any major experience they have had, let alone a genuine encounter with God. So, no, I don't think anyone can go back to exactly the way they were before.

And that is where I think the distinction between the conforming of the world and the transformation is. Transformation is eternal, whereas conformation can be erased. I think this is supported by numerous NT verses. Salvation is eternal, and we need to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" suggesting the salvation of the soul, not the salvation of the spirit.

I think if we agree on the parameters, then the terminology is less important.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, There are several reason I reject the “Christ has moved into my soul” meme.

1) Not enough scriptural support.
2) Does not match my experience.
3) Doesn’t add up.
4) Complicates things.

I believe we are being changed, but I think it meshes more with the idea that God is showing us a new way to think and feel, rather than that some kind of mystical transference of himself into our soul is happening.

Think about it. If what is going on is simply a metabolic process, why does God need to teach us anything? Why does he need to speak to us, or have a relationship with us? But in my experience, my heart is being changed because I getting to know the Lord and loving him more and more, not because I’m getting irradiated with the divine nature. Now, the beauty of the shining of the Lord's face definitely affects me (2 Cor 3:18), but that is because I'm enthralled by him, not because of divine radiation.

To me Lee's transformation teaching is complicated and confusing. And that speaks to your point about being confused about whether something “is me or Christ.” I think WL created a whole mythology about transformation that is flat false. I think it is really much simpler. That is, God is in us teaching and guiding us. We get to know him and love him and we change in the way we think and feel. There is no need for a “metabolic” change. We are already new creatures. We just need to learn to think like new creatures. So the Holy Spirit teaches us how. It’s a matter of mind and thought and habit, not metabolism. You might say, well that sounds “natural.” But how can it be only natural when it is the Holy Spirit himself who guiding us into this new way of thinking and feeling?

As for Christ being formed in us, I think it’s unnecessary for Christ to move into our soul for this to happen. Think of it this way. Before we were saved our soul was like a hard rubber ball around our spirit. After being saved, the ball softened some, but it was still quite hard. It could not adapt to the shape of Christ in our spirit. As we grow, the ball becomes softer and softer, and more adept at conforming to the inner shape of Christ. Thus it more and more shows the form of Christ. That’s what I think Christ formed in us means. It means we are more able to reflect the form of Christ. How does this happen? Not by mystics, but by being captured by Christ and wanting to please him more. It’s a change of thought and feeling. I’m not saying there is no “magic” involved. I saying it makes sense that God would change our soul the way the soul was designed to be changed, by learning a new way to think, of course taught by a supernatural Teacher.

This has greatly simplified things for me. And I feel my spirit bears witness with it. I no longer worry about what part of me is “Christ.” I know there is Christ and there is me, and he is teaching me and guiding me. He is my Friend. We have a relationship. I can hear his voice now. It’s not about metabolics anymore.

Then how do you understand the expression "the word became flesh". No doubt it refers to the incarnation of Jesus, but why would John feel it was necessary and profitable to say it in this way? The word "became" clearly refers to a process. The description of this process is not unlike the description you gave us of how the Lord speaks to you, then you receive that speaking by obeying it, then you are changed. In this way the word of the Lord is changing your being. Aren't you becoming the word that you received?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then how do you understand the expression "the word became flesh". No doubt it refers to the incarnation of Jesus, but why would John feel it was necessary and profitable to say it in this way? The word "became" clearly refers to a process. The description of this process is not unlike the description you gave us of how the Lord speaks to you, then you receive that speaking by obeying it, then you are changed. In this way the word of the Lord is changing your being. Aren't you becoming the word that you received?

I think it's unnecessary to make the connection between the word becoming flesh and God transforming us.

Part of the problem is the word "transformation." It comes from the Greek metamorphoo. Lee then associated metamorphoo with metabolic, and with metamorphosis. But the writers in the early church did not make this association. The word does mean to change into another form. But it doesn't necessarily imply anything metabolic. Surely the changing of someone who thinks and acts like a child of the devil into someone who thinks and acts like a child of God would qualify as metamorphoo, even without all the metabolic stuff attached.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Think about it. If what is going on is simply a metabolic process, why does God need to teach us anything? Why does he need to speak to us, or have a relationship with us? But in my experience, my heart is being changed because I getting to know the Lord and loving him more and more, not because I’m getting irradiated with the divine nature. Now, the beauty of the shining of the Lord's face definitely affects me (2 Cor 3:18), but that is because I'm enthralled by him, not because of divine radiation.

Igzy, I don't see this as a conflict. Transformation, renewing, forming, and His spreading / working into our soul metabolically are what happen within us when the Lord teaches us, we study His word in the light, He speaks to us, we obey Him, we have a loving relationship with Him, we behold His face, we speak for Him, we suffer on His behalf, etc.

In his later minister WL definitely emphasized the former, while you now prefer the latter. If we were forced to choose between the teachings of the former or those of the latter, we both would choose the latter because then the Lord is more real and approachable and simpler, as you say. Excessive emphasis on the former makes us passive, as you say, and like mystical esoterics. This is why LSM can go on teaching this abstract theology while blatantly disregarding simple instructions like "don't sue your brother."

I definitely agree that WL made the whole thing too mechanical and impersonal. He used Romans chap. 8 to teach that the whole "God process" is scientific, like turning on a light switch. I remember numerous meetings / messages in this regard. Gradually over time, WL left the "relational" or experiential teachings of the early days, and became objective and systematic, a "Methodist" if you will. I believe there were definite reasons for this decline in his ministry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, I don't see this as a conflict. Transformation, renewing, forming, and His spreading / working into our soul metabolically are what happen within us when the Lord teaches us, we study His word in the light, He speaks to us, we obey Him, we have a loving relationship with Him, we behold His face, we speak for Him, we suffer on His behalf, etc.

In his later minister WL definitely emphasized the former, while you now prefer the latter. If we were forced to choose between the teachings of the former or those of the latter, we both would choose the latter because then the Lord is more real and approachable and simpler, as you say. Excessive emphasis on the former makes us passive, as you say, and like mystical esoterics. This is why LSM can go on teaching this abstract theology while blatantly disregarding simple instructions like "don't sue your brother."

I definitely agree that WL made the whole thing too mechanical and impersonal. He used Romans chap. 8 to teach that the whole "God process" is scientific, like turning on a light switch. I remember numerous meetings / messages in this regard. Gradually over time, WL left the "relational" or experiential teachings of the early days, and became objective and systematic, a "Methodist" if you will. I believe there were definite reasons for this decline in his ministry.

Ohio,

I concur. Like I said, I can't say for sure nothing "metabolic" is going on (whatever metabolic really means). But I can't control that, nor can I measure it. All I know is what I'm allowing myself to think at any point in time. I can control that, and that's all I can control. Anything metabolic is in Someone else's hands. I just know he's guiding me and changing me, mostly, in my experience, by enlightening my mind and softening my heart. Whether that is done metabolically or by virtue of me just "getting it," I don't know. I think that is beyond us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree that WL made the whole thing too mechanical and impersonal. He used Romans chap. 8 to teach that the whole "God process" is scientific, like turning on a light switch. I remember numerous meetings / messages in this regard. Gradually over time, WL left the "relational" or experiential teachings of the early days, and became objective and systematic, a "Methodist" if you will. I believe there were definite reasons for this decline in his ministry.

By the way, I like that description of Lee as a methodist. It definitely fits. He developed a definite, rigid system, then recommended it above all others as "the secret."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By the way, I like that description of Lee as a methodist. It definitely fits. He developed a definite, rigid system, then recommended it above all others as "the secret."

I also agree that the testimonies and speaking of many in the LRC reflected way too much on secret formulas (O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah and Lord Jesus), special methods (genuine pray reading morphed into idiotic chanting) and parroting WL's teaching instead of genuine experience of the Lord.

However, I think it is absolutely impossible to lay the blame for that on one man or one teaching. Rather I would say it was a result of too many saints knowing the word of the Lord and not obeying. Too many were willing to lie their way out of difficulty and refused to take the path of the cross.

[Cal]

One problem I have with the whole metabolic thing is that it is essentially talking about something that is happening on the unconscious level. So why talk about it?

To me it is more glorifying to God that he convinces us to change the way we think, of course employing grace to help us make the change, and that we go along with him on a conscious level because we love and honor him.

That's why Isaiah 1:18 is one of my favorite verses. "Come, let us reason together, says the Lord..." God is appealing to our reason. That's very touching to me.

If he just zaps us with some divine rays and changes us unconsciously, what glory is that to him? It's not even very interesting.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also agree that the testimonies and speaking of many in the LRC reflected way too much on secret formulas (O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah and Lord Jesus), special methods (genuine pray reading morphed into idiotic chanting) and parroting WL's teaching instead of genuine experience of the Lord.

However, I think it is absolutely impossible to lay the blame for that on one man or one teaching. Rather I would say it was a result of too many saints knowing the word of the Lord and not obeying. Too many were willing to lie their way out of difficulty and refused to take the path of the cross.

Many did, and they ended up like you. Out of the movement. I ended up out too. But it wasn't because of anything really noble. I just wanted out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

One problem I have with the whole metabolic thing is that it is essentially talking about something that is happening on the unconscious level. So why talk about it?

Watchman Nee shared about rinsing rice in a basket. The idea was "I feel like I am not retaining anything when I read the word" and the point of the illustration was that even if you don't retain the water, the rice still gets cleaned. It was an encouragement that there is a benefit to reading the word whether you can quantify and measure it or not. I always understood this teaching to be an extension of that. By spending time in the word, or fellowship or prayer or worship or study it was like you were immersed in an environment saturated with the Triune God and that facilitates the transformation process. There was nothing passive, you actively chose to a meeting, or fellowship with a saint, or pray.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Many did, and they ended up like you. Out of the movement. I ended up out too. But it wasn't because of anything really noble. I just wanted out.

Yes, I came to feel the real spiritual life must be a battle. When it was 50/50 that was fine, they provide a background to help you really appreciate the genuine experiences. But little by little the ratio seemed to move.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Watchman Nee shared about rinsing rice in a basket. The idea was "I feel like I am not retaining anything when I read the word" and the point of the illustration was that even if you don't retain the water, the rice still gets cleaned. It was an encouragement that there is a benefit to reading the word whether you can quantify and measure it or not. I always understood this teaching to be an extension of that. By spending time in the word, or fellowship or prayer or worship or study it was like you were immersed in an environment saturated with the Triune God and that facilitates the transformation process. There was nothing passive, you actively chose to a meeting, or fellowship with a saint, or pray.

Good point. God creates a whole environment for us to flourish in. Much of it we are conscious of. And some of it operates on the periphery of our consciousness. The residual peace and comfort of the Spirit is a definite foundational catalyst to keep us on the path of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

One problem I have with the whole metabolic thing is that it is essentially talking about something that is happening on the unconscious level. So why talk about it?

Well ... in a word ... because the Bible speaks of these mysterious things.

But ... a a big "but" it is ... to further my last post, many of these teachings by WL in his latter years encapsulated false hopes and false promises. Many saints began to realize that the personal reality of Christ was vanishing the longer they followed him and his ministry. Hence, WL was often asked why the saints no longer saw much change in their lives, as they once did. He would then launch into his "grandfatherly" explanation about "unseen, slow metabolic changes occurring unconsciously within" in an attempt to placate the real concerns that we had.

Igzy, actually, he was lying to us. He should have disclosed how the anointing and the blessing of the Lord were departing from the Recovery due to immoralities, coverups, and unrighteousness in his ministry. Instead of the truth, we got false hope and false promises to tickle our ears. It is this excessive attention to the "metaphysical metamorphosis" that has turned you off. You are not alone.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Many did, and they ended up like you. Out of the movement. I ended up out too. But it wasn't because of anything really noble. I just wanted out.

I think we all reached this point -- I gots to get out to live my life. We were in such a cloud as to what was really going on, that we could not adequately articulate what was happening within our heart.

It was after I stepped away from the program that I initially realized that the Recovery made bullies out of brothers. At that point I saw the issues as only behavioral, and not theological. And that was before I learned about all the scandalous unrighteousness going on at headquarters.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is this excessive attention to the "metaphysical metamorphosis" that has turned you off. You are not alone.

One of the reasons I saw the need to drop a lot of that stuff was because, first, no one else I'm around thinks that way. I mean, everyone knows God's Spirit is changing us, but that's as far as they take it. The rest of the time they focus on what they need to do. I began to realize that all this stuff about Christ infusing my soul was unnecessary, and no one wanted to talk about it anyway. Plus, I couldn't provide evidence that it made me a better Christian. In fact, I saw it put me at a disadvantage.

The second reason was that I began to study self-improvement, both of a Christian and secular nature, and I began to realize how central our minds are to who we are and what we do. Our spirits are no doubt important. But it is our minds that are central to our behavior. I began to realize that the tenets of achievement: visualizing, thinking about goals, focusing, auto-suggestion and so forth, are not contrary to being a Christian at all. In fact, they dovetail amazingly well with it.

I began to experience how simply controlling my thoughts (Phil 4:8) changed my outlook and behavior far more effectively than "enjoying the Lord" and hoping he changed me someday. So I came to realize that transformation is more about changing the way we think than anything else. I realized that the discoveries that are being made in behavioral science reflect how God designed our souls to work, not, as Lee so ignorantly said, "cooperation with demons." Then when I realized how much the Spirit gently tries to guide my thinking, it all came together.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great topic. Love to explore it further, but I've just had a bunch of posts deleted so I hate to invest the time ...

Read Joyce Meyer's "Battlefield of the Mind."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Read Joyce Meyer's "Battlefield of the Mind."

I have a kindle, so with one click I got the book. How easy is that?

Perhaps 2 of the areas where WL was flat wrong were his ridicule of all other Christian authors and his ridicule of psychology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Read Joyce Meyer's "Battlefield of the Mind."

Zee Topic Natzi, is not Joyce Meyer "off-topic?" We talk about money issues with WL, but doesn't Meyer rake in about $100 million/year? At least WL and company never had "love offerings." Doesn't JM's husband drives $150K cars, and each child have a lucrative ministerial position, and an estate on the family compound? etc. etc.

At least the old Bereans forum set guidelines on how posters treated each other, but now I have no idea what constitutes "off-topic" deletion of posts. One man's "topic" is another's "off-topic." Even the OP has been cited on his own thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have a kindle, so with one click I got the book. How easy is that?

Perhaps 2 of the areas where WL was flat wrong were his ridicule of all other Christian authors and his ridicule of psychology.

Here are 4 areas where I think WL was flat wrong:

1. Ridicule of other Christian ministries. Because with what judgement you judge you shall be judged. This should include his ridicule of seminaries since he himself ultimately opened up a Full Time Training, how is that any different?
2. Ridicule of psychology. The Bible teaches about a "sound mind" and psychology deals with the study of the mind. In fact much of WL's teaching could be called "psychology". For example I remember him once talking about the psychology of a crook and also the two major sins of those in insane asylums.
3. Ignoring Paul's word to suffer wrong rather than to take other Christians to court. Comparing what He did to Paul's appeal to Caesar is hollow. He embraced a strategy of extortion and it could be seen in the behavior of many in the LRC. The need to pay for these lawsuits became a very big drain on the LRC over the 30 year period and it made all LRC members guilty by association.
4. Ignoring fellowship from his peers, like JI and instead allowing RG and others to push the MOTA teaching. Without the balance of the many members of the Body the LRC was a shipwreck. Had he listened to JI and removed PL things could have been significantly different. Overlooking gross sins, defaming brothers who stand for righteousness, publishing a whitewash. This is a shipwreck.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are 4 areas where I think WL was flat wrong:

1. Ridicule of other Christian ministries. Because with what judgement you judge you shall be judged. This should include his ridicule of seminaries since he himself ultimately opened up a Full Time Training, how is that any different?
2. Ridicule of psychology. The Bible teaches about a "sound mind" and psychology deals with the study of the mind. In fact much of WL's teaching could be called "psychology". For example I remember him once talking about the psychology of a crook and also the two major sins of those in insane asylums.
3. Ignoring Paul's word to suffer wrong rather than to take other Christians to court. Comparing what He did to Paul's appeal to Caesar is hollow. He embraced a strategy of extortion and it could be seen in the behavior of many in the LRC. The need to pay for these lawsuits became a very big drain on the LRC over the 30 year period and it made all LRC members guilty by association.
4. Ignoring fellowship from his peers, like JI and instead allowing RG and others to push the MOTA teaching. Without the balance of the many members of the Body the LRC was a shipwreck. Had he listened to JI and removed PL things could have been significantly different. Overlooking gross sins, defaming brothers who stand for righteousness, publishing a whitewash. This is a shipwreck.

I'll go along with that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'll go along with that.

Good, because it boils down to following one very simple rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The first 3 points are easy to see. The fourth, if you want to treated as "the MOTA" then according to this rule you must treat others, like JI, JS, AK, etc. as the MOTA. In other words, just like David treated his son Nathan as a prophet bringing the word of God, so also, humble yourself and treat these brothers as those sent by the Lord with His word for you.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also agree that the testimonies and speaking of many in the LRC reflected way too much on secret formulas (O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah and Lord Jesus), special methods (genuine pray reading morphed into idiotic chanting) and parroting WL's teaching instead of genuine experience of the Lord.

However, I think it is absolutely impossible to lay the blame for that on one man or one teaching. Rather I would say it was a result of too many saints knowing the word of the Lord and not obeying. Too many were willing to lie their way out of difficulty and refused to take the path of the cross.

And what of the leaders who have actively promoted this stuff for years? Many leaders in the Recovery like to smile, shrug, and pretend this stuff comes out of thin air. News Flash: It doesn't.

Or, as they always used to tell me, there's no such thing as a coincidence.

[rayliotta]

Or maybe what you're saying is that the culture of "Witness Lee tape recorders" never could have developed without the members allowing it to? I would have to agree with this. As I was saying (trying to say) recently in another thread, I think there are lots of warning flags in the Recovery that ought to catch people's attention, even for those who don't know anything about PL.

There were so many (many, many) times growing up, when I just needed to see someone who had the cojones to stand up, "look The Ministry in the eye", as it were, and say, simply, quietly, calmly, "That's enough, Mr. Ministry, sir, you can sit down now." But to this day it seems no one will do that.

Know what I mean?

[Paul Cox]

Lee didn't have a problem with knowledge. It all depended upon which knowledge. His whole religious system rests on the saints ability to absorb, retain and regurgitate his knowledge. However, if it didn't come from "THE Ministry," it was of "The tree of knowledge."

As to having God "wrought" into our beans: You have a whole lot of God wrought into your beans up until the day you decide to walk away from the ministry of the galaxy, and dare to expose its error. Somehow, mysteriously, on that day all your beans get poured out the back door, and you instantly become the biggest devil in the world.

Having God wrought into your beans simply means having your brain saturated with the ministry of the milky way.

P.C.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Or maybe what you're saying is that the culture of "Witness Lee tape recorders" never could have developed without the members allowing it to? I would have to agree with this. As I was saying (trying to say) recently in another thread, I think there are lots of warning flags in the Recovery that ought to catch people's attention, even for those who don't know anything about PL.

There were so many (many, many) times growing up, when I just needed to see someone who had the cojones to stand up, "look The Ministry in the eye", as it were, and say, simply, quietly, calmly, "That's enough, Mr. Ministry, sir, you can sit down now." But to this day it seems no one will do that.

Know what I mean?

Sort of. Many have been discussing how there is "no perfect system", how 1Cor 14 is merely a few guidelines and not designed to suggest the "perfect meeting style". In accordance with that every "style" has its own pitfalls. If you are going to encourage everyone to speak that has pitfalls. Likewise a preacher on a platform has pitfalls. You have to expect that your meeting hall will be filled with new Christians, immature Christians, fleshly Christians, and even unbelievers. Therefore when you encourage everyone to speak you will see all of the manifestations of the flesh: envy, jealousy, ego, etc. How do you deal with this?

In my experience the best way to deal with "parrots" and "posers" was to share a genuine experience. If 3 or 4 saints did that everyone would be fed and all the other fluff would be seen as it is, in the light. That was relatively easy to do in Houston, slightly harder in Irving only because I was in hospitality while working on the hall and they could make your life miserable by shuffling you around town, and then in Odessa GW was sent to harass me.

Telling them to sit down was never my strategy, that would be like going to a basketball game where only one team is on the floor. What is the point of that? The verse "in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge dwell" was a touchstone. They had no wisdom or knowledge to shut down the Lord, but they did help me to discover more and more about the Lord.

When you have a couple of saints who are standing up to the ministry you can't imagine the excitement, like you said, it wasn't only you, everyone needed to see that. Nothing puts you into the spotlight like "standing up to the 'ministry'"

But when I returned from Taiwan in '95 it seemed everything had changed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Lee didn't have a problem with knowledge. It all depended upon which knowledge. His whole religious system rests on the saints ability to absorb, retain and regurgitate his knowledge. However, if it didn't come from "THE Ministry," it was of "The tree of knowledge."

As to having God "wrought" into our beans: You have a whole lot of God wrought into your beans up until the day you decide to walk away from the ministry of the galaxy, and dare to expose its error. Somehow, mysteriously, on that day all your beans get poured out the back door, and you instantly become the biggest devil in the world.

Having God wrought into your beans simply means having your brain saturated with the ministry of the milky way.

P.C.

Yep. All of the machinations of the LSM culture are designed to affect your mind, i.e. brainwash you with Lee's ministry. It has nothing to do with "getting it in your spirit," it has to do with getting it into your head.

Getting "God wrought into your being" means getting Lee's ministry wrought into your subconscious.

That's really what is happening.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Lee didn't have a problem with knowledge. It all depended upon which knowledge. His whole religious system rests on the saints ability to absorb, retain and regurgitate his knowledge. However, if it didn't come from "THE Ministry," it was of "The tree of knowledge."

Darn it PC, you always say want I want to say but you beat me to the punch...and in the meantime say it better than I was anyway
Anywho...please feel free to drive-by anytime you want. The neighborhood is much more lively with your drive-bys.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But when I returned from Taiwan in '95 it seemed everything had changed.

It occurs to me that when you came back from Taiwan, you came back to a locality that wasn't even using the HWMR. Imagine how you would have felt about the meeting in a locality that uses a dozen or so pages out of a book as a meeting "guide map" every week.

But I see the culture of the Recovery as much bigger than a one-hour testimony meeting every week...at least...esp in a locality that has "taken the Austin way" with an established campus work...

[countmeworthy]

#1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Agree Igzy. One of my favorite scriptures that refutes this statement is Daniel 1:17. As for these four youths, God gave them KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE in every branch of literature and Wisdom.

Paul also had the revelation we have the MIND of CHRIST!!! If we have the MIND of CHRIST, I believe we are super geniuses!!! And one day, WE WILL have the manifestation of this TRUTH!!! For now, I speak these words almost every day!

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

Well Igzy, he wasn't the crispiest cookie in the cookie jar but at one time we all thought he was. Many still do.

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

He was also not a very good communicator. But God has changed much of my stinking thinking! For I have the Mind of Christ and He has no stinking thinking. ;-)

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

I do not know he even knew/understood the difference between the rapture FOR the saints and the second coming WITH the saints 7 years after the rapture.

Blessings!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I came to realize that transformation is more about changing the way we think than anything else.

Amen brutha. Transformation is changing what we think, and the way we think it. I.e. both the contents and the arrangements of our thoughts have been reconfigured.

An interesting point about revelation: it is not a thought, but rather a sight. We see God's will, made tangible ("That which we beheld, which our hands handled..." 1 John 1:1). The Word is not merely a concept, idea or thought, but rather is made flesh before us. Suddenly our eyes are opened and we see something of the divine realm, right before us.

In Daniel 2:23 the prophet declares that God has given him both wisdom and power. Wisdom, to me, is the ability to see God's will. Via wisdom one may apprehend the kingdom of heaven, even here on earth. This changes our thinking. We no longer see the old, temporary, fallen things (In Daniel 2 the statue made of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay has crumbled and was blown away by the wind), but we see the eternal things (the stone cut not by human hands destroys the statue, and grows and fill the whole earth). This vision, this revelation, changes our thinking.

Then, in addition to wisdom, God gives us power. Power is simply the ability to say, "amen" to God's incarnated Word which we apprehend before us. "I have given you a little power, to obey this Word, and to say "amen" to the Name". (cf Rev 3:8). God has given you a crown; do not let anyone take it away.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Transformation is changing what we think, and the way we think it.
Revelation is ... a sight. We see God's will, made tangible...
Wisdom... is the ability to see God's will. To apprehend the kingdom of God, even here on earth.
The power is simply to say, "amen" to God's incarnated Word which we see before us.

In retrospect, I felt that such statements should be given proper qualifications. When one interprets, one says, "This equals that". This is commentary, and shouldn't be automatically be seen as "truth", but rather one's understanding of truth, today.

So in all the above points ("Transformation is... Revelation is... Wisdom is... Power is...") I implicitly understand qualifiers. I really mean "Perhaps transformation can be seen as...", and "My sense is that maybe wisdom, operationally, is..."

But I just basically said, "X equals Y". So what I meant implicitly, perhaps I should make explicit. All the statements in the previous post were provisional, tentative, and conditional. I just like saying "X equals Y" and "This means that" because to speak authoritatively seems to have dramatic effect. It amuses me. But others may be put off by my 'oracular style', so I wanted to clarify.

[Cal]

Another important thing to consider is how Lee's view of transformation tended to make people passive and unfocused. Lee definitely taught to not try to overcome weaknesses or make an effort to be holy, but rather to simple drink the Spirit, etc, and God will spontaneously change us.

I remember this caused a lot of confusion. I remember an elder in Austin saying in a message "This may go against the grain, but I think we need to make a decision to take a stand to..." and it was like, Whoa, scandalous. But what he was saying was just common sense, and everyone in the room knew it! Of course we needed to make a decision.

What added to the confusion was that Lee obviously expected us to make decisions regarding our behavior in some matters. We were to instantly decide to give up everything related to the world, change our clothing style, have "morning watch," read his ministry, go to meetings, etc. We weren't supposed to wait for the Spirit for those things.

I just remember a whole lot of confusion about this. And it affected me for a long time. Really Lee just sent a very mixed message. Obviously he was correct that we needed to enjoy grace to experience victory. But grace is the Lord coming alongside us to give us the strength to do what he has commanded us to do. (OBW has talked about this a lot.)

The upshot is that passive kind of mindset produces a culture where everyone goes around generally "enjoying the Lord," but not specifically making efforts to improve themselves. So years can go by with no real growth or change. The same old problems hang around because you are waiting for the Lord to change you, when he's waiting for you to start thinking a new way! The way to love your wife is to love her, not wait until you enjoy the Lord enough to do so. Of course we need grace, but the Lord is always there with an able supply, we need to tap into it and eagerly do the things he's commanded us to do.

Here's a truism that has really changed my life. See how it meshes with your LRC legacy mindset:

"Act like the person you wish to be."

(Does that sound like "making an effort in your natural man?" (BTW, I think most of that "natural man" talk was flat wrong, too.)

C.S. Lewis talked about this. He said, if you don't feel like you love someone, act as if you do, and before long you'll find you have feelings of love for them. The fact is godly behavior is a habit, and if we practice the behavior we get better at it. Of course, the Holy Spirit is the one guiding us into the behavior, but all he can do is lead us, we have to decide to follow.

So don't worry so much if something is you or "Christ." Just do what you feel you should do, He'll correct you if you need it.

[Cal]

Lee also famously preached something along the lines of, Don't pray to be free from your shortcoming (temper, etc). Just enjoy Christ.

He actually taught that praying about your weaknesses was a waste of time.

This was another thing he was wrong about. Big time.

If you don't pray about your recurring sins, you are not addressing them, and they are going to repeat. In my experience, we definitely need to pray about our shortcomings.

Of course, we need to enjoy grace, too, and see past ourselves. It's not about using your own strength, it's about using your own mind and will.

But teaching people not to pray about their shortcomings is flat wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are 4 areas where I think WL was flat wrong:

2. Ridicule of psychology. The Bible teaches about a "sound mind" and psychology deals with the study of the mind. In fact much of WL's teaching could be called "psychology". For example I remember him once talking about the psychology of a crook and also the two major sins of those in insane asylums.

By ridiculing all of the so-called "self-help" Christian books, WL basically doomed his adherents to an exclusive lifestyle, obsessed with obscure doctrines, yet powerless to enact real change in their lives. Eventually, just like the Darby Brethren, all their ranks will be successfully purged of any real "gifts" to the body, whether evangelists, or counselors, or child-rearing specialists, or financial wizards, or whatever might help us. The program only extols those who can teach, and that would be only their own brand of teaching.

Ed Marks, of course, picked up on this condemnation big time, calling them all "Chicken Soup for the Soul." The LSM system has effectively armed itself with enough slogans to scare off any promotion of outside ministries within their ranks. Even in the GLA, sisters would read Joyce Meyer's books on the sly, having to deal with the potential condemnation of needing something so-called "apart from Christ." Supposedly we in the Recovery were so mature in Christ when compared to the rest of Christianity, yet so many members were deficient in the basic rudimentaries of life.

I became keenly aware of this indirectly via Chuck Debelek. Anyone with a brain could tell that the Recovery program was basically a dismal failure when it came to our children. After CD returned from Anaheim, where he started the Acacia Wood School, he was burdened to travel in the GLA and speak to parents. This was immensely helpful to all. Once TC learned how much the LC's wanted more of CD's fellowship, TC abruptly ended all the visits.

It's called "ministry-dependence." Doesn't matter how bad things get, as long as whatever you do get, only comes from their ministry, and no one else.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Lee didn't have a problem with knowledge. It all depended upon which knowledge. His whole religious system rests on the saints ability to absorb, retain and regurgitate his knowledge. However, if it didn't come from "THE Ministry," it was of "The tree of knowledge."

Yes Paul essentially if it didn't come from "THE Ministry," it was of "The tree of knowledge." Even more, if it didn't come from "THE Ministry", it is not considered part of "the New Testament Economy".

Originally Posted by Ohio

I became keenly aware of this indirectly via Chuck Debelek. Anyone with a brain could tell that the Recovery program was basically a dismal failure when it came to our children. After CD returned from Anaheim, where he started the Acacia Wood School, he was burdened to travel in the GLA and speak to parents. This was immensely helpful to all. Once TC learned how much the LC's wanted more of CD's fellowship, TC abruptly ended all the visits.

Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't like what they viewed as "competition" because they had a top-down concept of the work instead of a "God at Work on His Own Lines" concept. If something/one genuinely helped people but did not fall within their conceptional framework of how things ought to be it was rejected and often ridiculed even if it was solidly based on biblical principles.

Obviously Chuck Debelek was a gift to the Body as evidenced by his skill and ability as an educator and administrator. After all he started two awarded winning private schools. He could certainly benefit parents eager for insights on how to raise Christian kids in a postmodern world. That it was "abruptly ended" demonstrates the smallness of the LC whether it be the Anaheim or Cleveand version.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't like what they viewed as "competition" because they had a top-down concept of the work instead of a "God at Work on His Own Lines" concept. If something/one genuinely helped people but did not fall within their conceptional framework of how things ought to be it was rejected and often ridiculed even if it was solidly based on biblical principles.

Obviously Chuck Debelek was a gift to the Body as evidenced by his skill and ability as an educator and administrator. After all he started two awarded winning private schools. He could certainly benefit parents eager for insights on how to raise Christian kids in a postmodern world. That it was "abruptly ended" demonstrates the smallness of the LC whether it be the Anaheim or Cleveland version.

Since the thread is titled, "Four Areas where W. Lee was Flat Wrong," we could add this one also -- WL placed his own position and authority above, well above, the needs of the children of God. That was wrong, very wrong.

For me personally, it took several situations like that of CD, to finally realize this fact. I long believed the lies that LC leaders always had the Lord's interests and the saints needs in view. Finally, after much study of our own history and that of the Brethren, I realized that LC leaders were more interested in building their own empires. Both Anaheim and Cleveland had their own empires expanding around the globe. The recent quarantines were just a preemptive move by LSM to assault the expanding empires under TC (and DYL also.)

As you noted in your post, neither empire was willing to endure the hint of competition. I have read numerous stories of both TC and WL publicly berating fellow workers, for no reason whatsoever, just to constantly remind them who was in charge. Both of them would also take over any fruitful endeavor within the Recovery just so their own names would be attached to its success. Every time their own programs failed, they always had scapegoats lined up to take the hit.

These characteristics of LRC leadership are descriptions of what it means to "lord it over the flock." Alford notes that this means, "using the rights of a lord for the diminution of the ruled and the exaltation of the self." Vincett says this Greek word for lording it over, "carries the idea of high-handed rule," which M-W describes as "having or showing no regard for the rights, concerns, and feelings of others."

I thought it was somewhat humorous to note that this same Greek word katakyrieuo, (Strong's #2634) was used by Luke in Acts 19.16, where the evil spirit over-powered those Jewish exorcists in Ephesus for attempting to counterfeit genuine spiritual authority. "Jesus I know, and Paul I understand, but who are you guys?" Eventually these wannabees escaped that place naked and badly beaten. They learned their lesson the hard way, and the name of the Lord was magnified!

The reader is free to draw upon analogies here with the LC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These characteristics of LRC leadership are descriptions of what it means to "lord it over the flock." Alford notes that this means, "using the rights of a lord for the diminution of the ruled and the exaltation of the self." Vincett says this Greek word for lording it over, "carries the idea of high-handed rule," which M-W describes as "having or showing no regard for the rights, concerns, and feelings of others."

I thought it was somewhat humorous to note that this same Greek word katakyrieuo, (Strong's #2634) was used by Luke in Acts 19.16, where the evil spirit over-powered those Jewish exorcists in Ephesus for attempting to counterfeit genuine spiritual authority. "Jesus I know, and Paul I understand, but who are you guys?" Eventually these wannabees escaped that place naked and badly beaten. They learned their lesson the hard way, and the name of the Lord was magnified!

The reader is free to draw upon analogies here with the LC.

This reminds me of the warped teaching of "deputy authority". One understanding of "deputy authority" is that when two or three bind anything in the Lord's name the reason it is bound is because of this concept of deputy authority. I don't have an issue with that understanding. Or that Jesus has been given as head over all things to the church.

But when "deputy authority" results in some being given a "position", like "BBs" based on "how absolute they are for the ministry" or some other reason then I think it is a warped teaching. Similar to Nabal using the so called violation of "deputy authority" as justification to stiff David and his men while boasting in his "closeness" to Caleb.

It also seems that the expression of this warped version of deputy authority is seen in the demon possessed. Does anyone stop to realize that the example the Lord gave was of a servant, serving the Body, or of a shepherd taking care of the sheep, and that Peter charged those taking the lead "not to Lord it over the flock". So this warped version of Deputy authority was addressed in the NT.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This reminds me of the warped teaching of "deputy authority".

I think the crux of the matter regarding "deputy authority" in the LC was the practice of apostolic authority: in their view Witness Lee was a modern day apostle Paul and all the other coworkers were sub apostles under him like Timothy and Titus and the elders were under these 2 layers of management. I would maybe add a 3rd layer: sub sub apostles under the regional sub apostles. So Witness Lee was at the top of the pyramid. Under him were regional sub apostles. Under them were sub sub apostles. Under all of them were the elders at the local level.

What the events at Rosemead in the late 1980s did was to display a exertion of elder authority over the work by rejecting a sub apostle sent by Witness Lee. This provocative activity sent shock waves through the LC system because it turned the hierarchy upside down.

Because there was no singular sub apostle with enough stature to replace Witness Lee upon his death a committee based in Anaheim, CA was set up of sub apostles to rule the roost. His authority was "transferred" to them. All sub apostles and their sub sub apostles were expected to join this committee and have their plans, etc reviewed by this committee for approval. Now "deputy authority" resided in a committee and those who will not join it would be classified as rebellious.

So the LC is a system that is held together by this idea and practice of apostolic authority. To live peacefully in such a system requires the acceptance of this notion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think the crux of the matter regarding "deputy authority" in the LC was the practice of apostolic authority: in their view Witness Lee was a modern day apostle Paul and all the other coworkers were sub apostles under him like Timothy and Titus and the elders were under these 2 layers of management. I would maybe add a 3rd layer: sub sub apostles under the regional sub apostles. So Witness Lee was at the top of the pyramid. Under him were regional sub apostles. Under them were sub sub apostles. Under all of them were the elders at the local level.

What the events at Rosemead in the late 1980s did was to display a exertion of elder authority over the work by rejecting a sub apostle sent by Witness Lee. This provocative activity sent shock waves through the LC system because it turned the hierarchy upside down.

Coupled with Deputy Authority was this highly structured para-church organization called "THE WORK." This organization is composed of all the workers plus a host of volunteers. The workers often are like parasites upon their host churches because these workers seldom are accountable to the actual church they are with, and instead owe their allegiance to some more senior, yet remote, worker. Often the host church receives little actual benefit from all their giving, while always being expected to maintain financial support, hospitality, and volunteer labor for all "the work" activities.

One of the stipulations placed upon TC by the Blendeds was that he place all his junior workers, and their financial support, under the control of LSM. This was a ridiculous request by the Blendeds, seeing that this number was in the dozens, but actually was a request often exercised by WL in order to maintain his controls. It was a well-maintained farce to believe that "the work" served the churches. Actually the opposite was mostly true. The churches only existed to provide funding, labor, and audience for "the work." This is easy to prove. Just ask those churches which heve decided to no longer be under the dominion of "the work."

Rosemead is an excellent example. Rosemead was proof that LSM cared little for the testimony of Jesus, the children of God, and the gospel increase. Rosemead was a startling example of how little WL cared for the spiritual progress and health of a local church, and cared only to keep them in his camp, ruled by "the work," which was his work.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Coupled with Deputy Authority was this highly structured para-church organization called "THE WORK." This organization is composed of all the workers plus a host of volunteers. The workers often are like parasites upon their host churches because these workers seldom are accountable to the actual church they are with, and instead owe their allegiance to some more senior, yet remote, worker. Often the host church receives little actual benefit from all their giving, while always being expected to maintain financial support, hospitality, and volunteer labor for all "the work" activities.

It was not always this structured. When I went to serve on the construction site in Irving it was 6 months before RG realized I was not being and had not been supported by Houston. He figured it out because I took a part time job to support myself. This became a major issue because I was on the stone crew and they had a very good idea of how many feet we were able to move per day and knew we would be working right up to the day of the training. That was based on 16 hour days. So he then came down hard on Houston and all of a sudden I was being supported. But I don't think anyone could characterize the members of the stone crew as parasites. That was 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. We worked outside regardless of the weather or season. Our clothes were rags because mortar eats right through clothes, so being exposed round the clock to mortar turned your clothes to rags. The solution everyone took was to wear two or three shirts and pants. They even got a big box for us where saints threw old clothes in. You might have one pair of pants with a hole in the crotch, and put on a second with holes in the butt, but together you were covered.

Second, when I was in Taipei the minute I decided to stay a second semester the support from NY ceased and I began to work to support myself. From that moment on no church supported me. Now it may be that some brothers are supported better, but I doubt it is much better.

Third, when in NY I stayed at Dunton House. The expense to stay at Dunton House was a very, very reasonable price, basically the cost of food. This food was bought by sisters who were the most frugal that I have ever seen, so I paid less for food there than I would have paid for food had I lived alone. However, it was understood that the maintenance for the house and all service to prepare for and clean up from meetings that were held there would be carried out by those living there. They didn't charge rent in order to preserve their tax exempt status, which was crucial since the taxes on that house alone would have been prohibitive. I don't think it is fair to characterize the service of the brother or brothers staying there as "parasitical".

Fourth, NY has 2 brothers who are full time. They are not elders, they were in charge of the Young People and various other chores. They were subject to the elders in NY, not LSM, and I don't think you could characterize them as parasites.

However, this is my personal experience, I have read of churches and saints serving that could be described as parasites. I haven't seen it. My personal experience was different.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, this is my personal experience, I have read of churches and saints serving that could be described as parasites. I haven't seen it. My personal experience was different.

I don't want to speak for Ohio but I took his meaning to be: generally speaking the LC system itself makes the work parasitical. It feeds off the resources of the churches without accountability to the churches or the elders.

But we should not forget this concept had it genesis with Watchman Nee: the church is local with local administration and the work is regional with a center and is run by apostles. And these apostles have authority over the elders. So if an apostle is sent to a church there will be a friction because there are two seats of authority in one place. The apostle will be answering to a regional center not the local administration. This is a major complication that was not well thought out and was the source of many problems.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was not always this structured. When I went to serve on the construction site in Irving it was 6 months before RG realized I was not being and had not been supported by Houston. He figured it out because I took a part time job to support myself. This became a major issue because I was on the stone crew and they had a very good idea of how many feet we were able to move per day and knew we would be working right up to the day of the training. That was based on 16 hour days. So he then came down hard on Houston and all of a sudden I was being supported. But I don't think anyone could characterize the members of the stone crew as parasites.

I do apologize for not being very clear. I absolutely was NOT referring to all the sacrificing volunteers who built Anaheim and Irving. I myself have literally thousands of hours of work on meeting halls in many LC's including my one week in Irving. I have never received one penny for my time. I have done drafting, design, planning, zoning, electrical, plumbing, roofing, landscaping, rough and finish carpentry, HVAC, flooring, etc. including all the errands and the paperwork to make it happen. The one thing I never did was stone work. My bad.

.......................

After a couple posts, I went back and read the rest of your post. At first reading, up to the matter of the stone crew, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and apologized for the word "parasite."

But now you're killin' me ZNP ... crotch-rotted workies ... Taipei ... Dunton House ... NYC workers DC and RA ... you really did me in. Please go back and read my post. Didn't I say, "workers often are like parasites"? I then went on to explain what I meant. Some guy happened by the forum, and he readily understood what I was saying. I never made a gross categorical stereotype of each and every worker and volunteer at LSM.

Wha'sup? Why'ja jump all over me?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don't want to speak for Ohio but I took his meaning to be: generally speaking the LC system itself makes the work parasitical. It feeds off the resources of the churches without accountability to the churches or the elders.

But we should not forget this concept had it genesis with Watchman Nee: the church is local with local administration and the work is regional with a center and is run by apostles. And these apostles have authority over the elders. So if an apostle is sent to a church there will be a friction because there are two seats of authority in one place. The apostle will be answering to a regional center not the local administration. This is a major complication that was not well thought out and was the source of many problems.

Thank you for bailing me out. That's definitely what I had in mind.

It sure would be nice if you registered and took a name. since your contributions are so helpful.

My last fellowship in my local church, where I had been more than 20 years, was over this very matter. My frustration had been growing over an extended period of time. Then I caught our new leader, sent by headquarters in Cleveland, lying to me over something stupid, related to the coming conference with TC. Whaaaaat, do you think I was born yesterday?

We had three elders at the time who were all employees of TC. That conflict of interest was continually frustrating to me as a senior deacon and to others, and not at all in the best interests of the saints. I pleaded with the brothers to reconsider their ways, and enact some kind of change. The new leader responded that this was a "strong accusation, a very strong accusation." I was there pleading on behalf of the church, and in no way was I making any accusations. (Though I did expose the lie about mandatory attendance at TC's conference, and cancelling the local meetings.)

We were speaking different languages. We were on different planets. For such a long time, our church was merely a "suburb" of Cleveland. Our elders were merely agents of TC. They decided to sit me down privately for a talk, and instructed me to apologize to all the other deacons who were present. I obliged and then decided it was probably best for me to resign my service.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I caught our new leader, sent by headquarters in Cleveland, lying to me over something stupid, related to the coming conference with TC. Whaaaaat, do you think I was born yesterday?

We had three elders at the time who were all employees of TC. That conflict of interest was continually frustrating to me as a senior deacon and to others, and not at all in the best interests of the saints.

The practice of local elders beholden (financially or otherwise) to an apostle at a regional center is another word for outside control or denominational head office.

The lines of authority in the LC system became quite blurry and ill-defined. Instead of the elders knowing and addressing the local needs they were expected to impose the current ministry sourced from outside their location as if that source was all-knowing and could meet any need. And it presupposed that the need in one place would be the same as another place.

Defining the extent and sphere of apostolic authority in relation to local elder authority was a point of constant conflict even during Watchman Nee's time. Eventually under Witness Lee the elders were more or less relegated to an authority-less position and served as conduits of his ministry in content and methodology. Those who quietly pushed back remained on the fringes. Those who made too much noise were sidelined or removed. I'm sure on a smaller scale the Cleveland version was similar.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The practice of local elders beholden (financially or otherwise) to an apostle at a regional center is another word for outside control or denominational head office.

The lines of authority in the LC system became quite blurry and ill-defined. Instead of the elders knowing and addressing the local needs they were expected to impose the current ministry sourced from outside their location as if that source was all-knowing and could meet any need.

I cannot disagree with you. Within the current situation, all it takes is a phone call from a blended brother to a local church elder does a couple find themselves without a nearby locality to recieve them. Having received the correspondence, can any locality absolute to LSM and "the ministry" honestly say each local church with it's administration local. Yes there may be brothers appointed as elders, but their strings are being pulled from Anaheim.
Nothing was clearer when I asked a hypothetical question. If BF wanted to come back to the Puget Sound area, would he be received. The elder's response to me was it needed to be cleared by the blended brothers. A revelation that the local churches have become a full-fledged denomination.
Personally meeting with a community church, it is far more of a local church than the local churches claimed to be.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do apologize for not being very clear. I absolutely was NOT referring to all the sacrificing volunteers who built Anaheim and Irving. I myself have literally thousands of hours of work on meeting halls in many LC's including my one week in Irving. I have never received one penny for my time. I have done drafting, design, planning, zoning, electrical, plumbing, roofing, landscaping, rough and finish carpentry, HVAC, flooring, etc. including all the errands and the paperwork to make it happen. The one thing I never did was stone work. My bad.

.......................

After a couple posts, I went back and read the rest of your post. At first reading, up to the matter of the stone crew, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and apologized for the word "parasite."

But now you're killin' me ZNP ... crotch-rotted workies ... Taipei ... Dunton House ... NYC workers DC and RA ... you really did me in. Please go back and read my post. Didn't I say, "workers often are like parasites"? I then went on to explain what I meant. Some guy happened by the forum, and he readily understood what I was saying. I never made a gross categorical stereotype of each and every worker and volunteer at LSM.

Wha'sup? Why'ja jump all over me?

I wasn't jumpin all over you. It is just the verse where the Lord tells Elijah "I have 7,000 that haven't bent the knee". I think sometimes we let the negative fill our vision we forget how many genuine saints there are that really are serving the Lord out of a pure heart.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I wasn't jumpin all over you. It is just the verse where the Lord tells Elijah "I have 7,000 that haven't bent the knee". I think sometimes we let the negative fill our vision we forget how many genuine saints there are that really are serving the Lord out of a pure heart.

OK Comrade Z.

I will have to recalibrate all my sensors. Your post on "parasites" triggered my detector sites. I'll immediately download new coordinates to update my sensitivity levels and restructure my alarm limits.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK Comrade Z.

I will have to recalibrate all my sensors. Your post on "parasites" triggered my detector sites. I'll immediately download new coordinates to update my sensitivity levels and restructure my alarm limits.

To my impression the only reason anyone cares about Nabal is because of Abigail. The same thing with Jezebel and the false prophets. Would anyone really care about them if it weren't for Elijah? In fact, when you read the Bible the spotlight was on these characters, but had we been there at the time I feel very confident the "false prophets" got a lot more "air time" than the 7,000.

[rayliotta]

ZNP,

Have you considered how your experience might have been different had your family been in the LRC -- while you were in the U.S.? I get the impression you were in kind of a free-spirited traveling man mode, which is fine as far as it goes, and probably gelled nicely with your Texas experience. But when it's your home, it's a little different, and you've said yourself that NYC has never had the kind of relationship with LSM that Texas had/has.

To put it a different way, it's one thing for a young man in his college town to raise hackles and stir up a little mischief. Is it the same experience when your family's in the room?

rl

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To my impression the only reason anyone cares about Nabal is because of Abigail. The same thing with Jezebel and the false prophets. Would anyone really care about them if it weren't for Elijah? In fact, when you read the Bible the spotlight was on these characters, but had we been there at the time I feel very confident the "false prophets" got a lot more "air time" than the 7,000.

If these "false prophets" were taking the lead in Jerusalem at Solomon's temple it would have been a little different than if these "false prophets" were the prophets of Baal in the northern kingdom.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

ZNP,

Have you considered how your experience might have been different had your family been in the LRC -- while you were in the U.S.? I get the impression you were in kind of a free-spirited traveling man mode, which is fine as far as it goes, and probably gelled nicely with your Texas experience. But when it's your home, it's a little different, and you've said yourself that NYC has never had the kind of relationship with LSM that Texas had/has.

To put it a different way, it's one thing for a young man in his college town to raise hackles and stir up a little mischief. Is it the same experience when your family's in the room?

rl

Yes, the most difficult decision I ever made was when I was in Taipei and it involved my wife and two kids. Yes, it does ratchet up the pressure. In the end the decisions are based on faith, hope and love.

I learned that if you get into the ring you will get hit. Therefore you may have to make decisions that will result in taking a lot of hits. Deciding not to do something because "it isn't popular" and will result in a lot of hits is not something anyone will ultimately be proud of. In life we each have to make certain decisions and will answer for those decisions. The only promise we have is that the Lord will not give us something that is too difficult for us to handle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If these "false prophets" were taking the lead in Jerusalem at Solomon's temple it would have been a little different than if these "false prophets" were the prophets of Baal in the northern kingdom.

When the Lord Jesus came to Jerusalem who was taking the lead? When John the Baptist referred to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers, wasn't he referring to the ones taking the lead in Jerusalem? How about the Jewish leaders that imprisoned the apostles, weren't they in Jerusalem?

So then, is the focus of the Gospels and Acts the false prophets in Jerusalem, or was the focus on Jesus and the Apostles?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, the most difficult decision I ever made was when I was in Taipei and it involved my wife and two kids. Yes, it does ratchet up the pressure. In the end the decisions are based on faith, hope and love.

I learned that if you get into the ring you will get hit. Therefore you may have to make decisions that will result in taking a lot of hits. Deciding not to do something because "it isn't popular" and will result in a lot of hits is not something anyone will ultimately be proud of. In life we each have to make certain decisions and will answer for those decisions. The only promise we have is that the Lord will not give us something that is too difficult for us to handle.

This reminds me of the scene in pretty much every Rocky movie, when Adrian deals with her fears about Rocky re-entering the ring, tells Rocky that he always has heart, that she knows how much it means to him, that as long as she's known him he's never given up on anything, so go do it Rocky, get in the ring and fight.

It makes for great movies. And I love Sylvester Stallone and Talia Shire in all those movies. And Rocky puts on a great show in the ring, because that's what the ring is about, a show.

But is that real life?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

This reminds me of the scene in pretty much every Rocky movie, when Adrian deals with her fears about Rocky re-entering the ring, tells Rocky that he always has heart, that she knows how much it means to him, that as long as she's known him he's never given up on anything, so go do it Rocky, get in the ring and fight.

It makes for great movies. And I love Sylvester Stallone and Talia Shire in all those movies. And Rocky puts on a great show in the ring, because that's what the ring is about, a show.

But is that real life?

I thought Rocky was based on a true story.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought Rocky was based on a true story.

I thought it was based on an ancient Greek statue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I thought it was based on an ancient Greek statue.

Do you mean the ancient Greek speaking city of Philadelphia?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you mean the ancient Greek speaking city of Philadelphia?

Yes, that's the one. Though I hear they speak a "new language" now, it was sent to them from Anaheim, on a white stone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

This reminds me of the scene in pretty much every Rocky movie, when Adrian deals with her fears about Rocky re-entering the ring, tells Rocky that he always has heart, that she knows how much it means to him, that as long as she's known him he's never given up on anything, so go do it Rocky, get in the ring and fight.

It makes for great movies. And I love Sylvester Stallone and Talia Shire in all those movies. And Rocky puts on a great show in the ring, because that's what the ring is about, a show.

But is that real life?

Pretty funny for a guy whose tag line is taken from "the Boxer".

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Pretty funny for a guy whose tag line is taken from "the Boxer".

You got me there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But we should not forget this concept had it genesis with Watchman Nee: the church is local with local administration and the work is regional with a center and is run by apostles. And these apostles have authority over the elders. So if an apostle is sent to a church there will be a friction because there are two seats of authority in one place. The apostle will be answering to a regional center not the local administration. This is a major complication that was not well thought out and was the source of many problems.

This goes back to serving two masters in Matthew 6:24

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

Those that serve God have been blessed by being quarantined.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think the crux of the matter regarding "deputy authority" in the LC was the practice of apostolic authority: in their view Witness Lee was a modern day apostle Paul and all the other coworkers were sub apostles under him like Timothy and Titus and the elders were under these 2 layers of management. I would maybe add a 3rd layer: sub sub apostles under the regional sub apostles. So Witness Lee was at the top of the pyramid. Under him were regional sub apostles. Under them were sub sub apostles. Under all of them were the elders at the local level.

What the events at Rosemead in the late 1980s did was to display a exertion of elder authority over the work by rejecting a sub apostle sent by Witness Lee. This provocative activity sent shock waves through the LC system because it turned the hierarchy upside down.

Because there was no singular sub apostle with enough stature to replace Witness Lee upon his death a committee based in Anaheim, CA was set up of sub apostles to rule the roost. His authority was "transferred" to them. All sub apostles and their sub sub apostles were expected to join this committee and have their plans, etc reviewed by this committee for approval. Now "deputy authority" resided in a committee and those who will not join it would be classified as rebellious.

So the LC is a system that is held together by this idea and practice of apostolic authority. To live peacefully in such a system requires the acceptance of this notion.

It doesn't stop there. In the end whoever the authority is must "lead". Like the Lord said, if the blind lead the blind both will end up in the ditch. So who is leading the LRC when the conferences are just a rehash of messages 10 or 20 years old? If your deputy authority is based on a genuine experience of the Lord then the leading comes straight from the Lord. If you try to short circuit that with some bogus assigned leadership all you will get are people completely incapable of leading, who know it and also know that the other leaders are also incapable. Then you have a situation where "leadership is just for show". Create a new way that will keep the peons busy but that the older (more cynical ones) completely ignore.

It is like Abigail said, David was a leader because he fought the Lord's battles and evil was not found in him. That should be the basis of deputy authority.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is like Abigail said, David was a leader because he fought the Lord's battles and evil was not found in him. That should be the basis of deputy authority.

I will honestly say that while I believe that there are leaders, even the examples in the NT point more to "first followers" than to some kind of authority. I believe that the whole idea of deputy authority endows those who claim it, or are labeled with it, a sense of personal pride that is not consistent with the boasts that Paul made in his epistles.

Paul challenged the various churches, most notably Corinth, to follow his advice, but he never suggested that they simply do what he said or else. Sure he gave reasons for following his advice, but if he had taken an "I am the deputy authority" or even "local authority" approach, he would probably have just ordered the changes under threat of removal of their charter.

In other words, even if there is reason for the people to consider some to have a position of some kind of authority over them as representing God, it is never in the way of a deputized leader who can then wield the spiritual sword. And when it is labeled "deputy authority," it has been given a status far beyond anything that I see in scripture, even when considering the apostles.

Yes, they, and we presume we, were given a charge and authority to bind and loose. But that is different from ordering people around and making absolute declarations and actions concerning the kinds of things that the LRC's deputy authorities have said and done.

So there is a legitimate discussion about what is true scriptural leadership. But there's nothing in that resembling what Nee and Lee speak of when they suggest deputy authority. A kind of authority that doesn't even listen to the witness of two or more against them. That claims they are right simply because of their position.

[ZNPaaneah]

I have already given the NT verse from the Lord where He says that whatever two or three shall bind in his name shall be bound is an example of this principle. Likewise, Ephesians says that Christ is made head over all things to the church. The Lord's authority is given to the church. In 1Cor 11:1 Paul said "be followers of me even as I am of the Lord".

My understanding of this is similar to how a conductor of electricity works. If Paul is connected to the Lord then the Lord's authority will be transmitted through him. If "evil is found in him" it will insulate and break the connection. You cannot be "connected to the Lord" if you ultimately refuse to follow Him to be one with Him in fighting the Lord's battles.

I do not understand that this is a "position". Likewise, like Peter said in Acts

3:12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

The authority to heal was transmitted through Peter, glorifying Jesus.

So in the example of David there was a time when he didn't follow the Lord into battle and it resulted in sin and his being cut off from the Lord. His actions at that time were clearly not from being connected to the Lord. Also, according to the NT any born again believer could experience all of this. You don't need a position, you don't need to be vetted, etc.

[OBW]

I realize that I sort of dance a funny line in some people's minds. I also honestly believe that today's preachers, even if many of them are not that much of a shepherd (and therefore not truly pastors as the word implies) are part of the very process in which those who have been trained, in turn train others for ther works of ministry.

And our works of ministry are more in living the righteous life than in becoming replications of the original 12 apostles or even the remainder of that 70 or so that Jesus sent out a couple of times during his ministry.

Yet despite my lack of general displeasure with organizations, even large ones like denominations, the side of any of those in which someone is endowed with a kind of authority to be unrighteous and get away with it is the problem. Not the fact that there is a spiritual responsibility exercised by some.

And "deputy authority" is essentially a ruse to keep the average person from looking at and critiquing the unrighteousness of those who want to retain power.

It is interesting that Paul suggests it is a good thing to desire to be an elder. But he does not infer that it is a good thing to insist upon being or remaining an elder at any cost. Or using some presumed authority as one to lord it over others.

He also acknowledges that there are many out there preaching and teaching. And he gives instructions concerning determining whether they should be given the opportunity to speak. None of them could claim "deputy authority" over a church. Neither could Paul. In the end, he admitted that some had turned away from him. He did not suggest that they turned away from God or that they ceased to be churches.

But that is just about all that deputy authority puts in play. And if Paul thought it existed, he would have the position and authority to go in and demand. But it was not so then. And is not so now.

And therefore, trying to use scripture to provide a definition of deputy authority, even if defined differently than what Nee and Lee did, seems like an attempt to create an authority that does not exist. That is not found in scripture. And if you confine its definition to what is actually in scripture, the very term "deputy authority" implies more than what I believe scripture supports.

In other words, deputy authority should be dead on arrival at the committee that considers what terms should or should not be found in the Christian lexicon.

Just my take on it. For anyone's consideration.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already given the NT verse from the Lord where He says that whatever two or three shall bind in his name shall be bound is an example of this principle.

I'll try to be brief. (I know — probably will fail.)

While I do see a level of authority at times and in situations, it is the seeking for the evidence that it exists and the labeling with a term like "deputy authority" that creates something I don't believe is ever there.

Can we just allow the Spirit to lead those who are open to accept his leading through whoever is seen as following the Spirit? All of the theory/theology and examples, like power lines and insulators, do not define what it is to be such a person. Even if only at times as it pleases God. Instead, when you are impressed within that someone is speaking truth and is leading in the right way, we should follow. Figuring out a defined "deputy" removes the need for true spiritual authority and replaces it with a writ from some presumed king.

And your example of David somewhat underscores this. If "deputy" was an appropriate term for it, then it would not be on and off — like with David. It would be on until death or removal from power.

So the problem is not that there is authority at times given to various ones, it is suggesting that there is some nearly permanent status that "deputy" suggests.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

therefore, trying to use scripture to provide a definition of deputy authority, even if defined differently than what Nee and Lee did, seems like an attempt to create an authority that does not exist.

The authority that exists is the authority of the Lord Jesus. So I agree that any attempt at creating an authority that doesn't exist is a ruse. However every student of the Bible should agree that "all authority in heaven and earth has been given to the Lord" and it is that authority that forms the basis for our Christian work and ministry. To teach about this is not, in my opinion, any different that teaching about baptism or the Lord's table.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll try to be brief. (I know — probably will fail.)

While I do see a level of authority at times and in situations, it is the seeking for the evidence that it exists and the labeling with a term like "deputy authority" that creates something I don't believe is ever there.

Can we just allow the Spirit to lead those who are open to accept his leading through whoever is seen as following the Spirit? All of the theory/theology and examples, like power lines and insulators, do not define what it is to be such a person. Even if only at times as it pleases God. Instead, when you are impressed within that someone is speaking truth and is leading in the right way, we should follow. Figuring out a defined "deputy" removes the need for true spiritual authority and replaces it with a writ from some presumed king.

And your example of David somewhat underscores this. If "deputy" was an appropriate term for it, then it would not be on and off — like with David. It would be on until death or removal from power.

So the problem is not that there is authority at times given to various ones, it is suggesting that there is some nearly permanent status that "deputy" suggests.

I can see your issue with the term "deputy". I think in part it is a result of the misuse of this term but I cannot imagine that any term you use would somehow be immune from misuse.

I do think that this is a crucial concept in the NT. Paul's discourse on how the Lord's authority is given to the church in Ephesians is a very crucial topic. Likewise the verses where the Lord says that whatever 2 or 3 will bind is a very critical teaching in regards to prayer. In fact, there are many more verses explaining this concept of the Lord being with us, of us being fellow workers with God, etc. Also the teaching of head covering is also related to this concept.

I also believe if you are going to overcome the error in the LRC you have to tackle this issue of deputy authority head on. No one can deny that the concept of "rebellion" is a major issue in the OT. Nabal uses this concept to justify stiffing David, saying that there are many servants that break away from their masters.

To me the lesson here is what the Bible teaches "we are not ignorant of Satan's devices". This teaching in its warped form is clearly used to put saints into subjection.

[Cal]

The whole problem with "deputy authority" is the same problem as that of elders supposedly over all the church in a city.

IT IS UNVERIFIABLE

Suppose someone thinks he is a "deputy authority." Suppose a group of people agree with him. What have you got?

Nothing. Just a bunch of opinion. Of course, their opinion is their reality because they believe it. But that doesn't mean it has to be your reality.

Congregational authority, on the other hand, is easily verifiable. Just ask the congregation who is the leader. They will tell you. If you don't like that assessment, you can leave. Simple and clean.

That's the extent of positional spiritual authority in this day and age.

You might say, well what about all these seeming examples of "deputy authority" in the Bible? My answer will be, please give me a way to objectively verify someone is such a thing. Otherwise, are you going to give such a person the power to enforce such far-reaching authority based solely on people's opinion?

That's like handing whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

"Deputy authority" is an evil concept because it removes choice from people by paralyzing them with fear. Since the assessment of who is the DA is completely subjective, people are left with the uncomfortable choice of either deciding for themselves what they believe or going along with the crowd. It takes a strong constitution to go against the crowd, especially when the reward for doing so is being labeled a "rebel."

Get over deputy authority. It's a rotten concept invented by Nee and Lee. The LRC is so off the reservation in this area it is embarrassing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would say that given what we know the odds are not all good that it's true. In my book, that's flat wrong because if you buck the odds, in the long run you'll lose. The probabilities will always get you. So if you arrange you beliefs based on typology long shots, rather than on what the Bible plainly says, you are sure to lose in some way. Why play that game?

Look, Lee taught us to jump to these conclusions. He taught us to try to see hidden meanings in the Bible. If you look at many of his non-standard major teachings, they are based on typology or patterns, not on plain teaching. I'm not against typology, I'm just against letting the tail wag the dog. Take away typology and patterns, and Lee would be much more orthodox.

That is a good strategy and one with merit. However, I would be very surprised if the major scientific discoveries of our age were from people with that attitude. All of science is predicated on making an educated guess and then creating an experiment to prove or disprove your theory.

I think this is similar to where Paul talks about joints and bands. You have saints with different attitudes, we need those who hold everything together and we also need those who are willing to take chances.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is a good strategy and one with merit. However, I would be very surprised if the major scientific discoveries of our age were from people with that attitude. All of science is predicated on making an educated guess and then creating an experiment to prove or disprove your theory.

I think this is similar to where Paul talks about joints and bands. You have saints with different attitudes, we need those who hold everything together and we also need those who are willing to take chances.

I'm not buying the analogy when it comes to teaching the word.

When it comes to pioneering new discoveries and being willing to take chances to bring the gospel to new places, whether the inner city or far away lands, then I would agree.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You might say, well what about all these seeming examples of "deputy authority" in the Bible? My answer will be, please give me a way to objectively verify someone is such a thing. Otherwise, are you going to give such a person the power to enforce such far-reaching authority based solely on people's opinion?

That's like handing whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

"Deputy authority" is an evil concept because it removes choice from people by paralyzing them with fear. Since the assessment of who is the DA is completely subjective, people are left with the uncomfortable choice of either deciding for themselves what they believe or going along with the crowd. It takes a strong constitution to go against the crowd, especially when the reward for doing so is being labeled a "rebel."

Get over deputy authority. It's a rotten concept invented by Nee and Lee. The LRC is so off the reservation in this area it is embarrassing.

If Old Testament "deputy authority" were really in the plan of God for the church age, then we would definitely have clear teachings and patterns in the New Testament to support this teaching. We do not. Neither do we see any endorsement for a centralized "work." Absolutely none of the Twelve initial apostles appointed by the Lord Himself came under Paul's "deputy authority."

WL built his "deputy authority" paradigm based on bad teachings and bad patterns, taken mainly from the exclusive Brethren he was with early in his Christian life. Today these Brethren "descendents" have fully developed their errant thoughts and have become some of the weirdest folk on earth. Their leaders can trace their lineage back to John Darby himself, yet they have become among the narrowest, most judgmental, legalistic and suspicious lot in church history.

The real issue here is the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Apparently the teaching of "deputy authority" promotes His Lordship, actually in practice the opposite is true. Men lord it over men, and men become pleasers of men. The system is perpetuated by fear and a well-established network of spies, often ready to rat out their own brothers and sisters for program perks. One only needs to read about the Pharisees and Judaizers in the New Testament to see how the teaching of "deputy authority" always ends up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole problem with "deputy authority" is the same problem as that of elders supposedly over all the church in a city.

IT IS UNVERIFIABLE

Suppose someone thinks he is a "deputy authority." Suppose a group of people agree with him. What have you got?

Nothing. Just a bunch of opinion. Of course, their opinion is their reality because they believe it. But that doesn't mean it has to be your reality.

Congregational authority, on the other hand, is easily verifiable. Just ask the congregation who is the leader. They will tell you. If you don't like that assessment, you can leave. Simple and clean.

That's the extent of positional spiritual authority in this day and age.

You might say, well what about all these seeming examples of "deputy authority" in the Bible? My answer will be, please give me a way to objectively verify someone is such a thing. Otherwise, are you going to give such a person the power to enforce such far-reaching authority based solely on people's opinion?

That's like handing whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

"Deputy authority" is an evil concept because it removes choice from people by paralyzing them with fear. Since the assessment of who is the DA is completely subjective, people are left with the uncomfortable choice of either deciding for themselves what they believe or going along with the crowd. It takes a strong constitution to go against the crowd, especially when the reward for doing so is being labeled a "rebel."

Get over deputy authority. It's a rotten concept invented by Nee and Lee. The LRC is so off the reservation in this area it is embarrassing.

Abigails "deputy authority" -- 1. No evil is found in you -- verifiable and 2. You fight the Lord's battles -- verifiable.

Nabal's warped "deputy authority" -- Once David left Saul he was rebellious and therefore did not have the deputy authority. To me this is the LRC version. This teaching makes Saul "lord". Abigail's teaching clearly makes God Lord.

It doesn't matter if the entire congregation loves their pastor, if evil is found in him he has lost any authority. That is clearly taught in the NT. Deal with the evil.

2nd, just because no evil is found within you doesn't mean that you are one with the Lord to fight the Lord's battles. This is a second condition. There are many congregations that become stale and dead, not because of evil or sin, but because they are not actively fighting the Lord's battles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying the analogy when it comes to teaching the word.

When it comes to pioneering new discoveries and being willing to take chances to bring the gospel to new places, whether the inner city or far away lands, then I would agree.

The analogy of "bands and joints" is given by Paul. The analogy is with the body, we cannot move without joints, yet we would fall apart without bands. Scientists were not used as an analogy but as an example of advances made by human civilization.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Old Testament "deputy authority" were really in the plan of God for the church age, then we would definitely have clear teachings and patterns in the New Testament to support this teaching. We do not. Neither do we see any endorsement for a centralized "work." Absolutely none of the Twelve initial apostles appointed by the Lord Himself came under Paul's "deputy authority."

WL built his "deputy authority" paradigm based on bad teachings and bad patterns, taken mainly from the exclusive Brethren he was with early in his Christian life. Today these Brethren "descendents" have fully developed their errant thoughts and have become some of the weirdest folk on earth. Their leaders can trace their lineage back to John Darby himself, yet they have become among the narrowest, most judgmental, legalistic and suspicious lot in church history.

The real issue here is the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Apparently the teaching of "deputy authority" promotes His Lordship, actually in practice the opposite is true. Men lord it over men, and men become pleasers of men. The system is perpetuated by fear and a well-established network of spies, often ready to rat out their own brothers and sisters for program perks. One only needs to read about the Pharisees and Judaizers in the New Testament to see how the teaching of "deputy authority" always ends up.

We are operating under two different definitions.

The teaching of "authority" is done extensively in the NT. According to the NT we are currently being trained to be kings in the next age. Surely the term king refers to authority, and surely this authority is a "deputy authority" to the Lord Jesus.

If your definition of deputy authority is that Paul has authority to make deputies then I agree that this cannot be found in the NT and is comparable to Nabal's twisted teaching.

But rejecting that teaching doesn't change the fact that we are being trained to deal with authority. Matt 18 is a good example. Head covering is a good example. Paul telling the Corinthians to "be followers of me" is a good example. Joining together in prayer to bind and loose is a good example. Peter telling the lame man "why are you looking at me as though it was by my power" is a good example. Paul's teaching in Ephesians that Jesus was made head over all "to the church" is a good example. Matt 28:18-20 is a good example. Mark 16:17-18 is a good example.

"Children obey your parents in the Lord" is a good example and has a perfect link with the OT.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Abigails "deputy authority" -- 1. No evil is found in you -- verifiable and 2. You fight the Lord's battles -- verifiable.

Evil is found in all of us including David so that qualifier has to be more precisely defined and "the Lord's battles" will also have to be defined. And each church will come up with their own definitions and declare that their definitions are the most biblical, etc. thus taking us back to square one.

But how many people except maybe in smaller fringe churches really care about "deputy authority" anymore? Who really thinks about it? The LC system is obsessed with it because they always have hare-brained schemes and activities they are trying to pass off as legitimate. How else can they get people to take them seriously?

But I think kicking out Titus Chu was the real exposure of how incoherent their thinking and practices really are. Since when can apostles excommunicate apostles? And since when can extra-local workers excommunicate someone when the elders in his own church do not recognize it? This overreaching by the Deputy-Authority Committee in Anaheim was a real eye-opener!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We are operating under two different definitions.

The teaching of "authority" is done extensively in the NT. According to the NT we are currently being trained to be kings in the next age. Surely the term king refers to authority, and surely this authority is a "deputy authority" to the Lord Jesus.

If your definition of deputy authority ...

I thought it was readily apparent that my reference to "deputy authority" was limited to the "Areas where W.Lee was Flat Wrong."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought it was readily apparent that my reference to "deputy authority" was limited to the "Areas where W.Lee was Flat Wrong."

WL taught that during this age the believers are being trained to be kings and in the next age will rule.

WL taught that head covering was a basis for his teaching of deputy authority.

WL taught "children obey your parents" was also a basis for deputy authority.

Much of what is said on these forums isn't clear at all. I sat in meetings, listened to messages, and looked at the word to decide for myself what was so. To just give blanket statements that "he was flat wrong" without providing quotes only "trust me on this, he said it" is not at all clear.

Virtually all of WL teaching that I listened to was exegesis. I didn't care for his topical studies. Therefore, whether you agree with the teaching or not you should at the very least go back to the verses that he was expounding.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought it was readily apparent that my reference to "deputy authority" was limited to the "Areas where W.Lee was Flat Wrong."

What? You're asking Z to have a sense of relevance and context? That's a good one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Much of what is said on these forums isn't clear at all. I sat in meetings, listened to messages, and looked at the word to decide for myself what was so. To just give blanket statements that "he was flat wrong" without providing quotes only "trust me on this, he said it" is not at all clear.

Careful, Z. You have a great talent for not being clear. You have trouble following the subject and point of a conversation, and have stated you regularly ignore people's points.

Best keep claims of not being clear to yourself. You are the obfuscator here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Careful, Z. You have a great talent for not being clear. You have trouble following the subject and point of a conversation, and have stated you regularly ignore people's points.

Best keep claims of not being clear to yourself. You are the obfuscator here.

Then why not refer me to the publication that lays out this teaching that you are referring to.

It has become very clear to me that while I was in Taiwan from 87 to 95 there were a lot of strange teachings being propagated.

2nd, in my experience Bible teachings do not originate out of thin air. They begin with the exposition of a Bible truth and then like a game of telephone get distorted and twisted over time. To merely say that a teaching is false without defining the teaching is unclear.

3rd, To merely say that WL was "flat wrong" when WL has 30+ years of published teachings is extremely unclear unless the teaching is consistent for the entire 30+ years. I am not familiar with anything he taught from 86 on. But I was taught about deputy authority, so that is what I am referring to.

4th, what I stated clearly, and which you prefer to distort, is that it is not always necessary to evaluate the content. In some cases the structure of an argument is critical to it being valid and will determine whether it is even necessary to look at the content. This is a very common principle in law.

Finally, I am the only one being careful in this discussion. I am well aware that most of WL's teachings were lifted from WN and the brethren. They may have been distorted but the source is generally pretty sound.

For example I found your explanation that all authority is "congregational" to be very incautious. Are you really saying that if a congregation says that a pastor is a pastor then that is it? What if he commits a crime, doesn't matter because the congregations choice trumps that? isn't he under the authority of the government, what if he commits fraud and is sent to jail? What if he commits a sin? What if he doesn't do anything, just sits on his hands?

Likewise the idea that if you don't like "the authority" you should just leave. What about Paul's word that "children should obey their parents in the Lord"? I punished my 9 year old the other night, he wasn't happy. Should he just leave? Maybe you should be the one who is careful before teaching the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

WL taught that during this age the believers are being trained to be kings and in the next age will rule.

WL taught that head covering was a basis for his teaching of deputy authority.

WL taught "children obey your parents" was also a basis for deputy authority.

Much of what is said on these forums isn't clear at all. I sat in meetings, listened to messages, and looked at the word to decide for myself what was so. To just give blanket statements that "he was flat wrong" without providing quotes only "trust me on this, he said it" is not at all clear.

Virtually all of WL teaching that I listened to was exegesis. I didn't care for his topical studies. Therefore, whether you agree with the teaching or not you should at the very least go back to the verses that he was expounding.

You may be right about the initial development of the "deputy authority" teaching in the LRC, but by the time you were working with the stone crew at Irving, all that had begun to change. RG's MOTA concepts slowly infiltrated LSM, and via the FTTT, they were disseminated throughout the LRC. Eventually, by the time of the Ingalls quarantine, WL had become the "acting God," based upon the LS of Samuel, the type of the "acting God" in the O.T.

If you're interested in the "deputy authority" teaching in the LRC, you really should read the rancid book by Andrew Yu, "An Affirmation of the Proper Authority in the Body of Christ," distributed by LSM in 1989, free of charge.

.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may be right about the initial development of the "deputy authority" teaching in the LRC, but by the time you were working with the stone crew at Irving, all that had begun to change. RG's MOTA concepts slowly infiltrated LSM, and via the FTTT, they were disseminated throughout the LRC. Eventually, by the time of the Ingalls quarantine, WL had become the "acting God," based upon the LS of Samuel, the type of the "acting God" in the O.T.

If you're interested in the "deputy authority" teaching in the LRC, you really should read the rancid book by Andrew Yu, "An Affirmation of the Proper Authority in the Body of Christ," distributed by LSM in 1989, free of charge.

.

Thank you, I will look at that. In the meantime maybe the title to the thread should be changed to Andrew Yu was flat wrong. That would clear up some of the confusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you, I will look at that. In the meantime maybe the title to the thread should be changed to Andrew Yu was flat wrong. That would clear up some of the confusion.

Very funny!

.

But to add some perspective here. This is just one more instance where WL changed over the course of time. Initially he, like WN, was more similar to the open brethren. Gradually he became like the exclusives, and contradicted his earlier teachings. This is what Ingalls and others protested in the late 80's, i.e. WL and his LSM violated all the principles they had begun with.

So what good is it to go back to WL's initial teachings on the subject? The ones who did that were all quarantined. Do you want to get quarantined?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then why not refer me to the publication that lays out this teaching that you are referring to.

Because you don't seem really interested in having a discussion, you seem more interested in playing the devil's advocate and listening to the sound of your own voice.

Here's a clue, Z. When someone states a rule or truism, it's not insightful when you point out an exception to the rule, because all rules have exceptions. In case you don't know, exceptions prove the rule. That's why they are called exceptions. Apparently, you missed class the day that was being taught.

I have never seen a poster who is more adept at missing someone's point than you. This really started to bother me. Then I realized what it was. You do it on purpose. You admitted as much. That's just plain rude, not to mention some other things I won't mention.

You are never going to have any success here until you learn to understand what people are saying and appreciate them, instead of knee-jerk sharpshooting them, as is, apparently, your hobby.

Find something else to do.

[Cal]

In short, Z, your strange habit of intentionally missing someone's point in order to go around them to make your own point is a bad habit. I suggest you try to break it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In short, Z, your strange habit of intentionally missing someone's point in order to go around them to make your own point is a bad habit. I suggest you try to break it.

Whoa there! We were just talking and sharing diverse viewpoints. I guess many of us are guilty of the same thing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa there! We were just talking and sharing diverse viewpoints. I guess many of us are guilty of the same thing.

Sorry, few come close to Z in this respect. He bragged about intentionally ignoring people's points to make his own. That's not a mindset conducive to this setting.

[UntoHim]

I'm not sure who would be better to handle this situation....Zee Topiq Nazi or Jerry Maguire. I really was hoping to see Zee Topiq Nazi go into forced retirement for good. Jerry's a much more reasonable guy to deal with.

I think Igzy has been reasonable and patient in seeing this topic develop. At the beginning I tried to keep everybody corralled within the original 4 points, but as usual you guys never want to keep corralled! One reason I like everybody to stay on topic(q) is it has a tendency to act as a safeguard against food fights. I'm not calling whats going on here a food fight, there are much deeper issues and I don't have time to address them right now.

What I will say is that I have a big problem with posts that are designed to stop or slow down the conversation. This is done with being argumentative, throwing out red herrings and deliberately acting as if a poster has not made himself perfectly clear. I don't mean we have to agree with each other, but it is disrespectful to be constantly misunderstanding on purpose.

Gotta go.
Help me, help you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What I will say is that I have a big problem with posts that are designed to stop or slow down the conversation. This is done with being argumentative, throwing out red herrings and deliberately acting as if a poster has not made himself perfectly clear. I don't mean we have to agree with each other, but it is disrespectful to be constantly misunderstanding on purpose.

This is the problem I have with Z. He doesn't seem to make an honest effort to understand what people are really saying. He latches onto opportunities to sharpshoot them. I mean, no one can be as dumb as he pretends to be sometimes.

He seems to play dumb to try to make other look dumb. You can't do that. You have to try to understand people in this setting or it won't work.

For example--Deputy Authority. It was clear from my context I was talking deputy authority in the context of how the LRC used it, which was the (so-called) authority of apostles, elders and other church officers. Obviously that's the point of discussing it on this forum. So Z tries to make out like I am saying children can run away from parents.

That kind of comment is just plain.... I'm not going to use the word. But it's the comment of someone who is not trying to have a genuine discussion.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not sure who would be better to handle this situation....Zee Topiq Nazi or Jerry Maguire. I really was hoping to see Zee Topiq Nazi go into forced retirement for good. Jerry's a much more reasonable guy to deal with.

I think Igzy has been reasonable and patient in seeing this topic develop. At the beginning I tried to keep everybody corralled within the original 4 points, but as usual you guys never want to keep corralled! One reason I like everybody to stay on topic(q) is it has a tendency to act as a safeguard against food fights. I'm not calling whats going on here a food fight, there are much deeper issues and I don't have time to address them right now.

What I will say is that I have a big problem with posts that are designed to stop or slow down the conversation. This is done with being argumentative, throwing out red herrings and deliberately acting as if a poster has not made himself perfectly clear. I don't mean we have to agree with each other, but it is disrespectful to be constantly misunderstanding on purpose.

Gotta go.
Help me, help you.

Hello dear brother UntoHim,

I am vacation for a few weeks and I was curious, so I began "lurking" again. I am really disappointed to see that dear brother ZNPaaneah has once again highjacked all the active threads with his tactics. Besides the obvious obfuscation, there is the question of how many times do we have to hear his arrogant re-hashes of how perfectly he preached the gospel, how perfectly he could "prophecy", etc.

I am not the only one who gave up on this place. I can still clearly remember dear brother Toledo's plea that he came here for fellowship and all he received was pettiness and "the parsing of words". By allowing bullies like brother Z who specialize in "sharpshooting" and kill genuine fellowship, you cause many to lose heart.

Brother Z is exactly why I gave up on this forum. I can still remember his insistence that Jesse had trained David in warfare. And his refusal to admit that Song of Songs was never quoted or referred to in the New Testament. Even solid evidence from the very Greek scholars who compiled the Greek NT which is the basis for modern translations (including the RcV) is not good enough for brother Z! He still wanted to "sharpshoot" and he refused to listen. Real conversations are not possible with someone like that.

I thought dear brother ZNPaaneah made a very heartfelt post the other day regarding his desire to know, amongst other things, if his experiences in the LRC were genuine and if he had been hearing from the Lord during his LRC days. (That would be an excellent discussion for a new thread!) I am no psychiatrist but it seems like in his effort to convince himself regarding his years in the LRC, he is resorting to bully-like attacks against the other participants here.

I had high hopes that things had changed, but I see that nothing has changed.

[UntoHim]

So good to hear from you again kisstheson! Long time no "see". Hey if nothing else, the recent mess here got you out of the woodwork. I don't have any time this afternoon to address the poignant issues you have brought up, but I do appreciate your input. I'll send you a PM when I get back home.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not sure who would be better to handle this situation....Zee Topiq Nazi or Jerry Maguire. I really was hoping to see Zee Topiq Nazi go into forced retirement for good. Jerry's a much more reasonable guy to deal with.

I think Igzy has been reasonable and patient in seeing this topic develop. At the beginning I tried to keep everybody corralled within the original 4 points, but as usual you guys never want to keep corralled! One reason I like everybody to stay on topic(q) is it has a tendency to act as a safeguard against food fights. I'm not calling whats going on here a food fight, there are much deeper issues and I don't have time to address them right now.

What I will say is that I have a big problem with posts that are designed to stop or slow down the conversation. This is done with being argumentative, throwing out red herrings and deliberately acting as if a poster has not made himself perfectly clear. I don't mean we have to agree with each other, but it is disrespectful to be constantly misunderstanding on purpose.

Gotta go.
Help me, help you.

Could the poster who started the thread then have more say over the thread?

Thus Igzy would have more "say" in this thread, and ZNP would have more "say" in the Nabal - Abigail thread which he started?

I hate to see someone get lambasted for his or her peculiarities in posting. Personally, I like a lot of ZNP's posts and insights, but I understand that he can be frustrating at times. You'all can say the same thing about me too.

Forums, by nature, seem to ratchet up the "temperature." It's unfortunate, but it is the nature of the beast.

As someone somewhere once said, "Love covers a multitude of sins."

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So good to hear from you again kisstheson! Long time no "see". Hey if nothing else, the recent mess here got you out of the woodwork. I don't have any time this afternoon to address the poignant issues you have brought up, but I do appreciate your input. I'll send you a PM when I get back home.

I was not going to post again, but I should state that I appreciate your kind and gracious response, dear brother UntoHim. I really do appreciate it. And I know you are in somewhat of a tough position here. You have my sympathies.

Thanks for the offer of a PM, but I don't think I will receive it. I have lost heart for this place all over again. Nothing personal against you at all. When someone can twist criticism of Witness Lee's teaching and practice of "deputy authority" into a total non-sequitor related to children being able to run away from home, then I am no longer interested at all. This is no longer even close to Christian ellowship; rather, I believe this is the type of contentiousness and foolishness which Paul acknowledged us to stay away from. As one who, like all of us, has been charged to "redeem the time", I cannot say that dealing with this kind of foolishness is a profitable use of time. There is too much healthy fellowship to be had elsewhere and too many unsaved and backslidden ones who desperately need to see the love of Jesus Christ.

Take care, everyone. I wish only the best for all of you in your pursuits in the Lord.

Much grace, peace, and love in Christ be with you all.

[Cal]

UntoHim, I don't mind this thread transitioning into other discussions. My point in starting it was simply to point out some things I've been firmly convinced that Lee was grossly mistaken on, because the Lord opened my eyes about them and I believed that many ex-members are still influenced by them.

What bugs me is when someone comes along and says "give me the reference where Lee taught this," when everyone including him knows darn well Lee taught it! I just don't understand the point of that kind of comment. I mean, if you haven't heard or read and haven't been influenced by Lee in the first place, then you are probably not going to be interested in anything I have to say here. So why chime in?

I don't give my comments and opinions here for the general public, and I really don't care what the general public thinks about my rigor or thoroughness.

I make comments for those who've been in the LRC and who are still influenced by it. And those people don't need to worry about my rigor because they all know darn well Lee taught the things we are taking apart here.

Someone like Bilbodog can come along and pretend that we aren't being rigorous enough, and hope he'll influence some objective and uninitiated readers, or dishearten us, or whatever the heck he was trying to do. But I don't really care about that either. Because everyone in the know knows that what Lee taught is being accurately discussed here, and in many cases exposed.

So let's stop playing games, guys, shall we?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

WL taught that during this age the believers are being trained to be kings and in the next age will rule.

WL taught that head covering was a basis for his teaching of deputy authority.

WL taught "children obey your parents" was also a basis for deputy authority.

Much of what is said on these forums isn't clear at all. I sat in meetings, listened to messages, and looked at the word to decide for myself what was so. To just give blanket statements that "he was flat wrong" without providing quotes only "trust me on this, he said it" is not at all clear.

Virtually all of WL teaching that I listened to was exegesis. I didn't care for his topical studies. Therefore, whether you agree with the teaching or not you should at the very least go back to the verses that he was expounding.

The problem that I have with virtually all of this, including any version of "deputy authority" is that it is not really about this life.

And you start this particular post off mentioning being trained to be kings in the next age. That may be true. But the way we are trained to be the kind of kings that it is talking about is that we learn how to be what we were intended to be here on the earth. That would be righteous. We weren't put here to rule anyone. We were to live in harmony, in righteousness, with each other and with the rest of the created earth.

I believe that the limited inferences about kingship for us in the next age is too often taken as something to ignore the real here and now. To forget about love and mercy. Peace and kindness. Instead focus on finding the right kind of authority. It is not the main thing. The authority has always been, and will always be God. For us to focus on how it applies to us as something to have, even in a "deputy" way, is to miss the focus of the narrative. The Bible brings us back to God. It does not bring us into authority.

And, by the way, now you admit that you didn't really bother with Lee's eisegesis stuff. Unfortunately that was a significant part of his teaching. So you were never really part of the whole thing (in a sense). You were the guy who managed the cherry-pick the parts he liked and disregard the rest (la la la la la la la — you get this one Ray?). Might be a more tolerable way to survive 20 years in the LRC.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am well aware that most of WL's teachings were lifted from WN and the brethren. They may have been distorted but the source is generally pretty sound.

Maybe the brethren (mostly). But I have reason to suspect even Nee. Too much rephrasing and repackaging scripture. Not nearly as bad as Lee. But Nee did ti before Lee did.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Thank you, I will look at that. In the meantime maybe the title to the thread should be changed to Andrew Yu was flat wrong. That would clear up some of the confusion.

The limited amount of anything in anyone else's name that went out from the LSM prior to Lee's death was strictly to make it not appear to be just Lee's private publisher. Lee had to be on board with it or it didn't go out. Yu may have seemed to put it in writing, but it was Lee's position or it didn't make it to the press.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, I am the only one being careful in this discussion. I am well aware that most of WL's teachings were lifted from WN and the brethren. They may have been distorted but the source is generally pretty sound.

For example I found your explanation that all authority is "congregational" to be very incautious.

These comments are interestingly incompatible, because it was WN in TNCCL who stressed that the authority of the elders is the "highest court" in the New Testament, and is strictly congregational.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

And, by the way, now you admit that you didn't really bother with Lee's eisegesis stuff. Unfortunately that was a significant part of his teaching. So you were never really part of the whole thing (in a sense). You were the guy who managed the cherry-pick the parts he liked and disregard the rest (la la la la la la la — you get this one Ray?). Might be a more tolerable way to survive 20 years in the LRC.

Ain't got no distractions;
Can't hear no buzzers and bells.
Don't see no lights a-flashin';
Plays by sense of smell.
Always gets a replay,
Ain't never seen him fall.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ain't got no distractions;
Can't hear no buzzers and bells.
Don't see no lights a-flashin';
Plays by sense of smell.
Always gets a replay,
Ain't never seen him fall.

Now Ray, I'm sure that you understand that this one's "below the belt," since the next line is ...

"That deaf dumb and blind kid, Sure plays a mean pin ball."

[rayliotta]

Ya don't say!

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Genesis 2;17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:6,7 ... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they 'knew' that they were naked;

From the two verses above, I can only infer that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not only equal evil, it equals death. If my inference is wrong, the only other inference is that God lied or was not completely honest.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

In my experience, psychology is very important to spirituality. In fact, much of what we consider spirituality is actually, legitimately, mostly psychology. Paul instructs us how to think in Philippians 4. Proverbs 23:7 says as a man thinks, so he is. Our mind is a very powerful tool for modifying our behavior. Habits are a matter of our mind. Our subconscious mind affects us more than we realize. To dismiss psychology wholesale is to put oneself at an extreme disadvantage. Psychology is simply the way people manifestly operate. To disdain it is to disdain man himself and God’s creation.

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

This is one of Lee’s biggest errors, that the actual element of God is somehow being fused into our souls. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that such a thing is going on. And experience does not support it. Transformation is being made more like God in our soul. That means, primarily, learning to value things and think about things the way God does. I.e., it is primarily a matter of what we think about and how we think about it. Where our thoughts go, the rest of our being follows. As we become more obedient, naturally the Spirit is manifested more in our lives because He flows more freely through us, but that doesn’t mean He’s been “worked into our being.”

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

The Bible never teaches either. Rapture is taught by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 as one event and he never suggests any believers will be left behind. Time and again, reward in the Bible is taught as based on faithfulness, not growth. This error leads believers to focus on their own condition, rather than on service to the Lord.

Why does anyone care about the rapture or the reward?
Why can't we just gaze at the Bridegroom's face instead of disagreeing over the crown and the garment?

Hymn 206 stanza 3
(Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/206)

The Bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom's face;
I will not gaze at glory,
But on my King of grace:
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory,
And my eternal stand!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

From the two verses above, I can only infer that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not only equal evil, it equals death. If my inference is wrong, the only other inference is that God lied or was not completely honest.

I'm not sure what your point is relative to my post. But I'll expand on what I believe.

The item in question is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It is not called "the tree of knowledge," neither is it called "the tree of good and evil."

Lee would often call it "the tree of knowedge," and use that to indict knowledge. I don't recall Lee calling it directly "the tree of good and evil." But his oft-quoted assertion that "good and evil are from the same tree" basically did that.

Both of these ideas, that the tree was "the tree of knowledge," and that it was "the tree of good and evil" seriously distort the meaning of the picture.

So what does "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" mean? I think it clearly means trying to live morally independent from God. Man cannot live with some kind of guide as to what is good and what is evil. We are supposed to look to God for this knowledge, not make ourselves the source. And the latter is exactly what Adam and Eve did when they reinterpreted God's command!

But to take this symbol so far as to indict knowledge, or to say good and evil come from the same source contradicts the rest of the Bible. The Bible upholds proper knowledge as as goal to aim for. The whole book of Proverbs is about this. And again and again the Bible says do good and abstain from evil.

God said that eating from the tree would cause man to be "like us [God], knowing good and evil." But obviously, man did not become like God. He didn't truly know good and evil. What he became was an entity which thought he himself was a source of knowledge of good and evil and so would not need another source of such knowledge other than himself. In other words, he became morally independent. This is what "like us" meant.

Yes, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in death. That is, seeking to know good and evil apart from God results in death.

So saying "knowledge results in death" or "good and evil come from the same tree" are flat wrong teachings

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

Psychology isn't just about "psychologists." It is the whole study of human behavior and how people learn and improve. Lee basically threw all that out and said we need to just soak in the Spirit to get transformed. My assertion is that is an inefficient way to grow. We need to also use all the psychological tools God has given us to learn, change and improve. Transformation, the Bible says, is a matter of "the renewing of our mind." That implies our thinking changes

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

Be honest, has the practice of "just taking in the Spirit" produced transformed Christians in the LRC? Certainly being filled with the Spirit is important. But to say that's all there is to transformation is to put oneself at a disadvantage.

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

The change is you decide to think differently. God obviously gives us grace to do this. But you have to make up your mind to do it.

"Work out your salvation... for it is God that works in you." Phil 2:12-13

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

The medium is our mind. The change in the medium is that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think. Everything hinges on that.

Why does anyone care about the rapture or the reward?
Why can't we just gaze at the Bridegroom's face instead of disagreeing over the crown and the garment?

Well, the Bible does tell us to take care and not lose our reward. So you have to think about it some. But I agree, we shouldn't obsess on it. Keeping our eyes on Jesus is the best way to get the prize.

Thanks for your comments.

[Cal]

Essentially, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil equates to acting under the belief that "I don't need God to decide what is good and what is evil."

This is exactly what Adam and Even did when they decided to go against God's command. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Disobedience is, essentially, deciding you know better than God. Therefore, any disobedience is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This upholds the more mainstream belief that it was disobedience that caused man's fall, not literal "eating."

Eating from the tree was accomplished in their minds before they partook of anything physical. The tree of knowledge of good and evil may have actually been benign itself, because the act of deciding for themselves, in contradiction to God, what was good and evil was itself a partaking of the essence of what the tree represented.

This speaks to another error by Lee, that the tree represented Satan and by eating it man took Satan into his body. There is no evidence biblically that this happened. Man fell because he corrupted himself, not because he took Satan into his body.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This speaks to another error by Lee, that the tree represented Satan and by eating it man took Satan into his body. There is no evidence biblically that this happened. Man fell because he corrupted himself, not because he took Satan into his body.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

From the verses above, we see that in Gen 1:31, there was no sin in man. By the time we reach Rom 7, there is sin in man.
At what point did sin enter man? What is the substance which when introduced into man created sin in man?
My answer is what I understand from Br. Lee's writings - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents Satan. When man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and even, death (the source of which is Satan) entered into man.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Essentially, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil equates to acting under the belief that "I don't need God to decide what is good and what is evil."

This is exactly what Adam and Even did when they decided to go against God's command. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Disobedience is, essentially, deciding you know better than God. Therefore, any disobedience is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This upholds the more mainstream belief that it was disobedience that caused man's fall, not literal "eating."

Eating from the tree was accomplished in their minds before they partook of anything physical. The tree of knowledge of good and evil may have actually been benign itself, because the act of deciding for themselves, in contradiction to God, what was good and evil was itself a partaking of the essence of what the tree represented.

As I said before, I do not think eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil was just an act of disobedience. I agree with Br. Lee that it was man ingesting sin into his body.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The item in question is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It is not called "the tree of knowledge," neither is it called "the tree of good and evil."
Lee would often call it "the tree of knowedge," and use that to indict knowledge. I don't recall Lee calling it directly "the tree of good and evil." But his oft-quoted assertion that "good and evil are from the same tree" basically did that.
Both of these ideas, that the tree was "the tree of knowledge," and that it was "the tree of good and evil" seriously distort the meaning of the picture.

I hear what you are trying to say. But, I still wanted to point out that Wikipedia says Tree of Knowledge may refer to Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I don't think Br. Lee asked brothers to remain ignorant/illiterate. He may have said 'knowledge is bad'. But, at least I understood that knowledge without Christ is bad. Just as I know that 1 Cor 8:1 (knowledge puffeth up) is not indicting knowledge.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what does "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" mean? I think it clearly means trying to live morally independent from God. Man cannot live with some kind of guide as to what is good and what is evil. We are supposed to look to God for this knowledge, not make ourselves the source. And the latter is exactly what Adam and Eve did when they reinterpreted God's command!
But to take this symbol so far as to indict knowledge, or to say good and evil come from the same source contradicts the rest of the Bible. The Bible upholds proper knowledge as as goal to aim for. The whole book of Proverbs is about this. And again and again the Bible says do good and abstain from evil.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in death. That is, seeking to know good and evil apart from God results in death.
So saying "knowledge results in death" or "good and evil come from the same tree" are flat wrong teachings

I agree with you about what the Bible says about knowledge. And, that is what I understood from Br. Lee's writings as well. I never felt Br. Lee was asking anyone to give up knowledge in the literal sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Igzy

God said that eating from the tree would cause man to be "like us [God], knowing good and evil." But obviously, man did not become like God. He didn't truly know good and evil. What he became was an entity which thought he himself was a source of knowledge of good and evil and so would not need another source of such knowledge other than himself. In other words, he became morally independent. This is what "like us" meant.

Gen 3: 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Disobedience is, essentially, deciding you know better than God. Therefore, any disobedience is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This upholds the more mainstream belief that it was disobedience that caused man's fall, not literal "eating."

There is a very good reason why certain interpretations become "mainstream"... it's mostly because it is the majority interpretation over many, many years from many educated and godly men and women who have studied the Word of God. Witness Lee (and before him Watchman Nee) intentionally veered from the mainstream in many major theological areas, and none have proved to be more damaging than this basic interpretation of the cause and effect of the Fall of Man.

This misinterpretation has proved to be one of the most damaging because it started Nee/Lee off on the wrong course from the very beginning. Even if their interpretation of the Fall of Man was just slightly off, it’s like when a ship starts off course just a few degrees….after thousands of miles the ship ends up hundreds of miles off course. The end results usually prove to be disastrous, and we see this with the misinterpretation of many theological notions of Witness Lee. This is the reason why we see Lee so far off track in his interpretations of in the book of Revelation - he starts off with a misinterpretation in Genesis, and he ends up compounding the errors as he goes through the rest of the Bible. By the time he gets to Revelation we find him teaching that the New Jerusalem is the ultimate “mingling of God and man”.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

These overly long posts make it difficult to respond without picking on a couple points. First of all, I can go on line and find some Christian saying anything I want to hear. I read the 2nd link above, and found it to be extremely poorly written -- heaps of condemnation without a sober argument that made sense. If you want to quote something specific, then great.

You mentioned psychologists prescribing meds to some saints. They don't do that, Psychiatrists do. There's a world of difference between the two.

WL and the Blendeds berated any kind of Christian help outside of there ministry. They categorically condemned all contemporary Christian literature. Except for Christian authors now deceased, none was ever spoken highly of. I have heard both Billy Graham ("anyone can get people saved, but BG doesn't see the church") and James Dobson ("parents used to go to Dr. Spock, but now they all go to Dobson" belittled publicly. I have heard all Christian "self-help" ridiculed as "chicken soup for the soul."

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Psychology isn't just about "psychologists." It is the whole study of human behavior and how people learn and improve. Lee basically threw all that out and said we need to just soak in the Spirit to get transformed. My assertion is that is an inefficient way to grow. We need to also use all the psychological tools God has given us to learn, change and improve. Transformation, the Bible says, is a matter of "the renewing of our mind." That implies our thinking changes

I haven't been to psychiatrists or psychologists ever before. So, I do not know the exact difference and honestly, I don't care. What I meant was 'There have been saints in my local church who have been allowed to treat issues with their psyche'.

Originally Posted by Igzy

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

I do not believe that I can do anything by myself.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. (Rom 7:18)

Originally Posted by Igzy

Be honest, has the practice of "just taking in the Spirit" produced transformed Christians in the LRC? Certainly being filled with the Spirit is important. But to say that's all there is to transformation is to put oneself at a disadvantage.

I can't say everyone is transformed. But, there are many who are transformed by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The change is you decide to think differently. God obviously gives us grace to do this. But you have to make up your mind to do it.

"Work out your salvation... for it is God that works in you." Phil 2:12-13

I believe that in us dwelleth no good thing.

Rom 9:16 says So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
As per Rom 9:17,18 the Lord even sent the plagues on Egypt after God himself had hardened Pharoah's heart.

So, I do not agree that we can do anything by ourselves at all.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The medium is our mind. The change in the medium is that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think. Everything hinges on that.

I agree that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think? But, how?
I believe it is because God is working himself into our being? When we have more of God in our being, our mind thinks more in a way according to how God would have us think?
If you do not agree with me, how do you explain the fact that the mind thinks more as God wants us to think?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First of all, I can go on line and find some Christian saying anything I want to hear. I read the 2nd link above, and found it to be extremely poorly written -- heaps of condemnation without a sober argument that made sense. If you want to quote something specific, then great.

I am just saying that there are other Christians as well who discourage meeting psychiatrists/psychologists or whoever it is Igzy is referring to. I know it personally because the Pentecostal group I was part of earlier, discouraged it too.
Also, it is only in the United States that meeting psychologists is so popular. In my country, even unbelievers do not meet psychologists at the drop of a hat. So, it is not even a topic of interest for most saints in my country.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mentioned psychologists prescribing meds to some saints. They don't do that, Psychiatrists do. There's a world of difference between the two.

There may be a huge difference. But, I don't care. I just wanted to say that there have been people in my local church who have treaetd their psyche without being condemned by the leading brothers.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

As I said before, I do not think eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil was just an act of disobedience. I agree with Br. Lee that it was man ingesting sin into his body.

Are you suggesting that the snake turned into a piece of fruit and so when they ate the fruit they biologically ingested Satan and thus Satan is passed down genetically from generation to generation?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

What is the substance which when introduced into man created sin in man?

I believe that this question defines the problem in Lee's (and your) view of the fall. It is the presumption that there must be a substance taken in for man to sin. To have sin within him. But there is no substance taken in for us to know anything. Note that the thing that God comments on concerning man is his knowing. But when I look at the passage, including in a rather poor Hebrew interlinear, I am uncertain whether even God commenting on man's knowing is about what man simply knows, or about man is coming to know. In other words, discerning.

Put another way, what man will decide for himself from his own perspective, experience, etc.

But whether or not that is a correct understanding, there is nothing fundamentally required to be "introduced into man" for him to be sinful. The only requirement was that he listened to the voice of the snake and exercised his free will to choose. Something that was always a possibility anyway. While there was only one crack at this and we therefore can only speculate, I believe it would be a reasonable speculation to assume that even without a snake to entice Eve, then Adam, to disobey, the possibility was always there.

And the ensuing records describe the cause of man's curse as disobedience, not the introduction of foreign substance. If substance is required, then the whole idea of a spiritual realm is meaningless. If we had to eat to fall, then we must have to do something similar to be freed from that fall. And saying words would not be it because there is no "substance" to the words. You can argue that God is in them, or behind them.

But God is not "substance" in the way that you seem to require for purposes of the fall. You are requiring man to physically take something in to fall, yet no such requirement is made for becoming freed from it. If there is substance to it, then substance must be removed to take away its hold.

No, the whole think is predicated upon disobedience. And what better way to establish the act of disobedience than in something that has physical evidence? And what better (or worse) enticement than the lure of knowing what God knows.

By the way. I note that the verse does say that man became like God ("us") in that he knew good from evil. But that is a specific comparison. It is not that man is simply like God. He has attained some level of common knowledge. (I will suggest that it is not truly the same, because man's version of good v evil does not consistently agree with God's. Therefore, the similarity is not complete even in this one thing.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I agree that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think? But, how?
I believe it is because God is working himself into our being? When we have more of God in our being, our mind thinks more in a way according to how God would have us think?
If you do not agree with me, how do you explain the fact that the mind thinks more as God wants us to think?

SavedbyGrace,

The bottom line is the Bible never says transformation means God moves into our soul.

Be honest. You believe God gets worked into your soul because Lee taught it and you've been told to believe him because he was the minister of the age or something like that. But the fact is you've never questioned his teachings with any real rigor, have you? I can tell by your responses to me that you haven't.

Admit it, you have no personal experience which actually confirms that God has been worked into your soul or anyone else's, do you? You are just assuming it happened because that's what Lee told you transformation was, aren't you?

But the fact is, if you examine yourself, you'd have to admit that you are still just you and God is still God. Yes, he is very close to you, he is in your spirit, and he is changing you somehow. Praise him for that. But there is no experiential nor biblical evidence that he has moved into your soul, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence he hasn't.

Be honest. It is not a sin to think outside Lee's box.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Are you suggesting that the snake turned into a piece of fruit and so when they ate the fruit they biologically ingested Satan and thus Satan is passed down genetically from generation to generation?

This was similar to a question I had: If Satan was the tree, then what was the need for the snake? Why didn't the tree just talk to and tempt Eve?

(And please don't say because trees can't talk, because snakes can't either.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I do not believe that I can do anything by myself.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. (Rom 7:18)

In a way, you are right. But not entirely. You seem determined to analyze the whole thing in terms of Romans 7. What about Romans 8?

In Romans 8, we are admonished to walk. To set our minds. I would agree that this cannot be "by myself." But if the walking is "by the Spirit" and the setting is "on the Spirit" how "by myself" am I? Romans 7 is the build-up to Romans 8. And Romans 8 is serious about doing. It is about walking, not waiting, or even abiding. I am not dismissing the abiding side of the equation. But abiding is part of activity. The metaphor of a vine and branches is not one of passivity. It is one of activity fueled by a source that exists because of the connection to the trunk (the vine). Branches do not just sit there and sap causes fruit to appear on the ends of the branches. Branches do all the things that branches do, including transmitting nutrients from the ground, and processed nutrients from leaves and then bring it all together to create fruit.

I think that Lee's version of abiding was built on the wrong metaphor. I think he was actually using the sense of living in a house. Living in a house does not provide anything. It is a passive "activity." There are stores down the street. And factories that produce things. But it doesn't happen in the house. You just abide there and eat your dinner and get bigger (fatter?).

But that is not the metaphor Jesus used. He used abiding in terms of a branch attached to a trunk (the vine) constantly doing all the things that the whole of the vine does, including producing fruit. So the vine must take in the nutrients from the trunk, but it must always be using them in its activities, not just collecting them in the bark.

And while Paul is not using the vine-branch-abiding metaphor here, is it that hard to see that "walking according to the Spirit" is little more than a different way of discussing the same thing? If we are not connected to the Spirit (the vine) then all the walking we try to do (producing of fruit) will be without positive result. But if we simply connect to the Spirit yet do nothing, you not only have no positive result, you don't even have the possibility of being right for the wrong reasons. We can complain about people who manage to "do it in themselves" all we want. But if they are actually doing it and the person who is actually getting the correct source is not actually doing anything, I'm not sure that it is any better.

In fact, I question whether they are just fooling themselves about how much Spirit they are actually taking in (or being set upon, or whatever). And that is the very kind of question that James asks right up front in his little epistle.

And for all those people who we think are just "doing it in themselves," what happens if you don't have to be part of "God's best," or even be part of some very evangelical/fundamental group to be hooked into the supply? What if we have been fed a line about how bankrupt all those people who recite creeds and come and sing and pray together once a week really are? What if as a result of their faith in Jesus, they are encouraged to step out and live righteously, and without having wonderfully high-peak meetings they really are walking according to the Spirit, and setting their minds on the Spirit?

In other words, they are doing exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 8 without being engaged in morning watch, going to trainings, or 7 feasts, or listening to the apostle of the age?

What happens if there are even a staggering number of Roman Catholics in that crowd? What if the cloud of witnesses spurring us on includes more people from groups that we despise than it does from the ones we think are the best?

My point in going into all of that is to question the very mindset that presumes that Christianity is simply bankrupt. That practices that do not look a whole lot like those of the LRC are useless to shepherd us along in the way we should live. And to ask whether it is not much more important to live right than the think right. To love much than to know much. To walk by the Spirit than simply turn to your spirit.

[Cal]

OBW,

You know if you quit the board, you can't just come back.

In order to come back you have to post a video of you singing your high school fight song.

You know that, don't you?

Waiting...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW,

You know if you quit the board, you can't just come back.

In order to come back you have to post a video of you singing your high school fight song.

You know that, don't you?

Waiting...

No words to our HS fight song, except for the place where the music stopped and we all chanted "Go! Cougars! Go! Go! Go!" as only the drums played.

Besides, I like this topic. It just hasn't had anyone deal with it with the (il)logic necessary to get my juices flowing. I think you are generous to limit your list of "flat wrongs" to four. I think that my response hints at at least one or two more.

[Cal]

There is another point to consider about this "Satan got injected into our body" nonsense.

Satan was the snake, not the tree. Satan is the tempter, not the temptation. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Satan tempts us with Satan, and nowhere does the Bible suggest that if we sin what we will get is Satan. Nowhere does it say, Don't sin, because if you do, more Satan will get worked into your body. It doesn't say this.

The Bible doesn't say the wages of sin is Satan. It says the wages of sin is death.

Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. Their disobeying was itself an act of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because by rejecting God's command they made themselves their source of knowledge of good and evil. The result of this act was that they died spiritually and man's nature became fallen.

Nowhere in the story, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, is there anything about Satan getting in our body. Believing such a thing is complete speculation.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. Their disobeying was itself an act of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because by rejecting God's command they made themselves their source of knowledge of good and evil. The result of this act was that they died spiritually and man's nature became fallen.

Nowhere in the story, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, is there anything about Satan getting in our body. Believing such a thing is complete speculation.

I think the term "speculation" is being generous!

Parallel to this is the idea that God who was walking in the garden and in fellowship with Adam and Eve decided to become a piece of fruit and if they had ingested that piece of fruit they would have eternal life. Why would the God of the universe decide to become a mindless piece of fruit as a mechanism to transmit himself into Adam and Eve?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God. Their disobeying was itself an act of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because by rejecting God's command they made themselves their source of knowledge of good and evil. The result of this act was that they died spiritually and man's nature became fallen.

Nowhere in the story, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, is there anything about Satan getting in our body. Believing such a thing is complete speculation.

Romans chapter 5 is perhaps the best exposition of Genesis 3. No where does it mention "eating." What it does say about the fall ...

5.12 Thru one man sin entered the world

5.14 Sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression

5.15 But not as the offense ... thru the offense of the one the many died

5.16 out of one offense unto condemnation

5.17 by the offense of the one

5.18 thru one offense unto condemnation to all men

5.19 thru the disobedience of one man

Can anyone cite a verse which indicates that man (Adam) became fallen by being poisoned by eating of the "forbidden fruit?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Romans chapter 5 is perhaps the best exposition of Genesis 3. No where does it mention "eating." What it does say about the fall ...

5.12 Thru one man sin entered the world
5.14 Sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression
5.15 But not as the offense ... thru the offense of the one the many died
5.16 out of one offense unto condemnation
5.17 by the offense of the one
5.18 thru one offense unto condemnation to all men
5.19 thru the disobedience of one man

Can anyone cite a verse which indicates that man (Adam) became fallen by being poisoned by eating of the "forbidden fruit?"

Thanks for the quotes, Ohio. Yes, it is plain here that the problem was the offense, the disobedience. There is nothing here about man getting injected with Satan's nature.

What say you, SavedbyGrace? Why didn't Paul mention or allude to Satan getting in our body when he expounded on the fall in Romans 5? But there is nothing about it.

Lee concocted this teaching from type and his imagination. Jesus equated himself to the brass serpent that Moses lifted up (Jn 3:14). So Lee decided that meant that Jesus represented Satan on the cross and so that must mean Satan is in man's body. He also said that since Paul said "in my flesh dwells nothing good" (Rm 7:18) the word "dwells" indicated someone is dwelling in man's flesh and so that must be Satan. Voila!

Now, this kind of exposition might--might!--be okay if there were also clear plain word teachings about this matter. But since there are not, one would have to say that basing such a crucial teaching on such flimsy biblical evidence is highly questionable.

The only way to get people to believe this stuff is to convince them that you are the minister of the age and train them to fear questioning your haphazard theology.

Oh, wait a minute. Lee did that.

[OBW]

Yes, Ohio brought the verses out that plainly said what we know to be true. It is disobedience that separated us from God and brought in sin.

And before that, Igzy pointed out that Satan was the snake, not the tree, so eating its fruit did not put Satan into us. It seems fairly certain that Satan is not all-present and all-powerful. Neither is he all-knowing. He is a spiritual being, but his presence is limited. So if he is the snake enticing and watching Adam and Eve eat, then he is not in the fruit.

But we (in Adam and Eve) proved that we were disobeying because we didn't just think about it — we did the deed. We ate it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, Ohio brought the verses out that plainly said what we know to be true. It is disobedience that separated us from God and brought in sin.

And before that, Igzy pointed out that Satan was the snake, not the tree, so eating its fruit did not put Satan into us. It seems fairly certain that Satan is not all-present and all-powerful. Neither is he all-knowing. He is a spiritual being, but his presence is limited. So if he is the snake enticing and watching Adam and Eve eat, then he is not in the fruit.

But we (in Adam and Eve) proved that we were disobeying because we didn't just think about it — we did the deed. We ate it.

Right. The act proved the mind of disobedience was there. It made it verifiable.

In a sense, the tree was like a MacGuffin in a movie. A MacGuffin, you might know, is a movie term for any object or concept that motivates the characters and drives the plot. An example would be the ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or saving the world from nuclear destruction in MI:Ghost Protocol. But it could be anything, and in a sense it doesn't matter what it is, because what really matters is how the characters react and respond to the motivation of the MacGuffin, not the MacGuffin itself.

Same with the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The tree in a sense was really nothing, except a verifier that man had disobeyed, because in choosing their own wisdom over God's they had already "eaten from the tree."

[Cal]

More thoughts:

Lee's theology was that if you take in the Spirit, more God gets added to you being. He set up a parallel to this by saying that when man committed Original Sin, Satan got injected into his body.

So, according to Lee, Satan is in our bodies, God is in our spirits, and we are in the middle in our soul. One of those neat and tidy little pictures that Lee liked to force out of scripture in not so neat and tidy ways.

My question is: If more God can be added to your being when you enjoy God, why doesn't more Satan get added to your body when you sin? Why is Satan's adding once for all, but God's adding is gradual?

And why would Satan's adding corrupt us completely in an instant, but adding God doesn't change us that much? Is Satan's nature stronger than God's?

And if man needed Satan added to his body in order to fall, what got added to Satan when he himself fell? Why could Satan corrupt himself by disobedience, but we require Satan's nature to become corrupt?

Again, such questions point out the serious holes in Lee's theology in this area.

[UntoHim]

The real battleground is the will. Man (and apparently the angels) were created with a free will. To some degree Satan won the initial battle over the flesh, but we know from the Word that he will eventually lose the war. Through man's disobedience - through the submission of his will to do the will of Satan - sin entered the world and through sin came death. When we submit our will to the will of God, we will still suffer the consequences of man's original disobedience (the death of our mortal body) but we receive the eternal life God, which will allow us to escape the punishment reserved for Satan and his angels.

Free will even comes into play when we consider the relationship between the Father and Son. Right at the beginning of the Lord Jesus' ministry, Satan came to tempt the Man Jesus. He had been without food for 40 days. His body was weak. Satan temptation was for Jesus to leave the will of the Father. We know what happened there. Then the night of his crucifixion came the ultimate test. What was his prayer to the Father? "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."

We still have a free will. That is the one thing Satan could not take from man. He still cannot take that from man. The battle today is still over our will.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, such questions point out the serious holes in Lee's theology in this area.

And they also point out the value of this kind of forum. In the LC system such questions cannot be uttered with your out loud voice. You must accept Witness Lee's teachings on all things. This venue opens things up for analysis and discussion.

I hope SavedbyGrace comes back here for further discussion!

[Ohio]

... computer glitch ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks for the quotes, Ohio. Yes, it is plain here that the problem was the offense, the disobedience. There is nothing here about man getting injected with Satan's nature.
. Voila!

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, Ohio brought the verses out that plainly said what we know to be true. It is disobedience that separated us from God and brought in sin.

I actually looked at those verses for me. Until the other day, I still was convinced that this teaching by WL was based on scripture. It seemed to make sense and fit the record of the Bible, but never did the Bible go back to place the blame of the fall on what Adam ate, rather than on the simple fact that he ate it, in direct disobedience to the Lord's command.

How many times did WL and others repeat the example of a child opening the medicine bottle and eating the pills. The punchline was constantly reinforced: as the mother was far more concerned above the child being poisoned, than the child's act of disobedience, so God was far more concerned about Adam's being poisoned than his act of disobedience. If being "poisoned" was so much more serious than "disobedience," then don'cha all think the Bible would have told us?!?

Why is it that WL "saw" things in the scripture that neither the Lord nor the apostles saw. Most of us in the Recovery ate this subtle leaven unknowingly and the results were simple: we spent far more time "eating" the ministry of WL in order to be "healed," than paying attention to righteousness and the Lord's commands. This explains why all the ranking Blendeds can coverup crimes of immorality and unrighteousness at LSM, and yet make sure they are "eating" today's ministry word for morning revival.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that WL "saw" things in the scripture that neither the Lord nor the apostles saw. Most of us in the Recovery ate this subtle leaven unknowingly and the results were simple: we spent far more time "eating" the ministry of WL in order to be "healed," than paying attention to righteousness and the Lord's commands. This explains why all the ranking Blendeds can coverup crimes of immorality and unrighteousness at LSM, and yet make sure they are "eating" today's ministry word for morning revival.

I know that I am one who harps on the automatic use of leaven as something negative. But this time, that is exactly what it is. Something small and seemingly harmless that is added with the result that the thing it is added to — in this case scripture — is changed.

When the Kingdom is added, the results can only be positive. But when a misreading is added to scripture, the result is more people join in misreading.

And while I don't think that all of these were willful deception by Lee, it does show that he was more interested in finding what he thought was in the Bible than finding what was actually there. In other words, he spent too much time reading things into the scripture — adding to it — than letting is tell us what is already there.

And this is, by definition, not a good teacher. Certainly far from any kind of global "minister of the age." More like spinner of tales, synthesizer of cultures, or maybe even mesmerizer.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I actually looked at those verses for me. Until the other day, I still was convinced that this teaching by WL was based on scripture.

Funny how that keeps happening to us all.

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny how that keeps happening to us all.

Outside the LC system which is completely immersed in Witness Lee's theology it is easier to be objective when we come to God's word. Instead of getting "out of our minds" we can use our sober minds to calmly consider what the Bible actually says.

Witness Lee's careless mishandling of this passage in Genesis had far reaching implications and applications. It was extrapolated until any questioning of his teaching or practice was condemned as "eating from the wrong tree". And since questions ended with a question mark - the shape of a snake - they were from Satan.

So with this as a backdrop teachings emerged such as: it's not about right and wrong it's about life. Do you feel "life"when you question Witness Lee? - The Ministry? Eventually it simply became a license for Witness Lee and his son and his successors to do whatever they want and nobody was allowed to question it and if you did = you are of Satan.

[OBW]

I started looking back at the beginning of this thread.

In post #7 I said

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

Shortly after, the reply in post #11 is

The word is used in Corinthians to say that if you are joined to a prostitute you sin against your own body. How could that sin not refer to diseases like AIDS? How can the transmission of AIDS not be organic?

This is the kind of illogic and misunderstanding that Igzy and others are standing against.

The response uses off-point issues to establish an organic union. The fact that disease is passed from one person to another does not establish the kind of "organic union" that Lee spoke of. For Lee, it means that there is a permanent life connection that cannot be broken. He is not talking about simply the passing of separate organic things between persons, or between man and God. He is talking about them becoming literally one.

And even if engaging with a prostitute is called sinning against your own body, that is "me" sinning against "my" body and is not described as the result of something organic. It is no more organic than sticking two long stem roses together into a vase. They remain separate although there is a shared environment.

Now scripture clearly refers to a husband and wife as being one. But it does not declare them to be a single organic entity. In terms of "organic," other than the fact that they will pass many "foreign" organic items between themselves due to extreme proximity and intimacy, they remain two separate organic entities. Their souls, psyches, wills, etc., become unified, but even in that, not literally singular. Only unified. There is a difference between union into one and unified.

And AIDS is not a determiner of organic union. Yes, you might get it from a prostitute. But you can also get it from certain less committed activities, such as other bodily fluids, including blood (which can transmit its diseases without any intimacy).

I don't want to draw out the source of this particular argument. But it does show to me the kind of "stuck" mentality that we all got learning from Lee. We start to repackage everything, even science, to fit a view of theology that is not consistent with scripture.

[OBW]

In #43, Igzy said

I'm not disagreeing, but this is off the subject of whether or not "Christ is worked into our being." Please stay on topic. Thanks.

In reply ZNP says

No it's not. This process that you describe is also the same process that the NT describes and that WL taught. WL taught that this results in Christ spreading into your soul . . .

As I read this, I see that there is an agreement that there is a process. But there is nothing provided to this point in the thread that supports the end of the portion of ZNP's post that I quoted (and it's not in the remainder that I didn't quote).

Beyond what Igzy and ZNP agree on, Lee taught that "this results in Christ spreading into your soul." But just because he says that is what it is does not make it so. It is a way to describe it. It could turn out to be correct. But there is nothing to support it, so there is no way to insist that it is the correct description. Instead, the silence on the subject in scripture would suggest that there is nothing about that kind of meaning that would be important to our understanding. So it is almost certain that even if it turns out to be true, it does not stand up to combat the evidence that it is no different in our experience to progressively learning to obey through the help of the Holy Spirit without any insistence upon him being in our soul.

And the mentality of the "organic union" proponents is too often to insist that we should never try to do anything. They say that trying is just works and is of the law. But experience and scripture would seem to say that to not try is to never do. And to never do is to evidence that there is nothing spiritual going on. It is all window dressing. While there is a place that says something like "they who wait on the Lord will renew their strength" it should be noted that it does not say that "they who wait on the Lord won't need strength because it will just happen." It would seem that the Lord does provide strength. And strength is pointless if not used. There will be no "mounting up," no "running," and no opportunity to discover that we won't "grow weary or faint."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He said he was in the petrified forest, he knew the "wood" was actually stone, but one little twig look so convincing he just kicked it. He was wearing sneakers and broke his toe. So how does a "twig" become stone if their isn't an organic change in nature. So yes, I think the Triune God, who is very weighty, has, to some extent, been worked into my soul.

This is not really a very good example of organic union. It is more like inorganic replacement. As the wood decays, rather than just being out on the ground, turning to dust and blowing away, it is inundated with minerals transported in water. Those minerals combine with certain natural elements of the wood such that the color remains in place.

But the organic thing that is wood is slowly replaced by minerals which are not organic. In the end, there is no wood. Only the hint that wood was once there. This would be a great example of something replacing something else. But not of something becoming in union organically. And even if the replacement metaphor is desired, you then need to be focused on evidence in scripture that such a thing is happening.

The purpose of a metaphor is not to force a reading that is not there. It is to better explain what is otherwise clearly there. So if the underlying scripture is not describing replacement, then using an example of petrified wood is to misinterpret, or miss-explain, the passage. The fact that an example/metaphor describes replacement does not prove that the passage is talking about replacement. You must start with a passage that describes replacement. So pulling out one example after another is pointless if you are not going to link it to some scripture that is actually saying what you are trying to say with your metaphor.

Once again, the purpose of this rehash of old posts is not to run down any particular poster. But he has demonstrated something that is going on in most of our minds too much of the time. We buy Lee's thinking because we heard it so much. We almost immediately turn to it as being the truth because we think we learned it as being true. But Lee skipped an important part in the process. He didn't start with scripture that said what he was saying. He took an example and declared that it was an excellent way to understand it and we never put our good minds to use to see if we agreed. We just agreed.

And we continue to agree. We look out at other Christians and their organizations and automatically see degradation and Babylon. We never stopped to determine whether it was actually true. Lee fed us the (il)logic and we bought it. And if we started to question, there was either an inner or outer "get out of your mind" to help us avoid rational thought.

[Cal]

Here's an example of how Lee distorted things with his "life versus knowledge" mindset. This from The Economy of God:

The enemy tries to frustrate us from discerning our spirit, and soon after we are saved, he does this by helping us make a decision to do good. No one is exempt from this subtle suggestion. Even this morning some have prayed, “Lord, I want to do Your will; I want to please You; I will try my best to do the things that satisfy You.” This sounds like a good prayer, but it is not from the Lord. Rather, it comes from the enemy. Whenever we have such good intentions, we must jump up and tell Satan to depart from us. In my Christian dictionary there is not such a word as evil, nor is there such a word as good. From the beginning to the end my Christian dictionary contains only one word—Christ. I understand neither good nor evil. I do not want help to do good; I want only Christ.

Now here's what the Bible says about good and evil (just a sampling):

Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. Ps. 34:14

Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Ps. 37:3

Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph. Amos 5:15

In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. Matt 5:16

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Luke 6:35

Those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. Jn. 5:29

Note: Since Jesus himself spoke the last three verses, apparently good and evil were in his dictionary.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Rm. 12:9

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Rm. 12:21

And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. Heb 13:16

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. James 4:17

[Cal]

This "good versus Christ" mentality had severe detrimental effects on us. For one, it caused us to despise any simple goodness that we could categorize as "not Christ." Thus the husband ignoring his sick wife's need for help with the dishes.

It took me a long time to learn again to appreciate the good that people do, whether they are Christians or not. For a long time, I looked down my nose at everything that wasn't of the LRC, from charitable efforts to simple acts of kindness. If it wasn't "Christ," I considered it worthless. What rot! The Bible says God appreciates those things, no matter what Lee says.

"And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." Heb 13:16

[Ohio]

It's amazing that we could not differentiate between good works and dead works.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This "good versus Christ" mentality had severe detrimental effects on us. For one, it caused us to despise any simple goodness that we could categorize as "not Christ." Thus the husband ignoring his sick wife's need for help with the dishes.

No one ever dared to question whether serving at LSM was "out of our natural man," or whether the FTTA was just "dead works," or if reading the ministry books was "not Christ."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's amazing that we could not differentiate between good works and dead works.

Good works are dead works.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one ever dared to question whether serving at LSM was "out of our natural man," or whether the FTTA was just "dead works," or if reading the ministry books was "not Christ."

Because then it's different, it's "just presenting our mortal bodies".

Two sides to everything, remember?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Good works are dead works.

I hope you are simply quoting the LSM/LRC mantra in a mocking voice, because good works are good works. Dead works are dead works. They are sometimes one and the same, but much of the time they are not. It is not so simple as Lee taught us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Good works are dead works.

Got some proof?

Care to show some scripture?

[Cal]

RE: Lee's teaching that Satan indwells our flesh.

Jesus said:

"Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world."

If Satan was in our flesh, why didn't Jesus say, Greater is He that is in your spirit than he who is in your body?

Or, alternatively, why didn't he say, Greater is He that will be in you than he that is in you now?

Jesus specifically referred to himself is indwelling you, while Satan is more generally in the world, meaning the environment. Because his statement implies that Satan is NOT in the "you" he is referring.

Also, Satan is never referred to as the prince of our body, or even the prince of our flesh. However, he is referred to as the prince of the power of the air.

The implication is that Satan exists in our environment, in the world and the "air," but not our bodies.

For Satan to indwell our bodies would require him to be omnipresent. I don't think the Bible supports this view or the view that he is omniscient. Witness Lee's theology has a lot of holes and when they are confronted it seems those who defend it cannot withstand serious refutation.

This thread took an interesting turn when it began to talk about the two tree in the garden, more specifically what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil and what happened when Adam and Eve ate of it.

An important point: It is the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL, not just the tree of knowledge as someone pointed out above. Knowledge alone can't be condemned across the board, neither can the knowledge of good and evil for that matter. We're now greatly responsible and in some sense without excuse...

I think the thrust of the argument lies in disobedience, in unbelief. God's word was called into question, questioned and then disobeyed. Did God REALLY say...Whatever happened at that decisive moment something changed. Sin began to reign over us, and even within us.

I don't know enough of LSM's take on this to comment, but I don't see how, scriptually, they could go any further/deeper.

[OBW]

I find it even more interesting that when Adam and Eve disobeyed and partook of the forbidden tree, they got exactly what they sought for — knowledge of good and evil.

And what they learned from it is that the very gaining of that knowledge was evil.

When I started thinking about this a little while ago, I realized that they already had knowledge of good and evil. But it was not self-knowledge, rather knowledge that was supplied by God. When they ate of the tree, it says their eyes were opened. Among the first recognitions of evil were their own observation that they were naked (exposed) and that they had disobeyed. And it did them no good. They could realize that they had done wrong, but they could do nothing about it.

And left to our own devices, our propensity is toward evil. And our response relative to God is to try and hide it from him. Our only hope is to return our thoughts to God. Our will to God. Our source to the original Source.

Originally Posted by OBW

Among the first recognitions of evil were their own observation that they were naked (exposed) and that they had disobeyed. And it did them no good. They could realize that they had done wrong, but they could do nothing about it.

And left to our own devices, our propensity is toward evil. And our response relative to God is to try and hide it from him. Our only hope is to return our thoughts to God. Our will to God. Our source to the original Source.

Good point. Especially the part about having to return to God.

[Cal]

I've thought about this nakedness thing with Adam and Eve and what the overall meaning was.

It wasn't that because they sinned that nakedness suddenly became wrong. They were still husband and wife alone with nothing but a bunch of animals and plants. So why shouldn't they be naked?

The problem was that they'd become aware, though probably not fully understanding why, that nakedness in their new state of being fallen would in some situations be inappropriate, but not necessarily in the situation they were in at the time.

So their new knowledge of good and evil was imperfect. It was fuzzy. It was unreliable. But because they were separated from God, it was the best they presently had.

What Satan told them was a classic Satan lie. It was only partly true. They were like God in that they knew good and evil. They were unlike God in that their knowledge of good and evil was flawed, fuzzy and incomplete.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've thought about this nakedness thing with Adam and Eve and what the overall meaning was. . . .

Yeah, I know what you mean. We can pull another "it's simply symbolic of their spiritual state" like many before us, including Lee.

We can say it has a different symbolic meaning, like they realized that they were exposed in many ways and the nakedness was simply the most obvious.

We could assert that with a mind now fallen, there was their own realization of how they looked upon each other, therefore a level of wanting to hide — even from each other — due to the beginnings of lust and other related issues.

And any of these could be true, or at least partly so.

But I think you get it right when you say that their knowledge was flawed. And no better way to evidence that than to realize that evil includes the disobedience it took to get the knowledge to know it was evil. I'd be hiding too. I might even look for something a little less important to point to, like nakedness, rather than admitting that I had disobeyed. So faulty logic begets faulty logic.

I heard someone read a very interesting little pit of prose that was supposed to be Adam's very well thought-out response to God concerning the eating from the tree. In essence, he very logically blamed it on the excellent mind that God gave him so that he could ponder and decide that partaking would be a good idea.

And, as has been quoted here all too many times, God made man in His image and we've been returning the favor ever since.