Website full of hate, finger pointing and blaming

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.

And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."

Originally Posted by Unreg

Some believers in Laodicea are lukewarm in their love for the Lord, thinking they have need of nothing and they are counseled to buy gold and eyesalve that they may see. This is not hatred speaking from the Lord. It is to enlighten believers and warn them. Same when RK and MR use these portions of the Holy Word. Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

Yes, we do need eyesalve - I agree. But RK and MR and MC also need eyesalve. WL and WN desperately - desperately! - needed eyesalve. When witnesses came forward over the years to warn them, they were castigated as "rebellious" and shunned. In Chinese culture, it's simply unthinkable to correct the head of a Guanxi network. WL told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Lord. That statement was wishful thinking, and today we can clearly see the effect of that. The untrammeled subjectivity + the fallen human soul = a trap. When WL corrected someone it was an adjustment, but when someone corrected him it was an accusation and an attack.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.

And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."

Yes, we do need eyesalve - I agree. But RK and MR and MC also need eyesalve. WL and WN desperately - desperately! - needed eyesalve. When witnesses came forward over the years to warn them, they were castigated as "rebellious" and shunned. In Chinese culture, it's simply unthinkable to correct the head of a Guanxi network. WL told us that China was "virgin soil" for the Lord. That statement was wishful thinking, and today we can clearly see the effect of that. The untrammeled subjectivity + the fallen human soul = a trap. When WL corrected someone it was an adjustment, but when someone corrected him it was an accusation and an attack.

aron,

Your post appears to exemplify the very points asserted in the base note! Don't they?

The thought -- yes, I need eyesalve but so do they! --is that not finger pointing? What is blaming if not your characterizations about WL? It may not be hate, I can't tell for sure, but certainly the mocking "Gunaxi network" characterization lacks the tone of Christian love.

Isn't that what Unreg means? Look, you might not have intended it, just sayin it looks like it.

Be that as it may, the more important point is this: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius all taught the deification of His believers and the matter is laid out carefully in the ministry of Brother Lee. Other church fathers were also mentioned by both Brother Nee and Brother Lee when it was relevant to a topic. Brother Lee and Brother Nee's messages are available in a few clicks at lsm.org ....free to anyone who wants to understand when they said and why, including citations and commentary about the church fathers.

This came out when deification was being opposed.. you said "promoted" as if Brother Lee was running a marketing campaign of some sort. As it often occurred in the sacred canon and evidenced throughout church history biblical truths were unveiled due to opposition. For instance, when the spirit of antichrist appeared in the early church and some began opposing the deity of Christ, the very eternal God come in the flesh, then the writings of John were released. Opposition to Martin Luther helped recover the biblical truth of salvation and justification by faith. The truth was already there, but the opposition to it facilitated its unveiling. And no, their writings are not scripture and may or may not be teachings from the Bible but they are instructive either way.

As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider factually representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it when you were there. All the opposition research needed is just a few clicks away that can be used as a factual base to criticize their teachings and present an informed opinion.

Happy to continue conversation on this last point in a separate note. There is probably one on the topic already. Believe this one is applicable:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...7&postcount=38

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider accurately representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it in all your years there. All the opposition research you need is just a few clicks away. Then you could criticize their teachings with an informed opinion.

As a teacher in the Local Churches, you too should "consider accurately representing the teachings" of the Bible which you claim to love and minister from. Truth is Drake, you are simply a teacher of Witness Lee, and not a teacher of the Bible.

WL, on occasion (I'll let you source this from LSM's vast online opus), rejected these same deification teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, until the storm/rebellion caused by his son, Philip Lee in the late 80's. Remember that he was the "Office Manager" running all the LC's while Dad was in Taiwan. I participated in every LSM training (live and video) from 1975 to 1990, and I never heard WL teach deification. Mingling, yes, but deification, no.

Then he suddenly changed. I believe he reversed course to re-direct the attention of the remaining LC "faithful" away from the facts of the chaos in Anaheim. As he had done for decades, WL framed the coverup of his son's criminal actions molesting the sisters as "persecution, rebellion, leprous contaminations, vast global conspiracy, yada, yada." WL and his lackeys publicly and privately smeared the reputations of all those who dared to protect their saints from Philip Lee abuses.

It was then that WL began to peddle (2 Cor 2.17) his heretical "high peak" truths as the latest "recovery" lost for thousands of years. What a contrast we see in the Apostles who "renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience before God." (2 Cor 4.2)

WL then resurrected Athanasius from the dead as some 4th century MOTA. His lackeys were charged to find "deification" everywhere. They couldn't find it in scripture, so the church "Fathers" had to do. This is no way disrespects any of these great men of God who fought the good fight of the faith, including Athanasius and so many who were faithful martyrs, but is not our faith tied to the scriptures, and the scriptures alone?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The thought -- yes, I need eyesalve but so do they! --is that not finger pointing? What is blaming if not your characterizations about WL? It may not be hate, I can't tell for sure, but certainly the mocking "Gunaxi network" characterization lacks the tone of Christian love.

Isn't that what Unreg means? Look, you might not have intended it, just sayin it looks like it.

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the trenchant critique. My comments on eyesalve were based on Jesus' remarks in the gospels, "Don't call me good. None is good but the Father". So yes the posters here need eyesalve. But so does 'unreg' and 'Drake' and RK. But simply saying the tone lacks Christian love is a deflection, avoiding the actual contents. Especially when nobody - nobody - in the LC can make such remarks on the tone of the speaker at the dais. I remember when RK said, "Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister", and he spoke the last two words like he was spitting out rotten food. Is that "tone" not of "hate speech"? Yet none of us said a word. In the LC you don't correct the Grand Poobah.

Which was why I said it's a Guanxi network. There's a strong unexamined cultural element, which lack of reflection and examination directly benefits the inner circle and their immediate families. WL would examine American culture in front of us, but none of us could examine his embedded Chinese presuppositions. Yet there they were, and their effect lingers. The cure will only come from exposure. Sorry if that makes you or others uncomfortable. But I consider it necessary.

In fact I daresay that it would be unchristian not to warn people that this is a Guanxi network. There's an culture of silence and complicity in the LC that needs to be overturned, like the money-changers' tables, else the bodies and souls of many will remain captured and enslaved. We sat silently, listening to curses like the one came forth from RK and our complicity brought us under their spell. The spell must be broken!

Originally Posted by Hope

The elders used a model that Witness Lee had used in China and Taiwan. All the members of the church were organized into various service groups: children’s meetings, cleaning, yard work, visitation etc. They also appointed four deacons including myself four deacons, one of which was myself. Ray [Graver] met with me personally to go over the entire service list. He emphasized that I was the number one deacon and should communicate with each service group through the number one person listed under each group. I was specifically charged to draw up a procedural manual for the deacons called “the common way.” This was a term and practice lifted directly from Witness Lee’s practice in China and Taiwan.

The problem is not Chinese culture per se: it's rather that Chinese culture isn't recognized, and is instead mistaken for something divine. The clear indicators that this was/is a Guanxi network are that the greatest beneficiaries of the assembled church were not the poor, or the unbelievers, but the immediate family members of Witness Lee, and that when this influence was repeatedly abused and exposed, the elders (Max Rappoport, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, etc) got expelled and the Number One remained. In a Western-centric church, Titus 1:6 or some other NT passage would be cited and the Number One would go. Consider for example the Boston/International Churches of Christ, who removed founder and leader Kip McKean because of family. In the West this is tenable, in the East unthinkable. Same Bible, but different cultural interpretations and stresses, even though both (ICC and LC) are fundamentalist biblical and evangelical 'Christian' groups.

Originally Posted by Hope

In 1962, there was a World’s Fair in Seattle, Washington. (The Space Needle was built on this occasion.) Witness Lee and his son, Timothy, had an exhibit at the fair. They displayed and attempted to sell manufactured goods from Taiwan. They had raised funds from members of the local churches in Taiwan. The endeavor was a failure and the products stored in a warehouse. The problems created by this business failure made it difficult for Witness Lee to return to the churches in Taiwan in good graces. But I believe this human failure opened the door for a blessing for many of the seeking Christians in the USA in those early years (since Witness Lee remained in this country as a result of the problem, and ministered.)

There's a clear repeated pattern of business irregularities involving the Lee family and church members' money, stretching back before Daystar.

Originally Posted by Hope

Starting around 1972, Witness Lee expressed a concern for the financial suffering of the migrating saints and their need to be able to purchase proper meeting places. I was in a meeting of visiting elders and co-workers in which he introduced the Daystar business. He shared that his son Timothy had approached him about a business and that the business seemed to Witness Lee to be ideal for us (the local churches). The brothers and sisters could invest money, earn a nice profit of around 35%, and generate significant profit for the support of the new churches. He then spoke of manufacturing only the finest product. We could produce the product in Taiwan, which would help the believers there with employment and sell the product in the USA. He spoke at length concerning how the members of the churches should only invest their surplus and that he felt very positive that this was of the Lord. The business consisted of manufacturing and selling an expensive motor home. This was certainly a very different meeting than anything I had ever attended. I and others left with our heads spinning.

Not all pseudo-Christian groups that so flagrantly abuse the "deputy authority" concept have their roots in Asian culture. But this one does, and it's probably why group membership has become Asian majority, even where Asians still are in minority. It's not a local church, it's a culturally-dominated personality cult fronting a guanxi network.

Originally Posted by Hope

Linko was something that the office came up with. It was presented as an example of the wonderful God ordained leadership of the recovery. After a lot of money was raised and spent on the property and many plans made and a great hub bub made, the brilliant office learned that the land had not been approved for development and was basically useless.

I never supported this project and the young BBs promoted it as a means to humble the elders. Minuro gave a stirring speech at an elders coworkers meeting about how the elders would be blessed if they went to Linko and shoveled dirt. He promised that the Spirit would enliven you as you shoveled dirt and they would be greatly rewarded spiritually if they gave up being an elder and went to Linko to shovel dirt.

...After a meeting, we permitted brother Chang to present his vitamin business. I bought some. Also we were contacted about a savings program that the LSM was sponsoring to encourage the young people to save their surplus. It was called “the little bankers.” An elder in a church would collect and record additions and interest to someone's account. I was asked to take care of the Dallas saints. I had a meeting with some of the young people and a few put in a few dollars. Unfortunately, I put $500 into an account for myself. We all thought we could just withdraw at any time. Then I learned the money went for a last ditch effort to keep Daystar afloat. Say goodbye to it. Later, WL asked me to sign a waver of forgiveness from the LSM. Silly me. I signed the release and kissed the money good-bye. Compared to what many lost in Daystar etc my little bit was something to just forget about.

I never mentioned Linko in Dallas but it was a big deal in Irving complete with models of the buildings to be built etc. Because the church in Dallas would not join in the cheerleading and fund raising from Irving there was more and more a strained relationship. Dallas did give money for Irving and the goal and purpose for the facility was shared. Benson came over a time or two and did some fund raising for that hall after a Lord’s table.

Usually Dallas had a sizable surplus in our bank accounts. On three occasions in Texas area elders meetings Benson and Ray put a press on Dallas to release our extra funds for Irving and LSM. We said no each time as our conscience did not agree that the money had been given by the saints for the questionable projects. This put quite a strain on our relationship.

In China today, if you publicly criticize Chairman Mao, 40 years after his death, you'll lose your job. Similarly, if you mention Linko or the Seattle World's Fair or Daystar or other business boondoggles that benefitted the immediate family of Witness Lee, even 25 years after his death, you'll be summarily expelled from the LC. Some have said that this is coincidental, but I think it's because both groups carry the cultural presupposition of silence equaling group stability: to criticize top leadership threaten the group's existence. In the West it's the opposite: if top leadership is found to be crooked they get removed and the group is restored. Both emphases, of course, can distort the Bible. A balanced, fair and open approach to understanding the Bible and our collective history is needed.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

First, no matter how great Athanasius was, does God say "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God?"

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It is the teaching of the Bible.

Can you show me the verses, please?
I can find justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification, glorified, but I can't find deify.

Here is an article to share with you:https://www.gotquestions.org/deification.html

What the Eastern Orthodox Church calls “deification” might be understood by evangelicals as the new birth and subsequent sanctification. But the Orthodox concept of deification takes sanctification further to include a mystical union with God. The biggest problem with the doctrine is not the term deification but the means to it, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. According to the New Testament, we are united with Christ, filled with the fullness of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, and declared to be right with God on the basis of faith in Christ. It is not something that happens as the result of a (perhaps) lifelong pursuit of unity with God through effort and discipline. In Christ we have become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:14). The actual experience of this can ebb and flow, but the fact of it never changes.

The great question that must be answered by every religion that takes a holy God seriously is “how can a sinful man stand before God and be fully justified?” There are really only two answers. Either God accepts the sinner based on some effort on the part of the sinner to attain a state of righteousness or God accepts the sinner on the basis of Christ’s righteousness credited to the sinner. Unfortunately, the Eastern Orthodox process of deification seems to fall squarely within the first option.

Originally Posted by unregistered

Looks like you need some eyesalve that you may see the intentions and motives of these two brothers, huh?

Of course, we buy eyesalve from the Holy Spirit but not from man.
Num.23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie.
Rom.3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar;

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Athanasius stated, "Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." Believers being deified is not Witness Lee or Martin Luther or Hudson Taylor teaching. It is the teaching of the Bible.

Athanasius may say it, but if the Bible doesn't also say it, it ain't the teaching of the Bible.

"Inherit everlasting life" doesn't mean "become God".

The tree of life was in the middle of the garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were kept from that tree so they wouldn't not eat of it and live forever. Presumably, if they hadn't sinned, they would have maintained unrestricted access to the tree of life, freely eaten of the tree of life, and thus lived forever. After all, death is the wages of sin, and if they hadn't sinned, they wouldn't have done anything to receive the punishment of death for.

Does Adam and Eve having access to the tree of life so they can live forever mean they were God because of it? No. They were human beings who were allowed access to live forever.

This "become God" thing just doesn't hold up any way you look at it.

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

"Inherit everlasting life" doesn't mean "become God". The tree of life was in the middle of the garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were kept from that tree so they wouldn't not eat of it and live forever... Does Adam and Eve having access to the tree of life so they can live forever mean they were God because of it? No. They were human beings who were allowed access to live forever.

There's a footnote at the end of the RecV, on the tree of life, where it says the 'nations' (Gk: 'ethnoi') get healed by the leaves of the tree, and the note says that these are unbelievers who behave well during the 3.5 year "Great Tribulation" and get access to healing. The note then says, "They live forever, yet this is not eternal life". (I paraphrase by memory).

There's a certain point where the finite tries to explain infinity, where the fallible tries to show perfection, and the temporal incautiously grasps at eternity, and the finite, temporal, fallible logic takes the bearer off somewhere, like where Witness Lee and his disciples got taken off to. I don't know where that is, and I don't want to. I have enough trouble already, without getting into his trouble, too!

There's a Russian proverb that says, "No matter how far you've gone on the wrong road, turn back."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There's a footnote at the end of the RecV, on the tree of life, where it says the 'nations' (Gk: 'ethnoi') get healed by the leaves of the tree, and the note says that these are unbelievers who behave well during the 3.5 year "Great Tribulation" and get access to healing. The note then says, "They live forever, yet this is not eternal life". (I paraphrase by memory).

There's a certain point where the finite tries to explain infinity, where the fallible tries to show perfection, and the temporal incautiously grasps at eternity, and the finite, temporal, fallible logic takes the bearer off somewhere, like where Witness Lee and his disciples got taken off to. I don't know where that is, and I don't want to. I have enough trouble already, without getting into his trouble, too!

There's a Russian proverb that says, "No matter how far you've gone on the wrong road, turn back."

Most of WL's ideas and teachings on these subjects are not his own, but taken from others, most of whom were not Brethren or Recovery. We should not categorically reject teachings just because they were WL's.

The mission of Schoettle Publishing Company is to keep many of these scholarly books in circulation for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. I'll post his mission from his website:

Schoettle (pronounced as "shuttle") Publishing Company, Inc. has been been publishing quality Bible commentaries and studies for over twenty-five years regarding the Kingdom of God. In many instances, it is impossible to obtain these resources elsewhere. There are more than eighty titles relating to events leading up to the Judgment Seat of Christ and His Millennial Kingdom from which to choose.

Before you start throwing Russian proverbs around, please do yourself a service and peruse what many Christian scholars have written concerning the Kingdom of God and end times eschatology.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most of WL's ideas and teachings on these subjects are not his own, but taken from others, most of whom were not Brethren or Recovery. We should not categorically reject teachings just because they were WL's.

I just read Robert Govett's "Revelation Vol 2" on the subject, and he says that these 'ethnoi' are mortals, not immortal, but they live in "perpetual health" in their non-resurrected state. Hmm... perpetual mortals. Doesn't something strike you as odd, here? No?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I just read Robert Govett's "Revelation Vol 2" on the subject, and he says that these 'ethnoi' are mortals, not immortal, but they live in "perpetual health" in their non-resurrected state. Hmm... perpetual mortals. Doesn't something strike you as odd, here? No?

Well ... most things in end times do strike me as "odd," and "perpetual health" does sound better than perpetual burning in the lake of fire.

Govett is trying to answer some tough questions like why does He say in Matt 25.32 that all the "ethnoi" nations will be gathered before Him. Why do these sheep get rewarded for giving the "least of the Lord's brothers" a drink, some food, etc. Why does an alternative opening exist into a "kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." They are called "blessed of My Father," but not redeemed, and there is no mention of faith for these ones.

Why are they "righteous" without faith in His redemption? Why do they enter "into eternal life" yet not the customary "have eternal life" as we believers? Why are these ones so "shocked" at the throne of glory of the Son of Man? This throne is neither the Bema seat for the children of God, not the great white throne at the end of Revelation.

I agree that Govett's "perpetual health" is not a Biblical phrase, but what would you call the condition of the future of these sheep?

We do know that some believers will "rule" together with the Lord. But who will they rule over? We also know that some Jews with be priests in the restored Davidic kingdom in Israel teaching the nations how to worship God.

It seems the Bible is way more complicated than Peter directing traffic at the "pearly gates."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems the Bible is way more complicated than Peter directing traffic at the "pearly gates."

It looks to me like you're creating a false choice set.

How about this choice set: the Bible was written by people who continued to distinguish between Jews and 'ethnoi'? I know Paul said, "Neither Jew nor Greek" but he also said "Neither male nor female" and then admonished wives to obey husbands, and said "Neither slave nor free" then admonished slaves to obey masters.

And Paul said, "All the churches of the gentiles" in Romans 16:4. If there were no more 'ethnoi' after believing in Jesus, why then call them that? The term is used consistently throughout the NT, from the gospels to the Apocalypse, and it builds on consistent usage in the LXX. No need for acrobatics to fit your theology. The Greek word in Rom 16:4 is 'ethnon' = gentiles.