Last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Nell

In a list of superficial things, Lee included the Lamb of God. Is that OK with you?

Another remarkably good example of Lee's loose speaking starting down a path that simply does not lead to more of Christ.

We'll never fully appreciate the depths of the mystery of Christ as the Lamb of God.

I don't think Lee actually meant it quite the way it came out but because even as he meant it he was belittling the portions of Christ our brothers and sisters everywhere have enjoyed, I'll object to it without further ado.

I praise the Lord that the saints everywhere can enjoy Him in such ways and I'm certain that their appreciation of such things, if they hold them fast, will ever-increase in depth and weight throughout eternity.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

In the western church soteriology has mostly focused on the cross and thus the Lamb of God and tends to be positional and judicial. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition the emphasis is on theosis or subjective and experiencial transformation. They are both equally important to a comprehensive understanding of soteriology.

I admire Lee for looking into the EO and bringing its emphasis to the attention of those unfamiliar with the matter of theosis. That he had to use such arrogance in the process unfortunately takes away from the good he had to offer.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Another remarkably good example of Lee's loose speaking ... I don't think Lee actually meant it quite the way it came out ....

I think he meant exactly what he said. These messages were out for 20+ years without him correcting his misstatements or the LSM editor's pen correcting his loose speaking. We all know the LSM editors and their rewriting messages to be unrecognizable when we sat there and heard the message ourselves, in person.

It's up to the speaker to communicate his beliefs to the audience. I don't know about you, but I can't tell you how many times I said to myself "he really didn't mean it that way". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, too.

At this point, I have read enough and heard enough in the past to know that Lee had at least 2 consistencies in his "ministry": 1) contempt for Christianity, 2) an excessive appreciation of his own words over the words of the Bible.

He believed the message of the Lamb of God was superficial, compared to his own teachings. He repeated this theme too many times.

Nell

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't know about you, but I can't tell you how many times I said to myself "he really didn't mean it that way". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, too.

Nell, I try to give all of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt all of the time, even when I'm clear that they are way off. People say and do some pretty wacky things in the name of Jesus and I know they usually mean well in it, even when the results are frankly harmful. I can definitely understand if some people's patience has become exhausted in a certain case, but I thought I was pretty clear in what I said in objecting to his statement as I (and apparently others) understood it. I'm sorry if you thought that objection wasn't worded strongly enough for some reason. Your objection to my objection is noted.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Nell, I try to give all of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt all of the time, even when I'm clear that they are way off. People say and do some pretty wacky things in the name of Jesus and I know they usually mean well in it, even when the results are frankly harmful. I can definitely understand if some people's patience has become exhausted in a certain case, but I thought I was pretty clear in what I said in objecting to his statement as I (and apparently others) understood it. I'm sorry if you thought that objection wasn't worded strongly enough for some reason. Your objection to my objection is noted.

YP--

You were very clear. I didn't think anything about your objection and its wording. I understand your point of view. My objection is stronger, but that's me. I liked your post...no objections...just the voice of moderation. I'm the one who came across too strong and I'm sorry.

Nell

[OBW]

"Every truth has two sides."

Are we really sure this is true? Lee said it all the time. He even built some interesting doctrines because of the supposed duality of everything.

But can we truly say that every truth has two sides? Does that lead us to seek for something in truth that may not be there? Are we presuming another side and therefore compelled to find and analyze it no matter how outrageous it may be?

I'm not saying anything about any particular post. I'm directly questioning this LC "axiom of truth." The problem with axioms is that they are stated as true, but you cannot prove it, you can only see the result as consistently true. Is this axiom really true? Are all of the "other sides" that Lee came up with actually true, and is it correct to always assume that there must be another side?

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Every truth has two sides."

Are we really sure this is true? Lee said it all the time. He even built some interesting doctrines because of the supposed duality of everything.

But can we truly say that every truth has two sides? Does that lead us to seek for something in truth that may not be there? Are we presuming another side and therefore compelled to find and analyze it no matter how outrageous it may be?

I'm not saying anything about any particular post. I'm directly questioning this LC "axiom of truth." The problem with axioms is that they are stated as true, but you cannot prove it, you can only see the result as consistently true. Is this axiom really true? Are all of the "other sides" that Lee came up with actually true, and is it correct to always assume that there must be another side?

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

Interesting catch, OBW. Honestly, I truly can't recall having picked this up - certainly not as a basic premise - in the LC (which doesn't mean it didn't happen). This is something I have been considering since my time out of the LC.

Yes, I think a thread on this would be helpful (at least to me). I would be interested in hearing the LC teaching on this (who knows, even though I don't remember it, perhaps it slipped into my subconscious after so many years and I need to address it). I can share with you some of the thoughts I've been pondering as of late on this issue of the two-foldness of truth...

Peter

p.s. btw, I'm not sure I agree even with myself that every truth has two sides - but that's not what you're challenging anyways (if i read you correctly)...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I truly can't recall having picked this up - certainly not as a basic premise - in the LC

I agree that it may be hard to pin down. But Lee kept using it as if it was simply an assumed fact.

Recently, someone pointed to some of Lee's teachings during the mid/late 80s where he said that chaos always followed the ministry. I'd never heard that one. But I read a little of it and it is even buried in there.

I know I spent several years speaking of the two sides to so many things even after leaving the LC as if it was simply a good assumption that there always was. I may not have been officially taught that, but I was taught it unofficially. I can hear it now. "If Lee didn't actually teach it, then it's just your own fault."

I know that he constantly said there were two sides to so many things. Some of them were clearly true. And I'm not sure that there is some place where he says in absolute terms that every truth has two sides. But every time he pointed to something with two sides, he would say the fact of the two sides in such a manner that we should have expected it — as if it should be assumed.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

(Is this worthy of it own thread?)

I'm not sure its "worthy", but it doesn't need to be on this thread. Mike, it's your catch.

Nell

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Nell

He believed the message of the Lamb of God was superficial, compared to his own teachings. He repeated this theme too many times. Nell

Yes, He did. He started by putting down the "low gospel" of Christianity which was Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (the Lamb). I am ashamed that I ever accepted this thought.

Did you ever hear W. Lee say "I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified?" I didn't.

What he continually exalted is apparent, as you said: his teachings. Look how many he led to worship at the altar of his teachings which bear the LSM logo. The chorus was growing louder and louder while I was there "Brother Lee said" "Brother Lee said." Now that chorus is dominant and those who will not worship at the altar of Lee according to the edict of the One Publication are "slain."

My heart gets really heavy thinking about all this. I helped build that kingdom and brought many to serve at the altar of Lee who are still there today.

Lord, have mercy on all of us, that we all might be ready to join that mighty chorus shouting "Worthy the Lamb." Deliver us from evil. Deliver us from idols. We don't want any one of your children to stand before you in shame. Help us, Lord, and do so quickly.

Open our lips and fill this earth with the saving message of the cross. May we lift high the name of Jesus. Rescue us from every deceptive high teaching that exalts itself against true knowledge of You. Help us to bring all of our thoughts into captivity to your obedience.

Save, Lord, as our King, hear us when we call.