Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The point was "Four-in-one God" is sloppy term to use. He shouldn't have done it. The fact that you have to jump through so many hoops to explain what you think he meant proves my point.

The Bible does not teach that we become God, whether the Godhead or otherwise. Lee mistaught. That's "bad Lee."

That (or otherwise") is the fundamental point of departure Igzy, between your understanding and WL's on this particular topic.

Though I hold a different view from you yet, I am not even trying to change your mind about that either. I would not even object to anyone being disgruntled about the use of the term "four-in-one" because it sounds too much like the Godhead term "three-in-one". A fair critique.

What I did object to is attributing a teaching to Witness Lee that he never held or taught. He has never taught that the Body collectively or any single member individually becomes incorporated into the Godhead and usually added that clarification as he did in the passage you quoted. But those clarifications are often overlooked because people tend to filter through the lens of their own personal beliefs. And in some cases people know WL did not teach a certain thing but for other reasons (that only God knows and will judge) they purposely mis-represent his teachings. For them there will be a greater judgment I believe. I do not think that you are purposely misrepresenting WL though just to be clear.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

That (or otherwise") is the fundamental point of departure Igzy, between your understanding and WL's on this particular topic.

Though I hold a different view from you yet, I am not even trying to change your mind about that either. I would not even object to anyone being disgruntled about the use of the term "four-in-one" because it sounds too much like the Godhead term "three-in-one". A fair critique.

What I did object to is attributing a teaching to Witness Lee that he never held or taught. He has never taught that the Body collectively or any single member individually becomes incorporated into the Godhead and usually added that clarification as he did in the passage you quoted. But those clarifications are often overlooked because people tend to filter through the lens of their own personal beliefs. And in some cases people know WL did not teach a certain thing but for other reasons (that only God knows and will judge) they purposely mis-represent his teachings. For them there will be a greater judgment I believe. I do not think that you are purposely misrepresenting WL though just to be clear.

I can understand your point. But what I think you fail to see is that there were some fundamental misconceptions in Lee's view which led to his problems.

The first is that because we partake of God's life and nature that we in some sense become God. This is not really supportable by scripture.

The second is the idea that we can somehow become God but not become the Godhead. God implies the Godhead and there is no God outside the Godhead. Saying we become God but not the Godhead is like saying someone becomes human but doesn't become a person. It's like saying I drank beer but didn't drink alcohol. It's just double-speak.

So when Lee started splitting these hairs he was asking to be misunderstood. You can't blame people for misunderstanding his double-speak.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I can understand your point. But what I think you fail to see is that there was some fundamental misconceptions in Lee's view which led to his problems.

The first is that because we partake of God's life and nature that we in some sense become God. This is not really supportable by scripture.

The second is the idea that we can somehow become God but not become the Godhead. God implies the Godhead and there is no God outside the Godhead. Saying we become God but not the Godhead is like saying someone becomes human but doesn't become a person. It's like saying I drank beer but didn't drink alcohol. It's just double-speak.

So when Lee started splitting these hairs he was asking to be misunderstood. You can't blame people for misunderstanding his double-speak.

I do not see it as doublespeak. It was something WL believed and he spoke the convictions of those beliefs. He also was a gifted Bible teacher and knew how to construct the teachings from the ground up. A math teacher might reiterate basic math fundamentals before launching into to a higher study of Trig or Calculus. Such a math teacher is not setting up his students to swallow false Calculus rules (as OBW suggests) but rather covering the fundamentals again so there is no misunderstanding about what he is about to say. That is just good teaching methodology.

Now if someone wants to ascribe sinister motives to that approach then they cannot be stopped and attempts to persuade them otherwise are futile and pointless since such a mentality will always reach the same conclusion.

And besides, there is no other way to explain such biblical mysteries if you believe them without sounding a bit double-spoken though it may be perfectly clear to yourself.

For instance, take this similar example: I think we will agree that the Godhead is eternally unchangeable, the same from eternity past to eternity future, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, co-existing in mutuality, etc. etc. Let's call this Assertion/Belief #1.

Now again for example: Does the Godhead now include the resurrected flesh of Jesus since His ascension? How does one explain how the resurrected flesh of Jesus is incorporated into the Godhead without violating Assertion.Belief #1? And if you believe that His resurrected flesh is not part of the Godhead then how does that work exactly with His resurrected body? Since, after all Jesus is God. And if you argue that His flesh was always part of the Godhead from eternity past then there will be some explaining to do about when flesh was created and when the Word became flesh and what is meant by the verses which talk about preparing a body for Him.

I do not mean that this is entirely unknowable in this life, I mean to say that explaining it will make one sound like they are engaging in doublespeak even if they have thought it through. If I were attempting to teach such a profound matter I would reiterate the fundamentals about Christ becoming a man, being born of a virgin, being the seed of the woman, resurrecting with a body, and of course, the unchangeable Godhead before launching into an explanation of the teaching above. A skeptic would claim I am prepping the students to receive something bad by telling them something good and true that they already know. And nothing would be farther from the truth. Rather I would be reaffirming the orthodox understanding of the Godhead, basics about the faith and who Jesus was and is and what happened to Him before attempting to explain the more complex, diffcult, and mysterious subject.

Now some of the students may not hunger or care for higher math and are content with making pottery in home economics and that is fine too. We all need pots. There is no need to convince them either. Pots hold things like flowers. They are pretty to look at and smell nice. Their world view is just as valid though different.

So, it is erroneous and/or presumptuous to think anything other than Witness Lee spoke what he actually believed. And besides, good or bad motives are irrelevant as you point out to OBW as we cannot really know for sure. And the whole argument about "bad fruit" as a gauge of the teachings is also subjective because for all the persons in here who claim "bad fruit" there are tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit". So that doesn't work either. And a double-speak sounding teaching proves nothing about the scriptural integrity of a teaching as it could sound like double-speak for any number of good, wholesome, and sound reasons.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

...before attempting to explain the more complex, diffcult, and mysterious subject.

And what exactly are Witness Lee's credentials that makes him qualified to be teaching a whole Christian movement about these complex, difficult and mysterious subjects?

So, it is erroneous and/or presumptuous to think anything other than Witness Lee spoke what he actually believed.

Presumptuous? Don't know about you but none of us have to presume anything when it comes to Witness Lee and his teachings. You are dealing with people who have over a century (centuries) of combined "quality time" sitting in those hard plastic seats, 10 days at a time, three times a day, pen in paper in hand, listening to, taking copious notes on and being tested on every word that Witness Lee taught. Then for the rest of the six months we lived it, breathed it, pray-read it, sung it - this was called "the church life". Actually the quote in question is not complex or difficult or mysterious to most of us. It's vintage Witness Lee. We presume very little around here. And you?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And what exactly are Witness Lee's credentials that makes him qualified to be teaching a whole Christian movement about these complex, difficult and mysterious subjects?


Presumptuous? Don't know about you but none of us have to presume anything when it comes to Witness Lee and his teachings. You are dealing with people who have over a century (centuries) of combined "quality time" sitting in those hard plastic seats, 10 days at a time, three times a day, pen in paper in hand, listening to, taking copious notes on and being tested on every word that Witness Lee taught. Then for the rest of the six months we lived it, breathed it, pray-read it, sung it - this was called "the church life". Actually the quote in question is not complex or difficult or mysterious to most of us. It's vintage Witness Lee. We presume very little around here. And you?

Those are all experiences that make up your world view. Thousands of others sat in those same hard seats, did all the same things, and have an opposite view.

What does that prove? Is there something definitive about that other than everyone who sat in those seats got callouses on their buttocks?

And for credentials for teaching first and foremost the person must be given by God to the Body. For me I personally pay attention to someone who is gifted, uses the Bible, and is a born-again christian. It is a plus when a teacher also through revelation opens the Bible with valuable inspiring insight. Externals such as education, PHD in theology, low-born or high-born, rich country or poor country mean little to nothing compared to the other.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Those are all experiences that make up your world view. Thousands of others sat in those same hard seats, did all the same things, and have an opposite view.

We can't really trust that. These people have been threatened with outer darkness for dissenting with Lee. Their testimony is therefore unreliable.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

It is a plus when a teacher also through revelation opens the Bible with valuable inspiring insight.

Valuable and inspiring? How about helping you to know the Lord, become holy, righteous and loving?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We can't really trust that. These people have been threatened with outer darkness for dissenting with Lee. Their testimony is therefore unreliable.




Valuable and inspiring? How about helping you to know the Lord, become holy, righteous and loving?

Sure those things too as long as they are consistent with scripture.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Those are all experiences that make up your world view. Thousands of others sat in those same hard seats, did all the same things, and have an opposite view.

Good point. And it just so happens that I am an expert in the world view taught by Witness Lee, and which is imbibed by his followers to this day. This world view taught by Lee and put into practice by his followers cannot be neatly boxed up in a quote or two from any of the highly edited "books" put out by the LSM. If all you have is selected quotes from books, 'fraid you have come to a gunfight with a knife. Good luck.

And for credentials for teaching first and foremost the person must be given by God to the Body. For me I personally pay attention to someone who is gifted, uses the Bible, and is a born-again christian. It is a plus when a teacher also through revelation opens the Bible with valuable inspiring insight. Externals such as education, PHD in theology, low-born or high-born, rich country or poor country mean little to nothing compared to the other.

I'm sorry, your computer screen must have some dead pixels and you just missed my question. Here it is again.
And what exactly are Witness Lee's credentials that makes him qualified to be teaching a whole Christian movement about these complex, difficult and mysterious subjects?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good point. And it just so happens that I am an expert in the world view taught by Witness Lee, and which is imbibed by his followers to this day. This world view taught by Lee and put into practice by his followers cannot be neatly boxed up in a quote or two from any of the highly edited "books" put out by the LSM. If all you have is selected quotes from books, 'fraid you have come to a gunfight with a knife. Good luck.
I'm sorry, your computer screen must have some dead pixels and you just missed my question. Here it is again.
And what exactly are Witness Lee's credentials that makes him qualified to be teaching a whole Christian movement about these complex, difficult and mysterious subjects?

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear about my definition of credentials for a Bible teacher which are very likely different from yours. I consider Witness Lee to have all the attributes I mentioned of a teacher.

What credentials do you expect?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

So, it is erroneous and/or presumptuous to think anything other than Witness Lee spoke what he actually believed. And besides, good or bad motives are irrelevant as you point out to OBW as we cannot really know for sure. And the whole argument about "bad fruit" as a gauge of the teachings is also subjective because for all the persons in here who claim "bad fruit" there are tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit". So that doesn't work either. And a double-speak sounding teaching proves nothing about the scriptural integrity of a teaching as it could sound like double-speak for any number of good, wholesome, and sound reasons.

Well, just for the record when I said double-speak I didn't mean being deceitful, I meant being confused.

As for the rest of your thesis, it seems you are making the case that we cannot know if Lee was a good teacher or a bad teacher. Is that your point?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, just for the record when I said double-speak I didn't mean being deceitful, I meant being confused.

As for the rest of your thesis, it seems you are making the case that we cannot know if Lee was a good teacher or a bad teacher. Is that your point?

The criterion being used to characterize good vs bad is subjective and unreliable. Using those same criterion others outside of this forum will come to different conclusions. However, we can assess the teachings against the scripture to determine whether they are sound or have any basis.

Yes, I know that you did not mean deceitful. OBW did so I covered all the bases a indicated.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

So, it is erroneous and/or presumptuous to think anything other than Witness Lee spoke what he actually believed.

Also, just for the record, it is equally erroneous and/or presumptuous to assume Lee was sincere about everything he spoke.

Further, the "he was sincere" argument only goes so far. God surely judges the ignorant sinner differently from the knowing sinner. But both are in error. To give a teacher a total pass because because he was "sincere" is going too far, particularly when some of the things he was sincere about did considerable damage.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, just for the record, it is equally erroneous and/or presumptuous to assume Lee was sincere about everything he spoke.

Further, the "he was sincere" argument only goes so far. God surely judges the ignorant sinner differently from the knowing sinner. But both are in error. To give a teacher a total pass because because he was "sincere" is going too far, particularly when some of the things he was sincere about did considerable damage.

Right. I never said sincere was the only criterion. Actually, I don't recall mentioning sincerity. Nevertheless, though sincerity is a good quality everything must be tested against the scriptures.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Right. I never said sincere was the only criterion. Actually, I don't recall mentioning sincerity. Nevertheless, though sincerity is a good quality everything must be tested against the scriptures.

Saying he believed what he taught is an appeal to sincerity. Also, in the past you've made the argument that because Lee really believed all his Recovery/MOTA stuff that therefore he was not to blame for being mistaken or messing up lives by it.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying he believed what he taught is an appeal to sincerity. Also, in the past you've made the argument that because Lee really believed all his Recovery/MOTA stuff that therefore he was not to blame for being mistaken or messing up lives by it.

Wow. You have quite an imagination.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

And the whole argument about "bad fruit" as a gauge of the teachings is also subjective because for all the persons in here who claim "bad fruit" there are tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit". So that doesn't work either.

What you have dismissed is a test prescribed by the Lord Himself. The children of Israel received a New Covenant from a Galilean Man with little to no known credentials. He was up against all the leaders of His day. Many just could not decipher the teachings themselves, so He asked Israel to compare Himself to the hypocrisy of their current leadership. To say that tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit," therefore the test is somehow bad, did not measure up in Jesus day, neither in our own day.

They examined Jesus high and low, up and down, and they found Him blameless. The apostles were held to many of the same high standards. They pioneered a new message, hence their life had to measure up.

WL also brought a "new" message, a recovery of numerous truths, consummating in the high peaks. He condemned all of Christianity all during his life. He claimed that, since his arrival in the 1940's, not a single quality book was written by another minister. He accepted no peers, not even those who had been with WN. He claimed to be the Minister of the age and the acting God here on earth.

Should not his life and work measure up to such claims? Should not he be held to high standards? Should he at least have been able to manage his own household?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you have dismissed is a test prescribed by the Lord Himself. The children of Israel received a New Covenant from a Galilean Man with little to no known credentials. He was up against all the leaders of His day. Many just could not decipher the teachings themselves, so He asked Israel to compare Himself to the hypocrisy of their current leadership. To say that tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit," therefore the test is somehow bad, did not measure up in Jesus day, neither in our own day.

They examined Jesus high and low, up and down, and they found Him blameless. The apostles were held to many of the same high standards. They pioneered a new message, hence their life had to measure up.

WL also brought a "new" message, a recovery of numerous truths, consummating in the high peaks. He condemned all of Christianity all during his life. He claimed that, since his arrival in the 1940's, not a single quality book was written by another minister. He accepted no peers, not even those who had been with WN. He claimed to be the Minister of the age and the acting God here on earth.

Should not his life and work measure up to such claims? Should not he be held to high standards? Should he at least have been able to manage his own household?

Yes, Jesus was blameless and every word He spoke was true to the last dot.

But should the veracity of His truth proclaimed by Himself and His disciples be dismissed because a few wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume others who were not in their immediate band? One was a thief, should we dismiss His whole ministry citing Jesus' inability to select good, holy, and righteous people?

Of course not. They were not disqualified from speaking for God in spite of their impetuous attitude and spirit or that one them was a thief.

Nevertheless, if you wish to apply a tighter standard then you should do so for your own peace of mind. I would only caution you that in doing so you consider your own condition in regard to sin and failures and attitude toward other believers and thereby determine whether that disqualifies you from speaking for God here in this forum or elsewhere.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, Jesus was blameless and every word He spoke was true to the last dot.

But should the veracity of His truth proclaimed by Himself and His disciples be dismissed because a few wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume others who were not in their immediate band? One was a thief, should we dismiss His whole ministry citing Jesus' inability to select good, holy, and righteous people?

Of course not. They were not disqualified from speaking for God in spite of their impetuous attitude and spirit or that one them was a thief.

Nevertheless, if you wish to apply a tighter standard then you should do so for your own peace of mind. I would only caution you that in doing so you consider your own condition in regard to sin and failures and attitude toward other believers and thereby determine whether that disqualifies you from speaking for God here in this forum or elsewhere.

So you are saying the standard for vetting the behavior of someone who claims to have the "ministry of the age" is no different than that of a guy who posts his thoughts on an Internet forum? We shouldn't expect a higher standard for the so-called MOTA?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are saying the standard for vetting the behavior of someone who claims to have the "ministry of the age" is no different than that of a guy who posts his thoughts on an Internet forum? We shouldn't expect a higher standard for the so-called MOTA?

What are you talking about?

Sounds like you ran out things to discuss on this thread and are now tossing bait out.

Start another topic, else not interested.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Nevertheless, if you wish to apply a tighter standard then you should do so for your own peace of mind. I would only caution you that in doing so you consider your own condition in regard to sin and failures and attitude toward other believers and thereby determine whether that disqualifies you from speaking for God here in this forum or elsewhere.

Elders and deacons have selected according to established criteria. Do you think think God would select a Minister of the Age with none? No one is ever disqualified from "speaking for God." Some criminals have even spoken for the Lord before their execution. Being able to speak for God was never the question ... but you knew that!

Meet the new Bilbo ... same as the old Bilbo!

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Elders and deacons have selected according to established criteria. Do you think think God would select a Minister of the Age with none? No one is ever disqualified from "speaking for God." Some criminals have even spoken for the Lord before their execution. Being able to speak for God was never the question ... but you knew that!

Meet the new Bilbo ... same as the old Bilbo!

Of course He would! It is He who gave the gifts to the Body.

Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,