Answer to Mr. MacDuff.

[MacDuff]

ZNPaaneah

If the nature of the Lee supporters in not the nature of those who are in Christ, isn't that further evidence that both Lee and his followers were false prophet and false brethren?

False teacher. And I was only referring to those who treated Al in that negative way. As for the rest of his followers.... Well, do you think that Recoveryites are in Christ only upon leaving the LC? Was that the case with you?

That is the point of this thread. To help those who suspect something isn't right to examine the facts and see the light. This is why I believe it is important to examine and be fully persuaded. Whatever you decide will color and influence your relationship with the word, with the church and with the Lord. If you believe WL was the MOTA that will have a big influence, if you believe he was a false prophet that also will have a big influence, and if you feel he was merely a Christian teacher and that issues you have or had in the LRC are unrelated, then that also will have a big influence.

Whatever MOTA means. I still haven’t managed to figure that one out. You people use a lot of abbreviations that will mean nothing to the casual observer and those new to this forum. One of the complaints against the LC is that it has its own language. Why do the same thing here?

Yes, I agree that however one views Witness Lee and the LC that one will be influenced by that view. And that the purpose of this forum is to discuss both. But rest assured that whatever view a person has will be a part of that discussion. If LC people come on this forum, it can’t be expected that they will espouse some other view than they already have. And on a forum of former Recoverites, many of which have been hurt by the Recovery or someone within, that could get volatile. I think it’s not a good thing to include Recoveryites on a forum such as this. If the LC feels they need to defend themselves, they have several sites on which to do so. And surely someone is going to see their defense and pass it on to this forum.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Igzy

MacDuff, you keep dissing "interpretation" as if there is some alternative. But there isn't. It's all interpretation. Now, some interpretation is inspired, and some isn't. But it's all interpretation. Everything is filtered through our minds. There's no other way to contact reality. We interpret everything, including the movements of the Spirit in us.

What's missing from your discourse is something telling us how to know the difference between inspired and uninspired interpretation.

Dissing: “act or speak in a disrespectful way towards, disrespectful talk” Oxford Dictionary.

Why do you think I should respect something that I don’t believe is proper. People on this forum diss Lee and the LC all the time. Why don’t you go to them and discuss disrespect? Maybe because you’re guilty of it yourself?

But have no fear. I’m beginning to change my mind about a lot of things. Interpretation included.

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired. And being led by the Spirit should lead one who is open minded to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit, to the realization that personal interpretation can not be the end all of our knowledge as those who are in Christ.

And I think I should add that only the Bible is inspired in my Biblicist view. There is no such thing as inspired interpretations. Now as a Catholic, my view is that only the interpretations of the Church are inspired, if inspired is even the right term to use. In that regard I’m not sure. What I do know is that the practice of interpretation is valid in Catholicism, but only on a community and historic level. The practice of personal interpretation, which is what is being talked about here, is not valid. And I’m beginning to see why.

Either way, I would have to oppose the idea of the validity of personal interpretation. As a Catholic, only the interpretations of the Church are valid. As a Biblicist, only the interpretations of Jesus Christ are valid. Personally, I can’t find any solace in personal opinions. It seems that those who believe in the validity of personal interpretation are able to do so.

In answer to OBW
Yeah, unfortunately this is what I hear MacDuff saying, too. His ideas are truth. Everyone else's are interpretation. And he doesn't tell us how he knows the difference. I could be wrong, but that's what I keep hearing.

Let’s see how many feathers I can ruffle. Perhaps the reason is because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.

There was a guy on the board a while back like that. He didn't seem to have faith in anything, even to trust the hand in front of his face. He was most unhappy. I told him to pray every day for 30 days for faith.

He never posted again.

Which implies nothing. You haven’t a clue why he never posted again. Maybe he started to consider you in the same way you consider me and figured it was a waste of time to post here.

Why you would encourage an Atheist (assuming he didn’t believe in anything you believe in) to pray is beyond me. Who do you think he would be praying to in his mind? And you are wrong to imply that he didn’t seem to have faith in anything. Everyone has faith in something. Even Atheists have faith that God doesn’t exist and act according to that faith. You just didn’t know what he had faith in. You have a tendency to judge people by your own standard. Which is actually reasonable because it’s all you’ve got to judge with. Maybe it would behoove you to leave people you can’t understand to people who can. It’s not about you any more than it’s about me.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

NeitherFirstnorLast

Now sir, only Yoda gets to answer a question with a question - I asked you first for your thoughts....

Sorry. I thought you would be able to distinguish between a thought statement and a thought question.

As far as a thought statement, I have no such thoughts. Except perhaps to say that it depends on one’s point of view as to whom the interpretation should be attributed. Other than that, any thought statement I might have would depend on your answer to my question. And even then my thoughts may still involve questions as I try to understand your point.

And you’re wrong about Yoda. Socrates answered questions with questions pretty consistently. Not that I’m trying to follow the Socratic method here.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

OBW

The problem I have with this is that any claim to knowing "objective truth" is based on the knower's filters and biases.

I see your point. But what must also be considered is the context in which I made that statement. If it all depends on our own filters and biases, then there really is no way to arrive at objective truth. Even the existence of God becomes merely an opinion. Which is what the Atheists have been saying all along.

There has to be some way in which we can know what is objective truth and what is not. As you probably know by now, I have two views from which to draw an answer to that question.

In the Catholic view, as far as objective truth relating to those who are in Christ, the matter is simplicity itself. The Catholic Church knows what is and what is not objective truth in areas it has already authoritatively defined. And if you’ve ever seen the Catholic Cathechism, then you know quite a bit has been already defined. In any other area, one is free to speculate at will.

In the Biblicist view, sitting at the feet of Jesus Christ and hearing his teaching will enable us to discern the difference between what is personal opinion and what is objective truth. Of course, that depends on whether or not one is being led by the Spirit.

We are as a community encouraged by Paul to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Many actually think that refers to interpretation as the means of renewal. The only problem being that interpretation is an activity of the mind, not a source for knowing what is objective truth in relation to the supernatural. Interpretation works reasonably well in the natural realm, and I say reasonably because it doesn’t always work. Not everyone who has desired to be rich has been successful monetarily for example. Their interpretations of the natural realm have not made them rich. And this reveals that man is limited individually even in the natural realm. Men may be created equal, but how that plays out won’t by any means be equal. How much more in the supernatural realm.

From a Biblicist view, more is necessary to distinguish between objective truth and opinion than just a personal ability to interpret. And that was the context of my statement.

MacDuff

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

And you’re wrong about Yoda. Socrates answered questions with questions pretty consistently. Not that I’m trying to follow the Socratic method here.

Thanks for pointing that out. Questions are an excellent way to focus someone to find the answer you would suggest. Or to demonstrate the uncertainty of their assertions.

When Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem to find Jesus, he was in the temple astounding the religious leaders with his questions, not his answers.

They don't notice that much in my posts is less than certain. Not always punctuated with question marks, but not much more than statements of reasonable alternatives to consider rather than just asserting something as the answer. And sometimes they are full of questions. And it is interesting how often the responses are full of certainty. And how often they don't really address the questions.

And I noticed late yesterday that I have been misspelling your moniker.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

But have no fear. I’m beginning to change my mind about a lot of things. Interpretation included.

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired. And being led by the Spirit should lead one who is open minded to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit, to the realization that personal interpretation can not be the end all of our knowledge as those who are in Christ.

And I think I should add that only the Bible is inspired in my Biblicist view. There is no such thing as inspired interpretations. Now as a Catholic, my view is that only the interpretations of the Church are inspired, if inspired is even the right term to use. In that regard I’m not sure. What I do know is that the practice of interpretation is valid in Catholicism, but only on a community and historic level. The practice of personal interpretation, which is what is being talked about here, is not valid. And I’m beginning to see why.

I will start by noting that I am uncertain that the RCC view is entirely the way. But it is much more reliable than the Protestant "sola sciptura." Why? Because sola scriptura implies that I can figure it out on my own because it just says what it says. And the result is my personal interpretation which is unlikely to be the right one.

Now, having said that, the church does arrive at what it concludes is the answer by weighing the various thoughts from the group, then through deliberation and prayer, concludes what they see as best based on the inspiration of the Spirit within the group. And, based on the recorded history of such things, their certainty is often "it seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit . . . ."

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Either way, I would have to oppose the idea of the validity of personal interpretation. As a Catholic, only the interpretations of the Church are valid. As a Biblicist, only the interpretations of Jesus Christ are valid. Personally, I can’t find any solace in personal opinions. It seems that those who believe in the validity of personal interpretation are able to do so.

I can accept that, like the Nazarite vow, an individual may be compelled to live a certain way as the result of agreement with God on what would be considered "personal interpretation." But that does not rise to the level of something to assert as generally true and teach to others. So, on the whole, I believe your view is correct. And with that I am stepping on a whole lot of toes around here.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Let’s see how many feathers I can ruffle. Perhaps the reason is because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.

I believe that the reason is that your answer is in things like your comments above about the Catholic way. But it is not direct enough.

And when you mention that the only valid interpretations are those of the Church, due to your context, you are at least implying that a universal body is required. And the RCC does assert its universality. But, like the LRC (Lord's Recovery Church, since they assert that their name is not the "Local Church"), they exclude a major part of the body from their so-called universal body.

Yet, at some level, it is unfortunate that the German government backed Martin Luther in his suggestion that things needed to change. Up to that time, that was the way that interpretation happened. Someone suggested an alternative. They spent time, sometimes years, even decades, considering it, then they took a stand. By splitting apart and not being involved in each other's processes, we now have incomplete inquiry. The things that we think are wrong about the RCC or any particular Protestant group are now being thrown over walls rather than discussed within the family. It is only those who actually try to get together and discuss, study, etc., that there begins to be some return to the right position. We do not need to be under each other's umbrella to actively be part of the same global community of faith. But not all will join. Mostly out of fear that their pet doctrine will not get the uber respect that they give it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Which implies nothing. You haven’t a clue why he never posted again. Maybe he started to consider you in the same way you consider me and figured it was a waste of time to post here.

And while you are right, you are also not much more than throwing a barb that you cannot know is correct. Just suggest. But, you did say "maybe."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Why do you think I should respect something that I don’t believe is proper.

Because everything you believe is an interpretation. That was my point. Everyone interprets, including you. So your stated position is self-contradicting. Even your belief that you shouldn't interpret is an interpretation. Everything you think the Bible means is your interpretation or one you got from someone else. The same goes for me. (See last paragraph below.)

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired.

Not always. Even Paul didn't know for sure all the time. Paul wrote the verses immediately before 1 Cor 7:40 and then said in 7:40 "I think I have the Spirit of God," meaning he wasn't absolutely sure. Yet this example became scripture, meaning sometimes even Paul went with his best guess.

You said the Bible is inspired. Okay, I think most agree. But that's the easy part. The hard part is knowing what it really means. How do we know? We have to interpret. There is really no way around this.

What the Bible means and what we think it means are distinct. The trick is knowing the difference. If it were as simple as you seem to think there wouldn't be much discussion about what it means. This board wouldn't exist.


Here's a example. The Bible says, "Love one another." Now we probably all believe that is truth and the word of God. We should love one another, right? Anyone want to disagree at that level? Probably not.

Now, here's the hard part. What does "love one another" actually mean in practice? Suppose you ask me for $10? To love you should I give it to you? What if you ask for $100? $10,000? What if you ask me to take time off work to drive you to Seattle? Should I do it? If I don't do it does that mean I am not loving?

Suppose to love one another you have to break the law? Maybe smuggle bibles into a country which forbids them. What do you do? How do you know?

The problem is not agreeing that we should love each other. The problem is what does that mean in practice. The idea that you know for sure in every instance is laughable. You rely on interpretation whether you admit it or not.


It seems possible that your definition of "interpretation" is any idea of what the Scripture means that is not inspired by the Spirit. But I don't know of anyone who claims we should interpret Scripture without the help of the Spirit. So if that's your definition then this discussion is moot and uninteresting, because then it's just about semantics.

[Cal]

Guys, Let's keep this subject of interpretation versus inspiration and which is which in this thread please. Thanks.

[UntoHim]

Unfortunately, in The Local Church, there is only one interpretation because there is only one interpreter. In fact, in many cases Witness Lee's interpretations are treated at the same level as scripture itself, sometimes even higher. A good example of this would be Witness Lee's proclamation that one of the authors of the New Testament (James) was "devoid of the divine revelation". Apparently Lee missed that day in vacation bible school where they taught that James' words were not devoid of the divine revelation at all, THEY ARE THE DIVINE REVELATION. But since much of the writings of James do not match up with Lee's teachings (in fact they contradict and expose his teachings) he had to make sure his followers knew that his words were more "divine" then what James wrote.