Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[Old Rasputin]

djohnson: Good question. From my perspective as a member, in the Great Lakes Local Churches the legacy of Witness Lee's teachings is still a very sensitive issue. However, there has been movement away from treating Lee as an infallible interpreter of the Bible. It says a lot that a brother seen as leader amongst these churches, like Nigel, would go public with direct criticisms of Lee's teachings. On a more local level, many churches and leaders seem to be unsure of any radical departure from Lee's ministry, and a sort of uneasy truce prevails.

It's also interesting that Nigel's writings have become more a sparring match with the teachings of Lee than the policies of the Blending Brothers. He's done with the BB's; the split has happened. His aim now seems to be to go back to the source of the problems and try to deal with the roots of the exclusiveness and doctrinal extremism that has afflicted our group.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I think what Tomes is doing is a good development. Apparently Lee and his ministry had become a proverbial untouchable sacred cow and now Nigel is ending this myth. Hopefully a healthy balanced view of Lee and his work will ensure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

It's also interesting that Nigel's writings have become more a sparring match with the teachings of Lee than the policies of the Blending Brothers. He's done with the BB's; the split has happened. His aim now seems to be to go back to the source of the problems and try to deal with the roots of the exclusiveness and doctrinal extremism that has afflicted our group.

Old Rasputin, this is true. It seems Nigel's views are still "too hot" even for most GLA leaders, and the once lively CB site has become a museum of artifacts. The articles about the BB's were an "easy sell" ... TC had been "priming" the audience for years. Much more difficult will be critiquing the similarities of Cleveland and Anaheim, along with "going back to the source." This is why the BB's have declared Nigel "public enemy #1," robbing TC of that coveted position.

I am waiting for a scholarly review of the concept of "deputy authority." This bad concept alone, carried out in practice, has done more to destroy the LC's than any other, and create one of the nastiest of denominations.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Apparently Tomes years as a university scholar is serving him well now i.e. research, critique, rebuttal, being published, intellectual ferment, etc is OK. The status quo needs to be challenged. He might upset the proverbial apple cart but the very act of him daring to question some of Lee's teaching and practice is healthy for him and others. It is the demythologization of Lee.

[Old Rasputin]

I am waiting for a scholarly review of the concept of "deputy authority." This bad concept alone, carried out in practice, has done more to destroy the LC's than any other, and create one of the nastiest of denominations.

Touche! This is the bad concept that helped keep me toeing the party line longer than otherwise would have been the case. Happily, I am a natural born contrarian, so even deputy authority couldn't hold me down.

The next year or so will be very interesting as far as the Midwest goes. Sooner or later the uneasy truce regarding the shared heritage of Lee and the LCs will be broken, and with it may go the fellowship of churches we refer to as the GLA.

[KSA]

This topic was extensively covered at the other forum. My argement there was that sin is not some kind of substance that was added to our nature. There is no "sinful nature" as all nature (substance) was created by God, and God is not a creator if sin. Sin is a perversion of our own nature - deviation from God's intent. When Lucifer fell, he was not spoiled by some other nature injected into him - iniquity was found in him. His fall was the perversion of his own nature. Likewise, our fall was caused by our choice - it was the perversion of our nature, not injection of some other substance.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by KSA

This topic was extensively covered at the other forum. My argement there was that sin is not some kind of substance that was added to our nature. There is no "sinful nature" as all nature (substance) was created by God, and God is not a creator if sin. Sin is a perversion of our own nature - deviation from God's intent. When Lucifer fell, he was not spoiled by some other nature injected into him - iniquity was found in him. His fall was the perversion of his own nature. Likewise, our fall was caused by our choice - it was the perversion of our nature, not injection of some other substance.

So, KSA, are you saying you don't believe every human is born fallen? Explain your stance here on total depravity, original sin, etc.


SC

[KSA]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

So, KSA, are you saying you don't believe every human is born fallen? Explain your stance here on total depravity, original sin, etc.


SC

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

[Guest1]

Originally Posted by KSA

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

AMEN..

[Arizona]

Originally Posted by KSA

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

KSA

Do you feel inclined to add more to this in answer to Speaker's question re your thought on original sin, total depravity, etc?

As YPO stated, I felt like we were just getting to the good part !!

I do not disagree with your statement above but I am not sure it is the whole story. It seems to me that mankind is more than merely "broken", and there remains a source to be identified. That source, to me, must indeed be something foreign to that which was created by God, and is labeled "good".

Thanx
Grace to you.

Arizona

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

So, KSA, are you saying you don't believe every human is born fallen? Explain your stance here on total depravity, original sin, etc.

SC

:justlurking:

Looks like we're just getting to the good part.

Quick reference links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

[Paul Miletus]

AndPeter, you have missed to emphasize the following in your quotation:

The first person is yourself in your soul, your being. The second person is Satan in your flesh. And the third person is Christ in your spirit. This kind of truth has been fully missed today.

What you have quoted:

Through the fall, the devil, Satan, came into the outward organ, the human body.

Brother Witness Lee was narrating about the "human body" before man's fall. However, if you will continue reading your own quotation from Brother Witness Lee, he was very consistent in his writing that after man's fall, he no longer called the human body as "body" but as "flesh".

[KSA]

I do not see "sinful nature" in the verses you quoted.