My Testimony: Olvin

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Olvin

How long has it been brother, 20 - 30 years ago since you left the LC and you still have not recovered? Seems your God has forsaken you. Or could it be He has somewhat to do with our spiritual journey? And OBW, you still quibble. Brother go in peace -- please.

I can't speak for OBW, but I think he is saying he has recovered. And the way he recovered was by dumping some of Lee's teachings. And he feels so strongly about that he feels to tell others about it. He still has family in the LC, so he still has a great deal of personal interest in it.

But that rubs you the wrong way. Why? Because you still cling to Lee, even though you cannot justify the ill-effects of much of his ministry, other than to philosophize about it.

But listen up. Some people have never recovered. Some people were left so devastated by Lee and LC that they have little walk with the Lord now. I guess you blame that on them. Is it all their fault? Quench the smoking flax? Break the bruised reed?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I can't speak for OBW, but I think he is saying he has recovered. And the way he recovered was by dumping some of Lee's teachings. And he feels so strongly about that he feels to tell others about it.

But that rubs you the wrong way. Why? Because you still cling to Lee, even though you cannot justify the ill-effects of much of his ministry, other than to philosophize about it.

Isn't all this talk about Lee's teachings and dumping them a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? For example, I am no longer involved with the LC but when I read the open letter by over seventy evangelical scholars and ministry leaders to the LSM back in 2007 in which they charged LSM, among many other charges, of holding to a teaching by Witness Lee in which he claimed that the nature of God was such that:

"The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?... In the place where no man can approach Him (I Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father."

I'm sorry, but I just cannot find the problem with this. Evidently, this is an issue with the rest of all Christianity. I, however, just do not see it! And I think I can argue convincingly out of the scriptures in support of this position. Have I been poisoned so much so that I can't even tell that what I consider to be a basic tenet of the faith, as simple kindergarten stuff, is in actuality a fabrication of Witness Lee?

Somebody help?

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Isn't all this talk about Lee's teachings and dumping them a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? For example, I am no longer involved with the LC but when I read the open letter by over seventy evangelical scholars and ministry leaders to the LSM back in 2007 in which they charged LSM, among many other charges, of holding to a teaching by Witness Lee in which he claimed that the nature of God was such that:

"The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?... In the place where no man can approach Him (I Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father."

I'm sorry, but I just cannot find the problem with this. Evidently, this is an issue with the rest of all Christianity. I, however, just do not see it! And I think I can argue convincingly out of the scriptures in support of this position. Have I been poisoned so much so that I can't even tell that what I consider to be a basic tenet of the faith, as simple kindergarten stuff, is in actuality a fabrication of Witness Lee?

Somebody help?

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with you. To me it also makes sense from the Word.