The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by OBW

Someone will do better, but the low gospel was essentially salvation while the high gospel was the church life. And not just life as a member of the body of Christ, but the life according to the ways of Lee, the LSM and the LCM. Essentially about how we have better meetings and a better lexicon. Probably a lot of other ways it was said, but that pretty much sums it up.

Ok...that makes sense and that is precisely what I was getting at in my post on this subject. Preaching another Christ does not meanin denying the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It means, "yes, I believe in this jesus but if you want to be a first class christian you need....Judaism, Romanism, Leeism and on it goes. Two tiered christianity is preaching another jesus. There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

Art

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Aren't you covering both the Catholic (in Christ alone) and Protestant (through faith alone) views here?

Is there then only "one kind of christian" combining the two?

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aren't you covering both the Catholic (in Christ alone) and Protestant (through faith alone) views here?

Is there then only "one kind of christian" combining the two?

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

Dear mr. Ohio, I believe it will take us a while to get on the same page. My impression is we are talking past each other. I am attempting to focus on Galatians where Paul battled the judaizers who created the two tiered system demanding that the gentile converts become Jews in order to be first tier Christians. so, today when a teacher adds to the Christ who alone justifies the sinner that is another Christ.
When I say there is one kind of christian I am attempting to think in Galatianese, Pauline and not referring to denominations. I hope this helps. It will take much time for you and I to have the same lexicon and in fact we may never have it.

Art

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Dear mr. Ohio, I believe it will take us a while to get on the same page. My impression is we are talking past each other. I am attempting to focus on Galatians where Paul battled the judaizers who created the two tiered system demanding that the gentile converts become Jews in order to be first tier Christians. so, today when a teacher adds to the Christ who alone justifies the sinner that is another Christ.

When I say there is one kind of christian I am attempting to think in Galatianese, Pauline and not referring to denominations. I hope this helps. It will take much time for you and I to have the same lexicon and in fact we may never have it.

Art

Please show what else Witness Lee taught as necessary to salvation from hell other than faith in Jesus Christ? I want quotes, books, etc. Not caricatures or secondary issues.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

Please show what else Witness Lee taught as necessary to salvation from hell other than faith in Jesus Christ? I want quotes, books, etc. Not caricatures or secondary issues.

Ok, InOmnibusCaritas, I'm going to have to ask you to give the other new guy a little slack here. I don't know if you caught Amcasci's first number of posts, but he has been away from the Local Church for over 40 years, so exact page and paragraph quotes for are going to be a little hard for him to produce. Also you may want to appreciate the fact that Art was in the Local Church at a vastly different time and place than you. If you read my opening post, I did request that we all stay away from such caricatures and secondary issues, and I don't see where Art has intentionally stepped out of bounds in this regard.

Anyway, he is apparently on vacation so let's let him enjoy it without having to worry about playing defense until he gets back home.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, InOmnibusCaritas, I'm going to have to ask you to give the other new guy a little slack here. I don't know if you caught Amcasci's first number of posts, but he has been away from the Local Church for over 40 years, so exact page and paragraph quotes for are going to be a little hard for him to produce. Also you may want to appreciate the fact that Art was in the Local Church at a vastly different time and place than you. If you read my opening post, I did request that we all stay away from such caricatures and secondary issues, and I don't see where Art has intentionally stepped out of bounds in this regard.

Anyway, he is apparently on vacation so let's let him enjoy it without having to worry about playing defense until he gets back home.

My apologies to Art.

I would like to redirect everyone back to the original question:

"Does the Local Church Teach/Preach Another Gospel and Another Jesus?"

UntoHim thinks so. He writes, "it is in the interpretation of these epistles that we see Witness Lee's departure from the historic Christian Gospel."

Believing in the Gospel is results in one being saved.
Departure from the "historic Christian Gospel" results in one in danger of being unsaved.

This question is for ALL THE MARBLES and trumps every other thread in this forum.

So far, I'm reading that:
1) "In Lees case it is the local ground, membership in the local church, and thus being an overcomer." (Amcasi)
Lee never claims that membership in LCs is precondition for being an overcomer - thus the point of his interpretation of the 7 churches in Rev. 2-3. Lee believed that Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum refer to ages up to perhaps the Great Schism. The existing ones are Thyatira (Lee: Roman Catholicism), Sardis (Lee: Protestantism), Philadelphia (Lee: Recovery), and Laodicea (Lee: post-Recovery??). Although Lee believed that the Philadelphians stood the best chance of overcoming, he concedes that overcomers are called from all 7 churches. At any rate, the ground of locality is secondary when it comes to salvation.

2) "The local churches practice a different gospel than what's seen in this passage of Matthew 9:10-13. Generally viewed and termed as "good material", attention and efforts are labored on college campuses. One of the goals is to attract college students and eventually sent them as college graduates to FTTA" (Terry).
Targeting college campuses is always a good strategy for any Christian group. Again, this has nothing to do with the content of the gospel.

3) "I don't know how common some of these notions are, but I've seen enough indication that there are many in the LC who are not satisfied with simply introducing someone to the gospel." (Freedom)
I suppose that's not my LC experience but let's say this is more often than not the case. This is still not a departure from the gospel. If one doesn't use the RcV, at most they'll say you don't have an accurate Bible (though they can't pinpoint why) or that you need to read the footnotes because they provide the best interpretation of scripture. But they will not dispute whether you are saved. They will not put RcV and knowledge of the "high gospel" as a necessity for salvation. These are all post-salvation stuff.

4) "I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee." (Awareness)
Awareness was referring to Gal. 3:1. It is true that we have all been under Lee's spell, subscribing only to his interpretation of scripture, many of which is suspect. But Paul was talking about the gospel -- the Judaizers were telling the Galatians that, "No, faith in Jesus Christ crucified is not good enough. You also need to be circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant people". What are criteria other than the gospel did Witness Lee imposed on us in order to be God's people?

5) "Maybe from highly compromised "apologists" like Hank Hanegraaff, but I doubt you will hear anything like "we were wrong" from the likes of the 75 Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations who signed the Open Letter at http://www.open-letter.org/- most of them have probably seen and heard too much about what Witness Lee actually taught to swallow the "but we are actually just misunderstood orthodox Christians" ruse."
I wonder whether the 75 Christian scholars will be so quick to denounce Lee for preaching a different gospel. They would have left LCs alone had LC/LSM not sued Harvest House and instead speak well of denominations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

4) "I can't speak for you, of course, but I can speak for my self and others that I know, that have left the LC, and I and them agree that we were bewitched by Lee." (Awareness)

Awareness was referring to Gal. 3:1. It is true that we have all been under Lee's spell, subscribing only to his interpretation of scripture, many of which is suspect. But Paul was talking about the gospel -- the Judaizers were telling the Galatians that, "No, faith in Jesus Christ crucified is not good enough. You also need to be circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant people". What are criteria other than the gospel did Witness Lee imposed on us in order to be God's people?

But was Paul just referring to salvation alone in the epistle to the Galatians? Or was there a "high" gospel (to the Jews) and a "low" gospel (to the gentiles), and likewise a marginally-covenanted people (gentiles) and a fully-covenanted people (Jews) emerging? Was there in fact a sort of de facto tiered gospel going forth, that Paul struggled to combat? We know there's one gospel, and that to sinners. But in those days with the clear delineation of separation of peoples, ingrained deeply in centuries of teaching, culture and practice, there was a challenge for the Good News of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Look at Peter in Acts 10, after the resurrection, in reply to the voice from heaven, that had told him to "arise, slay and eat". Peter exclaimed, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Gentiles were unholy and unclean. This was a Jesus follower speaking! That "unclean" was gone with the blood of Christ, but the centuries of deeply ingrained Jewish practices struggled with that. So in those first decades, a new gospel arose, one with tiers of covenanted people: those who kept the law and those who didn't. Both were saved as we understand the word. But one had a "higher calling" as God's originally covenanted people. (I note that some Evangelicals still consider Jews as special, even after the blood of Christ).

So perhaps InOmnibusCaritas is oversimplifying. And perhaps Lee offered a "new Christ" with a "new covenant" of the local ground, which made you the equivalent of the law-keeping Christian Jews of the early NT era. Lee used to say, "Of all creatures, it is best to be a man because we are made in God's image. And of all men, it is best to be Christian because we receive God's life and nature. And of all Christians it is best to be on the local ground because we receive God's blessing."

So Lee was selling a supposedly higher gospel, which delineated he and his followers from "darkened" and "fallen" Christianity, which was called "demonic" etc. This "tiered Christianity" alone is a borderline bewitching, if not fully so. Salvation aside, it is a perversion of the gospel, just as keeping the law made the Jews somehow "special Christians" in Paul's era. "Being saved is of course good, but being saved and "special sauce #1" is the best"

(Please note that this is an argument that I am making for consideration's sake. I have no emotional attachment to the idea, and may abandon it or modify it. I'm just considering how Paul's Galatian warning may be applicable in the Christian faith and polity today, specifically with the LC case).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

2)

Targeting college campuses is always a good strategy for any Christian group. Again, this has nothing to do with the content of the gospel.

But it is coupled with open criticism of any kind of benevolence to the elderly, homeless, etc., therefore is part of a larger context.

Just sending people to college campuses to preach the gospel is not a problem. But to say that it is a waste of time to go trying to pursue others (in so many words) and to ignore what the Bible calls "justice" gives it that larger context in which there is a general error in emphasis.

Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas

5)

I wonder whether the 75 Christian scholars will be so quick to denounce Lee for preaching a different gospel. They would have left LCs alone had LC/LSM not sued Harvest House and instead speak well of denominations.

Since the text is a little terse here, I am not sure what you are saying. But if you are suggesting that the 75 scholars would have left the LCM alone if they had not sued Harvest House and made such a huge fuss about the evils of denominations, you are probably right. Just like they mostly leave a lot of even more truly heretical groups alone outside of their internal teaching and preaching. Groups like even the JWs.

But since the LCM was busy making a spectacle of itself in the public eye through its lawsuits and openly critical remarks concerning things that are generally considered either benign or truly correct, they did speak up. They did not choose to dig into more of the LCM's errors than was thrust in front of them by the LCM, so a "different gospel" was not on the table. Not sure how they would have responded on that issue. I personally know one of the 75 and am sure that he would not have been flippant with the charge, so if it does not fit, he would have withheld his signature.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Dear mr. Ohio, I believe it will take us a while to get on the same page. My impression is we are talking past each other.

I am attempting to focus on Galatians where Paul battled the judaizers who created the two tiered system demanding that the gentile converts become Jews in order to be first tier Christians. so, today when a teacher adds to the Christ who alone justifies the si. ER that is another Christ.

When I say there is one kind of christian I am attempting to think in Galatianese, Pauline and not referring to denominations. I hope this helps. It will take much time for you and I to have the same lexicon and in fact we may never have it.

Art

You have done well to highlight the issues we have with semantics Art. I never intended to talk past you, rather comment on what you said. I too have been hoping for the same lexicon to be used, and of course, it is a needed objective, but even with my dear wife I am often not on the "same page."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my mind, rallying behind a leader, whether Luther, Darby, Calvin, or Lee, is little difference other than time. The "dangers" seem to diminish as the years go by. In other words, following Luther back in the day labeled you a heretic of the worst sort, but today Lutherans are accepted as orthodox and benign main-streamers. Perhaps being Lee-ites will one day bring about the same responses.

I can only say "maybe." And that would be only if they excise some of their exclusivist teachings, one of the primary ones being the belief that there is some "ground of the church," coupled with the teaching that theirs is it and all others are not.

Yes, the Lutherans were heretics of their day. But their heresy was not something driving them to the margins, but back to the center. Groups that have "heresies" that drive them to the margin may eventually get left alone, but they are at the same time not considered among the mainstream of Christianity. Neither orthodox nor benign. Just off the radar because their novelty has lost its allure and few worry about them stepping out to capture more for their cause. They tend to exist on those born into the system.

In other words, don't look to the Lutherans for the parallels. Look at the followers of Herbert Armstrong. At the Seventh Day Adventists. In other words, at the groups that remain at the fringes generations after their start. Or that are marginal, but less so now because they began to moderate later-on.

Luther, Darby, Calvin, and Lee are not "little different." Luther and Calvin are clearly in a different category than Darby and Lee. Darby is problematic because so much of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical sides of things rely on his teachings. But ultimately he painted himself and his group out of the mainstream. Other than claiming a genealogy that ties through Luther and Darby, and using a fair bit of Darby's teachings, Lee stands pretty much alone. The only thing in common is that Lee was the leader of renown for the group. That is not really much "in common."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

And that is true . . . as far as it goes. But there are Christians who rest on that fact and basically coast the rest of the way (or at least think that is what they are doing).

I have been thinking concerning the way that "saved by grace" thing is so often taught (though not so much by your branch or Christianity). That is that the emphasis is placed so strongly on the event of "coming to faith" that everything else is nearly ignored. If coming to faith is all there is, then where is the salvation that is worked out with fear and trembling? I did not see it in the LCM (despite the tendency of some of the rhetoric to keep us in fear — fear of failing that paralyzed so many). And while I think I see some of it in the mainstream of evangelicalism, so many of them are set on the idea that it is all simply by grace alone in Christ alone. But Paul said that grace teaches us to obey. It is not only something that provides benefits for which we do nothing. It is the means by which we learn how to do something.

And so many of Paul's writings to the various churches was to get them off of their hind quarters and do what they were supposed to do, whether rejecting the need for OT rituals for salvation, common respect for all believers no matter what heritage or caste, how they treat each other in meetings, what kind of meat they eat, etc. They had to work out how they lived the life that was out of their salvation rather than out of their natural inclinations (or more correctly failings).

The thing that moves us from death to life is a sacrifice that we cannot accomplish. But we must have faith and that does take our will. And your tradition within Christianity primarily teaches a learned salvation. One that is gradual. It begins with someone committing a child to Christ in baptism. (This is not popular among most evangelicals, mostly because they understand baptism in terms of personal decision and testimony — something that can not happen with the baptism of an infant). Then they learn. And at some age, they begin to officially learn the catechism. At the end of it, they are in some way said to be a believer, or confirmed into the church, or something like that. Is that 100% true in all cases? Probably not. But many do come to believe in Christ through all of that. And without any "event" to point to.

But the point in all of that is to show that the new believer has done a lot. But the one thing they have not done is save them self. They cannot save them self. They can come to believe in the One who can save them, and who then will and does save them.

So the question is, did they do any "work" to get there? I would say "yes." But did that work save them? The clear answer is "no." Salvation is only through the death of Christ who paid the final price for our sin. Yet the application of that price to our sin is predicated upon our faith. And faith is more than mental. It is action. We don't believe if we don't live as if we believe.

For that reason, I am actually quite encouraged concerning the salvation of many who have not been raised within evangelicalism's penchant for crisis/event salvation that makes it so cerebral (and sometimes close to meaningless). It may create more emotional events, but does not necessarily get to the real core of the "new believer." Oddly, I am still unlikely to change my affiliation any time soon. At this age, comfort has value and I still find Christ to be strongly proclaimed in a regular and meaningful way. Having said that, I now have the priviledge of worshipping again with an older relative who has moved from the place this forum discusses. So change, even in old age, is not out of the question.

[InOmnibusCaritas]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Ok...that makes sense and that is precisely what I was getting at in my post on this subject. Preaching another Christ does not meanin denying the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It means, "yes, I believe in this jesus but if you want to be a first class christian you need....Judaism, Romanism, Leeism and on it goes. Two tiered christianity is preaching another jesus. There is only one kind of christian, a sinner who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in christ alone.

OBW completely misrepresented Lee's high gospel vs. low gospel. The "low gospel" is believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven. The "high gospel" is as taught in the conference "God's Complete Salvation" (circa 1995-6), and transcribed into a book by the same name. Link to diagramme: http://www.godssalvation.org/diagram/index.html