The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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"

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

I keep trying to hold Lee to the same standard as other ministers. If what he did was common place, I hate to justify it, but we have to at least be fair.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

Yep, I think it is, but let's stick with the teachings/practices established by Witness Lee. Lee didn't teach that such things were a higher blessing so let's leave this one alone.

I keep trying to hold Lee to the same standard as other ministers. If what he did was common place, I hate to justify it, but we have to at least be fair.

Let's be fair to the Word of God first, then maybe we can get into being fair to anything or anyone else....fair enough? Not much of what Witness Lee taught was common place, and this is why he is not accepted as a orthodox Christian teacher except among his followers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yep, I think it is, but let's stick with the teachings/practices established by Witness Lee. Lee didn't teach that such things were a higher blessing so let's leave this one alone.

Let's be fair to the Word of God first, then maybe we can get into being fair to anything or anyone else....fair enough? Not much of what Witness Lee taught was common place, and this is why he is not accepted as a orthodox Christian teacher except among his followers.

We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.

Or am I misreading you?

Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.

Or am I misreading you?

Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.

And you are correct here. Lee could never have gotten the leaven past us if he did not start with some good orthodoxy.

But when it comes to the idea of simply tossing Lee and his teachings aside, the way I think of it is not to throw everything out and start over. But whenever I am faced with teaching post-LCM that does not square with something I think is right and I note that its source is in my LCM past, I start with the rejection of the Lee/LCM teaching and make it prove itself as true.

I know that I have made a lot of statements to the effect of throwing everything from Lee out. But it was really meant to imply that anytime there is a potential conflict, I presume that the non-Lee source is correct until I re-investigate and prove Lee correct.

And so far I don't think that I can remember finding Lee correct over anything that I am now learning outside the LCM.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Let's be fair to the Word of God first, then maybe we can get into being fair to anything or anyone else....fair enough? Not much of what Witness Lee taught was common place, and this is why he is not accepted as a orthodox Christian teacher except among his followers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We can agree to disagree on some points, but it sounds like you are disagreeing with my points to give Lee a fair hearing amongst peers.

Well, it's a little late for us to give Lee a fair hearing, the man's been dead for about 18 years. Seriously though, if there is a hearing to be heard, as far as this forum is concerned, it should be based upon two main items: One would be what is in print - and for this we only have the publishing arm of the Local Church of Witness Lee to rely on. (While voluminous, many of Lee's more controversial speakings have been softened or edited out altogether) The other would be the recollections and notes of those of us who sat at his feet for hundreds upon hundreds of messages. (whether in person or video tape)

Lee taught tons of things which are orthodox. Whether it was original to him is besides the point, for which minister after the Apostles is original anyways? He went thru the N.T. almost verse by verse. If I throw it all out, without testing each point, I run into the same danger as those who have left the faith. Whether Lee is accepted or not has to do with his "extras," which the Lord called leaven.

In regards to "peers", well Witness Lee didn't have any peers and this is one of the problems. If by peers you mean other Christian teachers of his era, well we just haven't a lot to compare him to. There just weren't a lot of other guys running around telling his followers he was the only one speaking as God's oracle ON EARTH since 1945. I don't know of any other Christian teacher who declared that "Christianity is Christless". So I'm sorry to tell you that Lee is out alone on an island of his own making, and this is the Witness Lee we are left to deal with, and not simply the one who "taught tons of things which are orthodox".

without testing each point

Agreed. So let's start with the one that I have brought out here in this thread without trying to torpedo it before it gets out of the harbor. Notice the title of the thread is NOT a declaration, it is a question. You may think it is rhetorical on my part, but it really isn't. This doesn't mean that I don't have my own answers ready and rarin to go, but so far I've seen nothing but a lot of retorts to some arguments and conclusions that I have never even made yet! I don't mind being on the defensive, after all I'm the one who started the thread, but let's try to have some reasonable back and forth before the nuclear option is exercised, ok? I mean, how in the world can we "agree to disagree" when we haven't even established what it is we disagree on.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me this is little different than those who sell tongues and the gifts as a higher blessing. Isn't this also borderline bewitching?

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

The problem with labeling everyone else as "different", i.e. defective, incomplete, lacking, "poor", etc is that you risk being the worst of all. I think the "full gospel" includes not judging others, not comparing oneself, not pointing out others' faults, and in being magnanimous (accepting and generous) toward all, if possible.

The one who says, "Everyone is divisive but me!" is probably the most divisive of all. While LCs are peculiar, so are many of us. They're not preaching a "different gospel" or presenting a "different Jesus."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.

But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

It's OK if he does that, but not Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

My Pentecostal preacher friend calls this The Full Gospel. He was saved in the church in Santa Cruz, but now says Witness Lee didn't preach the full gospel.
But then, he says all churches that do not teach and practice the gifts are not full gospel churches.

But it does speak to the fact that today many have different ideas of what the gospel is.

I posit that, if we use 2 Cor 11:4 to determine what a different Jesus, spirit, and gospel are, we aren't going to be able to put our finger on it, so to speak, and so can't determine if Lee brought another Jesus or gospel.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

First, Paul speaks of others coming to the Corinthians preaching another Jesus ; a Jesus Paul & Timothy didn't preach to them. Of course the Corinthians knew what Jesus Paul was talking about, that was originally preached to them. They were there, when they preached it to them. But we weren't there, and we prolly have no possibility of ever knowing what Jesus Paul preached to the Corinthians, before writing this letter to them.

Same with the "another spirit." We don't know what spirit they originally "received," and can't possibly ever know.

And also it's the same for "another gospel." We can't know what gospel the Corinthians originally "accepted." That preaching, or preaching's, we have no record of.

We weren't there, and as far as we know the Jesus, spirit. and gospel, Paul was speaking of was never recorded. At least his earlier preaching, prior to this letter to the Corinthians, is not recorded in our canon of scripture.

So how can we ever hope to determine if Witness Lee preached another Jesus, spirit and/or gospel?

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by awareness

But it does speak to the fact that today many have different ideas of what the gospel is.



First, Paul speaks of others coming to the Corinthians preaching another Jesus ; a Jesus Paul & Timothy didn't preach to them. Of course the Corinthians knew what Jesus Paul was talking about, that was originally preached to them. They were there, when they preached it to them. But we weren't there, and we prolly have no possibility of ever knowing what Jesus Paul preached to the Corinthians, before writing this letter to them.

Same with the "another spirit." We don't know what spirit they originally "received," and can't possibly ever know.

And also it's the same for "another gospel." We can't know what gospel the Corinthians originally "accepted." That preaching, or preaching's, we have no record of.

We weren't there, and as far as we know the Jesus, spirit. and gospel, Paul was speaking of was never recorded. At least his earlier preaching, prior to this letter to the Corinthians, is not recorded in our canon of scripture.

So how can we ever hope to determine if Witness Lee preached another Jesus, spirit and/or gospel?

Me. Awareness,
You have your epistemological knickers in a twist. If what you say is true we cannot know ANYTHING for sure about our Lord because we were not there! Wow...do you indeed mean to say this? Try 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 in regard to what Paul preached to the Corinthians.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Try 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 in regard to what Paul preached to the Corinthians.

Same deal:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you

We weren't there for that preaching ... we don't have any record of it ... it's lost to us.

The best that we can hope to do to possibly determined what he preached to the Corinthians is to read writings that were written earlier, like Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. Which is what we end up doing.

So I'm taking bro Art that that is what you are doing, when trying to figure if Lee brought a different gospel. But we can't know it if we just use 2 Cor 11:4. Sorry.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by awareness

Same deal:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you

We weren't there for that preaching ... we don't have any record of it ... it's lost to us.

The best that we can hope to do to possibly determined what he preached to the Corinthians is to read writings that were written earlier, like Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. Which is what we end up doing.

So I'm taking bro Art that that is what you are doing, when trying to figure if Lee brought a different gospel. But we can't know it if we just use 2 Cor 11:4. Sorry.

Again I say that if your approach is accepted there nothing we can know for sure. Read the rest of the verses that I cited. In those verses he plainly says what he preached to them. Obviously not every last word of what he said but surely an accurate summary. "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and was raised on the third day according g to the scriptures." I believe it is a safe conclusion that the scripture he refers to is Isaiah 53 and perhaps the Levitical system which speak to christ's death for sins. Not only so but by the time Paul wrote this epistle he. Was likely familiar with the Apostles and their eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Art

[OBW]

The following respond to a comment by awareness passed on from a Pentecostal pastor.

Originally Posted by aron

The problem with labeling everyone else as "different", i.e. defective, incomplete, lacking, "poor", etc is that you risk being the worst of all. I think the "full gospel" includes not judging others, not comparing oneself, not pointing out others' faults, and in being magnanimous (accepting and generous) toward all, if possible.

The one who says, "Everyone is divisive but me!" is probably the most divisive of all. While LCs are peculiar, so are many of us. They're not preaching a "different gospel" or presenting a "different Jesus."

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's OK if he does that, but not Lee.

And both are correct in their assessment of the charge being laid at the feet of Lee.

So, as has been asked elsewhere, what is "the same" to begin with. How much wiggle room is there within "the same," and what, even if somewhat different, is still "the same."

It is clear that almost every group latches onto certain aspects of the details surrounding Christ and the gospel at the expense of others. There may or may not be true problems in that, but at least they are talking about the same person and the same basic message. I believe that when Paul starts talking about "different" he does not mean just that they are emphasizing different things that are true, but emphasizing things that are not true. The gospel is by faith alone in Christ alone and accomplished by the once-for-all death on the cross, not by any of our works.

So for the Galatians to assert that they needed to do anything other than have faith is another gospel. Now as long as faith is included, it is not as if they were denying others the opportunity to salvation. But they did give salvation many more hurdles than is actually required. Will someone who gets circumcised and also has faith in Christ be denied salvation? Of course not. But will some balk at the prospect of being a convert if they have to do this thing? Therein is the problem. It is not that they are not becoming Christian, but that they are not preaching and living the true gospel. The gospel of salvation by grace, and of changed lives through that faith.

When I think of the kind of "different gospel" that Lee taught, it does not rise to a non-Christian gospel. And the Christ they preached was not a different person. Just not the whole person. When the teachings of Christ that called for obedience, justice, righteousness, etc., are set aside in favor of waiting for enough dispensing, and the requirements concerning the law are simply abolished, then the Christ I see preached is missing arms and legs. He needs no action. Just basking in the dispensing. It sounds nice. It makes us feel better. But it is not the gospel. And it is not "the Christ."

So if we teach a Christ/gospel that easily ignores the very commandment of Christ and of the scripture, how are we to assess that?

Do not sue your brother. But if we first send them our demands, since we are "the church" they have been served and we can treat them as heathen and sinners.
Do not do as the Pharisees do, demanding the best seats at the table. Seems that these are exactly the things taught by Deputy Authority.
Do not think more highly of yourselves than you ought. Yet we thought we were the highest.
You have everything you need for godliness. But instead we were taught that you shouldn't even bother trying to reckon yourself dead to sin.
I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But they spend most of their time looking for the already-saved who are on the college campuses because they are "good material."

Can you name more? Each one of these is not decisive in itself. But there is a pattern of setting aside the clear command of Christ for something else.

No. They are not teaching that Christ is not God, or the brother of Lucifer. But they gut so many parts of who he is and what he teaches.

And when Paul talked about a different Christ, was he talking about something that literally denied the faith, or that gutted important parts of its impact? No, Lee was not teaching a Christ so different that he is not the Christ of the Bible. But he was teaching enough difference that the life we were called to was literally denied as the truth in some cases. I know that Yoda's "there is no try" is a popular mantra these days. But that is not what the Bible says. It tells us to do, and supplies the pardon if we fail. So there must be try. If it is "do or do not" then there would be no requirement for grace after salvation. Well, not entirely, because those who "do not" will surely need grace. But this notion that we are not to try, therefore if you consider that you might not succeed you should not try, then you are shrinking back from trying. But that is precisely what Lee taught.

If we are only talking about the "onset" of salvation, Lee did not teach a different gospel. But after that, his gospel was very different. And as for Christ, he taught a Christ that denied his own requirement to live a higher law than the 10 commandments.

It was still the Christ of the Bible — but gutted of important teaching. At some level, a "different Christ."

I don't know how else to say it.