Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But this is not what Sola Scriptura means. We need teachers, and footnotes, to come to a proper understanding.
It is called Sola Scriptura, not SOLO Scriptura.

You are absolutely right about needing teachers and footnotes to come to a proper understanding. Notice the BOLD S? Of course, this was a "Freudian slip" of sorts on your part. In the Local Church of Witness Lee only ONE TEACHER counts, and ONE SET OF FOOTNOTES counts. You know that, but you tried to be politically correct. Nice try.

In the Local Church of Witness Lee it is "search the Scriptures ALONG WITH "THE INTERPRETED WORD" (AKA The words of Witness Lee) This is the heart of the matter that you and some others on this board don't want to address. This thread is titled "Major Errors of Witness Lee's Teaching". The biggest error - the error that leads to the acceptance and imbibing of the multitude of all Lee's errors in teaching and practice - is the error that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". If this error is accepted, it opens the floodgate for all the other errors of teaching and practice in the movement.

So, when all the dust settles, the main problem - again, one which you and some others refuse to admit, much less address - is that members in the Local Church are forced to be "Sola Lee". Those who question or feel uncomfortable with this dynamic are forced to leave, or suffer in silence (for example if they are not as "absolute" as their spouse, siblings or other LC members).

Nice try on your "google" info on the Bereans. You are nearly clueless bro. If google is your source for Church/Christian/biblical history you are nearly clueless. You're grasping at straws and coming up short. I noticed that you didn't address the verse I cited that totally shoots down your garbage that "The interpretation Paul presented would have been extra biblical for them". You artfully sidestepped this one, my man. Nice try.

I guess I can't really blame you that much. Your source for biblical interpretation is Witness Lee. Your source for Church history (such as it is) is Witness Lee. Your source for everything is Witness Lee. Everything else you post is just stuff a trained monkey could post from google. Go out there, find out what Christians scholars, authors and students have been studying and writing about for hundreds of years....then get back to us.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You are absolutely right about needing teachers and footnotes to come to a proper understanding. Notice the BOLD S? Of course, this was a "Freudian slip" of sorts on your part. In the Local Church of Witness Lee only ONE TEACHER counts, and ONE SET OF FOOTNOTES counts. You know that, but you tried to be politically correct. Nice try.

If my source is Witness Lee why am I posting from Don Stewart and Prof Daniel Wallace etc? The stuff I post is not "from Google", that is just a search engine to find the sources and I stay away from the nutters like Jesus-is-savior .com and other KJV-only and conspiracy sites.

The verse you posted says that Paul reasoned from the Scriptures. That is already well established that the Scripture was used. But for Paul to explain about Christ crucified - they did not have the New Testament nor would the Jews have considered it or Paul to be authoritative. This is the extra-biblical revelation Paul was presenting to them.

He would have said something like "There was this man who died a few weeks (months?) ago and he rose from the dead. He is the Messiah that is foretold in the Scripture". Some may have said, "really? But he was a sinner, I saw him eat and drink with tax collectors". Others may have said "he was just a criminal like the rest". So Paul did have to convince them that this guy called Jesus was in fact the Messiah.

There was nothing in their Old Testament that explained everything. They still had to take a leap of faith based upon Paul's words, and could not rely solely upon what the Old Testament said. Unless they were witnesses to the resurrection themselves, they'd have to believe Paul that Christ actually rose from the dead and was not hidden away by his disciples.

An error of the OP is the view that himself and his overly literal interpretation will give him more accuracy than consulting biblical footnote, commentaries etc.

For example his view that in Revelation the woman is Israel and not the Church is already diverging from mainstream protestant, Catholic and Orthodox belief.

In any case, unless you have some kind of proof that the Bereans believed in sola-scriptura and that was the reason they were "more noble", the Bereans were just oral and written -tradition Jews like everyone else.

I note that you are not trying to refute this position, not even using Google. It seems your word alone is authoritative without providing any sources. All you can do is say how I interpret everything according to Lee and saying I am clueless.

[Drake]

Evangelical "In any case, unless you have some kind of proof that the Bereans believed in sola-scriptura, the Bereans were just oral and written -tradition Jews like everyone else. "

That is a historical fact also.

The believers in the early church had a world view that was framed by the Old Testament and the Second Temple Period Jewish literature. We know this because Jude and Peter both reference some of that literature (book of Enoch). This alone is sufficient proof that the New Testament believers were not just using the Old Testament. Also, Paul charged the believers in Colossae and Laodicea to exchange the letters he sent to them (Colossians 4:16).

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Evangelical "In any case, unless you have some kind of proof that the Bereans believed in sola-scriptura, the Bereans were just oral and written -tradition Jews like everyone else. "

That is a historical fact also.

The believers in the early church had a world view that was framed by the Old Testament and the Second Temple Period Jewish literature. We know this because Jude and Peter both reference some of that literature (book of Enoch). This alone is sufficient proof that the New Testament believers were not just using the Old Testament. Also, Paul charged the believers in Colossae and Laodicea to exchange the letters he sent to them (Colossians 4:16).

Drake

Good point. And their old testament was different to ours - theirs contained the "Apocrypha". I can just imagine Paul proving from the book of Enoch to the Berean's that Jesus is the Messiah.

Anyway, I am not arguing against sola scriptura by any means. I am arguing against SOLO scriptura and a somewhat common misconception about the Bereans. "Eph 4:11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,".

Whether we take a literal or allegorical approach or have a footnote free or footnote full bible, it is not the methods and literalness of the scripture which matters but the heart of the person reading it, plus God's Spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In any case, unless you have some kind of proof that the Bereans believed in sola-scriptura and that was the reason they were "more noble", the Bereans were just oral and written -tradition Jews like everyone else.

I note that you are not trying to refute this position, not even using Google. It seems your word alone is authoritative without providing any sources. All you can do is say how I interpret everything according to Lee and saying I am clueless.

Just like with the Noah/Ham/Canaan curse, you seem obsessed with arguing points for which the scriptures are entirely silent. The Gospel which Apostle Paul brought to the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth was entirely based upon all the promises of God concerning the long-awaited Messiah. The entire Old Testament focuses on these promises. The Book of Acts makes this abundantly clear. Read all the gospel messages recorded in this book! Not just Paul's but Peter's also. They all center on the Christ of God.

Who cares whether the Bereans would classify themselves as "sola scriptura?" Who cares whether or not we now have adequate proof concerning classifying the noble Bereans "sola scriptura" or oral- and written-tradition Jews like everyone else?

Isn't this what LSM has long taught us? The plain story of scripture is never enough. We must "recover" the hidden story, that which every other Christian has missed for two millennia. Then once we find this long lost hidden meaning beyond the printed page, we can then proceed to condemn all of poor, poor Christianity for being fallen, degraded, shallow, and blind "moo cows."

[UntoHim]

Ok, our new friend, "Unregistered Guest" has made a comprehensive reply to Drake. Since he/she is the thread starter, let's give the floor back to him/her for the time being. Drake, when you get a chance, you are welcome to respond. The rest of us, let's hold off.

To Unregistered Guest:
Could you please take a minute and shoot an email requesting registration over to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com? Please include your desired UserName.
This will allow your posts to appear immediately instead of having to go through the delay of the moderation queue. Plus, what could be more prestigious than being a member of our little popcorn stand? It's a win-win deal for everybody!
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just like with the Noah/Ham/Canaan curse, you seem obsessed with arguing points for which the scriptures are entirely silent. The Gospel which Apostle Paul brought to the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth was entirely based upon all the promises of God concerning the long-awaited Messiah. The entire Old Testament focuses on these promises. The Book of Acts makes this abundantly clear. Read all the gospel messages recorded in this book! Not just Paul's but Peter's also. They all center on the Christ of God.

Who cares whether the Bereans would classify themselves as "sola scriptura?" Who cares whether or not we now have adequate proof concerning classifying the noble Bereans "sola scriptura" or oral- and written-tradition Jews like everyone else?

Isn't this what LSM has long taught us? The plain story of scripture is never enough. We must "recover" the hidden story, that which every other Christian has missed for two millennia. Then once we find this long lost hidden meaning beyond the printed page, we can then proceed to condemn all of poor, poor Christianity for being fallen, degraded, shallow, and blind "moo cows."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just like with the Noah/Ham/Canaan curse, you seem obsessed with arguing points for which the scriptures are entirely silent. The Gospel which Apostle Paul brought to the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth was entirely based upon all the promises of God concerning the long-awaited Messiah. The entire Old Testament focuses on these promises. The Book of Acts makes this abundantly clear. Read all the gospel messages recorded in this book! Not just Paul's but Peter's also. They all center on the Christ of God.

I can show an example from scripture where extra-biblical information was required, ie. Scripture alone was not enough.

Read carefully what the eunuch said to Philip in Acts 8:34-35

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?

In other words the eunuch did not have a clue who the scripture is speaking of.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

Notice how it says Philip began with Scripture, and then told him about Jesus.

There is no way that Ethiopian would know that Jesus was the Messiah based upon the Scripture alone.

Scripture was used, but Philip had to provide extra-biblical information and revelation so that the Eunuch would know that Jesus was the Messiah, and not someone else.

That is all true what you say about the Old Testament. But Paul reasoned with many people from the Scriptures, some listened, some didn't. Why?
Not because their bible's had footnotes and his didn't.

The difference is not how and they used the scripture, literal or otherwise, but whether God's Spirit opened their hearts and minds to receive it, and whether they themselves had open hearts and minds, which is why the Bereans were called "more noble". It was not as if the Bereans chose to throw away their "footnotes" (oral traditions etc) and use Scripture alone.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who cares whether the Bereans would classify themselves as "sola scriptura?" Who cares whether or not we now have adequate proof concerning classifying the noble Bereans "sola scriptura" or oral- and written-tradition Jews like everyone else?

Isn't this what LSM has long taught us? The plain story of scripture is never enough. We must "recover" the hidden story, that which every other Christian has missed for two millennia. Then once we find this long lost hidden meaning beyond the printed page, we can then proceed to condemn all of poor, poor Christianity for being fallen, degraded, shallow, and blind "moo cows."

In this instance it's not about recovering lost or hidden meaning. This is about establishing the context.

Just like Philip had to explain to the Eunuch that Jesus was the Messiah (and not someone else) and that Jesus had in fact come (and was not yet to come, as so many Jews believed)... Paul had to explain to the Bereans who Jesus was, and used the Scriptures to do so. There's nothing actually obvious or literal in the Old Testament that specifies that the Messiah would be named Jesus and arrive in the year 0 AD (or whatever their calendar was at the time). Any further information Paul provided them would be classed as extra-biblical interpretation/revelation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can show an example from scripture where extra-biblical information was required, ie. Scripture alone was not enough.

How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those whog bring good news!”