Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

To be honest, I never heard anyone say that they were.

And that is not a problem to me. I would argue against the most stringent versions of sola scriptura.

But at the same time, I cannot accept anything that stands in opposition to what the Bible actually says. That does not mean that the Bible has all the answers, but anyone's alleged additional answers cannot contradict what is in the Bible.

And I take it a step further. I acknowledge that many people sense "speaking" to them about certain things that are not taught within the scripture clearly one way or the other. In those cases, I do not have problems with holding to such a thing personally. But to insist upon it as true to the extent that everyone should see it and agree is different.

Given the kind of preaching that Paul was doing, since he said that he was showing in the scriptures where it was said that the Christ would have to suffer (among other things), it does not take a "sola scriptura" approach to the scripture to assess Paul's statements. Just a sound mind to look at the particular passages. He claims it is from the scripture, so you look at the scripture and check him out.

The whole effort is predicated on the assumption that the scripture is worth looking at. Paul was using it as his source, and the Bereans confirmed it to be true. They didn't have to be of a "sola scriptura" mindset to do that. Just rational enough to confirm that what Paul claimed was in scripture was, in fact, in there.

So I gather by your post that you might accept that one can be a "noble Berean" by reading the bible + Lee's footnotes. That is, just because we use Lee's footnotes does not mean we are not noble Bereans. Just because the Bereans were not "sola scriptura" does not mean they are not noble.

We do confirm that what Lee claimed in the footnotes is there. For example, we have confirmed that what Lee says about the ground of the church is there. Overwhelmingly there is one church per city, and the word churches (plural) is never used in the context of a single city. Furthermore, denominations are non-existent.

The only defense one can come up with against this is the prescriptive vs descriptive argument that many have stated before. JesusLover seems to like sums and rational approaches. He's playing the 83% odds on Israelogy, and a descriptive one at that, but our odds are 99% on the ground of the church, and 100% concerning denominations.