Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[ZNPaaneah]

My claim is that there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. All the treasures of knowledge are hidden in Jesus Christ.

Relying on Wallace or Witness Lee is no different than those who "were of Peter" or "Apollos" or "Paul".

Paul is writing to everyone in Corinth that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, all that are called to be saints, with all in every place that call upon the name of Jesus Christ.

These are the very same ones who in chapter 3 were carnal, babes in Christ. Among them was envy and strife and divisions. They walked as men. They said I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Witness Lee, and I am of Wallace.

In chapter 1 Paul makes it clear he considers all of them to be "the church in Corinth" but in Chapter 3 he also makes it clear that they divided themselves into sects based on allegiance to some doctrine, or man.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My claim is that there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. All the treasures of knowledge are hidden in Jesus Christ.

Relying on Wallace or Witness Lee is no different than those who "were of Peter" or "Apollos" or "Paul".

Paul is writing to everyone in Corinth that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, all that are called to be saints, with all in every place that call upon the name of Jesus Christ.

These are the very same ones who in chapter 3 were carnal, babes in Christ. Among them was envy and strife and divisions. They walked as men. They said I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Witness Lee, and I am of Wallace.

In chapter 1 Paul makes it clear he considers all of them to be "the church in Corinth" but in Chapter 3 he also makes it clear that they divided themselves into sects based on allegiance to some doctrine, or man.

I don't see much Berean-like attitude coming from you. No one is talking about giving allegiance to Wallace or following him. I am quoting him as a reliable source of scholarly knowledge, as a teacher that God gifted to the Body of Christ. When you become an expert in NT Greek like him, let me know, I may quote you. Until then, your view is no better than any other amateur theologian interpreting the bible according to SOLO scriptura.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see much Berean-like attitude coming from you. No one is talking about giving allegiance to Wallace or following him. I am quoting him as a reliable source of scholarly knowledge, as a teacher that God gifted to the Body of Christ. When you become an expert in NT Greek like him, let me know, I may quote you. Until then, your view is no better than any other amateur theologian interpreting the bible according to SOLO scriptura.

No you aren't. You said "do you know more than Wallace". Nothing scholarly about that, no reference to NT Greek. Simply Wallace said it, so there. Very noble of you.

The persons to whom this epistle was directed were the church of God that was at Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints. All Christians are thus far sanctified in Christ Jesus, that they are by baptism dedicated and devoted to him, they are under strict obligations to be holy, and they make profession of real sanctity. If they be not truly holy, it is their own fault and reproach. Note, It is the design of Christianity to sanctify us in Christ. (Matthew Henry, chapter 1)

Here, I. Paul blames the Corinthians for their weakness and nonproficiency. Those who are sanctified are so only in part: there is still room for growth and increase both in grace and knowledge, 2 Pet. 3:18. Those who through divine grace are renewed to a spiritual life may yet in many things be defective. The apostle tells them he could not speak to them as unto spiritual men, but as unto carnal men, as to babes in Christ, 1 Cor. 3:1. They were so far from forming their maxims and measures upon the ground of divine revelation, and entering into the spirit of the gospel, that is was but too evident they were much under the command of carnal and corrupt affections. They were still mere babes in Christ. They had received some of the first principles of Christianity, but had not grown up to maturity of understanding in them, or of faith and holiness; and yet it is plain, from several passages in this epistle, that the Corinthians were very proud of their wisdom and knowledge. Note, It is but too common for persons of very moderate knowledge and understanding to have a great measure of self-conceit. The apostle assigns their little proficiency in the knowledge of Christianity as a reason why he had communicated no more of the deep things of it to them. They could not bear such food, they needed to be fed with milk, not with meat, 1 Cor. 3:2. Note, It is the duty of a faithful minister of Christ to consult the capacities of his hearers and teach them as they can bear. And yet it is natural for babes to grow up to men; and babes in Christ should endeavour to grow in Stature, and become men in Christ. It is expected that their advances in knowledge should be in proportion to their means and opportunities, and their time of professing religion, that they may be able to bear discourses on the mysteries of our religion, and not always rest in plain things. It was a reproach to the Corinthians that they had so long sat under the ministry of Paul and had made no more improvement in Christian knowledge. Note, Christians are utterly to blame who do not endeavour to grow in grace and knowledge.
II. He blames them for their carnality, and mentions their contention and discord about their ministers as evidence of it: For you are yet carnal; for whereas there are among you envyings, and strifes, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Cor. 3:3. They had mutual emulations, and quarrels, and factions among them, upon the account of their ministers, while one said, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, 1 Cor. 3:4. These were proofs of their being carnal, that fleshly interests and affections too much swayed them. Note, Contentions and quarrels about religion are sad evidences of remaining carnality. True religion makes men peaceable and not contentious. Factious spirits act upon human principles, not upon principles of true religion; they are guided by their own pride and passions, and not by the rules of Christianity: Do you not walk as men? Note, It is to be lamented that many who should walk as Christians, that is, above the common rate of men, do indeed walk as men, live and act too much like other men. (Matthew Henry, chapter 3:1-4)

Please note that Matthew Henry also agrees that the ones that Paul was talking to in chapter 3 were those that he addressed the letter to as "the church in Corinth", those who are being sanctified.

I already quoted WL.

I could quote others.

Don't you find it ironic that you, with the knowledge of expert scholars are unable to refute the simple minded amateur theologian?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No you aren't. You said "do you know more than Wallace". Nothing scholarly about that, no reference to NT Greek. Simply Wallace said it, so there. Very noble of you.

But Wallace is an expert so what he writes about titus 1:5 is according to his expert knowledge. If he thought there were multiple churches per city he would not have said that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But Wallace is an expert so what he writes is according to his expert knowledge. If he thought there were multiple churches per city he would not have said that.

Matthew Henry is a well respected theologian and I quoted him. He agrees with me that the same ones who were sectarian in chapter 3 were those who were being sanctified, that he addressed the letter to in chapter 1 as "the church in Corinth".

The point of Paul is not that the sectarian Christians need a better name. Since a better name doesn't make them the genuine church, neither does a sectarian name change the fact that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus, redeemed by His blood to be saints, with all those who call on His name.

The only thing that having a better name gets you is envy, strife, and reveals that you are babe in Christ and walking as men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Matthew Henry is a well respected theologian and I quoted him. He agrees with me that the same ones who were sectarian in chapter 3 were those who were being sanctified, that he addressed the letter to in chapter 1 as "the church in Corinth".

The point of Paul is not that the sectarian Christians need a better name. Since a better name doesn't make them the genuine church, neither does a sectarian name change the fact that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus, redeemed by His blood to be saints, with all those who call on His name.

The only thing that having a better name gets you is envy, strife, and reveals that you are babe in Christ and walking as men.

Yes I like Matthew Henry that is good that you quoted him. But I don't believe what you say I believe. All believers are sanctified including all those in Corinth.

Please see the second paragraph of this website:

http://www.lsmradio.com/hearing-of-f...-recovery.html

It says exactly what you said.

Anyhow,my post was concerned with whether there was one church per city in the early church. This seems to be an established fact according to Greek NT experts like Wallace. This does not prove anything because we must answer the question of a) is it for today? and b) was Lee/Nee chosen by God to practice it?

[UntoHim]

You guys are talking past each other and it's getting rather tedious and boring.

No serious student of the NT would ever deny that there was one church per one city back 2,000 years ago. They also didn't have running water or electricity or fancy sound systems or flat screen TVs to display verses and the words to the songs and hymns.

Let's discus these notions in the here and now. Many large metropolitan areas have 100,000+ Christians. The reality of the current situation is that "one church" for any particular large city is not practical. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Local Church of Witness Lee does not even practice one church in one city. Oh, they call the different churches within a city "hall 1", "hall 2" etc. It's a word game that doesn't fool anybody, and it certainly isn't fooling God.

Move on fellows.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No you aren't. You said "do you know more than Wallace". Nothing scholarly about that, no reference to NT Greek. Simply Wallace said it, so there. Very noble of you.

Its your strawman because I never denied it was not written to all Christians in Corinth.

But these sects are condemned by Paul. He speaks of them in a negative way. He thinks of them all as one church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its your strawman because I never denied it was not written to all Christians in Corinth.

But these sects are condemned by Paul. He speaks of them in a negative way. He thinks of them all as one church.

How can it be a "straw man" if it is a cornerstone in WL's teaching concerning the ground of the church?

1. A major pillar of this doctrine is that every letter is addressed to "the church in _____"

2. A second major pillar is 1Cor 3.

This is not a "straw man" argument, it is the root of the tree.

WL teaches that the proper name for the church is "The church in ____" and that any other name is akin to a wife taking some other man's name for her own. That is ground of the church 101.

So let's look at this carefully. WL teaches that Corinth was the "typical" church. In this typical church Paul addresses his letter to "the church in Corinth" yet that included all the believers, even those who were meeting in groups claiming to be "of Peter" or "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Christ". Paul rebukes them for this saying they are fleshly, and babes in Christ.

One way to understand this is that trying to have the best, most spiritual name is fleshly, walking according to envy, strife and the ways of men.

The other way is to build your own sect by coming up with a new name, "The church in blank".

But regardless you have to agree that the book of Corinthians was written to the church in Corinth, it signified a typical church, and there were many babes in Christ, fleshly ones who were not spiritual and who were hung up on the name of their meeting hall. Yet they were all included in Paul's reference to "the church in Corinth".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How can it be a "straw man" if it is a cornerstone in WL's teaching concerning the ground of the church?

1. A major pillar of this doctrine is that every letter is addressed to "the church in _____"

2. A second major pillar is 1Cor 3.

This is not a "straw man" argument, it is the root of the tree.

WL teaches that the proper name for the church is "The church in ____" and that any other name is akin to a wife taking some other man's name for her own. That is ground of the church 101.

So let's look at this carefully. WL teaches that Corinth was the "typical" church. In this typical church Paul addresses his letter to "the church in Corinth" yet that included all the believers, even those who were meeting in groups claiming to be "of Peter" or "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Christ". Paul rebukes them for this saying they are fleshly, and babes in Christ.

One way to understand this is that trying to have the best, most spiritual name is fleshly, walking according to envy, strife and the ways of men.

The other way is to build your own sect by coming up with a new name, "The church in blank".

But regardless you have to agree that the book of Corinthians was written to the church in Corinth, it signified a typical church, and there were many babes in Christ, fleshly ones who were not spiritual and who were hung up on the name of their meeting hall. Yet they were all included in Paul's reference to "the church in Corinth".

The Recovery is not about naming the church with the proper name, but to have no name. Even to take the name of the locality can be divisive.

Why do we say "The local churches do not have a name. ". It is a straw man because we do not believe in properly naming the church as you are claiming. We believe in NOT naming the church. But to identify ourselves we refer to our locality. Obviously Paul no where rebukes anyone for saying "I am of Corinth", "I am of Ephesus".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Recovery is not about naming the church with the proper name, but to have no name. Even to take the name of the locality can be divisive.

Why do we say "The local churches do not have a name. ". It is a straw man because we do not believe in properly naming the church as you are claiming. We believe in NOT naming the church. But to identify ourselves we refer to our locality. Obviously Paul no where rebukes anyone for saying "I am of Corinth", "I am of Ephesus".

My how things have changed!

How can the so-called Recovery be about having no name, when they filed lawsuits in several cities over the rights to a church name???

Evangelical, your teachings have a serious disconnect with reality.

[aron]

We believe in NOT naming the church. But to identify ourselves we refer to our locality. Obviously Paul no where rebukes anyone for saying "I am of Corinth", "I am of Ephesus".

Regarding not naming the church - that seems to be the lever, or engine, to pry believers from the flock, whence they are subject to the private eschatology, theology, and ecclesiology of one person, represented by a host of names. Christians on Campus, Continuing Steadfastly, emanna, The Lord's Move to Europe, Affirmation and Critique, Defense and Confirmation, Rhema Inc, and of course the mother ship Living Stream Ministry.

And if you think, "Oh well that's the ministry not the church", in 1997 when the mother ship directed all the localities to have a web presence, each (identical) web site said, "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". No difference from saying, "I am of Nee and Lee". And the Chinese don't have any such compunctions - they shout, "Nee, Lee, Chu!" over & again. Just so there's no mistaking who is "of" who.