"God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"

[micah6v8]

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image ofGod".

This is excellent!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

Where's the Bible say we lost the image of God in the first place?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

When I think of the various adjectives that would describe God's nature, none of those same adjectives I see as being applicable to human beings. For example, John 4:24 says "God is spirit..." God's nature is spirit. WIth that in mind, if Lee said that that we can become like God in nature, then how come my nature hasn't changed from a human to a spirit? I can't walk through walls or anything like that. The reason I attach that kind of expectation to the LC notion of deification is because they attribute the phrase "god-man" to people in a present sense.

What I find insightful is Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them...

I highlighted what I think is the key, same nature as you. Paul and Barnabas were quick to react against anyone claiming they had any nature other than human. Trying to make a claim otherwise introduces all kinds of problems and certainly has no Biblical basis. That is not even to mention the inevitable pride that goes along with LCers making claims of being god-men.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I think of the various adjectives that would describe God's nature, none of those same adjectives I see as being applicable to human beings. For example, John 4:24 says "God is spirit..." God's nature is spirit. WIth that in mind, if Lee said that that we can become like God in nature, then how come my nature hasn't changed from a human to a spirit? I can't walk through walls or anything like that. The reason I attach that kind of expectation to the LC notion of deification is because they attribute the phrase "god-man" to people in a present sense.

What I find insightful is Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them...

I highlighted what I think is the key, same nature as you. Paul and Barnabas were quick to react against anyone claiming they had any nature other than human. Trying to make a claim otherwise introduces all kinds of problems and certainly has no Biblical basis. That is not even to mention the inevitable pride that goes along with LCers making claims of being god-men.

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

With this sleight of hand, and the Blended lackeys to enforce it, the recovery was taken off the reservation.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

Excellent observation! There is, in fact, a big difference between "partaker of" and "become". Witness Lee definitely went too far in this regard, and this error also caused him to error in other parts of his theology as well.

[awareness]

Great discussion, I agree ... with all of you.

But:

The proper reaction to "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is to bust out laughing.

No one has accomplished theosis since Christ ... and look what he had to go thru to get there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

We were lost, and God sent His Son. How does it get any heavier than that? God loved you so much that He sent His only begotten Son, who while you were yet in sin, died for you. This is love, man. God loves you, man!

And yes, I'm a Jesus Freak. "And we beheld His glory.." John 1:14. To me, it categorically cannot get any higher than that. Anything higher than beholding Jesus, is for me a snare. The devil always tries to drag us somewhere we don't belong. Jesus lowered Himself; why should we elevate ourselves?

[micah6v8]

"awareness" raised a good point:- Is it correct to say that we have lost the image of God?

If I understand "awareness" correctly, he might cite Genesis 9:6 which suggests that even after Adam and Eve's fall, Scripture deems everyone (whether believer or unbeliever) as still "made in God's image".

My understanding of Romans 8:29 and 2 Corinthians 3:18 are that the Christian growth that takes place after we begin to believe in the Lord is also described as "transformation into the image of Jesus".

Is there an inconsistency? The answer is not straightforward. I suggest having a look at this article written by a Christian writer John Piper which tries to explain how "image of God" is understood.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-image-of-god

On a separate note, if one wanted to describe the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible in one sentence, one could also simply cite John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This verse adds a dimension in that it also introduces the idea of God's love.

LSM's version:-"God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" introduces two ideas:- (i)Incarnation/Living as a human and (ii)Transformation.

My "improved-version of LSM's version":-"God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God" also has two limbs:- (i) Redemption and (ii) Transformation. My intention was to (i) move from the focus from incarnation to redemption which I felt was neglected and (ii) to improve LSM's unsatisfactory expounding of "transformation"

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

Redemptive love is also transformative love. And when we see this love in Jesus Christ, and become its vectors (receiving and transmitting), we arguably are at our destiny. To go beyond this to theologicsl constructions, however carefully reasoned, carries risk of distraction snd worse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I suggest having a look at this article written by a Christian writer John Piper which tries to explain how "image of God" is understood.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-image-of-god
I enjoyed that Bible lesson on the image of God in the Bible.

I propose that 'image of God,' and what it is, is quite a mystery. After all, man-made gods (idols) are called by the same word it is said we're made in. And we aren't stone or wooden idols, are we?

Now just what the image of God is I won't pretend to know. But I can point to a possible candidate: the awareness reading these words at this moment. That's mysterious too. I'll grant you that. But we can point to it, or point it out, and it can't be denied ... or it can -- as humans are inclined sooner or later to deny anything and everything ... even if being buffoons -- as awareness is necessary to deny awareness.

Originally Posted by micah

On a separate note, if one wanted to describe the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible in one sentence, one could also simply cite John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This verse adds a dimension in that it also introduces the idea of God's love.

LSM's version:-"God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" introduces two ideas:- (i)Incarnation/Living as a human and (ii)Transformation.

My "improved-version of LSM's version":-"God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God" also has two limbs:- (i) Redemption and (ii) Transformation. My intention was to (i) move from the focus from incarnation to redemption which I felt was neglected and (ii) to improve LSM's unsatisfactory expounding of "transformation"

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

Glad you pointed out "love" bro. "God so loved..." Boy do I need that. I'll take any love I can eek out in this life. I need it. And need it vouchsafed.

The Bible says we're but worms (somewhere, if you must know, let me know and I'll find it. Or google it.).

So I guess we're worms made in the image of God. Anyway, it paints a picture like in these bodies we're wearing something like spacesuits, with God's image within it.

But these spacesuits are flawed, and troublesome, and don't mind the image within. At least that's the way mine is, maybe more than others.

And that's why I so need God's love. And need Paul's comment to the Roman Christians: "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Please ignore the extra-biblical comments in this post. Consider them the ramblings of a worm ... but howbeit a god worm ... perchance ... as it can be seen that way.

Maybe this material should be in lala land, or Alternative Views. Does this "image of God" thing bring our minds into the lala land of our imaginations? If so, isn't that where Witness Lee brought us into, with his God-Men doctrine?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Please ignore the extra-biblical comments in this post. Consider them the ramblings of a worm ... but howbeit a god worm ... perchance ...

A glow worm. Faintly glowing, in sympathetic synchrony with the light from above.

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's why I so need God's love. And need Paul's comment to the Roman Christians: "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I was thinking of this verse, too, in similar context: what doctrine, theology, teaching, or hermeneutic should separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord? Answer: none. That's a big reason why "becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" doesn't cut it for me. First off, there's no love stated. Too easy to forget. I need love in front of me, 24/7... never assume it's there, or you end up like the Ephesians, full of hifalutin terminology but with no love (Rev. 2:4). Secondly, it's a speculative statement. I don't care if Athanasius first documented this notion. I can give you 46,000 documented notions, some much older than Athanasius.

I like to speculate, and have done it often, even publicly on this forum. But I try to keep "truth" and "speculation" distinct (and it helps to do that, that I'm not merchandizing my speculations).

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

I recently addressed this on another thread, and wanted to continue here, that "God's economy" as presented by Lee paved the way for the "deification" notion to set up shop in our minds. Lee's "God's economy" metric was that God dispenses Himself into humankind in order to make them ultimately into what He is: God.

I mentioned that Jesus taught about dispensing also, but in the context of obedience, and stewardship (Gk: "oikonomia" = "stewardship", e.g. Luke 16:1-13). God gives something, and then expects cooperation, and something in return. This began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and continued throughout scripture.

And my notion of stewardship is colored by what I call "agency": a rich man will operate through agents, through emissaries. A king, for example, will send ambassadors to speak for him, and make his wishes known. That ambassador represents the king's will, abroad. But no one confuses the ambassador with the king. Lee's theology unfortunately conflated the servant with the Master. The ambassador, or the servant, or the steward, in Lee's eyes became "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." But it's incorrect to confuse the Sender with the sent, and to conflate the Creator with redeemed creation made new.

God alone is YHWH, "Kurios", the LORD, the Boss. We know that a servant is not above his Master (Matt 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16, 15:20). Nor are we God's equals; God is peerless. Sustaining the idea that we become God requires so many qualifiers that it's essentially useless.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

Yes we partake of the divine life and nature through works of faith, and are promised transfiguration, and glory. But star differs from star in glory, and which one of these stars equals God? None. And we're promised that we'll be "transformed into the same image, from glory to glory", but transformation and transfiguration doesn't equal becoming God. My and cat are both are furry household pets, and both partake of mammalian image, pet life and domestic nature, but I don't conflate my dog with my cat, or for that matter with a goat or pig or cow. They're similar, or even "alike", but not exactly the same. Lee erred by conflating things such that it our LC mantra, repeated in song and story, became "Christ is everything", and nearly nothing. The LC "Christ" could be whatever one (Lee) wanted it to be. And what wasn't wanted, i.e "love your neighbor" or "remember the poor", could be ignored. "We're just here for Christ".

The same thing with the LC idea of "becoming God". Instead of reliance upon and restriction to the word of scripture, today whatever the LC uber bosses want is perforce God, and whatever they don't want is ignored. Doesn't matter if God repeatedly sent messengers to tell us all something - "No; we're only interested in God's economy, and becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...we're promised that we'll be "transformed into the same image, from glory to glory", but image and glorification doesn't mean becoming God. My dog is like my cat ...

Each animal was created after it's own kind (Gen 1:24,25). And we are arguably "God's kind". God our Creator is also our Father in heaven. We were once estranged, but by faith are now endeavouring to return home.

But the essential point, never overturned or contravened that I can see, is "Hear O Israel; God is one". God alone is God. That's never compromised, ever. I don't wish an attempt. I'm hopefully returning to my destiny by becoming God's kind, but I'm not God. Nor is anyone else that I can see, other than Jesus Christ Himself. And yes we are called to be "one" even as Jesus is one with the Father, but that doesn't mean that my identity is merged with Joe and Pete and Susie down the street. It means cooperation, sympathy, coordination. We are "one" with God by being fully obedient to His will. But we are not God. And I am "one" with Joe, but Joe is Joe and I am me.

Secondly, I repeat my earlier comments about stewardship and faithfulness. "It's expected of a servant that he (or she) be found faithful." (see e.g. 1 Cor 4:1-8). And indeed the faithful and prudent servant can hope for reward. But to reach beyond one's grasp is anathema.

In this vein I presented the example of faithful stewardship, given repeatedly in scripture. I used the example of Gabriel, speaking to Zechariah, and Mary; Gabriel stood before God's throne (Luke 1:19) and received the word of command, and as an emissary who was sent, conveyed the message faithfully to its designated recipient. But Gabriel the faithful steward, entrusted with God's will, never presumed pride of place; no one suggested Gabriel becoming God. If Gabriel the faithful, sinless angel never lifts himself up beyond what is seemly, then why should I the redeemed sinner?

"Oh, but don't you know that we'll judge the angels?" (1 Cor 6:2,3). If you're basing deification notions on such slender reeds, good luck. I won't. It's simply insufficient basis; it's the usual "Lee's logical leaps" in action. Imaginary worlds built out of cherry-picked verses.

[Cal]

You know what's bizarre about all this? Do you think there is any other group of Christians in the world who sit around and wonder and debate and fret over whether there is anything to the idea that man will "become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"?

Probably not. Healthy Christians are looking for ways to know God better and to live more according to his will, to go about their lives in ways that their behavior (as opposed to their "being", whatever a "being" is) pleases God.

There is something seriously demented about being so hung up on these things, assuming your interest is anything but academic. Why do we do it? It's not because of the idea itself. It's because we are still debating whether Witness Lee has some kind of special insight into things. That's what the worry is, or at least the reason for discussion. It's not about the ideas themselves. It's about Lee, and his movement.

In the meantime, it's a distraction. Or could be.

"God in life and nature but not the Godhead." Who cares? Might as well be debating transubstantiation, for all the good it will do us.

Just a random thought.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

How does that differ from Genesis 1:27? I'll raise the question to the pastor of the community church I meet with and see what his input may be.

[Freedom]

It was brought to my attention that Chris Wilde of LSM made a presentation this last week at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society. The following email is from the DCP:

Dear brothers,
This Wednesday, November 18, Brother Chris Wilde will be presenting a paper at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. The paper is titled “’In Life and Nature but not in the Godhead’: Witness Lee’s Contribution to a Biblical Understanding of Theosis” (theosis is another term for deification). Paul Copan, a brother we met through CRI, will also present on theosis during the same session and introduce Chris.

In addition, five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us. We recognize that there is a new generation of scholars who may not be affected by the baggage of past slanders and who may be open to get to know this ministry.

This conference is the largest of its kind and represents an opportunity to present the truth of God’s “much more” salvation in life to a broad audience of scholars, teachers, pastors, and students. Interest in the subject of deification has been increasing among some evangelicals in recent years. However, these views of theosis lack the essential truth that in regeneration the believers receive the “life and nature” of God, and thus also lacks both coherent biblical teaching and a clear, practical way to enter into the process of God’s organic salvation.

We hope that the paper, presentation, and contact with proper scholars will be another step toward making the ministry of the age accessible to more believers.

We also know that some of those who signed the 2007 open letter criticizing Brother Lee, LSM, and the local churches will be there.

We ask that you stand with us in praying:

1. That the Lord will anoint our brother’s presentation and open the ears of the attendees;
2. That the brothers will be led to the proper ones and be empowered in His grace to be His ambassadors;
3. That the paper would reach those who the Lord has prepared; and
4. That the enemy would be bound and that some of the signers of the open letter might repent.

In Him,
the brothers at Defense and Confirmation Project

From the sound of things, Chris Wilde and the DCP have at least managed to find an audience that will hear what they have to say regarding WL's teachings. I have no idea who this Paul Copan fellow is. I do realize that there is some amount of interest these days in theosis, so maybe this kind of presentation wouldn't raise any red flags in and of itself. As the email indicates, signers of the open letter attended this conference, so I am curious as to how that played out.

Even if Chris and the DCP manage to gain any leeway with this audience (which is doubtful), that doesn't at all equal anyone there caring any more about WL than before. Obviously, the ultimate goal of Chris Wilde and the DCP being there was to promote WL.

As the email states:
"five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us."

They also say:
"We hope that the paper, presentation, and contact with proper scholars will be another step toward making the ministry of the age accessible to more believers."

If only those attending this conference realized what the DCP thinks of them. The DCP sees them all as misguided sheep in need of the one and only "ministry of the age". I would hope that for their own sake, the DCP and Chris Wilde could develop some meaningful relationships with these people, on the level such that they would be willing to learn from others outside the LC.

[UntoHim]

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

In addition, five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us. We recognize that there is a new generation of scholars who may not be affected by the baggage of past slanders and who may be open to get to know this ministry.

This is laugh out loud, knee-slapping hilarious!
Since when are the brothers of the LC/LSM/DCP interested in "dialogue"? Dialogue, in theory anyway, IS A TWO-WAY EXCHANGE. Local Churchers are not trained in dialogue, they want to teach and preach the ministry of Witness Lee - period. "the baggage of past slanders"? By this they no doubt are referring to the actual, in depth, apologetically sound critique of what Witness Lee actually taught on a day-to-day basis.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

There has to be some back story behind this presentation that Chris Wilde did, but of course, his job is just to explain what WL taught, and how WL supposedly didn't really mean everything the way that he said it. WL's teaching regarding deification was one thing that brought the LC under the radar of the cult-watcher groups in the first place. If this presentation was meant to show WL's "contributions" to the subject, then it is all the more ironic that his ministry would need to be "sanitized" for public consumption. If WL's ministry is really all so special, then why can't it be taken at face value? Why would they need a full-time spokesman and a defense team for his ministry?

Had WL not claimed that deification was the ultimate goal of our existence, would these brothers even be out there supporting this teaching? Me thinks not. This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is little value in the teaching itself. The reason they make such a big deal about it is because they are compelled to support whatever WL taught.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is laugh out loud, knee-slapping hilarious!
Since when are the brothers of the LC/LSM/DCP interested in "dialogue"? Dialogue, in theory anyway, IS A TWO-WAY EXCHANGE. Local Churchers are not trained in dialogue, they want to teach and preach the ministry of Witness Lee - period. "the baggage of past slanders"? By this they no doubt are referring to the actual, in depth, apologetically sound critique of what Witness Lee actually taught on a day-to-day basis.

As I see it, the LSM/DCP/blendeds are fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have hardly been able to find anyone who is willing to offer their support of the LCM, and even then probably a majority of people still view WL and the LC as being aberrant. If they ever managed to convince people that the LC is an orthodox group of Christians, they still have the problem of trying to convince people that WL's ministry is somehow more special than any other ministry out there. Theologians of all people should realize that the ministry of any one person is nothing to obsess over. This is what I think that these DCP brothers don't understand. Lets say they somehow managed to convince their audience that WL's teaching of deification deserves a second look. It's not like everyone is going to become suddenly obsessed with all things WL.

I'm inclined to think that many of the LC "opposers" were the very ones who requested dialogue with LC leaders. The reason the criticism hasn't relented is because LC leaders haven't been able to engage in reasonable dialogue. LC leaders want to be the ones to offer "affirmation and critique" of others, but they can't handle when it's directed at themselves. With the open letter from the 70 scholars, a very public request was made to LC leadership for a frank dialogue about WL's teachings, particularly that there would be the willingness to reject certain teachings. Those were not at all unreasonable requests, and if LC leaders really had a heart for dialogue, they would have taken these kinds of things seriously. In particular, one thing they could do would be to stop labeling these criticisms as slander and ask themselves the difficult question of why so many Christians on the outside are so concerned for them. If all these "outsiders" were intent on slandering the LC, then I can't imagine why they would be expressing so much concern for those in the LC, ill motives and concern are not two things that mix.

I would say that WL's "ministry of the age" (a ministry of yesteryear) becomes more and more irrelevant with each passing day. If WL's ministry really had so much to offer, particularly his teaching of deification, Christians would have been receptive of it long ago. As we approach the 20 year anniversary of WL's passing, it seems all the more absurd that certain supporters of WL are still out and about attempting to drum up support for and generate appreciation of WL's ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As I see it, the LSM/DCP/blendeds are fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have hardly been able to find anyone who is willing to offer their support of the LCM, and even then probably a majority of people still view WL and the LC as being aberrant. If they ever managed to convince people that the LC is an orthodox group of Christians, they still have the problem of trying to convince people that WL's ministry is somehow more special than any other ministry out there.

Not to make an equal comparison, but Apostle Paul (and all the other apostles) faced some serious opposition in his day to his own teachings. He, however, responded in this way: “And looking intently at the council, Paul said, men and brethren, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” -- Acts 23.1

Witness Lee, however, lost his standing amidst his many failed business deals, unending lawsuits, and numerous smear campaigns towards those who, like Paul, spoke their conscience. Now take a look at how Paul upholds his ministry, in what may be considered Lee's theme verse: "Neither give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than God's economy which is in faith; But the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith." -- I Timothy 1.4-5

Think about how many "myths and unending genealogies" we heard surrounding church history and the lineage of MOTA's. Talk about "ministering questionings!" How can Lee speak of the "goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart," when we heard the constant drumbeat of condemnation towards all of "poor, poor, Christianity." Paul, however, said that love "takes no account of evil." Finally how can Lee stand in all "good conscience" having swindled the saints, smeared other LC leaders, and sued the rest of Christianity?

Then he has the nerve to boast that only he "sees God's economy."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

I don't claim to know much about Chris Wilde, but my perception (in a good way) is he's a pawn and puppet of LSM. While many current blended brothers were in Southern California or LSM co-workers during the late 80's, where was Chris? In Pullman, Washington?
I really don't think he's equipped to field difficult questions someone like Ron Kangas or Ed Marks would be. For the most part I see Chris as a naïve PR brother.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As the email states:
"five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us."

What does this quote really meant to imply?
Open to LSM and closed to criticism?
Is it possible to have an openness towards the ministry and still have questions that haven't been answered?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think about how many "myths and unending genealogies" we heard surrounding church history and the lineage of MOTA's. Talk about "ministering questionings!" How can Lee speak of the "goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart," when we heard the constant drumbeat of condemnation towards all of "poor, poor, Christianity." Paul, however, said that love "takes no account of evil." Finally how can Lee stand in all "good conscience" having swindled the saints, smeared other LC leaders, and sued the rest of Christianity?

This is exactly why I have such a hard time taking parts of WL's ministry seriously. Putting things under the lens of deification, where was WL's own example of a "god-man living"? He talked a lot about that, but I don't think business failures, coverups, purgings, etc would qualify. He even went as far to discredit basic Christian virtues and good works as being "dead". If those in the LC can't handle the basics, then have no business talking about how they "see" more than everyone else.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't claim to know much about Chris Wilde, but my perception (in a good way) is he's a pawn and puppet of LSM. While many current blended brothers were in Southern California or LSM co-workers during the late 80's, where was Chris? In Pullman, Washington?
I really don't think he's equipped to field difficult questions someone like Ron Kangas or Ed Marks would be. For the most part I see Chris as a naïve PR brother.

Presumably Chris would better PR skills than some of the others. As we all know, some of the blendeds don't seem to know much about interpersonal communication skills. When criticism is directed towards them labels like "lawless users of the internet" will appear, without so much as a simple effort to engage in dialogue.

Originally Posted by Terry

What does this quote really meant to imply?
Open to LSM and closed to criticism?
Is it possible to have an openness towards the ministry and still have questions that haven't been answered?

If the DCP is in search of theologians that are "open to the ministry", they are on a wild goose chase. Like you say, various people have asked LC leaders to answer to some of WL's statements and teachings. Until there is a willingness by LC leaders handle criticism and distance themselves from certain things that WL taught, they are not going to have many supporters.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by DCP

We ask that you stand with us in praying:

1. That the Lord will anoint our brother’s presentation and open the ears of the attendees;
2. That the brothers will be led to the proper ones and be empowered in His grace to be His ambassadors;
3. That the paper would reach those who the Lord has prepared; and
4. That the enemy would be bound and that some of the signers of the open letter might repent.

These "items of prayer" are very telling as to what kind of mindset LC leaders are living in. Clearly, there is a big push currently within the LC to gain acceptance on the outside. They have had some amount of success in this regard and the unfortunate side effect is the fact that it makes it more difficult for outsiders to clearly discern what the LC is at heart. Hopefully most outsiders see the LC for what it really is, however, there are at least some who have been fooled.

The LC has a very well-defined agenda, which is to promote WL as the MOTA. They also wish to legitimize everything that WL taught regardless of a lack of scriptural support or value in application. This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of LCers having any success in collaborating with outsiders. As long as they cling to their own unique agenda, their interactions with other Christians will always be for the goal of proselytizing, and these "items of prayer" are indicative of that.

On the subject of deification, what I feel to be one of the largest problems with WL's teaching (besides the lack of scriptural support for it), is that those in the LC have not been able to demonstrate that the teaching has any benefit even if it were more widely accepted. As I have said already, it seems their first and foremost goal in pushing WL's teaching of deification is simply because it's something that WL taught. With that in mind, consider just how sad it is that these items of prayer will be taken to heart by many LCers. The reality of it all is that the LSM/DCP brothers think 1) the ears of attendees at that conference need opening, 2) they are God's ambassadors, 3) the Lord has prepared some to be "open" to them and 4) certain conference goers owe them a repentance. Everything about their attending that conference is self-serving.

Finally, it seems that LC leaders have a certain liking for issuing these "items of prayer" that they impose upon members. It's sad that the genuine prayer needs of members are given a second place to these official "corporate" edicts. I would hope that eventually LC members would make the effort to go back to past corporate prayer edicts and consider if any of these things came to pass. I think they would discover that such prayers are meaningless and self serving to a group of brothers who considers themselves to be elite, having a special vision and teaching that everyone else outside the LC needs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC has a very well-defined agenda, which is to promote WL as the MOTA. They also wish to legitimize everything that WL taught regardless of a lack of scriptural support or value in application.

The blended old-timers love to tell the "life-changing" stories of the good old days when they first contacted Lee's ministry. I never heard one such testimony about his so-called "high peak" teachings.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The blended old-timers love to tell the "life-changing" stories of the good old days when they first contacted Lee's ministry. I never heard one such testimony about his so-called "high peak" teachings.

I heard many heartfelt testimonies in the LC, yet none of these ever were "high peak" related whatsoever. The so-called high peak was always just something that you would refer to impress people or maybe as part of memorizing and outline.

If the LC by chance had anything of value to offer others, I would say that it would definitely not be related to the so-called high peak. It just seems so ironic that leaders would think something like deification is what everyone needs to hear about, when it is possibly the least relevant thing of all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The blended old-timers love to tell the "life-changing" stories of the good old days when they first contacted Lee's ministry. I never heard one such testimony about his so-called "high peak" teachings.

The problem I have with most of the "life-changing" stories is that what (in hindsight) appears to have changed is perception that "I" am in "God's best." And it is generally true that we feel better when we feel better about ourselves. It does change our lives.

Some would argue that religion does this in all of its manifestations. But not really. Those who truly are hungering and thirsting, poor in spirit, meek, humble, etc., do not really get strokes for it from outside of themselves. No one is going to tell you that you are better because you are meek. But if you join up with the latest extreme version of "God's move on the earth," they constantly tell you how special you are to be there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never heard one such testimony about his so-called "high peak" teachings.

My analogy about high-peak teachings is as one is flying at a 35,000+ altitude. You may feel elevated above the rest of the world, but there's no relationship what's happening at ground level.

'You may feel elevated above the rest of the world, but there's no relationship what's happening at ground level.'
Any relationship above the elevation? Don't forget, God is in heaven.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem I have with most of the "life-changing" stories is that what (in hindsight) appears to have changed is perception that "I" am in "God's best." And it is generally true that we feel better when we feel better about ourselves. It does change our lives.

Some would argue that religion does this in all of its manifestations. But not really. Those who truly are hungering and thirsting, poor in spirit, meek, humble, etc., do not really get strokes for it from outside of themselves. No one is going to tell you that you are better because you are meek. But if you join up with the latest extreme version of "God's move on the earth," they constantly tell you how special you are to be there.

Given all that I've seen in the LC, I definitely wouldn't place to much on "experiences", however, at the same time LC teachings like deification have obviously not had any meaningful impact in the lives of members.

As I see things, if the LC had anything of value to offer others, there would have to be something to show for it. I wouldn't presume to say what sort of manifestation that this would be, but I do think that there would be at least some way that outsiders would be able to know if a particular LC teaching was of value.

Therein lies the irony of that the LSM/DCP are attempting to do. I never found the teaching of deification to be even remotely beneficial to me. I would suspect other members could admit the same. The only benefit was that reciting various "high peak" slogans and mantras made leaders happy and no LC member was to make leaders unhappy. It just seems odd that LC leaders would take one of the very things that had never really offered any benefit to members and use it as part as their "building a bridge" with other Christians.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

'You may feel elevated above the rest of the world, but there's no relationship what's happening at ground level.'
Any relationship above the elevation? Don't forget, God is in heaven.

Interesting exchange between: Terry and Unregistered

Colossians 3 v:1 to 2 says "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

One does not read bible verses in isolation. The danger of doing so is that verses can be taken out of context.

The key to understanding these verses is to know its context. If you read the rest of Colossians 3 and parts of Chapter 4, Paul applies verses 1 and 2 to our daily lives.

Eg:
3v5-6: Put to death fornication, greediness etc because God does not like these
3v13: Forgive one another because God forgave you
3v18: Wives to be subject to their husbands as is fitting in the Lord.
3v20: Children obey your parents for this pleases the Lord
3v22: Slaves to serve their earthly masters as working for God
4v1: Masters to treat their slaves fairly because God is the Master.

It is in my mind, that man's primary, almost sole duty to his Creator, is to worship God.

And worship is to me, the realization and acknowledgement that God is so much more than we can ever be. And that our position before God should be one of bowed submission...

Julabee Jones

[UntoHim]

Julabee,

I have deleted the UserName "Julabee". I have registered a new UserName "JULABEE" (Note All CAPS) I have emailed the temporary password to your email address: *h*t*u*h*l*@yahoo.com - If this is no longer an active email for you please email a more current email address to me at LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com

We look forward to your continued participation!

[micah6v8]

I agree with what Julabee mentioned.

To follow up, I would add Micah 6 v 6 to 8

6: With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
7: Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God

In his Life Study, WL comments “Is this word according to the tree of life or according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Surely it is according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Is this word according to the divine revelation or according to the human concept of the prophet? This word is not a matter of God’s revelation but of the prophet’s concept.”
WL’s footnote on Micah 6 v 8 says, “The prophets are great in their speaking concerning Christ but not in their speaking concerning other things. Micah’s word here concerning what Jehovah requires of His people is not a matter of God’s revelation but a matter of the prophet’s concept. The divine concept according to the divine revelation in the New Testament is that Christ has replaced the law (Rom. 10:4), and God’s people should live Christ rather than keep the law”.

I am not sure what WL meant by “live Christ and not keep the law” since to me, living Christ means loving God and loving man, which is the fulfilment of the law.

I guess it was easy for WL to single out bible writers Micah and James because they both wrote only one book in the bible.

Actually Paul also makes a similar point to Micah in Romans 12 v 1, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”

Again, in the rest of Romans 12, he sets out practical examples of how we can worship by our living.
V4-8: Using one’s gifts for the Body
V9-10: Loving one another
V16: Being humble
V19-21: Not taking revenge but responding with good.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I am not sure what WL meant by “live Christ and not keep the law” since to me, living Christ means loving God and loving man, which is the fulfillment of the law.

The book of Galatians provides definition.

Keeping the Law would specifically refer to circumcision, celebrating Jewish holidays, etc.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

'You may feel elevated above the rest of the world, but there's no relationship what's happening at ground level.'
Any relationship above the elevation? Don't forget, God is in heaven.

I see what you're saying, but my post was in reference to the lateral relationship among many members of the Body of Christ. I have seen to many times in the local churches distain for fellow members of the Body who aren't receiving the same ministry publication (aka "high peaks") they are.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I see what you're saying, but my post was in reference to the lateral relationship among many members of the Body of Christ. I have seen to many times in the local churches distain for fellow members of the Body who aren't receiving the same ministry publication (aka "high peaks") they are.

The way I see it, the issue can be characterized as the old saying that you have to be able to walk before you can run. The so-called high-peak, by it's very definition, represents something esoteric and out of reach. That's not to say that what WL called the "high-peak" had any semblance to God's ultimate purpose for us, but if there were any amount of truth to it, then you would expect that LCers should be able to demonstrate things like basic Christian virtues instead of mock them.

[Indiana]

As some of you know I respect the teachings of brother Lee, but not in the way of the blending brothers, who tout him as they put the words of his ministry before the saints, and the Christian public. Elevating him and his ministry led to the building up of the ministry churches of Witness Lee, rather than, in inclusive love, building up the Body of Christ.

As brother Lee shared, "in the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love” (A Word of Love, 1996)

But it is not love that prevails in the Local Churches; rather, the thing brother Lee feared has prevailed, having grown and become more manifest in an atmosphere of high teachings and an attitude of being "above the rest". We will hear from a former elder in a moment who explains.

He also said, "according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs". "Only love prevails", he said, and "love is the most excellent way" - it is the way to be an elder or a co-worker, and the way to contact the saints. He proclaimed that it is the way to do everything and to be anything in the church life.

Yet, in any honest analysis of "local church" history, love did not prevail even with him and has not prevailed with the blending brothers. The record is actually appalling and not surprising then to say that a people could be so rich in good teaching, yet be poor in the experience of Christ.


A former elder speaks to a core problem.


Hi Steve

Regarding Bill's [Bill Mallon] letter to W.Lee. A tragic story. What kept going through my mind was W. Lee's word of fellowship (I was there), You brothers have never learned how to fellowship (with me). To understand this whole mess, you have to try and understand the Chinese mentality, their cultural background, ie, the way they think. And don't tell me that we are in Christ, the new man, and culture has nothing to do with it. Well I'm afraid in reality, it has everything to do with most of the frustration you are dealing with.

I remember many times listening to Bro. Lee say never touch the Chinese mentality. I never quite understood what he meant. In secular language, the word inscrutable is used to describe the Chinese. To me this means, you can never pin them down or get them to admit error. You can never figure them out, and they seem sooo humble.

If you have been following the negotiations with the US and China over the downed plane, you will get a clue about them; wanting the US to apologize for their errors. Against all truth, facts, reasonableness, logic, whatever... they want us to kowtow, bend our knee, save their face, their honor, etc. etc. It is crazy!! And yet to get our men and women back we had to say some kind of political ....We're very sorry.... to make a deal.

Now transfer all this and more to the way they dealt with Bill and others and then you will know why you will go crazy trying to bring them to some kind of accountability.

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp, the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an emperor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and his family's wishes.

When I was reading Bill's accusations of the way the office and Phillip handled things in the S.E., I was shocked at his frankness. I said to myself, you never, never talk to Bro. Lee like that, in that tone. I surmised that Bill was thinking that surely B. Lee was not aware of all these under handed dealings and if he only knew he would take steps to clear everything up and possibly restore his standing in the S.E. NOT SO. It doesn't work that way in the Chinese culture. The one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished. All those elders mentioned by W.L. became a threat to his controlling and they had to be subdued or removed. I think you had a little taste of this recently with the brothers in ....

The Texas brothers learned this early on and became the inner circle around Bro. Lee to defend him and explain how things work to the rest of the elders. You mentioned Ray Graver. Have you had any dealings with Ray? Do you know him? I would consider him the hardest of all the Texas bros. to touch. He has been loyal to the death from day one. He has been loyal without question to Bro. Lee and LSM for thirty-five years. What makes you think he is going to change now? Maybe you know something I don't.

Their concept of the kingdom is.....Me King....you dumb!....And this attitude is passed down the rank and file. The smallest elder acts the same way. Those who had a mind of their own have left. Those who stayed have given up their own integrity and surrendered their person to Bro. Lee and the system. This system has permeated the LC leadership. Can you change it? Can the Lord change it? Of course He will change it in HIS TIME. Judgment must first begin at the House of the Lord.

I understand about blowing the trumpet and pushing buttons; but are their ears open? Jesus said to each church in Rev.....he that has an ear let him hear! Ephesus did not repent, did not hear and lost their lampstand. Did any of the churches hear? The Catholic Ch. is still here today. Sardis is still
lukewarm, and the Lord is still on the outside of Laodicea knocking to stopped up ears! Only Philadelphia heard the Lord's word and let the Lord in.

My friendly and brotherly suggestion to you. Seek out the wounded, the oppressed, the downcast, the discouraged in your area. There must be hundreds of castaways, lost sheep needing a shepherd. Jesus left the ninety-nine and went out seeking the lost sheep. He did not convert too many
Pharisees! They had no heart nor ear to listen to him!

You have a soft shepherd's heart. Bro. Steve. I assure you these bleeding sheep will have an ear to hear you and respond to your care. Perhaps you and your wife could be a team ....

The verse in John 10:9...and will go in and go out and find pasture...has
been our experience. The Lord led us in and the Lord led us out...into the
pasture... where the Chief Shepherd of the flock is taking care of so many
who have been rejected.

Please read Ezk. 34 and Jeremiah 23:1-4, Isa. 35:3-7, 40:11, 42:1-4,
58:6-12.....for reference.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

As some of you know I greatly respect the teachings of brother Lee, and also of the blending brothers whose aim is to put the words of Lee's ministry before the saints, and seeking ones.

What I don't respect is their elevation above “the rest” when they should be the servants of all. Brother Lee shared this: "In the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love” (A Word of Love, 1996)

He also said, "according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs". "Only love prevails", he said, and "love is the most excellent way" - "it is the way to be an elder or a co-worker, and the way to handle the saints." He proclaimed that it is the way to do everything and to be anything in the church life.

But it is not love that prevails in the Local Churches; rather the thing brother Lee feared is what prevails, having grown further and become even more manifest today in an elevated atmosphere created in part by high peak teaching and an attitude of being "above the rest".

Frankly speaking, I have a hard time viewing the "high peak" as anything but dross. In terms of the certain high-peak teachings, I find it to be highly questionable. But that aside, I agree that it was a tragedy for WL to seek something "higher" when on a the ground level, they were struggling with some of the more basic things like love.

It seems that virtually across the board, the fruit of WL's high peak is that many have fallen prey to pride. The "high peak" has elevated some LCers above other members who just want to care for basic needs, and it has even further separated those in the LC from other Christians, reinforcing the notion that they have so much more than everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Frankly speaking, I have a hard time viewing the "high peak" as anything but dross. In terms of the certain high-peak teachings, I find it to be highly questionable. But that aside, I agree that it was a tragedy for WL to seek something "higher" when on a the ground level, they were struggling with some of the more basic things like love.

It seems that virtually across the board, the fruit of WL's high peak is that many have fallen prey to pride. The "high peak" has elevated some LCers above other members who just want to care for basic needs, and it has even further separated those in the LC from other Christians, reinforcing the notion that they have so much more than everyone else.

The "high peak" teachings were thrust upon us following Philip's molesting sisters behind closed doors and maltreating leading brothers around the globe, then shepherding brothers like Ingalls crying out for justice, and finally Witness Lee suppressing and covering up the mess by slandering those who spoke their conscience.

Now does anyone really think that the holy and righteous Head of the body would wait almost 2,000 years until after these unholy and unrighteous events took place in order to "release" these "high peak" teachings?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now does anyone really think that the holy and righteous Head of the body would wait almost 2,000 years until after these unholy and unrighteous events took place in order to "release" these "high peak" teachings?

This is a very good point, it is helpful to consider the context of the situation in the LC before WL released his "high peak". There is something very addicting about feeling that you've "seen it all". Not more than a few years ago, I could have easily summarized the purpose of my existence on this earth using LC slogans, particularly something "high peak" related.

More than anything else, the way WL lived and the choices that he made are what ultimately determine the value of his ministry, not how "good" his teachings were. As Indiana has pointed out, where was love in the equation? WL even made the admonition that there needed to be a spirit of love. I can't say as to whether WL was being genuine in this admonition or not, but the fact that so much of the supposed "good" in WL's ministry failed to materialize is indication that there was something terribly wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

More than anything else, the way WL lived and the choices that he made are what ultimately determine the value of his ministry, not how "good" his teachings were. As Indiana has pointed out, where was love in the equation? WL even made the admonition that there needed to be a spirit of love. I can't say as to whether WL was being genuine in this admonition or not, but the fact that so much of the supposed "good" in WL's ministry failed to materialize is indication that there was something terribly wrong.

The irony is simply incredible. After decades of publicly shaming his coworkers, suing all those who dared to protest his extreme teachings, and slaming all those who dared to voice their concerns, Witness Lee is going to preach about brotherly love?

I guess "god in life and nature" does not include "god in love."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

"...according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs".

I wonder what today's blendeds think of this assessment, that they only have a human spirit of power, not of love? Years later, they made a big deal about how WL warned them of TC's independent ways; did anyone heed this warning about them, as well?

And as Ohio noted, this assessment fits WL to a 't'. He also was all about human power. Look where he ended up, and how he got there, and how he kept himself there.

(Of course, we all need this warning, as well. How much love do I display? Very little. Mostly self-interest. So I'm not immune, either).

Originally Posted by a former elder

"... in the Chinese culture... the one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished..."

The problem with culture is that we don't see our own. It's like going to a fish and asking them if they feel wet. They'd reply, "Whatever do you mean?" They've been swimming in water all their life, and don't know anything else. WN's culture became the lens, or the balancing-scale, which he used to determine what was 'normal' in the church life. Of course the Western model looked abnormal to him, and to his countrymen, and arguably it was in fact distorted when compared to the NT text. But look at the alternative that he and WL proposed: also abnormal to the extreme.

Again, I ask, where's the opportunity for "much discussion" seen in the Acts 15 gathering in Jerusalem? (see v 7). The idea of give-and-take is completely alien to this culture, from what I see. Where's any semblance of mutuality? Where's the "one another" in Paul's "receive one another" and "confess your sins to one another"? What happens to the word "fellowship" in this culturally-dominated atmosphere? In actuality, it becomes a top-down, don't-ask-any-questions flow of directives, couched in spiritual jargon - "We all have to be one", etc. In the more clinical phraseology notating the EL and Shouter cults: they're marked by "close operational control"; i.e. power. Human power and human control.

And I remember what initially caught my interest: the word "reality." We (or, WL) translated the NT "truthfulness" as "reality". Here, I thought, was the end of forms and rituals - here was reality itself, in a normal local church life. Instead, it was simply human activity, draped in spirituality. It seemed new and different, and would finally realize God's will for humanity here on earth. But its differences were superficial - we'd merely traded one human culture for another. Bottom line was, it was just people being people. WL can have the last word, here: "It is a spirit of human power, not a spirit of love." Amen to that, brother. Amen.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I wonder what today's blendeds think of this assessment, that they only have a human spirit of power, not of love?

I will give the blendeds this much. They do love those who love the ministry Living Stream publishes and at the minimum they love those who agree with them.
Take John Ingalls for example living in Anaheim, I don't think the blendeds exhibited much love when they learned their FTTA trainees knocked on John's residence.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Frankly speaking, I have a hard time viewing the "high peak" as anything but dross. In terms of the certain high-peak teachings, I find it to be highly questionable. But that aside, I agree that it was a tragedy for WL to seek something "higher" when on a the ground level, they were struggling with some of the more basic things like love.

It seems that virtually across the board, the fruit of WL's high peak is that many have fallen prey to pride. The "high peak" has elevated some LCers above other members who just want to care for basic needs, and it has even further separated those in the LC from other Christians, reinforcing the notion that they have so much more than everyone else.

High peak teachings can be easily summed up with 1 Corinthians 13:1

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

High peaks teachings are a clanging cymbal when there is no love.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I will give the blendeds this much. They do love those who love the ministry Living Stream publishes and at the minimum they love those who agree with them.
Take John Ingalls for example living in Anaheim, I don't think the blendeds exhibited much love when they learned their FTTA trainees knocked on John's residence.

I think that many members just see the "love" that happens at the surface. Members can go anywhere in the world and receive hospitality with fellow members. It is indeed somewhat of a unique experience. The problem is just that they don't understand how ousted members are treated.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The irony is simply incredible. After decades of publicly shaming his coworkers, suing all those who dared to protest his extreme teachings, and slaming all those who dared to voice their concerns, Witness Lee is going to preach about brotherly love?

I guess "god in life and nature" does not include "god in love."

The Hijacking of the Local Churches

In the days when the “local churches” were essentially hijacked by unrestrained men in a world-wide movement, things happened fast and furiously in the name of being in one accord for “the Lord’s new move”. When the dust settled, a federation of churches had been established under the direction and control of an administrator and a headquarters in Anaheim.

Along with the hijacking was the attacking of conscientious leaders in a cyclone of events that issued in their quarantines and their public annihilation, with disdain of a magnitude unimaginable; except when considering the source and the inroads given the Accuser of the brethren to have full sway in brutal and false portrayal of men and events; and their motives and intentions in a movement designed to turn leaders and churches upside down.

A Book of Distortion

In a concluding word by Witness Lee in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion(FPR), he says, “Since the dissenting ones have made their rebellion so obvious, so public, even by their publications, I feel obliged to present to you all the fermenting events of the present rebellion in the Lord’s recovery that you may be clear about the intrinsic reasons and causes of all the fermentations. In the church as a corporate Body composed of many different persons with their different realizations and views, problems are sometimes unavoidable in the long run. According to the New Testament, such problems should be properly taken care of in the divine love by genuine and thorough fellowship in the Spirit, with constant forgiveness, all-caring forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in mutuality”.

“Instead of these excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms, cruel backbitings, unreasonable opposings, subtle underminings, wicked defamations, vicious slanders, unethical anonymous letters, bitter attacks, ill-intentioned conspiracies, crafty innuendos, double-tongued pretenses, fabricated falsehood, flagrant lies, reckless devastations, and unbridled destructions, with unimaginable hatred, fleshly jealousies, and unchristian avengings. These are not the fruit of enjoying Christ, nor are they good for the building up of the saints and the building of the churches. Even to make such a presentation of the facts is not pleasant to me. For quite a long time I have been hesitating before the Lord as to whether I should do this or not, and I have consulted with the brothers about this.

“They all encouraged me to do it for the preservation of the uninformed ones, for the recovery of the deceived ones, for the establishing of the wavering and bothered ones, and for history. Thus, I feel obligated to do so, after considering what Paul eventually did in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 and 4:14-15 concerning this kind of thing, and even the more that Moses kept a full record of the rebellions in the book of Numbers. I do look to the Lord that He would have mercy on all of us and grant us His sufficient grace that we would endeavor to keep the oneness of His Body at any cost. And I also expect that the brothers who caused the present turmoil and those who are involved in such an illogical and unjustifiable action would reconsider this matter before the Lord to answer this question, which is the question of so many saints who are concerned for the oneness of the Body of Christ: “Is not what you are engaging in divisive, or already a division?” (W. Lee, 1990, p. 74, FPR)

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is a distortion of truth instigated by Satan throughout its pages. Deviating from the Path in the Lords Recovery supplies information not given in FPR, bringing truth to light in providing important details of the other side of the story
http://www.TwoTurmoils.com/deviating...dsrecovery.pdf

Even if those denunciations had been true, the rhetoric could be said to be inappropriate and void of love. But our brothers could not even tell the truth in an atmosphere pervaded by the Deceiver, the Accuser of many brothers in church meetings and official publications, especially FPR. The Denunciations given others by Witness Lee actually applied more to those supporting his movement, as well as to him, its orchestrator.

Steve Isitt

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

A Concluding Word in
The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion (FPR)

“Instead of these excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms, cruel backbitings, unreasonable opposings, subtle underminings, wicked defamations, vicious slanders, unethical anonymous letters, bitter attacks, ill-intentioned conspiracies, crafty innuendos, double-tongued pretenses, fabricated falsehood, flagrant lies, reckless devastations, and unbridled destructions, with unimaginable hatred, fleshly jealousies, and unchristian avengings.

Unbelievable. Ill-intentioned conspiracies? So there are well-intentioned conspiracies?

And unreasonable opposings? This is so subjective as to be completely fantastic. Anything WL didn't like or want was automatically deemed as unreasonable opposition. See how easy that is?

Just like in North Korea: if you don't clap loudly enough you get offed. The Big Boss isn't happy.

I remember reading this when I was the hardest of the hard-core. I was like, Whaaaaa...? I mean, his characterizations would make a sailor blush. Talk about a bucket of ice cold water. Talk about quenching the Spirit. I probably never read anything as Spirit-quenching as this book was.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Unbelievable...

I remember reading this when I was the hardest of the hard-core. I was like, Whaaaaa...? I mean, his characterizations would make a sailor blush. Talk about a bucket of ice cold water. Talk about quenching the Spirit. I probably never read anything as Spirit-quenching as this book was.

I had never seen this little excerpt of Fermentation before. In a single sentence, I count that WL makes 18 different accusations. Was he in some type of fit of rage when he spoke this? That is what it sounds like. That kind of characterization of anyone is unnecessary even if true.

Reckless devastations? Unbridled destructions? Unimaginable hatred? What is any of that even supposed to mean?

As you say, it's just unbelievable that WL would speak that way. I'm sure that when JI wrote his book, he was thoroughly disgusted with WL. Yet he never stooped down to the level of name-calling and throwing out wild accusations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

As some of you know I respect the teachings of brother Lee, but not in the way of the blending brothers... elevating him and his ministry led to the building up of the ministry churches of Witness Lee, rather than, in inclusive love, building up the Body of Christ.

As brother Lee shared, "in the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love” (A Word of Love, 1996)

But it is not love that prevails in the Local Churches; rather, the thing brother Lee feared has prevailed, having grown and become more manifest in an atmosphere of high teachings and an attitude of being "above the rest"..

Here's a comment posted on Jane Anderson's The Thread of Gold website:

Dear Jane,

Attached is a copy of the outline of BP’s sharing. He was on II C 2. After saying that natural affection will become rottenness in the church he gave this testimony about you and your book. It is an exact copy from the tape:

"I was looking at a book the other day and in this book this sister gives her life’s story. Well, she was a good sister at one time. Then eventually she was defeated by the enemy because of her natural affection toward other sisters and she lost everything. Brothers, in the church life we don’t have any natural affection—we don’t have friends; not friends naturally, but everything must be in the Spirit."[emphasis added]

Someone whom I told about this comment wrote me the following:

Note BP said, “…in the church life we don’t have any natural affection”? In saying this, he puts himself and others in the same category as those Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:1-5:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Witness Lee summed it well: "My concern is... that love is absent from among us."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a comment posted on Jane Anderson's The Thread of Gold website:

Dear Jane,

Attached is a copy of the outline of BP’s sharing. He was on II C 2. After saying that natural affection will become rottenness in the church he gave this testimony about you and your book. It is an exact copy from the tape:

"I was looking at a book the other day and in this book this sister gives her life’s story. Well, she was a good sister at one time. Then eventually she was defeated by the enemy because of her natural affection toward other sisters and she lost everything. Brothers, in the church life we don’t have any natural affection—we don’t have friends; not friends naturally, but everything must be in the Spirit."[emphasis added]

Someone whom I told about this comment wrote me the following:

Note BP said, “…in the church life we don’t have any natural affection”? In saying this, he puts himself and others in the same category as those Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:1-5:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Witness Lee summed it well: "My concern is... that love is absent from among us."

To me this is just one of the rotten side-effects of placing Lee and his ministry above Jesus and His word.

Reading the online cheerleaders for LSM is like watching all the happy people on the non-stop pharmaceutical commercials that plague the airwaves, all the while listening to the sped up audio caveats of "depression, heart attack, internal bleeding, strokes, yada, yada."

Definition of Insanity: Doing everything the Lee tells you to do, but never assigning blame to him when it all goes south.

[ByHisGrace]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

I spoke to an LC member about this discussion on "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead".

Here is the person's response:

There is nothing wrong to say that we become God in life and nature! I really don't know how you read bible!
John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Future Glory )

To answer your question

Re: Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them..."

Answer: That is why we emphasized that "but NOT in the Godhead"!

[OBW]

"Quote" is not working again.

John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Receive the Holy Spirit, not be the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Is one with him in spirit. "One in spirit" is a term that most clearly denotes a common bond and connection, not a unity of person.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

"by the Spirit" does not make you the Spirit, or God. It just refers to the means by which you cease to live your sinful life.

8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Making too much of attribution. "Son" does not obviously mean anything about source, just of status. A son is offspring, both blood and adopted, that have a status with respect to the one who is the father.

8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

A verse with a controversial translation. Better is "adopted to sonship." Don't use the minority translation to insist on something that even with it is not necessarily so. See my previous comment about sons.

8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

Still by choice. Yes, there is reference to rebirth, but it is a spiritual rebirth, not a physical rebirth. We are not God in anything. And I would suggest that while it is not necessarily so, rebirth was not something foreign to the Jewish mind of the day. It was the term they used when referring to a Gentile becoming accepted as a Jew by conversion. It is a statement of change of status, not of literal birth. (Ever wonder why Jesus marveled that Nicodemus didn't get the concept of being born again? It was not just to snip at him for truly not knowing. Rather, it was something that should not have been foreign to him.)

8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Adopted children are also heirs unless they are specifically cut-out of the will.

[aron]

Originally Posted by LC member, per BHG

There is nothing wrong to say that we become God in life and nature! I really don't know how you read bible!

If you look at the verses cited, they don't say anything (to me) about becoming God.

"one with Him in spirit..." We are one in spirit, as well. Does that mean I am becoming you and you are becoming me? It's really too hopeful of a reading, and doesn't stand up to any critical examination.

Originally Posted by LC member

Answer: That is why we emphasized that "but NOT in the Godhead"!

Yes and I'm becoming the Queen Mary just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary-head (or hood). I also swim occasionally in the Pacific Ocean. So I am like the Queen Mary. Therefore I am the Queen Mary! Just NOT in the Queen Mary-hood. That is reserved for the Queen Mary alone. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I admit that I am not made of metal, and not painted black with red trim. That alone belongs to the Queen Mary. And I don't have 4 large funnels, and four large propellers. But I do participate in certain aspects of the Queen Mary, and thus have the full assurance that I'm becoming more and more like the Queen Mary, day by day.

So if I swim, I am like the Queen Mary, and thus I'm becoming the Queen Mary. Just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary. No - I won't go there. That would be ridiculous. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is one with him in spirit. "One in spirit" is a term that most clearly denotes a common bond and connection, not a unity of person.

Angels are also ministering spirits. And they are one with God, in common purpose and direction. Thus they are one in spirit. Nothing about becoming God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the verses cited, they don't say anything (to me) about becoming God.

"one with Him in spirit..." We are one in spirit, as well. Does that mean I am becoming you and you are becoming me? It's really too hopeful of a reading, and doesn't stand up to any critical examination.

For me personally, the strongest scriptural basis for Lee's so-called "high peak" theology, abbreviated here -- GodBecameManTMMGILANBNITheGodHead -- was our spiritual birth, and the fact that all offspring are the same "in life and nature" as their parents. It made "sense," but the Bible never said it.

The matter of "oneness" had little to do with it.

[NewManLiving]

It is probably best to stick with what the Word actually says about it. The Apostle John - the one whom Jesus loved, the one whom reclined upon The Lord's breast, one of the three closest to Him has this to say: We do not know what we will be, but we know that we will be "like" Him.

Now if this is all John could offer on such an important subject, certainly no one else knows any better. And unfortunately many things that come from WL need to be reconsidered. I believe that he was too extreme and imaginative. There is no need to "add" anything to scripture. The Lord's word is already complete.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes and I'm becoming the Queen Mary just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary-head (or hood). I also swim occasionally in the Pacific Ocean. So I am like the Queen Mary. Therefore I am the Queen Mary! Just NOT in the Queen Mary-hood. That is reserved for the Queen Mary alone. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I admit that I am not made of metal, and not painted black with red trim. That alone belongs to the Queen Mary. And I don't have 4 large funnels, and four large propellers. But I do participate in certain aspects of the Queen Mary, and thus have the full assurance that I'm becoming more and more like the Queen Mary, day by day.

So if I swim, I am like the Queen Mary, and thus I'm becoming the Queen Mary. Just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary. No - I won't go there. That would be ridiculous. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I like aron's analogy. The "not in the Godhead" disclaimer actually contradicts the teaching itself. The Bible already says that were were made in the image of God, so the idea that we have a certain amount of God-likeness is just a basic understanding that Christians have.

I was thinking about it today, and one of the main reasons that we believe God is God is because He possess a set of characteristics and attributes that are distinct from what us humans posses. If God didn't have a certain nature, then he wouldn't be God. On the flip side, if we had the same attributes as God that makes him God, then there would be a multitude rival gods, thus diluting who God is.

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God. It simply doesn't make sense for anyone to claim to be God unless they are God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God. It simply doesn't make sense for anyone to claim to be God unless they are God.

You have my argument in a nutshell, here.

Look at the angels, for example. Like humanity, created in God's image.

"And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."

Ministering spirits, arguably one spirit with God: i.e. commonality of purpose. Absolutely consecrated:"holy angels", etc. God is spirit; angels are spirits. God is holy, God's angels are holy.

Called "sons of God". Job 1:6, 2:1.

They share the Father's glory: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26

Very impressive creatures. But creatures. Not God. When John was overwhelmed with awe and fell down before one, the angel said, "Don't do that! I am your fellow servant. Worship God." The angel didn't say, "I am becoming God, but not in the God-head, not as an object of worship. That is reserved for God alone." The angel just said, "worship God". Revelation 19:10; 22:9.

So "God but not in the God-head" is a make-believe term. It's just parsing yourself into your own imagination, unsupported by any real or tangible structure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So "God but not in the God-head" is a make-believe term.... unsupported by any real or tangible structure.

To be more charitable, it is speculation. Scripture doesn't say it, but your logic, desires, and imagination paint the picture nonetheless. And you convince yourself that the picture is compelling.

And I do it too, perhaps more than many. I dream, imagine, and see visions. But I don't presume my visions are objective reality. I allow the consensus of the flock to prune them away, even to grind them back to dust. It's okay.

So I hope the LC'ers, they of the "Affirmation and Critique" school, aren't too disappointed if others critique their ideas. Certainly "man becoming God", along with the corollary "God but NOT in the God-head" are ideas worth critical examining. And if my examination has lacked decorum, or respect, I apologize.

[aron]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

It is probably best to stick with what the Word actually says about it. The Apostle John - the one whom Jesus loved, the one whom reclined upon The Lord's breast, one of the three closest to Him has this to say: We do not know what we will be, but we know that we will be "like" Him.

Now if this is all John could offer on such an important subject, certainly no one else knows any better. And unfortunately many things that come from WL need to be reconsidered. I believe that he was too extreme and imaginative. There is no need to "add" anything to scripture. The Lord's word is already complete.

Yes, we will be like Him. Aspiration enough for this sinner, today. Lord, make me like You.

My dogs are like my cat. All are furry household pets. All come running when I call for dinner (well, my cat, not always). All have the "domesticated mammalian" life and nature.

But my cat is not my dog. (And actually, my three dogs are not identical. Spike is different from Youdy is different from Ralph. Even though two of them are litter-mates.)

[aron]

"Exactly Identical" and "Mass Reproduction"

Originally Posted by Freedom

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God...

One of my remaining LC friends recently was telling me about the latest message, and he was so excited. He kept talking about "mass reproduction" and being "exactly identical." Curious: why was Witness Lee, a one-time salesman of tennis rackets, chairs and cheap men's suits, fixated on this idea of mass reproduction? The only thing I remember being mass reproduced in the Bible was the bricks in the tower of Babel. Not really a model of "God's New Testament Economy".

"It is not a school or factory, or chapel in the air", so we sang. Turns out that the "splendid church life" is a factory, after all.

Here was the quote in question, which excited my LC contact so much:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

"The church is the reproduction of Christ. We can say this because the lampstand in Exodus was one, and the lampstands in Revelation are seven. The one lampstand has been reproduced. The unique lampstand in Exodus became a model, out of which came seven lampstands. The seven lampstands are exactly the same as the unique lampstand in essence, nature, shape, and in every respect...

To say that the church is the Body, the continuation, the enlargement, and the spreading of Christ is not enough. We all have to see that the church is an exact reproduction of Christ. Christ was the unique lampstand, and all the churches are the lampstands in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function." (CWWL, 1975-1976, vol 2, The Church - the Reprint of the Spirit)

I thought, "Why, here's an interesting thing", and said to my friend, "How can you say that the lampstands in Revelation are exactly identical with the one in Exodus? The one in Exodus had seven lamps. If the seven lampstands in Revelation each had seven lamps, there would be forty-nine lamps burning in front of the throne! But there are only seven lamps burning there!"

My friend said, "Well, other than that, they're exactly identical."

I said, "You know what? Other than that minor detail, yes; every lampstand is an exact reproduction of the Exodus lampstand."

I don't know why WL forced readings that were not there. And look at his language: "We all have to see..." It's like he's hypnotizing his audience to see something that isn't even there. Amazing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee
"The church is the reproduction of Christ. We can say this because the lampstand in Exodus was one, and the lampstands in Revelation are seven. The one lampstand has been reproduced. The unique lampstand in Exodus became a model, out of which came seven lampstands. The seven lampstands are exactly the same as the unique lampstand in essence, nature, shape, and in every respect...

To say that the church is the Body, the continuation, the enlargement, and the spreading of Christ is not enough. We all have to see that the church is an exact reproduction of Christ. Christ was the unique lampstand, and all the churches are the lampstands in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function."(CWWL, 1975-1976, vol 2, The Church - the Reprint of the Spirit)

Spiritually, all the churches are the same, since the corollary in Ephesians 4.4-6 provides us with further description:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Thus, the Bible Baptist Church on the corner is absolutely identical "in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function" to the West Park Community Church on the next block because both churches gather in His name and have just "one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all."

Now the mosque around the corner is, of course, quite different, not holding onto any of these items. Who cares if one church leader is called "Pastor" or another "Brother" or even "Mr. Full-Timer" like the LC's. Who cares if one church has "holy communion" or another the "Lord's Supper" or even the "Lord's Table." Who really cares what names are used on the signboard if like Lee says, they are all identical "in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function."

The bottom line is simple -- if you can see differences with your eyes -- then they are by definition insignificant -- because the Revelations' lampstands are spiritual, and not physical. As Paul tells us so clearly in II Corinthians 4.18, "We do not focus our attention on the things which are seen, but the things which are not seen, for that which we see with our eyes is temporary, and that which is unseen is eternal."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, this saying regularly quoted in the LC's about the 7 churches in Asia, that they are "only different in negative things," is poppycock. Read the verses, the Lord praises each church for very different items.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

A Book of Distortion

In a concluding word by Witness Lee in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion(FPR), he says, “Since the dissenting ones have made their rebellion so obvious, so public, even by their publications, I feel obliged to present to you all the fermenting events of the present rebellion in the Lord’s recovery that you may be clear about the intrinsic reasons and causes of all the fermentations. In the church as a corporate Body composed of many different persons with their different realizations and views, problems are sometimes unavoidable in the long run. According to the New Testament, such problems should be properly taken care of in the divine love by genuine and thorough fellowship in the Spirit, with constant forgiveness, all-caring forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in mutuality”.

“Instead of these excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms, cruel backbitings, unreasonable opposings, subtle underminings, wicked defamations, vicious slanders, unethical anonymous letters, bitter attacks, ill-intentioned conspiracies, crafty innuendos, double-tongued pretenses, fabricated falsehood, flagrant lies, reckless devastations, and unbridled destructions, with unimaginable hatred, fleshly jealousies, and unchristian avengings. These are not the fruit of enjoying Christ, nor are they good for the building up of the saints and the building of the churches.

It had been a few years since I read what Witness Lee had to say in Fermentation. Steve brought out these quotes well. What I have emphasized in bold, Witness Lee is describing his younger coworkers at the time who many are still coworkers of LSM. For the reader that disagrees, I welcome dialog on this forum.
It is evident in the past 25 years there has been no "forgiveness, all-caring forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in mutuality" to brothers who were vilified and whose subsequent quarantines were sanctioned by local churches. No reaching out to these brothers who are likely in their 80's. Simply no grace and no love expressed.

I can understand why. Local churches exist because of Living Stream Ministry. For all intent and purposes, local churches are a revenue stream for LSM. We saw 10 years ago what happens to churches who are at best neutral towards LSM. When a local church doesn't provide a revenue stream, they are worthless to LSM.
Now with the current blended coworkers, they must do what's best for business even if it isn't the right thing to do. No matter what Lee and sons did to hijack the churches, all that is not up for discussion, swept under the rug, look the other way, and just go on positively. Now what's best for business is maintaining a pristine image of Witness Lee and publish his ministry.

[NewManLiving]

Lets not forget The former LSM manager Phillip Lee. The current management has adopted many of his practices, probably more so than Witness Lee. Recall that being one with the ministry also included being one with Phillip. They did anything he said and covered up everything he did. Today they are no different.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, we will be like Him. Aspiration enough for this sinner, today. Lord, make me like You.

My dogs are like my cat. All are furry household pets. All come running when I call for dinner (well, my cat, not always). All have the "domesticated mammalian" life and nature.

But my cat is not my dog. (And actually, my three dogs are not identical. Spike is different from Youdy is different from Ralph. Even though two of them are litter-mates.)

Yes, it is best to stick with the exact words of scripture on this topic. The danger is in adding or taking away from it.

I recall that one of the angels, the son's of God, wanted to exalt his throne above the other angels and be like God, and that was Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14), and look where that got him.

I also recall Phillipians 2:5-10, which reads:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible says we're but worms (somewhere, if you must know, let me know and I'll find it. Or google it.).

•Job 25:6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!"
•No amount of intellect or education can grant one immunity where matters of the heart and faith are concerned.
•So watch out! There's a serpent in every paradise!
•"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
•Heroes fail, when you get to know them ... then they fall, just like the gods of old. Why else quest for the historical Jesus?


Br. awareness, thank you. You made my day.(Did you do that on purpose?)

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, it is best to stick with the exact words of scripture on this topic. The danger is in adding or taking away from it.

I believe the apostle John mentioned something about the danger of adding or taking away from the words of the prophecy.

So Witness Lee supplying details like "not in the Godhead" or ignoring the six missing lamps on each of the supposedly exact reproduction lampstands in Revelation 1 show me a person willing to leave the safety of scripture for the convenience of hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by JJ

I recall that one of the angels, the son's of God, wanted to exalt his throne above the other angels and be like God, and that was Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14), and look where that got him.

And I remember Adam and Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit, and became "like God, knowing good from evil". (Gen 3:5;22). There is enough vagarity in the term "like", both in conventional usage and scriptural record, that we shouldn't be too eager to seize it for our temporal or exegetical ends. I guess WL the oracle of God trumped WL the former accountant. Vagarity was an opportunity to move, rather than a caution.

Originally Posted by JJ

I also recall Phillipians 2:5-10, which reads:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The irony here is that WL might be right. If we humble ourselves, and follow Jesus, who knows what exaltation might lie beyond? Even "being made God" in some unknown form?

But degree of glory is not clearly stated. So to presume pride of place, here on earth, when the scripture doesn't elucidate it, is unwise. In fact, the scripture seems stubbornly vague, to me. When the disciples continually pressed Jesus for details, He resolutely refused.

"Lord, what about this one?" got "It is not for you to know"

"Lord, grant my sons to sit at the right hand and the left" got "It is for those whom the Father chooses", etc.

Why push past this clear deferral? Just leave it alone. Be humble and don't declare some station that may not be yours. Let God decide such matters.

[JJ]

To Him (God) be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus. To Him be the glory forever and ever. Regardless of the glory He shares with the church at any time, the object of everyone's praise is still God. While members of the church are told they will sit on thrones judging the nations, the nations bring their glory into the New Jerusalem where Christ and God sit on the throne. And at the end of all time, Christ gives the throne to God the Father for eternity, where he will be praised by all creation for eternity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

To Him (God) be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus.

Yes, but the church is the Body of Christ, therefore the church is Christ! And Christ is God, so the church is God! We are God (in life and nature but not in the Godhead)! It's so clear! How can anyone not see this marvelous fact?*



*(a little humor, there)

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The church is the Body of Christ, therefore the church is Christ. And Christ is God, so the church is God!

Also, since Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ (see e.g. Elizabeth's "And who am I that the mother of my lord should come to me" [Luke 1:43]), and Christ is God, so then Mary is the Mother of God. And since I as a church member am also God (in life and nature but not in the Godhead), then Mary is my Mother, also. Is it not so clear - how can any believer not acknowledge such a clear scriptural word?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, since Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ (see e.g. Elizabeth's "And who am I that the mother of my lord should come to me" [Luke 1:43]), and Christ is God, so then Mary is the Mother of God. And since I as a church member am also God (in life and nature but not in the Godhead), then Mary is my Mother, also. Is it not so clear - how can any believer not acknowledge such a clear scriptural word?

What do you mean? They did for centuries. It was called the dark ages.

Everyone was forced to bow down to the statue of Mary the Mother of God!

If not, the alternative was the rack, the sticks, or real waterboarding.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What do you mean? They did for centuries. It was called the dark ages.

Everyone was forced to bow down to the statue of Mary the Mother of God!

If not, the alternative was the rack, the sticks, or real waterboarding.

You guys are cracking me up

[JJ]

So, what is the high peak of the divine revelation according to Peter?

First - The following long quotes are from his two epistles (sorry for length, I'm trying make sure context is clear by not chopping them):

1 Peter 1:1-25
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.
Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
For,
“ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS,
AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS.
THE GRASS WITHERS,
AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,

BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.”
And this is the word which was preached to you.

2 Peter 1:1-20
"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts."

1. Is it that we have been regenerated by imperishable seed?
   
2. Is it that we have become partakers of the divine nature?
   
3. Or is it the our Lord Jesus Christ's majesty?

Usually the last thing someone says before he dies is the most important thing he has to say. Therefore I choose Number 3

[OBW]

It would appear to a reader that just goes through the whole of what you posted that partaking of the divine nature is about the character of those who have partaken. And that character is not simply ours, but must be developed. Otherwise, how would they be "increasing," rather than just facts?

There is reference to godliness and there is no reason that we should presume that this is intended to mean something other than the normal meaning of the word — being in character like God. Not being God, or becoming God, but being like the one that we are "hired" to represent. What are the qualities given? Let's see:

Diligence
Moral excellence
Knowledge
Self-control
Perseverance
Godliness
Brotherly kindness
Love

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

It would appear to a reader that just goes through the whole of what you posted that partaking of the divine nature is about the character of those who have partaken. And that character is not simply ours, but must be developed. Otherwise, how would they be "increasing," rather than just facts?

There is reference to godliness and there is no reason that we should presume that this is intended to mean something other than the normal meaning of the word — being in character like God. Not being God, or becoming God, but being like the one that we are "hired" to represent. What are the qualities given? Let's see:

Diligence
Moral excellence
Knowledge
Self-control
Perseverance
Godliness
Brotherly kindness
Love

Agreed! That's what happens when we don't just chop part out, and add words like "becoming God" to make it our "high peak truth". "Being regenerated of incorruptible seed" doesn't say "We are God in life". "That we might become partakers of the divine nature" doesn't say we are God in nature.

Did Witness Lee ever emphasize the qualities other than godliness in this list? Why not, because that is what godliness looks like.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by JJ

Agreed! That's what happens when we don't just chop part out, and add words like "becoming God" to make it our "high peak truth". "Being regenerated of incorruptible seed" doesn't say "We are God in life". "That we might become partakers of the divine nature" doesn't say we are God in nature.

Did Witness Lee ever emphasize the qualities other than godliness in this list? Why not, because that is what godliness looks like.

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 2 Peter 1:4

Appears the key word is may become. It doesn't say will become. Condition appears to be having escaped corruption that is in the world.
Question is, did Lee escape "corruption that is in the world by lust" in order to be a partaker of the divine nature?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 2 Peter 1:4

In the LC, they like to use a certain metaphor when discussing deification: "you are what you eat", and it is often applied to this verse in 2 Peter. All too often silly statements like these are used as "proof" of what Lee taught. My all time favorite is when Lee would pose a rhetorical question in attempt to prove a point, but I digress...

In regards to this verse, I would agree with Terry that escaping the corruption that is in the world by lust might be a more worthy goal than worrying about what become partakers of the divine nature really means. If someone has problems with financial schemes and failed motorhome businesses, the lust of money might be a problem. If that person's sons are accused of immoral behavior, that is also a problem needing addressing. The person in question would have done well to deal with the obvious before making such lofty claims.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

It would appear to a reader that just goes through the whole of what you posted that partaking of the divine nature is about the character of those who have partaken. And that character is not simply ours, but must be developed. Otherwise, how would they be "increasing," rather than just facts?

There is reference to godliness and there is no reason that we should presume that this is intended to mean something other than the normal meaning of the word — being in character like God. Not being God, or becoming God, but being like the one that we are "hired" to represent. What are the qualities given? Let's see:

Diligence
Moral excellence
Knowledge
Self-control
Perseverance
Godliness
Brotherly kindness
Love

In the local churches, the error we made (and I include myself, because I "bought it") was not realizing that partaking of the divine nature isn't something that we have fully done yet (and won't until Jesus returns). And even when we have, it looks like Jesus, a man willing to drop his Godhood and die for others, be glorified later... and that glorification glorifies God (versus us, because he is the source of it all).

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to use a certain metaphor when discussing deification: "you are what you eat", and it is often applied to this verse in 2 Peter. All too often silly statements like these are used as "proof" of what Lee taught. My all time favorite is when Lee would pose a rhetorical question in attempt to prove a point, but I digress...

So when I eat steak I become a cow?

The Bible, and particularly the gospel and epistles of John make clear that when we believe in Jesus, he gives us eternal life, and that life comes from God the Father. But, having God's life doesn't make us arrogant, boastful, and least of all sinful. Rather it should make us more humble, serving and encouraging others, and die to ourselves rather than lording it over one another. And certainly more holy. That is the litmus test.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to use a certain metaphor when discussing deification: "you are what you eat", and it is often applied to this verse in 2 Peter. All too often silly statements like these are used as "proof" of what Lee taught. My all time favorite is when Lee would pose a rhetorical question in attempt to prove a point, but I digress...

I remember one training. A young brother was rehearsing Lee's point here, "you are what you eat" during the testing time, and used the example, "If you eat chicken, then you become a ..."

Suddenly he realized what he was saying, and stopped himself. He was at a loss for words, and a few laughs from the audience smoothed over the embarrassment. Such was some of the "theology" of the LC.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

The high peak of the divine revelation is the incredible person of Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible ends with the "the testimony of Jesus" (that is the spirit of the prophesy in Revelation). When churches fail to be the testimony of Jesus (and testify of other things) bad things happen.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember one training. A young brother was rehearsing Lee's point here, "you are what you eat" during the testing time, and used the example, "If you eat chicken, then you become a ..."

Suddenly he realized what he was saying, and stopped himself. He was at a loss for words, and a few laughs from the audience smoothed over the embarrassment. Such was some of the "theology" of the LC.

Funny... and sad at the same time, because I bought it all.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

In the local churches, the error we made (and I include myself, because I "bought it") was not realizing that partaking of the divine nature isn't something that we have fully done yet (and won't until Jesus returns). And even when we have, it looks like Jesus, a man willing to drop his Godhood and die for others, be glorified later... and that glorification glorifies God (versus us, because he is the source of it all).

Philippians 2 is a passage that I appreciate very much, and it really demonstrates just how absurd WL’s deification theology really is. Of all people, Jesus was the one person who had every right to go around and promote himself as the “acting God” on earth, but he didn’t do that. As it says, Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation... This is the Jesus whom the apostle Paul considered himself to be an imitator of.

While LCers are busy trying to become God in life and nature but not the Godhead, they have forgotten about Jesus' example and message. Jesus was willing to take the form of a bondservant. He was self-emptying. He set forth an example of humility. This is the example that we have to follow.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Philippians 2 is a passage that I appreciate very much, and it really demonstrates just how absurd WL’s deification theology really is. Of all people, Jesus was the one person who had every right to go around and promote himself as the “acting God” on earth, but he didn’t do that. As it says, Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation... This is the Jesus whom the apostle Paul considered himself to be an imitator of.

While LCers are busy trying to become God in life and nature but not the Godhead, they have forgotten about Jesus' example and message. Jesus was willing to take the form of a bondservant. He was self-emptying. He set forth an example of humility. This is the example that we have to follow.

Right. It is interesting that Jesus didn't think his equality with God was a big deal. Rather believing in Him, because his works testify of the Father is the big deal.

Jesus cited verse 6 of this Psalm (82, with verse 6 highlighted by me):

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. “Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.”

Now here is the account (John 10:22-39) where He cited it:

At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God '? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

While LCers are busy trying to become God in life and nature but not the Godhead, they have forgotten about Jesus' example and message. Jesus was willing to take the form of a bondservant. He was self-emptying. He set forth an example of humility. This is the example that we have to follow.

Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. 2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, 4 *got up from supper, and *laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.
5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
12 So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

Reading Freedom's post I thought of John 13: 1-17. Here Jesus sets a pattern of serving unconditionally through foot washing. Even the one he knew who was about to betray him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Rather believing in Him, because [Jesus'] works testify of the Father is the big deal.

Jesus said, "Believe the works". Verses 10, 11, and 12 all centered around the testimony of the works. Instead, we got a teaching: "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." Works were ignored. We got a doctrine. Zero works. Zero.

We got book after book after book of doctrine. No works. Empty words.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Right. It is interesting that Jesus didn't think his equality with God was a big deal. Rather believing in Him, because his works testify of the Father is the big deal.

LCers wrongly presume that the argument which Jesus made for his divinity is something that anyone can apply to themselves. It completely misses the context of what these verses are really talking about. What happened in John 10 is that the Jews were unwilling to accept who Jesus really was. It wasn’t that they didn’t have enough evidence. They were just dead set on stoning and doing away with Jesus. It seems to me that what Jesus was really saying here was that he knew they wanted to do away with him and “blasphemy” was just their excuse. He even plainly told them that he could be judged by his works alone and said: ”If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me.”

In Matthew 16, Jesus asked his disciples the question “Who do men say that I am?” The disciple’s response was: “Some say John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” To me this indicates that even average people realized that Jesus was no ordinary person. Of course, Peter was able to identify who Jesus really was, so Jesus’ identity was made known through his works and ministry.

It is significant that Jesus chose to ask his disciples a question about his identity rather than simply telling them. This goes along with Jesus’ reasoning in John 5:31-32 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.” Jesus knew who he was and he had every right to state the simple facts. But if people weren’t willing to accept who he was based on his works, then those people wouldn’t believe him no matter what they were told.

[aron]

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.

Witness Lee professed to know God, but in works he and his movement denied the Christ who bought them. I met with the FTTA trainees and I heard the trainer tell us, "Don't waste your time" with those who cannot repay you in this age. Instead, we were told, "Build up the Body by recruiting good material."

The only acceptable "good work" in the Local Church was to promote the ministry of Witness Lee. That was building the Body, so-called. Any other kind of work was rejected.

So if you step back and look at it, it is just words turning back upon words. Words being merchandized, repeated, held up on the air and placed on coffee mugs. Zero good works, or pretty close to zero. If you were led to good works, you did it quietly, on the side, so the program zealots didn't take notice.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.

Witness Lee professed to know God, but in works he and his movement denied the Christ who bought them. I met with the FTTA trainees and I heard the trainer tell us, "Don't waste your time" with those who cannot repay you in this age. Instead, we were told, "Build up the Body by recruiting good material."

The only acceptable "good work" in the Local Church was to promote the ministry of Witness Lee. That was building the Body, so-called. Any other kind of work was rejected.

So if you step back and look at it, it is just words turning back upon words. Words being merchandized, repeated, held up on the air and placed on coffee mugs. Zero good works, or pretty close to zero. If you were led to good works, you did it quietly, on the side, so the program zealots didn't take notice.

Works are quite important because they serve as a sort of evidence that someone really knows God. It’s not that “proving oneself” is the purpose of works, but if someone claims to be a Christian and work for God, they need to have something to show for it. Groups like the LC who disparage works have every reason to do so. It gives them a free pass to do what they want (within the group).

As I noted in my last post, Jesus plainly told the Jews that they were free to evaluate him by his works. He said: ”If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me.” Jesus didn’t except them to blindly accept him being the Son of God. I am reminded of when Jesus told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. The scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy. Jesus’ response was to ask them the question “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’?” Of course, Jesus then healed the paralytic as a “proof” that he also had the authority to forgive sins. Once again it goes back to the theme of Jesus 'proving' himself through his works.

Considering the example that Jesus set and his testimony, it really puts to shame LCers who make lofty and unsubstantiated claims about themselves. For a long time, I bought into the whole deification thing, but never once did I ask myself if LC members lived up to what they claimed to be. I have heard some LC members claim that they need to become "divine and mystical persons." Even though such talk is pure nonsense to begin with, what it amounts to for the average LCer is like aron says, merchandised words. There are so many slogans that no one can attach a concrete meaning to, because there are no actual living examples. They speak of godmen, but where to we find these godmen? Actually this is a bad example, because there is such thing: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godman_%28India%29)

In all seriousness, it really goes beyond the doctrinal basis (or lack thereof) of deification. Even if WL’s teachings could be proven to be legitimate, there would still be an elephant in the room. Those who run Ponzi schemes using church money have no business calling themselves a man of God or even being a Christian leader. Those who cover the tracks of such a person are just as bad. That eliminates a good majority of LC leaders.

[JJ]

Thanks for sharing on this topic Freedom and aron. This is very helpful insight. Amazing (and scary) that hinduism uses the term godmen for their gurus.

The Lord Jesus and the real apostles had amazing good works that backed up their spiritual words. May the Lord be gracious to us so that our works also demonstrate the authenticity of the words that come out of our mouths and keyboards.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those who run Ponzi schemes using church money have no business calling themselves a man of God or even being a Christian leader. Those who cover the tracks of such a person are just as bad. That eliminates a good majority of LC leaders.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! If you're comparing Witness Lee to a Ponzi scheme, I don't think it applies unless restricted to his children. To my knowledge some were refunded their investment into Daystar, but no one received any returns from legitimate profit.
I do agree there was fraud in the recovery using church money and whether LC leaders knew or didn't know, they don't want the subject investigated. Their business is LSM publications and any investigation would be quite humbling.

[UntoHim]

Terry, I'm sure you've heard the infamous recorded phone call between Witness Lee and Sal Benoit regarding the Daystar debacle. Benoit clearly exposed the whole situation in the conversation, and yes, it was very much like a ponzi scheme, and yes, Witness Lee was at the very head of the whole thing. He held and controlled the purse strings. Basically, Lee set up a dummy company (Phosphorous in Taiwan) to evade the payment of legitimate American corporate taxes. To make matters worse (as if it could be worse) he also involved some other entity which he named "Overseas Christian Stewards" which was supposedly involved in "the Lord's work overseas". The whole thing was a huge tangled up, unethical, illegal mess that shamed the Lord's name, caused many dear saints to be shaken in their faith, and simply exposed Witness Lee as a fraud.

The recorded conversation is still up on YouTube:
Conversation Between Witness Lee and Sal Benoit concerning DayStar
This Youtube also includes the flow chart which Matt Anderson put together so that us some of us stupid, gullible Americans can get a real visual of what happened.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This Youtube also includes the flow chart which Matt Anderson put together so that us some of us stupid, gullible Americans can get a real visual of what happened.

The king-dum of Lee: "Me king, you dumb." He said we were stupid, mooing cows who couldn't dance to the piano masters Nee and Lee. I remember how we were all grateful that the Great Man Himself even bothered to try and teach us, even though we knew we probably weren't going to get it - it simply was too high.

The money laundering thing - hey, everybody makes mistakes. Nobody's perfect. Right?

Some day the truth about what went down in Taipei will come out. Then everyone will realize that DayStar wasn't some irregularity, a blip in an otherwise spotless resume. Rather, it was part of a larger pattern of behavior, a repetition of "works" that expose Witness Lee for what he was. These repeated, deliberate actions testify more clearly than any book or conference ever could. The man wasn't even qualified to be an elder in a local assembly.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry, I'm sure you've heard the infamous recorded phone call between Witness Lee and Sal Benoit regarding the Daystar debacle. Benoit clearly exposed the whole situation in the conversation, and yes, it was very much like a ponzi scheme, and yes, Witness Lee was at the very head of the whole thing. He held and controlled the purse strings. Basically, Lee set up a dummy company (Phosphorous in Taiwan) to evade the payment of legitimate American corporate taxes. To make matters worse (as if it could be worse) he also involved some other entity which he named "Overseas Christian Stewards" which was supposedly involved in "the Lord's work overseas". The whole thing was a huge tangled up, unethical, illegal mess that shamed the Lord's name, caused many dear saints to be shaken in their faith, and simply exposed Witness Lee as a fraud.

The recorded conversation is still up on YouTube:
Conversation Between Witness Lee and Sal Benoit concerning DayStar
This Youtube also includes the flow chart which Matt Anderson put together so that us some of us stupid, gullible Americans can get a real visual of what happened.
-

I'd say Daystar was a fraud, unethical, and illegal.
Daystar was very much close to being a Ponzi Scheme, but not quite. Based on the definition from:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop.

Had original Daystar investors been paid a return on their investment, then I would say yes, Daystar was a Ponzi scheme.

[UntoHim]

Opps, you caught me Terry. I must have played hooky the day in law school that they covered all the different kinds of financial malfeasance fraud (the law school I never attended). What I wish I was really wrong about is the fact that Witness Lee committed some sort of major financial malfeasance with church related funds...and the real tragedy is that DayStar was NOT the first time, and I suspect it wasn't the last.

I also wish that it didn't take a secretly recorded conversation to find out what Witness Lee was really like when he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, especially finding out that Lee thought the cookie jar and all the cookies in it actually belonged to him. When he was on the podium in all those trainings and conferences, he seemed to imply that the cookie jar and all the cookies actually belonged to God. Silly us for actually believing such a thing!

-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I also wish that it didn't take a secretly recorded conversation to find out what Witness Lee was really like when he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, especially finding out that Lee thought the cookie jar and all the cookies in it actually belonged to him. When he was on the podium in all those trainings and conferences, he seemed to imply that the cookie jar and all the cookies actually belonged to God. Silly us for actually believing such a thing!

Let's just come out and say the cookie jar is LSM. When churches pass money to LSM, it is Lee's will to exercise how it's spent. Of course it was convincing to portray the message as giving to LSM is for the Lord's move....
As for the recorded conversation, it's part of history to show the man away from the podium.

[JJ]

Regarding the title of this thread, I found an interesting nugget while finishing up a reading through Genesis. I've bolded a part that stood out to me.

Genesis 50: 14-21
After he had buried his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, he and his brothers, and all who had gone up with him to bury his father.
When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

Now that's what real maturity looks like. Both repentance for wrong-doing, forgiveness, and not overstepping ones' bounds.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by JJ

Now that's what real maturity looks like. Both repentance for wrong-doing, forgiveness, and not overstepping ones' bounds.

Thanks JJ for this wonderful post. Repentance and forgiveness are two of the pillars of our Christian life. What really stands out to me in this passage is that even though Joseph's brothers repentance was really more out of fear for what he could or would do to pay them back, and was hardly sincere, Joseph accepted their repentance anyway. It seems that Joseph left it up to God to judge and accept their repentance as sufficient and sincere enough.

This soft and tender heart displayed by Joseph really represents what God is like "in life and nature". All the repetition by rote of so-called "high peak" teachings mean absolutely nothing without a heart that has been truly changed by the love and mercy of God. Joseph also seemed to have learned something extremely profound about God's sovereignty - "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good". Only someone who has had their heart truly changed and their will submitted to God and his sovereignty could have comprehended such insight to the very "life and nature" of God himself.

Eventually, all who are truly regenerated will be transformed into a totally new creation and will be shining forth in God's Kingdom with his life and with his nature. The apostle John says it best: "and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) For now, for anyone one to say that we are "becoming God in life and nature" is just so much theological gobbledygook, and at best is totally unhelpful, and at worse leads to what we see in our very dear, but very confused brothers and sisters in the Local Church. May God have mercy.
-

[Ohio]

Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

So the children of Israel in Genesis 50.18 tried to make Joseph the "acting God" in fulfillment of his God-given dream in 37.5-10? Very interesting!

But unlike the prophet Samuel, (Anybody notice that Lee's sons were almost as bad as Samuel's? And for that matter, Eli's too! After Eli's sons, Samuel became God's prophet. After Samuel's sons, Israel pined for a king.) whom Lee claimed was the "acting God" on earth, Joseph rejected such nonsense.

So did Paul (and Barnabas) in Acts 14.11-15, who made it quite clear to the superstitious natives that, "we also are men like you!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Joseph also seemed to have learned something extremely profound about God's sovereignty - "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good". Only someone who has had their heart truly changed and their will submitted to God and his sovereignty could have comprehended such insight to the very "life and nature" of God himself.

This reminds me of the Lord's word, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

[Freedom]

Col 1:10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God

Eph 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called

To me, a big part of being a Christian is acting and behaving like one. Those in the LC might take issue with me stating that behavior is something relevant, but that itself is not really my point. I’m not advocating that need to be "model citizens" or anything like that. All I’m saying is that if we profess faith in Jesus, then we should follow his teachings as evidenced in the way that we live. This is why James said "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." It's not that anyone here is claiming that we are somehow justified by works instead of faith, no, not at all. LCers reading this might purposely try to misunderstand what I’m saying, but that is their problem, not mine.

I strongly feel we each have a person responsibility in regards to following Christ. Humility should be a virtue found in Christians. Likewise, Christians should be willing to repent as well as forgive. We all fall short, but this does not eliminate us from responsibility and accountability. Jesus gave us certain principles to live by. I don’t think he would have given us a standard that is impossible to follow. This is not to say that God doesn’t have a hand in things, but unfortunately in the LC, there is the notion that we are somehow alleviated of all responsibility and accountability because of our sinful nature. Too long have I been trapped in the mindset that because we are all just sinners that we should throw in the towel and “give up”, to not attempt to act like Christians, to not try to live a life that glorifies God.

Perhaps this is why the LC remains so suspect and elusive in the public eye. They are not after bringing glory to God. They are a movement primarily concerned with glorying themselves, thinking that they are God’s remnant and ‘recovery’. This self-glorification blinds them to who they really are. They go so far as to call themselves "divine persons", but there is a lack in some of the basics.

As I see it, the tragedy of the LC is the fact that a group that claims to be something so great and special could actually be the antithesis of that. The LC has fallen short in the smallest of things. Basic Christian virtues are often absent. Some of the works of the flesh that Paul mentions in Gal 5 are sadly found in the LC. Mind you, this is a group that commonly mocks mantras in Christianity such as ‘WWJD’. This is exactly why it is so precarious for a group to dismiss the basics.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Col 1:10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God

Eph 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called

To me, a big part of being a Christian is acting and behaving like one. Those in the LC might take issue with me stating that behavior is something relevant, but that itself is not really my point. I’m not advocating that need to be "model citizens" or anything like that. All I’m saying is that if we profess faith in Jesus, then we should follow his teachings as evidenced in the way that we live. This is why James said "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." It's not that anyone here is claiming that we are somehow justified by works instead of faith, no, not at all. LCers reading this might purposely try to misunderstand what I’m saying, but that is their problem, not mine.

I strongly feel we each have a person responsibility in regards to following Christ. Humility should be a virtue found in Christians. Likewise, Christians should be willing to repent as well as forgive. We all fall short, but this does not eliminate us from responsibility and accountability. Jesus gave us certain principles to live by. I don’t think he would have given us a standard that is impossible to follow. This is not to say that God doesn’t have a hand in things, but unfortunately in the LC, there is the notion that we are somehow alleviated of all responsibility and accountability because of our sinful nature. Too long have I been trapped in the mindset that because we are all just sinners that we should throw in the towel and “give up”, to not attempt to act like Christians, to not try to live a life that glorifies God.

Perhaps this is why the LC remains so suspect and elusive in the public eye. They are not after bringing glory to God. They are a movement primarily concerned with glorying themselves, thinking that they are God’s remnant and ‘recovery’. This self-glorification blinds them to who they really are. They go so far as to call themselves "divine persons", but there is a lack in some of the basics.

As I see it, the tragedy of the LC is the fact that a group that claims to be something so great and special could actually be the antithesis of that. The LC has fallen short in the smallest of things. Basic Christian virtues are often absent. Some of the works of the flesh that Paul mentions in Gal 5 are sadly found in the LC. Mind you, this is a group that commonly mocks mantras in Christianity such as ‘WWJD’. This is exactly why it is so precarious for a group to dismiss the basics.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5523
The unregistered poster in post 35 is indicative of needing to act in order to produce an acceptable response.

Often it seems LC prophesying and such is theatrical. There's much speaking and performing (in the sense the louder you are produces a spiritual reality) but, little of works. There's boasting, belittling, and besmirching at times in the absence of humility, repentance, and forgiveness Freedom has posted on.
What would Jesus do? Why not re-read and refer to the gospels to help perfect the humanity of Christ is us instead of using the gospels as a stepping-stone to exalt the ministry LSM publishes?

[JJ]

Great discussion that followed my post about Joseph.

Not to end that, but I did a word search for the word life (zoe in Greek) in the gospel of John to see if his "high peak truth" includes believers becoming God in life.

He never uses those words. What I discovered is that John's high peak truth is best summarized by what he says at the end of John in 20:31

"but these (words in the Gospel of John) have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name".

To illustrate this, I'm including the last eight references below:

8:1 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
12:25 “He who loves his life (psyche) loses it, and he who hates his life (psyche) in this world will keep it to life (zoe) eternal.
12:50 “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
17:2-3 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

[JJ]

What Jesus Came for, and is Coming for (apologies for the length)

God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under law to redeem them that were under law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because we are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore we are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Galatians 4:1-7
Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit through the virgin Mary. He was sent to save his people from their sins. His name is called Emmanuel, which translated means, “God with us”. Matthew 1:20-23
Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets (not to abolish them). Matthew 5:17
Jesus took our infirmities and carried away our diseases. Matthew 8:17; 4:24, Mark 1:34, Luke 4:40, 6:18, 7:21, 9:1; Acts 19:12, 28:9; Psalm 103:3
Jesus came to call the sinners (to repentance), not the righteous, and save them. Matthew 9:13, Luke 5:32, 1 Timothy 1:15, 1 Corinthians 15:3
Jesus came to bring a sword and division on the earth (not peace). Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 12:51-53 “for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost. Matthew 18:10-14, Luke 19:10
The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. Matthew. 20:28 and Mark 10:45
Jesus came as a king, gentle and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. Matthew 21:5, John 12:15, Zechariah 9:9
Jesus is the blessed one who came in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the highest. Matthew 21:9, Mark 11:9, Luke 19:38, John 12:13
Jesus came from the Lord as the stone which the builders rejected that has become the chief corner stone, and it is marvelous in our eyes. “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.” Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7, Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 28:16
Jesus came to preach. Mark 1:38-39
Jesus came to baptize people with the Holy Spirit and fire. Luke 3:16, Luke 12:49
Jesus was anointed with the Spirit of the Lord to preach the gospel to the poor and proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, and to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Luke 4:16-24, Isaiah 61:2
The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. Luke 9:56, 1 Timothy 1:15
Jesus is the Word who was in the beginning with God and was God, in him was life, and the life was the light of men. He came to his own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Those who believe in him will not remain in darkness. John 1:1-11, John 12:46
Jesus in the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He existed before John the Baptist and has a higher rank than him. He is the lamb standing as having been slain before the foundation of the earth. John 1:29-31, Rev 5:5
Jesus comes from above (heaven), and is above all. John 3:31
Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ who declared all things to us. John 4:26, 29
Jesus came in his Father’s name, and was not received by the Pharisees. John 5:43; 10:25
Jesus is the promised Prophet who was to come into the world that we should listen to. But, he refused to be made king of the Jews during his first coming. John 6:14-15, Deuteronomy 18:18
Jesus is the bread of life that the Father sent from heaven to give life to the world. John 6:32-34
Jesus came not to do his own will, but the will of the Father. The Father’s will was that all that all He has given him; he will lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. The Father is true. John 5:30, 6:38-39, 7:28
Christ came from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was (fulfilling the scripture). Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1-16, Luke 2:4, 15; John 7:42
Jesus proceeded forth and came from God, he was sent not of his own initiative. John 8:42
Jesus came into the world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind. John 9:15-41
Jesus came that we may have life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10
Jesus came as the Son of Man to be glorified through death on the cross and resurrection. He glorified the Father’s name, and the Father glorified it as well. John 23-28
Jesus came to save the world, not to judge it. John 12:47
Jesus said he would go and prepare a place for us, and will come again to receive us to himself, that where he is, there we may be also. John 14:3
Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. John 14:23
Jesus came and spoke to the unbelieving Jews. Now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22
Jesus sent the Spirit of truth from the Father as a Helper. The Spirit testifies about Jesus and seals us. John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, 1 John 4:6, Ephesians 1:13
The Spirit convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement. John 16:8
The Spirit guides us into all the truth. He does not speak of his own initiative, but speaks whatever he hears from Jesus, and will disclose what is to come. He glorifies Jesus. Jesus’ first coming was like a woman in labor. He had pain, and the disciples had grief, but their hearts rejoiced after they saw him after Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus came forth from the Father who loved him and loves the believers, and went back to be with the Father after his ascension. John 16:1-33, 3:13, 20:17; Acts 2:34; Ephesians 4:8-10; Hebrews 1:3-13
Jesus glorified the Father on the earth, having accomplished the work which He gave him to do, and he was glorified together with the Father, with the glory they had before the world was. Jesus manifested the Father’s name to those whom the Father gave to him. They were the Father’s, and they kept his word. While Jesus was with them, he was keeping them in the Fathers name, he guarded them and not one of them perished except the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Jesus gave them the Father’s word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, as Jesus wasn’t either. For their sakes Jesus sanctified himself, and asked the Father to sanctify them in the Word, which is the truth. As the Father sent Jesus into the world, so he has sent them into the world. He did not ask the Father to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. He also asked the Father to make them one in the glory which he shared with the Father, that they may be perfected in unity, so the world may know that the Father sent him, and know that He loved them as He loved Jesus. He also asked that they would be with Him, where he is. Jesus has and will make the Father known to us, so the love with which the Father loved Jesus may be in us, and Jesus would be in us. John 17
Jesus is a king who was born to come into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears his voice. This king was scourged, given a crown of thorns by soldiers and a purple robe, slapped in the face, mocked, vindicated as being without sin, rejected by the Jews, crucified, robbed of his garments, watched by his mother and followers, given a sponge full of vinegar, gave up his spirit, had his side pierced (out from which flowed blood and water) but no bone was broken, and was buried in a tomb. John 18:38, 19:1-42, 1 Corinthians 15:4
Jesus was resurrected and witnessed by many of his disciples. On the first day of the week he came and stood in their midst and said to them “Peace be with you”. Then he did it again eight days later. He appeared to his disciples, more than 500 brothers, and all the apostles. John 20; 1 Corinthians 15: 4-7
Jesus came and preached peace to those near and far through the apostles. Ephesians 2:17
Jesus Christ is the One who came by water and blood (not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood). The Spirit, the water, and the blood testify. 1 John 5:6-8
After his ascension into heaven, angels promised that Jesus will come in just the same way as the disciples watched him go up into heaven. Acts 1:11
The Lord’s second coming will bring to light the things hidden in darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God. 1 Corinthians 4:5
As often as we eat the bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26
We wait for God’s Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. Thessalonians 1:10
When Jesus comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for the apostles testimony was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:10
Jesus sends grace to us and peace. He is, and was, and is to come, and has seven Spirits before His throne. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the end. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty! Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8
Behold, Jesus is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Mark 13:26, 14:62; Revelation 1:7
Behold, Jesus is coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.
“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” Rev 19:7
“And behold, Jesus is coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.” Revelation 22:7
“Behold, Jesus is coming quickly, and His reward is with Him, to render to every man according to what he has done. Rev 22:12
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. Rev. 22:17
Jesus is he who testifies to these things, and says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. Rev 22:20

[JJ]

Again, apologies for the length (and run on sentences).

This former post is the result of a search using Blue Letter Bible in the New American Standard Bible for verses the say something about Jesus' coming. I did this to see if "God became man, that man might become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" was the reason Jesus came.

I certainly didn't see those explicit words, but now I certainly want to fall down at Jesus' feet and say no more.

JJ

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

This former post is the result of a search using Blue Letter Bible in the New American Standard Bible for verses the say something about Jesus' coming. I did this to see if "God became man, that man might become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" was the reason Jesus came.

For such an assertion to be made (God became man...), it really places the burden of proof upon the one making the claim. WL attempted to 'prove' this, but his audience was one who would never honestly and objectively question what he said.

With that in mind, I think that it might be a bit of a wild goose chase to attempt to disprove the teaching in the first place. I feel funny saying that, because I've attempted to do just that on this thread (and others), It's not that it can't be done, but proving a negative is a bit tricky.

A while back, I got into a debate with an unregistered poster where I attempted to employ Acts 14 to disprove deification, and also to debunk the claim that 2 Peter 1:4 doesn't mean what WL claimed it to mean. The poster disappeared after a few "hit and run" posts. The problems really is not on our end. The problem is those who want to support and defend teachings in an isolated environment, devoid of critical or negative feedback.

[OBW]

Freedom,

I agree with you that proving every false teaching as wrong is problematic because the scripture does not deal with every thought that a man could have in detail. I have come to realize that there are many things that are taught by all kinds of Christian teachers that could be true, but for which there is nothing but conjecture. The difference between what many of them teach and what Lee and other leaders of fanatical, exclusivist groups teach is in the importance given to the teaching.

There is many a sermon that takes what is there and extrapolates beyond the reasonable bounds of the text, yet the result is nothing more than a word of advice for living, or maybe a little to much outward regulation. But those who do as Nee and Lee did make assertions that tear at the very fabric of the Christian life. They move beyond a few "what ifs" past the text and instead change it from what the words actually spoken say and on to something else.

In some cases, I can honestly say that we may ultimately discover that they were right on some things because they simply taught into a vacuum and managed to guess rightly. But the problem is that with what is given, they have no basis for claiming that it is true, therefore no basis for saying it is more than a good idea.

And the problem, as you have noted, is not that you can prove them wrong, but that you have no basis to establish them as right. It is "beyond what is written" — a place that Paul warns about in 1 Cor 4. So when you read whatever verse that Nee or Lee used to get to their novel teaching and they say something like "this means X" or "this cannot mean that because of teaching Y" then you have to ask how it is that something that is not within the context of the passages being read can cause clear words to cease to be clear.

This is decoder-ring theology. You can no longer trust that your ability to read is of any use. I admit that things that are hidden in metaphors or parables may not be a simple as a straight declaration in plain words, but even those are given in a context in which the purpose is amply clear.

And for Nee and Lee, it is too often that text is not given a place within the whole of its narrative, but is instead separated into bits an pieces which I call fortune cookies and based on a word is presumed to have meaning that comes from elsewhere rather than from the narrative in which it is found. That is how we got the teaching that the last Adam became the Holy Spirit. The verse is not even talking about the Holy Spirit, but Lee comes along and finds "quickening" or "life-giving," declares there can be only one life-giving spirit, and sudden Christ becomes the Holy Spirit.

But the claim that there can only be one life-giving spirit is false. God is spirit, therefore the Father is spirit, the Son is spirit and The Spirit (as a named person, not in reference to his essence) is also spirit. The Son gives life, as does the Father and the Spirit. Lee has made a false statement by equivocating over the word "spirit."

Unfortunately, not all of his errors are so easy to spot. Too often it is that he just makes a statement that X means Y without anything more than the fact that he says so. So how do you refute those? If there is no evidence that it is actually true, then he has gone "beyond what is written" and is outside of the truth that the scripture has provided. The whole sum of truth is not contained in the Bible. But what we need is. Claims of truth beyond that, no matter how good or spiritual it sounds, is beyond what is written and is, at minimum, suspect. It is clearly nothing upon which to demand anything. It cannot be a major teaching or become something of the "core" of the faith.

And it surely does not gain the status of being worthy of the job as the decoder ring to re-read and reinterpret other parts of the Bible.

[JJ]

OK guys, thanks for pouring the cold water

You're right about proving the negative. I don't think my post proved a thing about the title, I did learn explicit reasons Jesus came and is coming again, and that was cool.

JJ

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK guys, thanks for pouring the cold water

You're right about proving the negative. I don't think my post proved a thing about the title, I did learn explicit reasons Jesus came and is coming again, and that was cool.

JJ

Hopefully my last post didn't come across the wrong way. It's always good to have a solid understanding of why Jesus came, so that we know when someone is making unsubstantiated claims. The thing about unsubstantiated claims is that they seem enticing, otherwise who would buy into it in the first place?

Lee's teachings have fooled thousands upon thousands. It's not that he necessarily "proved" anything that he taught, he just told people what they wanted to hear. I think that the following verses accurately characterizes who Lee was as a teacher:
2 Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables

Notice how I emphasized according to their own desires. In many ways, people's affinity for certain teachings is inexplicable. Deification would be laughable to most, and irrelevant, except for the fact that some of us once thought it to be a solid teaching. So many other things that WL taught are also just plain nonsense. So why did we once follow such teachings? I really don't know. What I do know is that the Bible is what sets us straight. It is then ironic that it would be de-empasized in the LC, unless accompanied with WL's commentary.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Notice how I emphasized according to their own desires. In many ways, people's affinity for certain teachings is inexplicable. Deification would be laughable to most, and irrelevant, except for the fact that some of us once thought it to be a solid teaching. So many other things that WL taught are also just plain nonsense. So why did we once follow such teachings? I really don't know. What I do know is that the Bible is what sets us straight. It is then ironic that it would be de-empasized in the LC, unless accompanied with WL's commentary.

So many teachings and phrases intended to represent the Recovery as unique and central to God's move on the earth is also "according to their own desires".
It's as if the LCM has a complex in respect to rest of Christianity. Just because one of the Lord's servants such as Billy Graham has brought many to know the Lord through his evangelism, and just because he doesn't encourage brothers and sisters where to meet, his service is ridiculed in LC circles.

[Paul Vusik]

With all the hate and disparaging remarks for the Catholic Church from LSM, what is nteresting, that I find myself reading almost the very same beliefs found in their teachings. Here is a quote from the Catholic Church, so one can just compare this to the writings of LSM, and it’s almost word for word:


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 460,
“The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Just for clarification, I don’t think that Catholic Church teaches any Biblically sound theology, although the terminology they use sounds very close to that of Biblical Christianity.

[Raptor]

"God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"...is not scriptural, it pushes the boundaries of the truth in the Bible concerning the status of the believers and redefines and misuses the title "God."

The Bible has plenty to say about who the believers are, but it never says they are God nor GIL&NnGH. Rather it uses many metaphors such as members of the Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, House of God, and branches in the Vine. None of these descriptions imply or mean they themselves are the Head or Husband, or the Owner of the house, or the Vine. And saying that they are, but not in the "Head-Head", "Husband-Head," "Owner-Head," "Vine-Head," is just silly and awkward and pushing language and theology beyond what is Scriptural.

And the Bible also says without using a metaphor, that believers are sons of God. This is the most common definition for the believers either directly and literally stated or implied by referring to God as their Father. Believers DO have God´s life and nature because they are born of God, but that even more so underlines the fact they are sons of God.

Being a son of God does not mean we can say a believer is God (IL&NnGH). If anything, it means a believer is divine. Divine yes, but God no. Even if you add "in life and nature but not in the Godhead," it is still going beyond what is written. This would be the same as someone saying, "I was born of my dad, therefore I am my dad, in life and nature but not in the dad-head." That´s silly. No, you were born of your dad, you are his son; you are human, yes, but you are not your dad. You are a son of dad.

There is no need to go beyond Scripture and strectch meanings, redefine words and create confusion. Stick with what is predominantly stated, God is our Father, and we are His sons.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26