A System of Error

[aron]

I believe Paul at one time used the phrase "a system of errors" in reference to the traps which Satan used to snare the unsuspecting minds of people. An error is a sin, a mistake, a defect, a shortcoming. A system of errors is a self-reinforcing group of mistakes which collectively "cover" for one another and create a self-perpetuating system which traps the practitioner in endless loops of thought and behavior.

An easy example for me is the kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. "Well, we better do what he says because Witness Lee is the minister of the age."

Why is Witness Lee the minister of the age? On what do you base this statement? "Because what he teaches is the revealed truth, based on the Bible."

How do you know his teaching is THE truth, the only correct interpretation? "Why, because he is the minister of the age!"

This is an oversimplification, obviously, but I am trying to make the point that an error is one thing; we make them in our daily lives, and when we are exposed, we repent and learn and go on and hopefully don't repeat the thought or behavior. But a system of errors can perpetuate itself indefinitely. The practitioner builds a house of mirrors in which he or she continually sees the same 'truth', over and over again. And any new "light" which might change the system of thought is not allowed into the "house" that has been built.

I have 2 questions: One, does anyone know the reference from the Bible that I am talking about? I think it is in one of Paul's epistles. The phrase I remember was "with a view to a system of error..." I did a search but didn't find anything. I remember learning that 'system' in Greek is "kosmos", which is the Satanic "world" that opposes God, but that didn't help me in my search.

Two, what is the system we are dealing with here? I am trying to deal with "cause" versus "effect". If we just hash over the symptoms, we will be here 13 or 15 years from now, still pointing out the shortcomings of the LCS. Everyone has shortcomings. But, what are the causes of what we see here? What mutually reinforcing set of errors is rolling across the landscape in front of us?

I have a couple of possibilities. >>>Thankful wrote in one post that we start off following Christ, and eventually we follow a system. That, to me, is a good characterization of the drift into continual and self-reinforcing error.

>>>My idea is that when we get distracted, and "look away" from the Great Commandment, to love God with our whole heart and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Eventually some "thing" becomes our goal, instead of loving God and the person next to us. This is evident when we try to follow some good, orthodox Biblical teaching but instead of loving one another we bicker, quarrel, and castigate one another over some so-called "truth". We pursue things, even seemingly good things, that eventually "leaven" our love for God and one another.

>>>YP's ideas on "local assembly" of /ekklesia/ as the rescue from the errors of seeking to create a "universal church" organization here on earth. The "stone cut without hands" in Daniel chapter 2, which destroys the great image and eventually fills the earth, is to me a clue. The stone must not be cut (formed, fashioned, shaped) with human hands. Any organization has human hands inevitably on it. If we meet locally, love neighborly, testify to the nearby sinners, God can build universally.

>>>OBW made the point recently about the validity of Biblical authority in the assembly versus the error of "deputy authority". Somehow I was touched that this idea, heretofore unconsidered by me, is worth delineating.

Just some thoughts here. We all err; it is in our nature. Nobody except God is without error. But here we are dealing with a self-reinforcing system of errors. What is this system we are dealing with? I would like to flesh it out, and have a look at it. "The truth shall set you free."

p.s. Readers may notice that I am "left of center" when it comes to organized religion. Perhaps, but I don't advocate leaving whatever assembly you happen to meet with, however organized (or disorganized) it may be. "Leaving christianity" as a directive merely creates new systems, which I am obviously not interested in doing.

[YP0534]

Eph 4:11 and *he* has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to [the] work of [the] ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at [the] full-grown man, at [the] measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ;
Eph 4:14 in order that we may be no longer babes, tossed and carried about by every wind of *that* teaching [which is] in the sleight of men, in unprincipled cunning with a view to systematized error;
Eph 4:15 but, holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ:
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, fitted together, and connected by every joint of supply, according to [the] working in [its] measure of each one part, works for itself the increase of the body to its self-building up in love.

I love these verses. Darby's translation given here.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

My idea is that when we get distracted, and "look away" from the Great Commandment, to love God with our whole heart and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Eventually some "thing" becomes our goal, instead of loving God and the person next to us. This is evident when we try to follow some good, orthodox Biblical teaching but instead of loving one another we bicker, quarrel, and castigate one another over some so-called "truth". We pursue things, even seemingly good things, that eventually "leaven" our love for God and one another.

Good stuff, aron.

[OBW]

Aron,

Well said. I think that many of us are saying this without articulating it so succinctly. We are constantly pointing to particular details that make up the circle of error, but seldom to the full circle. But I will admit that discussing the fact of the circle of error, or the “system of error(s)” is something that I had uncertain thoughts concerning.

On one hand, I think it is a little like saying the LC is a cult (sorry Ohio). It may be true, but being so blunt may be too harsh and alienate those who might be “listening,” causing them to tune out our message. For this reason I am sometimes conflicted about being so bold and blunt to attack the root problems in the presence of the average LC member. (Obviously I am not always conflicted in that manner.)

On the other hand, I know that many are able to accept that there are some specific errors in the LC teachings and practices. They either know of some of them and ignore them as isolated things, or merely accept that it could be, but know of no particular instance. For these, the establishment of the system that falls when the small errors are eliminated might be the thing that opens their eyes.

First, when Paul made mention of a system of error, I don’t think he was simply talking about getting some non-essential doctrine wrong. So immersing or sprinkling was not his concern. It was about the introduction of things that misrepresented the very person, teachings, and work of Christ. It was about teachings that were directly in opposition to the righteousness that should be flowing out of a walk according to the Spirit. That is what Paul spoke against when he said that we have freedom in Christ, but that we should not use that freedom to turn back to sin. To teach that sin is OK would be a system of error. To think that the rapture (if it is actually anything like many say it will be) is pre, mid, post, or pan tribulation is not a system of error, though to use that teaching to reinforce some true error could make it part of the system of error.

I do agree that it is the local assembly that is the focus. And that assembly need not have a particular name or form of identification. And that assembly need not be homogenously like other assemblies within sight, within a city, a region, a country, or the whole world.

As individuals, I agree with TJ that we start off following Christ, but can easily turn to follow a system. But I do not agree that it is simply a natural progression to self-reinforcing error. I believe that even if all assemblies do not practice the same, or tend to follow the same peripheral teachings, the difference is not something to wring our hands over as error. It is simply something to better demonstrate the practice of generality among believers who have differing thoughts. (true it might be considered a better testimony if we all just met with whoever even when we don’t agree, how is the natural collection of “likes” an error if we understand them a merely likes and not “musts.”)

As individuals, we may turn the assembling together into a ritual with nothing spiritual inside. As individuals, we can be prone to doing group practices in a robotic way that robs us of the opportunity to see Christ in it and learn.

As assemblies, we may not be perfect, but most are not truly “systems of errors.” They are collections of imperfect believers who sometimes do things rather than seek and worship Christ. But it is not a system of error. They may have decided to accept some direction from outside their assembly (e.g., a denomination) but that is not, in itself, a system of error. They may disagree with a nearby assembly concerning the certainty of salvation, but it is not a system of error.

Of course there are systems of errors. They consider others to have misunderstood salvation and be headed for perdition despite their claim of faith. They have elevated teachings that lead away from Christ. They have elevated their teachers beyond the healthy respect that Paul suggests is warranted. And they have gone to extremes that get them mentioned in the ECNR — some more than others. They are somewhere in one or more of these descriptions. The LC is somewhere in this paragraph. It is far from a member of the top ten in the ECNR, but it is in this paragraph.

[YP0534]

naturally, I would appreciate my own view above all the others but I would also attempt to explain that all the others find their source in the error of "universal church" versus \ekklesia\.

The gifts to the Body becoming titles and offices?
universal church error damaging the assembly

Failing to care simply for loving God and loving neighbors?
neglecting the assembly due to universal church error

Starting with Christ and diverting to a system?
neglecting the Head in the assembly in favor of the universal church error

It's all in these verses from Ephesians.

All of it.

The whole enchillada.

The Body is the only universal element and that is under the direct, complete and unique Head always and in every way. As soon as you make the unscriptural equation of the Body with "universal church" you open the door to everything else that flows. This is the very foundation of catholicism and all the other historic errors have been based upon and extracted from that unique one.

Just consider it before the Lord.

[Cal]

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

[aron]

Ephesians chapter 4; thanks YP. I like how verse 14 has "winds of teaching" leading into "the sleight of men" leading into "in craftiness with a view to a system of error"...the craftiness is Satan, not men. Men are the dupes here.

...then look at verse 15, "But holding to the truth in love". Love has departed in verse 14; it was replaced by winds of teaching. Love is in verse 15, holding steadfastly to the truth, which includes love itself. Truth is not a doctrine or an idea, rather it is an experience, and the greatest experience is love. What teaching could distract us from this? Or conversely, what teaching could add to love? God loved us so much, He sent His Son while we were yet sinners, unloved, unlovely, and unloving. It is enough, I think, for us to receive this love in Christ Jesus, and receive one another in the love of Christ.

Sometimes I think of Philip, sent down to the road south of Jerusalem by the voice of an angel of the Lord, and led by the Spirit to approach and climb on an Ethiopian's chariot. This seems to be clearly a continuation of the flow of God's move in love, which Philip had experienced with Jesus.

But what if Philip decided that every Tuesday at 2:15 pm he should go down to the south road and find a chariot to climb into? That would be an error; only the voice of the Lord is the guide, not some outward directive like that. What if Philip controlled the church in Jerusalem and decided that everyone should go out and run up to chariots and tell them about the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies, or some such? "Every saint does 5 chariots per week; we'll evangelize Judea in less than 4 years." That would be a systematized error, on par with "The God-Ordained Way" which we endured.

The God-ordained way is to believe into Jesus, to love one another, and to follow the leading of the Spirit. I believe our template, our guide, is a flowing Spirit, and as such it resists "systems" which we in our ignorant good intentions try to create in our fallen effort to serve God.

All of the above is of course to be taken as my fragmentary, rambling thoughts and not some "truth" to be wrangled over.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

Hebrews 12 also speaks of a "universal gathering, the church of the firstborn"(vv.22-23), which may be the "universal" aspect of the Body of Christ, which we participate in(locally) by receiving Jesus as Lord and then receiving one another.

Obviously there is universal aspect of the assembly, each gathering is not an entity only unto itself. It is clearly part of something larger. It is part of the universal body of Christ, which is the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

YP,

If there is no, for lack of a better term, "universal church," then what was Jesus speaking of when he said, "I will build my church"?

Igzy

He did not say that.
He said that He would build His assembly.

And Peter was surely the first living stone.
And Jerusalem was indeed built up as the first and unique assembly.

But then Jerusalem was scattered into so many other places.
And although it took them some time to recognize it, the Lord built His assembly in each new place they went to. And the believers eventually recognized that assembling wasn't just for Jerusalem. Everywhere you go, the Lord is there building His assembly. But to consider that He's building His "universal church" is just misunderstanding the entire process.

In a sense, each new assembly in a new place was just an extension of that first assembly, but the Bible is clear about the existence of the many assemblies. Therefore, this doesn't imply universality. We shouldn't try to stretch the meaning of the Bible to fit our concept. The Greek word \ekklesia\ implies locality within itself. To change this meaning to suit a pre-conceived notion about universality is the catholic error and I've only been recently impressed with this point, which is the reason I can't seem to shut up about it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Hebrews 12 also speaks of a "universal gathering, the church of the firstborn"(vv.22-23), which may be the "universal" aspect of the Body of Christ, which we participate in(locally) by receiving Jesus as Lord and then receiving one another.

Obviously there is universal aspect of the assembly, each gathering is not an entity only unto itself. It is clearly part of something larger. It is part of the universal body of Christ, which is the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

be careful
the word "church" is tripping you up again

Hbr 12:22 but ye have come to mount Zion; and to [the] city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels,
Hbr 12:23 the universal gathering; and to [the] assembly of the firstborn [who are] registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to [the] spirits of just [men] made perfect;
Hbr 12:24 and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant; and to [the] blood of sprinkling, speaking better than Abel.

from Darby's translation again

be careful not to automatically equate "universal gathering" with "assembly of the firstborn" here simply because that is what you have been taught to do

look at it more closely

it seems to me that the myriads of angels are the universal gathering

the assembly of the firstborn is still just the assembly

why do we need to understand this to mean "universal church"?

we just always assume that's what it means because we have a low vision, in part due to Local Church doctrines, about the real importance of the local assembling of the saints

but when God is manifest in the assembling saints, this is this the glory of God Himself and His goal and purpose in the universe

and it is ONLY seen for real in the practical assembling...

[OBW]

YP,

Doesn’t “each new assembly in a new place was just an extension of that first assembly” seem to contradict “to change this meaning to suit a pre-conceived notion about universality is the catholic error” at least a little? On one hand, you say that each new assembly is just more of the first one, and all the others that followed before that latest assembly. Then you say that there is an error in universality. (Don’t start writing yet.)

Maybe the problem is in the term “universality.” When I think universality in terms of the church, I do not think in terms of commonality of forms, doctrines, creeds, practices, name, etc. I only consider that there is something that binds us all together as Christians and that one thing is Christ. In that sense there is universality. On the other hand, if we suggest that any other item is that common link — doctrine, creed, ground, etc. — then universality becomes the catholic error.

When one of those old creeds makes reference to the “catholic” aspect of the church (can’t remember which one), it is not suggesting that we are all unified in all ways, or that we are “Catholic.” It is only about the true commonality of the faith. In that it is quite true. I even find it somewhat interesting that the use of the term “catholic” was inserted and yet the source of that creed, I believe, was outside of the RCC. (I personally wish that more modern renditions of it would replace the term with “universal” or some other word that does not tend to imply the RCC to so many people.)

It is without a doubt that there is a universal aspect of the church. But our experience is exclusively with its practical expression which means in time and space — and near space at that.

We can talk about oneness with all believers in all times, but what about the believers right around the corner. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, but are you still one with them as they spread out to demonstrate Christ at the same time that you are? This is how we practically apply church beyond our small sphere of assembly. It is almost irrelevant that there are Christians too far away for any actual, practical fellowship, or that there have been Christians before in time, and will be after our lives are over (assuming this keeps rocking along as it is). How are we with the ones we meet every day.

So is it possible that it is not entirely “universality” that you oppose, but rather the notion that universality somehow homogenizes everything or is something that we need to focus our minds upon?

This silly little poem (probably somewhat misquoted) says something about universality:

To gather above with the saints I love,
Oh, won’t that be glory.
But to be here below with the saints I know,
Well that’s another story.

Universality is easy to embrace. We can claim oneness with people all over the world that don’t walk down our street. What about those that do? I think this is where your skepticism concerning universality fits best. If there is no practical evidence of oneness, why does anyone even bother bringing up some "universal" standard?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Universality is easy to embrace. We can claim oneness with people all over the world that don’t walk down our street. What about those that do? I think this is where your skepticism concerning universality fits best. If there is no practical evidence of oneness, why does anyone even bother bringing up some "universal" standard?

If no one ever sees past this point what I'm saying, I'm very happy.

But please do see my new thread trying to explain what I mean.

Common origin and connectedness are not the elements that make something "universal." Universal means everywhere at once.

This is not the assembly. This is the Body.

[djohnson]

OBW your last post reminded me of the saying: "I love humanity it's the people I can't stand!"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

To change this meaning to suit a pre-conceived notion about universality is the catholic error and I've only been recently impressed with this point, which is the reason I can't seem to shut up about it.

What do they say about a fanatic? He's someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.


No, I see your point, YP. In all honesty, I've felt that the idea of universal church is kind of useless. But it's a bit radical to say that there are no references to anything but "practical" assemblies in the NT.

Take Acts 9:31 for example:

"Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord."

One church in three regions. How did this assembly practically meet?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What do they say about a fanatic? He's someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.


No, I see your point, YP. In all honesty, I've felt that the idea of universal church is kind of useless. But it's a bit radical to say that there are no references to anything but "practical" assemblies in the NT.

Take Acts 9:31 for example:

"Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord."

One church in three regions. How did this assembly practically meet?

I know I'm a crazy radical. Please make it stop!


Again, be careful.

Acts 9:31 is a seriously disputed verse, which I previously discussed elsewhere and, really, it was quite exciting to see. Nee and Lee were significantly inconsistent with their teachings on this verse because there are two completely different versions of the underlying Greek text, singular throughout and plural throughout.

The critical reading is singular.
Textus Receptus is plural.

Plural needs no comment, obviously. If it says "churches" my point is made. It certainly would not be incorrect to read that way regardless.

Singular, however, being the more difficult reading, is explained simply in that the reference is just to the one assembly from Jerusalem. Until now, Jerusalem was considered to be the unique place of assembly in the universe. In 9:31, it had been scattered about by Saul's persecution but it was still before anyone had any recognition that they were not going to be going back to Jerusalem and that there might be an assembly of God elsewhere.

Look to the first occurrence of the word \ekklesia\ in Acts applied outside of Jerusalem for additional light and confirmation of this reading. In Antioch. Coincidentally, that's the place they were first called "Christians" and specific note is made of this fact at that point.

I can understand if someone would decline my reading on Acts 9:31 but since the verse is significantly in dispute, I'd at least say that we should not to put too much weight on one reading over another for this verse. For what it's worth, Darby chose the plural, but, of course he would, wouldn't he?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

This is not the assembly. This is the Body.

Yeah, and here come Paul M to tell you that the church is the body.

I do understand what you are saying. I even understand your analogy to McDonalds Inc. v the local McDonalds. Of course, you admitted it is a flawed analogy, and I agree. But there is a point.

"Everywhere at once" is only an aspect of universal. Universal also means always, or it means the whole. (I'm sure that there are other aspects that can be separated out.) If you speak of "universal truth" you are talking about something that is always true no matter how you try to nuance the discussion. So the problem is, again, in the use of the term. It is a matter of equivocation. When I say universal in terms of the church, I am speaking of the universal aspect of the oneness we share in Christ no matter when or where and with whom we practically assemble.

But if you simply mean universal as "everywhere at once" then even if it is true, it is not practical. Only the assembly is practical. And despite pointing to "the church, the body of Christ" I do acknowledge that it says "the assembly, the body of Christ" which actually limits the scope from universal to local time and space.

While I don't think that limiting things to a local assembly is any barrier against systems of error (which is the topic of the thread), I do agree that getting lost in "universal" aspects of our faith and oneness dodges the reality that is only seen practically in and through a local assembly (or through local assemblies).

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if you simply mean universal as "everywhere at once" then even if it is true, it is not practical. Only the assembly is practical.

Brother, I do believe most people who refer to "universal church" mean to refer to all places and all times in speaking of that notion.
(I misspoke by saying "at once" and neglecting to also add "at all times.")

Assembly is practical, in time and place.

Hallelujah!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Singular, however, being the more difficult reading, is explained simply in that the reference is just to the one assembly from Jerusalem. Until now, Jerusalem was considered to be the unique place of assembly in the universe. In 9:31, it had been scattered about by Saul's persecution but it was still before anyone had any recognition that they were not going to be going back to Jerusalem and that there might be an assembly of God elsewhere.

Hmmm, if singular is the correct rendering then your explanation doesn't really make sense. You said "church" meant practical assembly, with no universal or theoretical aspect. So by that standard if a church is scattered it's not a church anymore, and so should not be called a church.

Further, if a church is scattered and disconnected, how could it be described as "enjoying peace?"

Don't make no sense to me.

BTW, what do you mean by "critical reading?"

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, if singular is the correct rendering then your explanation doesn't really make sense. You said "church" meant practical assembly, with no universal or theoretical aspect. So by that standard if a church is scattered it's not a church anymore, and so should not be called a church.

Further, if a church is scattered and disconnected, how could it be described as "enjoying peace?"

Don't make no sense to me.

BTW, what do you mean by "critical reading?"

You really should try saying this without using the word "church" even once. It's affecting your vision. I didn't write anything about what "church" meant and I don't care to say what is or isn't a "church" at all. I don't personally even use that term anymore other than in reference to concepts I don't personally subscribe to.

I would agree, however, that an assembly is practical. I also think it's obvious that the practical assembly at Jerusalem had been scattered.

It's OK, though.
I'm not selling nuthin.


"critical reading" is what Steward would call "apostate version"

Theologians, college professors and egghead types who decide which Greek version is to be preferred when they conflict.

This verse is one of the biggest differences in Greek verses that I've ever seen. Except for the tail-end of Mark...

[Hope]

This is a great thread!!!

I believe we need to consider the character and behavior of the leadership in the LCS/LSM but even a greater matter is to consider the system of error itself. Please continue this good work.

On this thread to date, and on the forum, I have read many items which I believe describe part of the system of error. The character and behavior of many of the leadership is "the trickery of men and craftiness in deceitful scheming."

I believe to understand the scope of the "system of error" we should consider the passage as starting in Chapter 3 verse nine. I have listed key portions at the end of the post.

The system of error produces winds and waves of doctrines, (teachings). It does not say false teachings or heresies but just doctrines. The individual doctrines may not necessarity be in error but are used to create a system. I do believe that usually at least some of these teachings are not according to God or His administration because of the counter in the passage of "speaking the truth in love."

The passage begins with the two fold commission of Paul. (1) To proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ and (2)to bring to light or to make all men see what is the administration of the mystery. God does have an administration. He has His way of doing things, of carrying out His purpose. The system of error is in contrast with one or both of Paul's two fold commission. The LCS/LSM is guilty on both counts. They have replaced the riches of Christ in the experience of the saints and have invented many new ways to carry out God's plan and purpose.

I trust there will be much more fellowship on this topic.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge


Eph 3:8-11
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; 10 in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Eph 4:11-16
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Hope

This is a great thread!!!

I believe we need to consider the character and behavior of the leadership in the LCS/LSM but even a greater matter is to consider the system of error itself. Please continue this good work.

Sorry to admit it but, really, I have to recognize, there but for the grace of God go I. The individuals surely do bear responsiblity but consider that they all believe they are serving the Lord to the best of their ability within that system. Only the enemy could turn good men and good teachings into something so horribly upside down and wrong.

I've often felt that the powerful influence of religion (in all of us!) is a strong proof of God's existence in the universe. The evidence and fruit of the enemy's working in and through religion is just too undeniable sometimes.

And if he's working that hard, what's he working against?

Must be something very solidly real!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by YP0534

"critical reading" is what Steward would call "apostate version"

Oh, it must be something good then.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, it must be something good then.

I'm not sure I want to comment further about that...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Two, what is the system we are dealing with here? I am trying to deal with "cause" versus "effect". If we just hash over the symptoms, we will be here 13 or 15 years from now, still pointing out the shortcomings of the LCS. Everyone has shortcomings. But, what are the causes of what we see here? What mutually reinforcing set of errors is rolling across the landscape in front of us?

Aron, one significant "cause" of the "system of error" is the "interpreted word." Francis Ball stood up in one training about 10 years ago and announced to all, that the Recovery now has the completed "interpreted Word" referring to the ministry of WL, specifically the Life Study messages. This should be considered as similar to the teaching of the woman Jezebel, who usurped God's place among His people. (Rev 2.20) The "ministry" has replaced the word, thus perpetuating error, and opening the door for further error, as we have seen continually.

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub.

Any teacher who comes along, and attempts minor course corrections from the scripture, such as Nigel Tomes tried valiantly, will be condemned and considered of the devil. ("That Nigel, he is inspired all right, but it is not of the Spirit of God!" -- Dan Towle paraphrased at Whistler.) Ingalls and Tomes proved once and for all, that no matter who you are, no matter who you knew, no matter what your reputation, no matter how many years of faithful and fruitful service, no matter who you labored with, no matter what your credentials were ... nothing at all ... if you "protest the program," as defined by LSM, they will "get you," smear your name, ruin your reputation, destroy all semblances of your past labors, remove your name from all their books, etc.

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Aron, one significant "cause" of the "system of error" is the "interpreted word." Francis Ball stood up in one training about 10 years ago and announced to all, that the Recovery now has the completed "interpreted Word" referring to the ministry of WL, specifically the Life Study messages. This should be considered as similar to the teaching of the woman Jezebel, who usurped God's place among His people. (Rev 2.20) The "ministry" has replaced the word, thus perpetuating error, and opening the door for further error, as we have seen continually.

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub.

Any teacher who comes along, and attempts minor course corrections from the scripture, such as Nigel Tomes tried valiantly, will be condemned and considered of the devil. ("That Nigel, he is inspired all right, but it is not of the Spirit of God!" -- Dan Towle paraphrased at Whistler.) Ingalls and Tomes proved once and for all, that no matter who you are, no matter who you knew, no matter what your reputation, no matter how many years of faithful and fruitful service, no matter who you labored with, no matter what your credentials were ... nothing at all ... if you "protest the program," as defined by LSM, they will "get you," smear your name, ruin your reputation, destroy all semblances of your past labors, remove your name from all their books, etc.

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

You go, bro'.

[Guest1]

Since it is considered a "tactic of the enemy" to return to the "pure word of God, (I was literally told that) then there is literally no self-correcting ability in the "ministry." The ministry can only teach the ministry, and all other teachings are considered to be "teaching differently," hence the system of error has built in "self-preservations" against any inputs from the Spirit of God -- they all will be viewed with suspicion, and rejected, as we have continually seen from the days of John Ingalls until today. The interpreted word has its own "taste" which has spoiled the taste buds for God's word. They have entered the same sad state as the Pharisees, who "knew all the verses" which proved that Jesus was of Beelzebub

this is shocking..and the fate of all who have any other source than the Word of God the bible.. Lord have mercy on us and thank you that we have your Word today.. may we use every minute to stuff ourselves with it.. Praise you Lord.. the Lord is able to make each and every one of us understand and assimilate by the Holy Spirit ..Word of God..
and Amen brother Aaron

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The system is unchangeable, uncorrectable, unteachable and impenetrable. We have seen this with so many LSMers and posters. When confronted, smacked in the face, with the scripture and plain reason, they always retreat to "the ministry," the "interpreted word." This, my friends, is a system of error.

Yes, this is my point. If we merely focus on brother Lee or one of his Blended Lieutenants today we may miss the point, and then go round in circles after them! I would much rather learn something from the experience beyond the 'personalities' and so forth. What type of a system rewards, even creates such personalities, and places them at the 'top', after years of purges and (figurative, thankfully) bloodletting in the ranks?

The 'interpreted word' trumping scriptures, the 'minister of the age', the primacy of being 'one' with headquarters even at the loss of our love for each other, all these are parts of an interlocking system which cannot allow fresh light or fresh air. If threatened it merely squeezes tighter and tighter.

I find the best thing is not to struggle against such edifices, but rather to understand them. One, it preserves me from falling into such unrelenting and continual error, and two, it allows me to point out salient features to others who are themselves trying to figure out what they are dealing with.

Witness Lee was a master at painting 'the big picture', and then filling in enough detail to prop the thing up. I likewise find it helpful to stand back and get an overall view for myself, as well. What is not of God will vanish like dust, carried away by the wind. The truth will set us free.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

I find the best thing is not to struggle against such edifices, but rather to understand them. One, it preserves me from falling into such unrelenting and continual error, and two, it allows me to point out salient features to others who are themselves trying to figure out what they are dealing with.

I wrestle with the line between being an edifice-pointer-outer and one who takes and has that understanding, solely by the Lords mercy, as a spur to find Him in everything, but in humility. One who has, by his mercy, moved beyond edifaces, but one who simulatneously doesn't trust that he won't make more sophisticated, personal, unintelliglble to the outsider, edifaces of judgment and spiritual isolation which he won't admit as being judgment or isolation. One can get lost in the self-assured world of "understanding" for years without looking at themselves.

There aren't lines in this particular arena. Fortunately. When there aren't lines, we remember that we need Him. And that's the point. Judicial salvation newby or mature elder, we all start each day needing a savior. The hard part is realizing it, or rather allowing Him to expose us.

I wish I could take back some of my early post on the Bereans. Sometimes, the judgaholic turns too judgmentally on those who taught him to judge. It makes for great literary complexity and irony, but it hurts.

A system of error? Yes. That's not the question, though. The question is: how and when do you point it out. Be it to yourself or others...


Peter

p.s. (aron, this post is not specifically in response to you, it is just spurred by your post - thank you).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I wrestle with the line between being an edifice-pointer-outer and one who takes and has that understanding, solely by the Lords mercy, as a spur to find Him in everything, but in humility. One who has, by his mercy, moved beyond edifaces, but one who simulatneously doesn't trust that he won't make more sophisticated, personal, unintelliglble to the outsider, edifaces of judgment and spiritual isolation which he won't admit as being judgment or isolation. One can get lost in the self-assured world of "understanding" for years without looking at themselves.

There aren't lines in this particular arena. Fortunately. When there aren't lines, we remember that we need Him. And that's the point. Judicial salvation newby or mature elder, we all start each day needing a savior. The hard part is realizing it, or rather allowing Him to expose us.

A system of error? Yes. That's not the question, though. The question is: how and when do you point it out. Be it to yourself or others...

I seem to be driven by a compulsion, a need, an "unscratchable itch" to understand. I keep asking myself why, why, like the little kid who wants to know why all the time. "But why, daddy?"

When I left the LC ambit I studied science for about 2 years. Compulsively. Everything that "explained" the universe we live in. Niels Bohr became my new hero, among others. Eventually, I was left with one burning quote in my mind, and it was from the teachings of Jesus. It burned through all the science that I had been stuffing myself with. "Hear, O Israel, there is One God, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".

This was the correlate, to me, of Bohr's wave/particle 'complementarity' dilemma.

Question: Do we love God, or do we love the person next to us?
Answer: It's the same thing.

So I needed a couple of years of science to reframe Jesus, to me, apart from the shadows of Lee.

I am still asking why, though. It seems to be my hobby. I love it when I find "the answer", then the answer prods the next question, and I have to abandon my new surety for the unknown again.

The one "answer" I have never been able to let go of is the quote from Jesus about loving God and one another. The rest, I wander in and out of confusion. So I think it's okay to point out to one another aspects of our journey. It's not necessarily 'truth', it's merely my experience. How much what I experience is 'real' or not is up to God. I just do my best and repent when my experience is lacking (often), and praise Him when He covers my failures (again, often). Judging others is an empty and joyless task.

Lee created a cage out of his journey, and a lot of people climbed in. I was there, for a time. But it turns out the 'truth', for me, is not as static as Lee's theology. Occasionally I have fallen into the judgment trap, also. But more and more I simply try to point out the salient features that interest me today, the 'main question' I am turning over in my mind at the moment. What aspect of 'reality' it opens to others, if any, is not my purview.

So at some point in my ruminations the phrase 'system of errors' and my thoughts on the 'edifice of Lee' overlapped and I began to question...

One thing I like about YP's /ekklesia/ = "assembly" perspective is that it has a lot of 'legs', it opens more questions, related to my idea of 'systems'.

The "universal church" needs a lot of props. It needs "maximum leaders", it needs "headquarters" on the earth standing in for God (as if that is an improvement --ech!), it needs occasional synods (in the LSM we call them "emergency elder/co-worker meetings", right Hope?), it needs reams of doctrines to justify its activities, and emerging bureaucratic structures. It creates a 'system' of non-biblical "essentials" to sustain its furtherance.

Instead of Christ it becomes "Christ and the church life" (see footnote 5 in verse 14 of Ephesians chapter 4, RcV as a perfect example). The "church life" is of course the "interpreted" church life, under the aegis of the Headquarters and the Maximum Leaders. And so on. Nuff said. I am not judging so much as I am trying to explain to myself what is going on. I am certainly open to the 'explanations' of others. Peace, and thanks for sharing, Peter.

[cityonahill]

aron,
well-said. I think you would enjoy a book written by a swiss guy named Jurgen Moltmann...the book is called "the way of Jesus Christ" -
if you enjoy reading, it's a good read regarding all the stuff you brought up here.