Myth Busters LCD Style Program 1

[JJ]

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

[aron]

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

That Grace is a person is Confirmed based on

2 Tim 1:9

9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

and

2 Tim 2:1
You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

We can see that this grace is given to us in the person of Christ and is not a separate entity that exists outside of Christ. God may show "unmerited favor" to a Muslim or Hindu but without Christ, this is not the New Testament definition of grace but an old testament definition.

It is not as if God gives us Christ and then gives us some grace as a separate thing. The common definition is that "grace" is some special favor or blessing that God bestows on people after they have become Christians. However I think the "unmerited favor" that God bestowed on the world was His own dear Son Jesus Christ Himself, who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

The premise is that Grace is in fact a person and not just a mere theological definition (unmerited favor). I say "not just" because Witness Lee did not reject the common definition. It is a true definition but it is not a complete definition if it omits Christ.

Other supporting verses are:

1 Cor 15:10
Gal 2:20-21
John 1:17
Galatians 6:18
2 Cor 13:14
Rev 22:21

and is confirmed by this acronym:

G - God
R - Received
A - And
C - Christ
E - Enjoyed


We have positive affirmation in general Christianity such as this one:

https://www.christianity.com/theolog...-is-grace.html

“Grace” is the most important concept in the Bible, Christianity, and the world. It is most clearly expressed in the promises of God revealed in Scripture and embodied in Jesus Christ.

Michael Horton writes, “In grace, God gives nothing less than Himself. Grace, then, is not a third thing or substance mediating between God and sinners, but is Jesus Christ in redeeming action.”

Let's not confuse grace and mercy, or Old Testament grace (God's good intentions and blessings including forgiveness) versus New Testament grace (in Jesus Christ).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

Your post resembles the annoying running and repetitive commentary of Myth Busters that they do to draw out the length of the show, rather than an actual test which might arrive at some conclusion.

[Ohio]

Lee's lengthy definitions are not "wrong" in themself, and many over the years have developed by others. But as aron noted, Lee's feel goodisms often became smokescreen for nefarious activities at headquarters.

And we must not forget the context -- his new and improved definitions were contingent upon the general condemnation of all others. He was never content to merely add to the wealth of Christian commentary, rather he had to replace it with his own, at least within his own shrinking sect of adherents.

"Unmerited favor" or "getting what we don't deserve" at least points us in the right direction -- which is God Himself -- rather than this superior attitude as we bought another ministry book on standing order.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

an actual test which might arrive at some conclusion.

Here's a test: let's ask some people how much they enjoyed Christ at the hands of Philip Lee.

Or, public shaming, aka "perfecting" and "training"? What does that do to the conscience of the participants and witnesses, and how much enjoyment do you really get with a damaged conscience. I saw WL go after TC in public, and it was formalised, almost ritualistic. TC even said, "I am ashamed" because his troops were not sufficiently inured in The New Way coming out of Anaheim.

Third question: how much does the "Christ" that is "enjoyed" in the local churches affiliated with LSM resemble the actual person in the NT, you know the one who Peter said "went around doing good works"? I've already gone into this before.

I apologise for my unfamiliarity with the television show in question

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Or, public shaming, aka "perfecting" and "training"? What does that do to the conscience of the participants and witnesses, and how much enjoyment do you really get with a damaged conscience. I saw WL go after TC in public, and it was formalised, almost ritualistic. TC even said, "I am ashamed" because his troops were not sufficiently inured in The New Way coming out of Anaheim.

I have mentioned on many occasions the lifelong deleterious effect this rotten pattern has had on the LC's in the Midwest. I watched an endless trail of beloved brothers, all gifts from the Head to His body, leave the LC's all with one unique "sin": they had a problem with Titus Chu after being shamed and demoralized by him publicly.

And what did that do to the conscience of those who supported TC during those public humiliations? ("Whew! Sure am glad it's not me!") Should not our conscience have been properly trained according to natural human affection and empathetic honor to stand up for the oppressed and bullied.

Read John Myer's comments on this in his Future and Hope:

The Midwest, though, typically revolves around one worker, who sets the pace and direction for the ministry of the entire region. This was a pattern personally lived out by Witness Lee while he was still alive. Eventually, sub-lieutenants influenced by him each went to various parts of the globe where there were no peers on their same level and thus few serious checks or balances to their teaching, leadership, and direction.

The belief that this arrangement is somehow spiritual unfortunately rolls out a welcome mat for frequent bad behavior. We must all grant our leaders the grace to have bad days. However that does not include bad patterns. Patterns develop when behaviors go unchallenged, and they go unchallenged because of teachings that tell us to fear, above all else, the spiritual authority allegedly residing in some man.

Under that erroneous assumption, if said authority uses intimidation, public rebukes, temper tantrums, and mocking, it is acceptable because it is all part of the package. Indeed, I have seen godly, senior men bullied and scolded as though they were children.

[aron]

Here's a line from the "Pesher Habakkuk", a commentary on Habakkuk found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was written about the priests in Jerusalem (who btw were "on the proper ground").

For the sake of (self) glory they lead many to serve vanity and for their own profit.

It's a commentary on Habakkuk 2:13, if you want to read it.

http://www.moellerhaus.com/peshtran.htm

Witness Lee got you to focus on how you were feeling, (i.e., your "enjoyment"); that put a hook in to lead you by the nose. It was all about the self - once you focus on yourself, then he can manipulate you into the kingdom of himself. It's a house of mirrors.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

My problem with the definition is that it takes the focus off of God and onto us. The stress is on the "enjoyed by us" part. In this, "Christ" by definition can have little resemblance, or connection, to the actual objective historic person witnessed in the gospels and epistles.

Now "Christ" is reduced to fleeting ephemera. Whatever I "enjoyed" today is Christ.

But your subjectivity is shoehorned into his. And the abuse follows. Ask Sandee Rappoport. Ask Bill Mallon. Ask Jane Anderson.

Suddenly, your "enjoyment" is reduced to investing -cough, donating, cough - in son Timothy's motor home business. Or being "one with the office", aka son Philip. Today it's being "restricted by the Body and the fellowship".

"Enjoyment of Christ", as presented, is a ruse to get you to focus on yourself, which brings the types of ruin which I've briefly outlined above.

To be simplified, having positive feelings you're considered to be in your spirit. If it's negative, you're likely in your mind. For example if something one reads in scripture causes their spirit to be inwardly disturbed, get out of your mind.

[JJ]

OK

Thanks to all of you for following the ground rules and refraining from name calling.

Not surprising we have disagreements on this.

I’m going to call the Myth busted due to empirical evidence.

Anyone care to propose a myth for Show #2?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK

Thanks to all of you for following the ground rules and refraining from name calling.

Not surprising we have disagreements on this.

I’m going to call the Myth busted due to empirical evidence.

Anyone care to propose a myth for Show #2?

No, it is plausible at least and you have not followed your own "ground rules" of an acceptable test. Let me remind you what you defined as the "acceptable test" in the OP:

"Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials".

This seems an acceptable test to me given that Scripture could be considered "theory" and testimonies could be considered "observations" or "data gathering". Yet you have made your decision without considering Scripture.

It seems one needs both Scripture and testimony to be able to call the myth busted or confirmed. Given that I have provided solid foundation of scripture then the myth is at least plausible because no scripture can be found to deny the plausibility.

I provided a plurality of scripture as you requested, and no other poster so far has provided such a thing and in particular, nothing which refutes or denies the Scripture I posted. Every other poster so far has provided only running commentary and opinions, not personal testimony. This is not empirical evidence from experimental observations, this is opinion. On the real TV show they never confirm or bust a myth based only on the collective opinion of the group.

Here's a little challenge for you all:

Please provide a plurality of Scripture verses which defines Grace as "unmerited favor". Since I know you would not be able to find such a definition in the Scripture I cannot see how the myth can be busted. It is at least plausible and with the addition of general support from the idea found in Christianity leads to it possibly being confirmed.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned on many occasions the lifelong deleterious effect this rotten pattern has had on the LC's in the Midwest. I watched an endless trail of beloved brothers, all gifts from the Head to His body, leave the LC's all with one unique "sin": they had a problem with Titus Chu after being shamed and demoralized by him publicly.

And what did that do to the conscience of those who supported TC during those public humiliations? ("Whew! Sure am glad it's not me!") Should not our conscience have been properly trained according to natural human affection and empathetic honor to stand up for the oppressed and bullied.

Read John Myer's comments on this in his Future and Hope:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=Navy]

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

These are simply examples of LC leaders who obsess over the definition of grace yet completely miss the reality.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see the relevance of this commentary on the matter of busting or confirming the myth regarding the definition of God's grace.

I would rather enjoy God's grace than define God's grace.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

I would rather enjoy God's grace than define God's grace.

So you support Lee's definition it seems:

“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you support Lee's definition it seems:

“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”

Amen my brother! Isn't WL the greatest?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These are simply examples of LC leaders who obsess over the definition of grace yet completely miss the reality.

Talking about it does not translate to a corresponding reality.
In retrospect, how many turmoils in the local churches would have been negated by endless love and overflowing grace? That would have been the reality in Ohio's post. Instead there was contempt for the brothers who parted ways.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, it is plausible at least and you have not followed your own "ground rules" of an acceptable test. Let me remind you what you defined as the "acceptable test" in the OP:

"Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials".

This seems an acceptable test to me given that Scripture could be considered "theory" and testimonies could be considered "observations" or "data gathering". Yet you have made your decision without considering Scripture.

It seems one needs both Scripture and testimony to be able to call the myth busted or confirmed. Given that I have provided solid foundation of scripture then the myth is at least plausible because no scripture can be found to deny the plausibility.

I provided a plurality of scripture as you requested, and no other poster so far has provided such a thing and in particular, nothing which refutes or denies the Scripture I posted. Every other poster so far has provided only running commentary and opinions, not personal testimony. This is not empirical evidence from experimental observations, this is opinion. On the real TV show they never confirm or bust a myth based only on the collective opinion of the group.

Here's a little challenge for you all:

Please provide a plurality of Scripture verses which defines Grace as "unmerited favor". Since I know you would not be able to find such a definition in the Scripture I cannot see how the myth can be busted. It is at least plausible and with the addition of general support from the idea found in Christianity leads to it possibly being confirmed.

Sorry in my rush to get to work I didn’t explain my reasoning for considering the original statements as Busted Myth. And, EV you are right the second of the two part statement “unmerited favor is too low” wasn’t thoroughly reviewed.

I loved that EV provided multiple scriptures to prove Grace is associated only with the person of Christ. However, I agreed based on multiple personal testimonials of actual local church events (also allowed by the rule) that “to be enjoyed by us”, which no one gave scriptural support for, was indeed supported by actual events to be too subjective versus the attributes of the person of Jesus we saw lived out in Jesus and His apostles “who went about doing good”, healing and raising the dead.

OK I’m not the only judge on this. I’m open to other assessments. But hate beating a dead

[JJ]

So perhaps “unmerited favor is too low” is plausible at this point? At least until further evidence?

I recalled the song http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0537.html
which stated Witness Lee’s emphasis on the subjective Christ. But, our audience suggested checks and balances as to where that subjective experience of Christ might lead.

I recall that Paul used the term grace when describing participating in the donation of money to help the saints in war torn Jerusalem.

While looking for that verse I found this: http://biblehub.com/philippians/1-11.htm.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

So perhaps “unmerited favor is too low” is plausible at this point? At least until further evidence?

I recalled the song http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0537.html
which stated Witness Lee’s emphasis on the subjective Christ. But, our audience suggested checks and balances as to where that subjective experience of Christ might lead.

I recall that Paul used the term grace when describing participating in the donation of money to help the saints in war torn Jerusalem.

While looking for that verse I found this: http://biblehub.com/philippians/1-11.htm.

I understand Lee to mean defining grace apart from Christ is "too low" . Some may see Gods grace in his provision of material things only. But if we say that Grace is unmerited favor found in the person of Christ that is not so "low".

I believe Lees use of the terms high and low is merely to convey from which angle we view it. Low refers to humanities viewpoint and it sees what we can get from God. High refers to Gods viewpoint and is about what God has given.

Low: Grace is me getting lots of favor and blessings from God, both physical and spiritual
High: Grace is God giving His Son and the ability for us to know Him as Grace

Grace is a term that can allow multiple definitions and understandings. Like the term love. We could say that Agape love is higher than eros love and defining love as eros only would be "too low".

[JJ]

I found the section of scripture that uses the term grace related to collecting and delivering money from Macedonian and Greek saints to suffering Jerusalem saints:

http://biblehub.com/blb/2_corinthians/8.htm

I also put the word grace into the search window of Bible Hub and a treasure trove of great old and New Testament verses came up.

Enjoying God’s grace to us is fantastic, but perhaps there is an objective standard in these verses: enjoying God’s grace to us in Christ should result in compassion and giving toward our fellow believers, “glory towards the Lord”, and “taking great care to do what is right, not only before the Lord, but also before men.”

[JJ]

Praise God!
By grace we are saved!
http://biblehub.com/blb/ephesians/2.htm
Unmerited indeed!
Is favor too low a word for this?
We’ll be praising and thanking God forever. And, God will display the masterpiece of His workmanship for all to see in the ages to come.
No wonder we struggle to define grace.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK today I had the thought that this Local Church Discussions is a lot like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee:
“Grace in its highest definition is God in the Son to be enjoyed by us. It is not merely something done or given, but Christ Himself our portion glorious”
“Christianity's definition of grace as unmerited favor is too low”

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

There is no one clear definition of grace. Even Pauls is different from others.
It is explained in detail here..
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/

Here are 7 definitions:

Grace [T] [B]:
Of form or person ( Proverbs 1:9 ; 3:22 ; Psalms 45:2 ).
Favour, kindness, friendship ( Genesis 6:8 ; 18:3 ; 19:19 ; 2 Tim 1:9 ).
God's forgiving mercy ( Romans 11:6 ; Ephesians 2:5 ).
The gospel as distinguished from the law ( John 1:17 ; Romans 6:14 ; 1 Peter 5:12 ).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues ( Romans 15:15 ; 1 Corinthians 15:10 ; Ephesians 3:8 ).
Christian virtues ( 2 Corinthians 8:7 ; 2 Pet 3:18 ).
The glory hereafter to be revealed ( 1 Peter 1:13 ).

[JJ]

Thanks for posting the link to the excellent review of the Old and New Testament uses of the words translated to English as grace Evangelical and more Bible references.

After all this, I have to say regarding the original Lee definition of grace:

First sentence - “Busted”, again as being too subjective without the objective proofs of God’s outworking of His grace in our lives evidenced by:

1. sanctification and righteousness in all we do
2. power of the Holy Spirit
3. ministry to felllow members for building up
4. good works to our neighbors
5. giving all credit, praise, and glory to God for anything and everything He does through us

Second sentence: Plausable

Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion. I believe this is an example of the power of dialogue among believers with different views, which this web site promotes, toward gaining more insight into Bible truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is the thing: Paul's teachings were in Greek, and the Greek words used had common meanings- this is what language is all about- terms with accepted common meanings. If Paul was trying to convey a WL definition, he would have written differently- different words. Paul used the saying "grace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" in all his epistles.
WL coming 1900 years later and trying to give an other than common definition to grace, and calling the common Greek definition low, is really saying that Paul had a low or incomplete understanding of grace. Particularly to those who view the scripture as "God breathed", of the Spirit, this would imply that Lee felt superior in understanding and his teachings were above original scripture. Do we see this thought carried out among Lee's disciples? Lee's definition actually alters the meaning Paul used in introducing his epistles. Paul did not use the phrase Grace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in a casual, hi, how are you, manner; it conveyed the Christian thought and the gospel.

I say myth, and distortion of truth, and the words of an upstart for Lee. Those who follow Lee and push LSM create their own reality, their own religion, and try to overlap their religion with actual scripture to gain converts.

I guess we'd understand Paul better if we had transcripts of his speaking's to the churches. Then we'd be on the 'inside' of his words, of the little bit that have come down to us today.

There's been attempts to fill that missing information in. There's the 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, and a letter back to Paul, from the Corinthians, that are pseudepigraphal and apocryphal, respectively.

But Evangelical has got it when it comes to the meaning(s) of grace. I can look up every use of the word grace in my Bible study software, and it verifies all the meanings Evangelical listed.

Maybe we can't know what Paul was thinking, concerning the word grace, but we do have context to help us understand what he prolly meant.

Personally, and I suppose subjectively, I'm delighted that I'm saved by grace. Cuz if it depended on me ... there'd be no hope.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no one clear definition of grace. Even Pauls is different from others.
It is explained in detail here..
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/

Here are 7 definitions:

Grace [T] [B]:
Of form or person ( Proverbs 1:9 ; 3:22 ; Psalms 45:2 ).
Favour, kindness, friendship ( Genesis 6:8 ; 18:3 ; 19:19 ; 2 Tim 1:9 ).
God's forgiving mercy ( Romans 11:6 ; Ephesians 2:5 ).
The gospel as distinguished from the law ( John 1:17 ; Romans 6:14 ; 1 Peter 5:12 ).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues ( Romans 15:15 ; 1 Corinthians 15:10 ; Ephesians 3:8 ).
Christian virtues ( 2 Corinthians 8:7 ; 2 Pet 3:18 ).
The glory hereafter to be revealed ( 1 Peter 1:13 ).

All of these lie within the Greek meaning of grace as used at the time of writings.

[JJ]

So for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 2 let's take up what awareness posted (Post #20) on the DCP thread from the DCP's copyrighted quote of "what Ron Kangas really said about "The Acting God" (please read that Post in its entirety for the complete DCP quote):

Following quotes and commentary on Phil 1:20-21; 3:9, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 2:20, John 17:17 and John 14:6 then concerning 2 Cor. 5:20 - "On behalf of Christ then we are 'ambassadors, as God entreats you through us ; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God" footnote 1 on verse 5:20 "The apostles were commissioned with a definite ministry, to represent Christ to accomplish God's purpose
For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

So in the context of 2 Cor. 5:20, is the bolded part (I bolded it) Myth?

Acceptable tests to prove validity include Bible verses (plural) and actual "church life" testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

And recall I liken this to the TV show Myth Busters:
https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

So for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 2 let's take up what awareness posted (Post #20) on the DCP thread from the DCP's copyrighted quote of "what Ron Kangas really said about "The Acting God" (please read that Post in its entirety for the complete DCP quote):

Following quotes and commentary on Phil 1:20-21; 3:9, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 2:20, John 17:17 and John 14:6 then concerning 2 Cor. 5:20 - "On behalf of Christ then we are 'ambassadors, as God entreats you through us ; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God" footnote 1 on verse 5:20 "The apostles were commissioned with a definite ministry, to represent Christ to accomplish God's purpose

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

So in the context of 2 Cor. 5:20, is the bolded part (I bolded it) Myth?

Acceptable tests to prove validity include Bible verses (plural) and actual "church life" testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

I say there are at least three ways to answer.

1. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. All other mediatory agencies are obviated. ~1 Timothy 2:5

2. The Centurion said to Jesus (through his ambassadors), "I also am a man under authority, and I tell this one, 'Go', and he goes, and another, 'Come', and he comes, and another, 'Do this' and he does it."

The Centurion was the ambassador of Caesar, and everything he spoke had the weight of Caesar. Thus the servants obeyed without hesitation. He knew Jesus was also an ambassador from God ("No one can do the things you do unless he comes from God" ~John 3:2). The Centurion knew that Jesus could simply speak a word and his servant would be healed. Jesus' response clearly validated the speaking of the Centurion.

3. God also uses messengers as mediators. "God made it known by sending His angel to His servant John" ~Revelation 1:1

Also look at the angel Gabriel speaking to John's father Zecharias, and to Mary, and the angels to the shepherds keeping watch over the flocks at night, as the gospel narratives opened. None of this disappeared from the consciousnesses of the writers of the NT, as we can see in Revelation 1:1. It was understood and continually referenced from the start of the gospels to the end of the NT (see, e.g., where the angel let Peter out of jail).
_____________________

God uses mediators, or agents. All of us are "anointed"; all can proclaim the good news, and heal, and teach, and shepherd, and comfort. All of us should. There is no "deputy God" the way the LSM teaches. This supposed elevation of Paul as some 'super-apostle' above all the rest is pure fiction. Only the simple and gullible would bite on that hook. By now this is plain (see Steve Isitt's 'Hiding History' essay) that it's a vehicle for some to dominate the flock. Only those who are willing to be dominated will let themselves be sucked in by the argument. The rest should see that this is a ruse, used by those who wish to spy out our freedom and lead us back into slavery. ~Gal 2:4-13

When the disciples began to argue about which of them was deputy God, Jesus put an end to it, right quick. Why re-visit the subject? It's dead; it's busted myth. Drop it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

For Paul to say that God was entreating the believers in Corinth through the apostles means that the apostles were one with God and with His desire to reconcile believers to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and putting in us the word of reconciliation. In this sense they were the acting God."

IIRC, the first time I heard mention of this "acting God" nonsense came during the I Samuel Training, and referred to Samuel. WL may have introduced this locally prior to that, referring to Paul.

This evil myth is no different than the Catholic teachings concerning the Pope. Supposedly he is the "Vicar" of Christ, His earthly representative, conflicting with the Spirit of Jesus, who is His true representative. Coupled with this is their "infallibility" doctrine which both the Pope and the MOTA enjoy, which only serves to place their own teachings above that of Scripture.

Those of us in the Midwest LC's watched this unfold first hand. Lee's minions at LSM were permitted to violate scripture regularly to carry out their heretical and divisive quarantines and lawsuits in all the Midwest LC's.

One little known irony about this is when Israel clamored for a king, which btw was offensive to Jehovah, it was because Samuel's children were so bad, "turning aside after lucre, taking bribes, perverting justice." ( I Samuel 8) In this regard the sons of WL were similar to those of Eli and Samuel. (I Samuel 1)

[JJ]

The Acting God? Not
The term “The Acting God”, let’s examine it.
First of all “The”. Why is the capitalized article here? Did the apostles ever use this term about themselves? “The anything”? No, it was always “an apostle”, “apostles, “ambassadors”, or better yet “imitators of God” (see below). So, let’s ditch it.
Second “Acting”. Today’s English definition of “Acting” as a noun is “the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras, according to Merriam-Webster.” As an adjective it is “temporarily doing the duties of another person.”
Several New Testament verses say the apostles, and the believers who follow them are imitators of God and of the Lord:
Ephesians 5:1 http://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-1.htm
1 Thessalonians 1:6 http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/1-6.htm
Hebrews 6:12 http://biblehub.com/hebrews/6-12.htm
The Greek word in all of these verses is mimétés. The definition of which is seen in the following link: http://biblehub.com/greek/3402.htm
So is “acting” the same as “being an imitator”? Close, but not exactly. So, let’s ditch the word “acting” and use “imitators” with the definition given above.
Third “God”. Besides saying they were imitators of God, ambassadors of Christ, sons or children of God, did the aposles ever use the term God when describing themselves? Of course not. They would find it reprehensible for Christ’s followers to think of them as God or gods. Acts 14:8-18 http://biblehub.com/bsb/acts/14.htm and Acts 3:12; 4:8-12 .
Although the people regarded the apostles highly, the believers were brought to the Lord Acts 5:12-1; 9:34 ;11:24 and directed to pray to the Lord Acts 8:22.
They did say that they “spoke the word of God” and that the believers received as such, and not the word of men 1 Thessalonians 2:13 http://biblehub.com/bsb/1_thessalonians/2.htm.
Also, Paul was said to be Jesus’ “chosen instrument to carry His name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel. Acts 9:15.
So, let’s be very careful and only say exactly what the Bible says about the apostles and ditch the term “The Acting God” for them.
So, since close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and the apostles want us to not miss the mark (1 Timothy 1:6;6:21; 2 Tim 2:18 http://biblehub.com/greek/795.htm ), let’s stick to what they said and not invent our own terms like Witness Lee did.

[JJ]

OK, since discussion of Program 2 died out, and the gospel was always about God, His Christ, and God's gift of the Holy Spirit not the apostles. How dare anyone, even an apostle including Paul or Lee shift the focus to the messengers rather than the message!
I'll opine that the apostles as "acting god" is Myth based on both empirical (actual local church experiences of where this leads) and scriptural evidence to the contrary.

I've got an idea for Program 3 (Lee's definition of God's eternal purpose). But, does anyone else want to offer a topic first?

We need not restrict statements to test to Nee, Lee, or their followers. There are plenty of other ministries to discuss and possibly debunk too. I just tend to focus on Nee, Lee, and their followers because of this web site's title and my own 37 year association with their teachings and practices.

[aron]

JJ,

To me the most popular program might be the most profitable. I'd recommend busting the myth of the "high peak gospel"; conversely the proposition that there is a "low" gospel. Those are subjective assessments made by a man whose self interest (promoting his ministry and himself as minister) caused bias in terms like "high" and "low".

If you look at Paul's epistle to the Roman's, he repeatedly associated the word "gospel" with the resurrection. See e.g., Rom 1:1-4 with verse 16 (connecting word is 'power' - the power that raised Jesus from the dead). See also the confession of faith. "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved"

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

JJ,

To me the most popular program might be the most profitable. I'd recommend busting the myth of the "high peak gospel"; conversely the proposition that there is a "low" gospel. Those are subjective assessments made by a man whose self interest (promoting his ministry and himself as minister) caused bias in terms like "high" and "low".

If you look at Paul's epistle to the Roman's, he repeatedly associated the word "gospel" with the resurrection. See e.g., Rom 1:1-4 with verse 16 (connecting word is 'power' - the power that raised Jesus from the dead). See also the confession of faith. "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved"

Aron, The so called high gospel is fundamental to understanding the LC mentality. It provides another way in which to separate themselves and feel superior (higher) than other Christians. All of their jargon, high gospel MOA, ground of oneness, etc serves the same function. They create a word, an idea or a principle and then use their usage/ understanding of it to belittle others who don't use it or who don't follow it, like meeting on the ground of oneness. It's even more nefarious than belittling, in fact. They use it to say others are Christless or without the blessing. They use lack of adherence to quarantine and excommunicate. As if these made up words and slogans were fundamental and accepted truths.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

JJ,

To me the most popular program might be the most profitable. I'd recommend busting the myth of the "high peak gospel"; conversely the proposition that there is a "low" gospel. Those are subjective assessments made by a man whose self interest (promoting his ministry and himself as minister) caused bias in terms like "high" and "low".

If you look at Paul's epistle to the Roman's, he repeatedly associated the word "gospel" with the resurrection. See e.g., Rom 1:1-4 with verse 16 (connecting word is 'power' - the power that raised Jesus from the dead). See also the confession of faith. "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved"

Couple this with Paul's desire to preach "Christ and Him crucified," and we have the highest gospel of all.

Where's that verse in the great commission charging us to preach the "proper ground of the church?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Couple this with Paul's desire to preach "Christ and Him crucified," and we have the highest gospel of all.

Where's that verse in the great commission charging us to preach the "proper ground of the church?"

If you look at Acts 1:3 it was all about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This was the singular event in human history, which gave every other event, including the crucifixion, their meaning.

If it happened, then we have hope. If it didn't, then we have no hope; we are the most hopeless. ~1 Cor 15:14-19

In Acts 1:3 Jesus didn't give them "irrefutable proofs" of his sevenfold intensification during those 40 days; no we had to wait for Lee's strained speculations for that. Or the 'gospel of the church', in which we were induced to take our eyes off Jesus and place them on LSM's captive assemblies.

The gospel is not about the church, the ministry, or the oneness. It is about Jesus Christ; how God raised him from the dead and gave him glory, and a name which is above every name, both in this age and that which is to come.

Everything before this singular event looked to it; everything afterward got its sole reference from it. Nothing has any meaning apart from it. It was the moment that fallen creation became new creation. "Behold, I make all things new".

I'm sure that Witness Lee gave a couple of good messages on the resurrection, somewhere. Then he moved on to other pursuits.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't have scripture in front of me, so forgive me for being vague. I believe that both epistles to Hebrews and Ephesians talk about peace and reconciliation, and Christ's role therein.

Ephesians in particular is interesting. There was a wall in the temple, separating the outer and inner courts. On the wall hung a sign: "No gentiles can go beyond here". Christ broke down that wall between the "holy people of God" and the "unclean gentile dogs", so making peace. Read Ephesians 2:14 - it's quite explicit.

Then the gentiles kicked out the Jews. Cyril of Alexandria (re: riots and murder of Hypatia), John Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, and others were judgmental and adversarial. It seems as if every tribe and tongue and nation were indeed invited into to kingdom, except the original one.

Then, not surprising, the gentile nations began warring. The "Chalcedon rift" of the 4th century was ostensibly over the " nature" of Christ, but it was really about power- who got the last word, Antioch, or Rome, Constantinople, or Alexandria?

The peace was gone, interestingly while Christianity was ideologically ascendant. Syria, Ethiopia, Libya, Persia(Iran), Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Italy - all were heavily Christianised.

Today it is still "the way of the gentiles" from what I can see. Organisational formulations and doctrines are the pathways to power. "Do what I say and there will be peace". . . .hello Mssrs Dong. Chu, Nee, Lee, and Blendeds Wee.

The gentiles had the "high peak gospel" from the Jews. Faith in the name of Jesus Christ, resurrected from the dead and given glory and honour and power, brings eternal life. Pretty good stuff. Attractive. Many came forward and confessed.

Then the gentiles started putting conceptual overlays. It's what they did - "the Greeks seek wisdom" said Paul. ~1 Cor 1:22. And the conceptual overlays, such as the "nature" of Christ, brought in confusion and disorientation. See the quote above.

The premise here is that if we pay attention to the gospel once delivered for all (e.g., Jude 3) we'll find oneness. If we seek oneness, we'll find confusion, disarray. If we pay heed to the gospel promised in the prophets (Rom 1:2) we'll get peace and reconciliation. If we seek peace and reconciliation. . . what? At best, ephemera. (The LC sought "enjoyment" but it was subsumed by Witness Lee; it was a vapour.)

Only Jesus Christ is real. His resurrection from the dead was the proof God furnished to all. See Peter's speech on Pentecost. Peter the Galilean fisherman could have not been more plain. See Acts 2:36; Paul essentially repeated the speech verbatim in Acts 13.

The truth is Jesus. The way is Jesus. The life is Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead makes all this plain. Either it happened or it didn't - take your pick. For me, the die has been cast. My lot has been placed in the "pleasant place", with Jesus, by faith. ~Psalm 16:6

Nothing can replace this gospel and this faith; it was delivered once, for all.

[JJ]

Thanks for the suggestion and great points related to it, guys. I was struck by exactly what it was the apostles preached throughout Acts, and what they weren’t recorded saying recently. And it was along these lines.

I’ll see if I can find Lee and/or blendeds exact quotes regarding “the high gospel” to reference this weekend, so we start not with a straw man.

JJ

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks for the suggestion and great points related to it, guys. I was struck by exactly what it was the apostles preached throughout Acts, and what they weren’t recorded saying recently. And it was along these lines.

If you look at Paul's speaking in Acts 24 - 26, it was indeed a long these lines. It was about the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment to come, and the place of Jesus Christ in this as the firstborn from the dead. Over and over, Paul spoke this theme to Felix, to Festus, and to Agrippa.

It is increasingly becoming my firm conviction that nothing should ever distract or dissuade us from this gospel.

[JJ]

I agree with you, but taking on this “Lee’s High gospel” vs “Christianity’s low gospel” topic turns out to be more difficult than I thought it would be. Not because I can’t find a few quotes to start from, but because there are whole books filled with this stuff:

Life Study of Hebrews; Truth, Life, the Church, and The Gospel: The Four Great Pillars in the Lord’s Recovery; Elders Training Book 5: Fellowship Concerning The Lord’s Up-to-Date Move are the top 3 hits when I search LSM On-line Publications.

And LSM’s threatening warnings about copying without their written consent prohibits me from picking out some of them to start with.

Help!

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

LSM’s threatening warnings about copying without their written consent prohibits me from picking out some of them to start with!

Do what Nigel Tomes does: just do a synopsis with a citation.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

Do what Nigel Tomes does: just do a synopsis with a citation.

OK, good suggestion. I’ll do that as time permits. Big topic and busy (and great) life to get back to.

I’ve been reading your posts on how gentile Christians excluded Jews and whole regions of earth suffered darkness and oppression from the consequences. That’s an entirely new thought to me. But, I don’t know near east history very well.

Blessings in Jesus,

JJ

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

OK, good suggestion. I’ll do that as time permits. Big topic and busy (and great) life to get back to.

I'm not very good at big topics and this is certainly one of them. But I kind of pick away at the margins of what interests me.

If you look at the gospel message of Jesus it seems fairly coherent, and consistent. Mark 8:31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things"

My point is that Lee created a "low gospel" which he placed upon "Christianity", then contrasted with his so-called high peak revelation. But it was just a marketing ploy: if you read the gospels and epistles, the gospel message is plainly there. It is neither high nor low.

The good news is the good news. You either accept it, and believe, or reject and don't believe. It needs neither our puffing up nor beating down. Mark 8:32 says Jesus spoke plainly on this, and Acts 2 has Peter likewise speaking plainly. He was indeed a "witness of these things" as Jesus had predicted in Luke 24:47.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

I've been reading your posts on how gentile Christians excluded Jews and whole regions of earth suffered darkness and oppression from the consequences. That’s an entirely new thought to me. But, I don’t know near east history very well.

I think it's relevant to the topic. When you see the gospel in the NT, it's presented plainly, and delineated. What is, and what is not. Three centuries later, the now wholly gentile (Greek) church ruptured itself over conceptual overlays not central to the gospel message.

At its irreducible core, the gospel is so simple even an idiot can't mess it up. But Satan isn't called the subtle one for nothing. He induced us to add extraneous layers of complexity, and then focus on that as if it were something in and of itself.

If you Google names like "Cyril of Alexandria" or "Jerome" or "John Chrysostom" and "antisemitism" you'll find material. John's "Against the Jews" is a good example. If Paul told Peter not to force the gentiles to live like Jews, then why were the 4th-century Christian's forcing the Jews to live like gentiles?

[JJ]

Good and relevant points, aron. I'll check those references out.

Now for Myth Busters LCD Style Program 3 lets take on "the big one", or at least a part of it. Recall that this thread is like the TV show Myth Busters https://mythresults.com/about-mythbusters

So let’s test this premise of Witness Lee based only on his "Life Study" commentary on the book of Hebrews (for now):

“Christianity preaches a low gospel”

"I preach a High gospel, and everyone in the local churches needs to as well"

Acceptable tests to prove validity of statements include Bible verses (plural) and actual “church life” testimonials of true events (plural) that demonstrate validity or not.

What say you? Myth or Truth. Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?

To help you consider this, Witness Lee introduces this thought in the third paragraph of Message 8 of "Life Study of Hebrews" (available on LSM's On-line Publications). And because I can't copy from it without violating copyright, this is a general summary of what was said there:

Christianity has superficially and inaccurately presented the gospel because he was told as a youth over and over that Christ died on the cross for him but not that Christ tasted death for everything to reconcile everything to himself. Nor was he taught that Noah’s Ark is a type of that.

High Gospel: Many thoughtful young college and university students including Lee were saved in the 1920’s in China. After they were saved they began to preach Christ in a higher way to convince people according to the divine philosophy which is thoughtful because God is deep, thoughtful, purposeful, and meaningful. As a result of that higher gospel many doctors, nurses, professors, and learned people were brought to the Lord. Hebrews is not shallow but deep and high. For instance God’s coming in the flesh was not to command us to do something but to be one with us. He came not as God to rescue us (that would be terrifying), nor as an angel to embrace us. But he came just as we are…partaking of our nature, our blood and flesh. This is the incarnation, and this is the deepest thought and highest philosophy.

Low Gospel: Incarnation should not be associated with Christmas. You need to burn everything associated with Christmas and if you mention Christmas to China’s people they wouldn’t listen to you. Things of Christmas (trees, stockings, candles, and Santa Claus) are too low, shallow, and childish. That is not the gospel from the Word of God. That is paganism, leaven, that may convince the poor street people by not thoughtful. Christianity has preached the Lord’s highest salvation in a low way. We need those who have experienced God’s high salvation to go to the thoughtful people who immediately will be convinced. Christ being made like His brothers in all things is that he might sympathize with them. Christ’s death made propitiation for the sins of God’s people to reconcile us to God, satisfying God’s righteous demands on us, abolishing death, destroying the devil, releasing us from slavery under the fear of death. Lee uses the term “Christ’s all-inclusive death” in this discussion. Christ’s resurrection was never adequately realized by Christians because thoughtful people were not given the adequate teaching regarding it. Satan filled their thoughts with modernistic thought that resurrection is superstitious. Lee says he pointed out resurrection being apparent in nature to a professor and spoke to him from 1 Cor 15 about a seed which dies and grows again. That young man got saved and became a leading co-worker in TLR. The low preaching of the gospel would have been unable to convince such a thoughtful university student. (I thought he was a professor)

[JJ]

Still waiting to see if anyone wants to posit on this topic.

Meanwhile I did what aron suggested to read up on the anti-Jewish trend prominant leaders (the ones he mentioned) of the catholic church, becoming increasingly the Roman Catholic Church of "Greeks", took during the 400 - 700s and beyond. What a shameful time in history! Where were some saints with discernment and a backbone to stand up to these so called pillars?

I also did a Word search on the word "high" using Bible Hub's word search feature (http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=high) to be more informed to take on this "High gospel/low gospel" topic.... great and amazing reading. Unfortunately it will take more time for my own thoughts to gel on this.

I recommend others do what I did if they are looking for something to say on this thread.

[JJ]

It is interesting that Witness Lee talked about the High gospel during his Life Study of Hebrews because Hebrews is not about the gospel of our initial salvation but rather a call for Jewish believers who had fallen from grace back to the law to realize the superiority of Christ to everything of Judaism and to come forward to Him, the initiator and perfecter of our faith, the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Regarding "the low gospel" Witness Lee was obviously angry about confusion between the things that have been associated with Christmas (Santa Claus, Christmas trees, gift giving, etc) and "the gospel" in the church. Apparently that's what he took away from his childhood in a denomination.

Also, I didn't find the words "high gospel" in my Word search.

I haven't found such confusion to be universal in "Christiantity" since I left TLR. Most Protestant churches understand that "the gospel" is the good news of Jesus Christ, his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascendant position to save His people from sin, death and every negative thing into His grace and glory. And, even into the body of Christ (yes that is preached). How about you? Have you seen Christianity preaching something less? About Santa Claus, toys, stockings, ornaments?

[JJ]

Perhaps to spur some discussion, I’d like to share the results of my word search on the High gospel vs low gospel topic:

Concordance and Lexicon results on “gospel” http://biblehub.com/greek/2098.htm

Scripture doesn’t differentiate a “High gospel” vs “low gospel” rather “The” and “True” gospel versus “False”, “Different”, “Other which is not the” gospel and in those cases often refers to salvation through “works of the law” versus “salvation through the faith of Jesus, which is by grace”, that is the gospel which the apostle Paul preached.

Galatians shows how false brothers brought in secretly were corrupting the gospel of the grace of God to the works of law (which are the works of the flesh vs of the Spirit).

Matthew and Mark show the gospel of God, Jesus, and the kingdom initiated by John the Baptist and Jesus that begins with “the kingdom of God has drawn near, repent and believe in the gospel” and ends with “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Acts chronicles the initial acts of the apostles in carrying out Jesus’ Commandment.

Romans presents the gospel in its entirety.

1 Corinthians is Paul’s defense of he and his coworkers’ apostleships of the gospel and his exhortation to follow his example; to not be divided and puffed up by teachings; nor be leavened by sin but rather purge it out; neither to fall in love with their particular gift, but pursue the most excellent way of agape love.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

It is interesting that Witness Lee talked about the High gospel during his Life Study of Hebrews because Hebrews is not about the gospel of our initial salvation but rather a call for Jewish believers who had fallen from grace back to the law to realize the superiority of Christ to everything of Judaism and to come forward to Him, the initiator and perfecter of our faith, the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Regarding "the low gospel" Witness Lee was obviously angry about confusion between the things that have been associated with Christmas (Santa Claus, Christmas trees, gift giving, etc) and "the gospel" in the church. Apparently that's what he took away from his childhood in a denomination.

Also, I didn't find the words "high gospel" in my Word search.

I haven't found such confusion to be universal in "Christiantity" since I left TLR. Most Protestant churches understand that "the gospel" is the good news of Jesus Christ, his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascendant position to save His people from sin, death and every negative thing into His grace and glory. And, even into the body of Christ (yes that is preached). How about you? Have you seen Christianity preaching something less? About Santa Claus, toys, stockings, ornaments?

If we consider everything Lee wrote we can realize that low gospel refers to how the gospel of salvation is preached and the purpose of the gospel. Nowhere does Lee mean that salvation or the good news of Jesus Christ is "low". What is low is how it is preached in a diluted way. Low gospel means the way the gospel of salvation is preached in a low, superficial and diluted way.

Here is an example of a Low gospel:

"Jesus died on the cross for us so that we could have our best life now" (Osteen-like gospel)

Jesus dying on the cross for us is the true gospel but being "for our best life now" is a diluted gospel. I think many denominations teach this kind of gospel, especially at Christmas. At Christmas, the gospel becomes about little donkeys and three wise men of orient are bearing gifts from near and far.

The inadequacy in gospel preaching is also realized in some Christian movements such as Methodist, Pentecostal and Apostolic. Here they use the term "full gospel" which means essentially the same as Lee's "high gospel".

Lee's high gospel is also relevant to our modern times - fear of hell gospel preaching does not work anymore as it did in the 1800's. Also the promise of future heaven is not working either as people are happy making "heaven on Earth" eg Joel Osteen.

The shallow/superficial gospel can be written on a 4 page gospel tract. The deeper, full gospel of the kingdom takes 40 days to preach (Acts 1:3).

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

So perhaps “unmerited favor is too low” is plausible at this point? At least until further evidence?

I recalled the song http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0537.html
which stated Witness Lee’s emphasis on the subjective Christ. But, our audience suggested checks and balances as to where that subjective experience of Christ might lead.

I recall that Paul used the term grace when describing participating in the donation of money to help the saints in war torn Jerusalem.

While looking for that verse I found this: http://biblehub.com/philippians/1-11.htm.

So I'm not sure if this thread has moved on, but I didn't see a verse referred to that came to me as I was reading through this thread: "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim 4:22) I have long accepted that grace is more than simply "unmerited favor." To be sure, it is that, and just this alone is more than amazing! But the word certainly has the connotation of both favor and enjoyment. If you look up the Strongs definition for it (charis; Strong's 5485) the definition uses words like acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, gracious, joy, liberality, pleasure, thank-worthy.

Many commentators have explored the depths of "grace" in the written word without coming to a nice, neat & tidy conclusion of what all it means. I just know that grace came through Christ to us, and we haven't nearly begun to plumb the depths of what all that means in our lives here and now! ("Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we consider everything Lee wrote we can realize that low gospel refers to how the gospel of salvation is preached and the purpose of the gospel. Nowhere does Lee mean that salvation or the good news of Jesus Christ is "low". What is low is how it is preached in a diluted way. Low gospel means the way the gospel of salvation is preached in a low, superficial and diluted way.

The trouble with what Lee wrote is that it ended up focusing nearly all of the “Recovery’s” gospel efforts on recruiting intelligent college students as “the good material” instead of the New Testament’s “whosoever” including the poor and downtrodden.
[/QUOTE]Here is an example of a Low gospel:
"Jesus died on the cross for us so that we could have our best life now" (Osteen-like gospel)
Jesus dying on the cross for us is the true gospel but being "for our best life now" is a diluted gospel. I think many denominations teach this kind of gospel, especially at Christmas. At Christmas, the gospel becomes about little donkeys and three wise men of orient are bearing gifts from near and far. [/QUOTE]
Branding all of Christianity’s gospel as low because of Osteen (who most Christians I know see through) and “little donkeys and three wise men” at Christmas time is too broad brush. Most Christians I know see through Osteen and only include the Biblical references from the gospels in telling the story of the incarnation of Jesus Christ as God with us at Christmas time.
[/QUOTE=Evangelical;75724]The inadequacy in gospel preaching is also realized in some Christian movements such as Methodist, Pentecostal and Apostolic. Here they use the term "full gospel" which means essentially the same as Lee's "high gospel".[/QUOTE]
I sort of agree with you here, as many Christians realize they need to preach the full gospel as revealed in the Bible versus man’s concept. But, I never heard Lee credit anyone else with preaching a “full gospel” or “high gospel” besides himself and his local churches. You can’t have it two ways.
[/QUOTE=Evangelical;75724]Lee's high gospel is also relevant to our modern times - fear of hell gospel preaching does not work anymore as it did in the 1800's. Also the promise of future heaven is not working either as people are happy making "heaven on Earth" eg Joel Osteen. [/QUOTE]
What’s funny about your quote to me is that I heard “fear of hell gospel preaching” a lot from the age of 12 to 18 but didn’t respond to it until after I also I heard local church saints preach to me about God’s eternal purpose from Ephesians at age 18. Then I responded to the combination of hearing the positive “God has an eternal purpose to head all things up in Jesus Christ” and negative “your eternal future is at stake with your decision, respond carefully and don’t mess it up”. So, I think it takes both, because both are presented in the Bible and give the right reasons and sense of urgency.
Most Christians I know do talk about “going to heaven” but their gospel focuses on eternal life in Christ and restored fellowship with God through His redemption. “Going to heaven” is a good topic for its own thread discussion, because I agree there is a lot of inadequate teaching about what happens after we die or Christ returns in today’s Christianity.
[/QUOTE=Evangelical;75724]The shallow/superficial gospel can be written on a 4 page gospel tract. The deeper, full gospel of the kingdom takes 40 days to preach (Acts 1:3). [/QUOTE]
Be careful because “The Recovery” also uses a lot of short gospel tracts in its gospel preaching. The one that really gripes me is “The Mystery of Human Life” and the way it was used exclusively for door to door preaching in one of the local churches I attended.
[/QUOTE=Evangelical;75724]Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, [/QUOTE] Great quote!

So, “Christianity preaches a low gospel” – Confirmed, Busted, or Plausible? What say you?

Then we can move to the second part “Witness Lee and the local churches preach a High gospel”.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we consider everything Lee wrote we can realize that low gospel refers to how the gospel of salvation is preached and the purpose of the gospel. Nowhere does Lee mean that salvation or the good news of Jesus Christ is "low". What is low is how it is preached in a diluted way. Low gospel means the way the gospel of salvation is preached in a low, superficial and diluted way.

The trouble with what Lee wrote is that it ended up focusing nearly all of the “Recovery’s” gospel efforts on recruiting intelligent college students as “the good material” instead of the New Testament’s “whosoever” including the poor and downtrodden.

EV "Here is an example of a Low gospel:
"Jesus died on the cross for us so that we could have our best life now" (Osteen-like gospel)
Jesus dying on the cross for us is the true gospel but being "for our best life now" is a diluted gospel. I think many denominations teach this kind of gospel, especially at Christmas. At Christmas, the gospel becomes about little donkeys and three wise men of orient are bearing gifts from near and far."

Branding all of Christianity’s gospel as low because of Osteen (who most Christians I know see through) and “little donkeys and three wise men” at Christmas time is too broad brush. Most Christians I know see through Osteen and only include the Biblical references from the gospels in telling the story of the incarnation of Jesus Christ as God with us at Christmas time.

EV "The inadequacy in gospel preaching is also realized in some Christian movements such as Methodist, Pentecostal and Apostolic. Here they use the term "full gospel" which means essentially the same as Lee's "high gospel".

I sort of agree with you here, as many Christians realize they need to preach the full gospel as revealed in the Bible versus man’s concept. But, I never heard Lee credit anyone else with preaching a “full gospel” or “high gospel” besides himself and his local churches. You can’t have it two ways.

EV "Lee's high gospel is also relevant to our modern times - fear of hell gospel preaching does not work anymore as it did in the 1800's. Also the promise of future heaven is not working either as people are happy making "heaven on Earth" eg Joel Osteen."

What’s funny about your quote to me is that I heard “fear of hell gospel preaching” a lot from the age of 12 to 18 but didn’t respond to it until after I also I heard local church saints preach to me about God’s eternal purpose from Ephesians at age 18. Then I responded to the combination of hearing the positive “God has an eternal purpose to head all things up in Jesus Christ” and negative “your eternal future is at stake with your decision, respond carefully and don’t mess it up”. So, I think it takes both, because both are presented in the Bible and give the right reasons and sense of urgency.
Most Christians I know do talk about “going to heaven” but their gospel focuses on eternal life in Christ and restored fellowship with God through His redemption. “Going to heaven” is a good topic for its own thread discussion, because I agree there is a lot of inadequate teaching about what happens after we die or Christ returns in today’s Christianity.

EV "The shallow/superficial gospel can be written on a 4 page gospel tract. The deeper, full gospel of the kingdom takes 40 days to preach (Acts 1:3)."

Be careful because “The Recovery” also uses a lot of short gospel tracts in its gospel preaching. The one that really gripes me is “The Mystery of Human Life” and the way it was used exclusively for door to door preaching in one of the local churches I attended without a presentation of Christ as the Savior.

EV "Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,"

Great quote!

So, “Christianity preaches a low gospel” – Confirmed, Busted, or Plausible? What say you?

Then we can move to the second part “Witness Lee and the local churches preach a High gospel”.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm not sure if this thread has moved on, but I didn't see a verse referred to that came to me as I was reading through this thread: "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim 4:22) I have long accepted that grace is more than simply "unmerited favor." To be sure, it is that, and just this alone is more than amazing! But the word certainly has the connotation of both favor and enjoyment. If you look up the Strongs definition for it (charis; Strong's 5485) the definition uses words like acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, gracious, joy, liberality, pleasure, thank-worthy.

Many commentators have explored the depths of "grace" in the written word without coming to a nice, neat & tidy conclusion of what all it means. I just know that grace came through Christ to us, and we haven't nearly begun to plumb the depths of what all that means in our lives here and now! ("Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")

Discussion on that topic didn't progress any further Sons to Glory. I like your contribution.

[aron]

One thing I noticed of the so-called leading ones was lack of transformation: legalistic, rigid, narrow, judgmental, and biased (subjectively myopic). . . how "high" is this gospel, really?

And young ones growing up in the system and seeing it 24/7 and not just on the printed page, leaving in droves: where's the saving power in the message?

And the constant puffing up of the so-called rich ministry and the message instead of the crucified and resurrected Christ.

One may use words like "organic" and "metabolic transformation" but the proof is in actions consistently seen, not mere posturing on Sundays.

[JJ]

“legalistic, rigid, narrow, judgmental, biased (subjectively miopic)”. We were all that way after “feeding” on LSM only for years.

“young people leaving in droves”

Good evidence the “high gospel” of the LC isn’t so high after all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

evidence the “high gospel” of the LC isn’t so high after all.

If it were so, there should be some issue: if all you have to do is "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God" and then you "become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)" there should be some indicators along the way. Evidences, as JJ calls them.

Where is the transformation? Where is the perfecting? We see endless meetings, trainings, conferences. Where is the issue in human living?

When the supposed Guru starts dunning the flock to bankroll his son's motor home business, where is the transformation? When he puts the other, admittedly "unspiritual" son in charge of business operations, keeps him there even after this steamrolls the flock and the son's caught repeatedly in compromising situations with female parishioners, where's the transformation? Instead of repentance and transparency we got "fermentation of the present rebellion".

Theology doesn't matter if your behavior's bad. Jesus told the disciples of John, "Tell John what you see - the sick are healed, the dead raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them". He didn't say, "Tell John of the theology we are teaching here." The proof is in the pudding and the LC pudding stinks.

The Lord Jesus gave plenty of evidence that he was God's Messiah. Up to and including the resurrection from the dead, and the out-poured Spirit "which you now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). Not conferences, trainings, booklets for sale. Real, actual lives changed. I don't see any more of that in the LC than in "poor, poor, Christianity". And I see as much weird stuff in the LC as in "degraded Christianity". So the theology doesn't cut it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If it were so, there should be some issue: if all you have to do is "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God" and then you "become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)" there should be some indicators along the way. Evidences, as JJ calls them.

Where is the transformation? Where is the perfecting? We see endless meetings, trainings, conferences. Where is the issue in human living?

Why do they constantly need to file lawsuits to protect themselves from criticism?

What ministry in history constantly maintains a legal defense staff?

My old church was required to pay every month to LSM/DCP. Titus Chu told us to do that -- until they quarantined him in Whistler.

I found interesting quotes from WL about people he calls demon possessed. When I was in LC there was interesting to see how many people actually believed this myth told by Lee.

This is from CWWL Vol. 3, “Gospel Outlines” ch2.

“All that is against God is in the sea. For example, the demon-possessed herd of hogs rushed into the sea.”

“Jesus came to the place where the demon-possessed person was. The demon-possessed man: The people on the seashore are the demon-possessed ones.”

“To meet a demon-possessed person, you need to go to the seashore.”

I always wondered why some people would not ever do a simple thing like swimming in the ocean or lake. I think I see now why. Cannot believe that someone would consider this to be true.

Is this a myth or truth?

[JJ]

Myth. As we have on a number of occasions, my family and I went swimming in the ocean last month and came back quite unaffected by demons. Such silly drivel.

In fact we came back glorifying God for His glory expressed in His creation. Spinner dolphins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDpyBSb-aJQ, flying fish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KWuuhQJhIs, and beautiful colorful fish of all sorts https://snorkelaroundtheworld.com/20...-and-pictures/ were there.

Thanks for surfacing those weird interpretations of these verses Where is it?

Ok JJ, thanks.
I guess I’m not the only crazy person that doesn’t believe that myth. But I got another one for you all to tackle.

Even before I came to the LC, my wife was already getting somewhat indoctrinated with the teachings of the LR. So, I come home one day after work, and I had a gold necklace that I was gifted with a gold cross on it, pretty expensive item, I’d say. My necklace is missing a cross! I started asking questions, and found out that she was told by members of the LC, that any items resembling a cross could have demons or evil spirits living in it. Guess what, my wife went through our whole house and got rid of all of the images or cross related items, including my gold cross, which she pawned for pennies.

How can these people do this kind of brainwashing to innocent people? Boggles my mind! I don’t much care about the gold value, I was just blown away how these men operate! But the worst part, they call themselves Christians!

Just as all of LC, this is just another myth, invented by men. But that’s just my opinion I guess.

Myth or truth?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Where is it?

I found interesting quotes from WL about people he calls demon possessed. When I was in LC there was interesting to see how many people actually believed this myth told by Lee.

Depends how you interpret Revelation 21:1 “the sea was no more”

[PriestlyScribe]

Awareness pointed out a well hidden truth in post #28 that I would like to highlight.

"Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to.
There's a serpent in every paradise."

This truth - "There is a serpent in every paradise" - is directly related to something Jesus commanded us in Matthew 10:16 - "Be Wise As Serpents". This important topic (to my knowledge) was never included in any of Witness Lee's trainings. But how could it be because the emergence of such a skill set in the congregation would eventually result in Lee's downfall!

Here is my favorite collection of messages on this topic. These teachings help me to jettison a little bit more of the LC programming every time I hear them.

P.S.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

If it were so, there should be some issue: if all you have to do is "masticate the processed and consummated Triune God" and then you "become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)" there should be some indicators along the way. Evidences, as JJ calls them.

Where is the transformation? Where is the perfecting? We see endless meetings, trainings, conferences. Where is the issue in human living?

When the supposed Guru starts dunning the flock to bankroll his son's motor home business, where is the transformation? When he puts the other, admittedly "unspiritual" son in charge of business operations, keeps him there even after this steamrolls the flock and the son's caught repeatedly in compromising situations with female parishioners, where's the transformation? Instead of repentance and transparency we got "fermentation of the present rebellion".

Theology doesn't matter if your behavior's bad. Jesus told the disciples of John, "Tell John what you see - the sick are healed, the dead raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them". He didn't say, "Tell John of the theology we are teaching here." The proof is in the pudding and the LC pudding stinks.

The Lord Jesus gave plenty of evidence that he was God's Messiah. Up to and including the resurrection from the dead, and the out-poured Spirit "which you now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). Not conferences, trainings, booklets for sale. Real, actual lives changed. I don't see any more of that in the LC than in "poor, poor, Christianity". And I see as much weird stuff in the LC as in "degraded Christianity". So the theology doesn't cut it.

A trivial note: The title of Witness Lee's screed "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" strikes me funny. Given the context I think "fermentation" is a malapropism. "To ferment is to cause a chemical change to food or drink, like turning grapes into wine, but to foment is to stir up trouble, like turning a group of people into an angry mob." https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/...%20angry%20mob.

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by zeek

A trivial note: The title of Witness Lee's screed "The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion" strikes me funny. Given the context I think "fermentation" is a malapropism. "To ferment is to cause a chemical change to food or drink, like turning grapes into wine, but to foment is to stir up trouble, like turning a group of people into an angry mob." https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/...%20angry%20mob.

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Wo•men•ta•tion

Eve Et al started the original fomentation...

The beginning of all Woes.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Yes. Theology by malapropism. I was at first surprised that Princeton educated Ron Kangas, an elder in the church in Detroit where I was, accepted Lee's word bending as ultimate truth. I came to understand that if you didn't accept them absolutely you were shown the door.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.


fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.


Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

And none of the yes men around him dared correct him because he’s supposed to be the guru minister of the age!

Also kind of like what Cal noted on his channel at one point that the ministry book “The Intrinsic Problem in TLR today, etc…..” was kind of an ironic title because “intrinsic” means “belonging naturally, essential”. So they’re actually acknowledging the inherent built in problems without even realizing it.

Honestly you can’t make this stuff up!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Recovering

This always struck me as funny, too. I think the word he may have been looking for was fomentation.

fo·men·ta·tion ˌfōmənˈtāSHən | noun

1 the action of instigating or stirring up undesirable sentiment or actions: the fomentation of discontent.

Maybe it's the same story with getting "dispensing" from "dispensation".

Nice catch.

[JJ]

Speaking of the book “Fermentation of the Current Rebellion”, my twin brother, who is still in the LC, mentioned it to me recently while he was defending Witness Lee’s version of history with respect to how John Engles, John So, and Bill Mallen were branded as rebels. My brother said he was living in Anaheim at the time going through FTTA. He said their big offense was “giving conferences on how local churches are autonomous, and not subject to “the apostles”.

Were any of you at any such conferences? And if yes, what was really taught at them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Speaking of the book “Fermentation of the Current Rebellion”, my twin brother, who is still in the LC, mentioned it to me recently while he was defending Witness Lee’s version of history with respect to how John Engles, John So, and Bill Mallen were branded as rebels. My brother said he was living in Anaheim at the time going through FTTA. He said their big offense was “giving conferences on how local churches are autonomous, and not subject to “the apostles”.

Were any of you at any such conferences? And if yes, what was really taught at them?

There was a conference in Pasadena in 1988, possibly Thanksgiving weekend. Prior to that Bill Mallon and others had circulated a book by G H Lang titled The Churches of God. The truths in that book exposed the takeover of the local churches by WL, just as they had exposed the takeover of the Brethren assemblies by J N Darby a century earlier.

WL was furious about that book being circulated. I heard that at one point he spat on the book. Prior to that time, WL had always spoken highly of Lang.

John Ingalls’ book STTIL addressed that conference. His book is available on this forum. Here is that section about Lang:

In the first meeting of the conference, November 25th, Brother Lee was in a fighting spirit, fighting against "autonomy" and "federation." He referred to some books authored by George Henry Lang, a servant of the Lord in England during the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. In one of his books, entitled The Churches of God, Lang emphasized the need for local administration in the churches. This was the book that troubled Brother Lee. (I had read this book, and being deeply impressed with its strong scriptural basis and timely application to our present need, I had recommended it to others.) Brother Lee called Lang’s book heretical and told the saints if they had them to burn them. I consider this kind of talk reckless and lawless. Brother Lee in years past had commended Lang for his insight and writing on the truth of the kingdom. His books have been recently reprinted and are available today.

[UntoHim]

In regards to the "conferences" referenced by JJ, they were mainly messages given by Ingalls et al in which they reiterated many of the basic principles which Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had been teaching and preaching for over 50 years - to wit: That the local churches were "administration local, each answering to the Lord", and that any extra-local ministry was to be for the building up the local churches, and not the other way around.

We now know that it is a historical fact that Witness Lee not only allowed, he actually encouraged, his alcoholic, porn-addicted, sexual predator son, Phillip Lee, to interfere with many of the local churches in America and throughout the world. When Ingalls and others called Lee out on this, the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age went bonkers and set out on a misinformation campaign which culminated in "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion". There a lots of gory details to get into here but anyone who wants to know can just parous this forum for those details.

If it wasn't so sad, the whole thing would be rather funny. Up until this "turmoil" in the mid-late 80s there had been very little talk of "apostles" in the Local Church. In fact, when asked about whether or not he was an apostle, or considered himself an apostle, Witness Lee scoffed at the very notion. When asked under oath in one of the various civil lawsuit depositions, Lee vehemently denied that he considered himself an apostle, and stated that he told others not to call him an apostle, or consider him as an apostle.

We know the rest of the story.
-

[JJ]

Let’s test the myth that we are to be a corporate warrior.

Soldiers of God Rather Than Corporate Warrior

In the last 10 years I was in TLR I repeatedly heard the blended brothers and saints talk about being “a corporate warrior” and this was based on Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s erroneous teachings that Song of Solomon verses and Ephesians 6:10-20 applied to Christians as being “a corporate warrior” and we were not to fight spiritual battles individually, but in the body of Christ as one warrior. This always troubled me, as it seemed to be more mindless rhetoric than thoughtful truth, and shirked our individual responsibilities laid out in scripture to be soldiers, plural, rather than soldier. And more importantly miss the point of Christ the Victorious and wonderful bridegroom leading us in battle, then marrying us as his sanctified and loving bride.

I believe they were correct that we should not fight the enemy alone, but together with other believers (members of the body of Christ), but scripture reveals we are each to be soldiers, warriors, in God’s army and each have the individual responsibility to put on the whole armor of God upon ourselves so that together as soldiers we can follow our commander-in-chief Jesus (typified by David and Solomon) to fight Satan, and his armies (not flesh and blood, i.e. human beings) and be His bride.

Following are verses and references to support this view, and hopefully encourage believers reading this to have a right understanding of the personal accountability God gives us to do this together as God’s powerfully armed army in Christ Jesus, His son, The Son of Man, our God and Savior (The lion of the tribe of Judah, The Root of David), and The Bridegroom:

2 Timothy 2:1-7 NASB

You therefore, my son be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be eable to teach others also.
Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.
Also anyone who competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.
The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.
Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

Philippians 2:20-30 NASB

For I have no one else of a kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare.
For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.
But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.
Therefore I hope to send him immediately, as soon as I see how things go with me;
and I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly.
But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and aminister to my need;
because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick.
For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.
Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you.
Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard;
because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.

The Old Testament type (warriors in David’s army): type “warrior” into Biblia’s Logos app

Read Song of Solomon (again with renewed eyes, it is about the bridegroom (Jesus Christ, typified by Solomon, coming to take his bride!). Doh! (That’s me talking to myself).

https://biblehub.com/songs/3-7.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/16-13.htm (see also the cross references)

Ephesians 6:10-20 World English Bible

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world’s rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace, above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

with all prayer and requests, praying at all times in the Spirit, and being watchful to this end in all perseverance and requests for all the saints. Pray for me, that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the Good News, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Revelation 5:5 and cross references:

https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-5.htm

Helpful article:

https://encouragementsthroughtheword...-armor-of-god/


Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Let’s test the myth that we are to be a corporate warrior.

Soldiers of God Rather Than Corporate Warrior

In the last 10 years I was in TLR I repeatedly heard the blended brothers and saints talk about being “a corporate warrior” and this was based on Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s erroneous teachings that Song of Solomon verses and Ephesians 6:10-20 applied to Christians as being “a corporate warrior” and we were not to fight spiritual battles individually, but in the body of Christ as one warrior. This always troubled me, as it seemed to be more mindless rhetoric than thoughtful truth, and shirked our individual responsibilities laid out in scripture to be soldiers, plural, rather than soldier. And more importantly miss the point of Christ the Victorious and wonderful bridegroom leading us in battle, then marrying us as his sanctified and loving bride.

When they started calling WL the "Commander in Chief" of the Lord's Army, it was more than obvious that they had gone far off course. Such was the pattern of the Recovery of Nee and Lee. Much was good and Bible based, but then they would take scriptural metaphors to the extreme for their own personal gain.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When they started calling WL the "Commander in Chief" of the Lord's Army, it was more than obvious that they had gone far off course. Such was the pattern of the Recovery of Nee and Lee. Much was good and Bible based, but then they would take scriptural metaphors to the extreme for their own personal gain.

Great point. When and who called WL Commander in Chief of the Lord’s army? Such an obvious usurpation of Jesus’ place! Quite blasphemous really.

I found this short excerpt from the locals online, and if this is their gospel message, it sure is totally different than what you find on the pages of Scriptures. This sounds like some Greek mythology, wrapped into a Christian terminology. I don’t see anything related to sin, human responsibility. I guess sin is somewhere way down on the pecking order when is comes to the local churches, it’s all about feel good romance and desires to be god. Sounds like the furthest thing from the truth, rather than the highest purpose of God.

THE HIGHEST PURPOSE OF GOD CONCERNING MAN

In this conference we definitely have a burden to focus on the unique, highest, deepest, most mysterious, and most glorious subject in the Holy Scriptures, that is, God’s highest purpose concerning man. God has a purpose concerning man, which is clearly revealed in the Bible. The Bible is a book concerning God, especially concerning God’s relationship with man. In God’s relationship with man we can see that God has a heart’s desire and a purpose; that is, God wants to make Himself man and to make man God that the two—God and man—may become altogether the same. God is God, yet He made Himself a man and lived a human life exactly the same as man in the human nature and the human life. On the other hand, man is man, yet God wants to make man the same as He is, of the same kind and the same likeness as He is in life and in nature, except that we human beings have no share in His person. Thus, His attributes become our human virtues and His glorious image is expressed and lived out through us. Eventually, God and man become a matching pair in the universe. This couple look like man, yet actually they are God. This is truly mysterious to the uttermost. This is God’s highest and ultimate purpose in man.

THE STEPS GOD TOOK FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF HIS HIGHEST PURPOSE

In order to accomplish His purpose, God already did three great things. The first thing is that God created man. He created man in His image and according to His likeness (Gen. 1:26). God created man not in the image of the birds nor in the image of the beasts, but in the image of God. What God created was man, but what came out was God. Today, we are not only man; we are also God. We are man yet God. Likewise, today God is not only God; He is also man. He is God yet man. As a result, both God and man, both man and God, are completely alike and become a matching couple. How wonderful this is!

When God created man, He also created man with a spirit that man may contact Him. Since God is Spirit, those who worship Him must use their spirit (John 4:24). God created man outwardly in His image, and He created man inwardly with a spirit (Gen. 2:7; Zech. 12:1) that man might contact Him. After He created man, God put man in front of the tree of life and charged man not to eat of the other tree. If man ate of the other tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the result would be death (Gen. 2:16-17). This means that God’s intention was for man to eat of the tree of life and receive God as life. Man was created in the image of God and with a spirit to receive God and contact God as man’s life. However, instead of contacting God, man took in the tree of knowledge and thus became fallen.

The second thing that God did for man is that He Himself became a man. This took place four thousand years after He created man. How did He come? He entered into the womb of a virgin and was conceived there for nine months, and then He was born as a child. The Bible says that the child who was born in the manger was the mighty God (Isa. 9:6). He came to the earth, and in His life of more than thirty years He accomplished His mission and expressed God. Then He went to die on the cross. Through His death He accomplished an eternal, perfect, and all-inclusive redemption to solve all the problems and release Himself as the Spirit of life for man to receive.

The third great thing that God did is that through His resurrection He became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). As God, He became a man to accomplish redemption. In resurrection, He further became the life-giving Spirit. This One, God who became man and man who became the Spirit of God, is our Savior, our God, our Christ. Today He is the life-giving Spirit waiting to be received by us. Once we receive Him, immediately He begins His dispensing of Himself into us.

Therefore, first, God created man in such a way that man had His image outwardly and had a spirit inwardly to contact and receive God. Second, God became a man and accomplished redemption to solve all the problems between God and man and release the divine life. Third, He became the life-giving Spirit. This is the Triune God in whom we believe today. When He enters into those who believe in Him, He dispenses Himself into them. How does He give Himself to us? When He as the life-giving Spirit comes into us, He is begotten in us. When He is born in us, we are regenerated to become another person, no longer the original person. Such a person is born of God and has the authority to be a child of God (John 1:12-13). Now we not only are created by God and have His image; we also are born of God. He Himself is born into us to be our life, our person, and our everything. He and we become one entity—God yet man, man yet God.

(The Dispensing, Transformation and Building of the Processed Divine Trinity in the Believers, Chapter 1, by Witness Lee)

https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...RNING-MAN.HTML

[Ex-LC-Rosemead]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm not sure if this thread has moved on, but I didn't see a verse referred to that came to me as I was reading through this thread: "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim 4:22) I have long accepted that grace is more than simply "unmerited favor." To be sure, it is that, and just this alone is more than amazing! But the word certainly has the connotation of both favor and enjoyment. If you look up the Strongs definition for it (charis; Strong's 5485) the definition uses words like acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, gracious, joy, liberality, pleasure, thank-worthy.

Many commentators have explored the depths of "grace" in the written word without coming to a nice, neat & tidy conclusion of what all it means. I just know that grace came through Christ to us, and we haven't nearly begun to plumb the depths of what all that means in our lives here and now! ("Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")

I was just perusing this site when I came across your paragraph about the word "Grace". It triggered a memory I had of a meeting, back in 1993, we had on that very subject, the word "Grace". Since the Church in Rosemead disassociated from WL & the LSM, we had to go back to the bible for our meetings. And over time we discovered how to study the word and analyze it through the use of Strong's English Concordance, and Al Knoch's Greek Text Concordance. Anyways, one of those meetings included this word "Grace". The axioms we followed were number 1, let the bible define the bible. Number 2, try not to leave the context if possible. Number 3, try not to use out side commentaries as much as possible. We wanted to verify the definitions we were given by exercising that old adage "trust but verify". The following are notes for the word Grace.

Luke, a co-worker of Paul’s, who wrote “The Gospel of Luke” and “The book of Acts”, used the word “grace” 24 times (8 times in “Luke”, and 16 times in “Acts”). Out of the 156 times the word “grace” is used in the New Testament (NT), there are only three instances where it is used outside of the context of the spiritual realm. They are:

1. Acts 24:27 --- Felix wanted to give grace (plural) to the Jews and, as a result, left Paul bound when Porcius Festus took over the Governor’s office in Caesarea.

2. Acts 25:3 --- After his being installed in the Governor’s office, Porcius then went up to Jerusalem. The Jews then requested a further grace of him there in Jerusalem --- that he would send back to Caesarea for Paul to be brought up to Jerusalem (so they could have him ambushed and killed on the way up to Jerusalem).

3. Acts 25:9 --- Then Porcius, after going back to Caesarea from Jerusalem, became willing to give the Jews the grace they requested: he asked Paul if he was willing to go up to Jerusalem to be judged there.

These three verses clearly show that the word “grace” simply means “favor.” It must surely be realized that it has nothing to do with God or Christ (i.e. “the grace of God” or the “grace of Christ”) here in the context of Acts. Thus, we can see that “grace” is not just something “spiritual.” Rather, it is a word that is quite “common.” Moreover, it is a term that was picked up, utilized, and applied by Paul and the Christians with respect to God and the “spiritual” realm. However, we can see quite a good picture of what “grace” is in the spiritual realm by looking at these verses in Acts and their context. We can also see that the word “grace” was first lifted up into the spiritual realm in Luke 4:16-22, where we have the beginnings of man being able to enter into a relationship with God through “grace” in very clear language.

If you are going to define "grace " as the enjoyment of God, it has to apply to all verses in the NT. And that definition, the enjoyment of God in us, does not work in the three verses above. Poor, poor Christianity got the definition right all along.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Ex-LC-Rosemead

If you are going to define "grace " as the enjoyment of God, it has to apply to all verses in the NT. And that definition, the enjoyment of God in us, does not work in the three verses above. Poor, poor Christianity got the definition right all along.

Good explanation. I wonder if you have done a similar study on a Greek word “Zoe” (life). Witness Lee defined it as the divine life.

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a test: let's ask some people how much they enjoyed Christ at the hands of Philip Lee.

Well, since you asked - let me share with you a first hand account by a (then teenage) woman who got "enjoyed" by Witness Lee's son in 1987:

"During those years of sibling abuse, I was also molested by the then-manager of the Living Stream Ministry in 1987.
30 years later, I came to learn that responsible ones (elders and co-workers) in the church knew that this happened to me and discussed the incident among themselves, yet never approached me about it, let alone encouraged me to go to the police or to get professional help."

If anyone is mature enough to read more of her story, here's a link to Ruth's blog.

P.S.

[Ex-LC-Rosemead]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

Good explanation. I wonder if you have done a similar study on a Greek word “Zoe” (life). Witness Lee defined it as the divine life.

Yes there was a word study done on that word too. I will send the outline as soon as possible, hopefully in the next few days.

[Ex-LC-Rosemead]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

Good explanation. I wonder if you have done a similar study on a Greek word “Zoe” (life). Witness Lee defined it as the divine life.

Sorry it took so long to get you this word study on the word "Zoe". The first 18 pages are original and no changes were made. It was on page 19 under the word "Eonian Life" that we discovered some problems. The brother who wrote this outline wanted to make revisions and correct it. I hope you enjoy it, I enjoyed reading it again. It is a way into looking at how valuable word studies can be in trying to understand the word of God. If you have any questions please feel free to asked.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Ex-LC-Rosemead

Sorry it took so long to get you this word study on the word "Zoe". The first 18 pages are original and no changes were made. It was on page 19 under the word "Eonian Life" that we discovered some problems. The brother who wrote this outline wanted to make revisions and correct it. I hope you enjoy it, I enjoyed reading it again. It is a way into looking at how valuable word studies can be in trying to understand the word of God. If you have any questions please feel free to asked.

Thanks for your sharing your paper on the greek word "zoe". Very interesting.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Well, since you asked - let me share with you a first hand account by a (then teenage) woman who got "enjoyed" by Witness Lee's son in 1987:

"During those years of sibling abuse, I was also molested by the then-manager of the Living Stream Ministry in 1987.
30 years later, I came to learn that responsible ones (elders and co-workers) in the church knew that this happened to me and discussed the incident among themselves, yet never approached me about it, let alone encouraged me to go to the police or to get professional help."

If anyone is mature enough to read more of her story, here's a link to Ruth's blog.

P.S.

PriestlyScribe, when you consider in the context of Local Church history, this is really quite maddening. After all ten years earlier WP was an eyewitness to another Phillip Lee incident. Appears the only one who took WP seriously was Max R.
Another brother I knew from my New Mexico days (at least 4 families from New Mexico migrated to Anaheim end of 1975), Phillip Lee was the reason he and his wife ceased meeting with the Local Churches. JC and his wife DC have each passed on in recent years.

[ThankfulForever777]

Originally Posted by Ex-LC-Rosemead

Sorry it took so long to get you this word study on the word "Zoe". The first 18 pages are original and no changes were made. It was on page 19 under the word "Eonian Life" that we discovered some problems. The brother who wrote this outline wanted to make revisions and correct it. I hope you enjoy it, I enjoyed reading it again. It is a way into looking at how valuable word studies can be in trying to understand the word of God. If you have any questions please feel free to asked.

Hi,

I’ve reviewed the paper and have a few comments:
1. You’ve done a great job reviewing all 137 verses where the Greek word "zoe" is used in the New Testament.
2. I’m unclear why you disagree with translating the Greek word “eonian” as “everlasting” or “eternal.” Could you clarify your reasoning?
3. I’m also missing a clear connection between “the life of the man Jesus Christ” and “eonian” life. For instance, in John 10:10, Jesus does not say that He came so that they may have His “zoe” life but simply that they may have the zoe life, and have it to the full.
4. I do not have a problem with this example of the eternal / eonian life explanation: “Living forever-and-ever in and by one’s own human life which he already has in himself and is experiencing now in this present age, but without his sinning (the deeds) and without sin (the sin nature) in a harm-free and trouble-free environment. (E.g. Mr. Jones will live as Mr. Jones forever and ever; and he will do so without the indwelling sin problem and what it produces, in a state of “sinless perfection”; and it will be without any of the hassles that he encountered in this age: he will continue to be living on into eternity as Mr. Jones.) Again, in this scenario, he will still be living by his own natural life, not by Christ, the eonian life. This person is also missing out on “the eonian life”.” (page 18)
5. Personally, I believe that the eternal life is our human life, transformed through faith in Christ, repentance, Holy Spirit, and knowing God in a personal relationship with Him and Jesus Christ. I don’t view the eternal life as a mystical or divine nature but rather as human and natural life redeemed and connected to God. I think we were created as humans and will remain humans even in the eternity.

[Ex-LC-Rosemead]

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

Hi,

I’ve reviewed the paper and have a few comments:
1. You’ve done a great job reviewing all 137 verses where the Greek word "zoe" is used in the New Testament.
2. I’m unclear why you disagree with translating the Greek word “eonian” as “everlasting” or “eternal.” Could you clarify your reasoning?
3. I’m also missing a clear connection between “the life of the man Jesus Christ” and “eonian” life. For instance, in John 10:10, Jesus does not say that He came so that they may have His “zoe” life but simply that they may have the zoe life, and have it to the full.
4. I do not have a problem with this example of the eternal / eonian life explanation: “Living forever-and-ever in and by one’s own human life which he already has in himself and is experiencing now in this present age, but without his sinning (the deeds) and without sin (the sin nature) in a harm-free and trouble-free environment. (E.g. Mr. Jones will live as Mr. Jones forever and ever; and he will do so without the indwelling sin problem and what it produces, in a state of “sinless perfection”; and it will be without any of the hassles that he encountered in this age: he will continue to be living on into eternity as Mr. Jones.) Again, in this scenario, he will still be living by his own natural life, not by Christ, the eonian life. This person is also missing out on “the eonian life”.” (page 18)
5. Personally, I believe that the eternal life is our human life, transformed through faith in Christ, repentance, Holy Spirit, and knowing God in a personal relationship with Him and Jesus Christ. I don’t view the eternal life as a mystical or divine nature but rather as human and natural life redeemed and connected to God. I think we were created as humans and will remain humans even in the eternity.

Response to #1
This outline was written by another brother and I was there when he passed it out and went through it.

Response to #2
Yes, this concept of eternal and everlasting can be confusing, but you have to think about it and consider the verses under discussion. This “eonian” life is connected with the life of the man Jesus. The word “eonian” in the NT is not modifying the life of man, nor the life of God. The word “zoe” (or life) in the NT is referring to either the life of man, the life of God, or the life of the man Jesus. But in addition to the life of the man Jesus, the word “eonian” is added to His life alone. If the word “eonian” was strictly related to eternal or everlasting in regards to time, then it should be added to the life of God, because God is eternal. But nowhere in the NT can you find “eonian” modifying the life of God. So why is that? Because it has to do with the life of the man Jesus. It only connects, modifies the life of the man Jesus. So, what is “eonian” life? In the outline it says, “This life is not just the life of man, the human life, neither is it just the life of God, the divine life, it is a life that is constituted with both the life of man (the human life) and the life of God (the divine life); it is both of these together as one life”. Simply put, Jesus is this “eonian life”. Only by means of the eonian life is God expressed in humanity.

Response to #3
Yes, Jesus said “I came that they may have life (zoe)…” I believe He (Jesus) is not referring to the human life because the people He is talking to already have life (zoe, the human life). Moreover, He came so that they might have this life, His life, the eonian life. If He did not come, they would not get this life, His life, the eonian life. We get another life after being born again. When we receive Him, we get what He came to give, His eonian life.

Response to #4
I used to think this way also before I read the outline. But I see now that the eonian life means much more than just an eternal or everlasting life related to time. You have to understand that the human life without God is no good. The human life we received from our mother and father is not acceptable to God and is to be terminated according to Gal. 2:20. That verse says: “… I have been together crucified with Christ yet I am living; not I yet is living in me Christ …” And that is the Eonian life that we are living by. In Gal. 6:14 – But far be it from me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. That “I” in this verse is my natural life because now we live by another life. It is Christ living in me. And how is Christ living in me? It is by the Eonian life. Why? Because the Eonian life includes the humanity of Jesus. We don’t die physically but spiritually our natural life does, it is crucified, terminated, and we live by another life now, the Eonian life.

Response to #5
The eternal life is not our human life. Our human life has nothing to do with God’s plan. Our human life is to go to the cross. See verse 2Cor. 4:7-12:
(v.7) But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. (v.8) We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; (v.9) Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; (v.10) Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. (v.11) For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. (v.12) So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

This is divinity manifested in humanity but it is the humanity of Christ being expressed by the believers. And this is what God is after in creation. Remember Adam’s choice in the Garden to live a human life or a natural life without God was unacceptable to God. God’s purpose for man was to express Him (God) in His creation. And it is through the life of Jesus, the Eonian life, that we become “partakers of the divine nature” as Peter said. And the divine nature is in His humanity, we get His humanity and divinity in the Eonian life. And we become sons and daughters of the living God and He will be in us, and we will be in Him as Jesus was in the Father and the Father in Him.

To be transformed in this life, our human life, happens because we are living by another life, the Eonian life. We cannot know God just by our human life. God dwells in unapproachable light and we cannot get to Him. He (God) has to come out to us, and the way He came out to us was through His Son. We cannot experience God by Himself, there is no way because He is Spirit and unapproachable. It, our experience of God, has to be in Human form, and that human form was the life of the man Jesus which is the Eonian life.

There is nothing mystical about the eternal life or divine life because Jesus clearly discusses this concept with Nicodemus in John Chapter 3. It is altogether a spiritual matter or a spiritual re-birth. But that event of being born-again did not start until Acts chapter 2.

Yes, we live in eternity as humans but with the Eonian life. You are not there by yourself but with Him in you as part of the new creation. This is what God was after with Adam but he fell and missed out getting the divine life, there in the Garden of Eden.