BB,
I follow your premises here quite well. And in the broad view, I believe that we are of mostly a similar mind.
But while there have been few comments back to your posts, let me point out one thing that I expect to bring some push-back. It might be a small point, or not even the main point, but it will be a distractor from your primary thoughts (as I read them).
In your second post, you said:
Quote:
|
I believe the value system he set in place is destructive and leading many of his followers to hell whether or not they think they are saved and believe in Jesus.
|
I honestly believe that this is an overstatement. This is a thought that grows out of the discussion that has already been set aside a few weeks back concerning loss of salvation.
Lee's teachings are quite destructive. They are as insidious as you labeled them. But unlike the thoughts of the moderators of the other forum, who believe that such groups may not even be following the God of the Bible, I think that the problem is that Lee teaches the God of the Bible, but ignores the parts he doesn't like.
He is clear as to the core of the start of salvation, but totally baffled (or at least baffling) as to the path forward from there. He believes and teaches that there is no need to positively do works because he believes that if you have waited long enough for the right amount of "dispensing" it will naturally flow out of you without any conscious effort. And since it does not, then it must not be intended.
Lee exchanged the whole gospel for a cheap gospel that turned up the lexicon of spiritual-sounding mumbo jumbo. That replaced the kind of fruit that the Bible talks about with uplifting meetings. That avoided the world around them (except to find "good material") and turned inward.
But to suggest that the failures of the bankrupt teachings of Lee and the LRC is a path to hell is to bring back the argument we abandoned concerning what is salvation and can you lose it.
I think that the better view is to revisit a passage that Lee so thoroughly destroyed and see the view of the teacher and the followers. (I will start by noting that the outcome for the follower is not mentioned. But here goes.)
In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is continuing his discussion about the teachers that they have been lining up behind and fighting over. Now he keeps making mention of three pretty good ones. But I suspect that these were not the only ones in play. He mentions Peter, Apollos, and himself. At one point he makes a turn in his rhetoric. He refers to the teachers as farmers and builders. And he refers to the Corinthians as the farm and the building.
He then turns back to the teachers and discusses how they might build (continuing with the metaphor of building). Sort of a Three Little Pigs comparison. Straw, sticks, or brick. You know the materials he actually mentions.
Paul does make mention of their foundation in the faith which was Christ. (And while Paul was the one who had brought them that foundation, he is not suggesting that only he could provide it.) Then he talks about how the teachers might build. In the end (on "the day") their work would be tried. In terms of their reward, or lack thereof, the nature of what they built would be the evidence for or against them. The building that met the standard would gain them favor, while the building that did not would cause them loss, but not of salvation.
Now if the building in such a poor manner does not result in the loss of salvation of the builder, do we suppose that those on whom he built are still, nonetheless, lost? It might be easy to confuse the materials with which the teacher built as being the people. But then it would indicate that the materials (wood or stones) are the people rather than what was added to them.
There was a foundation of Christ. That is not burned in the fire. So the core of the believers' faith withstands the fire of the day. However, Paul does not provide any hint as to their fate. But he does not seem excessively concerned about it. At least not within this particular passage. He does provide them a lot of sound advice for moving forward. Things about a sinner, gifts, meetings, the life to come, and other things.
But he never suggests that their status before God is at risk.
Since we are talking about Christians (mostly) I can only accuse Lee of being a purveyor of flammable materials. Outside of the question about those who wandered into a Love Feast, got excited and stood and called "Oh, Lord Jesus" three times then disappeared, I believe that we are talking about people who have the foundation that Paul laid. Even those who started in that tenuous position of simply calling three times, but who stayed and began to mature a little, surely they came to truly believe in the one that they only sort of met by chance when those 9 words were spoken.
- - -
I mainly go through all of that to say that what you said about Lee's casting aside of the truth of "fruit" is very real. And there is a cost to failing in that arena. But your discussion will be hijacked by this one point. Despite my agreement on so much of your argument, I fear you undercut it by returning to send the followers to hell.
Of course, maybe you only meant "hell" as a level of extremes when we compare what our outcome may be (saved, yet as through fire — as mentioned about the teachers) compared with what we are being lulled into believing. If that is the case, then you can ignore what I wrote above. Just note that it might be better to be more direct in your writing. Or spell it out if you want to use such a term in a way other than as perdition.