Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I find this to be quite damning of WL.

Suppose you had a Bible study, and someone in that study came under the influence of an evil spirit. That spirit would still (at least initially) acknowledge Jesus, and study the Bible to find God's Christ, but soon would begin to promote "truths" which supposedly the whole Bible looked toward. These "truths" would loom increasingly large in the conversation as time passed.

Eventually the study would not be about the Bible or Jesus, but about the "truths", or doctrines or teaching, of this special teacher and Bible expositor.

Going further, eventually the new teachings, so-called truths, and doctrines would run against some of the Bible, and then this teacher might tell you that the Bible was wrong, and that the writers of the Bible were writing according to "fallen human concepts" or some such. Then the Bible could be safely and profitably ignored to focus instead on the recovered truths, so-called, being promoted.

I've gone into this at some detail in the "Psalms" thread, but it isn't limited to WL's treatment of the Psalms. Just pretty obvious, there. There wasn't much hiding WL's contempt for scripture, there. But I won't belabor the point; if I've tired myself of writing it, so much more the readers!

No brother, it's the truth and needs to be repeated. The evil spirit behind LSM attempts to replace Christ with "the ministry".

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

No brother, it's the truth and needs to be repeated. The evil spirit behind LSM attempts to replace Christ with "the ministry".

How else can you explain blended brothers, elders, and serving ones more absolute for "the ministry" rather than Christ, or even the Bible. For them the Bible is not to be respected unless it agrees with "the ministry".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

How else can you explain blended brothers, elders, and serving ones more absolute for "the ministry" rather than Christ, or even the Bible. For them the Bible is not to be respected unless it agrees with "the ministry".

In my words, the Bible is meant to supplement "the ministry". Just like picking fresh fruit off the tree, LSM wants to pick from the Bible that which supplements Living Stream Ministry.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Terry

In my words, the Bible is meant to supplement "the ministry". Just like picking fresh fruit off the tree, LSM wants to pick from the Bible that which supplements Living Stream Ministry.

This inversion of things "ministry above the word" astounds me, because I recall Witness Lee asking the saints not to do this at the 1981 Winter Training on Corinthians. "Don't say Witness Lee says this", say "the Bible says this". I always understood that the ministry was an aid to help us get into the Word, and if the Lord Spirit and the clear Word didn't support what was in the ministry to drop that part.

At a Northern California blending conference in 2014 a dear elderly brother capped the sharing of leading ones at the end of the conference by saying "The Christian life is an open book test". When I testified that indeed it was, and the book is the Bible (even pointing to my recovery version), leading ones later testified that the open book is "the ministry". That was one of the final things that convinced me to leave.

[testallthings]

GIVE ME A BREAK, WOULD YOU? (or, A FOOTNOTE A DAY KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY)




Mat:13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the bhouse and sat beside the sea.


Footnote 13:1.1 "At the end of ch. 12 the heavenly King, having been fully rejected by the leaders of the Jewish religion, made a break with them. On that day He went out of the house and sat beside the sea. This is very significant. The house signifies the house of Israel (10:6), and the sea signifies the Gentile world (Dan. 7:3, 17; Rev. 17:15). The King's going out of the house to sit beside the sea signifies that after His break with the Jews, He forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. It was after this, while on the seashore, that He gave the parables concerning the mysteries of the kingdom. This signifies that the mysteries of the kingdom were revealed in the church. Hence, all the parables in this chapter were spoken to His disciples, not to the Jews."

I am not going to repeat how an allegorical method vs. a literal produces all sort of fancy interpretations. Let's analyze the main point of this footnote.

Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. REALLY? Why? Where, when, how? Oh, because the house signifies the house of Israel and the sea signifies the Gentiles. Wonderful. It is so clear. Now, I imagine that from that time on the Lord Jesus slept in a boat and never went in a house! How ridiculous!
If only people would read their Bibles, especially Rom. 9-11 and Acts (the entire book) they will discover that it was not until the end of Acts chapter 28 that God set aside the house of Israel.
The leaders of Israel rejected their Messiah, they even killed Him, but on the cross He forgave them. Then he sent His disciples not starting from Galilee but from the holy city and the holy temple to preach repentance, again!

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (KJV)

If Christ forsook the house of Israel why then send Peter to the house of Israel to preach repentance? Someone must be wrong! Guess who?



Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. And by doing so 3000 souls of the house of Israel were saved! This kind of Math is really from heaven.
-Jews + Gentiles= 3000 saved Jews


Act 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. Act 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

Again we see the divine pattern, not the one purported in the footnotes. Some preached only to the Jews, other started to preach to Gentiles (Grecian), too. Why did they preached only to the Jews if the Lord Jesus forsook the house of Israel in the Gospel Matthew?

And what about Saul after his conversion? Where did he go, to the house or to the sea? Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

He straightway went to the Gentiles. Hmm. No. Not yet. He preached Christ in the synagogues, that means to the Jews. And so he did troughout the book of Acts. His message was first to the Jews then to the Gentiles. Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

When he was rejected in one synagogue he said he will turn to the Gentiles. Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Act 13:51 But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.
Act 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

Well, maybe this was the famous turning point of forsaking the house of Israel and going to the Gentiles. Not yet, my friends. Not yet. The next verse says, “
Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.”

Paul, Paul, why don't you make W.L. happy, please. Leave the Jews alone! You said you will turn to the Gentiles! (to be fair, the words might also mean that he turned to the Gentiles in the same city) And here, again! You went into the synagogue of the Jews. Didn't you know that the Lord Jesus forsook the house of Israel and turned to the Gentiles. Surely you did not know this teaching!

Finally we reach the end of Acts. Paul is in Rome and he calls the “chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Act 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
Act 28:19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
Act 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
Act 28:21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.
Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
Act 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Act 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
Act 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”

We have finally reach the end. The Lord Jesus was rejected by the Jews in the land of Israel and in the dispersion. God's patience with His people was over. That's the end of Acts. The Book shows that God did everything possible to convert the Jews but they (the majority) refused. And few years later their house, the temple, was destroyed.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by JJ

This inversion of things "ministry above the word" astounds me, because I recall Witness Lee asking the saints not to do this at the 1981 Winter Training on Corinthians. "Don't say Witness Lee says this", say "the Bible says this". I always understood that the ministry was an aid to help us get into the Word, and if the Lord Spirit and the clear Word didn't support what was in the ministry to drop that part.

At a Northern California blending conference in 2014 a dear elderly brother capped the sharing of leading ones at the end of the conference by saying "The Christian life is an open book test". When I testified that indeed it was, and the book is the Bible (even pointing to my recovery version), leading ones later testified that the open book is "the ministry". That was one of the final things that convinced me to leave.

It's good that the bleating one said that because the Lord in you caused you to perceive the lie. I think they believe that WL has digested the whole Bible down to the lowest common denominator. . . "THE MINISTRY"

[OBW]

Aron commented on a segment of Lee posted by testallthings, but Quote is suddently not working again, so here goes:

Originally Posted by Lee

V. NOT SACRIFICING ANY PORTION OF THE WORD
In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God's further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error. (W.L., On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 3)

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose you had a Bible study, and someone in that study came under the influence of an evil spirit. That spirit would still (at least initially) acknowledge Jesus, and study the Bible to find God's Christ, but soon would begin to promote "truths" which supposedly the whole Bible looked toward. These "truths" would loom increasingly large in the conversation as time passed.

Eventually the study would not be about the Bible or Jesus, but about the "truths", or doctrines or teaching, of this special teacher and Bible expositor.

Neither is entirely right nor entirely wrong as I see it. And that is one of the problems I have with Lee so often. Because something is true in one place, it is assumed that it must be true in the same way in all places no matter how different things are.

Lee makes reference to not allowing one or two verses to mean something that does not harmonize with the whole Bible. That is a noble and even correct-sounding idea. But it is not entirely true. And the way he went about dealing with errant verses (contrary to his own statements) by forcing some over-arching theme that he claims is in the Bible is both consistent with, but also contradictory with this little passage.

I know. Really? Both consistent and contradictory?

It is consistent in that he insists that the major Biblical themes must prevail no matter what the verse seems to say. He doesn't say the meaning of the verse should be ignored, instead he claims that we just don't understand what it means. It really means something different than what it says.

But it is contradictory because in the little snippet testallthings provided, Lee claims that you can't ignore what the verses actually say and just sweep them aside. Yet that is often exactly what he does. He comes in and claims that "God's economy" means that it can't be that way. There was a thread many years ago in which someone started trying to state certain teachings by Lee that he still believed to be true. When asked how certain parts squared with what was actually in the verses, it was discovered that Lee declared in the Life Study messages for that passage that because of "God's economy" it really meant something else. And it meant that James was a book of death that was only left in to stand as a warning against being legalistic. Or as aron so often tells us concerning the major portions of the Psalms that Lee virtually wrote out of the Bible.

What aron wrote (and I quoted above) is often exactly what Lee did.

But at the same time, a serious flaw in Lee's holistic view of the Bible is that he controlled how it was holistic. He declared that the use of any word essentially had one meaning. Like leaven could only be bad (despite the Kingdom of God being likened to leaven). And everything about "doing" was dismissed as being according to the law which was abolished (really?).

And while not entirely incorrect, Lee's version of God's economy was generally so different from what the evidence shows should be included that when he used it as the means to dispute the otherwise clear meaning of scripture, he did exactly what he claimed you should not do — write off scripture because it does not fit you preconceived notion. "God's economy" (the real one, not Lee's version) was just such a preconceived notion.