Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Why do you keep saying that ALL Jews were not sola scriptura? You could not possibly know this. Are you like Witness Lee, who claimed to be all places at all times, and knew what was taught by every Christian teacher who ever lived? (well, at least since 1945) Really? Are you that far off the deep end? You need to get out more, my friend. Read some Church history from different sources. Make some new mature, knowledgeable Christian friends that can set you straight on some of these crazy notions of yours. And most important and urgent for you - read the Bible without the filter of Local Church/Lee dogma. If you want to spout off so much about the Bereans you need to be a Berean. Why do you think they were called noble? One reason is that they were apparently good listeners. They didn't suppose that they already knew it all.
:

Hi UntoHim,

I see no one here bothering to prove that Bereans were sola scriptura. That would be a remarkable thing for a Jew given most are not sola scripture. Remember to be a Berean is to "see if these things are so". Those who google and search things out like I do are more like the Bereans than those who respond with their opinions alone.

I would say the ones who used the Scripture correctly are the ones who received Paul's "footnotes" and those who didn't use it correctly were those who accepted nothing else but their own literal interpretation. The Bereans would have read and studied Paul's footnotes. Yes Paul used the Scripture but his interpretation is not readily found in the Old Testament.

What I stated about Jews and sola scriptura is a true and factual statement that can be easily Googled.

There were three main parties of Jews:
Pharisees
Sadducees
Essenes

Of these three groups, only the Sadducees regarded the Torah alone as authoritative. This did not prevent them from crucifying Christ however. It is a true and factual statement that most Jews were not sola scriptura. Jews in general accept the oral Torah as equally authoritative to the written.

But all that really matters is what kind of Jew the Bereans were. The Bereans were Greek-speaking Jews who used the Septuagint which includes a number of books not accepted as Canonical by Protestantism.
The Bereans also accepted oral teaching and traditions as equal to Scripture, they were not Sadducees.

So the situation is that the Berean Jews were not sola scriptura believers and the scripture that they used was not the same as our Old Testament - it had books which have been rejected in Protestantism as Apocrypha.

For these reasons the Berean Jews are a poor example to use
Unfortunately the myth of the "sola scriptura Bereans" has been propagated throughout protestant Christianity and accepted as unquestioned fact when historical facts reveal otherwise.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi UntoHim,

I see no one here bothering to prove that Bereans were sola scriptura.

To be honest, I never heard anyone say that they were.

And that is not a problem to me. I would argue against the most stringent versions of sola scriptura.

But at the same time, I cannot accept anything that stands in opposition to what the Bible actually says. That does not mean that the Bible has all the answers, but anyone's alleged additional answers cannot contradict what is in the Bible.

And I take it a step further. I acknowledge that many people sense "speaking" to them about certain things that are not taught within the scripture clearly one way or the other. In those cases, I do not have problems with holding to such a thing personally. But to insist upon it as true to the extent that everyone should see it and agree is different.

Given the kind of preaching that Paul was doing, since he said that he was showing in the scriptures where it was said that the Christ would have to suffer (among other things), it does not take a "sola scriptura" approach to the scripture to assess Paul's statements. Just a sound mind to look at the particular passages. He claims it is from the scripture, so you look at the scripture and check him out.

The whole effort is predicated on the assumption that the scripture is worth looking at. Paul was using it as his source, and the Bereans confirmed it to be true. They didn't have to be of a "sola scriptura" mindset to do that. Just rational enough to confirm that what Paul claimed was in scripture was, in fact, in there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

To be honest, I never heard anyone say that they were.

And that is not a problem to me. I would argue against the most stringent versions of sola scriptura.

But at the same time, I cannot accept anything that stands in opposition to what the Bible actually says. That does not mean that the Bible has all the answers, but anyone's alleged additional answers cannot contradict what is in the Bible.

And I take it a step further. I acknowledge that many people sense "speaking" to them about certain things that are not taught within the scripture clearly one way or the other. In those cases, I do not have problems with holding to such a thing personally. But to insist upon it as true to the extent that everyone should see it and agree is different.

Given the kind of preaching that Paul was doing, since he said that he was showing in the scriptures where it was said that the Christ would have to suffer (among other things), it does not take a "sola scriptura" approach to the scripture to assess Paul's statements. Just a sound mind to look at the particular passages. He claims it is from the scripture, so you look at the scripture and check him out.

The whole effort is predicated on the assumption that the scripture is worth looking at. Paul was using it as his source, and the Bereans confirmed it to be true. They didn't have to be of a "sola scriptura" mindset to do that. Just rational enough to confirm that what Paul claimed was in scripture was, in fact, in there.

So I gather by your post that you might accept that one can be a "noble Berean" by reading the bible + Lee's footnotes. That is, just because we use Lee's footnotes does not mean we are not noble Bereans. Just because the Bereans were not "sola scriptura" does not mean they are not noble.

We do confirm that what Lee claimed in the footnotes is there. For example, we have confirmed that what Lee says about the ground of the church is there. Overwhelmingly there is one church per city, and the word churches (plural) is never used in the context of a single city. Furthermore, denominations are non-existent.

The only defense one can come up with against this is the prescriptive vs descriptive argument that many have stated before. JesusLover seems to like sums and rational approaches. He's playing the 83% odds on Israelogy, and a descriptive one at that, but our odds are 99% on the ground of the church, and 100% concerning denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do confirm that what Lee claimed in the footnotes is there. For example, we have confirmed that what Lee says about the ground of the church is there. Overwhelmingly there is one church per city, and the word churches (plural) is never used in the context of a single city. Furthermore, denominations are non-existent.

The only defense one can come up with against this is the prescriptive vs descriptive argument that many have stated before. JesusLover seems to like sums and rational approaches. He's playing the 83% odds on Israelogy, and a descriptive one at that, but our odds are 99% on the ground of the church, and 100% concerning denominations.

Obviously you haven't read any posts about the the so-called ground of the church. John's Revelation describes calling a church by the name of the town, but overwhelmingly Paul's epistles describe no such practice.

There are no denominations, perhaps, but overwhelmingly there are no LSMs, BFAs, FTTs, DCPs, ETCs in the Bible either.

Like OBW said, either you can't read, or you play stupid.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously you haven't read any posts about the the so-called ground of the church. John's Revelation describes calling a church by the name of the town, but overwhelmingly Paul's epistles describe no such practice.

There are no denominations, perhaps, but overwhelmingly there are no LSMs, BFAs, FTTs, DCPs, ETCs in the Bible either.

Like OBW said, either you can't read, or you play stupid.

This is an example of taking the bible literally but being completely wrong. If all we had were people like you then we would not know anything. Thankfully we have Greek New Testament experts like Professor Wallace and I quote:

7The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.

https://bible.org/article/who-should...urality-elders

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If all we had were people like you then we would not know anything.

But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Matt 12:36

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. Matt 12:36

Don't make me quote all the careless words you have written.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is an example of taking the bible literally but being completely wrong. If all we had were people like you then we would not know anything. Thankfully we have Greek New Testament experts like Professor Wallace and I quote:

7The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.

https://bible.org/article/who-should...urality-elders

Are you saying that Paul's word in Titus proves there was one church in each city? Isn't it problematic that Paul's word in 1Cor proves that there were sects in Corinth. Yet he wrote his letter to "the church in Corinth" even though some were of Peter, Some were of Apollos, some were of Christ, etc. So doesn't Paul's word in his first letter to the Corinthians prove that the term "the church in Corinth" includes every Christian gathering and sect in the city of Corinth?

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Doesn't Witness Lee teach that what we see is typical of the church, therefore could also be applied to the 7 churches in Revelation?

The point here is that in a very real sense the Corinthians illustrate the usual, or typical, Christian life, church life, and Body life. Actually, the usual Christian life is just like that of the Corinthians. (Witness Lee, Life Study of 1Corinthians, chapter 1, section 1)

[Evangelical]

Paul included all believers in the city but doubt he referred to the sects because he was against that.

I just quoted Wallace. He said that. I'm doing what UntoHim said to do in #42...quote some bible scholars.

So a major New Testament and Greek expert believes each town had only one church:

https://bible.org/article/who-should...urality-elders

7The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.

14 Recall that "elder" = "bishop" and that each town had but one church.