Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How come only Witness Lee and his followers are allowed to meet in different locations for practical reasons, but when other Christians meet in different locations they are condemned as daughters of the great whore? What's with the blatant double-standard?

"But we are still one church in the city". Right, you are still the one Local Church of Witness Lee in the city, just as the 2 or 3 Baptist churches are still the Baptist church in the city....accept for the fact that the Baptist churches don't claim to be the only legitimate representative of the Body of Christ.
-

You make it sound as if they are "condemned" because they meet in different locations. Yet other Christians don't meet in different locations simply because of practical reasons do they? , but because they can't get along or they have particular preferences. That situation is characterized by division and confusion. Contrary to Paul's commands for unity to all believers in the city of Corinth (for example).

Interesting you say that about the Baptists. If a church does not claim to be a legitimate representative (I will use the term expression) of the Body of Christ, then what are they? An illegitimate expression?

I think that is partly the issue. No one denomination apart from Catholic/Orthodox seems to want to stand up and stake claim to be the legitimate church in the city. If they are indeed true believers then surely that is what they truly are. In a way they are admitting they are a sect if they don't see themselves as the legitimate expression in the city.

Without a legitimate expression, I can't see how anyone can follow Christ's words in Matthew 18:17: If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Suppose a Presbyterian brother sins against a Baptist brother. The Baptist brother applies Matthew 18:17 (after exhausting the other avenues described in prior verses), and tells whose church, the Presbyterian one or the Baptist one? Which church, Presbyterian or Baptist, is "the church" in this instance? Suppose he tells the Baptist church, but what can they do? The Presbyterian brother is not a member. Likewise, he could tell the Presbyterian church, but what would they do? The Baptist brother is not a member of the Presbyterian.

In fact, because there is no real avenue for the Baptist brother to have the matter dealt with by "the church", because no one really knows who "the church" actually is, the Baptist may have to resort to taking legal action against the Presbyterian brother (if the situation warranted it).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a church does not claim to be a legitimate representative (I will use the term expression) of the Body of Christ, then what are they? An illegitimate expression?

If I didn't know you, I would think that you're being obtuse and obnoxious.

I clearly said "the only legitimate representative of the Body of Christ". Some years back Andrew Yu somehow convinced Hank Hanegrraff that a common motto of the Local Church was "We don't say that we are the only church, we say that we are only the church". The fact that the Hankster swallowed this garbage from Yu was proof positive that his "research" of the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee was a joke.

This is to say nothing of the fact that when Andrew said "we are only the church" he really means, "we are only the church, and it just so happens that we are THE ONLY CHURCH that is only the church!"
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If I didn't know you, I would think that you're being obtuse and obnoxious.

I clearly said "the only legitimate representative of the Body of Christ". Some years back Andrew Yu somehow convinced Hank Hanegrraff that a common motto of the Local Church was "We don't say that we are the only church, we say that we are only the church". The fact that the Hankster swallowed this garbage from Yu was proof positive that his "research" of the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee was a joke.

This is to say nothing of the fact that when Andrew said "we are only the church" he really means, "we are only the church, and it just so happens that we are THE ONLY CHURCH that is only the church!"
-

I am wondering how the early church would have referred to themselves. The only church or only the church, or both? If we asked Peter or Paul would they have said "we are not the only church"? It is only Protestants who take issue with any group calling themselves "the only church". Roman Catholic and Orthodox have operated with that belief for centuries. And it comes from the early church period where there indeed was a thing called "the only church" which was "only the church".

I will just quote Wallace again

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

So I think they would have referred to themselves as the only church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Without a legitimate expression, I can't see how anyone can follow Christ's words in Matthew 18:17: If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Suppose a Presbyterian brother sins against a Baptist brother. The Baptist brother applies Matthew 18:17 (after exhausting the other avenues described in prior verses), and tells whose church, the Presbyterian one or the Baptist one? Which church, Presbyterian or Baptist, is "the church" in this instance? Suppose he tells the Baptist church, but what can they do? The Presbyterian brother is not a member. Likewise, he could tell the Presbyterian church, but what would they do? The Baptist brother is not a member of the Presbyterian.

This is just nonsense.

If a Presbyterian brother seriously sins against a brother who meets with Baptists, then the offended brother should take a brother from his Baptist congregation and go to the elders of the congregation that the Presbyterian meets with.

It's not that complicated bro. It's no different than a brother in Gahanna sinning against a brother in Bexley. The Bexley brother takes a mature brother with him and goes to the elders of the church in Gahenna with his grievance. It's not like this has never happened.

[ZNPaaneah]

Instead of leaving your gift at the altar, Evangelical determines who is in right standing and refuses communion if he determines they aren’t. Given the apology letter to PL I assume this is a very low bar indeed.

Andrew Yu ducks and weaves with this, instead of saying they are “the only church” they say they are “only the church”. What he neglects to mention is that he also says that all others are not “only the church”.

Evangelical for some reason thinks that elders are exempted from sinning and needing reconciliation. Apparently his version of the Bible has deleted all verses relevant to this topic.

It is so twisted that Evangelical “cannot see how anyone can follow Christ’s words in Matthew 18:17.

23“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier*matters*of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.24Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

The more you listen to Evangelical this whole topic is about straining a gnat out of the NT while swallowing the camel.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead of leaving your gift at the altar, Evangelical determines who is in right standing and refuses communion if he determines they aren’t. Given the apology letter to PL I assume this is a very low bar indeed.

Andrew Yu ducks and weaves with this, instead of saying they are “the only church” they say they are “only the church”. What he neglects to mention is that he also says that all others are not “only the church”.

Evangelical for some reason thinks that elders are exempted from sinning and needing reconciliation. Apparently his version of the Bible has deleted all verses relevant to this topic.

It is so twisted that Evangelical “cannot see how anyone can follow Christ’s words in Matthew 18:17.

23“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier*matters*of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.24Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

The more you listen to Evangelical this whole topic is about straining a gnat out of the NT while swallowing the camel.

I never said that elders are exempt from sinning.That is your strawman. My point is related to the multiplicity of elders and altars existing today. And the scriptural assumption that "the church" is a place that one can be confident in going to declare ones grievances and resolve disputes.

I note that Jesus never said "tell it to the church that the sinning brother atttends". Jesus implies that a multiplicity of churches would not exist, just as they did not exist at the time.

If there are 100 different churches in a city, how do you know which altar to leave your gift at? The scripture says altar, but because of denominations today it is in fact many altars. This is a situation of confusion and division.

Rather than leave the gift at the altar, the denominational solution is to create a new altar.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never said that elders are exempt from sinning.That is your strawman. My point is related to the multiplicity of elders and altars existing today. And the scriptural assumption that "the church" is a place that one can be confident in going to declare ones grievances and resolve disputes.

I note that Jesus never said "tell it to the church that the sinning brother atttends". Jesus implies that a multiplicity of churches would not exist, just as they did not exist at the time.

If there are 100 different churches in a city, how do you know which altar to leave your gift at? The scripture says altar, but because of denominations today it is in fact many altars. This is a situation of confusion and division.

Rather than leave the gift at the altar, the denominational solution is to create a new altar.

The only altar today among Christians is the cross of Christ.

There is no verse in the New Testament limiting the number of elders.

But there are very clear verses that tell you not to take the Lord's table until you have reconciled with others. That is the clear command from Jesus and the apostles.

Stop creating bogus limitations "plurality of elders", "multiple altars", putting the "spin on one church" by Andrew Yu. According to you the Bible doesn't say what to do if elders sin. How low will you stoop?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only altar today among Christians is the cross of Christ.

Practically speaking the altar is regarded as related to the communion table in major denominations, particularly Catholic. You seemed to regard the altar similarly. In post #131 you "joined the dots" so to speak between the altar verse and communion:

Instead of leaving your gift at the altar, Evangelical determines who is in right standing and refuses communion if he determines they aren’t.

If the altar is related to the communion table then my comment about multiple altars or let's say, multiple communion tables, makes sense.

If the altar is the cross, then how does one practically apply:

Leave there your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

There is actually no biblical command that one must be reconciled before taking communion. However we apply the principle mentioned in said verse, to taking communion.

Or we could just disregard the verse altogether, and consider it part of a Jewish command that gentiles don't have to keep.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Practically speaking the altar is regarded as related to the communion table in major denominations, particularly Catholic. You seemed to regard the altar similarly. In post #131 you "joined the dots" so to speak between the altar verse and communion:

Instead of leaving your gift at the altar, Evangelical determines who is in right standing and refuses communion if he determines they aren’t.

If the altar is related to the communion table then my comment about multiple altars or let's say, multiple communion tables, makes sense.

If the altar is the cross, then how does one practically apply:

Leave there your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

There is actually no biblical command that one must be reconciled before taking communion. However we apply the principle mentioned in said verse, to taking communion.

Or we could just disregard the verse altogether, and consider it part of a Jewish command that gentiles don't have to keep.

That is an excellent point, if we equate the communion table ("this is my body and this is my blood given for you") to Jesus sacrifice on the cross which was a sin offering, peace offering, meal offering, burnt offering, etc.

Then this will answer the question of different communion tables or one communion table.

To me this test is just like the test for Ruth, was she a Moabitess or was she the widow of an Israelite? We get the answer from her heart -- your God will be my God and your people will be my people.

If we ask the believer, is this the Lord's table of a particular denomination and you need to be a member of that denomination first, before partaking of this table, then yes -- Moabite.

On the other hand if the answer is that "no, this is the "Lord's" table and you need to have received the Lord first to partake of this table, then this church is the widow of an Israelite (Jesus, who died on the cross).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is just nonsense.

If a Presbyterian brother seriously sins against a brother who meets with Baptists, then the offended brother should take a brother from his Baptist congregation and go to the elders of the congregation that the Presbyterian meets with.

It's not that complicated bro. It's no different than a brother in Gahanna sinning against a brother in Bexley. The Bexley brother takes a mature brother with him and goes to the elders of the church in Gahenna with his grievance. It's not like this has never happened.

So in Matthew 18:17 Jesus meant "tell it to the denomination that the sinning brother goes to" did He?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So in Matthew 18:17 Jesus meant "tell it to the denomination that the sinning brother goes to" did He?

What you call a denomination, God calls His church.

Evangelical, since you have determined there is no more church on earth, what do you do with all those blank space in your Bible?

Listen to what Boxjobox says about his former LC:

So, in the city of San Diego, with a population of 1.3 million there are only 275 adults meeting after 35 years! I would say their historical perspective lacks credibility. I would also say that the low numbers is entirely due to their association with LSM. The title, or their nomer THE church in San Diego should not be assigned to them. They have taken a biblical designator and abused it. This is not a small thing, really, in the sphere of Christian practice, but is quite serious. Wasn't it WL that talked about the woman married to Smith that calls herself Mrs Jones. The " church in San Diego" in the mid-80s left her husband and now lives with Mr. LSM.

The insane part is that their history mentions nothing about LSM!

Your church is neither "the only church" nor "only the church," but Mrs. Lee, the widow of a long deceased minister.

.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So in Matthew 18:17 Jesus meant "tell it to the denomination that the sinning brother goes to" did He?

And why not? It doesn't say, "Tell it to the church unless it's denominated; then don't bother", does it? There have been high profile cases recently where a brother was exposed in wrong-doing to the churches, which churches had names. Having a name didn't stop the churches from following Matthew 18:17.

Oh, but it doesn't say, "denomination" but "church" is that it? Well then if reading "strict constructionist" thusly is your forte then please do it consistently, not just where it's convenient to the concepts at hand. How come, for example, Acts 19:41 doesn't say, "And with these words he dismissed the church"? What, the ekklesia in Acts 19:41 wasn't a church? Whatever happened to consistency? Why translate a word one way in one NT passage and differently elsewhere? Jesus said, "On this rock I will build MY ekklesia", meaning perhaps there existed ekklesia which were not of Jesus? Like in Acts 19:41, for example? Do tell.

Or, what about the ekklesia of the righteous in Psalm 1:5? Not a church, in your Recovery Version? Why not? Maybe, because Lee had just finished saying there's none righteous in dismissing this psalm? Okay, then why does the psalmist write, "in the midst of the ekklesia I will sing hymns of praise to Thee" in Psalm 22 and this gets translated as church when the epistle of Hebrews (2:12) cites it? Why is the word ekklesia in Psalm 1 not translated church if the same ekklesia of Psalm 22 is the church?

All I see are fallen concepts, and mixed sentiments, not of the Bible writer but rather of the Bible expositor. Lee, like Nee before him, was a man of convenience; words could mean whatever he needed them to mean at that moment - coherence and consistency were optional. Perceptions, needs and momentary circumstances were the shifting sands upon which the RecV was brought forth.

[Evangelical]

You are correct it doesn't say that. But let's examine the most logical explanations and I think you are reading into it something which isn't there. That is, when you read "church", you imagine a multiplicity of different churches/denominations within the city. But scholars tell us that such was not the case.

Well, reading the text carefully, Jesus did not say:

"tell it to your church", as if He expected every person to have their own church.

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city? It somewhat puts a big dent in your argument of multiple churches per city, unless you can come up with theologians of equal weight. At the very least, even if Wallace is wrong, it shows that one church per city is a valid interpretation of the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city?

Because of the fact that the word gets translated inconsistently. Where it fits the theology of one church per city, it's translated Church. (And even there it doesn't always work, like the greetings in Romans 16). Where it doesn't fit, it's translated meeting, or assembly. How many ekklesia like the one dismissed in Acts 19:41 were there in the city at that time? Probably several. But there, the word usually gets translated as something other than Church, so as not to upset the current theological construction. And so forth - it appears to be a theology of convenience, of preference.

Where the concept doesn't fit at all, like in Psalms 1:5, the word is ignored as if it weren't even real. Whatever happened to "Christ and the Church in the Psalms"? It (the concept, or theology) apparently does not exist in Psalm 1:5, when I read the RecV footnotes. Yet the word is right there, in LXX scripture. Why are there voluminous footnotes on the church elsewhere, but nothing in Psalm 1:5? Whatever happened to the vaunted principle of first mention?

So, back to your question, what "church" is that there, in the proposed "one church in each city" template? I don't see it in clearly and consistently presented in exposition of scripture. I see human artifice, a slice-and-dice hack job of textual representation. (Not that I've done much better. But I'm not proposing a new Christian polity a la Nee and Lee)

And my point remains from Matthew 16. When Jesus spoke of "my church", it would be understood that there were ekklesia not of Jesus. The word ekklesia was in common usage long before Matthew 16. It had meaning, already. That's why it was used. Jesus didn't invent the term, whole cloth. Yet we typically treat it as such, in these kinds of "recovered church" conversations.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city?

The operative word here is "WAS". There WAS one church in every city. There WAS one apostle Paul, who "did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it, but he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12) There WAS one group of original apostles. There WAS one "Revelation" received by the apostle John. There WAS one group of church fathers who received the wisdom and knowledge to assemble the New Testament. Getting the picture? Even if one subscribes to be a "continuationist" (believing that there are apostles today), no serious scholar or widely accepted teacher has ever claimed that we have apostles today like the original scripture writing apostles, such as Paul, Peter, John etc.

Yes, it appears that there may have been only one church in one city in the infancy of the church. But it cannot be considered as something prescriptive - something for the church for all places and all times. Only baptism and the Lord's table were such prescriptive "commandments". We know that by the time of the end of Paul's life and ministry, many false teachers had already appeared on the scene. What if one of these false teachers had started/or taken over "the one church in anytown"? Were the genuine believers in this one particular city supposed to go against God and their conscience and meet with this false teacher and his followers? I submit that were not bound to do so. In fact, the apostles strongly urged the genuine believers to avoid, and even oppose, if necessary.

This was probably the first legitimate reason for "divisions" in the church. And the situation remains so all these centuries later. But there are still genuine believers who will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and enter his fold. Amen. May it be so Lord.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are correct it doesn't say that. But let's examine the most logical explanations and I think you are reading into it something which isn't there. That is, when you read "church", you imagine a multiplicity of different churches/denominations within the city. But scholars tell us that such was not the case.

Well, reading the text carefully, Jesus did not say:

"tell it to your church", as if He expected every person to have their own church.

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city? It somewhat puts a big dent in your argument of multiple churches per city, unless you can come up with theologians of equal weight. At the very least, even if Wallace is wrong, it shows that one church per city is a valid interpretation of the Bible.

I am confused by this argument. Let us suppose that your neighbor has ignored the property line and built something that is encroaching on your property. You know that this neighbor is a Christian, you have had fellowship with them, they don't meet with the LRC, but they have confessed that Jesus is Lord and been baptized into the name of the triune God. You go to them, they ignore you. You bring one or two others and still they ignore you. You don't want a lawsuit because of Paul's word in Corinthians. So, instead you decide to "tell it to the church".

Please tell us Evangelical what you do now?

(I would approach the leadership of the fellowship where this one meets, but if that is not a valid approach please tell us what is). BTW this is not a hypothetical, a very similar situation took place at one of the places I fellowship at. They bought a meeting hall which included a book store. The owner, knowing they were Christians and wouldn't sue him, refused to pay rent or leave. Ultimately they went to the congregation where he met and after talking to the leaders there he left.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet other Christians don't meet in different locations simply because of practical reasons do they? , but because they can't get along or they have particular preferences.

Just as the LRC does. In fact, if the majority of those in an existing LRC cease to center on the teachings of Witness Lee, those that prefer Lee will separate from the others. And if in the process they are unable to separate while still holding the right to the meeting property, they will sue for it.

There is the truth of your preferences argument. It is worse within the LRC That it is among Christians in different denominations. Christianity does not expect that those in other denominations will be forced to endure outer darkness while the "true believers" enjoy the millennial kingdom. The expect equality in the kingdom — in all parts of it. Where does that put the LRC? As one of the only groups forcing division at the highest levels.

[Nell]

Matthew 18:15-17 (NET Bible)
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.

There is a huge bog regarding the practice of these verses on biblical conflict resolution. It's so big that biblical conflict resolution is at a virtual standstill. When believers argue about "who is the church," the whole matter goes off the rails. The goal is conflict resolution, and not getting trapped in the weeds of "who is the church." There is no shortage of members of the church. The church is the Lord's Body. We are all qualified to hear a matter of conflict among our brothers, but there is a practical answer to the question: Who do you tell?

So who do you tell? Who is the church? Verse 15 If you go to brother John Doe alone attempting to gain your brother, and he refuse to hear you, try again.

Verse 16 Take with you 2 or 3 that the matter be established, documented. If brother Doe still refuses to hear you, try again.

Verse 17 Tell it to the church. Who, specifically, practically, do you "tell"? It seems simple to me. Tell those believers who are related and in fellowship with one another. They know one another and have a common love for all parties. They may even have first hand knowledge of the offense. That could be 10 believers or 200 believers. These could live in the same city or all over the U.S. The 200 could live all over the world. Regardless of where they live, they are the church. They are related. They are in fellowship with those on both sides of the matter. They care. You don't have to be in the same room to effect conflict resolution, though you can. You don't need to involve disinterested believers, though you can. The point is to resolve the conflict, not bog down in "the process." The point is to be heard by the offending brother Doe and resolve a conflict in the church.

If brother Doe refuses to hear the church, your responsibility, as the offended party, to resolve the conflict is over. You have gone the distance, biblically. To you, brother Doe is as a Gentile or tax collector. Of course, for brother Doe to hear the church, the church needs to speak. Those believers who are involved in the process are accountable to make a determination. A judgment...one way or another. They have been brought in to help resolve a conflict in the church...among these interested, involved parties. There is no indication that brother Doe is a Gentile or tax collector to "the church" as defined. It seems that this word is to the offended party only.

I have been involved in several "tell it to the church" matters which were handled according to this pattern. The question might be, was the conflict resolved? Technically, this is not the point. The point is, obey the bible. Follow the biblical process. You can't control the outcome, but you should be willing to go the distance. The conflict was not resolved, but the offended party DID go the distance. The offending party now bears ALL the responsibility for the unresolved conflict because they refused to hear the offended party, before the witnesses AND the church.

Nell

[Nell]

Matthew 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.
25 Reach agreement quickly with your accuser while on the way to court, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the warden, and you will be thrown into prison.
26 I tell you the truth, you will never get out of there until you have paid the last penny!

Again, don't get bogged down in the weeds. Is the point to define what is "the altar" or is the point to be reconciled with your brother? Since today's Christians may not physically take a gift to an altar, it could be understood that "before you pray" clear up the offenses you know about. If your brother has something against you and you know about it, go to him. Clear it up.

The point of vv. 23-24 is in verse 25 seems to be: Reach agreement quickly with your accuser, before you become involved with the civil court system.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

There is a huge bog regarding the practice of these verses on biblical conflict resolution. It's so big that biblical conflict resolution is at a virtual standstill. When believers argue about "who is the church," the whole matter goes off the rails. The goal is conflict resolution, and not getting trapped in the weeds of "who is the church." There is no shortage of members of the church. The church is the Lord's Body. We are all qualified to hear a matter of conflict among our brothers, but there is a practical answer to the question: Who do you tell?

It seems the goal of Evangelical and so many others connected to LSM is to eliminate reconciliation and much righteousness by pretending there is no church, based upon their own false criteria for the church of God.