Attending Different Churches: Divisive attitudes

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can I jump in here and ask about the word "oracle"? It seems we are using the term here to refer to a person, whereas in the Bible I believe it does not use it that way.

Here LSMers equivocate. Officially and doctrinally they will assert that Lee was an oracle of God, a spokesperson for God, one who speaks for God to His People. Privately, internally, they believe Lee alone and Lee uniquely spoke for God, THE Minister of the Age etc., and any other minister, not teaching Lee's own words, is illegitimate.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here LSMers equivocate. Officially and doctrinally they will assert that Lee was an oracle of God, a spokesperson for God, one who speaks for God to His People. Privately, internally, they believe Lee alone and Lee uniquely spoke for God, THE Minister of the Age etc., and any other minister, not teaching Lee's own words, is illegitimate.

Yes, I've definitely seen and heard that!

What I really was after is the use of "oracle" = "a person" or "spokeperson", when it seems to me that Biblically, "oracle" = "the words" or "the speaking". This allows for the cessation of the following of a man if what he is speaking is not of, or is no longer of, God. A person is not the oracle, what he is speaking is. This also removes the infallibility aspect......if someone is an oracle, then how can anything they speak be wrong? But if a man is speaking the oracles of God (i.e. the words of God), then when he is wrong he is simply not speaking the oracles of God.

If we understand a word properly then we can use it correctly. It also removes the grandiose air of oracular mystique around W. Lee.

Does that make sense? Just thinking out loud. I'm just throwing it out there to see how others understand it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, I've definitely seen and heard that!

What I really was after is the use of "oracle" = "a person" or "spokeperson", when it seems to me that Biblically, "oracle" = "the words" or "the speaking". This allows for the cessation of the following of a man if what he is speaking is not of, or is no longer of, God. A person is not the oracle, what he is speaking is. This also removes the infallibility aspect......if someone is an oracle, then how can anything they speak be wrong? But if a man is speaking the oracles of God (i.e. the words of God), then when he is wrong he is simply not speaking the oracles of God.

If we understand a word properly then we can use it correctly. It also removes the grandiose air of oracular mystique around W. Lee.

Does that make sense? Just thinking out loud. I'm just throwing it out there to see how others understand it.

Yes, makes sense. Good catch.

Vine's Expository Dictionary says this:

Oracle, Greek logion, diminutive of logos, "a word, narrative, statement," denotes "a divine response or utterance, an oracle;" it is used of

(a) the contents of Mosaic Law (Acts 7.38)
(b) all the written utterances of God thru OT writers (Rom 3.2)
(c) the substance of Christian doctrine (Heb 5.12)
(d) the utterances of God thru Christian teachers (I Pet 4.11)

In Kittle's Theological Dictionary neither the Pre-Christian use, nor the NT use, nor the usage of the early church allows "logion" to refer to the messenger, the speaker, the minister, etc. This word corruption is never supported by the Bible nor etymology.

Personally, I believe W. Lee stole this adulteration of the Greek work logion from the Exclusive Plymouth Brethren. They were often caught in such anomalies. They regularly excoriated the Roman Pope, yet ignorantly developed their own papal system.

Today the Exclusives are now on their 7th or 8th "Oracle" or "MOTA" going back to J.N. Darby, whom they collectively refer to as "Our Brother." Regardless of the benign-sounding official Titles, the actual position of any single church leader replacing the Head -- Christ -- by leading all the churches, is what we categorically reject.