Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

And this is why permitting WL to push this teaching makes you just as culpable as WL. Everyone is without excuse. There is no scriptural basis, even Paul who could be considered a Minister of the Age was balanced by the Body. So condemning WL condemns all who acquiesced to this.

Acquiesce? Can all those who heard this really be condemned?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Acquiesce? Can all those who heard this really be condemned?

Those who knew it was wrong and acquiesced. Not just those who followed.

I find it interesting that there are several instances in scripture in which the typical Christian is described as learning from teachers. Ephesians even differentiates it into apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. And at least one of them indicates that the teachers are the problem. They teach with gold, silver, and precious stones, or with wood, hay, and stubble. And the teacher is proved by fire. Oddly, the ""building" or "farm" upon which the teacher is working was not implicated. For me, this means that when we do not see the error and follow, it is not our problem. It is the teacher's.

So those who "hear" it are not necessarily condemned. But the ones who taught it are. And those who knew better and sat by silently are as well. Those who know better should be those who step up to "refuse" certain teachers. That failure makes them complicit.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

Those who knew it was wrong and acquiesced. Not just those who followed.

I think the applicable verses are

12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

It doesn't say that those who knew not are off the hook, just that they are not held to as high a standard.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find it interesting that there are several instances in scripture in which the typical Christian is described as learning from teachers. Ephesians even differentiates it into apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. And at least one of them indicates that the teachers are the problem. They teach with gold, silver, and precious stones, or with wood, hay, and stubble. And the teacher is proved by fire. Oddly, the ""building" or "farm" upon which the teacher is working was not implicated.

Again, the verse you reference:

3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
More3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

So in this context if the LRC "burns up" WL will suffer loss but he himself will still be saved. But what about those in the LRC? You don't think everyone suffers some sort of loss?

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

For me, this means that when we do not see the error and follow, it is not our problem. It is the teacher's.

So those who "hear" it are not necessarily condemned. But the ones who taught it are. And those who knew better and sat by silently are as well. Those who know better should be those who step up to "refuse" certain teachers. That failure makes them complicit.

It may mean that for you, but it does not appear that Jesus holds the same view.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It seems to me that for you to enter the kingdom of heaven your righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees. He condemns the pharisees for breaking and teaching others to break his commandments. He then says that if "you do and teach them". I don't see Jesus classifying believers into the group that does but doesn't teach. When I read this verse I feel I am required to both do and teach.

Then if you look at 7:15-20 Jesus teaches us how to discern good teachers from bad. This is critical, because according to verses 24-27 Jesus says that those who hear these sayings of his and don't do them he will liken to a fool. So if you want to appear before the judgement seat and say "hey, I'm just a fool" be my guest.


7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it

[OBW]

77150,

My intent was not to give others a complete pass. But the significance is clearly different. It is not simply that sin is sin, error is error, and it is all punished or dealt with equally. There is a significant cost to those who lead others astray and a lesser cost to those who are led astray.

This is something that has been discussed in the past. I erroneously presumed that understanding on a newer member of the forum without really thinking about it.

[77150]

Deuteronomy 11:19 says that Parents are responsible to teach the words of the OT to their children.

I feel many elders in the LRC hid behind WL saying they wouldn't "deviate from the ministry". Yet Biblically I don't believe that absolved them of their responsibility before God. Likewise, anyone in the LRC who had spiritual or physical "children" would also, in my understanding, be responsible. Therefore, based on the verses I have quoted I believe that God holds all of us responsible to teach. It may be that a "new" believer will be held to a far less stringent standard than an elder or someone who is assigned to teach the whole congregation. Still, I see no basis for anyone to absolved of sin merely by blaming WL for teaching error.

The Tabernacle is the missing part of the verdict the reason why the arguments against Witness Lee continues to increase with so much opposition to the messages he delivered. Every Christian needs to gain every word that God instructed Moses regarding the Tabernacle. Every believer needs to see the points specific to Christ and the Church regarding the Tabernacle, especially concerning the gold that overlayed the wood. Every believer needs to seek the Lord in prayer regarding Witness Lee's messages on the life study publication of the book of Exodus on the Tabernacle.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Tabernacle is the missing part of the verdict the reason why the arguments against Witness Lee continues to increase with so much opposition to the messages he delivered. Every Christian needs . .

Right. Even though Witness Lee spent 30+ years in the U.S. decrying everyone else as failed and deficient, if anyone else mentions the inadequacies of his ministry, which were extensive, suddenly they're Jannes and Jambres opposing Moses' building. Subjective much?

Then we follow with, "Every Christian needs...." something from the ministry of the age. Read any HWMR book, and all you see is Christians needing this and that, all supplied exclusively by God's oracle in the ministry of the age.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Tabernacle is the missing part of the verdict the reason why the arguments against Witness Lee continues to increase with so much opposition to the messages he delivered. Every Christian needs to gain every word that God instructed Moses regarding the Tabernacle. Every believer needs to see the points specific to Christ and the Church regarding the Tabernacle, especially concerning the gold that overlayed the wood. Every believer needs to seek the Lord in prayer regarding Witness Lee's messages on the life study publication of the book of Exodus on the Tabernacle.

The problem with this is that God instructed Moses with the building of the tabernacle, not the precise meanings of the various parts of it as types and figures. To broadly point to Christ as seen in various parts is more than meaningful. But to take it down to minutia with specific meanings not actually provided in the scripture is to force meaning where none was provided.

This is the legacy of Witness Lee, and Nee before him. They have taken the grand narratives of the scripture and turned them from being lessons and pictures into a code book of hidden meaning. Everything was given detailed descriptions and meanings by Lee. Stones, wood, overlays, coverings, etc. But they are not supported by more than general ideas not otherwise spelled-out anywhere.

And he was so sure about everything he said. It was always presumed to be as precise and true as he spoke it. Like jasper stone being green. Yes, green is one of the colors of jasper. More often red or yellow. The pictures provided show vast amounts that are red, yellow or brown, with a few that are green. Yes, the green ones are quite stunning. But jasper is not primarily some green stone upon which to draw massive quantities of meaning.

Does the presence of badger skin really mean . . . . ?

Is the particular wood overlaid with gold really something remarkably unique? Did other pagans do similar things with their idols and the structure of their temples? Not demeaning the one true God in this. Just questioning the veracity of the "this means that" statements which Lee always engaged in. His ministry was one of precision. But from what source? Were his notions of "fact" any better than casting gold into a fire and getting a calf out of it? "Behold the truth about the God who despises those who do not meet on the ground!!"

And they all merrily shouted "Hallelujah" and danced around the meeting hall with glee. (I realize that this is a little beyond what actually happened, but not by much. I was there for many years and recall the frenzy that occasionally ensued after one of Lee's "revelations" were accepted as fact with no more than his word to support it.)

To listen to a "true believer" within the LRC system, there was never a questionable word that proceeded from the mouth of either Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. But for the rest of us, we approach even the most trusted scholars and teachers with a healthy skepticism. We have to actually see what is being taught found in the Bible. Not just declared to be so. Not shoe-horned in with a lot of clearly true things followed by the bogus.

We may find our teachers to be mostly trustworthy. But it is not simply because they have reputation, but also because we can see it as truth in the Bible. All that stuff that Lee came up with concerning the tabernacle and its "truth" about the church was not from the Bible. It may not have all been original with him or Nee, but it was still conjecture with no solid grounding. (Funny for someone whose primary claim to fame was "ground.")

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

All that stuff that Lee came up with concerning the tabernacle and its "truth" about the church was not from the Bible. It may not have all been original with him or Nee, but it was still conjecture with no solid grounding. (Funny for someone whose primary claim to fame was "ground.")

We'ld get a message based on the Bible and logic. "This shows that" and "this means that." And it would be in the imperative: "We all must see that...", and bracketed with negation: "Not many Christians know that..."

But it was the Bible selected narrowly, captive to a narrow point. And logic used selectively, handmaiden to an argument. Other verses, other logic, other possible readings were ignored. The end result was to paint Lee and his listeners into a proverbial corner. At that point one's only choice was to walk up to the microphone and testify that Lee's logic was impeccable and there couldn't possibly be any other understanding. In all my years I never once saw someone go up to the mic and disagree.

Local church apologists tell us they are broad-minded and receive all, but the very manner of his teachings, esoteric and not common to the faith, presented on absolutist's terms, ensured that the ground was the ministry teaching.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Acquiesce? Can all those who heard this really be condemned?

Once you come to the conclusion that OBW did in Post 225 then yes you are required to speak. If you see a man sinning and do nothing his sin will be on you, if you see a man sinning and rebuke him, then regardless of what he does his sin is no longer accounted to you.