Does 2 Peter 2's warning of false teachers describe Witness Lee?

[bearbear]

2 Peter 2:2a "Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality."

The Blended Brothers who are carrying the mantle of Witness Lee's teaching and living shamelessly lie and slander folks like Steve Issit and others who have brought to light the history of their iniquity.

2b "And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered."

Many who leave the LRC end up disowning their Christian faith altogether because of LSM's misrepresentation of what Christian fruit should look like.

3 "In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed."

Witness Lee shamelessly solicited investments and donations for DayStar and he made false promises that the investments would be solid because they had the Lord's annointing.

In his recorded phone conversation with Sal Benoit, Witness Lee showed that he clearly knew what he was doing by setting up the money laundering operation via Phosphorus which ensured he would never lose money at the expense of the saints who poured their life savings into his operation

[bearbear]

2 Peter 2:12
"These false teachers are like unthinking animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed. They scoff at things they do not understand, and like animals, they will be destroyed."

Witness Lee scoffed at a lot of biblical teaching found in "Christianity". There are too many to name here so I'll just point out one. He laughed at the conventionally accepted view of the trinity as three distinct persons who are not each other, but are God and therefore one. He insisted that his own preposterous view was the correct one-- in which Jesus became the Holy Spirit and the whole Triune God had to go through a process and become flesh.

13 "Their destruction is their reward for the harm they have done. They love to indulge in evil pleasures in broad daylight. They are a disgrace and a stain among you. They delight in deception even as they eat with you in your fellowship meals."

With little apology, in regards to the DayStar debacle, Witness Lee said "the saints lost their virginity" - e.g. he had raped them spiritually and financially and they should have expected it. Does this sound like words that would come from a man of God? or someone who is being influenced by evil spirits?

He shamelessly covered up his own son's sexual immorality and defended them even when he admitted what they were doing was wrong to John Ingalls and many others.

He did all this shamelessly while eating with the same people he was sinning against in LRC's love feasts.

14 "They commit adultery with their eyes, and their desire for sin is never satisfied. They lure unstable people into sin, and they are well trained in greed. They live under God's curse."

Many reported Witness Lee becoming altogether a different person when he would come and do his pitch for DayStar. It sounds like he was possessed by a spirit of greed who manifested himself whenever WLee obeyed this lust. Not only did he lead many otherwise honest saints into sin via depression and anger when the whole DayStar debacle blew up, but he also tempted everyone under him with sycophantic tendencies to sin by selling out the righteous co-workers such as John So, John Ingalls et al. in order to bring themselves up in the LSM hierarchy.

[bearbear]

2 Peter 2:15-16
They have wandered off the right road and followed the footsteps of Balaam son of Beor, who loved to earn money by doing wrong.

Balaam was torn between serving God and money. He ultimately chose money to his own destruction when he taught Balak how to tempt the children of Israel to worship idols and commit sexual immorality. Witness Lee may have genuinely been torn between serving God and money via DayStar. He ultimately chose the latter based on his actions (money laundering, selling out the saints who lost their investments etc). Witness Lee may have taught some good biblical things, but so did Balaam when he blessed the Israelites, but look where he ended up in the end.

Jesus taught us to judge a tree by its fruit. It's evident from this analysis that Witness Lee's tree bore bad fruit, therefore he should not be thought of as someone who represents God and bears his name.

In John 14, Jesus clearly lays out two conditions for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. First is that we must obey God and the second is we must love Him. When someone lives in unrepentant sin it shows that they neither love or obey God, hence they do not have the Holy Spirit in them and cannot be considered a good tree. The source of the bad tree is Satan himself, therefore he deserves the blame for the sad history of the LRC and not Jesus, our precious Saviour who laid up his life for us.

Sorry if I sounded really harsh on Witness Lee, and I'm open to correction if I have not been accurate with this assessment. I would also try to encourage all of us including myself to let all the bitterness go and forgive everyone who hurt us, looking at the Author and Perfecter of our faith in all of this. My point is in trying to expose the works of Satan so that God's name would not be associated with Witness Lee's works.

Ephesians 5:11
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The Blended Brothers who are carrying the mantle of Witness Lee's teaching and living shamelessly lie and slander folks like Steve Issit and others who have brought to light the history of their iniquity.

To my awareness, there has never been any repentance and asking of forgiveness for what has been in print (against John Ingalls) or what has been spoken (against Steve Isitt among many others). Steve Isitt in particular Ron Kangas singled out at an international conference.

"One of the most evil of these persons, his name is Steve Isitt. He is a man of death."

“Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?”

Reading the text does not account for the tone spoken against Steve Isitt. It can be heard at
http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audi...servidores.mp3

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
2 Peter 1:5-9

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Terry

To my awareness, there has never been any repentance and asking of forgiveness for what has been in print (against John Ingalls) or what has been spoken (against Steve Isitt among many others). Steve Isitt in particular Ron Kangas singled out at an international conference.

Doesn't this situation remind you of Pharoah? The more Moses tried to bring Pharaoh to repentance, the more he hardened his heart. Because he could not yield to his pride, Pharaoh's end was a baptism of death in the red sea.

One sign of someone being a child of God is not that he is perfect or sinless but that he is able to turn and repent when the Holy Spirit convicts him. With all this said, I acknowledge that it's possible Witness Lee's repentance at the end of his life was accepted by our merciful God.

But we have to face the reality that this repentance didn't bring any real change to the movement. The idol LSM has set up is Witness Lee pre-repentance. And it may only be worthwhile analyzing the fruit he bore in his life because he is still alive in spirit to many in the LSM who read his words as if they were canon daily.

[bearbear]

Acts 20:29
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

A sign of a false shepherd is that he is more than willing to slaughter his own sheep to save his own life. This fairly describes what happened to John So, John Ingalls et al who were thrown under the bus when they confronted witness lee.

Jesus showed an example of what a true shepherd would do by laying down his life for the sheep, the exact opposite of the work of a false shepherd. Satan always turns things upside down.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Acts 20:29
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

This fairly describes what happened to John So, John Ingalls et al who were thrown under the bus when they confronted witness lee.

Jesus showed an example of what a true shepherd would do by laying down his life for the sheep, the exact opposite of the work of a false shepherd. Satan always turns things upside down.

This is an excellent observation of Witness Lee's history of dealing with "problems." Lee was willing to sacrifice the "99" in order to save the "one," his own ministry and reputation. Every one of God's sheep was expendable and disposable except for his own profligate son, Philip.

[OBW]

BB,

I follow your premises here quite well. And in the broad view, I believe that we are of mostly a similar mind.

But while there have been few comments back to your posts, let me point out one thing that I expect to bring some push-back. It might be a small point, or not even the main point, but it will be a distractor from your primary thoughts (as I read them).

In your second post, you said:

I believe the value system he set in place is destructive and leading many of his followers to hell whether or not they think they are saved and believe in Jesus.

I honestly believe that this is an overstatement. This is a thought that grows out of the discussion that has already been set aside a few weeks back concerning loss of salvation.

Lee's teachings are quite destructive. They are as insidious as you labeled them. But unlike the thoughts of the moderators of the other forum, who believe that such groups may not even be following the God of the Bible, I think that the problem is that Lee teaches the God of the Bible, but ignores the parts he doesn't like.

He is clear as to the core of the start of salvation, but totally baffled (or at least baffling) as to the path forward from there. He believes and teaches that there is no need to positively do works because he believes that if you have waited long enough for the right amount of "dispensing" it will naturally flow out of you without any conscious effort. And since it does not, then it must not be intended.

Lee exchanged the whole gospel for a cheap gospel that turned up the lexicon of spiritual-sounding mumbo jumbo. That replaced the kind of fruit that the Bible talks about with uplifting meetings. That avoided the world around them (except to find "good material") and turned inward.

But to suggest that the failures of the bankrupt teachings of Lee and the LRC is a path to hell is to bring back the argument we abandoned concerning what is salvation and can you lose it.

I think that the better view is to revisit a passage that Lee so thoroughly destroyed and see the view of the teacher and the followers. (I will start by noting that the outcome for the follower is not mentioned. But here goes.)

In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is continuing his discussion about the teachers that they have been lining up behind and fighting over. Now he keeps making mention of three pretty good ones. But I suspect that these were not the only ones in play. He mentions Peter, Apollos, and himself. At one point he makes a turn in his rhetoric. He refers to the teachers as farmers and builders. And he refers to the Corinthians as the farm and the building.

He then turns back to the teachers and discusses how they might build (continuing with the metaphor of building). Sort of a Three Little Pigs comparison. Straw, sticks, or brick. You know the materials he actually mentions.

Paul does make mention of their foundation in the faith which was Christ. (And while Paul was the one who had brought them that foundation, he is not suggesting that only he could provide it.) Then he talks about how the teachers might build. In the end (on "the day") their work would be tried. In terms of their reward, or lack thereof, the nature of what they built would be the evidence for or against them. The building that met the standard would gain them favor, while the building that did not would cause them loss, but not of salvation.

Now if the building in such a poor manner does not result in the loss of salvation of the builder, do we suppose that those on whom he built are still, nonetheless, lost? It might be easy to confuse the materials with which the teacher built as being the people. But then it would indicate that the materials (wood or stones) are the people rather than what was added to them.

There was a foundation of Christ. That is not burned in the fire. So the core of the believers' faith withstands the fire of the day. However, Paul does not provide any hint as to their fate. But he does not seem excessively concerned about it. At least not within this particular passage. He does provide them a lot of sound advice for moving forward. Things about a sinner, gifts, meetings, the life to come, and other things.

But he never suggests that their status before God is at risk.

Since we are talking about Christians (mostly) I can only accuse Lee of being a purveyor of flammable materials. Outside of the question about those who wandered into a Love Feast, got excited and stood and called "Oh, Lord Jesus" three times then disappeared, I believe that we are talking about people who have the foundation that Paul laid. Even those who started in that tenuous position of simply calling three times, but who stayed and began to mature a little, surely they came to truly believe in the one that they only sort of met by chance when those 9 words were spoken.

- - -

I mainly go through all of that to say that what you said about Lee's casting aside of the truth of "fruit" is very real. And there is a cost to failing in that arena. But your discussion will be hijacked by this one point. Despite my agreement on so much of your argument, I fear you undercut it by returning to send the followers to hell.

Of course, maybe you only meant "hell" as a level of extremes when we compare what our outcome may be (saved, yet as through fire — as mentioned about the teachers) compared with what we are being lulled into believing. If that is the case, then you can ignore what I wrote above. Just note that it might be better to be more direct in your writing. Or spell it out if you want to use such a term in a way other than as perdition.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by OBW

In your second post, you said:
I honestly believe that this is an overstatement. This is a thought that grows out of the discussion that has already been set aside a few weeks back concerning loss of salvation.

Hi OBW, I can see where my statement about Witness Lee leading people to hell would have been confusing and I should have expounded on it, but I was afraid of getting side-tracked.

From a Lordship Salvation + Calvinist's perspective someone who is truly born again and walking in the faith would be bearing good fruit. If someone had no discernment on what is actually good vs bad fruit he'd have no way of testing himself if he is of the faith (2 Cor 13:5) and may therefore be deceiving himself into thinking he is born again preventing him from taking the action of pressing forward in surrendering his whole heart to Jesus.

From an arminianism point of view, the test of good fruit vs bad fruit would effect how someone would make sure he or she is staying on the narrow path that leads to life, and staying in the faith etc.

I lean towards Calvinism, but I respect the Arminianism perspective because both have so many scriptures that support it. I think this topic is beyond the scope of this forum though so I won't delve into it again I like how one pastor who I know who's also in between these views put it: "All I can say is once you get saved, make sure you stay saved!" This would coincide with 2 Peter 1's admonition for us to confirm our calling and election by growing in holiness everyday. This comes by spending time in God's presence and receiving his love, whereby we can blast this love that we have stored up to others through practicing God's word.

Regarding 1 Cor 3, I have some thoughts in regards to that also which I want to share later.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi OBW, I can see where my statement about Witness Lee leading people to hell would have been confusing and I should have expounded on it, but I was afraid of getting side-tracked.

I have found that there are certain types of people that tend to jump to condemning others -- usually disagreeable's -- to hell.

I think hell is a side-track. Take a look at every instance of the word hell in the Bible and tell me with no ambiguity what hell is.

Knock, knock ...
Oh no, it's Jehovah's Witnesses at the door!

I charge out the door saying, "Y'all take the fun out of everything."

JWs : stepping back ... "How do we take the fun out of every thing?"

"Because you don't believe in hell. Now we can't tell people to go to hell. And we just love doing that.

So I can't tell y'all to go to hell. The most I can hope to tell y'all is, "Go be nothing." And that's no fun.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by OBW

BB,

In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is continuing his discussion about the teachers that they have been lining up behind and fighting over. Now he keeps making mention of three pretty good ones. But I suspect that these were not the only ones in play. He mentions Peter, Apollos, and himself. At one point he makes a turn in his rhetoric. He refers to the teachers as farmers and builders. And he refers to the Corinthians as the farm and the building.

He then turns back to the teachers and discusses how they might build (continuing with the metaphor of building). Sort of a Three Little Pigs comparison. Straw, sticks, or brick. You know the materials he actually mentions.

Paul does make mention of their foundation in the faith which was Christ. (And while Paul was the one who had brought them that foundation, he is not suggesting that only he could provide it.) Then he talks about how the teachers might build. In the end (on "the day") their work would be tried. In terms of their reward, or lack thereof, the nature of what they built would be the evidence for or against them. The building that met the standard would gain them favor, while the building that did not would cause them loss, but not of salvation.

Now if the building in such a poor manner does not result in the loss of salvation of the builder, do we suppose that those on whom he built are still, nonetheless, lost? It might be easy to confuse the materials with which the teacher built as being the people. But then it would indicate that the materials (wood or stones) are the people rather than what was added to them.

There was a foundation of Christ. That is not burned in the fire. So the core of the believers' faith withstands the fire of the day. However, Paul does not provide any hint as to their fate. But he does not seem excessively concerned about it. At least not within this particular passage. He does provide them a lot of sound advice for moving forward. Things about a sinner, gifts, meetings, the life to come, and other things.

But he never suggests that their status before God is at risk.

Since we are talking about Christians (mostly) I can only accuse Lee of being a purveyor of flammable materials. Outside of the question about those who wandered into a Love Feast, got excited and stood and called "Oh, Lord Jesus" three times then disappeared, I believe that we are talking about people who have the foundation that Paul laid. Even those who started in that tenuous position of simply calling three times, but who stayed and began to mature a little, surely they came to truly believe in the one that they only sort of met by chance when those 9 words were spoken.
...

My dad said the same things to me when we were discussing 1 Cor 3. I'll just describe my understanding of this matter.

Hebrews 12:29 says God is a consuming fire. Isaiah was the most holy man of Israel, a man who lived in repentance and obeyed the Lord. Yet when he appeared before God's presence he was totally undone simply because he dwellt among sinners.

Isaiah 6:5 ESV
And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

The presence of God is so holy that it seems to have a nature of obliterating everything that is not holy. You get a sense of this when Uzzah laid his hand on the ark of the covenant and got blasted to death because he did not go through the proper consecration rituals laid out in Leviticus (2 Samuel 6).

If God's holiness has this effect on people who are pretty righteous, what effect would it have on mouth professing Christians who say they believe in Jesus, go to church on Sundays, but live like heathens the rest of the week?

In 1 Cor 6:13 Paul says that God will destroy the stomach along with the food that is inside it. He then relates this analogy to the Corinthian believers who may be practicing sexual immorality. This is interesting because earlier in 1 Cor 3:16-17 Paul states that the believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and warns that God will destroy them along with the practice of sin that has defiled it if they don't repent:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Now if Jesus' blood has washed our sins away, not just from a legal standpoint, but also tangibly whereby the power of sin is no longer over us and we are freed from being slaves of sin (Romans 6) whereby we can become slaves to Christ, then we have nothing to worry about because our temples will be clean and spotless. In this case, our temple would pass through God's consuming fire without a problem.

So in the preceding verse 15 Paul is talking about two things getting burned when we are judged: our works and our temples. Our salvation is not based on works, so whether or not our works are burned has no bearing on our status for inheriting eternal life. However whether or not our temples can make it through the fire *DOES* matter for salvation.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Corinthians 6:13
"Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"--and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Regarding works, I believe the only works that will pass through God's fire are those that were born out of faith working through God's love.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

A great story to read on this is Howard Pittman's testimony. He was a baptist preacher who helped raised 32 orphans, preached the gospel etc. but God showed him none of his works would pass through the fire because he did those things to soothe his own conscience and they were not born out of love.

http://www.freechristianteaching.org...#axzz2qJFbbs4h

[Cal]

Originally Posted by bearbear

My dad said the same things to me when we were discussing 1 Cor 3. I'll just describe my understanding of this matter.

Presumably your association of these verses has something to do with the use of the English word "destroy" in them.

However, the words translated "destroy" in 1 Cor 3:17, 1 Cor 6:13 and Matthew 10:28 are actually three completely different Greek words.

In 1 Cor 3:17 the word is phtherei, which means literally "SHALL BE CORRUPTING." The meaning is that if you attempt to corrupt the temple of God you will only succeed in being corrupted yourself.

In 1 Cor 6:13 the Greek word is katargEsei, which literally means "SHALL BE DOWN-UN-ACTING" or, anglicized, "shall be discarding." It implies doing away with something that isn't needed anymore. It isn't about judgment. Food and stomachs will not be needed in the next age.

In Matthew 10:28 the Greek word is apolesai, which this time does directly translate to our English "destroy."

bearbear, I wish you'd worry less about free grace* and more about your free misuse of scripture to back your pet doctrine. Seriously.


* All grace is free, by definition. So to complain about free grace is to complain about grace itself. Mocking free grace makes as much sense as mocking wet water.

This reminds me of Calvinists who argue (cleverly they think) that "free will" is not found in the Bible. Well, duh. Will is not will unless it's free. If it's not free it's programming, not will. Likewise grace isn't grace unless it's free. Let's try to keep things straight.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that Lee teaches the God of the Bible, but ignores the parts he doesn't like.

This has been my sense too. Especially when it comes to the Life-Studies. Hardly authoritative or comprehensive. When tested, the Life-Studies are a prime example of parts of the Bible he didn't like were left out.
Wit many local churches being currently based on the person and work of Witness Lee, LSM ignores parts of Lee's ministry they don't like.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Terry

This has been my sense too. Especially when it comes to the Life-Studies. Hardly authoritative or comprehensive. When tested, the Life-Studies are a prime example of parts of the Bible he didn't like were left out.

Indeed, and it was worse than just the parts he didn't like. I think all preachers have pet philosophies, ideas and theses they like or avoid, and this should be welcomed in a diverse faith community; if this was all Lee was doing, espousing his different view, then fine, his books would have likely earned a place on many a Christian or spiritual bookshelf…. but, with Lee, there is more to the LifeStudy than this.

The whole ministry had a hidden agenda, a self-perpetuating sales agenda which was engineered into every volume produced. In LifeStudy it seeped from every page: get the young ones in, keep them controlled, organize sisters and brothers, get their money, don't let them give it to charity; LifeStudy is not ministry material but propaganda, an instruction manual.

There is no place for this in spiritual books - if the author has an agenda, it becomes worthless or worse.

What value there was in Nee's theology, Lee poisoned it in trying to make the books serve his purpose. And it's difficult to see where the poison ends and the clear water begins, so stirred up has it been over a couple more generations of cult members spreading the word. LifeStudy is some of the ugliest propaganda you will read and it pained me it was the only reading allowed at the Church in Hong Kong.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Acts 20:29
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

A sign of a false shepherd is that he is more than willing to slaughter his own sheep to save his own life. This fairly describes what happened to John So, John Ingalls et al who were thrown under the bus when they confronted witness lee.

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. 3 John 1:9-10

Growing up in the local churches it was Max Rapoport who was likened to Diotrephes (who loved to be first). Now when taking more than just a phrase into context I realize who the type of Diotrepehes really was.
For Lee's sake brothers were quarantined. These quarantined brothers were "unjustly" accused "with wicked words". Brothers and sisters were warned not to receive quarantined brothers. What became of those that did? Were they set aside from fellowship?