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

[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.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by james73

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 . . .

So true james73. But I can't help but think that since the local church movement was founded by more than a duplicitous Nee, that, he was therefore the fountainhead of where the poison originated. That it was bad from the seed.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by james73

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 irony in all this was Witness Lee wrote and spoke several times that the saints should read his and Watchman Nee's ministry exclusively because he did not want the church to possibly go astray due to their lack of discernment. Who knew that it was Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's own ministries that required tremendous discernment for filtering out the leaven found in their teachings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The irony in all this was Witness Lee wrote and spoke several times that the saints should read his and Watchman Nee's ministry exclusively because he did not want the church to possibly go astray due to their lack of discernment. Who knew that it was Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's own ministries that required tremendous discernment for filtering out the leaven found in their teachings.

Talk about discernment. PriestlyScribe began a thread titled LC's Flawed Basis of Discernment.
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=1153

Furthermore, I read several times on afaithfulword only the blended brothers are "qualified to discern".
It was passed on to me once before a LSM publication from the early 90's where Witness Lee said regarding the late 80's turmoil he has done all the research. There is nothing new to be learned and that it was a closed matter. When I find it, I will post the excerpt.