Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[UntoHim]

You guys are talking past each other and it's getting rather tedious and boring.

No serious student of the NT would ever deny that there was one church per one city back 2,000 years ago. They also didn't have running water or electricity or fancy sound systems or flat screen TVs to display verses and the words to the songs and hymns.

Let's discus these notions in the here and now. Many large metropolitan areas have 100,000+ Christians. The reality of the current situation is that "one church" for any particular large city is not practical. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Local Church of Witness Lee does not even practice one church in one city. Oh, they call the different churches within a city "hall 1", "hall 2" etc. It's a word game that doesn't fool anybody, and it certainly isn't fooling God.

Move on fellows.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No serious student of the NT would ever deny that there was one church per one city back 2,000 years ago. They also didn't have running water or electricity or fancy sound systems or flat screen TVs to display verses and the words to the songs and hymns.
Let's discus these notions in the here and now.

Serious students of the NT weigh in:

I Corinthians 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

Ellicot —

Now I beseech you, brethren.—With these words the Apostle introduces the topic which is indeed one of the chief reasons of his writing this Epistle (see Introduction), viz., the PARTY-SPIRIT existing in the Corinthian Church.

Matthew Henry —

Paul and Apollos both were faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy; but those disposed to be contentious, broke into parties. So liable are the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always endeavoured to stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices against the gospel.

Matthew Henry is very much aligned to Witness Lee’s “Satan’s strategy against the church”. He sees that “Satan has always endeavored to stir up strife among Christians” — so the strife we see today is not unique or new. He saw that the church in Corinth had broken up into parties.

Barnes —

The first of which he had incidentally learned, was that which pertained to the divisions and strifes which had arisen in the church.

Gill —

The apostle having observed the many favours and blessings bestowed on this church, proceeds to take notice of the divisions and contentions which were fomented in it;

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Serious students of the NT weigh in

ZNP, where do one of these writers say, or even suggest, "one church per city"? You and I can be in the same assembly and be factious and divisive. Likewise, the apostle can write the Christian polity in Rome and ask them to greet the 'ekklesia' in one person's house. A factious spirit isn't engendered by different groupings. Jesus had the thousands sit in different groups of hundreds and fifties when He fed them, yet I see no trace of rancorous party spirits arising.

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't really understand what you are asking.

My point has been that the use of Paul's address to "the church in Corinth" could have been a catch all, the Christians in Corinth could have been meeting in multiple homes and meeting halls. Or they could have been meeting together as one large meeting while dividing up into factions and parties. But no one can deny that there were parties in Corinth to the extent that they were denominating themselves as "of Paul" or "of Peter".

I don't think the situation has changed. Today there are many different meetings of Christians, many different denominations, but all of them feel that the book of Corinthians was written to them.

All of the serious Bible expositors agree that there were parties and that this was so serious that it was the primary reason for the letter.

My second point was that Corinth is put forth as a typical church, not a healthy church. Therefore it is reasonable that this situation occurred in other churches, like the 7 churches in the book of Revelation.

[Ohio]

I think ZNP has made an extremely valid point. His point here undercuts LSM's ground of locality. Apostle Paul wrote to Corinth from Ephesus, to an early church divided by ministers, yet he called all of them "the church of God which is in Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints."

We know from Paul's writing that the church was in chaos, separated into factions, not just according to ministers, but also according to who was hungry, who was drunk, who was eating, who could not. Regardless of issues, all believers were part of the "church in Corinth."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't really understand what you are asking.

My point has been that the use of Paul's address to "the church in Corinth" could have been a catch all, the Christians in Corinth could have been meeting in multiple homes and meeting halls. Or they could have been meeting together as one large meeting while dividing up into factions and parties. But no one can deny that there were parties in Corinth to the extent that they were denominating themselves as "of Paul" or "of Peter".

I don't think the situation has changed. Today there are many different meetings of Christians, many different denominations, but all of them feel that the book of Corinthians was written to them.

All of the serious Bible expositors agree that there were parties and that this was so serious that it was the primary reason for the letter.

My second point was that Corinth is put forth as a typical church, not a healthy church. Therefore it is reasonable that this situation occurred in other churches, like the 7 churches in the book of Revelation.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"those who were meeting in groups claiming to be "of Peter" or "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Christ"."

The idea of these sects meeting independently in their own groups is wrong because verse 18 says:

1 Cor 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

1 Cor 11:20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,

Clearly this is speaking of divisions within the one meeting or assembly, so your idea is unbiblical.

This is speaking of factions, parties within the one church in the city, which may mean within the one assembly (see Gill commentary below) or within multiple meetings of the one church in the city. In any case, clearly this speaks of divisions when coming together, which is a situation completely different to today's denominations.

The next logical step would be for these factions, parties to stop meeting with each other, and form the situation we know today of multiple "churches" within the one city. Paul no where proposes meeting independently as a solution to the problem. . Paul no where entertains a notion of "let us agree to disagree and go our separate ways" as is the practice in denominationalism today.


These verses should be plain enough. But let's confirm with some bible commentaries that the situation of multiple denominational meetings within the city is not well supported:

Barnes —
When ye come together in the church - When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word "church" here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a "building." No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.


Gill —
For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1 Corinthians 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1 Corinthians 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:


The bible nor the commentators support your idea of the early church being multiple meetings per city, a city divided into "denominations" like the situation today. Clearly this is speaking of factions/divisions within the one church assembly (or assemblies) within the city. Furthermore, the apostle nowhere proposes separate meetings as a solution to this problem. Nowhere does Paul sanction the idea that those "of Peter" should meet independently from those "of Paul".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of these sects meeting independently in their own groups is wrong because verse 18 says:

That is essentially the way every expositor has interpreted this.

They have also interpreted these parties as the root of denominations, and that includes WL.

But I have a couple of questions.

1. Suppose they didn't have a single meeting place where they all could meet. That seems like a very reasonable question since this is the case today. Would these various meetings be homogenous, or would they separate based on their parties? We already know as Ohio has brought up that their Lord's table meetings were in disarray due to the factions and parties. That is a direct reference to the fact that the divisions were visible in the way they met.

2. If people were subject to parties, factions and divisions, would that have been expressed in the home meetings? Did all those who "were of Paul" meet together in their home meetings? That seems reasonable to me based on my experience in the church and on internet forums.

3. We (every Bible expositor and myself) all agree that the major issue addressed in the epistle to Corinth was the parties and factions, yet we also all agree that the epistle was written to all of them (even those who were denominated based on their pet doctrines and favorite apostles). How is that any different from today? Every Christian, regardless of denomination or pet doctrine, feels this epistle was written to them.

4. When WL says that Corinth is a typical church, just like today, I agree that the "Church in NY" is just like Corinth, it is full of babes in Christ, Christians who are walking like men based on envy and strife. They are denominated based on doctrine, favorite apostles, and wealth. But that doesn't mean that there is a single fellowship meeting in one meeting hall like that, but rather refers to the entire situation in NY when viewed as a whole. So then, do you agree with WL that the church in Corinth is typical to the situation today in NYC in total?

Based on that I am questioning whether the term "the church in Corinth" applied to a single meeting hall address or rather was the way Paul addressed all the Christians in the city as a whole. When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".

[Cal]

Theories of how things were in olden times only take us so far.

The question today is what to do, if anything, about the current situation.

Suppose the answer is that we all should come together. The question becomes how.

The LCM's answer is that everyone should join them, that they are the 'one place' everyone should gather at. This is unreasonable however. Who decided the LCM was the place to be, other than them?

LCM calls to oneness on "the local ground" are disingenuous. Many groups meet as the church in the city. The LCM recognizes none of them that are not subordinate to LSM. Plainly they are interested in oneness based on them, not locality.

So calls to local oneness by such as Evangelical are little more than ways to bash any group not subordinate to the LCM movement.

Read my new signature. Since no group can insist that it is THE place to be, all groups must respect the others as long as they are not blatantly sectarian, and simply having a name and meeting according to one's conscience is not sectarian. We all can lament lacks of unity, but none of us can say that the answer to that is for everyone to join our group. That being the case, continuing to harp about "denominations" is non-productive and in fact sectarian in spirit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is essentially the way every expositor has interpreted this.

They have also interpreted these parties as the root of denominations, and that includes WL.

But I have a couple of questions.

1. Suppose they didn't have a single meeting place where they all could meet. That seems like a very reasonable question since this is the case today. Would these various meetings be homogenous, or would they separate based on their parties? We already know as Ohio has brought up that their Lord's table meetings were in disarray due to the factions and parties. That is a direct reference to the fact that the divisions were visible in the way they met.

In contrast to the idea of different factions meeting separately to others, I believe this is more like an ecumenical church assembly where everyone came together to worship but everyone kept to their "corner of the room".

As Gill's commentary alludes to, if Paul said they could eat however they wanted "in their own homes" and the issues arose when they assembled together, this seems to preclude any notion that they were meeting in separate houses based upon factional preference. These issues were a problem when people of different factions came together for worship.

It is possible that they came together in the one place, as Gill believes, or they came together in multiple locations for practical reasons.

In any case, both of these scenarios seem to rule out separation based upon faction. People of different factions were meeting together and this was when the problems arose.

I would think of it as like Catholics and Protestants meeting together either in one central location in the city, or in various locations around the city. In either case, Paul's words applies.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. If people were subject to parties, factions and divisions, would that have been expressed in the home meetings? Did all those who "were of Paul" meet together in their home meetings? That seems reasonable to me based on my experience in the church and on internet forums.

I have been to ecumenical services before where the Catholics sit on one side and protestants (etc) on the other. I think it would have been like that. I don't believe things had gotten to the point where the different factions would meet separately, for the primary worship at least. Possibly they met together informally based upon faction, but they did not break the tradition of coming together in one place for worship.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. We (every Bible expositor and myself) all agree that the major issue addressed in the epistle to Corinth was the parties and factions, yet we also all agree that the epistle was written to all of them (even those who were denominated based on their pet doctrines and favorite apostles). How is that any different from today? Every Christian, regardless of denomination or pet doctrine, feels this epistle was written to them.

Paul's letter was written to all believers in the city, so I agree with that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

4. When WL says that Corinth is a typical church, just like today, I agree that the "Church in NY" is just like Corinth, it is full of babes in Christ, Christians who are walking like men based on envy and strife. They are denominated based on doctrine, favorite apostles, and wealth. But that doesn't mean that there is a single fellowship meeting in one meeting hall like that, but rather refers to the entire situation in NY when viewed as a whole. So then, do you agree with WL that the church in Corinth is typical to the situation today in NYC in total?

To me it is similar but different. In the time of Paul I believe the factions were not worshiping independently, but becoming denominations would have been the next step. The mistake today is to assume that Paul's words applies to a single denominations/faction, because every church considers itself to be a church and not a sect as they really are, and not to every believer in the city.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Based on that I am questioning whether the term "the church in Corinth" applied to a single meeting hall address or rather was the way Paul addressed all the Christians in the city as a whole. When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".

Suppose those "of Paul" and those "of Peter" and those "of Christ" met independently of each other. Where do the people meet who are not of those factions and wish to follow Paul's instructions? Can't they refer to themselves as "the church in Corinth" ? This is not to present a "better name" but to have no name and meet as the church in the city not aligned with any faction.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of these sects meeting independently in their own groups is wrong because verse 18 says:

1 Cor 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

1 Cor 11:20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,

Clearly this is speaking of divisions within the one meeting or assembly, so your idea is unbiblical.

This is speaking of factions, parties within the one church in the city, which may mean within the one assembly (see Gill commentary below) or within multiple meetings of the one church in the city. In any case, clearly this speaks of divisions when coming together, which is a situation completely different to today's denominations.

The next logical step would be for these factions, parties to stop meeting with each other, and form the situation we know today of multiple "churches" within the one city. Paul no where proposes meeting independently as a solution to the problem. . Paul no where entertains a notion of "let us agree to disagree and go our separate ways" as is the practice in denominationalism today.


These verses should be plain enough. But let's confirm with some bible commentaries that the situation of multiple denominational meetings within the city is not well supported:

Barnes —
When ye come together in the church - When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word "church" here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a "building." No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.


Gill —
For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1 Corinthians 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1 Corinthians 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:


The bible nor the commentators support your idea of the early church being multiple meetings per city, a city divided into "denominations" like the situation today. Clearly this is speaking of factions/divisions within the one church assembly (or assemblies) within the city. Furthermore, the apostle nowhere proposes separate meetings as a solution to this problem. Nowhere does Paul sanction the idea that those "of Peter" should meet independently from those "of Paul".

But you are starting with a presumption of what constitutes the whole church (assembly). You presume that for Corinth, or any other city, that there can be only one such assembly.

But even your commentators do not say that there cannot be multiple assemblies. They only say that when the members of a single assembly meet together that there was this problem. It is the extra-biblical teachings of the LRC that you are presuming on top of the commentators to declare that this means all the Christians in a city must be part of that one assembly. Paul was writing to deal with a problem of acrimony, not of ecclesiology. Those who meet together should not have such acrimony. Paul did not ever say that no one should have a preference of teacher. His complaint was that they were fighting about it. The current environment of assemblies, whether independent or grouped, is not general with the kind of acrimony that Paul was speaking to in Corinth. I know you can point to certain exceptions. Like the Westboro Baptist Church. And there are issues of teaching that are discussed openly. Especially related to the teachings of a prosperity gospel. But even those generally are not like what Paul was pointing to in Corinth.

If it doesn't fit . . . .

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But you are starting with a presumption of what constitutes the whole church (assembly). You presume that for Corinth, or any other city, that there can be only one such assembly.

But even your commentators do not say that there cannot be multiple assemblies. They only say that when the members of a single assembly meet together that there was this problem. It is the extra-biblical teachings of the LRC that you are presuming on top of the commentators to declare that this means all the Christians in a city must be part of that one assembly. Paul was writing to deal with a problem of acrimony, not of ecclesiology. Those who meet together should not have such acrimony. Paul did not ever say that no one should have a preference of teacher. His complaint was that they were fighting about it. The current environment of assemblies, whether independent or grouped, is not general with the kind of acrimony that Paul was speaking to in Corinth. I know you can point to certain exceptions. Like the Westboro Baptist Church. And there are issues of teaching that are discussed openly. Especially related to the teachings of a prosperity gospel. But even those generally are not like what Paul was pointing to in Corinth.

If it doesn't fit . . . .

It is clear from the text that the divisions arose when they assembled together.

Either this occurred when they all assembled in the one place (most likely), or they assembled in various meeting homes across the city.

Consider Gill's commentary, where he distinguishes the "one place" common assembly from their own houses, indicating that these issues were not when they were scattered into their own places of worship, but in a one common assembly.

Gill —
For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1 Corinthians 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1 Corinthians 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:


An idea that they met independently based upon whom they were "of" is not supported by the text.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".

Somehow we've gone from believing into Jesus Christ, and being saved thereby, to matters of organisation.

It might be profitable to step back from Paul, and go to Jesus. When Jesus taught the 12, there were factions. Each was striving for pride of place. Jesus taught, by contrast, to take the least place. So there were already "divisions" there on the ground of oneness, because the divisions came from within. Pride, envy, strivings, ignorance, prejudice, fear, anger.

My question is, if this happened right in front of Jesus, with 12 committed disciples, why wouldn't it also happen in Corinth and elsewhere? And why should some better organisational template or nomenclature cure all that, and bring us to, "Here where we're dwelling in oneness/God commands life evermore" (Hymns, 1221)? What kind of a spell did we fall under?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think the situation has changed. Today there are many different meetings of Christians, many different denominations, but all of them feel that the book of Corinthians was written to them.

My experience is that, for the most part, the denominations, while disagreeing about certain doctrines, do not have the acrimony or rancor that the "single" church in Corinth displayed. We are allowing an overlay that insists that differences of opinion cannot exist and still have relative harmony.

There are surely times when there are "blow-ups." Such as when a particular church splits. That is seldom a cordial parting of the ways. But I have even seen where a couple was asked to leave because the wife was causing problems with other women over her dislike of the way the women's ministry was being run. They were not excommunicated. They were not barred from being there at various times. My wife I and I saw the man just the other day in a restaurant. But there was a disharmony that was a problem for the church yet way short of being worthy of excommunication. They simply began to attend another church where they were able to meet without problem.

The problem that I am seeing more and more with the LRC, and with many of us who came out of it, is that we have learned to focus on the negative with respect to others and make it seem so large that it dwarfs everything else. And for those of us who have left, we look back at the LRC and fault them for all kinds of things related to their efforts to make their internal stances absolutely uniform. While I think they take it way too far (more like way, way, way too far), if the have no stance on anything, then there will be chaos. While I do not know enough about various groups to find two that are almost entirely the same except for one specific doctrinal difference, I will oversimplify for an example.

Imagine an assembly that had many who believed in Calvin's interpretations related to security in salvation, but also many who believed in the teachings of Arminius who interpreted that there was the ability to lose salvation. Seems unlikely. But in a more rural area where there are often only a couple of churches, and one of them is RCC, you could get there if a lot of people moved into the area for retirement and started attending the one non-RCC church. The leadership turns out to be primarily Calvinist, but not entirely. And some who teach, such as in Sunday School, are Arminian. Now we have a problem. The church has conflicting teachings. Neither believes that the other is non-Christian. But it starts to be a problem. Is the answer to vote on which to follow and insist that those who think otherwise simple be silent? At least on that matter? It could work in an environment where those of one belief were few in number.

But what about a growing assembly with a reasonable split in those who follow the two different beliefs? Would separate assemblies so that the environment of teaching is not suffering from various levels of acrimony not be better? Neither is suggesting that the other is not Christian or unsaved. They just seek to meet without the overlay of strife within the assembly related to this issue.

Would you insist that they just get over it and agree? Or that they just get over it and accept that they have divergence in teaching on a subject? As a practical matter, is forcing a single assembly with internal strife a bigger problem with unity than separating the assemblies and allowing them to exist together in a harmony not otherwise attainable? I note that it would be very satisfying for it to work within a single assembly. But if you already have sufficient mass to have more than one assembly, does that not better achieve unity than forcing one assembly that is not in unity?

And before you answer, do not start with the assumption that there should simply be one assembly because that is an overlay created by Lee. Paul's letters clearly reference multiple assemblies within a single place, so that is already a phenomenon that existed without negative comment. Even in Corinth, the problem wasn't that some liked a certain teacher more than others while others like a different teacher better. It was that they were fighting over it. It is tiresome to constantly read references to denominations as if they are as bad as or worse than those factions in Corinth. My observations are that they are not like the factions in Corinth. It is true that they follow certain ways, or doctrines. And that some of them even name their originator (like Luther). But while they do not agree with everything that others teach or believe, they are not generally in a state of agrimony with any of them.