Various by YP0534

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Welcome to the subjective world of the Cult Busters. "THEY are a CULT because...." some grave error is then discussed.

Everyone has some error; some folks probably have lots. There is a continuum from slightly tinged to fully freighted. But the cult buster has a line drawn in the sand, which has "cult" on one side and "sect" on the other. And each cult buster has their own subjective line.

Hear me out on this:
I think Walter Martin's bit is some of the best work out there from the evangelical perspective. He and his organization really had the idea to protect the sheep from the wolves.

But it's just so naive!

What would make you think that you aren't yourself caught up in your own set of Satan-sponsored religious delusions that color your every thought?

I can't tell you how many sermons I've heard where a proof-text type verse is given in the context of a lovely message but the verse is just turned on its head from its clear meaning. I don't know if anyone else has this experience but then that works as a check upon me. I'm reminded that I'm frequently motivated by sin to do things that again prove how much I need a savior. I might even quote a verse for a point that it is in no way supportive of.

My point is, we all tend to think we're right and have clear vision and it's just natural that we believe so but once you're past the big-time consensus items found in the creeds, you're on really thin ice in believing that you yourself aren't blinded by your own veils when you criticize the veils of another.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Hear me out on this:
I think Walter Martin's bit is some of the best work out there from the evangelical perspective. He and his organization really had the idea to protect the sheep from the wolves.

But it's just so naive!

What would make you think that you aren't yourself caught up in your own set of Satan-sponsored religious delusions that color your every thought?

I hear what you are saying, dear brother YP0534.

Dear brother Walter Martin was definitely very sincere in his motives, but I agree that he and his organization were naive.

I have recently been learning a lot about the "Jesus People" group that had such a bitter relationship with the LC back in the 1970's. There was a lot of animosity on both sides. It seems that ol' brother Walter Martin was used as a pawn in that conflict.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I hear what you are saying, dear brother YP0534.

Dear brother Walter Martin was definitely very sincere in his motives, but I agree that he and his organization were naive.

Part of the reason I don't have any concerns about the recent about-face of some of those researchers. I can still disagree with them about some issues, realizing they are always speaking from an outsider's perspective, but still acknowledge that they now realize they did not understand enough of the story back when they held their former opinions. And I think they were more wrong back then, so it's an improvement in that respect.

That whole Christian scene out in California in that era is a story that hasn't been well told yet, that I'm aware of...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by YP0534

That whole Christian scene out in California in that era is a story that hasn't been well told yet, that I'm aware of...

I think you’re right YP. The problem is it depends on who tells it. Having been raised in So. California and participating in the LC during the time in question, I do have a relevant perspective I think. I was one of the young Local Churchers assigned to call Walter Martin’s talk show and give him a bad time over his criticisms of the teachings and practices of the LC. Though I had a nicely prepared, canned statement that was given to me in advance, it didn’t work out too well for me. To say that I was over-matched would have been an insult to those who have been over-matched. Witness Lee should have stood up for himself and fought his own battles, and not send some punk, smart alec teenagers to do his work for him. I think we all know why he wouldn’t debate Dr. Martin straight up. (and the reasons are not all negatively towards Lee) Also, it was a huge mistake to spend lots of time and money buying full-page, hysterical attack ads in the Orange County Register. It only turned the Christian (and general) public against the LC more then they already were.

Anyway, I just remembered that I’m posting here in your blog and you do have a wider question/issue here and I thinks it’s a real good one. Actually it’s fascinating for me because I was in California at the time.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think you’re right YP. The problem is it depends on who tells it. Having been raised in So. California and participating in the LC during the time in question, I do have a relevant perspective I think. I was one of the young Local Churchers assigned to call Walter Martin’s talk show and give him a bad time over his criticisms of the teachings and practices of the LC. Though I had a nicely prepared, canned statement that was given to me in advance, it didn’t work out too well for me. To say that I was over-matched would have been an insult to those who have been over-matched. Witness Lee should have stood up for himself and fought his own battles, and not send some punk, smart alec teenagers to do his work for him. I think we all know why he wouldn’t debate Dr. Martin straight up. (and the reasons are not all negatively towards Lee) Also, it was a huge mistake to spend lots of time and money buying full-page, hysterical attack ads in the Orange County Register. It only turned the Christian (and general) public against the LC more then they already were.

Anyway, I just remembered that I’m posting here in your blog and you do have a wider question/issue here and I thinks it’s a real good one. Actually it’s fascinating for me because I was in California at the time.

My larger issue is about the "cult-scholarship" in general but I am aware that this is not a mere side-issue. The personalities in play have perhaps EVERYTHING to do with that field. At least, that's the general impression I've been getting.

But I love the fact that these details about refuting the accusations came out! All I knew about was the retraction of their cult-book entry that Thomas Nelson published in the Wall Street Journal at their expense. That a coordinated effort of the kind you describe was attempted is really kind of absurd.

One has to have a broader context than we generally do around here for discussion of some of the bigger-picture items. Whatever your view of Witness Lee and the Local Church, the "cult-researchers" don't come to their task free of their own baggage and if you want to discover "the truth" about what they say, you have to also appreciate why they might be motivated to say the things they do.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was one of the young Local Churchers assigned to call Walter Martin’s talk show and give him a bad time over his criticisms of the teachings and practices of the LC. Though I had a nicely prepared, canned statement that was given to me in advance, it didn’t work out too well for me. To say that I was over-matched would have been an insult to those who have been over-matched.

Not only are they sending young naifs out to do battle instead of themselves standing in the breach, but they give you prepared statements, as if it were really you doing the speaking. What about Jesus' "Do not take thought beforehand, what you shall say, because the Spirit will give you in that hour what you should speak"?

I guess they trusted neither you nor the leading of the Holy Spirit, and had to create the pretense of it instead. How typical.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

they trusted neither you nor the leading of the Holy Spirit

It seemed like such a little thing at the time and it's probably not fair to be too superstitious about what it reveals, but, it definitely opens just a little window into the real spiritual condition of the organization, doesn't it?

Although I felt pretty good about every point contained in the "Beliefs and Practices" pamphlet, I didn't feel so great about there BEING a "Beliefs and Practices" pamphlet.

[YP0534]

1Cr 14:23 If, therefore, the whole assembly comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

14:23 ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις εἰσέλθωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ὅτι μαίνεσθε

I've been interested in this verse for a few days now and thought to post it here.

I recently read something that took a strong position that "scattered saints" who met informally everywhere does not satisfy the New Testament definition of "ekklesia" and that, along the lines of Lee's doctrine derived from Matthew 18, the assembly must be a practical reality with a definite and focused embodiment.

The argument essentially went that Paul must have a place to send an epistle, that if you were to visit a city, there must be a way for you to hook up with the assembly, and that since after you discussed your brother's sin with two or three you then brought the problem before the assembly, the two or three were not legitimately to be considered the assembly but something else must be. The author of this piece actually went further and said some things about God's eternal purpose involving a corporate expression. (For clarity, this author is not and to my knowledge has never been associated with LSM or the Local Church.)

In any event, the verse above immediately came to mind. I thought the formulation "whole assembly" also occurred in Ephesians somewhere but I was apparently mistaken. This one is good enough for my purposes at present.

Here is the question I pose:
If the assembly is all the believers in a place, isn't it redundant to use the phrase "whole assembly"? The fact that Paul uses the word "whole" here implies that the assembly is also found where there is less than the "whole" in one place.

(As an aside in passing, I also note that in Jerusalem the assembly met from house to house, making it very difficult for Paul to have the post office deliver his epistle or for traveling saints to show up at the meeting hall.)

Good enough on that point I think for now. There is at least some evidence that something less than the "whole assembly" might be scripturally recognized as being "the assembly," for whatever that's worth.

But my interest has turned now to this interesting phrase "comes together."

G4905 συνέρχομαι synerchomai

Anyone have any thoughts on this term as I begin to dig into it further?