Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As for denying one's self. It does not take place in a vacuum or without context. Doing so is always in the context of obeying God. That's why I said denying the self is really just obeying the Spirit. ......So it's relative to obedience. It's not an absolute.

Igzy, there is nuance in the above statement. For instance, on the one hand anyone who has experienced the Lord's leading knows we must obey the Spirit. Yet, on the other hand we have His commandments in the Word. Obedience to God is absolute even if the the circumstances are variable. When the self, the old man, is self-assessing, his assessment is unreliable. Only God's assessment is reliable. Therefore, concerning the old man:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:6

Originally Posted by Igzy

...All his talk about the "self" and the "soul" and the "old man" and the "natural man" and the "self life" and all that was just him acting like he knew what he was talking about when he really didn't.

Forget about that! That is not a scriptural argument. What does the Bible say?

7"For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him."

We experience God's full salvation in His death we, our self, were included in that death.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

Originally Posted by Igzy

God loves himself. We are in the image of God. So at some level we should love ourselves, too. And there is no way you could love others, or really care about anything good, if you don't love yourself.

Yes, we were created in the image of God. All men are created in the image of God. Does that mean that all men should love themselves because they are created in the image of God? No, of course not. An unbeliever could take your teaching above and apply it to themselves. BUT...

...MAN FELL.

Once man fell death reigned from Adam to Moses. Sin and death reigned from Moses to Christ. Man became flesh (Gen 6). Man became incapable of expressing and representing God. Only the Lord Jesus expresses God according to His original purpose in His image. Therefore, only His love is qualified to love God, love others, and love the brothers. There is nothing in the Word that says we should love ourselves. The logic of your teaching...

we are in image of God + God loves Himself = we love should ourselves

....does not factor in the fall of man after man was created in the image of God. The significance of baptism is that man is only worthy to stand in the position of death. That includes the self, the old man as the scripture states above.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, there is nuance in the above statement. ... the position of death. That includes the self, the old man as the scripture states above.

Drake

Whatever, Drake. You have your opinion. I have mine. As I've said, be more honest about the abuses of "the Recovery," and you might have some weight with me. Until then, later...

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whatever, Drake. You have your opinion. I have mine. As I've said, be more honest about the abuses of "the Recovery," and you might have some weight with me. Until then, later...

Igzy,

I am honest about what I know, what I think, and what I believe.

but...umm, let's see... in the above...

You are saying that if I say things that you want to hear, things you deem "honest", then and only then will you make a scriptural case for YOUR erroneous teachings.

You know, in an odd way I'm okay with that Igzy.

You see, I will make a best effort to persuade you and others against unbiblical teachings you are promoting here but if your criterion to consider my point of view and for you to make your own compelling case means I must yield my free will, dismiss my beliefs, and conform to YOURS... well then friend, I will not accept your terms, now or ever. Nevertheless, I will stand for the truth of God's Word whether you meet me on that basis or not.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

for you to make your own compelling case means I must yield my free will, dismiss my beliefs, and conform to YOURS.

Drake,

You don't have to do anything. But if you want the respect of people here then somehow you are going to have to learn the difference between being dogmatic and being convincing.

Also you are going to have to learn to come down off Mt. Olympus and join the rest of the human race that doesn't go around saying silly things like their favorite teacher is the minister of the age and their favorite movement is God's unique move. That's wacko, dude.

And you are going to have to figure out that largely the problem is a character issue. Somewhere in the past you bet your farm that if you just back up Lee and this movement to the hilt, come hell or high water, then you are good to go. But the irony is what that has produced in you is duplicity; and what is really scary is maybe you don't even realize it. Everyone else sees your prevarication and hypocrisy. Why can't you see it? Could it be that you really think we are so much in darkness and you are so much in the rarefied light of "the Recovery" that we mistake your godliness for evil? If so, that's wacko, too. I can see the purity in Christ. I don't get the same vibe from you.

And as long as you refuse to admit to the evil your movement has done, I don't trust you as far as I can throw you. As long you are doing the Vladimir Pozner routine, you'll get about as much respect from me as he did.

Believe what you want. Make your case. But I've seen you try and I'm only impressed by your incredibly preternatural hardheadedness, but not much else. And I have the peace to feel that way.

[Kevin]

So much for the cover ups. Why don't simply acknowledge the mistakes in the pasts than pretending that they didn't happen.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So much for the cover ups. Why don't simply acknowledge the mistakes in the pasts than pretending that they didn't happen.

If they admit one thing that will lead to admitting another, and another, and to finally admitting they are just another flawed movement like all the all the rest, and that Lee was just another flawed leader like all the rest, and that "the Recovery" ain't the Recovery and "the move" ain't God's move.

And as the great song goes, they "can't go for that, can't go for that! Nooo! No can do!"

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14G...O0q6GW3vzXCK3a

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well then friend, I will not accept your terms, now or ever. Nevertheless, I will stand for the truth of God's Word whether you meet me on that basis or not.

Well then friend, everyone who knows me knows I respect the word of God. But I am not, nor have I ever been, interested in quibbling over the minutia of scriptural disparity, especially online. I'm a common sense person. I'm not someone like ZNP or Evangelical who love to go around and around day in and day out in never-ending fashion about every detail of disagreement. That's eventually pointless to me. Typed communication online is not suited to sorting those kinds of things out, and you of all people should know that.

I'm a big picture, essence guy. That's why I love verses like Romans 13:8, "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." God's truth is simple. It's about loving others in Christ and building them up. And the Bible makes very clear, if you have eyes to see it, that you cannot love others unless you love yourself (Matt 22:39).

Anyone can see that on the one hand we need to love ourselves, on the other we need to deny ourselves. But that is really the "self" from two different perspectives. First, as a precious creation of God which he loves, and second as a fallen creation that tends to put itself first. Both sides are true and both are valid.

Lee, in yet another spasm of trying to be brilliant but falling flat, decided that "the self" was a bad thing, "the fallen soul." But the Bible never says that, that's his categorization. The self is simply a person in relationship to himself. That relationship can be holy and healthy, or it can be fallen and unhealthy. But wholesale disregarding of "the self" is not God's thought.

I've noticed you have a problem with relating to people in a warm, brotherly fashion. You are rather cold and distant. This is probably because of self-esteem issues, which are no doubt exacerbated by Witness Lee's flawed doctrine of self-loathing and immolation. Self-loathing and self-denial are not the same thing. In fact, I would even argue that you cannot truly deny yourself unless you truly love yourself.

The Bible says, "Love one another in brotherly AFFECTION" (Romans 12:10). You can't love anyone warmly if you don't feel good about yourself. The soul just doesn't work that way. In fact, the soul doesn't really work well in any fashion if it doesn't feel good about itself. That's just a fact.

By the way, Lee taught we should not have AFFECTION for one another, which was clearly contrary to Romans 12:10, and yet another error of his.

I think it's reasonable to make the point that loving oneself and denying oneself are two sides of the same thing. If you want to quibble to make me look bad or because you go into a panicked frenzy when someone disagrees with your idol, Witness Lee, I'm not interested. Maybe you can look up Evangelical and you and he can hunt around for some minutia you disagree on and argue about it till the cows come home. That would be okay with me as long as I don't have to witness it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Anyone can see that on the one hand we need to love ourselves, on the other we need to deny ourselves. But that is really the "self" from two different perspectives. First, as a precious creation of God which he loves, and second as a fallen creation that tends to put itself first. Both sides are true and both are valid.

Sure Igzy. I have no problem with that statement as is.... but then...

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee, in yet another spasm of trying to be brilliant but falling flat, decided that "the self" was a bad thing, "the fallen soul." But the Bible never says that, that's his categorization. The self is simply a person in relationship to himself. That relationship can be holy and healthy, or it can be fallen and unhealthy. But wholesale disregarding of "the self" is not God's thought.

....and here is where we disagree. And this isn't minutia but a very important realization for the believer to serve God. Our self, our old man, everyone's self, old man, was only worthy of crucifixion. That is why our self was crucified on the cross. Sin in the flesh uses the self to carry out its wishes through the body. Therefore Paul writes:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6

That is by making the old man unemployed, through crucifixion, sin no longer had an instrument through which to fulfill its wishes. Only the new life of Christ imparted into the believer can satisfy God's will and God's heart and confine the sin in the flesh and to be without a means to execute its desires. That is why the anything that issues from the self is untrustworthy.... and unworthy.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've noticed you have a problem with relating to people in a warm, brotherly fashion. You are rather cold and distant..

To be frank here Igzy, you're not exactly the poster child for warm brotherly love. I'll yield that I am not either. To my observation, in this forum, I think the ones who come nearest that description would be ZNP and Awareness. I may disagree with them on content but not on their manner toward others in this forum. (Not that they too don't get snippy once in awhile). ;-)

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

....and here is where we disagree. And this isn't minutia but a very important realization for the believer to serve God. Our self, our old man, everyone's self, old man, was only worthy of crucifixion. That is why our self was crucified on the cross. Sin the flesh uses the self to carry out its wishes through the body. Therefore Paul writes:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6

Well, "self" is not necessarily just the "old man." Self can also mean your consciousness of yourself in Christ. I already mentioned that Lee was the one who decided "self" is a bad word. But the fact is, there is an old self and an new self. I realize Lee didn't like that terminology, but that was because he was biased against the word "self." Well, that's his own little word game, and I don't have to play it.

This is where we see where Lee was actually undermining the self-worth of a child of God. By disparaging a person's "self" he was disparaging his self-image, basically disparaging him, which was unhealthy.

If you are going to say the self is our old man, then what shall we call our new man? To me it's the self, too, just in the new creation. It's not like we spend eternity without a self image! We don't become ciphers. We still have a soul, a self-consciousness and a self-image, and so a self. We are going to have some kind of relationship with our selves for eternity. So as Norman Vincent Peale said, "Since you are going to be spending so much time with yourself, you might as well enjoy the relationship!" Lee's ascetic view undermines that healthy relationship. Yeah, we are supposed to deny the bad aspects of our self and live according to the Spirit. Even people in the world understand what self denial is. Why couldn't Lee get it right? Because he was always looking for ways to set himself apart, to the point of error.

Originally Posted by Drake

To be frank here Igzy, you're not exactly the poster child for warm brotherly love.

Oh, I can show you many a post where I am quite warm and brotherly. I just don't tolerate prevarication and disingenuousness very well, especially the serial kind. Neither did Jesus, so I'm in good company. So don't prevaricate or be disingenuous, and I'll be really sweet to you.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you are going to say the self is our old man, then what shall we call our new man? To me it's the self, too, just in the new creation.

Christ is the new man!

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

So... yes... we have still have a soul but the life we live is Christ's life and Christ Himself. The new man has replaced the old man, the self. There is a new sheriff in town so to speak.

And yet, we live this new life by faith. The fact is already accomplished but it becomes real in our experience by faith.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is where we see where Lee was actually undermining the self-worth of a child of God. By disparaging a person's "self" he was disparaging his self-image, basically disparaging him, which was unhealthy.

LC leadership always had issues with self-esteem and self-worth. Here I include WL and TC together, since they were so similar. (Actually JN Darby and W. Nee were the same. All 4 blessed with enormous gifts, and all 4 infected with exaggerated views of themselves.)

This explains why they demanded that all the glory go their way, and their way alone. Both of them demanded that all failed ideas be blamed on others, and they must take credit for all successful ideas. Neither ever "played well with others." Both had to fit within an hierarchical structure. With Lee, only Nee was above him. With TC, only Lee was above him. Neither of them ever had what could be considered real "peers."

Real peers were viewed with suspicion, and targeted with public abuses. Eventually these other brothers (and this list is very long, both in Anaheim and in Cleveland) all decided that they were tired of being treated no better than canines, and decided to depart. Once they left, the general public would be informed of their failures and weaknesses.

It's a shame that Jesus on earth spent so much time training the apostles about this very matter, and those in the "recovery" never got it. That was one teaching that will never be "recovered."