The Wisdom of Witness Lee

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You enter this thread as a Witness Lee apologist saying 'look here, not over there. He might have said that, but he meant this.'

Strong critics of Witness Lee were Ron Rhodes and Norman Geisler. Interested parties should read this.

Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church - A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/applying-a-double-standard-with-regard-to-criticism-of-the-roman-catholic-church/

A sample of it is below.

The subject matter to which Geisler and Rhodes so strongly object consists primarily of a few words and short phrases stripped from the context of Practice.4 They combined these selected phrases with their running editorial comments to present an extremely sensationalized, unbalanced, and inaccurate view of Witness Lee’s teaching. Furthermore, it is evident that their criticism is an exercise in hypocrisy in light of:

The strong criticism of the RCC by both the Reformers and their successors;
Ascription of similar evils to the RCC by Ron Rhodes;
Criticism of Roman Catholicism by Norman Geisler; and
Strong statements about the RCC by allies of Geisler and Rhodes.
Not only have Geisler and Rhodes treated Witness Lee’s words unfairly by cobbling together a series of out-of-context fragments, but on the basic issue of criticism of the RCC, they have applied a blatant double standard.

Witness Lee’s criticism of the RCC is often much less harsh than the criticism of Protestant teachers from the Reformation until the present time.5 One of the earliest writings of Martin Luther after he took a stand against the RCC was the treatise “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” The title alone equates the RCC with Babylon, an idea that Geisler and Rhodes apparently reject as harsh, regrettable, and slanderous. In this treatise, Luther says:

But after hearing and reading the super-subtle subtleties of these coxcombs, with which they so adroitly prop up their idol (for my mind is not altogether unteachable in these matters), I now know for certain that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod…6

Luther purposely used “coxcombs” as a derogatory term to portray his opponents as those who pretended to rank and authority. The “idol” Luther referred to was the Pope himself. Here, and in many other places, Luther’s criticism of the RCC was much stronger than Witness Lee’s. Luther said that if the Antichrist himself were pope, he could add nothing to Rome’s wickedness, stated that the RCC was “a licentious den of thieves … the most shameful of all brothels” and surmised that the RCC deserved to have Satan as its pope.7 Luther was not alone in speaking so strongly. Luther was joined by John Calvin, John Knox, and John Wesley.8 Yet Geisler and Rhodes have not attacked these teachers as slanderous and libelous. In fact, Rhodes uses Luther and his criticism of the RCC as a positive example to rouse today’s believers to stand up for the truth of the gospel:

As Christians, we are called to contend for the faith by “telling it like it is.” Look at it this way: Would we have had a Reformation if Martin Luther hadn’t told it like it was to the Roman Catholic church? No, we wouldn’t. Luther saw a deviation from “the faith” and he accordingly contended for the faith. We must follow Luther’s example.9

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You enter this thread as a Witness Lee apologist saying 'look here, not over there. He might have said that, but he meant this.'

No I don't say that it may not have had that meaning.
You desperately WANT it to have that meaning, obviously.

I said I KNOW that that is not what he meant. Ie. [i] " All in present day Ca ...[text shortened]... to pretend you're an expert. Further arguments on this point I regard as your face saving measures.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

One liners of stubborn intransigence - are not a good sign for confidence in your view.

More on Norman Geisler's double standard.

Before, I might add that otherwise trying to criticize Witness Lee, in years past I read helpful books on Christian themes by Geisler which I still have in my library for reference today.

In answering the question of whether or not the RCC is a false church, Geisler wrote, somewhat equivocally:

But is the Roman Catholic Church a false church? If Rome is judged by the standard of the fourteen (or sixteen) salvation essentials embodied in the creeds of the first five centuries, the answer is no. In this case, Rome is a true church with significant error. If judged by the standards of the Protestant Reformation, however, the answer is yes. In this case, Rome is a false church with significant truth.17

One is left to wonder both how Geisler would answer this question for himself and what would be his answer if the standard was the Bible rather than the creeds. Unable or unwilling to answer this question unequivocally, Geisler18 further states, “Therefore, Rome has ‘practical heresy’ if not both practical and doctrinal heresy.”19 Finally, Geisler concludes:

Current Roman Catholicism in general is a combination of four factors: (1) a basic Christian doctrinal core, (2) a Roman hierarchical structure (borrowed from the dying Roman Empire), (3) a Jewish ritualistic form (borrowed from the Old Testament), and (4) significant pagan content and practices. Depending on the time and place, one or more of these factors may dominate. Thus, depending on the critic’s focus, one may get widely divergent conclusions about Roman Catholicism ranging from Christian to cult. To borrow the title of Jaroslav Pelikan’s excellent tome, this is “the riddle of Roman Catholicism.”20

Strong critics of Witness Lee are John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Below the example of their double standard that John Weldon does not apply to himself as a critic of the Roman Catholic Church.

My bolding -
…[S]uch stories are anything but uncommon. But if so, the Catholic Church must be seen as a genuine hindrance to the cause of Christ.25

Witness Lee said that God's purpose for the church is hindered by the RCC (and Protestantism). And John Weldon his fierce critic said the same but acts as if he didn't

John Ankerberg and John Weldon

Ankerberg and his former long-time researcher John Weldon published many statements stridently criticizing the RCC and accusing it of occult involvement. Without equivocation, they take the position that the RCC is not merely an errant Christian religion; it is simply not a Christian religion:

Now consider Roman Catholicism. The fact that it accepts many Christian doctrines is irrelevant. That it teaches salvation by works proves that it is not a Christian religion.23

So how do we finally assess Roman Catholicism? We can only evaluate it by the Bible and Rome’s own claims. In such light then should Roman Catholicism really be classified as the one true Church? Should it even be classified as Christian? No. Roman Catholicism is not the true Church and it is not even a Christian religion.24

Following a testimony of Weldon’s own experience as a Catholic, Ankerberg and Weldon conclude:

…[S]uch stories are anything but uncommon. But if so, the Catholic Church must be seen as a genuine hindrance to the cause of Christ.25

Conclusions from Six-year Primary Research Project by CRI and AIA

YouTube?list=PL793DA547CA28A410

Only religious cult members defend their human leaders to level of die-on-the-swordism.

@sonship said

One liners of stubborn intransigence - are not a good sign for confidence in your view.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In 5 years here I have never heard you use the word intransigence. However, a day or two after I fire it in your direction it suddenly becomes part of your linguistical arsenal.

At least I am teaching you something. It's a start, I guess.

@divegeester

Only religious cult members defend their human leaders to level of die-on-the-swordism.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In 5 years here I have never heard you use the word intransigence. However, a day or two after I fire it in your direction it suddenly becomes part of your linguistical arsenal.

At least I am teaching you something. It's a start, I guess.

That I used intransigence is easy to explain. I saw you use it and thought, "My, that is j ...[text shortened]... is that it expresses what needs to be expressed. Kudos to you for using it before I did. No problem.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

In reality my use of 'intransigence' hit the mark and precipitated the rebound.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Only religious cult members defend their human leaders to level of die-on-the-swordism.

You are suggesting that I regard Witness Lee or Watchman Nee as infallible which I do not. And which they ALSO did not.

You say a lot of stupid things, did you know?

My bolding.

Testimony by, Katie Higashi.

My Coming into the Church Life, studying at the FTTA, and Serving with the Students
L2Hby L2HOctober 7, 2019
Facebook172LinkedInTwitterEmailPinterestMore1
From a young age I had the realization deep within that the Lord was coming back soon, but I felt that I had no way to really know the Lord personally and prepare for His coming even though I was already a Christian. Testimony: My Coming into the Church Life, studying at the FTTA, and Serving with the Students

I grew up in a denomination that was not clear on the truth. They believed that you could lose your salvation. They also believed that you had to meet with them, be baptized by them, and follow all their requirements in order to be saved at the end of your life.

But by God’s mercy I came into the Lord’s recovery in college! That is, the Lord’s recovery of the truth, recovery of the experience of Christ, and recovery of the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ.

From a young age I had the realization deep within that the Lord was coming back soon, but I felt that I had no way to really know the Lord personally and prepare for His coming even though I was already a Christian.

In college a friend invited me to a small group home gathering with the local church in Fairborn, Ohio. I was amazed during this gathering, because I had never seen a group of Christians who so genuinely loved and enjoyed the Lord. I was also inspired, because I knew that this was the kind of Christian I wanted to be. I wanted the Lord to be as real to me as He was to them.

Later, after spending more time with them, I saw a deep longing in them for the Lord’s second coming because of their genuine love for Him. I knew if I wanted to grow as a normal Christian I had to join myself to them.

Throughout my time with them in college I received so much human love and care as well as spiritual shepherding. I had the sense of coming home to my divine family. Through their shepherding, I began to have a personal relationship with the Lord and read the Bible for the first time.

I began to become clear on the truth in the Word, including the truth concerning the church. I became clear from the Word that there is just one Body of Christ and as long as you are regenerated you are a part of this Body!

Whether you meet with the local church or a denomination, you are in the one Body of Christ. Once you are regenerated your salvation is eternal and you are always a member of the Body. When we sin, there is the blood of Jesus!

I also witnessed the practical keeping the oneness of the Body of Christ through the way the local churches meet.

For the first time in my life the Lord was real to me and I was experiencing Him. I finally felt that I had the chance to be ready to meet the Lord face to face one day and began to love His appearing.

Not only was I personally becoming ready, I became clear that the Lord has a need, a desire, and a deep longing for His Body to grow, mature, and be built up, which will prepare His bride and usher in His return. My Christian life became full of purpose and vision: it was no longer for my own satisfaction, but to satisfy the Lord’s need.