View Full Version : What is God's Economy?
Evangelical
10-30-2016, 12:28 AM
What you say sounds similar to a doctrine that speculates on what might have occurred if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the tree. It goes something like, God's creation was not complete by the 7th day, as man still had to eat the tree of life, but did not quite get there.
But I think mankind could not experience God's saving grace unless mankind was in a fallen condition.
I like this article which explains some reasons why the fall of man was part of God's perfect plan:
https://bible.org/seriespage/5-fall-man-gods-perfect-plan
ZNPaaneah
10-30-2016, 05:07 AM
What you say is a direct contradiction of the fellowship of the apostles. It is a different gospel with a different God.
Evangelical
10-31-2016, 06:19 AM
What you say is a direct contradiction of the fellowship of the apostles. It is a different gospel with a different God.
The fellowship of the apostles according to you, you mean.
What if...
Acts 12:25 " and Barnabas and Saul did turn back out of Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministration, having taken also with [them] John, who was surnamed Mark." (YLT)
Acts 6:1,2 "And in these days, the disciples multiplying, there came a murmuring of the Hellenists at the Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily ministration, and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, `It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables;'"
What if God's economy were the ministration (meaning to dispense, or to minister) to those who lack means to repay in this age? What if man's economy was "Each one for themselves, and the devil take the hindmost" and God's economy was to dispense, or minister, to those very hindmost?
Witness Lee said God's economy was to eat God and become God. He said, God was processed to dispense. . . okay, but what dispensing is cited above, in the NT? That of ones who have something sharing with those who don't. Dorcas made shirts for the widows. Evidently they couldn't pay her, otherwise they wouldn't have wept so copiously when she died. If she'd sold them shirts for profit, it would have been a pecuniary transaction, and the widows would not have wept when their merchant expired. But out of love she poured out her heart for them, and in love she made shirts and tunics for them. She was in God's economy. Her reward was their gratitude. And God was watching. "Are not all my deeds recorded in your book?"
When Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:3,4 not to teach things other than God's economy, he doesn't define God's economy other than that it's "in faith". But look at what repeatedly happened: dispensing, or what Youngs Literal Translation calls 'ministration'. Caring for others through real, actual one-way transactions that have the expected payoff not on earth but in in heaven. In Galatians 2:10 Paul says, "They urged us to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do".
How do we "fulfill the ministration", a la Saul and Barnabas in Acts 12:6? When we see Lazarus lying there, covered in sores and flies, thirsty and broken, do we say, "Sorry Bud, but I'm off to a meeting with the good building material. Be warm and be filled"? Is that God's economy? I don't think so. That's the Kingdom of Self. "That member which lacks is shown the most abundant honour" - how do we show honour to those who lack? By sitting in chairs and pray-reading verses, and then giving one another empty platitudes?
I'm not suggesting that we must give half our possessions to the poor, as Zechaias told Jesus he had done. But there's a pattern there, in Zechaias' testimony, in Barnabas and Saul in Acts 12 and Galatians 2, and of course in Jesus, that of helping others in need. "It is better to give than to receive". This pattern of giving action, of outreach toward those who can't reach back out to us, suggests a picture of God's economy, what it looks like and what it is. It is indeed a dispensing, but not to self. It is a dispensing to the forgotten, lonely, overlooked other. "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me". It is love outpoured.
Just thinking aloud here. But the pattern I see in the NT seems to invite a re-orientation, from self to the neglected other... when you give to those who can't repay you in this age, you do so in faith, in faith that there will be a reward in heaven. This is what Paul referenced - "God's economy, which is in faith". In faith, we can reach out to the unreachable. This is the miracle of God's love. It reached me, and now it wants to keep going.
If you look at the RecV, the word used in Acts 12:26 and 6:1,2 is translated 'dispensing', and the footnote says it's the same as in the gospel passage where angels 'ministered' to Jesus (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11). Evidently it means 'to care for' in some overt way. Oftentimes we use the word 'care' as in emotional attachment, but this is a series of actions flowing out from an emotional connection. It might also be translated, 'tend to' or 'look after'.
So Saul and Barnabas were 'dispensing'... contrast to how the word is used in the LC. There I was trained in what they called 'PSRP' - pray-reading, studying, reciting and prophesying. They would take "words of ministry", i.e. Witness Lee's writings, and speak them to one another, repeatedly. "Amen, processed! Praise the Lord, processed! Hallelujah processed!" That, in the LC, was the 'dispensing', and it was supposed to effect an inward metabolic transformation ("Amen, metabolic! Hallelujah, metabolic!") from humanity to divinity. Quite different from the dispensing done by Saul and Barnabas in Acts 12.
Now, look at Jesus' words.
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
When Jesus said he "needed food" or "needed clothes" he's probably referencing the same situation Saul and Barnabas were addressing in Acts 12. And I doubt it's coincidental.
So I'm looking at two quite distinct ways of 'dispensing': one is gathering in 'meeting halls' and shouting at glassy-eyed acolytes of a certain Bible expositor who ran his own publishing firm and was called the Deputy God and Today's Moses; the other is what is suggested by the patterns of actions in the NT that line up with Jesus' teachings, and example.
Jesus talks of "the least of these" as the focus of the divine economy, but Paul Hon in Anaheim pulled up a strapping young American college student who looked like LA Dodgers pitcher Orel Hershiser, and said, "this is what we want". There were many people there with me, who can attest to my memory. Paul Hon was speaking for his bosses: they wanted Caucasian Americans with earning potential. That was their focus.
Jesus talks of "the least of these" as the focus of the divine economy, but Paul Hon in Anaheim pulled up a strapping young American college student who looked like LA Dodgers pitcher Orel Hershiser, and said, "this is what we want". There were many people there with me, who can attest to my memory. Paul Hon was speaking for his bosses: they wanted Caucasian Americans with earning potential. That was their focus.
Then Jesus said to the man who had invited Him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or brothers or relatives or rich neighbors. Otherwise, they may invite you in return, and you will be repaid. But when you host a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, and you will be blessed. Since they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:12-14
"The servant returned and reported all this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ " Luke 14:21
Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence. 1 Cor 1:26-29
But when you host a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, and you will be blessed. Since they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:13-14
"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them" ~Matt 11:5 This is God's economy, and it requires faith. If you had a restaurant, would you invite in people who had no means to repay you? Look at the banquet Jesus hosted and look at who came. When John the Baptist asked Jesus to give an account of his ministry, this (Matt 11:5) is what Jesus said to characterise himself... this was outreach, God's "high arm" outstretched, to those who could not repay. This was love.
Now by my own definition, my post doesn't constitute outreach, or ministration, or dispensing. But it serves two purposes: it helps me to get free from ones who'd hold us in mental slavery, and it suggests a course of profitable activity. Good enough.
If you look at the RecV, the word used in Acts 12:26 and 6:1,2 is translated 'dispensing', and the footnote says it's the same as in the gospel passage where angels 'ministered' to Jesus (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11). Evidently it means 'to care for' in some overt way. Oftentimes we use the word 'care' as in emotional attachment, but this is a series of actions flowing out from an emotional connection. It might also be translated, 'tend to' or 'look after'.
I read an affirmation of the idea of "look after" via material care, in the epistle "Didache". This epistle is an early witness to the gospels, quoting them extensively and providing commentary.
One comment it gives is on alms-giving. It says that one should be careful to whom one gives gifts. In an analogy of "do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them, and turn and rend you", the Didache says, "When you have alms to give, let them sweat in your palms before you know to whom to give them". In other words, find out who in "God's economy" these are intended for.
Now, in the early days, one merely used the Twelve as a clearing-house. "And they took their possessions, and sold them, and laid them at the feet of the disciples". ~Acts 4:35 Pretty simple. And with Paul, there is continuation: "And they (the apostles in Jerusalem) urged us to continue to remember the poor, which very thing we were eager to do." ~Gal 2:10
Paul's epistles continue the theme. Romans 15:24 I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.
1 Cor 16:1 Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: 2 On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. 3 Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem.…
Not to mention 2 Cor 7 and 8 -- two entire chapters on the subject.
Clearly we can see "God's economy" as a continuation of the pattern in the Gospels: "Lord, we have given up everything to follow you - what will there be for us? ~Matt 19:27; and "The women ministered to Jesus out of their substance" ~Luke 8:3; and "Judas held the [common] purse" ~John 12:6; 13:29 and the [gentile] Magi bringing precious gifts ~Matt 2:11; culminating in "and the nations brought their glory into it (The New Jerusalem") ~Rev 21:24;26.
All this fulfilled the prophetic word by Isaiah that the nations would stream to the Holy Mountain to worship God. ~Isa 2:2; 66:20. Witness Lee stressed teaching God's economy, which is in faith (1 Tim 1:4) but he didn't correctly teach us what God's economy actually was. Notice that Paul didn't delineate what God's economy is - Witness Lee supplies the contents from his own imagination. The complete record of the NT, and its referents in the OT may give a better understanding of "God's economy which is in faith" than "the Last Adam became a life-giving spirit" and "the spirit witnesses with your spirit".
There's a "dispensing" repeatedly shown in the NT, which Lee seemed to take pains to ignore. Perhaps because it conflicted with his version of "dispensing" in his proprietary "God's economy".
There's a "dispensing" repeatedly shown in the NT, which Lee seemed to take pains to ignore. Perhaps because it conflicted with his version of "dispensing" in his proprietary "God's economy".
I cite Didache as a window into "God's economy" because it's a well-attested first/second-century letter which is sub-titled "the teaching of the Twelve to the Nations". It's an early commentary on the apostles' teaching, as valid (or moreso) than a commentary supplied centuries later by Darby or Nee or Lee or Spurgeon or whomever.
Witness Lee properly stressed teaching God's economy which is in faith (1 Tim 1:4), but how do we know it is what he said it was? "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with out spirit"? Is that God's economy?
Didache says, "Let your alms sweat in your palm before you know who to give it to." When the apostles were in Jerusalem, it was simple: give your alms through the Twelve. "And they sold what they had and laid it at the apostles' feet" ~Acts 4:34,35, cf 2:45. And this continued with Paul: "They (the apostles) asked us to continue to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do" ~Gal 2:10
The NT gives another window into "dispensing" and "which is by faith" than the one Witness Lee stressed. You know, masticating the processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature.
Jesus taught, "When you give a feast, invite those who cannot repay you, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous". Luke 14:12-14 This is the dispensing that Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 12, and the Twelve did in Acts 6.
Now look at Paul as he fulfills the Apostle's commission cited in Galatians 2. Romans 15:25 "Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way"
So Paul is repeating the dispensing of Acts 12 and Acts 6.
1 Cor 15: 1 "Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem."
Is alms-giving a "dead work" in the NT? Here's Paul in Acts 24:17 "After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings."
Here is Dorcas in Acts 9:36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor.
Here is Cornelius in Acts 10:3,4 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
Perhaps that's closer to what Paul meant when he wrote to "teach God's economy, which is in faith". Certainly Witness Lee's explanation isn't the only possible one. We just passively accepted it as though it were. First he made us brain-dead by repetitive shouting, then he fed us his home-made theories. I think we should question them, and probe for alternatives.
Didache was written later, when the Twelve were not together in Jerusalem, so it might be harder for the [gentile] recipients scattered abroad to know to whom to give alms. Jerusalem may well have been in ruins by then. So the writer is saying, Hold your alms in your hands, look round, and God will show you how to participate in His economy.
Raptor
07-09-2019, 04:29 PM
The Bible starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.
The Bible starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.Paul writes not to teach other than God's economy, which is in faith. And then the New Jerusalem has 'nations' [Gk: ethnoi] bringing their glory to it... seems to have shades of Solomon indeed.
1 Kings 4:21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon's subjects all his life.
1 Kings 10:25 Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift--articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.
Lee told us that these ethnoi in Rev. 21 weren't Christian believers or Jews but were unbelievers who did good works for 3.5 years. Seems like good works can save you in the NT? Sometimes? That's God's economy?
Raptor
07-09-2019, 06:21 PM
Paul writes not to teach other than God's economy, which is in faith.
The Bible
starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.
Ephesians chapter 1
starts with God, ends with the Church, His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all (New Jerusalem), and in the middle, In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (Jesus Christ crucified)
Continuing post #261, Paul devotes 2 whole chapters, 2 Corinthians 7 and 8, to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Here are the first 4 verses from chapter 7.
"And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people [the Jews]."
It's an interesting meditation on "grace", a word Paul uses frequently in this section. And let's not forget the 2 books written by Paul's traveling companion, Luke. Both his gospel and his acts begin with a preface dedicated to the presumably generous gentile benefactor, the "most excellent Theophilus". All of this gives us a window into God's economy as it was understood by Paul.
More in 2 Cor 7 (vv 13-15): "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: 'The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little' "
And this view was shared by the other apostles, to read Paul's word in Gal 2, and the word-picture painted by John in Revelation 21. Maybe, then, the stories that sprinkle the first few chapters of Acts are not disparate and puzzling anecdotes, unrelated and easily passed over and forgotten, but rather a coherent narrative whole, which lies behind Paul's missionary thrusts. The grumbling of the Hellenist widows in the daily dispensing, the desire of Ananias and his wife to with-hold some of their resources while feigning absoluteness. Luke has a story here.
Now, Witness Lee's ideas may be better than mine, as to what Paul meant in 1 Tim 1:4. But WL's ideas can be challenged and critiqued, same as anyone else's. I read an interesting anecdote on the FB discussion recently. RK was expounding on something, and when someone told him that WL taught different, he said, "Well I'm not the minister of the age". Just like that he renounced his God-given right to think, and to possess his own thoughts. I'd rather not passively receive one man's thought as a replacement for mine.
We're ultimately responsible for not only our behaviours but the thoughts that lie behind them. Trying to understand Paul's thoughts helps us to grapple with our own, and to take full ownership thereof.
But WL's ideas can be challenged and critiqued, same as anyone else's. I read an interesting anecdote on the FB discussion recently. RK was expounding on something, and someone told him that WL taught different, and he said, "Well I'm not the minister of the age". Just like that he renounced his God-given right to think, and to possess his own thoughts.
Yeah, that's the linchpin that holds the whole thing together. The great trump card. "I'm the MOTA. You have to agree with me. Discussion over. Any further talk is rebellion."
If you are in the LR, that's what you have signed up for. That's the deal. Either you like that or you don't. If you don't, leave.
But then they say, you can't leave. At some point you have to stop believing those lies, and turn on your heel. Don't expect those people to understand. That's what it comes down to.
Yeah, that's the linchpin that holds the whole thing together. The great trump card. "I'm the MOTA. You have to agree with me. Discussion over. Any further talk is rebellion."
If you are in the LR, that's what you have signed up for. That's the deal.
In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.
But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.
In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.
But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.
Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. The beauty of it is that if we all are faithful to follow the Lord, then he will tell each of us when someone is speaking the truth. Yet we are all free. No one is controlling.
God never says, "This person is my mouthpiece. Never contradict anything he speaks and always do what he says and I will reward you greatly!" That's the stupidest thing ever, a guaranteed disaster sooner or later.
But that's how the LR thinks. The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing. It's like one of those traps in which the more you struggle the tighter it gets. The more you question it the more it condemns you. It defies all reason to the contrary. People succumb to it out of exhaustion and fear.
If you just think about that one idea, grasp it, you have the LR dilemma in a nutshell.
In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.
But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.
Is not this the real meaning of "fellowship" between God's children? Is not this also the way we grow properly? Is not this also the way the body is "tempered" together.
Raptor
07-10-2019, 11:34 AM
God never says, "This person is my mouthpiece. Never contradict anything he speaks and always do what he says and I will reward you greatly!" That's the stupidest thing ever, a guaranteed disaster sooner or later. But that's how the LR thinks. The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing. It's like one of those traps in which the more you struggle the tighter it gets. The more you question it the more it condemns you. It defies all reason to the contrary. People succumb to it out of exhaustion and fear.
It is so stupid....how can it be so effective? There has to be an evil spirit working behind the scene. It´s a spell, just like in 3:1 "O foolish Galatians....."Who has bewitched you.."
other translations say, ....senseless, stupid, thoughtless Galatians, who...
cast a spell on you
cunningly deceived you
hypnotized you
cast an evil spell on you
put you under a spell
put you under an evil spell
sophistry has bewitched you
There must be spiritual forces of evil, an authority of darkness, maybe even something specific like a "prince of the Recovery". These are deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. Similarly, the same forces behind allowing fornication, adultery and drunkenness to go on unreproved in the name of "life", respecting persons over God, man's word over God's word, and fearing man and not in the fear of God.
There must be spiritual forces of evil, an authority of darkness, maybe even something specific like a "prince of the Recovery". These are deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. Similarly, the same forces behind allowing fornication, adultery and drunkenness to go on unreproved in the name of "life", respecting persons over God, man's word over God's word, and fearing man and not in the fear of God.
Paul said that "God has not given us a Spirit of Fear," yet that is exactly what grips these folks, preventing them from thinking, from voicing their conscience, from comparing the Recovery to the Scripture, from protesting unrighteousness, from expressing opinions, from even dressing a little different.
awareness
07-10-2019, 12:50 PM
The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing.
And the very term "God's Economy" is the hair hiding the hook. It's a brilliant catchphrase. A shinny object. It has an appealing ring to it. But in the end it's hubris. If God does have an economy, isn't it arrogance upon arrogance to claim to be the accountant that can figure it? If it's Gods' only God can figure it.
Just who did Lee think he was?
UntoHim
07-10-2019, 09:23 PM
God’s economy is God’s plan, God’s arrangement, for God to dispense Himself in His element, life, nature, and attributes, and all that He has achieved and attained into His chosen people that they may be rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine. Before receiving God’s dispensing, we were merely human. After God’s rebuilding with the divine constitution we, like the Lord Jesus, become divinely human and humanly divine. Before incarnation Christ was only divine, but after His incarnation He became a God-man, a man with the divine nature. Now He is divinely human, and He is also humanly divine. Having been regenerated by Christ, we have become a part of Him, and now we are the same as He is—divinely human and humanly divine.
(Life-study of Job, pp. 57-58)
I'm not sure when the Life Study of Job was....but whatever happened to "Hallelujah eating Jesus is the way!"? No wonder the Training banners kept getting longer and longer. "rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine"? Wow, I'm out of breath just reading this! Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.
"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.
-
"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical. [/COLOR]
-
Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?
And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?
Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)
The following is a continuation of post #259Is alms-giving a "dead work" in the NT? Here's Paul in Acts 24:17 - "After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings."Matthew 6:2-4 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
I know that giving alms was ignored in the local churches and actively suppressed in the FTTA. But it does fit a pattern of both teaching and practice in the NT, starting in the gospels, as seen above.
The idea is that you give to someone who cannot pay you back, "pay it forward" by faith, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous. "Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven." ~Matthew 6:19-21.
This preserves the giver from being weighted down by earthly cares. "Will not your Father in heaven also clothe you, of so little faith?" And see Zachaeus, who gave half his wealth to the poor -"Salvation has come to this house".
And it also saves the receiver: not just from want, but from thinking that God doesn't care for them. This is the good news: God loves you. God hasn't forgotten you. God's outstretched arm can reach you and save you. If we give a cup of cold water to a thirsty one, in the name of Jesus, it will be remembered.
And it makes the word in Didache timely: "Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands before you know who to give them to." In the Book of Acts it was easy: lay your gift at the apostles' feet. They were a sort of clearing-house for alms (I blame the RecV repeatedly using the word 'dispensing' in Acts for putting me on this path :lol: ).
But today it's not so straightforward regarding how to participate in "God's economy" in this manner, which is why the Didache's advice is so useful.
In Acts 21:20 James is telling Paul about the many thousands of Jews who have believed the resurrection/Messiah-ship of Jesus. When James said, "They're all zealous for the law", Paul didn't exclaim, "No! James! That's not God's economy!" That's what our LC exegete did as he read us the passage in a "training meeting". Everyone chuckled at his theatrics.
But Paul didn't say that, nor did Luke say James' speaking was wrong.
It took me years post-LC to begin to think again, to look at the passages for what they said and not what some Bible expository wished they said.
Let me digress for a moment before I get to my point. Clearly the world, like the universe beyond, is filled with diversity. "All creatures, both great and small, the LORD God made them all." So why were we supposed to become identical mindless automatons in the Robot Factory? Was that supposed to please God? Or, rather, some control freak usurping God?
If a 38 year-old mother of two writes an open letter to the saints in the Lord's recovery, and two months later they have to convene a Special Synod to urge 900 ex-trainees not to look at or discuss the contents of that letter, is that the kingdom of God? Doesn't look very robust, to me. Does God really forbid that anyone should actually read, think, question, speak or write?
Well, it took me years, and this forum helped me immensely. I too could read, think, hold forth ideas. Some might be good, some might be clunkers, but that is what the 'ekklesia' or assembly is for.
So I read the end of Acts, and Paul says, "After many years I came back to Jerusalem, bringing alms for my nation" and I thought, "Hey! Maybe that's God's economy!" I mean, look at how many times in Acts the RecV uses the word 'dispensing' in just this manner. Plus Paul devotes what, 4 separate chapters on the subject. ~2 Cor 7 & 8, 1 Cor 15, Rom 15.
And in Galatians 2:10, when James & co tell Paul to continue to "remember the poor" he doesn't say, "No! That's not God's economy" but he says he's eager to do that very thing. Not just to do it, but to continue doing it. Because it's God's economy" Those who have excess have none left over, and those without do not lack. Again, see 2 Cor 7:13-15.
Sons to Glory!
07-24-2019, 04:38 PM
Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?
And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?
Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)Hear Hear . . . and AMEN!
Love is the missing ingredient, and without love there is nothing.
Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Tim 1:5)
Linking God's economy with love, as Ohio does, is probably important. Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you in this age, and you'll be rewarded in the resurrection of the righteous." To those who ask for a coat, yield your shirt also. And Paul talked a lot about being made poor, so that others might be blessed. Jesus did it, now we do it. In 1 Timothy, God's economy is based on faith (1:4). Let go of what is "yours", what's in your hand, believing that the Father will take care of you. And the issue of letting go, the goal, is love out of a pure heart. Love isn't a merely a feeling, it's a doing that endures ~1 Cor 13:7. It's a consistent reaching out, beyond oneself, to those too weak to reach back, and to repay in this age. Do you love? Then give. If you give, then you truly love.
Now, Paul's collection for Jerusalem in this light makes perfect sense. Paul says that he was told to by the elders in Jerusalem and he was eager to comply. And note that the charge in Galatians 2:10 was to "continue" the collection - it was an ongoing affair... note the repeated use of the word "dispensing" in Acts 6:1 and 12:25 (RecV).
But it wasn't merely cash transfer from Gentile to Jew. It was love. It was remembrance, it was recognition, emotion-fueled acknowledgement, fellowship, grace. It was no different from Dorcas making shirts for the widows, or Barnabas selling a certain property an laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet. It was faith, letting go, storing treasure in heaven. For where your treasure is, your heart will be.
It was God's economy. Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.
The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative (and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive).
But "masticating the Processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature" is entirely conceptual and can go on and on without any actual earthly analog. (In fact it seems to go on without much 'transformation' in some of its principals!) But love needs earthly expression, or it's not love. And the "God's economy" I see in Jesus' teaching, and lived out and taught in Acts, and recommended in epistles, is clearly based on faith, and has a goal of love. Love expresses itself by giving, by sharing, by reaching out to those who cannot currently reciprocate. So I'm tending myself more toward the latter interpretation. (now I just have to live it- haha)
2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.
8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.(KJV)Paul's gospel of Jesus Christ was very specific, what he gave up and what he got. And Paul was also clear, if you know how to read his epistles, in what he wanted his Gentile converts to give up, what "perform the doing" in v.11 entailed. Those 4 chapters cited above, combined with the pattern of Gospels and the Acts, make a compelling case for what Paul referenced in 1 Timothy 1 when he held them to teaching "God's economy".
Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.
The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative...
If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL. There's more textual support by Paul on "continue to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10) and "he who had abundance had no excess and he with little had no lack" (2 Cor 8:15) than there for "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."
WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.
If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL..... "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."
WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.
I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.
... the burden of proof is on Witness Lee to show that "God's economy" was what he said it was. Where does Paul or Jesus or anyone say "God's economy is this Processed Triune God and spiritual dispensing"? No, it was stitched together out of disparate pictures and types.
I only offer my alternative as a reply to one who says, "Well, what else could it possibly be?" It could be something like what I have briefly outlined. Or it could be something else. But there's no proof that it was what Lee said it was. And Lee's version was self-oriented, which makes me doubly suspicious. My version is more closely aligned with the great command "Love thy neighbor as thyself". As are all the examples which I cited above.
My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.
Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.
Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.
My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.
Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.
Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.
As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.
And to me, that is God's economy.
2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."
Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Aron, your posts re God’s economy have stirred a reaction and response from me for a number of reasons. One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”. So, imagine my questioning what that was all about years later when the same God clearly leads me to see big problems with Witness Lee’s teachings (including that very book) and out of “the local churches”.
I have spent hours and hours researching in the Bible the use of the word and of its roots that Bible translators (including LSM) inconsistently translate as economy, stewardship, and other words. I have posted elsewhere on these boards a synthesis of my conclusions. So, I won’t fully repeat that.
What I would like to do is suggest that the definition and explanation you give for God’s economy is what maturity as a steward in God’s house rightfully (which is the assembly or ekklesia of God, commonly called “the church”) rightfully includes: a life of serving others, even dying and “pouring out” so that others may live in Christ. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is part of that stewardship (probably a better English word to use), and one never graduates from that (witness “communion”... “the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘this is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”)
Paul clearly said to Timothy that God’s stewardship “is in faith”. The writer of Hebrews says faith is “the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11) He also goes on to show us many examples of how men and women of God first believed God, were counted righteous by God, then lived out that faith out in righteous acts of service that rendered blessings to God’s people, at great cost to themselves during their lifetimes. And, Paul in Romans (10:17) says “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ”.
So, I conclude that God’s stewardship (or economy) involves faith (hearing and believing the word of Christ, and doing what Christ’s word calls us to do; that includes eating his body and drinking his blood (matters He said are of the words He speaks to us which are spirit and life https://biblehub.com/text/john/6-63.htm) and that he who does that will live by Him). What does living by Him look like? Paul said “through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me (Gal. 2:19-20). We know from reading Acts and the epistles that the life Paul lived in the body was one of being a steward of God. That stewardship included preaching the gospel of Christ (which he laid before the apostles who were in Christ before him plus “remembering the poor, which very thing I was eager to do” {Gal. 2}). We also know that Paul remembered the poor by helping to bring them material aid as documented in Acts and his epistles. Serving others through preaching the gospel and aiding the poor are therefore the end result of God’s stewardship. Eating and drinking Christ through his word in spirit together with other believers sustains it and neither that nor serving others selflessly should be dismissed.
My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. . . .This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.
Lee used analogies as proof of concept.
But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.
In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.
An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.
An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.
But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.
In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."
But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."
If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)
UntoHim
01-09-2020, 09:06 AM
Many thanks to OBW, JJ and aron for your incredibly insightful posts! I don't think it is any coincidence that the views that these brothers have shared are coming from longtime former Local Churchers who have gone through the crucible of years within the LC movement, some years in the wilderness, and many years working their way back to some semblance of a biblically healthy place. Of course I wholeheartedly agree, for I have gone through the very same crucible.
The simple fact is that Witness Lee's "God's Economy" is man-centered, man-focused, and when all the dust settles, entirely man-made. And this is the reason that Lee and his followers have such a poor appreciation of the Gospel. They virtually ignore all the biblical passages that plainly show that the focus of the entire Bible is God-centered and God-focused. - "In the beginning was God". "Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". "The end of the matter; Fear God and keep his commandments". "For God so loved the world". "The Kingdom of God is at hand!". "Then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God".
Of course these are just a few verses out of the thousands in the Bible, but I think when taken as a whole - the whole counsel of God - the Scriptures are shown to be altogether God-centered, God-focused, unlike Lee's "God's Economy", which is altogether man-centered and man-focused.
-
One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”.
In and of itself, Lee's book is not bad, and actually has many good points. Like many ministers, Lee made numerous inferences. They become problematic when taken to the extreme. Having spent some time in a Pentecostal-Lite congregation, I see the same problems there. To some zealots, every mention of "spirit" is an exhortation to speak in tongues.
As I have said before, the Bible alone is balanced. All commentaries are skewed. Sure they can be helpful, just as long as they are not your only source. Lee had a structured accounting mind, and he saw everything in structured columns. Thus Satan must be the tree of knowledge now occupying our flesh, and so forth.
This is how I eventually viewed God's economy. In our human economy money is everything, the medium by which all exchanges are made. We work for money so we can spent our money. All we do, and every part of our life, is fueled by money in some way. Likewise God's Economy is the grace of Christ. Everything in our Christian life is fueled by His grace in our lives. His grace is our fellowship with one another, our love for others, our spiritual supply when exhausted, our wisdom when confused, our encouragement during failures, our gospel to others, etc.
I know this analogy might sound bad, but it worked for me. Perhaps it was no more than a survival technique or a coping mechanism during all of those messages I had to sit thru on God's Economy.
byHismercy
01-09-2020, 12:48 PM
I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.
My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.
Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.
Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.
My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.
Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.
Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.
As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.
And to me, that is God's economy.
2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."
Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Amen Aron!
This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.
Lee used analogies as proof of concept.
But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.
In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.
An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.
An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.
But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.
In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."
But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."
If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)
Yes, silly me. I believed Nee and Lee’s books that told us to look in the Bible for what other verses say about the same matter first. But since they supposedly had already done that (Nee was a Savant, remember, and Nee his prized pupil). So, all we had to do was sit there jammed into those awful gold chairs an inch between us listening to the little man in the suit with a white shirt, tie, and coke bottle glass eyeglasses explain to the thousands of us around the world for the 10,000th time at least 7 times a year what God’s economy was and how every single verse in the Bible was about it.... and the local churches were the procedure for building the New Jerusalem today....
Well funny thing happened. Sounds like a bunch of us started doing that. Reading what other verses in the Bible say about a matter, and listening to what other Christians were reading from the Bible and fellowshipping with them. And, the Savant and his self declared #1 follower missed some things that were as plain as the noses on their face. Like “God’s economy is in faith” right there! And gee, Hebrews gives a definition of faith and examples of it in action. No need for analogies. Put the two together and there’s the answer.
Hundreds of verses with relevant insights elsewhere were totally ignored because “they were from the wrong tree”, according to Lee. Those very verses fill in key matters that could round out and fill in deficiencies in teachings that ultimately led to abuses. God’s mercy, loving kindness, lampooned, Biblical leadership models, good works, helping the poor, orphans, widows, not showing favoritism. What fruit of the Spirit looks like and doesn’t. Works lived out from a life of faith, Singing and reading every Psalm, Hymns, and spiritual songs with all your heart to the Lord and instruments, James, all of Job, every Proverb. What the Bible really says about husband and wife relationships, brothers, and sisters, the body of Christ, Jesus the Head and not MOTA, the list goes on. Nee and Lee missed a lot! God-men bleh! How about men filled with The Holy Spirit obeying The Lord Spirit to do as Jesus did and lay down equality with God to reach sinners, work together, and relate to them where they are? How about we are all members of the same church... really! One Ekklesia. That’s what I thought we were about!
Sons to Glory!
01-11-2020, 08:59 AM
Well funny thing happened. Sounds like a bunch of us started doing that. Reading what other verses in the Bible say about a matter, and listening to what other Christians were reading from the Bible and fellowshipping with them. And, the Savant and his self declared #1 follower missed some things that were as plain as the noses on their face. Like “God’s economy is in faith” right there! And gee, Hebrews gives a definition of faith and examples of it in action. No need for analogies. Put the two together and there’s the answer.I never got that much out of all this discussions in the LC about God's economy. I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . . and if we got in His way, we would be crushed.
But a couple years ago we were going over God's administration and I received some light. It's the structure He uses, in His house, to ensure everyone gets what they need. God's purpose is not somehow apart from us, it is fully involving us as the "objects" of His great love and His caring purpose toward us.
A good picture is how the human household should be. The father of the house provides the safety, security and necessities for all who live in the house. The wife/mother is a partner in this, and together they supply all the needs, in love, to every member of the household. This greatly benefits the whole family and love is flowing between each member. Sometimes a little discipline is needed, and it is provided - again, in love and for the benefit of the family member.
I saw that the God-given structure of husband/wife, father/mother/children was all about love, and the growth & development of the family members. I believe this picture is a more proper understanding of God's household economy.
. . . I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . . And in that little bit is a revelation of the nature of God's economy as seen by Nee and Lee. It is a lens through which to view everything else. And the nature of that lens was defined in a manner that was effectively useless as a true lens.
But more than that, it seems to me that thinking of it as "an administration in the universe," while not simply incorrect, tends to miss the direction of the verses that introduce the concept. They are not introducing a divine administration that doles out everything or runs everything. Rather it is pointing to things (in the particular case, teachings) that result in God's economy. So the emphasis is not on the administration and what it does, but on the things that bring it about. To use a poor analogy, it is not a discussion of horsepower generated by internal combustion engines, but on the factors that result in that horsepower. Lee was focused on God's economy as being the source and cause rather than the result of something else. So God's economy is the result of so much. It is not the cause. Not saying that it has no results, but that is not what the verses were saying.
Hundreds of verses with relevant insights elsewhere were totally ignored because “they were from the wrong tree”, according to Lee. Those very verses fill in key matters that could round out and fill in deficiencies in teachings that ultimately led to abuses. God’s mercy, loving kindness, lampooned, Biblical leadership models, good works, helping the poor, orphans, widows, not showing favoritism...
At one point I learned about esoteric (private) versus exoteric (public) teachings. In the gospels, Jesus taught his disciples privately. He had public utterances, then would pull his disciples aside and go further. See, e.g., Mark 4:34 "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."
Of course, this continued, post-gospels. There were public utterances, and private conversations, some alluded to in written scripture. And so it remains for us to puzzle out some of the cryptic references, and the variously-placed allusions.
Witness Lee put it this way: "The Bible… does not always give us all the details about a matter in one place. Rather, it reveals a small portion in one place and another portion in another place. We may compare this to a jigsaw puzzle. We do not keep the pieces of a puzzle in a meaningless pile. Rather, we need adequate time and wisdom to put all the pieces together in a significant way. Do not ask the reason that the Lord reveals His mysteries in the divine Word in such a puzzle-like way. This is simply the case." ~WL "The Producing and Building Up of the Church..." p. 19
Of course, church teachers have been doing this for centuries: formulating coherent doctrines from disparate sections of scripture. But what happens when, as JJ says above, that formulation required the discarding of significant sections of scripture? What happens when that interpretation tells us parts of scripture are "low", some are "fallen", some are "natural concepts", some are "mixed sentiments" and so forth? Instead, in the NT Jesus taught that "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" and Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed".
Witness Lee's abstract derivations were promoted as "high peaks" while scriptural commands like visiting widows and orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, were denigrated. I heard it in the FTTA: "Don't waste your time" we were told. So any esoteric (not plainly written) teaching that leads us so far away from the actual written scripture (exoteric teaching) should be seriously examined and critiqued, as we're doing here.
When the apostles in Jerusalem told Paul to "remember the poor" did he reply, "I'm not here for that. I'm here for the high peaks of the divine economy"? No, he said he was "eager to do it". So, maybe THAT was the divine economy, to Paul? At the very least, the "pieces of the puzzle" ask us to consider it.
But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy." This point is actually crucial. 1 Timothy doesn't say, "Teach God's economy" but "teach things that result in God's economy" Healthy teachings bring profitable behaviours.
What are good behaviours? "Give to those who cannot repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven". This giving today, with expectation of reward in the resurrection of the righteous, is "in faith", as Paul says: "God's economy, which is in faith." If you look at this kind of repeated, open teaching in the gospels, and see it carried out by the apostles in the Book of Acts, you do see a pattern. Again, look at the "daily dispensing" in Acts 6:1; look at Paul and Barnabas' "dispensing" in Acts 12:25. Etc.
Suddenly, James' plain, 'exoteric' prescription that true religion is to visit widows and orphans in their afflictions doesn't look all that "low". And Witness Lee's esoteric derivations, while perhaps not untrue in and of themselves, don't seem like the "central lane of the divine economy", as one LSM cheerleader (BP) used to sell it.
God’s Economy: The House Law of The House of The Living God and how one should conduct himself in it (words copied from 1 Timothy, Berean Literal Bible)
God: Father who gives grace, mercy and peace. A Savior God through Jesus Christ our Lord
Contrasting approaches are given to Timothy by Paul so that he may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth.
And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:
Who was revealed in the flesh,
was justified in the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
Right Approach:
In faith with a goal of instruction that is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
Like Paul who had thankfulness to Christ Jesus his Lord who had strengthened him and esteemed him faithful, having appointed him to service, being formerly a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and insolent; but was shown mercy, because he did it in unbelief, being ignorant. And the grace of our Lord surpassingly increased with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Trustworthy is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom the apostle Paul wasthe foremost. But because of this he was shown mercy, that in him Christ Jesus might display perfect patience, as a pattern for those being about to believe on Him to eternal life. This Christ is King of the ages, immortal, invisible, only God. To him be honor and glory to the ages of the ages. Amen.
Those who are children of such a sent one are charged according to prophecies going before as to them that by them they might wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience.
Wrong approach: Those who teach other doctrines and/or give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which bring speculations. Having missed the mark, have turned aside to meaningless discourse, desiring to be teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they are saying nor that about which they confidently assert. These don’t understand that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully. It is not enacted for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for slayers of man, for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and if anything other is opposed to being sound in the teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God
Having cast away faith and a good conscience have caused a shipwreck concerning the faith. Among whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom Paul handed over to Satan, that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme.
Instructions to ministers regarding what their exhortations and instructions to others in the house of God should be:
https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/2.htm
Qualifications for overseers and serving ones are in Ch 3:1-13
https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/3.htm
But the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars, having been seared in the own conscience, forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods that God created for reception with thanksgiving by the faithful and those knowing the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving, for it sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Laying before the brothers these things, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good teaching that you have closely followed.
But refuse profane and silly fables. Rather, train yourself to godliness. For bodily exercise is of a little profit, but godliness is profitable for everything, holding the promise of the present life and of the one coming. Trustworthy is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance.
For this we toil and strive, because we have hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. Command and teach these things.
Let no one despise your youth, but be a pattern for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.
Give heed to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Do not be negligent of the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elderhood. Ponder these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to all. Give heed to yourself and to the teaching. Continue in them; for doing this, you will save both yourself and those hearing you.
Guidelines for Reproof, supporting widows, and a final charge are in Chapter 5
https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/5.htm
God’s Economy: The House Law of The House of The Living God and how one should conduct himself in it (words copied from 1 Timothy, Berean Literal Bible)First, is this some version of the scripture, or is it a section heading?
In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."
But God's economy is the sum total of what arises from those who have been taught properly. It is seen in the actions of the church as a group in providing aid — both spiritual and physical — to the people both near and far in the form of shelters, aid, missionaries, urgent labor for disasters, and healthy teaching for righteous living. It is seen in the actions of individual Christians as they act responsibly and righteously in everything that they undertake in all aspects of their living.
And how does this happen? Through healthy teaching that encourages right/Christ-like living. That doesn't presume that there is some unmet need for more of something before stepping out in faith to do the righteous thing — or at least try even if you come up short.
Sons to Glory!
01-14-2020, 08:53 AM
In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."To me "house law" is just the order of things God establishes to make sure all those in His house receive the care they need. The picture of the loving father - mother - children household works for me, as the structure is all in place for the riches to flow to everyone in the house. In this structure, all works well for that purpose.
To contrast that, if things aren't orderly in a household, then things don't flow well. For instance, if the father is absent or irresponsible, or the mother isn't faithful or vindictive, or the children are rebellious - then things don't flow nearly as well. But if the ordained administration is well in place (house-law), then the members of the household grow and develop properly, getting the love, nourishment, care and even discipline they need.
To me "house law" is just the order of things God establishes to make sure all those in His house receive the care they need. The picture of the loving father - mother - children household works for me, as the structure is all in place for the riches to flow to everyone in the house. In this structure, all works well for that purposeBut that view is restrictive. It only deals with how the riches of the estate are distributed to those who live there. God's economy encompasses so much more than the doling out of clothing and food (spiritual or otherwise). It is everything that s Christ-follower does in his life. It is the way that we live our lives, not just some dispensing that we need more of so that we can.
The picture of the "care we need" is short of the whole of any complete administration. This picture of God's economy would be like rewriting Matthew 5 to say things like "blessed are they that eat the food on the table; blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is dispensed" and so on. No righteousness required. No need to hunger and thirst for that. It will just happen once you get enough food from the table. I fear that this kind of nonsensical teaching is reasonably included in the warnings later in Matt 5 where those who teach the reduction of the "rules" are the least.
Maybe that kind of teaching is an example of wood, hay, and stubble.
Sons to Glory!
01-14-2020, 10:30 AM
But that view is restrictive. It only deals with how the riches of the estate are distributed to those who live there. God's economy encompasses so much more than the doling out of clothing and food (spiritual or otherwise). It is everything that s Christ-follower does in his life. It is the way that we live our lives, not just some dispensing that we need more of so that we can.
The picture of the "care we need" is short of the whole of any complete administration. This picture of God's economy would be like rewriting Matthew 5 to say things like "blessed are they that eat the food on the table; blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is dispensed" and so on. No righteousness required. No need to hunger and thirst for that. It will just happen once you get enough food from the table. I fear that this kind of nonsensical teaching is reasonably included in the warnings later in Matt 5 where those who teach the reduction of the "rules" are the least.
Maybe that kind of teaching is an example of wood, hay, and stubble.Huh!? You had me until that last sentence . . .
So I think what you were saying (up until the last sentence) is that there is more than just receiving the riches in the house, right? And I think I agree. That is, the supplying that goes on in the household provides the base and strength to go out and supply others - is that what yer saying?
Huh!? You had me until that last sentence . . .
So I think what you were saying (up until the last sentence) is that there is more than just receiving the riches in the house, right? And I think I agree. That is, the supplying that goes on in the household provides the base and strength to go out and supply others - is that what yer saying?Sort of — in part. But I'm not sure that I am actually saying what you think.
I am saying that the supply in the house is just part of the whole of what is God's economy. We surely need a supply. But the economy/administration of God is far beyond supplying spiritual food so that other things can happen. It is also the outworking of all those other things. From teaching in meetings, to praise and worship of God, to living righteously in everything we are and do, to caring for the poor, oppressed, and alien. It is everything that we do as the intentional followers of Christ in bearing his image.
So thinking of God's economy in terms of a household administration of its riches within the context of those who live there is, at best, only part of the whole that should be understood as God's economy. The household administration part is sort of like declaring that breakfast, lunch, and dinner is the sum total of our interaction with "God's economy" and that everything else — work, shopping, driving, resting, etc. — is something else. Instead, assuming that we are living and walking according to the Spirit (with our minds set on the Spirit to Use the terminology in Rom 8), then all of our living is part of God's economy. And having people qualified to better open the Word to us is part of God's economy. And sending evangelists/missionaries out to continue the spread of the Word is part of God's economy. And living like people who actually reflect the righteous God on this earth in everything we do is part of God's economy, in both the "spiritual" and "secular" things that we do. In fact, many say that for the Christian there is no such thing as a spiritual/secular divide, but everything is spiritual since it should flow out of our desire for, and obedience to Christ and everything he is doing on the earth in all things (not just preaching the gospel).
And if we don't live/walk according to the Spirit, then we are not, at that moment, participating in God's economy. Doesn't matter how much scripture you read in the morning, if you don't live it, then there is a failure. Doesn't matter how much enjoyment we get in some meeting.
Sons to Glory!
01-14-2020, 12:55 PM
Sort of — in part. But I'm not sure that I am actually saying what you think.
I am saying that the supply in the house is just part of the whole of what is God's economy. We surely need a supply. But the economy/administration of God is far beyond supplying spiritual food so that other things can happen. It is also the outworking of all those other things. From teaching in meetings, to praise and worship of God, to living righteously in everything we are and do, to caring for the poor, oppressed, and alien. It is everything that we do as the intentional followers of Christ in bearing his image.
So thinking of God's economy in terms of a household administration of its riches within the context of those who live there is, at best, only part of the whole that should be understood as God's economy. The household administration part is sort of like declaring that breakfast, lunch, and dinner is the sum total of our interaction with "God's economy" and that everything else — work, shopping, driving, resting, etc. — is something else. Instead, assuming that we are living and walking according to the Spirit (with our minds set on the Spirit to Use the terminology in Rom 8), then all of our living is part of God's economy. And having people qualified to better open the Word to us is part of God's economy. And sending evangelists/missionaries out to continue the spread of the Word is part of God's economy. And living like people who actually reflect the righteous God on this earth in everything we do is part of God's economy, in both the "spiritual" and "secular" things that we do. In fact, many say that for the Christian there is no such thing as a spiritual/secular divide, but everything is spiritual since it should flow out of our desire for, and obedience to Christ and everything he is doing on the earth in all things (not just preaching the gospel).
And if we don't live/walk according to the Spirit, then we are not, at that moment, participating in God's economy. Doesn't matter how much scripture you read in the morning, if you don't live it, then there is a failure. Doesn't matter how much enjoyment we get in some meeting.Gotcha - and I think we really are saying the same thing. I don't mean to say His economy only has to do specifically with His house (the church). But because of the riches of what He's brought us into, we are all enabled by Him to do His work, no matter what or where that might be.
It's like the riches in my household. Because I receive all that I need here (love, food, security, safety, shelter, etc.) I am in a good place to go out and help others.
Are we all copestetic here?
First, is this some version of the scripture, or is it a section heading?
In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."
But God's economy is the sum total of what arises from those who have been taught properly. It is seen in the actions of the church as a group in providing aid — both spiritual and physical — to the people both near and far in the form of shelters, aid, missionaries, urgent labor for disasters, and healthy teaching for righteous living. It is seen in the actions of individual Christians as they act responsibly and righteously in everything that they undertake in all aspects of their living.
And how does this happen? Through healthy teaching that encourages right/Christ-like living. That doesn't presume that there is some unmet need for more of something before stepping out in faith to do the righteous thing — or at least try even if you come up short.
Good question re header. I wrote the header and the rest was taken verbatim from the contents of 1 Timothy (Berean Literal Bible with a few tense changes, as some things written as present sense are to us now past tense).
House law is the literal translation of the Greek word sometimes translated economy. Since Paul said his purpose in writing to Timothy was so he would know how one should.conduct oneself in the house of God , and God’s house law is a term Paul used in it... rather than look elsewhere in the Bible for a definition like I did in my previous posts just look at this book itself and follow what it says for clues to its meaning. Thus the long post (my apologies).
Great comments! That leads me to wonder if Paul’s second book to Timothy and/or to Titus where the terms healthy words and healthy teaching relate to what you are saying.
There are two rich men portrayed in the gospels. One refuses to aid the beggar laying at his gate. That rich man ends in torment in Hades. Another rich man told Jesus, "See, the half of what I own, I give away to the poor" and Jesus replied that the kingdom had come to his domicile.
Now, who among us is rich? I hardly qualify. But each one has something. It could be time, attention, prayer, a kind word, or some thoughtful gesture. Holding a door for an older person, smiling and saying "Good day".
I love the story of the bread and fish. The disciples were troubled at their poverty, their lack. "What are these, among so many?" ~John 6:9 But Jesus had the people sit down in orderly groups, and blessed and thanked the Father, and broke the bread, and gave it away. Now, what do you suppose the one who got the bread did? Sat down and started "masticating God" selfishly? No, he broke it and gave it away. Every good gift needs to be broken (spiritually) and passed out to the ones around. If you have bread, and your neighbour is empty, you are the rich man. What will you do? That is what "God's economy" asks. Do you really love your neighbour as yourself, or is it just lip service?
Seen in this light, James 2:16 doesn't look like the "low gospel" at all, but rather "the high peak of the divine revelation" and "the central lane of God's New Testament economy", to use LC terms.
House law is the literal translation of the Greek word sometimes translated economy. Since Paul said his purpose in writing to Timothy was so he would know how one should conduct oneself in the house of God . . . .I would not presume that just because Paul was talking about the house of God that the term should be understood in its most primitive form. There are many words that may have origins in separate terms spliced together that over time almost never mean what the original terms meant.
If we go back to find what kinds of teachings that might be included in the collection that Paul referred to as resulting in God's economy, I think we should consider what it was that Jesus commanded the disciples to preach/teach. It is found in the typically ignored part of the so-called great commission where he said to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded." If you look back at the breadth of His teachings over the prior 3+ years, there is much that goes way beyond what would be distilled down to a household administration. Surely that is included in there, but there is so much more.
And that is the point. It is not "simply" anything. It is always so much more. It is clearly not some straight jacket by which to restrict the content of teachings, but the descriptor of the tremendous diversity of what the combination of all the healthy teachings produce. While it may seem that this is much more than how we ought to conduct ourselves in the house of God, I would disagree. If you do not see the fullness of what God is doing, you can't properly realize the fullness of the God in whose house you are coming to worship and fellowship.
As for Paul's other letters, I was struck by a particular phrase in the letter to Titus in which Paul said that grace teaches us to obey. And for those who think of grace as some unmerited favor, and the thing that keeps us from needing to do works, it would seem that it also directs us on how to obey (i.e., do works). And if we are not obeying (doing) then we are not really experiencing what grace provides. I'm pretty sure that taking your spiritual temperature and determining that you do not yet have enough (whatever — dispensing, grace, time in the faith, etc.) to do the obedient thing is to reject the call of Paul to walk in (set your mind on) the Spirit. To reject Peter's word when he said we have all we need. To reject that Jesus is the way — not just to some future reward, but to live the life abundant right now.
I first wondered how to consider aron's most recent post "on topic." Then I realized that without ever saying the words, it is a prime example of God's economy. It is the result of healthy teachings. In this case, the most basic teaching of loving your neighbor as yourself. We could flood this thread with examples of obediently living out the various teachings of Christ and we would see, over and over, total love for God and equally total love for mankind (OK, humankind for those who are stuck on the gender-neutral bandwagon).
And why do I say for all people rather than just our neighbor? Because we live in an age in which the world is our neighbor in some sense. We may not actually walk by them on the road, but we still see them, whether on the evening news or as we travel around wherever we live or roam. Otherwise, the Samaritan would have had just cause to ignore the battered man on the side of the road because he wasn't his neighbor, but some Jew's neighbor.
I first wondered how to consider aron's most recent post "on topic." Then I realized that without ever saying the words, it is a prime example of God's economy. It is the result of healthy teachings. In this case, the most basic teaching of loving your neighbor as yourself. We could flood this thread with examples of obediently living out the various teachings of Christ and we would see, over and over, total love for God and equally total love for mankind (OK, humankind for those who are stuck on the gender-neutral bandwagon).
And why do I say for all people rather than just our neighbor? Because we live in an age in which the world is our neighbor in some sense. We may not actually walk by them on the road, but we still see them, whether on the evening news or as we travel around wherever we live or roam. Otherwise, the Samaritan would have had just cause to ignore the battered man on the side of the road because he wasn't his neighbor, but some Jew's neighbor.
Yes, this is why the book of Acts suddenly looms so large in my consciousness, because it isn't about the details of what they taught, so much, as the details of what they did. They taught the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, they taught that Gentiles didn't have to keep the law, but confess and be baptized. But what they did was lay their treasures at Peter's feet, and what he did was give it all away to those who had nothing to give back, save gratitude. Again, the tears of the widows when Dorcas died tells me more than reams of doctrine. And Peter saying, "Silver and gold I have none" after people had put their life savings on the ground in front of him tells me so much.
All of the teachings lead to the behaviours we see in Acts. Or they should. Peter taught the rapt Gentiles in Cornelius' house that Jesus went around doing good (10:38), and everything I see in Acts is consistent with conscious and deliberate attempts to follow the clear model that Jesus had left them.
It is, after all, the ACTS of the Apostles, not the Teachings of the Apostles.
It is, after all, the ACTS of the Apostles, not the Teachings of the Apostles.
And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV? I don't suppose so, and wonder why anyone else would. After all, the Acts of the Apostles follow close upon the gospels, both in time and spirit. And this was the same gospel that Paul was exporting to the non-Jews. The "right hand of fellowship" phrase in Gal 2 makes this plain to his intended readers.
For more corroboration from his epistles, we have the two chapters in 2 Cor on how Jesus became poor that they (the gentiles) might be rich (8:9). Should they not also be inspired to follow? Okay, then: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem." ~1 Cor 16:1-3
We also have Paul's eager assent to the Jerusalem apostles to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) in his outreach to the nations, we have Roman's 15:22-29 telling them of the contributions of Macedonia and Achaea for the poor of Jerusalem.
Now, this collection and distribution may not constitute the sum total of "God's economy" but it lines up well with the overall theme. Give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven. Giving takes many forms, which forms fill the NT, and which satisfy the original mandate. "Love is the end (apotheosis, or culmination) of the law"
And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV?I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the activities of all of Christ's followers are the same? That everyone engages in the acts that are demonstrated by the apostles?
I am not saying that various activities of the apostles are not found among some of the followers. But some of their activities are the result of their calling to be among the primary trainees who then were specifically given a commission to do what they did.
You referred to Corinth. In the first letter, Paul was clear that we do not all have the same calling when he indicated that we do not all have the same gifts granted by the Spirit. We all get a calling, but not for the same things or activities.
And I know that Lee liked to say that the verses in Ephesians that refer to the "gifting" of certain types of individuals was so that they can develop more of the same kinds of gifts in people. But where is that the way things work? Doctors are not here to heal people so they can be doctors. Teachers do not teach so that those receiving their teaching can be teachers. I recognize that a few may be. But the primary purpose of shepherds is to lead and care for a flock, not help the flock become shepherds. The purpose of teachers is not to raise up teachers, but to raise up those who use the knowledge from the teacher to do other things.
Everyone does not have the same gifts. Jesus sent out the apostles to do three things. The third was to teach the new followers to obey all that had been commanded. There was no charge to teach the new followers to learn how to teach the new converts to teach other new converts, although there will surely be some among them that receive the calling to be the next generation with a primary calling to that activity.
But we are all "called" by commandment(s) to live a life that demonstrates the love of God and of neighbor. And while this seems simple, it is really quite hard because we often get confused about what is "love." We think that honking at the guy in front of us 1 millisecond after the light changes demonstrates love for the people behind us, yet we clearly show no love the guy in front of us when we do that. Just a simple example. And despite feeling like we can figure it all out ourselves, we find ourselves supporting "tough love" on people we hardly know, if at all.
But in the body, there are many members, and all do not have the same function. Some are eyes. Some are the mouth. Some are hands. Some are the big toe (and others the little toe). Some are pumping blood throughout the body while others filter out waste for disposal. Don't overthink the comparisons, or consider anyone as excessively pigeonholed.
But the calling for everyone is to obey the call to love, righteousness, humility, etc. Many of them are rightly advised to "go and sin no more." Others are asked to "follow me." This does not mean the first type is not really Christian and the second is. But those in the second type are the ones with specific callings that will require special time with the rabbi to learn his "trade." They are the ones who must be clear that leadership is not a perk, but a service that has a cost.
The priesthood of believers is about access to God, not responsibility as co-leaders of the movement. This is one of the most insidious things of evangelicalism (of which even the LRC is a part). This "wretched urgency" (as, oddly enough, a Baptist preacher called it) to be compelled to always be trying to turn conversations to spiritual things so you can whip out your Roman Road or Four Spiritual Laws tract and lead then to Christ. Surely, if you are asked about your faith you should have something to say (as Peter wrote). But the so-called great commission was not given to the 500+ who saw Jesus after the resurrection. Nor to the 70 who were sent out some time eearlier. As recorded, not even the other 109 who were eventually in the upper room with the 11 at Pentecost. Only the 11 are mentioned as receiving this charge. I cannot assert that this removes all responsibility from the rest of us. But the charge given wasn't even to all who were by that time believers. It is only an unsubstantiated belief that we all have this charge. It is never stated in such a manner. Many verses that are used as further support can only be read that way if you start with the presumption that it is true. This fuels the tendency to border on shaming the members of the body who are not constantly coming back to report their latest adventure in preaching the gospel. It reduces the purpose of the church to propagation. It insists that the fruit of a vine is more vine. (Or the fruit of a branch is more branches.)
It seems that the only places that fruit is mentioned in any kind of detail never includes converts. Only evidence of the life of Christ within the lives of his followers expressed in peace, righteousness, compassion, etc.
We are all called to be righteous. To love our neighbor as ourselves. To bear the fruit of the Spirit.
Even if some of us have some level of calling to activities like evangelism, we need whatever for us is the equivalent of 3+ years of time with Jesus coming to understand righteousness in all that we do; humility in everything; love for even the worst sinners (think "abortion doctors" or "illegal aliens" if you consider some to be unlovable).
God's economy is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It reflects in everything we do in which there is no verbal mention of anything spiritual. In serving at a homeless shelter that has rules against any kind of proselytizing (and doing it without violating those rules). In driving righteously and friendly (even without having the car buried in religious bumper stickers). And even more so in being righteous when another driver is just plain mean to us in some way.
It turns out that St Francis of Assissi never actually said that thing about preaching the gospel without words. The first recorded reference to it was in about 1991, so it is probably misattributed, if not simply made-up. But the sentiment is important. If we can't speak volumes without words, then we probably should keep our mouths shut because we will speak volumes without words. They just may be the wrong words. Our actions are always speaking. What are they saying? Will those loud but unspoken words support some gospel message or mock it? That does not mean that everyone who actually has a calling to preach must be perfect. No one is. But they probably should at least be reasonably so. And honest about their shortcomings.
But you can't sell Jesus as the changer of lives if yours isn't. It's like sending a filthy, stinking bum out to sell soap door to door.
None of this says that the activities of the apostles are fundamentally different from that of the average believer/follower. They are all the outflow of what has been planted in them by the Spirit coupled with the calling they have received. The result is not simply the same thing, but it is all part of God's economy. There are cooks, floor sweepers, farmers, merchants, children, teachers, factory workers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bankers, etceteraaaah, etceteraaah (from The King and I). Don't try to make direct comparisons. Just note the diversity. Yet they are fundamentally the same as they are all normal activities of the variety of people who populate an estate, town, city, etc. About the only thing we have completely in common is that we all eat, sleep, breathe, and some other standard functions. The rest varies by gift. Gift of birth, upbringing, training, age, experience, etc.
The same can be said of the body of Christ in the context of the thing referred to as God's economy.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the activities of all of Christ's followers are the same? That everyone engages in the acts that are demonstrated by the apostles?
I am not saying that various activities of the apostles are not found among some of the followers. But some of their activities are the result of their calling to be among the primary trainees who then were specifically given a commission to do what they did.
You referred to Corinth. In the first letter, Paul was clear that we do not all have the same calling when he indicated that we do not all have the same gifts granted by the Spirit. We all get a calling, but not for the same things or activities...
None of this says that the activities of the apostles are fundamentally different from that of the average believer/follower. They are all the outflow of what has been planted in them by the Spirit coupled with the calling they have received. The result is not simply the same thing, but it is all part of God's economy. There are cooks, floor sweepers, farmers, merchants, children, teachers, factory workers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bankers...
Don't try to make direct comparisons. Just note the diversity. Yet they are fundamentally the same as they are all normal activities of the variety of people who populate an estate, town, city, etc. About the only thing we have completely in common is that we all eat, sleep, breathe, and some other standard functions. The rest varies by gift. Gift of birth, upbringing, training, age, experience, etc.
The same can be said of the body of Christ in the context of the thing referred to as God's economy.
When I speak of activities, noted in detail in Acts and referenced in Paul's letters (e.g., Corinth) I am thinking of those who have, sharing with those who don't have. That I see as a universal rule, a key aspect of "God's economy" even if not entirely all-encompassing. I don't see differences. Giving is giving and sharing is sharing. Everyone has different gifts to share, but they all have gifts.
And note Paul's word which I quoted: "each of you should set aside a portion of income" for the poor of Jerusalem. Not just those who are bankers and lawyers and such, should set a portion aside, but everyone.
When I speak of activities, noted in detail in Acts and referenced in Paul's letters (e.g., Corinth) I am thinking of those who have, sharing with those who don't have. That I see as a universal rule, a key aspect of "God's economy" even if not entirely all-encompassing. I don't see differences. Giving is giving and sharing is sharing. Everyone has different gifts to share, but they all have gifts.
And note Paul's word which I quoted: "each of you should set aside a portion of income" for the poor of Jerusalem. Not just those who are bankers and lawyers and such, should set a portion aside, but everyone.Well, that would definitely be part of God's economy. And if someone had tried to define it to not be a part, then it clearly should be included.
And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV? I don't suppose so, and wonder why anyone else would. After all, the Acts of the Apostles follow close upon the gospels, both in time and spirit. And this was the same gospel that Paul was exporting to the non-Jews. The "right hand of fellowship" phrase in Gal 2 makes this plain to his intended readers.
For more corroboration from his epistles, we have the two chapters in 2 Cor on how Jesus became poor that they (the gentiles) might be rich (8:9). Should they not also be inspired to follow? Okay, then: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem." ~1 Cor 16:1-3
We also have Paul's eager assent to the Jerusalem apostles to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) in his outreach to the nations, we have Roman's 15:22-29 telling them of the contributions of Macedonia and Achaea for the poor of Jerusalem.
Now, this collection and distribution may not constitute the sum total of "God's economy" but it lines up well with the overall theme. Give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven. Giving takes many forms, which forms fill the NT, and which satisfy the original mandate. "Love is the end (apotheosis, or culmination) of the law" 1Tim 1:5 says
“Now the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.” I think y’all are onto something :yep:
Sons to Glory!
03-31-2020, 08:58 AM
I read this in a daily devotional from T. Austin Sparks for March 29th, and thought of this thread:
"For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire." Hebrews 12:18
How vast is the movement from that old economy to the bringing in of the New Economy . . .
I must pause to ask, is this where Christendom has gone astray?
Is it still holding on to the old economy?
Is it still in the grave clothes?
Is it still that old Mosaic economy with its forms and ways?
Is it not emancipated into the Heavenlies?!
That is what the Lord wants to do with us here.
1Tim 1:5 says
“Now the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.” I think y’all are onto something :yep:
Luke 12:21 NIV “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Jesus was giving a parable about a guy who amassed goods for himself. He died and they were then nothing for him. Even James 5:1-6 said, "They will burn you like fire".
But Jesus says, "Be rich toward God". In other words, use your possessions to help others, then your treasure will be in heaven. This is God's economy.
Contrast this to Witness Lee, who dunned church members for $$ for his son's Motor Home business. Even today, I believe the LSM is cutting residual checks in the tens of thousands of dollars for Lee family members.
Imagine if in the beginning chapters of Acts, Peter had people laying their $$ at his feet, then we found out it wasn't going to the poor but Peter had a ski area on the side, with family members running it? Imagine if Paul was collecting $$ for the poor of Jerusalem, per Galatians 2:12 and Romans 15, and we found out that Paul had a little side business of import/export, again siphoning off for his cronies? What would happen to the gospel then?
I'm not saying that "holding the bag" is wrong. But there is danger. Witness Lee failed miserably. Hank Hanegraaff failed. KP Yohannon, Hank's new buddy, failed. That is the economy of man, not the economy of God.
On an FTTA-promoting website a testimony said, "They never exalted one man and never said we were part of any organization. On the contrary, my father would tell me during our car rides that we follow God, His economy, and nothing else." This was written by an ex-Church Kid, FTTA graduate, current "serving one".
We follow God, His economy, and nothing else. This is how the strong concept of "God's economy" controls the LC. Yet where does the NT define it as "to eat God by pray-reading Bible verses"? Or PSRP the HWMR?
Does Jesus say, "Blessed are those who, when the Master returns, finds them pray-reading Bible verses"? No, he says, the blessed are found to be giving food to others. Helping others. Visiting the sick, the prisoners, the widows, the orphans. What did the apostles (Peter, John, James) tell Paul: "remember the poor". Paul replies, "I told them that I was eager to do this very thing" ~Gal 2:7-10 This reminds of Jesus' core teachings to "give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven."
Yet when James writes a similar thing in his epistle, to share with the less fortunate, the critique in the Lord's Recovery was, "That's not God's economy". I argue, to the contrary, this probably was "God's economy" that Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus, to remind them to teach (1:4). Paul devotes several chapters on this, the collection for the poor of Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:1- 9:5; 1 Cor 16). Rom 15:26,27 also mentions Achaia and Macedonia giving to the poor. Then, at the end of his final missionary journey, he says that he's back with alms for the poor of Jerusalem (Acts 24:17). Paul isn't just writing about it but demonstrating that this is central to his work.
What should we say - "No, Paul! That's not God's economy!!"?? Paul's teaching this to Macedonia, Galatia, Rome, Corinth, Phillipi, Cenchrea, Thessalonica... don't you think he's also asking Timothy in 1:4 to make sure it's taught in Ephesus, also? And, what were they 'dispensing' to the widows in Acts 6:1? Ministry tracts? Rainbow Booklets? Gold-bar life-studies? No, food. And, what was the 'ministry' or 'mission' that Paul and Barnabas completed in Acts 12:25? Training sessions on church affairs? Lectures, or food?
Of course the NT says to "be in spirit" but where does that mean incessant shouting, heel-rocking, fist-pumping, repetitively ''amen, amen'' -ing? Jesus went around in Spirit, doing good. Not repetitively chanting. (in fact he warned against that, as a practice of the gentiles). Maybe going around helping others in the name of Jesus Christ is being "in spirit, on the ground", not shouting slogans. It certainly seems much more in line with the NT examples and exhortations.
Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."
John 4:34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work."
John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."
Where is pray-reading stated here, or even implied? No, it's to obey the Father (and us to obey Jesus) and do what He commands. To love those around us, to help those who can't help us, to give to those who cannot repay. "Go around and do good" as Peter testified in Acts 10. The collection for the poor of Jerusalem by the gentile churches was clearly in this vein. Paul uses considerable ink and parchment in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans 15 to make this plain. We don't have to guess, or surmise. It's clearly laid out, what Paul expected of the recipients of his letters.
God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god. What does "become god" mean? It means man might partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In short, God became a man so that man might become god. In general Christian theology this is called divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis).
Not covered in this is the prerequisite "being filled with spirit" and "exercise your [human] spirit" which means, shout repetitively and say amen constantly. Members greet each other with "Amen, amen". During lapses in meetings you'll hear a constant, "Ohhh Looooord Jeeeeesussssss, amen". It's deliberately mindless noisemaking, used to suppress conscious thought.
The linch-pin of this "spiritual exercise" is something called "pray-reading", where they'll take Bible verses and say "amen" to each word, or "Hallelujah" or "Praise the Lord"... like this: "Amen, amen BLAH", "praise the Lord BLAH", "Oh Lord Jesus BLAH" - whatever the word is. This is "eating God" to make you "filled with S/spirit" and supposedly cause inward organic metabolic change to make you God. It's a kind of ritual Pentecostalism which claims "God dispensed into man to make man God", as the quote above says.
But where does it say that pray-reading is eating God? Scripture does say, "Thy words were found and I did eat them" but Jesus explains this clearly: "My food is to DO the will of the Father", not to pray-read. To obey God's commands is to eat, a word fulfilled by Jesus. It also says, "I come to DO thy will, O God - behold, in the scroll of the Book it is written concerning me". It doesn't say, "I come to pray-read thy words, Oh God" but to I come to DO them. The contrast could hardly be more clear.
Then Jesus transfers this to the disciples, saying that his work is to do the Father's will, and when they ask what works they should also do, he says, "To believe into the one that the Father has sent". His work is to obey the Father's words, and our work is to believe into his obedience. Nothing is said about pray-reading on either part. It's obedience that's stressed - his obedience to the Father, and ours to him. Not mere noisemaking.
And Paul's lengthy sections on offerings by Achaia and Derbe and Galatia and Philippi to the poor of Jerusalem are seen in this vein. Our work is to believe, and evidence of that faith and the indwelling Spirit is by our unsolicited, generous gifts of love reaching those unable to pay back. Just as the Samaritan in love yielded for the wounded man, with no thought of return, so were the gentile churches to succor the poor of Jerusalem. The theme is consistent through the NT: it's laid down in the gospels, shown in Acts, written about in detail in epistles.
When John the Baptizer asked of Jesus, "Are you the Christ, or should we expect another?" Jesus said to tell John what they saw: the deaf heard, the blind saw, lame healed, the dead raised, and the poor had the gospel preached to them. Nothing about "Here you'll see us pray-reading". No spectacle of jumping up and down or heel-rocking, arm-waving and shouting "amen". What Jesus was doing was "in the power of the Holy Spirit".
By contrast, the Lord's Recovery model of God's economy doesn't care about helping others, instead it's to look for "good building material" that can pay you back. At FTTA I heard, "Don't waste your time" with widows and orphans, the sick and the poor.
And then, where's evidence of inward metabolic transformation? Many have spent decades pray-reading and still look untransformed to me. Many of the leaders are similarly lacking evidence of grace. Yes, some are transformed, but then some Baptists and Anglicans are transformed, too. I don't see pray-reading doing what it's supposed to. The only magic I see is what the minister wove, charming the audience, a la Psalm 58:5. But Jesus didn't charm the serpent, he crucified it.
But pray-reading doesn't magically "make us God", sorry. There's no evidence either in scripture or in experience.
What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?
While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.
Perhaps the reason that it seemed to come out of nowhere is because it did. It didn't come from Scripture or Christian tradition. It was a 'revelation' of Lee, i.e. a construct.
Now if Jesus had said, "My food is to pray-read the Bible" in John 4:34, well, there you go - but he didn't. If Paul had written Timothy, "Remain in Ephesus and charge certain ones not to teach myths, but things that result in God's economy, which is to get the Processed and Consummated Triune God dispensed into you to make you God in life and nature", well okay. But he didn't.
Instead it was a teaching constructed with the barest of ill-fitting parts, and with the necessary ignoring of others, like "food" actually being to obey God's word. To Jesus, God's word wasn't condemnation but the source of life, and now our faith in Jesus' obedience is our source of life.
"Even as I live because of the Father, so you shall live because of me". And how do we follow, and live? By doing as Jesus did, not bruiting noises. By obeying his commands, just as he obeyed the Father. Just as he lay down his life for his sheep, so in laying down our things, we'd be a sweet-smelling savour of Christ. Note that Paul in 2 Cor gives them an example, of Macedonia:
"And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people. And they exceeded our expectations: They gave themselves first of all to the Lord, and then by the will of God also to us. So we urged Titus, just as he'd earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you—see that you also excel in this grace of giving."
To Paul, this is the "sweet savour" he wrote of in 2:15. This is God's economy, what Paul was teaching in all the churches. This is the overflow of love toward those who can't repay in this age. Remember - they weren't subsidizing the apostle's Golf Club membership, or his-and-hers Lexus' (cough, cough, Hank, cough, cough...) but the poor. It's not man's economy but God's economy.
Now, the objection may be, "But how do you know that 'When you have a feast, invite those who can't pay you' is God's economy? Maybe it's something different from Lee's idea, or yours." Perhaps. But look at the fruit of the idea. In Lee's world, we didn't actually have to DO what the Bible said, that being "dead works" but instead we just "masticated" them and became God. Dead letters became living spirit if we shouted them over and over again. We didn't care for right and wrong, until the stench of the wrong became too great and we had to create yet another web site quoting CWWL chapter and verse, how we had nothing to do with it. That's where pray-reading got you.
So where does 'give to others' get you? All I know is that Jesus said that the servants would be blessed if the Master returned and found them so doing - not delivering lectures and trainings and selling pamphlets, but 'dispensing' and 'ministering' the same way that they were in Acts 6:1 and 12:25. Those men saw Jesus, heard his teachings. Don't you think that their pattern should be closely followed? I do. We have Jesus example, and we have the apostles' interpretation and execution of his commands, and not a word of it on pray-reading. (Yes, 'pray unceasingly' but that also can mean 'pray when you give aid to the poor'.)
The title should more correctly be ''The Overlooked Writings of Paul" or "The Ignored Writings of Paul" but I like dramatic turns of phrase, nyuk-nyuk.
I'll argue that sections of Paul, chapters even, get a short shrift in the Lord's Recovery because they show a view of "God's economy" very different from that of WL. I start with the climax of Paul's Chapter 2 of Galatians: the meeting in Jerusalem, where the right hand of fellowship was proffered - Paul to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews. "Only, they urged that I remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do." How much ink did that get in WL's output? I don't remember any commentary.
Then Paul declares that he returned to Jerusalem after his mission to the gentiles with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17) and suddenly there's a conceptual book-end for large swaths of Paul's epistles, most of it passed over by WL. Typical is Romans 15:25-27 "Now, however, I'm on my way to Jerusalem to serve the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual blessings, they are obligated to minister to them with material blessings."
When one pokes around in Paul's writings, one finds it's not only a common but a ubiquitous theme. 1 Cor 16:1-3 "Now about the collection for the saints, you're to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I'll send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem."
2 Corinthians 8 and 9 have the probably the most well-developed conceptual working-out by Paul of this mission. 2 Cor 8:1-4 says "Now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the churches of Macedonia. In the terrible ordeal they suffered, their abundant joy and deep poverty overflowed into rich generosity. For I testify that they gave according to their ability and even beyond it. Of their own accord, they earnestly pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints."
And it extends into chapter 9: "Now about the service to the saints, there's no need for me to write to you. For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting to the Macedonians that since last year you in Achaia were prepared to give. And your zeal has stirred most of them to do likewise..."(vv 1,2) And it's held together with a lengthy explanation in chapter 8 of those who have means being kind to those without, summarized with the adage, "He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little had no lack." (v.15)
Now in this focus, much of Acts, likewise downplayed, jumps back to the fore. The chapters in the beginning where disciples shared, where widows got the 'daily dispensing' (6:1) etc. Now, Jesus' exhortation in the gospels to "feed my sheep" gets new light (Unless John, Peter, Luke, Paul didn't know to take this 'spiritually', until it got 'recovered' by WL [ha-ha])
Suddenly we remember the unbelieving gentile Cornelius being told by the angel that "your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial offering before God". And likewise Paul's word to the gentiles in Romans 15:27 makes sense. Yes, there's no male or female, no slave nor free, no Greek nor Jew, but Christ is all in all... yet our voluntarily offered aid and submission to one another (female subject to male, slave to free, gentile assemblies offering to the poor of Jerusalem) is the out-worked love that Jesus taught us. It's the power of the resurrection, in our faith, seen in our acts. Remember, it's the "Acts" of the apostles that were seen, not just words that were heard.
As the travelling Samaritan gave of his excess so that the wounded man by the roadside had no lack, so also it was with the churches of the gentiles remembering the poor in Jerusalem. Consider Agabus' prophecy of the famine, and the aid which followed (Acts 11:28-30) - there was no social services back then, but there was continual expression of real love among the churches and Paul regarded his mission as central to that. Else, why highlight his collection for the Jerusalem poor so prominently in Galatians 2?
Perhaps this is what Paul was teaching in every church: not to heed myths and genealogies but to have a heart for helping one another. All those sections in his writings on the generosity of the churches point to that scene in Galatians of the meeting of the apostles, their encouragement and his eager assent... it's not mysterious at all, unless one deliberately ignores it... but if so, then one has these remainders, these 'odd' sections of scripture that don't fit, to be passed over with little comment or even dismissed.
But if you see Paul's word in 2 Cor 8:15 as his summation of "God's economy, which is in faith", then it comes together nicely. Then, we don't need to pan the epistle of James, for example - quite the contrary - James was rather in "the central lane of the divine economy". The whole of the NT coheres, without "fallen", "low", and "natural" bits to be excised.
As I remember, WL's version said that God got processed: incarnation, inclusion, intensification. Then humanity gets processed: redeemed, reconciled, regenerated, conformed, transformed, transfigured (into God but not the God-head).
But if we examine this process as actually lived out, we see its untenability in Lord's Recovery practice. Consider transformation: how can the "apostle of the age" with such a "rich ministry" fail at even the basics of church behaviour that Paul outlined in Titus 1:6? WL's sons Timothy and Philip showed little if any indication of spiritual interest, and ran roughshod over the churches under WL's watch. Where's evidence of transformation in these cases? The church leaders that abetted this and who now run LSM were there at every meeting, listening to every message, reciting outlines and footnotes, singing every song, pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord at every turn, yet showed little evidence of the Christian expression that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John gave in the NT. They're respecters of persons, they dissemble, they overlook evil, they're man-pleasers.
Look at Jane Anderson's testimony. Where's evidence of Christian faith in how she got handled by those who now run LSM? I don't see it.
How much money did WL siphon off for the Daystar Corporation, run by son Timothy, it's President? We know the church in Boston handed over $100K; we don't know the other cities, but I daresay it perhaps totaled in the millions, when a million could buy something. How much went into the inner circle of the WL Guanxi Network, and how much (or little) made it back out? "That's my personal business" said WL, when asked about it by Sal Benoit. Where's evidence of transformation in WL's creation and handling of Daystar?
Or son Philip, who repeatedly preyed upon women in the offices of the Lord's Recovery HQ? Where's evidence of transformation - all the "Oh Looord Jeeesus' " don't mean anything, do they? All the PSRP of HMWR.. where's the issue? How can you have transfiguration without transformation?
We heard the view that nobody could obey God, which ignores Jesus(!), and instead we just "masticated the Processed and Consummated Triune God" and inwardly we'd be metabolically transformed and conformed and then outwardly transfigured. It was a kind of grace-on-steroids, where our magical incantations did everything, and we'd just "enjoy the riches". Yet if Christian essentials were overlooked, then what are the riches?
Contrast to the NT, where Hebrews 5:8,9 dovetails neatly with John's gospel: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him". In John's gospel, Jesus said that as he obeyed the Father, we should obey him, as he lived because of the Father's word, so we'd live by his word, as the Father sent him, so he sent us. Nothing about pray-reading HWMR outlines and footnotes. To me, it's a completely different gospel. WL manufactured a reading of Paul that overturned or ignored parts of the NT, but in the last post (#311), I noted that this reading even depended on ignoring much of Paul's (and Luke's) own writings!
"Exercise your spirit, brother!" is a push to shout and jump and wave. But where does this shouting and waving come from? The Bible says, "Exercise yourself to Godliness" but does that mean jump up and down and shout repetitively? I think such interpretation is error.
"Don't think - drink!" Remember that one? Unthinking, reflexive action was how the error got disseminated widely.
"Exercise yourself unto Godliness" really means what James meant - Godliness (true religion) is to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. God so loved us that he sent His only begotten Son to save us. This son was holy, as the Father is holy.
The Son then said that we his disciples are to obey his commands, just as he obeyed the Father's commands. So we're likewise sent as emissaries to the unlovely, the unloved, the unlovable (in our eyes). That's what James meant by "visit widows and orphans". To love them, in this context, is to show some actual blessing. Healing, comfort, encouragement, food, clothes, shelter, something. Pay attention to them, listen to them.
And the second part is to keep unspotted from the world, like Jesus did. That is "exercise yourself unto Godliness". Not jump up and down and shout. And notice where the jumping and shouting got us: 1) We were told to ignore obvious sin in church leadership; 2) We were told to despise the poor, the widows and orphans. "Don't waste your time" was the word at FTTA. Get good building material instead.
I'm bringing this forward here, as it points to how the creation of an erroneous thought - "Exercise your spirit in God's economy" became widespread. The thought was that we no longer cared for right and wrong, because nobody's without sin [ignoring Jesus!], and instead we should simply "enjoy NT grace on the proper ground" by shouting, calling, yelling, crying, screaming, declaring, fist-pumping, pray-reading.
The Bible does say, "Cry out and shout, O inhabitants of Zion". Opening our mouths is part of salvation. But it's nowhere held as the "God's economy" of Paul's epistles.
But the pray-reading, calling, shouting, crying, screaming, yelling, groaning all were used to suppress the critical thought which might at some point set off alarms. Why is the Apostle of the Age violating basic Christian principles, set down in the epistle to Titus for every local church elder? "Don't think, brother!! Just Drink!! Exercise your spirit!!" See how it works? The doctrine has its own dissemination kernel. Don't think, just yell loudly, repeatedly, and be "one" with leadership. (As Ray Graver told Bill Mallon, "Here, we do what we're told". That's a non-mystical way to put it.)
And the fact that the LSM-affiliated cryers, screamers, yellers, shouters in Mainland China went from a stated membership of several tens of millions in the mid-90s (per WL, from the podium) to a stated membership of zero ten years later (per Chris Wilde, to the press) shows where all the noisemaking took them. If LSM, unbalanced as it is, couldn't control the Shouters, how bad must it have gotten in the People's Republic?
Getting people excited by yelling is the doctrine, and it very neatly contains the means of aiding dissemination of the doctrine itself (what WL called "propagation"). But ultimately we don't see transformation as a result of widespread and longstanding adherence to these teachings. This corroborates what we see from the NT text, that it isn't God's economy.
A commonly used phrase in the LC was derived from or at least connected to Song of Solomon 1:8. "If thou know not thyself, thou fair one among women, go thou forth by the footsteps of the flocks, and feed thy kids by the shepherd's tents" (Brenton Septuagint Translation). This was the allied phrase "closely following the apostles" which WL & Co were fond of (see Phil 3:17; 2 Tim 3:10, 1 Tim 4:6; cf Acts 2:42).
Here is a song of the same title, sung in the LC
https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/680
If Peter, James, and John sent Paul and Barnabas out with "only remember the poor", to which he eagerly consented by his own admission (Gal 2:10), don't you think similar eagerness would also be evidenced by Nee and/or Lee? Instead, the subject of caring for the poor was carefully avoided. When the topic was once broached by a naiive trainee at the FTT in Anaheim, the answer (from PH) was summarily dismissive: "Don't waste your time." Go for good building material instead; it was all quite explicit, blunt, and categorical. There was no equivocating with PH. He got his position by letting everyone know WL's position.
How can we follow the footsteps of the flock, or closely follow the apostles' teaching, if we so strenuously avoid the implications of Gal 2:10? As I wrote earlier, that also means we need to downplay chapters of Paul, and to overlook Luke's account of Paul returning to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17), and likewise to minimise Jesus' "sell what you have, give alms to the poor, and you'll be rich in heaven" (Luke 12:33). And so on... it stretches back to the OT, where being kind to the destitute is repeatedly held as a way to connect to the Most High, who gives liberally to all. So simple even a gentile can follow it - Acts 10:1-4! As I wrote earlier, Paul develops this theme in 2 Cor 8.
No, instead we were to selfishly masticate God by pray-reading Bible verses to make ourselves God. Don't waste your time (or money!) with the poor. So I ask, which of these two distinct and separate ideas, seems more like "God's economy" to you? Which more closely adheres to the consistent and plain pattern of scriptural behaviours and teachings?
I daresay that Watchman Nee saw in his example (JN Darby) that with proper 'revelation' he didn't have to follow anybody! He could just get a 'vision of the age' and everyone would instead have to follow him... how attractive, no? He could even reverse himself, and with one 'revelation' declare churches were all local and independent, removing the taint of the hated West, and then with a later 'revelation' could declare that all churches tie to a geographical center, a la his "Jerusalem Principle", which now would be Shanghai, not London or Rome. All of it self-serving, contradictory, and only tenuously biblical, but who cares? As long as you closely follow Nee you're good!
From this swirling milieu did Witness Lee's version of God's economy emerge. It was a personal creation, then put to captive assemblies (because we're all one, right?). Nobody questioned because it came from WL and we didn't question God's oracle. But if one questioned it soon fell apart, as did many of his teachings. But look at the big, thick books he could sell in the meantime.
Awoken
02-09-2021, 02:47 PM
This confused me immensely. Are they saying that Good is Evil? That doesn't make sense.
Very late to the party here but I wanted to comment on this as it's something I've been thinking about since leaving the LC. WL in his theology talks a lot about the Tree of Life vs. the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, how one represents life/dependence on God, the other represents independence/oneness with Satan. However, that's a false dichotomy and is un-Biblical. The Bible never says the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil IS evil. In fact, God reviewed His entire creation after making and said it was ALL good. Presumably this included the TotKoGaE. Nothing is ever said to be inherently wrong about that tree in and of itself, the problem is that man DISOBEYED God and ate it when God told them that they shouldn't. The disobedience was the problem, not the tree directly. For all we know the tree may represent moral maturity and the fact that eventually we ARE supposed to be able to discern righteousness (in fact I sorta suspect it does), however, in his infantile state in the Garden of Eden man might not have been ready for that so God told him not to eat of it because if he did, he would sin and thus definitely die. Seems like God knew what He was talking about...
Hebrews 5:14: But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
(So, uh, how is that tree so bad, again, in light of what the Apostle Paul says above? I'll put it another way, is sex bad (in the proper context of marriage at the proper age)? Is sex when you are 3 years old bad?)
Anyway, that's my two cents for the day!
Trapped
02-09-2021, 03:20 PM
Awoken,
I couldn't agree with you MORE. I've posted about this in some other threads here somewhere, but the TOTKOGAE is described in three ways:
1) pleasant to the sight,
2) good for food, and
3) makes you like God.
No idea how Lee got "evil" from any of that. The Bible very clearly says "the wages of sin is death", in other words, death is our wages, our punishment for sin. And that's exactly what Adam and Eve got. Death as punishment. Their punishment was being cut off from the tree of life so they would not live forever, i.e. die.
The TOTKOGAE was not death, or evil, or bad, or anything Lee claims it is.
Totally agree with you about the Hebrews verse. Mature believers discern between good and evil! Lee liked to say that God "doesn't care" about good/evil, or right/wrong, but if you think about it.....if you forbid something, it usually doesn't mean that you forbid it because you "don't care" about it, but rather the opposite. Because you care about it a lot. Like premature sex, or a rare artifact, or a dangerous weapon. Those things are forbidden from touching at certain times not because we "don't care" but because we DO care.
Not only that, in Corinthians Paul gets on their case for not having anyone wise enough to judge a dispute and tells us that we will judge angels as well as the earth. Do you think we need to be able to discern good and evil in order to do that? YEAH!
Seriously, Awoken, your two cents for the day is worth more like a million dollars. There are numerous twisted and fear-based teachings from the ministry just in these 1-2 chapters in Genesis alone, and you have managed to untangle them all and present it more truthfully, scripturally, and clearly than Witness Lee EVER DID. This is one of the big ones that qualifies the local churches to be characterized as an abusive church. They use this false teaching often to control the behavior, emotions, and thoughts of their members.
They say "good and evil are on the same tree" and that we "don't care" about either of them. Well, that's what we would call "calling good evil and calling evil good". They are, somehow, unbelievably, associating good and evil with each other, grouping them together. What kind of insane church does that?!
Trapped
Sons to Glory!
02-10-2021, 06:51 AM
Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.
Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.
So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?
Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.
So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?
Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.
John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live. This entire section of John's gospel goes over this in detail.
And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say or even imply, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, implied is the process of our obedience by faith, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.
And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour, even when you don't think they deserve it. To give something to them (attention, encouragement, support, or a sandwich), as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, and paying attention, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed at all. Only if you give will you be given to.
Sons to Glory!
02-10-2021, 09:01 AM
Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.
John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live.
And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, the process of our obedience by faith becomes intrinsic to the process, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.
And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour. To give to them, as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed.All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.
Trapped
02-10-2021, 09:56 AM
Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.
Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.
So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?
Sons to Glory,
Yes. The TOTKOGAE is only described positively. Forbidden to touch does not always mean the forbidden thing is bad. And as Awoken and I have described, it often times means the thing is actually valuable. I know a forum is the worst place to decipher much of people, but it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.
God said in eating of it, literally, "dying you shall die". The origins of this phrase are judicial (judgment) in nature, not having to do with the "taking in" of something. Sons to Glory - sins are actions, not an "element" that you take in. How did Adam and Eve die? Read the verses - by being cut off from the tree of life so they would not live forever (i.e., die). Death was their punishment. The verses are clear. Death came from being cut off from the tree of life, not from eating something that was only ever described positively. The verses elsewhere are also clear: death is our wages for sin. That is what death is: our punishment from God for our sin, not something we "take in". In Romans the issue was the offense, the transgression, the one act, not something negative about what they ate.
It is not what goes in that defiles someone but what comes out.
Scripture repeatedly contradicts what you are saying.
Trapped
All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.
You are talking about your experience, I'm talking about scripture. Jesus said, "I obey". The common refrain of "nobody can obey God" excludes Jesus, yet the gospel narrative centers wholly on Jesus, on his being sent, his obedience, his resurrection, his exaltation. Not your inability, or mine. It is the 'gospel', the good news - not our failure but his success. And his success was his obedience. His obedience allowed him to receive the Father's life, and now our obedience to him allows us to receive his life. I can quote all the verses again.
"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." Do you see the 'just as'. Jesus' eating was to obey. Our eating is to obey.
"When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love." Again, the 'just as' is here. Jesus obeys, abides in the Father's love. We obey, abide in his love. Don't look at your inability, look at his ability to obey. By faith you we follow, and yes of course it's HIS ability. "No longer I but Christ." We believe in his ability, his being sent, his obedience, his propitiation, his intercession, and his rule. And we by faith obey. And we by faith love those around us. This is his command, and we obey. He is king.
It's even called "the faith of Christ", not the "faith of aron" or Stg or WL or whomever. Gal 2:20, 2:16, Rom 3:22
Now, the scripture doesn't forbid praying as we read the word. But the scripture doesn't tell us what WL sold us, that pray-reading would "eat" the tree of life and "assimilate" God and so forth. The Bible rather talks of obedience. Jesus' to the Father, and ours to him. This is our food.
Hebrews 5:7 While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could rescue him from death. And God heard his prayers because of his deep reverence for God. 8 Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 In this way, God qualified him as a perfect High Priest, and he became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey him.
You have obedience, suffering, life. That was Jesus. Then, obedience, suffering, life. That's us. We follow the Master.
On the flip side, disobedience brings death. Right? Not "eating the wrong tree".
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Nothing about eating or metabolic assimilation but rather disobedience. God gave a boundary, and the angels trespassed it.
Trapped
02-10-2021, 10:58 AM
Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.
Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.
So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?
I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).
Awoken
02-10-2021, 12:07 PM
Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"
Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"
I was looking at the quote from WL on this:
"Both our goodness and our badness belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Whether you are moral or immoral, whether you are honest or dishonest, whether you steal or do not steal, whether you are a robber or a gentleman, whether you are quarrelsome or peaceable, whether you are a shrewd woman or a virtuous woman, all belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Someone should have cued in that poor angel that spoke with Cornelius in Acts, who said that Cornelius' good works had ascended as a memorial before God.
Acts 10:1-4 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God."
According to WL, being devout and God-fearing is from the wrong tree. Helping poor people is from the wrong tree. But Cornelius was not yet a Christian. He was just trying to do the right thing. Was this vain? Did the angel (and Luke the storyteller) err?
It seems that WL trafficked in our ignorance and lack of knowledge as the quote from Hosea 4 above shows. And then our ignorance was reinforced by the saying, "Don't think. You will only be confused". I was told this repeatedly. "Just exercise your spirit", i.e. shout a lot. Preferably, shout WL slogans.
At some point, everything seemed to circle back to that, or the "ground of oneness". Why do we shout simplistic, made-up slogans? Why, because it's God's economy, that's why! Of course, how silly of me to ask.
Sons to Glory!
02-13-2021, 07:52 AM
I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?
I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.
I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.
Trapped
02-13-2021, 09:14 AM
Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?
I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.
I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.
Knucklehead Who Won't Read Scriptur-----I mean, Sons to Glory,
The result of their sin was death. The result of their disobedience, the offense, the transgression was death.
The wages (what we are due, what we are paid, what we EARN) of sin ("the offense") is death. Not "the wages of what we eat is death".
It couldn't be more explicit in Genesis where death came from. From their being cut off from the tree of life. There is no verse, no record, no statement that says death came from what they ate. None. There is an explicit verse that says they were cut off from the tree of life SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER LIVE FOREVER -- i.e DIE.
As to what the result of eating is, it is in Genesis 3:22:
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
When God named the trees, He didn't name them deceptively. If you eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you get -- the knowledge of good and evil! And this very verse shows us that: "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil", just like God said.
If it was the tree of "allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes", then God would have called it that.
I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again. I've written plenty on this topic and have no intention of banging my head against a wall that won't put eyes on the verses. I'm showing you verses, scripture, explicit references, explicit words, and you keep responding with things Witness Lee taught that have no basis in scripture. Other posters have grasped the concepts right away, so I know the issue is not the way I'm explaining things.
Trapped
P.S. this is going to sound frustrated, and it is a little bit, but can you tell me - in all the discussion about this topic, have you gone back and actually re-read Genesis 2-3? Or are you simply speaking from what you know of the story? If the latter, I would ask you to go back and read Genesis 2-3, with the intention of actually looking for proof of what Lee taught (which is what you seem to still espouse).
Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?
I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.
I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.
What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?
What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.
Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?
I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.
Nell
Sons to Glory!
02-13-2021, 11:17 AM
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.
What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?
What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.
Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?
I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.
NellSaying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.
Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?
(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)
Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.
Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?
(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)
I didn’t say it was just a tree. You did.
You also said a tree “allows” as though it was some sort of “sentient being”. Trees don’t “allow”.
You are shortchanging the effect of disobedience.
It was disobedience that resulted in spiritual death, not food.
How did sin get into the flesh? Disobedience. Again, disobedience.
Trapped
02-13-2021, 02:58 PM
Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.
Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?
(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)
You are trying to ascribe some kind of responsibility to the fruit as the cause for mankind's continued disobedience against God. Really? Do you really think that our sin nature came from a piece of fruit? That death came from a piece of fruit from a tree that God Himself described as "good for food" as well as "makes you like God"? Can you see how those things (what you are claiming plus what scripture says) cannot go together without contradiction or without creating a false or malicious God?
You surely recognize that Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them, do you not?
No one is short-changing the tree's effect. You are creating an effect that isn't there and telling others who disagree that they are shortchanging what is actually your unscriptural overlay onto the text.
Before you write any more posts about this topic:
Pleeeeeeease go back and read Genesis 2&3. Where did death come from in Genesis? From the fruit or from God cutting them off from the tree of life? Give me specific verses, please.
Pleeeeeeease go back and read Romans 5. Does it say sin entered "through the offense/trespass/disobedience" or does it say sin entered "through the fruit"? Give me specific verses, please.
Unregistered
02-13-2021, 06:40 PM
Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?
Awoken
02-13-2021, 06:59 PM
Or, as Jesus put it...
Matthew 15:8-20 NKJV
"'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."
Then His disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch." Then Peter answered and said to Him, "Explain this parable to us."
So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?
Gen. 3:13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The (1) serpent deceived me, and (2) I ate.”
Nell
Sons to Glory!
02-14-2021, 08:29 AM
Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.
But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?
Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.
But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?
Why? Because...“Descriptive passages describe what happened; they give us the historical narratives and the stories of the events that took place. Prescriptive passages give us clear commands and instructions as to how we are to live our lives.”
The operative being “clear commands.”
http://theologyfortherestofus.com/2016/05/15/92-whats-the-difference-between-prescriptive-and-descriptive-bible-passages/
Witness Lee built his ministry by turning descriptive biblical language into “commands”, some of which, he admitted not even he could keep, much like what you are doing with “eating”. “Eating”, in the Bible, is largely a metaphor or word picture as a means of spiritual growth.
Bill Mallon shared this with a group of us one time, and the lights came on for me. I began to look at Lee’s ministry from that perspective from that point on, asking “is this teaching based on prescriptive verses or simply describing something that happened?”
Example: Lee’s delegated authority prescriptive teaching based on the verses describing an event among Noah and his sons.
Nell
Trapped
02-14-2021, 09:47 AM
Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?
Hi Unregistered,
The long story is that it's just what the Bible says and shows. I've always had a problem with Witness Lee's teaching that "God doesn't care about right and wrong" and so a while back I sat down to read the verses, as well as some of his ministry, to see where the Biblical support is for that, because it's a pillar of a teaching in the local church. Much to my surprise, there is nothing in scripture where the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is described as containing poison, or death, or any of the things Lee said about it. It's described only positively, but yet is forbidden to eat. I read numerous other Christian articles online to confirm that others also saw that there is no reason to claim the TOTKOGAE was itself evil, and they confirmed it.
Lee went so far as to call it the "tree of death" and said that Satan was crafty and subtle in hiding what it really was, but the problem with that is you would also have to call God crafty and sneaky because God also called the TOTKOGAE the TOTKOGAE, and not "the tree of death". So Lee's being off on just where death came from ends up making God an evil God, which is obviously not true.
Once you realize the TOTKOGAE is not "the source" of the problem, it's not where death came from, it's not where sin came from, it's not "forbidden because it's bad" but "is 'bad' only because it's forbidden", then you start thinking "okay, why DID they eat of the tree then?"
Listening to Christian apologists who have to answer these kind of questions all the time like "why did God put the tree in the garden in the first place", the apologists hammer home pretty hard that God gave man free will. Free will to choose to eat of it or not eat of it. So I started looking for things in the verses that I could blame God for. And the more I scoured the verses, the less there was to blame God about! God created a garden with thousands of trees in it (by the presumed size of the garden based on it's description by numerous rivers), all pleasant to the sight, all good for food, and He forbade literally only one. God didn't trick them, He didn't make it difficult, He provided countless other choices. It's like someone takes you to a large buffet restaurant with 500 different dishes hot and ready to eat, and they tell you not to eat that one dish marked with an X. And you go over and eat the one X-marked dish! Why? You had 500 other choices!
Man really had free will. And man chose to use that free will to disobey God. It really was a fair situation, and God told them exactly what tree was the problem, exactly what would happen if they disobeyed, the whole thing. It wasn't fruit that got into them that caused it. It was their free-will choice to do so. And because man had free will, and he chose to disobey, God can punish him rightly. And He did. With death.
The short story is, yes, I've never had to state specifically that Adam and Eve disobeyed before the fruit got into them until this particular discussion. :p
Trapped
Awoken
02-14-2021, 11:56 AM
Example: Lee’s delegated authority prescriptive teaching based on the verses describing an event among Noah and his sons.
Or Lee's (and maybe also Nee's, and maybe also the Plymouth Brethren's) prescriptive teaching about the "ground of locality" based on a very shakily discerned descriptive pattern in the NT epistles.
Or Lee's (and maybe also Nee's, and maybe also the Plymouth Brethren's) prescriptive teaching about the "ground of locality" based on a very shakily discerned descriptive pattern in the NT epistles.
That too. We should start a list. There are many.
Trapped
02-14-2021, 06:52 PM
Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.
But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?
You are going to get an echo into silence of a response because the Bible never makes an issue of the fruit of the tree itself. It's not there. Jesus said his food is to do the will of the Father. So even if you try to point to fruit or food.....Jesus just keeps on pointing straight on to obedience instead.
Sons to Glory, did you read the chapters I mentioned in my previous post where I implored you to do so and answer the two simple questions before saying anything more about the topic? Why are you avoiding everything I and others are saying and yet turning around and praying for your eyes to be opened "if" there is something here?
You are praying for your eyes to be opened while your Bible is closed. What's going on here?
I'm actually being genuine in my concern. It has been very, very strange to repeatedly encounter a straight refusal to comprehend plain words, plain language, plain inference, plain implication by a professing truth-seeking Christian.
Is this too uncomfortable of a mental shift for you?
If so, I'm sympathetic to that discomfort, but in this particular case, there's nothing to lose by it. The truth of what the word says with this story doesn't condemn you, doesn't blame you, doesn't mean you've committed an unforgiveable sin. It's just means sin in general is a bigger deal than Lee ever taught it was. But you know that already. So what's going on?
Sons to Glory.. it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.
The effect of the block, as noted, is that it results in the ignoring of 'unhelpful' Scripture. I once shared happily of a vision of Christ that I'd had, in a LC meeting. Problem was, it wasn't from one of the verses that supported Lee's teaching on God's economy. The lead elder, who'd been sent from Anaheim to run my small local church and provide guidance to the region, fell silent. Everyone else in the room froze. The formerly lively group conversation instantly shut down.
I remember going home, thinking, "That was really weird." I'd simply brought up a "wrong" verse and noted that it clearly pointed to Christ.
If you look at the gospels, Jesus repeatedly brings up one aspect of the OT, that is the treatment of those who are sick, weak, poor, indigent, and are nothing in the eyes of the world. Those who have, he said, should voluntarily out of love and compassion try to help such unfortunates. This is how you love your neighbour. Paul goes into this at length in 2 Cor 8, and touches it in various epistles. James also addresses this directly. Nope - "Not God's economy", said Lee.
Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
No, not God's economy, says Lee.
Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
No, that's not "exercise your spirit on the local ground". So we can pass by that one. Etc etc.
When one shows a textual pattern to the Lee-affected mind, they'll dismiss the corpus of Scripture with a simplistic and categorical statement meant to displace all that Scripture from their consciousness, where it might trouble them, cause them to think, reconsider. (This is why it's called a "block") Something like, "All I know is..." then a statement of their cued-in impressions.
All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me.The statement isn't wrong, but is completely mis-oriented. The subject of the NT is Jesus. He loved us when we were yet sinners. Then he says, "As the Father sent me, I send you. As I do the Father's will, so you do mine. As I lived because of obedience to the Father's word, so you have life by "eating" me [obedience to my word]."
The Lee programme is to focus on self, and thus Jesus' obedience to God, and ours to him, is minimized... we're all sinners, right? So don't even try, we're just here to "enjoy Christ"...it's God's New Testament economy! When I went to my first LC meeting, the stress was, "YOU can exercise YOUR spirit!!!" The focus went off Jesus, what he had done, and was on what I could do (and not do). I could "exercise" (yell) and "enjoy" doing nothing and receiving everything. The poor? Too bad for them, we're not here for dead works of the flesh.
And I've seen this pattern continually since then. That's why all these extensive sections of Scripture are ignored, dismissed, explained away. Even when there's a clear and consistent pattern, possibly much stronger than the snippets - 1 Cor 15:45(b) - that are used to hold Lee's version together. Yet verse after verse after verse, many either directly from Jesus himself, or echoing him, or foreshadowing him in prophetic utterance, are set aside. Here are some from Psalms and Proverbs:
“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” Psalm 41:1-2
“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Proverbs 19:17
“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7
“For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.” Psalm 9:18
“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:19
“The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all.” Proverbs 22:2
“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10
“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5
“Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people.” Psalm 113:5-8
“A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.” Proverbs 29:7
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16
“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23
“The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Psalm 37:14-15
“Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.” Proverbs 14:21
“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13
“Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9
God cares for people. The world cares for people with money. Jesus clearly taught, be generous with the mammon that perishes, that you may be blessed in the eternal realms. This wasn't his invention, but rather his stress on what was a clear pattern in God's word. Then think about what Paul meant, when he wrote, "God's economy"; there's nothing, nothing in Scripture that shows it means what Witness Lee taught. The whole thing was a self-oriented, self-serving construction. And Jesus' clear teaching, and pattern (and Paul's 'eager assent', per Gal 2:10) was dismissed out of hand. "Not God's economy".
Awoken
02-15-2021, 10:58 AM
God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.
Hey StG, just want to point something out here...
There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.
This is all 100% true.
God said in eating of it they would die.
This, however... is not really accurate, at least I don't think it's accurate in the context you're espousing. Nothing is wrong with the act of eating and nothing was wrong with the fruit. God didn't say "in eating of it they would die". Nothing negative is ever said about the fruit itself, nor is the fruit of the TOTKOGAE ever called sin, disobedience, death, or whatever. The description given by God, as pointed out by others, was "was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise" (Gen 3:6). He said IN THE DAY they ate of it, they would die. That's a distinction, and for the purposes of this discussion a really important one, maybe. Here is the Hebrew itself, in interlinear form with the English translation. (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3.htm) God said "בְּיוֹם֙", "in the day", i.e. there is clearly a temporal element to this. As for me I feel like this indicates that God knew it would happen already, so it was not only temporal but prophetic (He was telling them something that was already going to happen, after all, wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for their sake?).
Trapped's "buffet" example is pretty good here. Another one I heard is in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gh2LXHUhIA) of one of David Pawson's sermons (I'm not necessarily saying I agree with 100% of what he says, but I do agree with his assessment, as in the book of James, that faith should be something we largely DO, not just believe). In that video he gives a great example that when a young, cocky man came up to him asking why he should believe in the Genesis story because it seemed silly - why would man have done something so stupid like eating from that ONE forbidden tree? - Pawson gave him an example of being put in a giant library with thousands or hundreds of thousands of books you could spend your whole life reading on every subject you could possibly find interesting and be happy with, and being told "there's only ONE book you can't read, that one on that shelf up there, that one is off limits". The young man thought about it briefly and then decided the Genesis story made perfect sense and he believed it.
Sons to Glory!
02-18-2021, 09:06 AM
Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.
I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .
Trapped
02-21-2021, 10:13 PM
Just to add one more thing to this trees discussion: remember that Jesus came to take the punishment for the sin of the world.
Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.
And it makes all the sense in the world for The Book that speaks of this gospel would start out with a story that feeds right into why Jesus had to come for us.
The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient.
We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.
Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.
..The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient. We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.
Because of his obedience, his righteousness in death was imputed as our propitiation. We believe this: we believe in his experience of obedience, not in our experience of eating.
I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .
The original post asked a straightforward question:
Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's [sic] Economy?In reviving this question on post #308, I tried to explain what the Local Church means with God's economy, why I find it unsatisfying, and I proposed an alternate reading. Then Awoken came in with Lee's Two Trees theory, which is part of it, and you've addressed the "eating" part.
Yet StG you never acknowledge my repeated remarks on what Jesus termed his "eating", and the accompanying NT texts stressing Jesus' obedience, and it seems you're trying to do an end-around back to Lee's pray-reading and "enjoyment" leading to some kind of metabolic transformation. Am I right?
But nowhere does Paul write, "I hope that when I return to Ephesus (or Laodicea or Thessalonika) I'll find you pray-reading scriptures". Instead he says, "Lay aside some money for the poor of Jerusalem", and he repeatedly points to other churches doing the same thing, or he says that other churches are noting the letter's recipients as an example of diligence in this matter. This, says Paul, is love, this is the giving as in Jesus' "Do unto others", this is our faith in action. This is fellowship with one another, this is what it means with remembrance of the hungry and weak and sick.
So I asked, if Paul is repeatedly teaching this in all the other churches, what's he asking Timothy to focus on as he remains in Ephesus? Something like "masticating God to become God [in life and nature]? Where is the connection of that, to any teaching or act of Paul?
Conversely, if his idea of metabolic transformation follows his idea of eating and organic assimilation, why did WL repeatedly place his ne'er-do-well sons where they could prey on the flock? Where's evidence of his own transformation? Instead, we see an untransformed man still in his fallen human culture - family (sinful or not) comes first. And closer to home, why did Bill Freeman's "Christ" allow Patsy Freeman to bulldoze the lives of the various church couples in their captive assemblies? How can we think that some kind of "enjoyment" trumps all that? Just because the Bible has food in it?
And then, saying that there are different equally valid aspects is another way of brushing it all off.
But the unrighteousness that we all repeatedly saw should not be brushed off. And many of us here have said that the failure of theology led to pretending that we didn't care for righteousness, only "enjoyment'' and "eating" and "exercising our spirit" and so forth. This is mere noisemaking, and suppression of thought, and eventually suppression of conscience, when evil is ignored. "Just be simple, drop your concepts, eat that tree." To me, you're perilously close to that world, if not still fully ensconced within it.
Sons to Glory!
02-22-2021, 08:06 AM
One more comment on this, then I think I'm done as I have little heart to engage in endless whatever. Justification is toward sin - it cleanses the vessel and makes it right/fit for filling. Then, after being saved by His death, there is the much more of being saved by His life. So there are both these aspects.
Peace.
One more comment on this, then I think I'm done as I have little heart to engage in endless whatever. Justification is toward sin - it cleanses the vessel and makes it right/fit for filling. Then, after being saved by His death, there is the much more of being saved by His life. So there are both these aspects.
Peace.The "much more" and "his life" and "filling" are perhaps dependent on obedience to our Master. If by faith one does what the Lord (gk: 'Kurios') wants, the Holy Spirit will come alongside. Just as Jesus obeyed the Father and lived by the Father's life, so we are to obey Jesus, and live. This is our "eating", our "being filled" unto all the fulness of God.
James 1:1 says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." What does a servant do? They obey their Master. Pretty straightforward concept of relations seen in consistent patterns of action. The Master commands, the servant obeys.
Regarding food - it's interesting that Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep" and in the first few chapters of Acts we see Peter giving actual food to actual hungry people. Not selling tracts and booklets on how "mystical" it all was. Peter was obeying Jesus: feeding Jesus' sheep meant giving food to people. That's God's economy, which is in faith. "Freely give to those who can't pay you today, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous."
Trapped
02-22-2021, 07:05 PM
Sons to Glory,
I think it would be really great if you responded accordingly as you said you intended to a few posts ago, and didn't peace out without facing the discussion. I honestly think this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who has had any instruction by Witness Lee about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly here is the most important thing.
Your response about "much more being saved by His life" really doesn't have much to do with the discussion of the TOTKOGAE, as far as I can tell. Kind of a non sequitur.
Did you cancel your planned fellowship with another person about it? Or did you have fellowship, and if so, how did it go?
Trapped
this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who's had instruction by WL about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly is important
I apologise for taking any gratuitous swipes at passersby, as the goal was to discuss and rightly divide the word. We have this phrase used by Paul twice, and translated variously. In the LSM it was called "God's economy" and it occupied a central spot in their thinking and practices. I've gone over this at length, using Paul's letters, and Acts, to show a focus of his activities among the churches of the gentiles (his term per Rom 16:4), and how that lined with Jesus' teachings, as well as James, John and Peter.
WL's "Two Trees" motif was central to his "God's economy" platform, which led us to the "Don't think, just eat that tree!" mantra. And I've noted a stress on a vague amorphous thing called "life" in the LC. It's one of their central 'mystical' terms, meaning it can be whatever MOTA & Minions want. As in, "I don't have life" to do something, including to pay attention to the Bible, which when ignored they call "dead letters". I kid you not, this is how their "life" rules the LC.
And I wrote before that in John's gospel, "Life" is altogether tied with and dependent on "Light". My point was that the LC leadership hates the light, and I asked, then what's this "Life" they pursue? I repeat my points:
~In reading John 1, we see how many intertwined references there are to "light" and "life". They're inseparable, in John's eyes. This relational theme, once introduced, then continues throughout John's works. With light is obedience, with obedience is life.
~The light of the gospel once came to me: God loved me, and sent his Only Begotten Son Jesus to be my Saviour. This information, derived from the text of Scripture, changed my life. The light of God's sending and redeeming love flooded my heart. The light changes us, changes our conception of the world we live in. When you say, "Jesus is Lord" you're giving someone information that can change them forever. That's what John was doing: "God loved us so much, that He sent His Son..."
~The only reason we independently know any LC history is because of a tiny, tiny opening - when WL said, "We should find out what happened" to those who left. Let's reconcile, he said, forgive one another... Paul's "ministry of reconciliation" etc... Steve Isitt decided to obey the directive from the pulpit, and find out what happened. When he did, and presented his findings, per WL's directive, how did LC leaders, locally and regionally, react to the light? They were horrified! Even now, DCP won't mention Timothy's role in Daystar. They won't mention Philip, and expose what a sham WL's "Fermentation" book is. My point is that they hate the light. So I ask, how can they have the life? It's probably not coincidence that vampire expert Walter Martin keyed in on WL. I heard that Count Dracula also hated the light.
When we talk about "Life" in context of WL's oeuvre, we should mention all this. The word of Scripture demands it. Just like with Bill Freeman's Subjective Christ and his wife Patsy's machinations. You can't tout one, and pretend the other doesn't exist. I wasn't trolling StG at all, but strongly felt that the point needs to be made. Again, I apologise if it seems unpleasant or antagonistic. This forum is called LC "Discussions" for a reason, because they're needed: discussions bring more light, and we need the light.
"I’ve studied the cults now since 1950. I’ve learned many thing about them. One of the things I’ve learned about them and it’s been very, very profitable, is that the cults exceed most accurately and powerfully when they imitate the church most closely. The closer they look like us, the worse the deception. The closer they can get to our vocabulary, carry our bible, mention the name of Jesus and talk the lingo of Christianity, the more dangerous they become.
You don’t need anybody to put a red flag out when somebody gets up and teaches Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam because you know you’re dealing with non-Christian religions. But if somebody gets up and says “I agree with Christianity, I believe in Jesus Christ”, and then you say “oh that’s wonderful!” And you take that person on faith, going no further when the person really doesn’t believe what the gospel says at all, they’re just using the language. At that point you're in great danger of deception. Deception comes when you think you're believing what’s right when in reality, you're being misled and deceived.”
https://churchwatchcentral.com/2016/02/07/dr-walter-martin-speaking-out-on-wolves-cults/
Sons to Glory!
02-23-2021, 08:03 AM
Sons to Glory,
I think it would be really great if you responded accordingly as you said you intended to a few posts ago, and didn't peace out without facing the discussion. I honestly think this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who has had any instruction by Witness Lee about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly here is the most important thing.
Your response about "much more being saved by His life" really doesn't have much to do with the discussion of the TOTKOGAE, as far as I can tell. Kind of a non sequitur.
Did you cancel your planned fellowship with another person about it? Or did you have fellowship, and if so, how did it go?
TrappedI did have some initial fellowship with a brother, whose immersion in the word I greatly respect. I told him what we were looking at on here and then came back to him this weekend about it. At that time he said, "Honestly, I don't have much appetite for this sort of thing." When I heard that it caught me off guard a bit, but I must admit that I came to believe this was a word from the Lord and my appetite for it is mostly gone now too. Sorry, but it's just not in me to pursue further. I think part of this has to do with a rich word that a brother shared this Sunday here, about the amazing riches of the fullness of Christ in Colossians chapter one. I guess after having a taste of that, that is what my appetite is toward right now.
However, I think I owe you one last comment, so I will share what came to me this morning. I realized that I probably short-changed the "much more . . . saved in His life" aspect I mentioned in my last post. What came to me, and I hope this helps, is that there is a comparison of the two Adams. There are two main aspects of the final Adam (Christ) - His justification work and His life-giving. To fully return us to God's purpose both are needed - the cleaning and then filling of the vessel. And this is to correct what happened with the first Adam. He disobeyed, and through that act something got into his vessel. So there's a two part problem with the first; and a two part solution with the last. Hope that helps.
Economy refers to the administration in God's house to minister the riches of Christ to God's children. To this end the apostles were given a stewardship, which is the office of this administration to minister, shepherd, teach, preach the gospel, etc. for the household of God.
Also stewardship means to give [dispense] things: food to hungry people, shelter to the dispossessed, healing to the sick, care to the lonely, clothing to those shivering with cold. Stewardship means to share. The NT is full of this theme, from the gospels onward. In NT times there were no social services. Widows starved, sick people had no hospitals. Orphans ended up in some bad place. There were no "human rights". What Jesus taught, that the strong should help the weak and not prey on them, to share with those who couldn't repay you, was revolutionary. Still is.
Paul's letters continually mention the collection for the poor of Jerusalem, and in 2 Cor 8 he goes into lengths about it. "Those who gathered much had no excess, those who gathered little had no lack." In Acts, people sold their possessions and laid them at the feet of the apostles who distributed [dispensed] them (4:35); they held possessions in common (2:44). This was God's economy, which is in faith.
I remember being told by WL or RK or someone, that if I just went to the back of the meeting and dozed off, I'd wake up with "more God" than when I arrived. That, to them, was the "dispensing" in God's economy. The "much more saved by his life" wasn't obedience or righteousness but in the LC was rather called "dispositional sanctification" which meant if you just hung out with WL you got "more God".
And if you bought his books, said, "Amen" every time he spoke, sat up front and pumped your fist - "exercise your spirit, brother!" - well wowee zowee you got the express elevator to the top. More God, more God, more God! Amen! A selfish, me-first view, in which you didn't have to love anyone, didn't have to give to the poor and dispossessed, didn't have to visit the sick. Just hang out on the "local ground" and get the "dispensing" and then get ''sonized''.
Which one makes more sense - An economy/stewardship in which your orientation is to serve others, or a self-focused one that "makes you God in life and nature but not the Godhead"? Remember Jesus' teaching: "Do unto others" and "love your neighbour"? If you focus on self, is that really the way of Jesus?
In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Paul finished the "diakonon" in Jerusalem and returned to Antioch, taking with them John Mark. Diakonon means "service" or "dispensing". What were Barnabas and Paul doing there? Pray-reading? No, they were dispensing the goods from Antioch to the hungry people of Jerusalem. (See Acts 11:27-30)
"Eating Jesus is the Way"? Or, "Jesus is the Way"? I don't think they're two aspects of the same thing, rather they're diametrically opposed. The first is self-oriented, the second is other-oriented. Barnabas and Paul were aligned with the NT orientation: love your neighbour - the other person - as yourself. Love is doing unto others, not pray-reading or listening to a message. Love is dispensing unto others - not just flattery. ~James 2:16; 1:22.
If the apostles in Jerusalem - James, Peter, John - told Paul, "only remember the poor" and he said, "this very thing I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10), don't you think we'd consider this as a candidate for God's economy? Especially when Paul repeatedly goes into this in his various epistles, occasionally at length, and Luke also makes prominent place for it in his apostolic narrative? And even more so if this also dove-tails with the gospel message, "do this unto the least of these my brethren and you also do it to me"? Are the "least of these" of Jesus' flock perhaps the same "poor of Jerusalem" of the apostolic agreement?
No, that's not God's economy, we were told in the LC... how are you so sure?
Remember how Witness Lee's doctrines were developed, following Watchman Nee's pattern. Mr. Lee like Nee his mentor was supposedly the "Seer of the divine revelation" whose visions from God had a distinct pattern of abetting his own interests. Watchman Nee's "vision" could switch from local autonomous assemblies (to help shed Western control) to centralization - the "Jerusalem Principle" - for coming under Nee's control. Concurrently, Nee's "Handing Over" thrust was likewise beneficial for the Church [of Nee], for the Work [of Nee], for the Ministry [of Nee].
Later, Lee's version of "God's New Testament Economy" ensured that we'd be buying books, yelling slogans over and over, telling each other not to think or question, flying to Anaheim twice-yearly for trainings, sending our children to his FTT, scouring the campus for College Freshmen, writing our testimonials online about his "rich ministry".
Yet what if Chicago believers sent funds to help the poor of Detroit, and Detroit's believers helped the poor of Flint, and Duluth helped the poor of Bismark? What would happen to the flow of funds to Anaheim, to support the Ministry and the Work of Building up the Body? What would happen to the residuals flowing to the Lee family? Who'd fill the reflecting pool at Lee's mausoleum?
So there was an interest in NOT seeing the economy of God as outlined in the consistent pattern in gospels, Acts and epistles. Instead it became a selfish orientation. Do what Lee says, and you'll be God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. You'll be "filled unto the fullness of God" by sitting in a chair, pumping your fist and saying 'amen' along to sing-song cadence. You will be "enjoying the riches". The message is, you, you, you. You are the center of the universe. "Oh I'm a man, I'm the center of the universe!" we all sang.
Then, once you're seduced and co-opted into pursuing selfish ends, then you can be manipulated. Then the Bible can be ignored, as "dead letters". Certain half-verses of Paul can be obsessed over for clues, whilst whole chapters of Paul are ignored. Likewise teachings of Jesus are waved off, or given 'mystical' interpretations. James' epistle is "low" and "not God's economy". Jesus' talk of his "food" being to do the Father's will, ignored.
At some point the disconnect should become alarmingly obvious. The teaching that leads to the "God's economy" as sold by Living Stream Ministry benefits LSM and its ilk, but it's at variance with Scripture, and look at its fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we're no longer naïive. We don't have to keep going down that path.
Awoken
02-24-2021, 08:17 AM
Here's an awesome video - the speakers touch on the points being discussed here in a very relevant way. If you don't have an hour to invest start at about the 23:00 mark and listen as the discussion progresses for the next few minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt8AJrF2GCg
Yet what if Chicago believers sent funds to help the poor of Detroit, and Detroit's believers helped the poor of Flint...
If the reader wonders why I mention Detroit helping Flint Michigan, my reference was Acts 11 and 12, where a famine occurred, and the church in Antioch sent aid via Barnabas and Paul to help Jerusalem. Whether it was food, money, goods or some combination we don't know, but it was collected, sent, and distributed - I believe the RecV translated diakonon as "this dispensing" in 12:25. Probably not coincidentally, Paul later continues and expands this theme in his writings, to the Romans (15:25-32), the Corinthians (I Cor 16:1-4), the Macedonians (2 Cor 8:1-4), and Luke then concludes with Paul saying that he's returning with "alms for my nation."
Now, we no longer have Paul coming by the local churches, to collect for the poor of Jerusalem. But Detroit can care for Flint just as Antioch and Macedonia once did for Jerusalem. When the angel told Cornelius, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial offering before God", I ask if there's anything in Peter's subsequent message, or Luke's story, that overturns this. Where did Peter or anyone preach or suggest that alms to the poor, once lauded, were now superseded? No, Paul's word in Acts 24:17 rather confirms the Lukan message.
Peter told Cornelius that Jesus displayed a pattern of "good works" toward those in distress (10:38), and Cornelius' same pattern in v. 31 now pointed this reverent, seeking gentile to Jesus the [Jewish] Messiah and Saviour of the World.
And my larger point is that when Paul wrote Timothy ask him to make the Ephesians heed teachings that resulted in God's economy, which is in faith, how do we know that this isn't what he meant? If you give to the least of these my brothers, you give to me - that was the original command of the Master, and now Paul was extending this beyond Jerusalem to the wider world. Remember that the gospel flowed out from the center: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth" - Paul was going abroad now, to Macedonia and Corinth, then hopefully to Rome, Gaul and even Spain, and was returning with "alms for my nation." And his word to the gentile churches was, "You owe the Jews" for the gospel. (Rom 15:27)
How so? Paul's bringing funds back to the poor of Jerusalem was a way to tie the Macedonians, the Achaeans, the Romans, the Corinthians, the Spaniards, with the law-keeping Jews of Judea. Now the "two" are "one" - see Ephesians 2:15,16. The Jews send out the gospel of peace through Paul, and the gentiles send back acknowledgement through Paul. There is one body. Jesus is it's cornerstone, its head, yet Paul's reciprocal travels effect to knit together this one body.
And going back to Detroit and Flint: in the early manual of instruction for the gentiles called "Didache", the word on alms was, "Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands, before you know who to give them to." Paul was now gone, probably Peter, James and John as well, and Jerusalem had been razed by the Romans in AD 70. Now instead of saving up for Paul's visit a la 1 Cor 16:2, the recipients of Didache had to figure out who was truly needy, and worthy of the Lord's rescue. Detroit may not send to Flint but to Mississauga Ontario, who knows? They have to hold this gift before the Lord, and inquire.
I say, look at the larger and consistent pattern of behaviours in Acts and Paul's epistles, tie them back to the commands Jesus gave to the Twelve, and ask yourself what Paul meant by "God's economy." What is more consistent with the overall pattern of the NT: "masticate the processed God and become God" or "do [good] unto others, even as you'd have them do to you" and "give to those who can't repay you"? I'm inclined to say, the latter is more consistently supported by NT Scripture and aligned with Jesus' central message.
UntoHim
02-25-2021, 12:56 PM
I heard a pastor/teacher somewhere say something like "if anyone ever preaches/teaches something you've never heard, or has never been taught by any other teacher, there's a good chance it's not biblical."
At the risk of sounding crass or flippant (UntoHim flippant?....say it ain't so :) -) I would suggest that the whole notion of Witness Lee's "God's Economy" is simply T.M.I. at best, and actually takes disparate passages of Scripture and attempts to make one, universal theme of the Bible that simply does not exist. No reputable, renown and widely accepted Christian teacher has ever taught such a thing, much less emphasized it in the way that Lee and his followers do.
As with all things Christian, the crux of the matter is the Gospel. The true, irreducible, essential and unadulterated Gospel is altogether God-centered. The center and core is God himself, and his glory, his majesty, his power, his love, his grace, his mercy, his wisdom, his nature, his character, his omnipotence, his omnipresence. Of course all these wonderful things come together in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The gospel of Witness Lee and the Local Church is altogether man-centered. The core teachings are focused on man. This is how Lee's followers could come up with these unbiblical and absurd lyrics:
O I'm a man —
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man —
I'm the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe.
No, my dear Local Church brothers and sisters, you are not the center and the meaning of the universe. Since the beginning God's enemy has attempted to get man to think he is indeed the center and the meaning of the universe. Satan's first declaration to Eve: "God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4) "You will be like God" - You will be the center and meaning of the universe! "God made me such, I am so much". Actually we were made from the dust of the ground. And because of our disobedience at the Fall: "for you are dust, and to dust you shall return". God in his wisdom and mercy would not let man remain forever in this this fallen state. God would not allow man to consider himself the center and the meaning of the universe.
And this is where the Gospel actually starts. God's first act of redemption was to rescue man from spending eternity considering himself the meaning and the center of the universe. Since God called out Abraham, when God's people have ever considered themselves anything more than lowly creatures made from the dust of the ground, disaster has ensued. God ended up sending prophet after prophet to remind the Children of Israel. Sometimes he even sent the heathens - the unbelievers - to remind them. I am quite certain that the Scribes and Pharisees considered themselves and the religion they invented as the center and the meaning of the universe.
And here we are thousands of years later, and what has been the bane of the existence of God's latter day people here in the age of grace? How could people like Joel Osteen be considered a Christian leader? How can the leading Christian apologist of our generation be found to be a user and abuser of women? How is it that a Local Church elder can use and abuse his wife and children for years without facing discipline or consequences of any kind? How can the "co-worker" who was supposed to be overseeing and protecting the local church members from this evil, unrepentant man, instead turn against the flock and assist the wolf in attacking them further? Shame on them. And shame to many of us for being neglectful and cowardly for not reproving and reminding everyone that we are just dust of the ground.
Yes, God does have an economy - an oikonomia - but I'm afraid that those of us entrusted with the management of this household have messed it up big time. This house is a filthy pigsty. Instead of keeping it neat and clean, we have let it go to hell. We have ignored, abused and abandoned the innocent children of this household, and instead invited in and honored all sorts of people who don't belong. Brothers and sisters, let's not wait for God to have to do the work that we should be doing ourselves. Yes in the end he will clean house: "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev:22:15) But God's house should be a house of prayer. It should be a "safehouse" where the innocent, the wounded and fatherless have a safe haven, and are protected from the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters. Everyone who loves and practices falsehood should be evicted. When this is done maybe the house can be put in order. Maybe God will have his economy then.
-
I wanted to try a kind of recap, starting with the first post and it's question:
Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?
My answer is: the Local Church says God's Economy is that God got processed and is now within man as the Holy Spirit, and now man is getting processed to become God.
God went thru a process: incarnation, inclusion, intensification; and now man is processed: redemption, justification, regeneration, transformation, transfiguration.
But my question has been, how do we know that's what Paul meant when he used the words translated as, "God's economy"? It turns out there's no justification whatever for this explanation. There's absolutely nothing that in the surrounding text that indicates that Paul meant anything like what WL spent page after page of printed books to promote.
The Lord's economy, or "God's Economy" is taken heavily from the opening verses in 1 Timothy. Specifically 3 & 4. If you read the opening chapter of his book on the subject, Lee mentions no other verse and argues a peculiar meaning that is essentially not taken by any other. And he uses some tricks of argumentation to stop the listener/reader from questioning his certainty of position. For example, he says something like "a thorough investigation of the entire Bible will reveal that . . . ." Of course, no one is going to actually do such an investigation. And he has hinted that he has done it. And declared that it will reveal his answer. So you either go along or you have to start into just such an investigation.
In the realm of logical discussion, his method is designed to provide no actual information but suggest that the requirements to contradict are so difficult as to be impossible, thus shutting off debate. The astute arguer will simply reject such an assertion and ask for actual evidence that it is so.
I use the quote above to say that I've considered alternatives and found that Paul may mean something quite different. I've outlined my conclusions at length in preceding posts and won't summarize. But I bring it up because one of the possible arguments of the Lee School is, "What else could 'God's economy' possibly mean besides what Brother Lee said it was?" Like OBW says, it's presented as self-evident and the only option when it's neither. It's neither very defensible nor is it the only possible meaning to defend.
In order to keep a focus on "God's economy" as held by WL & Co, one must ignore other possibilities as if they didn't exist, even when the plain text of Scripture repeatedly suggests them. If the RecV Acts 12:25, it says that Barnabas and Paul were "dispensing".... um, hellooooo??? Dispensing? What were they dispensing - Rainbow Booklets? (that's an inside joke: back in the day, our local meeting halls had boxes of pastel-colored tracts sent from Anaheim, piled in their attics and closets and basements).
Then, it's focused on self. That should be a huge red flag right there.
Then, it leads to other quasi- or non-Biblical motifs like "exercise your spirit" when the Bible never says to. Instead it says, "exercise unto Godliness" which probably means, visit widows and orphans and keep yourself unspotted from the world, a la James' advice.
Then, this "exercise" ensures that you don't think. Instead, you bark like a dog: "arf-arf-arf Rivers!"; and "amen-amen-amen Rivers"; and "praisethelordpraisetheLord RIIIVVERRRS!!!!" (Ayyyeeeemeeeennnnn!!!). All this yelling and sing-song makes one thoughtless which is held to be "in spirit". But now I think it's a clever conjurer's trick: the teaching leads to the yelling, which yelling practice distracts one from realizing that the teaching has no basis.
Lastly, if "God's economy" involves subjective, selfish enjoyment, why doesn't that "eating" and "enjoyment" lead to personal transformation? Why then are leaders so untransformed, so crafty and manipulative and bullying? Why are members so miserable and depressed? Why are teens leaving in droves? Why are we "covering drunken Noah"? I though Noah was supposed to be getting transfigured - why is he getting drunk? Even the Christian basics get upended.
Just look at the fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we've plenty of evidence to see where this unbiblical practice has taken people.
Sons to Glory!
02-26-2021, 01:51 PM
No, my dear Local Church brothers and sisters, you are not the center and the meaning of the universe. Since the beginning God's enemy has attempted to get man to think he is indeed the center and the meaning of the universe. Satan's first declaration to Eve: "God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4) "You will be like God" - You will be the center and meaning of the universe! "God made me such, I am so much". Actually we were made from the dust of the ground. And because of our disobedience at the Fall: "for you are dust, and to dust you shall return". God in his wisdom and mercy would not let man remain forever in this this fallen state. God would not allow man to consider himself the center and the meaning of the universe. - A little side note if I may: I agree that WL goes too far in many of his prognostications regarding man. I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture? The Bible describes man in the lowest terms, but also in very high terms, such as sons of God. (i.e., unregenerate vs. regenerated)
It says in Psalms 8:3-6 (NASB):
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You have him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put everything under his feet"
(BTW - I just discovered this morning that the word that many times was translated as "angels" in this passage is actually "Elohim." Makes better sense to translate this as "a little lower than God" rather than "a little lower than angels" - which appears to be a rendering we received from the Vulgate.)
So yes, man is formed of the dust . . . but also we were created with the breath of God in our nostrils. (Gen 2:7)
A little side note if I may: I agree that WL goes too far in many of his prognostications regarding man. I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture? The Bible describes man in the lowest terms, but also in very high terms, such as sons of God. (i.e., unregenerate vs. regenerated)
It says in Psalms 8:3-6 (NASB):
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You have him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put everything under his feet"
The "him" in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ. "These things were written concerning me" - Luke 24:27;44. He is the Sinless One. We are the believers into his status as Obedient Lamb of God. But if we put the focus on ourselves or our faith, we're near to error if not already in it. He's errorless, we are error-prone. Why gaze on ourselves?
The author of a song that says, "Oh, I'm a man- I'm the center of the universe" has taken their eyes off Christ. In fact, any Christian song using the word "I" is probably mis-aiming at least in part. Remember, "No more 'I' but Christ" - how then is "I" re-introduced, and as the center of the universe!? Please!
Again, I see a seduction: we're lured to gaze on ourselves, as the conjurer projects an image onto us, and we see ourselves as the conjurer wants us to. Instead of Christ we see the conjurer's "I" - "Oh! I'm a man!" Then, the wheels of manipulation begin to turn, and at some point we find ourselves in the Full Time Training getting our socks and underwear drawer inspected, or our wife wants to move yet again, for another "migration", or... the incessant "needs" and "musts" and "have tos" follow unending. All because we took our gaze off Jesus. And now, like Peter floundering down into the water, we can only cry for help. "Lord! Save us!"
Sons to Glory!
02-26-2021, 02:48 PM
The "him" in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ. "These things were written concerning me" - Luke 24:27;44. He is the Sinless One. We are the believers into his status as Obedient Lamb of God. But if we put the focus on ourselves or our faith, we're near to error if not already in it. He's errorless, we are error-prone. Why gaze on ourselves?I don't think so . . . at least not exactly. What Christ says in Luke 24 cannot be construed as about Him to the exclusion of mankind. If you read this Psalm it talks about God making the heavens then considers man. Christ came as a man, showing that man was not some lowly afterthought, but something grand in God's design. Christ came to bring man back to our rightful position . . . sons of the Most High --> not God, but sons of God.
What Christ says in Luke 24 cannot be construed as about Him to the exclusion of mankind.I completely and strenuously disagree. There is one Christ. No one else has his status. Nobody should elevate themselves. In due time, yes he'll elevate his servants at the Bema. But any who elevate (or 'centers' as in, 'I'm the center') themselves will err. Only Christ is sinless obedient Lamb of God. He has status unshared. We are excluded. We believe, and vicariously do share in some sense, but only as we believe in him. To focus on ourselves, our faith, our status, our position, is to fall away from him.
It's like the Gorgon. If you look at the Gorgon you die. Only by looking at the Shield (Christ) you live. The only 'reality' is through the Shield. Everything else, including and especially us, is tainted. Because of sin we are the Gorgon. Because of his sinless obedience is the Way.
You just have to look at Jesus. Look at nothing else.
(when I say 'you' of course that is self-talk. Anyone is free to do whatever they please)
Sons to Glory!
02-26-2021, 05:58 PM
I completely and strenuously disagree. There is one Christ. No one else has his status. Nobody should elevate themselves. In due time, yes he'll elevate his servants at the Bema. But any who elevate (or 'centers' as in, 'I'm the center') themselves will err. Only Christ is sinless obedient Lamb of God. He has status unshared. We are excluded. We believe, and vicariously do share in some sense, but only as we believe in him. To focus on ourselves, our faith, our status, our position, is to fall away from him.
It's like the Gorgon. If you look at the Gorgon you die. Only by looking at the Shield (Christ) you live. The only 'reality' is through the Shield. Everything else, including and especially us, is tainted. Because of sin we are the Gorgon. Because of his sinless obedience is the Way.
You just have to look at Jesus. Look at nothing else.
(when I say 'you' of course that is self-talk. Anyone is free to do whatever they please)I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?
And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.
Awoken
02-26-2021, 07:14 PM
Well, relating to all of this perhaps, I read John 12 today. Listened to it while I was on the treadmill via my convenient British-accented Bible reading bot, then used a parallel Bibles app to compare between 5 versions. Here is what I was "touched by" (to coin an LC cliché) -
Berean Study Bible: "And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say."
Darby Bible: "and I know that His commandment is life eternal. What therefore I speak, as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
NASB: "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."
Amplified: "I know that His commandment is eternal life. So the things I speak, I speak [in accordance with His exact instruction,] just as the Father has told Me."
Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (Lamsa): "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting; these things therefore which I speak, just as my Father told me, so I speak."
I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."
I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?God is the self-existent One. Our existence is only to the extent that we recognise this, not only in abstract theory but in practice. As soon as we say, "I am" then we are not. When we efface ourselves then the doorway is opened for him to create us in his image. But only then. As soon as we think and act selfishly we are removed from Christ. Peter looked around to see the sights and his sight became onrushing water and death.
And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. She saw the gilt, she didn't see the guilt. (that's a pun) So "who we are" is the Gorgon. Christ is the Shield. Focus on the Shield.
I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?God is the self-existent One. Our existence is only to the extent that we recognise this, not only in abstract theory but in practice. As soon as we say, "I am" then we are not. When we efface ourselves then the doorway is opened for him to create us in his image. But only then. As soon as we think and act selfishly we are removed from Christ. Peter looked around to see the sights and his sight became onrushing water and death.
And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. Because of sin, she only saw the gilt, and missed the guilt (a pun, yes)
So "who we are" is the Gorgon. Christ is the Shield. Focus on the Shield.
The Psalms were a collection of poems set to music. Many were written by David and most agree that David wrote Psalm 8. For a hymn that begins and ends with "O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!", a little context would be helpful.
Picture David, out stargazing, talking to his excellent Lord and telling him "3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;"...
David can't help but ask his Lord, "4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" David also might have had the thought "Who am I?" Do you think David had the thought "Oh I'm a man, I'm the meaning of the universe?" I think if he did, he would have written it down in this poem.
Or, why did you, the God of the universe, make me (v5) just a little lower than the angels, you crowned me with glory and honour. (v6) The man you made, Adam, you made to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: (vv 7-8) All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. Wow! Lord! how excellent is your name in all the earth!
So the real question is not "what is man" but "who is this one with the excellent name in all the earth!" What is man...in his lowly, fallen state...who, in his own lineage, brought forth the Savior of mankind.
So, when you say, "I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture?" I think man is fallen, sinful, narcissistic, and thinks of himself more highly than he ought.
When we stand before Him, in that day, we will declare "worthy the Lamb", not worthy the Lee.
Nell
Sons to Glory!
02-27-2021, 07:13 AM
This is kind of a circular thing, is it not? Man was created with God's highest intentions, and Adam blew it. Christ came to take care of the problems Adam brought on us and through Him we are restored. I agree we are to look to the lifted up One and focus on Him, and thereby be healed. And what is His focus? His body, house & bride - us. Love God & each other with the love we've received.
My paraphrased/amplified take of Revelation 12:11 - "They overcame the deceiver by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony (which is Jesus), and they loved not their soul-lives unto death, because they see Him of peerless worth."
So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)
Awoken
02-27-2021, 08:06 AM
Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. Because of sin, she only saw the gilt, and missed the guilt (a pun, yes)
Or how about the word of the Lord to the Laodicean church in Revelation 3 -
17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
This really sums up, I believe, a lot of the problem in the "Lord's Recovery"... the gross self-reflection and belief that the richest doctrines, the highest speakings, the most sanctified believers all belong to us. Well, the Lord says it ain't so, bub. This is actually what started bothering me and caused me to realize I needed to leave the LCs. I couldn't get the picture of Moses in front of the burning bush out of my head, and God telling him - "take off your sandals, you're on holy ground" - oh, wow, I've stumbled on the presence of God, I need to take off my shoes and humble myself because I'm about to stand in His presence and need to make sure I'm not disrespecting Him.
And the image of the river flowing out of the temple in Ezekiel 47 - which keeps getting BIGGER AND BIGGER - and Ezekiel, being led out further and further by the Lord/Spirit, who when the river got so big he couldn't stand in it, asked him, "Son of man, have you seen THIS?" Not a piddly little puddle of doctrinal "superiority". No, a giant river, too big to take in, too big for a man or a denomination to claim, and everything that it touched it healed, but all the swamps (the places that were cut off, the places where there was no flow and connection to the source) - were given over to salt. Dead.
Edit: By the way, I have it on good authority that at the last conference he ever gave, Witness Lee repented publicly of his attitude towards Christianity and calling other churches "degraded" for so many years. Somehow, however, that never made it into the Living Stream canon.
So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10)
In a sense, perhaps true. This morning I read Psalm 27 - David saying "of who shall I be afraid?" - realizing I need more boldness in Christ. There are times I've come across situations where I should have acted with confidence in Christ and instead shrank back, which is something necessary to repent of, so I have been asking God - put a backbone in me, Lord, give me a spirit of boldness and confidence in You, not of pride, but not a spirit of fear. One time I was with my wife in a city, visiting, and some lady began cursing at me randomly in a parking lot - I didn't even look at her, she just started cursing at me, vitriolic and evil stuff that was clearly the result of a demon possession. I think in retrospect I should have cast out that demon in the name of Jesus and prayed for her right then and there. But I wanted to get my wife out of there, probably not a terrible idea, and then we did pray for her. But I can't help but thinking - perhaps I should have had more confidence in Christ. The Lord says that in the last days he will be doing miracles through His people.
Esther 4:14: For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?"
However, StG, I have a feeling we really can't aim too low in terms of humbling ourselves. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
UntoHim
02-27-2021, 09:34 AM
fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)
Actually you got it backwards my brother. Fallen man thinks of himself too low, and we believers perhaps think of ourselves too high.
I think part of the issue may be that you are not taking into account that we are still living in a fallen world. We are not in heaven...not yet. Yes, God will indeed "transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21) He has not subjected all things to himself...not yet. So we are still living within a fallen, unsubjected world, full of fallen and unsubjected people. If she is nothing else, the church is a place where people can come together and have a small taste of what it is like when people are subjecting themselves to God and his Kingdom. And the church should be a safe haven and refuge for the lost, the fatherless, the innocent children, the rejected and abused. And above all else, the church should be a place where the leaders are shepherds as well as teachers. Where the leaders are pastors as well as elders, and where the regional leaders are servants as well as super apostles.
I know the church I have described here sounds like something so impossible. But it is not only possible, it is the church as described in the New Testament. It is the scriptural church. If God has an "economy", then this economy can only function within this household - within this scriptural church. And it can only function properly if the head of the household is a shepherd as well as teacher, and a pastor as well as and elder, and a servant as well as a master. To whom much is given, much is required.
I know this thread is about Witness Lee's teachings regarding "The Economy of God". These teachings are at the very center and core of what Lee taught for about 50 years. It is fitting and it is appropriate that we discuss these teachings. But due to recent events among Christian leaders in general, and even leaders within the Local Church of Witness Lee specifically, I feel the need to speak of things in a more practical way.
If "God's economy" involves subjective, selfish enjoyment, why doesn't that "eating" and "enjoyment" lead to personal transformation? Why then are leaders crafty and manipulative and bullying? Why are members miserable and depressed? Why are teens leaving in droves? Why are we "covering drunken Noah"? I though Noah was supposed to be getting transfigured - why is he getting drunk? Even the Christian basics get upended.
Just look at the fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we've plenty of evidence to see where this unbiblical practice has taken people.
There are many such testimonies as below, from ones who grew up there, who were immersed in it for years and even decades. Where is the transformation, after all that "eating" via pray-reading?
"Attending numerous meetings including the practice of pray hating behind your back under the guise of fellowship and any deviant behavior or with regards to decorum or personal style will be gossiped about shamed and punished secretly behind your back while proclaiming the love for OLJ to your face. The sisters do this. They were the meanest women I have ever met in my life. My worldly girlfriends where kinder and nicer."
Trapped
02-28-2021, 10:34 AM
I did have some initial fellowship with a brother, whose immersion in the word I greatly respect. I told him what we were looking at on here and then came back to him this weekend about it. At that time he said, "Honestly, I don't have much appetite for this sort of thing." When I heard that it caught me off guard a bit, but I must admit that I came to believe this was a word from the Lord and my appetite for it is mostly gone now too. Sorry, but it's just not in me to pursue further. I think part of this has to do with a rich word that a brother shared this Sunday here, about the amazing riches of the fullness of Christ in Colossians chapter one. I guess after having a taste of that, that is what my appetite is toward right now.
However, I think I owe you one last comment, so I will share what came to me this morning. I realized that I probably short-changed the "much more . . . saved in His life" aspect I mentioned in my last post. What came to me, and I hope this helps, is that there is a comparison of the two Adams. There are two main aspects of the final Adam (Christ) - His justification work and His life-giving. To fully return us to God's purpose both are needed - the cleaning and then filling of the vessel. And this is to correct what happened with the first Adam. He disobeyed, and through that act something got into his vessel. So there's a two part problem with the first; and a two part solution with the last. Hope that helps.
Sons to Glory,
If the Word of God tells us to test all things, and discern the truth, and divide the word rightly, I can almost all but guarantee you that it's not the Lord who's telling you to not pursue the truth further.
You may have re-read those passages I asked you to read, but from everything you've said so far, there's no indication you have. You'll make unrelated statements, you'll try to distract by referencing "richer" portions, you'll make claims that are not supported by the Bible, and you'll go ask other people, but you won't read the words of Scripture. It's telling.
No one is disputing that "something got into [man's] vessel". The discussion was about where that something came from. This is not an unimportant thing. Particularly when the false teaching at question has been used to depress, oppress, and distress your fellow brothers and sisters for decades.
You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.
Trapped
Sons to Glory!
02-28-2021, 02:46 PM
Sons to Glory,
If the Word of God tells us to test all things, and discern the truth, and divide the word rightly, I can almost all but guarantee you that it's not the Lord who's telling you to not pursue the truth further.
You may have re-read those passages I asked you to read, but from everything you've said so far, there's no indication you have. You'll make unrelated statements, you'll try to distract by referencing "richer" portions, you'll make claims that are not supported by the Bible, and you'll go ask other people, but you won't read the words of Scripture. It's telling.
No one is disputing that "something got into [man's] vessel". The discussion was about where that something came from. This is not an unimportant thing. Particularly when the false teaching at question has been used to depress, oppress, and distress your fellow brothers and sisters for decades.
You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.
TrappedI believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. ;) Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)
You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.
Stg says that we're categorizing him, and perhaps so, but the impression is of promoting vague "riches" and then declining to discuss. And perhaps we paint broad-brush but the similarities with the LC are there. Whenever one notes the unpleasant realities of what life on the ground, the answer is, "I just want to be positive" or "I don't have a heart" "I'm just here for God's economy" etc. (Think of RK's quote, when the Santa Ana newspaper reporter asked about Philip Lee)
This selective participation is instructive for showing avoidance patterns we remember well. And Stg's nicer about evading discussion than others have been. One one website, I was told that my heart was dark, that I'd had ambitions thwarted and was now throwing sour grapes. And when I showed LC teaching having contradictions on this forum, one poster replied that I was just confused, without actually addressing my points or the scriptures.
But did the writer quoted in #368 have ambition thwarted, or were they merely done with the manipulation and abuse? It seems the latter. And she didn't get poisoned by this forum because she left at 18 and is now 43. No, she made her remarks after two decades of close personal observation of LC "experience" and "enjoyment''. Trapped is likewise connecting disjointed teaching with what's happened as a result. And I repeat that one can't tout the "rich Christ" of Bill Freeman without including Patsy Freeman's machinations. One can't retreat to some supposedly safe and clean abstraction, far away (one hopes) from the miseries on the ground that followed as it got practiced, promoted, and even enforced via shaming.
I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."
This is similar to what I was saying, that to Jesus, the Father's word is the Tree of Life, because Jesus obeys. "My food is to do the Father's will." John's gospel has repeated variations on this theme. Then I quoted Hebrews 5: Because of Jesus' obedience he got eternal life, and with our obedience to him we get also eternal life. Again, no suggestion of pray-reading, but rather obedience. The word becomes life not by repetitive shouting or "mastication" of letters but by obedience.
Heb 5:7-10 "In the days of His earthly life, Jesus offered up both [specific] petitions and [urgent] supplications [for that which He needed] with fervent crying and tears to the One who was [always] able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverent submission toward God [His sinlessness and His unfailing determination to do the Father’s will]. Although He was a Son [who had never been disobedient to the Father], He learned [active, special] obedience through what He suffered. And having been made perfect [uniquely equipped and prepared as Savior and retaining His integrity amid opposition], He became the source of eternal salvation [an eternal inheritance] to all those who obey Him, being designated by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek." (AMP) He was heard, not because of volume or repetition but because of obedience. And now it's our turn.
Obedience, perfection, eternal life. It could hardly be more clear. It starts with Jesus and flows to us. Now, in 2 Cor 8, Paul says that the sign of obedience is to share with others. Again, Paul says it started with Jesus: "He was rich but for our sakes he became poor." And then Luke has people selling what they have, and laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet (note well that Peter still has "no silver or gold" in Acts 3:6, but gave it all to the poor). If you go back and re-read 2 Cor 8 in this light, along with Paul's many epistolic exhortations for the poor of Jerusalem, you see what "God's economy" probably meant: "Give, and it shall be given to you; pressed down, shaken, and running over." ~Luke 6:38
(And I cannot overstress on this forum, that this proposed giving is NOT funding Hank Hanegraaf's his-and-hers Lexus', or Timothy Lee's Motor Home business. These shysters are soooo obvious when you know what to look for. For example, Ravi Zacharias said that profits from the Touch of Eden massage parlour in Alpharetta were for the furtherance of the gospel, just like WL & DCP said about his son's Daystar.)
Awoken
03-01-2021, 01:01 PM
aron, somewhat related, reading John 13 today with Wesley's Explanatory Notes; what I found amazing about Mr. Wesley's notes are his thoughts on verse 13:26. When John asked Him which of them was going to betray Him, he was "leaning back" or "leaning down" to speak to Jesus privately, and Jesus answered him privately that it would be the one to whom he gave the bread after he dipped it. This wasn't an open pronouncement against Judas but a secret told privately to John (if you compare this against the other gospels you see that Judas is never actually openly called out by the Lord, who rather just said "One of the twelve who dips his hand with me in the cup" - and only when Judas asked him directly (in Matthew 26) did he say, "You have said it").
Wesley's note:
"Jesus answered - In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been even possible) even Judas himself. The sop - Which he took up while he was speaking. He giveth it to Judas - And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession."
Before this you have the scene of Jesus washing Peter's feet and then teaching the disciples to wash each others' feet - to exhibit humble, servile love to each other. I think even when He was extending the bread to Judas He may have been trying to show him servant-like love, even knowing Judas was going to betray Him. I always used to think Jesus handing the bread to Judas was a kind of pronouncement of guilt, now I think it was a last-ditch extension of mercy and hope that he would repent even when Christ knew it wasn't going to happen. It explains why the disciples were so confused about why Jesus said "What you do, do quickly" - they had no clue this exchange had taken place, so they thought He was telling Judas to go run out and get groceries or something. Can you imagine the heart of God?
Wesley's note:
"Jesus answered - In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been even possible) even Judas himself. The sop - Which he took up while he was speaking. He giveth it to Judas - And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession."
I key in on one word in particular: "careful". So careful was Jesus not to offend. If you read the gospels, Jesus offended many! But the Father had decreed something and Jesus was careful with Judas, not to manipulate the Father's will, but that "Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven". Reference two nearby verses:
John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; (NIV)
John 13:18 I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me" (NIV)
Jesus knew the Father's will, what the Father was doing, and was therefore "so careful" to obey. And v. 18 quotes Psalm 41:9, that the sharing of bread will be linked to the betrayal. The Scripture was written and now must be fulfilled, so in faith Jesus is "so careful" to share the bread and not stumble Judas, knowing all things. In this care we can see Jesus' faith and obedience. He didn't force the issue, as Awoken wrote, as the Divine Will had decreed, the Scripture was written, and cannot be broken. Jesus never failed to fulfill and obey.
I refer to the earlier quote from John 12I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."
Because Jesus did exactly as the Father's will decreed in Scripture, he was raised from the dead to glory (Psa 16:10 [Acts 2:27]; Psa 18:16-24). We do the Father's will by believing into him whom the Father has sent (John 6:29). And "him that is sent" is by definition singular and categorically unique. Psalm 8 "what is man" refers distinctly to One Man, the Last Adam, who was lowered into the earth, and now in resurrection is "crowned with glory and honour". Even Paul conceded, "I have not yet laid hold", but Jesus has, as the singular and categorically unique Christ. We throw our crowns in the dust before him.
Psalm 40:7 says, "I come do to Thy Will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me." This "me" can only be Jesus. Only Jesus Christ did the will of the Father, the rest failed. In the scroll of the book was written detailed instructions to the Obedient Son, who fulfilled the prophecy. We're the formerly disobedient goats who now believe into the Obedient Lamb and live. But we don't believe in ourselves, our collective expressions on Sunday morning, our faith, our position, our doctrine, our ground, our church order, our ministry or work, our status, or our Bible translations. We focus on Him who gives life.
Yes, "Christ loves the Church" but the Church should not love the Church lest in a flash she become the Great Harlot. Just as Peter instantly fell by looking away from the Master, so can the Church. She should only look to Him. Pretty simple, really.
Back to 2 Cor 8 and "God's economy" as Paul taught in every church, and asked Timothy to make sure got taught in Ephesus. Paul told the Corinthians that Jesus emptied himself, and now the gentile ekklesia should empty their pockets for the poor of Jerusalem. This emptying was a sign of obedience to the gospel. Just as Jesus performed signs that he was obedient to the Father as Messiah, up to and including the pouring out of his very life, so should his believing disciples now demonstrate signs of their faith, in charity.
In the beginning of Acts, the giving and sharing to the poor weren't an anomaly to ignore in our search for a "normal Church life" but rather a pattern of discipleship signs that extend to Paul declaring that he'd returned to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" in chapter 24. In the gospels Jesus had taught, "Give, and it will be given to you", and "Love your neighbour", and "visit the sick and feed the hungry and you do this to me". Now the far-off gentile disciples had opportunity to do so. Paul was bringing that very gospel message to the world.
Awoken
03-02-2021, 08:00 AM
Yes, "Christ loves the Church" but the Church should not love the Church lest in a flash she become the Great Harlot. Just as Peter instantly fell by looking away from the Master, so can the Church. She should only look to Him. Pretty simple, really.
Always a good reminder. Thanks!
So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)
So the real question is not "what is man" but "who is this one with the excellent name in all the earth!" What is man...in his lowly, fallen state...who, in his own lineage, brought forth the Savior of mankind.
So, when you say, "I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture?" I think man is fallen, sinful, narcissistic, and thinks of himself more highly than he ought.
It might be worth considering Jesus' answer to the question. When someone called him, "Good Master" he replied, "Why do you call me good. No one is good but the Father." If Jesus didn't allow himself to be called good, why would any of his disciples?
Of course we are called to glory, but the path to glory is by humbling oneself. Because of sin, those who lift themselves will be abased, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. The pattern is clear, and it is explicit.
I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. ;) Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)
Welcome to the club.
What about us? You do understand that anyone who leaves the LC has been judged, categorized and "found wanting"? Right? (e.g., "negative", "opposers")
We didn't acquire an appetite either...for being cursed with the end of our walk with Jesus for leaving the "non-recovery".
What is your definition of "real fellowship"? Anything "real" has to be TRUE. We hold all posters to this standard.
We are here to discuss the Local Churches, which includes its so many, vast teachings of hypocrisy. This is what we focus on, because this is the LocalChurchDiscussions.com forum. There is sometimes a little heat in this kitchen.
Nell
Welcome to the club.
What about us? You do understand that anyone who leaves the LC has been judged, categorized and "found wanting"? Right? (e.g., "negative", "opposers")
We didn't acquire an appetite either...for being cursed with the end of our walk with Jesus for leaving the "non-recovery".
What is your definition of "real fellowship"? Anything "real" has to be TRUE. We hold all posters to this standard.
We are here to discuss the Local Churches, which includes its so many, vast teachings of hypocrisy. This is what we focus on, because this is the LocalChurchDiscussions.com forum. There is sometimes a little heat in this kitchen.
Nell
It would take me several lifetimes to investigate and understand all that was/is wrong with the Local Churches. I don't have that much time. Do you?
Trapped
03-03-2021, 09:34 PM
I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. ;) Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)
StG,
Describing plainly obvious and repeated behavior and facets of behavior is neither judgment nor categorization, bro.
Your response, in which you try to pass blame for simply identifying what you are doing, try to deflect from what's going on, and try to imply that the truth in one part of the Bible is inferior to or is less rich than other parts of the Bible, or that this fellowship is not "real", is a form of gaslighting. You use the phrase "this type of discussion" (contrasted with "riches of Christ" and "real fellowship") in a clearly denigrating and dismissive way. The reality is that the discussion is the type that is highly interested in what the Bible says.
Untangling an abusive doctrine and setting it right so it can set people free from decades of entrapment isn’t “real” fellowship? You’re deceived, bro. Something inside of you doesn’t seem to like hearing that sins are so serious in God's eyes that they deserve the death penalty, and that we are responsible for our actions……rather than simply being able to skip around blaming a piece of fruit for our problems.
You continually tout the riches of Christ, but your behavior has repeatedly been very subtly manipulative......the furthest thing from Christ.
The reason I'm spending continued time on this is for the benefit of current and future readers and lurkers who have probably encountered this kind of thing in the LC. It's a critical part of the mental exit process to be able to see through forms of manipulation, deflection, and blame, particularly when it is done using Christian-sounding phrases.
The reason I keep responding to you is because you keep using "Christ" and flowery spiritual language to avoid the truth. You take a name that should be held in high regard and misuse it for disingenuous purposes. You use the name of the One who is truth in order to avoid truth. It doesn't affect me in the slightest whether you live your life thinking something came from the fruit or not; it's the repeated deceit behind your responses that I won't ignore. You could have responded any number of honest ways without using “Christ” that way, but you kept doing it, over and over again. That behavior......misusing "Christ" to avoid truth.....is what is at the core of the spiritual abuse in the local church. I will never stop calling that kind of behavior out as long as you do it.
Trapped
Trapped
03-03-2021, 09:35 PM
It would take me several lifetimes to investigate and understand all that was/is wrong with the Local Churches. I don't have that much time. Do you?
zeek,
You're going to need to explain your non-sequitur post. I'm lost as to what you mean.
Trapped
Trapped
03-03-2021, 09:41 PM
aron,
Just wanted to say I agree very much with all your postings the last few weeks on God's economy. Obedience to His commands, love God, love your neighbor, give honor to those who are uncomely, care for the needy, eagerness to take care of the poor, widows, hungry, etc.......I absolutely agree that is God's economy as shown in Scripture.
I'm the first to admit I'm so short in those areas.
A few verses after the LC-famous verse on God's economy, Paul says "the end of the charge is love". Some translations say "the goal of the command is love."
In other words, he charged Timothy not to teach the unhealthy things which produce questionings, but to teach the healthy things which produce God's economy. And that charge.....the charge to teach healthy things which produce God's economy.....the end of that charge, Paul says, is love.
The whole point of that charge is love.
Trapped
A few verses after the LC-famous verse on God's economy, Paul says "the end of the charge is love". Some translations say "the goal of the command is love."
In other words, he charged Timothy not to teach the unhealthy things which produce questionings, but to teach the healthy things which produce God's economy. And that charge.....the charge to teach healthy things which produce God's economy.....the end of that charge, Paul says, is love.
The whole point of that charge is love.
Right. And love is in doing, not lip service. Love is seen in a pouring-out of oneself. God loved us so much that He sent His only-begotten Son. Jesus loved us so much that while we were yet sinners, he died for us. Now, Paul goes into some length in 2 Cor 8 about how Christ was rich and emptied himself in love, and how the gentile churches can likewise empty themselves. To me this points back to what was stressed by the Jerusalem pillars in Galatians 2, a word that Paul so eagerly assented to: "Remember the poor".
Jesus had taught to lay up for oneself treasures in heaven. Paul was now bringing this message to the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Macedonians, and Achaeans. The 'economy of man' is to store up on earth, to make safe nests. The 'economy of God' is to give to those who can't repay you, making yourself poor for the benefit of others. Then you'll have riches that moths don't eat, that rust can't corrode, that thieves don't break through and steal. This giving is done in faith, the end result of which is love expressed.
And I imagine that Zacchaeus after donating half his wealth to the poor may still have been fairly rich, who knows? The point is that he was generous, happily giving to ones who couldn't return the investment. The story of the rich man with Lazarus shows the opposite - someone who has abundance, but out of selfishness won't share it with someone who lacks. It's in this light that James' prevarication, "Howl, ye rich" (KJV) makes the most sense - it's not riches of themselves that's the issue, but the selfishness, hoarding, avarice, and injustice.
In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul was in crisis mode and made his point briefly (16:1-4;cf Rom 15:25-29), but his second letter allowed expansion, and in chapter 8 he did. There Paul said in effect that Christ was rich and for you he became poor; now you can follow suit unto others likewise. This is the economy that Paul was teaching in every church.
By contrast, where's the chapter that Paul wrote on masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)?
Obedience to His commands, love God, love your neighbor, give honor to those who are uncomely, care for the needy, eagerness to take care of the poor, widows, hungry, etc.......I absolutely agree that is God's economy as shown in Scripture.
I'm the first to admit I'm so short in those areas.I'm also short. And now that we've seen something, we no longer have the excuse of ignorance. But as fighters we're no longer blindly flailing in air, as Paul put in 1 Cor 9. The forces we fight aren't flesh and blood but disobedient spirits, very adept at masquerade. But we're no longer their patsies.
In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul was in crisis mode and made his point briefly, but his second letter allowed expansion, and in chapter 8 he did...
By contrast, where's the chapter that Paul wrote on masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature.
Correction: it's not one but two consecutive chapters in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 7, Paul remarked on the reception of the Corinthian church to his first epistle, via Titus, who'd delivered it, and had reported back to Paul. "What zeal, what repentance!" See, e.g., 2 Cor 7:7
Chapter 8 then starts off with a stated expectation, of the hoped-for effect of the repentance and zeal. Paul mentions the generosity of the Macedonians for "the Lord's people" (v4) and then adds, "see that you also excel in this grace of giving"(v7). Then follows the verses cited earlier, that "for you Christ became poor" (v9) on "one who gathered much had no excess" (v15), and "show these men (Titus et al) proof of your love" (v24). Then chapter 9 continues this theme of giving unabated, for 14 more verses.
So I ask again, where's any section of Paul's writing comparable to this, that lays out the "economy of God" as portrayed by Witness Lee? DCP has some explaining to do.
Add to that, what about Paul "hurrying to be in Jerusalem for the Pentecost" in Acts 20:16? He had the gifts from the gentile churches that he'd mentioned variously in his epistles, that he publicly said in Acts 24:17 were "alms for my nation". The symbolism of that's quite pregnant. "All the nations shall gather and pay tribute for the king" a la Psalm 72:10, 11, and Psalm 102:21, 22.
As I said, Paul took the gospel out of Jerusalem, and the pillars of the church said, "remember the poor", and Paul said that he was eager to do so (Gal 2:10), and now Paul had came back to the city, with the remembrance of the gentile churches for the poor of Jerusalem. This was the race that Paul ran, to proclaim the faith to the ends of the earth, then to tie them back to the source. Look at Ephesians 2 in this light. "You gentiles were once without hope, alienated from Israel, but now you have been brought near, and the two (gentile and Jew) are made one in Christ". This was Paul's mission.
The collection for the poor of Jerusalem was not incidental, to be ignored, as the first few chapters of Acts and Jesus' "give and it shall be given" and "store up treasure in heaven". No, it's all the same story. Faith makes us love, and love makes us generous. Caring is not lip service but action, sharing. And Paul was right in the middle of it, and preaching this "economy of God" to every church.
Anyway I propose this reading of "God's economy" as an alternative to Witness Lee's. I don't say it's the only possible reading, but to me it presents a compelling alternative to the WL version, which I find overly broad, speculative and make-shift. Paul never even read the Apocalypse, so how can the "seven-fold intensified Spirit" be part of this "God's economy"? You're left with the notion that nobody but WL truly understood God's economy - not even Paul. And this manufactured 'vision' goes back to the title WL gave WN in his hagiography: "Seer of the Divine Revelation". WL as WN's spiritual heir also had that gift and title, and could "see the divine revelation" even when Paul could not.
The collection for the poor of Jerusalem was not incidental, to be ignored, as the first few chapters of Acts and Jesus' "give and it shall be given" and "store up treasure in heaven". .. Paul was right in the middle of it, and preaching this "economy of God" to every church.
In post #311 I jokingly referenced the "lost writings of Paul" with 2 Cor 8 and 9 as examples. In the LC, when we'd read about the collection for the poor we'd say, "That's not God's economy", or about the Jerusalem pillars asking Paul to only remember the poor, and his eager assent [!] and then we'd say, "Sorry, not God's economy", or reading the first chapters of Acts, the selling of properties and giving to the apostles, who distributed proceeds to the widows, and we'd say, "Not the Normal Christian Church Life of Watchman Nee." No, in the LC we were on a mystical plane, above the actual doing good to others. In fact if someone made issue it was called "dead works". In FTTA we were told point-blank, "Don't waste your time".
Instead, we focused on a half-verse, 1 Cor 15:45(b), and on writings not penned by Paul, probably not even read by him (John 1:14, Rev 1:4). Somehow this WL construction was the revelation of the age, and yet Paul gave no evidence of teaching this as "God's economy". What an impressive confidence game - we'd fly cross-country or from foreign locales to sit in front of this supposed Seer.
I'm not in agreement with the teaching, but I'm definitely impressed that such a rank con job got pulled on so many otherwise intelligent folks. The genius of the plan was that the incessant shouting made one oblivious to the fact that the slogans we shouted had little Biblical basis. Those warm fuzzies derived from group shouting were probably not the Holy Spirit but something else, verified when we overlooked plain Bible verses, even chapters of Paul's writings, and turned a blind eye to repeated gross sin in the leadership. This doesn't seem like restored or recovered Christianity at all, but some perverse invention. I think of Walter Martin's quote (paraphrased): "The worst cults are those that most closely imitate genuine historical Christian faith expressions when they're actually nothing of the sort".
Someone recently asked here, if WL's "Economy of God" made any inroads in Christianity. Did it get taught in any seminars? Did any influential Christian teachers or thinkers validate the work, and recommend it?
Paul never even read the Apocalypse, so how can the "seven-fold intensified Spirit" be part of this "God's economy"? You're left with the notion that nobody but WL truly understood God's economy - not even Paul... we focused on a half-verse, 1 Cor 15:45(b), and on writings not penned by Paul, probably not even read by him (John 1:14, Rev 1:4). Somehow this WL construction was the revelation of the age, and yet Paul gave no evidence of teaching this as "God's economy"..Imagine if a graduate student wrote a paper showing that this was "God's economy" as promoted by Paul in the NT era: "Incarnation, inclusion, intensification"... The professor would probably ask, where do Paul's epistles cover these aspects? What basis makes one think that Paul was urging Timothy to stress this theological construct?
The student might respond, "We're shaped like a glove, and a glove is meant to contain a hand", and other folk syllogisms. Do you think the professor would give that an "A", and push it to get published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society? I doubt it. I don't even think it would make much of an impression as an undergraduate paper. The problems are obvious. Why would Paul be teaching something that only John wrote, and that much later? How does this make sense? How do your folk analogies, derived from other sources, transpose themselves back onto Paul's epistles?
Yet we never asked these questions in our meetings, since we were roaring at each other - "Ohhhhhh, I'm a man - I'm the center of the uuuuniverse!" and "when weeee exercise our spirit, our vision is so clear!" There was no place for objective critical response. It was a contest to see who could be more "on fire" and "positive" and so forth.
Toronto
03-08-2021, 01:02 PM
If millions of people around the world follow the conman named Joseph Smith, It is not a surprise if there is a following towards a man named Witness Lee. I mean a doctrine that degrades certain scripture because it does not meet it's ideals of belief is one thing, the mormons have their own book that they prioritize over the Bible (Book of Mormon). They call Joseph Smith's names and give him titles that are similar to witness Lee, such as oracle of God and many more exalting titles. There is also the eastern lightning group that has millions of members and look at their crazy beliefs. Honestly the world is full of strange groups.
1. Witness Lee maintains the perceived legitimacy of his doctrine because of fear and control. His doctrine has so many holes and false teachings but no one questions it because he is the "Oracle of God's and I quote by Big Daddy Kangas- " Greatest Apostle Since Paul". He is supposedly all these things but no one gives a crap about his false doctrine except for a small group of loonies that excommunicate and shun everyone who does not align with them. Greatest apostle since Paul, absolute bull-crap. Greatest Con-man since Joseph Smith- perhaps so? Hey fellas, supposedly gods move on earth is a cult that that relies on using an alias on college campuses to pilfer gullible and ignorant 18 year olds who know nothing of the Bible- Oh WOW!
2. As for witness Lee degradation of scripture that has no real solid ground to do so, is only done and gotten away with because of his authority and position. Actually his distaste for scripture reflects who he is as a person.
- Epistle of James, they simply don't like works and anything that involves spending resources and time outside the use of the LC. Also their emphasis on getting only college graduates with income potential (Building Material), really goes against James teaching of not discerning based wealth huh. I mean gotta get as much money as possible and keep it in the LC as much as possible so the higher ups can start business scams such as Daystar! Honestly their hate for James is reflective of their actions. In fact, witness Lee is to blame cause they all really just follow him- he is the greatest Con-man since Joseph Smith right? I mean ingnore all the teachings of gospel and Pauline Epistles in regards to works and just add a little concoction of "dead" to it and you get a bunch of little scared sycophants staying away from such things. Lee has a habit of saying doing this act of God is not correct and leads to death or most of Christianity has this interpretation of scripture wrong such has John 13:34. Does not explain how it's wrong but just says it is for the sake of pushing his agenda of having sychophants emain loyal to the ministry/church.
3. The LC people know of all the scriptures of works and of love for one another, they just don't care because of the great Con man telling them, those scriptures don't matter. In fact the LC don't even consider witness Lee "God's Economy" as doctrine. I think they are crazy enough to believe that they are Sola Scriptura. The elders and coworkers are always saying "IT IS NOT DOCTRINE". Well I'm sorry to say that, you validation and approval of scripture comes from an outside source of teachings/material known as "God's Economy", which is Con Man Lee doctrine. Don't worry there are many groups like you in the world such as the Mormons. You guys are like brothers and have a lot in like. Although I think Joseph Smith is definitely the better Con!
- Brother Aaron, there are many groups like this and the people who fall for it are gullible and ignorant college age kids with hardly any real world experience. Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee. They did not have the capability to cross reference with sound orthodox teachings because of their ignorance, so they literally think Lee doctrine is the Golden standard of Christianity and their interpretation of scripture, and practice of Christian Life is all rooted in the Con Man Witness Lee. Therefore you have an entire group of pompous, hypocritical, and individuals void of love for one another (no friends/affection) and their fellow neighbors (dead works doctrine).
Awoken
03-08-2021, 03:05 PM
Hey Toronto Guest, thanks for posting.
Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee
That's probably a good reason to pity them. I believe the guy who baptized me is actually a genuine believer in Christ and I'm sad he's in the LCs. I hope and sometimes pray for him that one day the Spirit will break through and call him out. I always felt I wanted to develop a friendship with him and the teachings of W. Lee stopped that. In Lee's system, you don't need friends, and you shouldn't form "worldly" connections. Sometimes maybe believers have the "innocent as doves" bit down without having developed much of being "wise as serpents". That is part of the deception of Lee's system; it not only discourages but actively punishes discernment and truth-seeking.
In Revelation you see there are overcomers in all the churches. In the NKJV version of the Bible some of those churches are titled "The Loveless Church", "The Compromising Church", "The Corrupt Church", "The Dead Church", "The Lukewarm Church".
...there are many groups like this and the people who fall for it are gullible and ignorant college age kids with hardly any real world experience. Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee. They did not have the capability to cross reference with sound orthodox teachings because of their ignorance, so they literally think Lee doctrine is the Golden standard of Christianity...
There's a place that I've seen many go, that I call the Grey Zone. They're physically out of the LC, or at the margins anyway. Discouraged after years of waiting for the Shiny New Move of God to pan out, they know that something isn't right. Red flags are waving all around. So they're no longer "sold out" in LC parlance, and have withdrawn, at least partly.
But they're stuck. In my case, I'd left the LC Brother's House, was meeting with 'Christianity' again, but the LSM still partly owned my head. "That's not God's economy" a voice would say, after the Community Church minister was done speaking on Sunday morning. Not too surprising, in retrospect, as I'd been 24/7 immersed in "the church life" for years prior to physically leaving. I wasn't in, I wasn't out, I was in the Grey Zone. Unable to move on in any meaningful way. Not really able to hear God outside of the Subjective Christ in my inner voice, which was highly conditioned to say the least, and thus compromised. Sometimes that inner voice was useful as a guide, often not.
A question therefore, for any who doubt the LC on the ground today, yet still hold many (or all) of their teachings and doctrines in high regard: how can God's economy include intensification, if Paul wrote before John's Revelation was even composed? Where does Paul promote intensification of the Holy Spirit? If he doesn't, how then could he write Timothy to tell him to remain in Ephesus and teach it? If Timothy didn't teach intensification in Ephesus, why call it God's economy today?
It's rather an amalgam, something made up later, and then read back onto Scripture, and presumed to have been there all along. But there's no indication in Paul's writing that it was there. Yes, Paul said, "In the last days mockers will come" and thus shows expectation of degradation, but where does Paul show a seven-fold intensified Spirit as a result of said degradation?
I know some LC members will say, "I don't have a heart for such conversation, I'm just here to enjoy the Lord", but why give yourself to enjoy a teaching that you don't have a heart to discuss? It can only survive in a realm of thoughtless reflexivity. Is that where you want to live? Whether you're currently meeting in the LC, or hardly, or not at all, is that where you want to live, mentally? Christ has called us for freedom.
Awoken
03-26-2021, 09:22 AM
Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.
I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .
Well, I do believe they are two aspects of the same thing but also believe that you can't separate them.
We fallible humans take up one side or the other and use it to try to condemn people who look at it imperfectly from another angle. Best to just believe the Bible, period.
Jesus said we COULD be condemned even after professing belief in Him and doing a lot of works in His name - the gospels make this plain, when He said those who eat/drink with the drunken and beat their fellow slaves will be "cut into pieces and have their portion with the hypocrites". That doesn't sound much like salvation, to me; it is reminder to us that we need to be humble and not take the matter of our walk lightly. I think we have a human responsibility to be humble and to walk out our faith, and that we could even lose our salvation if we don't. "Faith without works is dead", says James. You can't save yourself but that doesn't mean you can't do things resulting in judgment/punishment after you have professed faith, and the Bible never says God CAN'T take your salvation away if He chooses (saying God CAN'T do anything is a recipe for disaster, I believe we don't get to say some salvation prayer once and then we have a magical "gotcha" card against God's judgment - the Bible tells us plainly to fear Him who can destroy our very soul). This is where I believe in Arminianism/syncretism.
On the other hand I also believe God is sovereign and can elect to FULLY save somebody, eternally, by His power alone, and that we can have faith that He knows all our weaknesses and our failings and is fully able to get us through them and even save us unto eternal salvation. How could He do that if we need to depend on Him eternally but we can fail and depend on so many other things? I don't know - I just believe the answer is God Himself. I believe He knew us before time itself was created and elected us and it wasn't up to us, in that sense. This is where I believe in Calvinism/fatalism.
Here's a simple way to look at it. You are drowning in the ocean with a 1,000 pound dead goat you really loved in the past chained to your leg and no way to get it off. A man in a huge boat comes along. You have NO way to save yourself and no way to get the dead goat off your leg. Only the man in the boat can save you. He tosses you the key and says "get rid of the dead goat and come on my boat, I want to save you but I don't allow dead goats on my ship". You now have a choice, take off the dead goat and climb on the boat, or not. If you don't take off the dead goat (repent), you will die in the ocean. If you DO get on the boat, the man will tell you - okay, you are totally safe here; just STAY on the boat until it reaches land and do what I say. I'm the captain. When we reach land you'll be totally safe and in my kingdom forever, but if you get off the boat and don't repent and ask me to come back and get you back on the boat, you will die and have your portion with those who didn't take off the dead goat.
So stay on the boat, listen to the Captain and do what he says (live out your faith, don't be a hypocrite), and realize you couldn't do a single thing to accomplish your salvation at ALL. That was totally up to the Captain. He did not take your free will away and you can still jump off the boat if you are still so stupidly/stubbornly inclined, so be afraid and ask Him for His help/wisdom so you don't do that.
(Here's a nice picture that I believe helps to fully explain the gospel truth given by Jesus.)
I believe we have both a true free will and a totally sovereign God. The Bible doesn't lie. Rather, men take up their doctrinal interpretations and love them more than the truth and that's where we run into trouble.
Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?
I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.
I asked this on another thread, but was probably in danger of side-tracking the thread, so move it here. I wanted to bring this over because I forgot the most important reason to talk about 'oikonomea theou' - because Paul told Timothy remain in Ephesus and to teach things that resulted in this 'oikonomea theou'. So then what is meant by this, and what teachings result in this?
First off, there's nothing in the surrounding text that suggests that 'oikonomea theou' is the 'Processed Triune God in us as life and everything' or 'God becoming flesh becoming intensified Spirit' or 'God becoming man to make man God' or anything similar. In fact, it's hard to believe that Paul taught intensification, as it doesn't appear in his written works - so how could he charge Timothy to teach it?
What then is 'oikonomea theou', which is said to be 'in faith'? My guess is that the answer is found in the line of Paul's letter to the Galatians: "remember the poor", which Paul says that he's eager to do. This is the sending charge of the Jerusalem leaders to Paul the Gentile apostle. When Jesus had said, "Feed my sheep" to Peter, what do we see Peter doing afterward? In the early chapters of Acts Peter and the Twelve were feeding the widows in Jerusalem. There was no Salvation Army, no Homeless Shelter, no Medicaid, no Social Security. If you were a widow, you starved. So the disciples gave food to the poor, as Jesus had asked them to.
Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you and it will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous." Isn't this "in faith" as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:4? If you give, "in faith", believing in the resurrection and hoping in the reward of the righteous, isn't this following Jesus' command to trust and to give, and his promise of reward?
Then what do we see Paul writing continually, in his epistles? "Store up something and lay it aside, that when I come I may have something to bring to the poor of Jerusalem". Then Acts closes with Paul coming "bringing alms for my nation". Now, is that God's economy? I don't know for certain. But it's more in line with the actual text of the NT that Paul was associated with. I don't see Paul associated with sevenfold intensification at all. Textual support for that concept came considerably later.
Then what do we see James teaching? If you have food, share with those who don't have food. That kinda sounds like this 'oikonomea theou'.
A recent post quoted a post from a month earlier, so I will just provide the one sentence that I am commenting on:I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction. If something is true yet its contradiction is true, then it is also false. And that is impossible. If it is true it is not also false. Therefore Lee's "two sides of truth" which he used to tie together all kinds of contradictions together as truth cannot actually represent the truth.
If it appears that there are two things that are contradictory yet true, then either:
1. one is actually not true and we have not yet figured that out, OR
2. we have not yet figured out how the two are not actually talking about the same thing.
I did not try to back-track to find the thing that is compared to the Calvinism/Arminian issue, but my study on that issue is that Calvinism is taught as a kind of over-arching lens that colors other things. Some of the passages that they use to claim that it so does not so easily read as they want unless you start with the assumption that it is true (classic begging the question or circular reasoning). Yet there are clearly some aspects to which a kind of predestination is applied. The Calvinists take their predestination, and application of grace so far as to make the very act of desiring God completely given. In fact, for someone to suggest that they had to believe to be saved is, to a Calvinist, wrong because you cannot believe unless it is also part of what is given to you. (And in my book a bit beyond what any of the scriptures actually say.)
But Arminianism is dismissive of the aspects of predestination that are clearly stated.
So what do we do? Decide which group we like and despise the other as heretical? Or accept that we do not understand how the application of one applies to one thing and the other applies to something else and we have just conflated them together as a single item?
I can accept that we do not understand it all. The doctrine of the Trinity is fairly well-conceived. Yet it does not tell it all. We like to give analogies, but like that "Lutheran Satire" video on YouTube, each analogy also runs afoul of the overall tenets of the doctrine. The rather verbose restatement of the doctrine in the Athenasian creed does a better job because it makes statements, then warns to not try to take any aspect of it too far. In effect, we think we have the outer boundaries, but do not have a cohesive map of the interior. That is acceptable.
Same for the Calvinism–Arminianism divide. Each describes an aspect that does apply to something, but not to the same thing. Yet they do bump up against each other in some way. It is as simple as conflating different aspects of the same word or concept? Like when we note that "salvation" clearly is used for the simple fact of belief and conversion, and also for something that requires working out with fear and trembling. Same word, different meaning. Semantics. Or equivocating when we try to make the two different aspects into a single thing.
And since Lee seemed to like to keep everyone off-balance and willing to accept anything, even if it seemed contradictory, having a "two sides of truth" teaching to get people to stop trying to analyze what was wrong came in real handy.
As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction...
And since Lee seemed to like to keep everyone off-balance and willing to accept anything, even if it seemed contradictory, having a "two sides of truth" teaching to get people to stop trying to analyze what was wrong came in real handy.
A few years back we had a poster who was ready to answer everything, at length, and explain how it was all just a misunderstanding, that the LSM position was clear but we were confusing the issue. If you'd post 200 words, the reply was 400 words. If you cited an author, he'd cite two authors.
Then I asked, "How can one RecV footnote in Psalm 34 say that the psalmist was being 'natural' and 'fallen' by cursing his enemies, that we are supposed to love our enemies, and a footnote in Psalm 67 treats a similar passage of imprecation as a type of Christ defeating Satan?
"Maybe that's how it is", was the only reply. Suddenly dogmatism became equivocation. You show how Lee painted himself into a corner, which he's repeatedly done, and then they decide there are many paths to truth.
Trapped
04-30-2021, 10:13 AM
A recent post quoted a post from a month earlier, so I will just provide the one sentence that I am commenting on:As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction. If something is true yet its contradiction is true, then it is also false. And that is impossible. If it is true it is not also false. Therefore Lee's "two sides of truth" which he used to tie together all kinds of contradictions together as truth cannot actually represent the truth.
If it appears that there are two things that are contradictory yet true, then either:
1. one is actually not true and we have not yet figured that out, OR
2. we have not yet figured out how the two are not actually talking about the same thing.
I did not try to back-track to find the thing that is compared to the Calvinism/Arminian issue, but my study on that issue is that Calvinism is taught as a kind of over-arching lens that colors other things. Some of the passages that they use to claim that it so does not so easily read as they want unless you start with the assumption that it is true (classic begging the question or circular reasoning). Yet there are clearly some aspects to which a kind of predestination is applied. The Calvinists take their predestination, and application of grace so far as to make the very act of desiring God completely given. In fact, for someone to suggest that they had to believe to be saved is, to a Calvinist, wrong because you cannot believe unless it is also part of what is given to you. (And in my book a bit beyond what any of the scriptures actually say.)
IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.
IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.And my response is that the only thing we know from the scripture is that there was disobedience and consequence. Everything else, even if actually true, is not commented on and therefore supposition. That is the problem with so much of what Lee said and taught. There is some that is clearly false. But much of it is not stated either way, but insisted upon by Lee as being true and important as such. That is why it is so hard to simply defeat it. It is not clearly wrong, but neither is it clearly right. And it is stated in terms that seem so spiritual. And after you have taken your followers on an exciting trip down "amen!" lane, just saying it seems reasonable since the speaker (Lee) has just established his credibility with that sequence of true statements.
So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).
And the cause of the curse is given as disobedience, not becoming infected. And neither is the curse itself described as being linked to what was eaten. The disobedience began as a willful exercise of disobedience before the teeth met the fruit.
No evidence that it was something invading man through the ingestion of the fruit. Only supposition. Not known fact. Could be. And could not be. The record here doesn't say. And even the wording of Paul's discourse in Romans 7 doesn't make either clearly right. So we are left without a reason to insist on anything.
However, if you presume it to be true, you could read Romans 7 to support it. But that results in the error of begging the question (circular reasoning) — using the unestablished premise as true to cause the otherwise unclear evidence to support the unestablished premise. (And this is not the only place that Nee or Lee used this kind of logical error to support a teaching.)
The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.
And it really isn't like the Calvinist/Arminianism debate. Those at least are dealing with verses that somewhat support their positions. That means that there is a lack of understanding of the differences and context for the different verses. And possibly the lack of understanding of certain terms and their extent of application.
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 11:52 AM
So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).
As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'
As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.
To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 01:12 PM
I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.
To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)
Trapped
04-30-2021, 01:13 PM
The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.
I won't go into everything I've already said about this, but from the verses I do think it is thoroughly supportable. ("It" being that there wasn't any bad element in the fruit).
The TOTKOGAE is described as 1) in the center of the garden, 2) being good for food, 3) pleasant to the sight, 4) makes you like God, and 5) forbidden to eat.
That's the information we are given. I don't know about you, but "good for food" simply cannot be said of something that is bad/death/poison, etc.
It also cannot be said that the TOTKOGAE was actually the "tree of death". To hold that view means that God was deceptive in referring to it as the TOTKOGAE, if it was actually a TOD. Not only that, but reading a few verses later shows where death came from - not from the TOTKOGAE, but it was punishment from God for their sin, by cutting them off from the tree of life.
I am a church kid who believed Lee's interpretation for decades. I went looking for support of his teaching - that there was some negative element in the TOTKOGAE - and found none.
Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)
And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands? (But you ignore this every time it's raised, will do so here as well)."Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus contextually being interpreted by Jesus as obedience to commands. Do you willfully ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it begins to look like.
The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The real problem is that you buy in and subsequently end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that his theology was built on. (Or you generously concede that there are various understandings, all equally true-ish, including yours.)
I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.What came afterward, cited repeatedly in NT epistle, is thematic continuation of the Genesis 3 episode. First there's some connection with God, meant to be maintained through strict obedience to God's command, yet disobedience follows and then there's separation, and consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish.
The first that comes to mind is Genesis 6:1-6, cited by Peter and Jude. The angels kept not their appointed place, but transgressed, and were given up. Nothing about eating, but rather about disobedience breaking the relationship with God. Then the famous wilderness episode, cited by both Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and also the writer of Hebrews (chap 3). God saved them from bondage in Egypt, yet afterward this rescue was severed by disobedience, and they fell. (note that this was written as instruction to believers!) In the narrative structure, there's assumed a relationship, a command, some disobedience, and then a giving-up by God. Similar to Genesis 3, no?
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 01:33 PM
And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands?
"Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus interpreted by Jesus as obedience. Do you ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it looks like.
The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The problem is that you end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that the theology was built on.
What came afterward, cited heavily in NT commentary, is a continuation of Genesis 3: some connection with God, to be continued through obedience to God's command, yet disobedience followed, and there was separation from God, and the consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish. And in none of it is "eating" linked to the disobedience.Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?
Trapped
04-30-2021, 01:52 PM
Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?
That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.
There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.
Do you know what eisegesis is versus exegesis? Here is an example from this website of eisegesis: https://deeperstudy.com/out-or-in-exegesis-vs-eisegesis-in-bible-study/:
"A notorious example of this kind of eisegesis is the following chain of passages: “Judas… went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5 (https://www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/Matthew27%3A5)). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37 (https://www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/Luke10%3A37)). “What you are about to do, do quickly” (John 13:27 (https://www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/John13%3A27)). These three verses are unrelated to each other, but throwing them together in this haphazard way almost sounds credible."
Can you see the problem?
You're doing the same thing. Trying to take random verses that are not related and mashing them together to form a teaching unsupported by actual scripture. This is the foundation of leading people astray, of deceptive doctrines.
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 01:55 PM
That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.
There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.
Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?
Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?
One thing that the interpretation favored by Lee does, is it presumes that Paul was a seer of the high peak of the divine revelation, and James is left behind, stuck in the old ways, soon to be superseded. Yet the NT never shows this.
In this, it must be conceded, WL is not the originator but continues an antipathy held since the early Greek Fathers that the Jewish believers were stuck in some old way. Martin Luther, for instance, expressed dislike for James and wanted it and Hebrews to go away with Tobit and Maccabees. But he conceded and left them at the end, after (!!) Revelation. Even today, those two books are apocryphal tag-ons in the Lutheran Bible.
WL used terms like "mixed sentiments" and "low" and "fallen" and "natural" to separate that which could be safely ignored. It was pretty clear that he was all about Paul and Paul's abstract concepts, which could lead one to an abstract and malleable Christ, a processed Christ.
But if you look at Galatians 2:10 as God's economy (oikonomea theou), then you have one holistic bible, not a two-tiered Bible of the Recovery Version footnotes. There, Paul relates one specific command from the original disciples as they send Paul forth to the gentiles: "remember the poor", and Paul says that he eagerly assents. Does Paul consider this "low" or "fallen" if he receives the command with eagerness?
Jesus had taught, "Store up treasure in heaven" and "give, and it will be given to you" and "give to those who can't repay" and in this command in Galatians 2 we see both the Jerusalem home base and the outreach to the gentile world in lock step with Jesus' commands. There was a unified command.
Then, Paul's requests in Romans and 1 Corinthians to set aside for the poor of Jerusalem, Paul's 2 chapter explication in 2 Cor 8,9 about sharing with those who don't have as fellowship in love (Just as Christ who was rich became poor for you, so you become poor for others), the return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" per Acts 24:17.
Then look at James: "Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food." This theme is constant in his epistle, to care for the widows and orphans, to respect those who are in filthy rags. If you realize this is 'oikonomea theou' in Paul's epistle, then James and Paul are both following the Master's commands. There is no two-tiered scripture. Galatians 2:10 shows, in Paul's own words, what they both were eager to do: follow the Master's commands.
Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?
I said that you would ignore my reference, in search for another, and you did. Jesus' interpretive grid of John 4:34 puts 'eating' as 'doing' -"My food is to do the [expressed] will of the Father" - i.e. to obey God's commands. This puts "Thy words were found and I did eat them" in Jesus' context of doing. This puts "Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" in Jesus' operational understanding of doing the Father's will. "I always see my Father, because I always do his will". (John 5:19; cf John 8:29)
As Jesus ate the Father's words by obedience, and lived, so should the disciples eat Jesus' words by obedience, and live by him. See also John 15:10. Quite explicitly put - as Jesus lived by the Father's word, so we live by his. Again, continued, unbroken obedience is the theme. Yet all of this text must be ignored when one oversimplifies. When people would argue like this in front of Jesus, he'd say, "Have you no knowledge of scripture" or "Have you not read scripture". One must use all of the available text, not a few 'crucial' verses to support doctrine.
So yes, Jesus did say that; if you were on a desert island, and one sheet of the Bible washed up with John 6 on it, you might be forgiven that reading. But with the whole scripture available, to retreat to that one section, there to resolutely remain, I don't think reading is very strong. It should cross through and connect with the whole text, not jump haphazardly from one unrelated verse to another.
This is especially my critique as stated in post #403. In order to maintain his view, WL had to create a two-tiered scripture, one which supported his thesis, and one which didn't. I don't think such readings are healthy at all. You have your 'crucial' sections, often quite small, then the 'middling' sections, of some use, and then the surprisingly large 'fallen' and 'low' sections, to be forgotten and ignored.
Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?
Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?Revelation 22:2 mentions two issues of the TOL: fruit, and leaves. Fruit is assumed to function, but leaves are explicitly listed in function, as healing the nations (i.e. the gentiles, or non-Jews). If you truncate scripture it doesn't strengthen your case. You end up living in a world where only your special verses exist, and the constellations of readings that feed off of them. I was there once.
Of course we all must interpret, and understanding means contextual placement, and placement means subordinating and elevating. But a reading which simplifies to that extent? In which better readings (more scripturally-consistent) are ignored? In which a two-tiered Bible exists, with verses that support your understandings and others which are "low" and "fallen"?
(I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic reading is too close)
StG, if fruit in Revelation 22 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being explicitly spelled out. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 to fruit in context in Rev 22, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.
I sympathise with your worldview, having been there once. I just ask you to consider another worldview, in which John 4:24 also exists, in which John 15:10 also exists, in which "leaves" and "nations" also exist besides "fruit". In which obedience means eating, and eating means life, and disobedience means death. That worldview is explicitly spelled out in the pages of the NT text.
If you read Revelation 22:2, the tree of life is not ''just to look at''. But what does the text actually say? All of it, please.
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 02:54 PM
I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic "this means that" kind of reading is too close to it for my comfort.
StG, if you think the fruit in Revelation 22:2 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being more explicitly spelled out in msg #44. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 in context, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.Sorry I didn't address your specific reference earlier, as you pointed out! I am hoping around today with various business Zoom meetings & communications, personal and other practical items, as well as responding on this forum - hopefully I'm doing at least half of these things effectively! :D
Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.
Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)And, consistent with Lee, if you find eating anywhere in the Bible, then everything must be about eating in the same way.
Yet so many of the references to eating are metaphorical or typological, not literal. And, just like we have seen about leaven, every instance of eating is not just like every other instance of eating. It makes for a great overlay that "so many others have missed."
Don't go beyond what is written. Don't presume that eating always has the same meaning. It does not necessarily imply anything about the process of spending time chewing, but possibly only about taking in whatever is in question.
And while the eating of the forbidden tree in Gen 3 surely included the chewing and swallowing, there is nothing in the account that indicates that anything more the the act of disobedience was relevant (in other words, the mere act of eating was the forbidden thing). The command did not say that "in the day you eat of it, you will be infected with a poison that will kill you," or "you will ingest Satan himself into you." It just says (in a few more words) "don't eat it or you will die." It didn't even state clearly what "death" meant. Most think that it is probably separation from God. But it could also be that the very fact of physical death is a result of it. But since we get to see it in hindsight, it didn't mean that we drop dead "in the day you eat of it." There was another meaning.
When God came to find them hiding, he didn't say "see, you now have Satan in you." He asked them a question, and they acknowledged that they had eaten. And God said "because you have" to both the serpent and to Adam. In short, because of this, things are going to be bad. If it was simply what went in with the fruit, then no declaration by God was needed.
The point is not that it could not be but that there is nothing we can see that makes it so. Therefore it is not worthy of making declarations about it. Not worthy of being taught.
And if it is not worthy of being taught, then to teach it is to invite . . . guess what . . . questions. Aud you find yourself teaching the things that Paul said to avoid. Like endless genealogies.
So a good Berean is looking for reasons to stand on it as true, not merely the lack of evidence that it is false, or a forced overlay from somewhere else to cause what it written to say something it does not otherwise say.
Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.
But even if your point is true (containing some objective validity), then sitting here typing about the "which got into them" might well be an out-welling of "which got into them" and not any closer to "the leaves for the healing of the nations" - or the fruit! - of Revelation 22:2. And any talk of 'eating' which resolutely (so it seems to me) ignores Jesus' own talk of 'my food' in John 4:24 doesn't seem like having a validity of any real application. It's a talk, a book, a pamphlet.
Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?Well, there you have it. Jesus said "he who eats me shall live by me." That means that Gen 3 was about what was taken in, not just disobedience.
A = B, thefore B = C.
You are too captured to the whole system of error that is wrapped up in the kind of logic that I demonstrate in the simple illogic above.
I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.
That means that we are prone to simply believe it because we have always believed it. Or have for a long time. "I'm a Baptist like my father and grandfather before me." (Not saying anything about Baptists. Just pointing to the lack of willingness to even consider that it could be wrong.)
And I say this now to you because you have not actually given me any evidence that what you believe is correct other than unrelated facts about eating. Nothing that actually speaks directly to Gen 3, either there or elsewhere.
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 04:02 PM
I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.
Hey, now yer "stealing" my line! :D Yes, I do believe that to be true too. And as my wife is fond of quoting, "A mind convinced against its will, is simply of the same mind still." I am prone to it. You are prone to it. We all are! And as Thomas Sowell astutely points out in his seminal book, "A Conflict of Visions," what we accept as true or not is largely governed by the vision one has previously accepted. This is why the energies we expend trying to convince others of our perspective is frequently an uphill battle, to say the least!
With all that said, it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture. Plus, it's not one of those core, essential items of the faith that I feel a need to die on that hill for. What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?
.. it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture... What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?
In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.
I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?
I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?
Sons to Glory!
04-30-2021, 07:01 PM
In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.
I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?
I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?
This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?
A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.
(Yet this misses the outer actions of Jesus. He told the Baptizer's followers to go back and tell John what they saw Jesus doing unto others.)
StG, do you remember the songs by which we learned the WL theorems? I do.
I’m walking down the road
That leads to glory.
I’m pressing toward the mark
By enjoying God!
I don’t know so much,
Just to love Him.
I’m walking down the road,
Glory, here I come.
"I don't know so much" - negation of knowledge = enforced ignorance. Only a few select "crucial" verses are enough. "Get out of your mind, brother!" Cult-speak 101
With the brothers and the sisters,
We enjoy Him day by day.
It’s so simple and easy,
Our worries flee away.
Now we’re growing together,
As one big family,
Abiding in the joy of the Lord
"It's so simple and easy" - an oversimplified world-view in which any difficult reconciliations of various creative tensions in the scripture, e.g., faith v/v works, are dismissed out of hand. Just eat the Tree of Life - yell more, yell louder.
We enjoy You, Lord Jesus,
In our experience.
We’re getting to know You—
It’s making us leap and dance.
Just eating and drinking,
It’s what we do the best,
Delighting in the love of the Lord.
"Just eating and drinking." - don't worry about doing, just get filled with the Triune God, and get conformed, transformed, and transfigured. This is God's economy, in verse, for the masses. (Yet look at behaviours of the leaders - where's evidence of transformation?) The word "just" is key - anything but "eating and drinking" is categorically rejected as TOKOGAE.
I could cite a dozen other songs I learned in my first few months, as I was programmed with the WL world-view. Today I don't think this world-view is either self-consistent or matches the span of NT scripture. So when you presented a seemingly-simple verse, where Jesus tells us to "eat him" in John 6, I showed what Jesus meant by his food in John 4, and later (John 14:15,21,23; 15:10) that his "eating" of obedience to God's word must be matched by our experience of obedience to him. This, per Jesus, is our eating of him. There is a clear and consistent line in John's gospel, and John 6 must stay in this line. If you go, "Genesis 3, John 6, Revelation 22" you create a truncated and oversimplified scriptural narrative.
(I may not be reacting to StG's ideas as much as they seem to be at least partly aligned with the WL world-view, which I do negate on its face.)
Jesus continually lived in the Father's presence. The fall and the curse didn't catch him. He always did the Father's will, saw the Father's face. The Father's word was not disobeyed, to bring judgment and condemnation, but was obeyed, to become approval and eternal life. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight; you must hear him."
So Jesus, via obedience, continually lived at the TOL and "ate" via following God's word. Now to his disciples, he's Word incarnate, the Logos of God. He is our very life. Again, we obey him as he obeyed the Father, and he is indeed our life supply. We live by him. But it's doing. Not yelling slogans.
Again, I may not overlap fully with StG world-view, and apologize if I've dragged it afield. I'm just reacting to what I've read, and how it apparently matches the WL world-view that I was once immersed in.
--
Suppose the Jerusalem brothers had said, "only remember the poor" and Paul had replied, "No, I'm not here for that - I just want to enjoy Christ!" Then you'd have a case. But he didn't say that and there's no case, but simply a very deep read-between-the-lines by the self-proclaimed Seer of the Divine Revelation, who happened to self-publish and sell his books to a captive, stupefied audience.
No, Paul was eager to remember the poor, and we repeatedly see him doing this in epistle and in Acts. I've gone over this in detail. And this is a continuation of Jesus' command to Peter - "Feed my sheep" - which Peter and the Twelve did with real, actual physical food, in the early chapters of Acts, and which Paul and Barnabas also did in Acts 12:25, and now Paul was traveling and doing with the gentile churches.
With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.
Sons to Glory!
05-01-2021, 11:42 AM
A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.
With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.I do think it's both. But if you had to force rank, that is, if you only had one (inner life vs. works), which should you have? In my mind, works springs from Him, and He lives in me.
And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.
Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.
And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.
And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.I find this to be very skewed based on the assertions of the leadership of groups that propose to rely on just letting His power do it all. Don't even try.
I have observed the speaking of the preachers at two different Bible Churches over a 33-year period, followed by listening to an Anglican Priest online during the last year. None of them argue that we just buck it up and live right. None of them push lists of dos and don'ts. None of them say we just have to do it. They all recognize the current living God within is our strength to do any of it. And they all assert that through it, we have been given the tools we need for it.
None of them deny the power of Christ in any way. They recognize our need for it.
I honestly believe that the inner-life teachers, in general, think that if you don't focus almost wholly on it, you deny it. That is to make as skewed a gospel as any who make it entirely about works.
And I am not sure that hardly any actually make it entirely about works. It is just a boogeyman to point to as evidence that "our" way is superior. Yet most of us have demeaned works of any kind. We argue to let the government do it, then send people to Congress to stop even that. Wow, what hypocrites we are!
The liturgicals may not speak like inner-life extremists, but they do not deny the inner-life. Oddly, both the inner-lifers and the standard evangelicals act as if the liturgicals are totally deficient spiritually because they are so "regimented." Yet their regiment is to read the word and pray. Almost more than any of us. I know it is more than I would on a good day.
Then they go out to do what God has commanded us to do. That is in all aspects of our lives. From our driving, talking, actions in the marketplace, charity, etc. All demonstrating love for our neighbor (which is everyone we come in contact with). Does everyone always do that perfectly? No. And neither do those who don't even intend to TRY because it might not be "in the Spirit." But I would argue that those who pray and set their minds on the Spirit have everything they need to be doing it all "by the power of Christ."
So the liturgicals may not be constantly engaged in trying to figure out a lot of spiritual stuff, but are still managing to "put on the new man" and all that goes with it, and are "setting their minds on the Spirit" and then are carrying out the commands of God. They are not waiting for God to do it all. They are not avoiding the implication that the commands are just that — commands.
The inner-life people seek knowledge and an inner sense and reject calls to obedience. Meanwhile, those at the other end of the spectrum are obeying in the manner in which they have been taught. And that seems to show that their leaders are actually following the Great Commission.
Do you understand my problem with the inner-life teachings? Especially when they are the predominant diet of an assembly? It is an extremely off-balance view of a small part of the truth in the Bible which effectively rejects other truths that don't fit its view. It is truth so divorced from the rest of truth that it begins to resemble a lie. And the lie is the idea that it is the whole thing rather than only a part.
aron,
I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?
But they are pretty pathetic. I might have had a problem with at least some of them if I had heard them. My experience was not from within "corporate living" since our whole family "came in" together. We were our own unit. At least while I still lived there.
Sons to Glory!
05-01-2021, 02:06 PM
Do you understand my problem with the inner-life teachings? Especially when they are the predominant diet of an assembly? It is an extremely off-balance view of a small part of the truth in the Bible which effectively rejects other truths that don't fit its view. It is truth so divorced from the rest of truth that it begins to resemble a lie. And the lie is the idea that it is the whole thing rather than only a part.I think I do understand - when taken to the extreme. Herein lies the problem I think. And it's a lot like our hyper-polarized political system. We get to a place where things match-up to our conception pretty well, then we make our mental home there. This is human tendency, as we've discussed a bit. Then we look out and see things that people are doing differently and start considering why they are doing it differently than me. As Christians, we then bring in scripture to measure what and how they are doing, and how that differs from us. Some exaggerations may follow - "they are always like such-n-such." We may start seeing them as practicing something or believing something they actually aren't, because in our mental framework, that's how people of that particular ilk just operate. Then when we communicate with them, we tend to speak out of these things we assume, and tend to think they're all one way toward some over-our-threshold extreme. Then we start miscommunicating and talking past each other. Our divided political environment is like that, and the atmosphere on this forum is often like that I think. One has political ideology as it's generator; the other has our own particular biblical view as it's generator.
But we're just talking here, trying to come to some understanding of what it is each other believes and practices. I'm not disparaging you and you're not disparaging me. In fact, we love each other because that's what Christ told us to do . . . and He lives in us! (covers both bases, right?) :yep:
I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?
It was from the Grey Song Book, from Bellevue WA, a spiral-bound version of the 3-ring Supplement from the 1970s. This song is also on the LSM hymnal site, ascribed to a T.R.
https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/98
And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.
On the contrary, there's something wrong with the song - it's an extract of WL's message, and is a vehicle for his "just eating" theme. Those words convey the core of his Mind Control Programme; the words "just" and "simply" are essential. There's no overlay, here.
NOT HAVING METHODS BUT SIMPLY EATING THE LORD JESUS
The Lord Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly.” The Lord Jesus came to be eaten by us. But what a shame it is that there are many who read the Bible, many who listen to sermons, and many who give sermons, but there is none who eats the Lord Jesus! May I ask you, How much of the Lord have you eaten today? The tree of life is not for studying but for eating. Where is the tree of life today? It is the Spirit of life in your spirit.
Forty years ago, the newly married young men always liked to come and ask me, “Brother Lee, please tell me how to be a husband.” At that time this was the kind of question I liked the most. I immediately gave them at least five commandments and told them, “Take these back with you and do them accordingly!” In doing that I also was helping people to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But today if you go to the United States and inquire of the young brothers and sisters, they will say, “If you have problems in your married life, don’t bother going to Brother Lee. He will not give you any method but will say to you, ‘Just eat the Lord Jesus, and that is good enough.’” Their word is true. Now I have no methods at all. This is not a joke. Simply eat the Lord Jesus. Dear brothers and sisters, no matter what question you bring to me, I can give you only one answer. There is only one way. There is no need for you to prepare to do anything. Simply say to the Lord, “Lord, You are in my spirit, and I am one spirit with You.” This is good enough; do not say anything more.
https://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/NOT-HAVING-METHODS-BUT-SIMPLY-EATING-THE-LORD-JESUS.HTML
These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE. In the FTTA, when we asked about "remembering the poor" as the Jerusalem brothers had asked Paul, we were told, "Don't waste your time." There was a categorical division, of what to "just" and "simply" do, and all else was negated.
And WL's "we don't have a method, we just eat" was itself a method, a focus on enjoyment, so-called. The conceit behind the "inner life" stress is that outward expressions, or doings, or works are vain. StG tells us that "works without Christ'' are unprofitable - but who's to judge which work is which? You're left to subjectivity. Is that infallible? Instead of relying on Jesus' command, we rely on our feelings, which are ripe for external manipulations.
...much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life. Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.
Jesus told of the Good Samaritan helping someone and then said, "Go, and do likewise". Is that "largely a set of outward principles to follow, without the joy of knowing him"? If you obey Jesus' command, is that outward and joyless works? I say it's relationship through faith, obedience through faith.
The Bible tells of humankind being disobedient to God, and cut off from God as a result. Then the Last Adam came, and was obedient, and through this One, humanity's relationship to God is restored. His obedience is stressed continually in the NT. And our connection to God is through his obedience. Is that an alien concept?
"I will obey your word." Is that vain? Fallen humanity trying to be good? Or is it the Christ, in unbroken relation with his Father in heaven? A set of lifeless rules, or the Author of Life himself? Hebrews 5:8,9 make this explicit: it's the latter. He obeys, now we obey him. In Psalm 119, the "I" is none other than Jesus Christ. He obeys, and we by faith apprehend, and and believe, and confess, and live. And now as disciples we obey him. He is the King.
I will obey your teachings forever and ever. So I will live in freedom, because I want to follow your orders. I will discuss your rules with kings and will not be ashamed. I enjoy obeying your commands, which I love. I praise your commands, which I love, and I think about your demands. Remember your promise to me, your servant; it gives me hope. When I suffer, this comforts me: Your promise gives me life. Proud people always make fun of me, but I do not reject your teachings. I remember your laws from long ago, and they comfort me, LORD. I become angry with wicked people who do not keep your teachings. I sing about your demands wherever I live. LORD, I remember you at night, and I will obey your teachings. This is what I do: I follow your orders.
When Jesus came, he did the Father's will. This, he said, was his food. Then he told his disciples to obey him, even as he obeyed the Father. This was the bread that came down from heaven, to obey every word that proceeds from the Master. We have his teachings. They are not lifeless rules. As he obeyed the Father, and lived, so we obey him, and live. In John 14, v.20 "I am in you and you in me" is followed by v.21: "keep my commands". Outward obedience to commands equals inner ongoing relationship. They're not separate things, to choose to stress one or the other, as if they're somehow appositional.
Jesus told them, "Feed my sheep" and then in Acts we see Peter and Paul feeding the sheep. Obedience. Similarly, we see James' epistle repeatedly stressing to share food with those who are hungry, clothing with those who are naked. In this command/obedience framework, we can now fully appreciate the fellowship given in Galatians 2: "Remember the poor", to which Paul immediately gave eager assent. Later we see Paul writing to Romans and Corinthians, telling them to lay aside something for the poor of Jerusalem. There's here a continual unbroken narrative, should one choose to look, stretching back to the gospels, of obedience to God's specific and direct command, to love one another, not merely in word but in deed. According to Paul, the gentile churches are meant to obey, and share from their riches, just as Jesus had commanded his Galilean disciples. This obedience, and sharing (love expressed) is a sign of discipleship. Without the outward sign, there's no evidence of any inner life.
This is so completely different from ritualistic noisemaking. So completely antithetical to WL's teaching. The song lyric, "Just eating and drinking" was about ritualistic noisemaking, nothing more. The song is conceptually wrong in orientation, and is error, and a stumbling, a turning-away.
These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE.
I wanted to add to this, but first will look at the NT as a contrast. The idea of revelation is paramount in NT text. Paul says he "knows a man" who was caught up to the third heaven, 14 years ago (2 Cor 12:2). John writes, "We beheld his glory", referring to the vision on the mountain, of the scene of transfiguration. It's interesting that in 1:14, John doesn't say that we beheld his resurrection, or his ascension, but his glory. Peter as John's companion on the mountain confirms this in some detail in 2 Peter 1:17-19.
Nowhere in this do I recall "eating" being a central motif, or even a peripheral one. Yet there was a kind of transfer: both Jesus in receiving glory as the only-begotten of the Father, and the disciples receiving revelation that changed then forever. Once they came down from the mountain, they couldn't go back, and could never see Jesus again as before. Something transcendent had happened, and irrevocable transfer from one state to another. There was a revelation, a change in their consciousness, their world-view. "We with unveiled face beheld his glory and were transfigured into the same image, from glory to glory" says Paul.
There's a reason John put his revelation of Jesus at the forefront in 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". John is using this "beholding" to establish his position as narrator of the gospel that follows. He's not relating folk tales or hearsay, or conjuring abstract theology, but relating an established and corroborated eye-witness account.
Now look at WL's so-called revelation, his construct, his version of God's economy. "Just eating" and "simply eating" by definition exclude all other options. And the basis for these exclusionary criteria are what? That the supposed apostle and revelator Witness Lee said so. He prominently called Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation, and he (WL) was clearly understood to be positioned as heir of WN's apostolic 'mantle' (as it was called in the LC).
So I see two very distinct revelations: one established by John, Paul, Peter, and James et al, and the other an interpretive overlay, established by a self-proclaimed apostle, which upon examination doesn't rest comfortably on the NT text at all. But because he was supposedly the apostle we didn't question it. That's the most reasonable explanation I can come up with, that one person could put out so many novel and questionable assertions, even categorically exclusionary statements, of what is and isn't in the NT and the Christian life, and nobody called it out. That's some very powerful mojo he had working there.
Imagine if someone stood up at the end of the message, and said, "I don't see where Paul is going to ask Timothy to remain in Ephesus and teach intensification of the life-giving spirit as part of 'oikonomea theou'. Where's any textual basis of asserting this?" What would happen? "Exercise your spirit, brother! Don't think, just drink!" No, just enjoy the Processed God. Why? Because I said so.
Those words "just" and "simply" are codes, and show us what's really operating in this so-called ministry. It's a subtle and powerful form of mind control. And we sang the songs lustily, not realizing what we were doing, that we were allowing ourselves to be programmed by WL. The lusty singing prevented the thinking, the critical examination, even as the words of the song replaced the former contents of our thinking. Et voila. Presto, change-o.
And lastly, I want to repeat that any understanding we have, any personal interpretation or public profession, should be toward a seamless and coherent narrative emerging from the received scriptural text. Anytime we relegate substantial sections to lesser position, to maintain our so-called revelation, we're in danger of precipitous decline from truth. John and James and Paul and Peter and Matthew and Luke were all saying the same thing. (And there's no indication that the Psalms or Job or any other OT source was treated by them in a second-tier fashion, either).
Sons to Glory!
05-03-2021, 02:20 PM
Aron, I've read through what you've posted, and rather than address specific things, I've been thinking in a more general way recently - which I think actually addresses much of what we're talking about here and is possibly the actual elephant in the room with this entire forum:
Inner Life
Perhaps the real core of what this forum is about (and who it might often attract) is to a big degree related to how they view so-called "inner-life teachings." Some time ago there was a rather heated thread about inner-life teachers, or as some called them, "Christian Mystics." This includes WN, WL, Guyon, and perhaps Hannah W. Smith, Freeman, TAS and Major Ian Thomas, and some might even throw John Piper in there on occasion (plus others I'm sure).
So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is the real aversion on this forum really about how different ones see inner-life teachings (and of course, how the LC promotes these and its own specific teachings)? Whenever - at least most of the time it seems - any of these ones' teachings are brought up, there is serious blowback from several forum members.
Or am I totally overreaching in this?
FYI - My definition of inner-life teaching is that we have Christ in us as the beginning and foundation for the Christian life.
So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is there real aversion on this forum about how different ones see inner-life teachings?
. . . .
Or am I overreaching in this?I suggest the latter.
The aversion is not to simply all they are saying. At some level, there is a reality to the things that we call the inner-life. But no matter how you phrase any particular type of teaching, whether inner-life teachings, personal piety teachings, Holiness, works, etc., they all are part of what we should consider the fullness of God's working earth. I avoided using any reference to the term "economy" because that has too much baggage associate with it in an LC context.
The inner-life teachers key on the vine/branches/abiding and certain other parts of the gospels, then on the spiritual underpinnings (as I call them) that the writers of the epistles, most notably Paul, speak of in their letters to the various churches as they try to help them set a better course regarding certain practical issues. For example, Paul wasn't writing to the Corinthians to get aligned behind the right teaching, to all speak in meetings, or to understand that Christ had become the Life-giving Spirit. He was writing to get them to stop squabbling about teachers; to stop pulling social rank at the Lord's table, to stop the three-ring circus that was their meetings, and to get past arguments about what kind of body they would get in resurrection. Instead, besides the specific items Paul eventually said, he also showed them a more excellent way for all of it.
But neither was the whole of the NT about getting saved and getting everyone to go out and preach the gospel to get more people saved. It sounds good, but it is not THE purpose of the church and the Christian life.
Turns out that there is a lot to consider. We do need to hear the word — both to be ready for salvation and to learn what it is that Christ taught. We need to pray. We need to continue to learn — but at what level? Is it reasonable to presume that just because we now have the ability to read and own our own bible that it was intended that we each become fully conversant in the whole thing and exert the kind of constant time that this would entail relative to what would have been considered reasonable for the average person just a very few centuries ago? Back when we mostly heard (not read) and considered a little at a time. And went out daily to live consistent with what we had heard? I think that the increase of general education has created an artificial presumption that each person's participation in more detailed study and such likewise grew. And in the process, we started to consider that the "practical" aspects of living are secular, and therefore something to disdain as opposed to the spiritual aspects of study, contemplation and prayer. We changed our understanding of the full Christian life to virtually exclude aspects of the mundane human existence. And thus came the secular-spiritual divide that is not seen in scripture.
So it is not just the inner-life teachers. It is any who distill the whole of the Christian life down to any part to the near exclusion of the other parts.
But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.
* I am speaking of the presumption that certain groups make relative to other Christians. For example, Evangelicals relative to the older mainline Christian groups (e.g., emphasis on personal salvation through crisis event v classes to learn about Christ and slowly come to believe). And inner-life v the rest because the rest aren't as spiritually committed. And either v liturgical groups (thinking that a good sermon but winging everything else is better than structuring it all). I admit to having some quandary in that last one, but I think that some of those old, written prayers might be more meaningful if you take them seriously than some off-the-cuff hodgepodge of popular snippets of scripture are.
Sons to Glory!
05-03-2021, 06:39 PM
But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.
So what would you say was the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians, in simple terms of a few sentences?
UntoHim
05-03-2021, 09:38 PM
What does the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with this thread? Does the word oikonomía even appear in Galatians? If so, in what context?
Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is God's Economy.
-
What does the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with this thread? Does the word oikonomía even appear in Galatians? If so, in what context?
Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is God's Economy.
-
I was going to say the same thing. The topic is, What is God's economy? I gave my summation of WL's take, which was to be filled in spirit with the mingled Spirit of God, to be metabolically transformed inwardly to become [the same as] God in life and nature.
Now that may be a noble and fine thing indeed, and we can of course offer Bible verses, but where does Paul say that this is God's economy? Nowhere is where. I've also made the point, and haven't yet seen a reply from Shepherding Words, that it seems odd to think that Paul asked Timothy for 'intensification' to be taught to facilitate God's economy, since there's no record whatsoever that Paul ever taught intensification. So how then do they say, "God's economy is carried out in 3 stages"? Whatever is carried out in 3 stages, it isn't what Paul was writing about.
No, the "God's economy" of WL was a hodge-podge, an amalgam of disparate verses, some unrelated to Paul[!], read back onto the scripture. I've gone into this already.
My proposed alternative was that Paul's view of "oikonomea theou" was best seen in his second epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9. There, he goes into some detail about how the gentile churches can share with feeding the poor widows of Jerusalem (cf Acts 6:1). The verse which seems to sum it up best is, "He who gathers much has no excess, he who gathers little has no lack." (2 Cor 8:15). In this nod to the Exodus journey, the Great Commandment is fulfilled - we should love one another not merely in word but in deed, in generosity.
(And I can't overstress that if reading James' epistle in this light confirms that James and Paul shared the same vision. This is probably the most crucial benefit of this interpretation: the NT becomes whole. after Revelation!])
Now, how does Galatians fit into my proposed reading? I daresay the climax of Galatians isn't the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch. It occurs right before that, when Peter, James and John tell Paul, "Remember the poor", and Paul readily accedes. Paul was sharing this vignette with the Galatians to make them understand the core of his mission. The gentiles were now grafted into the body of believers, as full members, not associate members. Ephesians 2:11-21 has probably the clearest explanation of Paul's view, but it applies here: the Galatians were once cut off, alienated from the hope of Israel, but now have been brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The two, gentile and Jew, are now one in Christ Jesus. It's a remarkable vision, which I believe is the capstone of Paul's written ministry. The two have become one. Paul has been given the ministry of reconciliation, and the enmity, the dividing wall is gone. It is truly a revelation from God.
Now, what to do? Circumcision, dietary laws, observing days and feasts, Sabbath remembrances? No, faith in Jesus Christ. And, "lay up something for my return to Jerusalem", as he writes to all the churches. The offering to the apostle, to bring to the poor of Jerusalem, unites the gentile and the Jew in fact, in deed, just as the gospel going out from Jerusalem "to the uttermost parts of the earth" brought the hope of salvation out to a darkened world. Paul's eventual return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" would complete the circle.
So the request in Galatians 2:10, "Remember the poor" from the pillars of Jerusalem, and Paul's "eager assent" were to show the Galatians where they fit into the picture - not with converting to Judaism, but as obedient gentiles to the gospel, and participants in that very gospel by helping the poor of Jerusalem. Look at how Paul writes chapter 7, how the Corinthians had repented and received Titus with "trembling obedience" (v14,15)! Now they were ready for Paul's message of sharing, in chapters 8 and 9. He is glad for their repentance, and now wants to see some fruits, some issue.
For confirmation, see Romans 15:25-31, and 1 Cor 16:1,2, which I'll quote in full, as it's relevant to this post: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed." Paul consistently delivered one message, of the crucified and risen Christ, and the discipleship and obedience of all nations in his name. The gatherings of the offerings of the far-flung churches were central to this mission, and united believing Jew and Greek.
So let's show how Galatians fits into the whole of the administration/plan of God.
Ch 1: Paul spent the first chapter laying out that Christ was the gospel, not the law. He also provided his credentials to speak on the subject.
Ch 2: He continues his standing among the apostles by telling of his acceptance by the other apostles, and his stature to even put Peter in his place for duplicity.
Cn 3 & 4: Paul lays out how salvation is because of faith in the works of Christ and not because of our own works of any kind. This carries on through both chapters.
Ch 5: Paul states that we are free and to not allow themselves to become enslaved. Without saying anything about all aspects of our freedom, this passage is talking about freedom from the ritual, dietary, etc., laws of Judaism. Then he turns to living by the Spirit, providing both negative and positive evidence.
Ch 6: Helping each other when temptations arise. Doing good, living in the new creation.
Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.
The point of the letter was not to provide a bunch of spiritual things they needed to work at, but a bunch of spiritual truths that they could rely on to live and follow in the manner Christ desired.
Short enough? (I thought that the overview of the book would be worth the extra words.)
One the whole, my observation is that the inner-life teachings are too engaged in dealing with the spiritual and too disengaged from dealing with life and Godliness
And Christians engaged in life and Godliness as image-bearers of God is a good description of "God's economy."
Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.
Although this seems different from my post, at least in emphasis, they run on parallel tracks. The gentiles have by faith been given everything they need, if they would just believe the truth of the gospel. There is no need to judge one another if their works are "empty and joyless" or "filled with the indwelling Christ." Simply believe, and obey. The truth is the truth, irrespective of your current status, whether you subjectively lay hold or not. (because of sin, we should never judge ourselves as having attained, or others as lesser - "most Christians don't see"...)
I'd like to tell a short story to illustrate my point. Jesus told them, "Wait in Jerusalem for the coming power" (Acts 1:4-8), and it says they waited, praying day and night for this (1:14; 2:1). Now, if they didn't yet have the power, how could 120 people pray together for 10 days? If you heard of a gathering of 120 people all together praying day and night, wouldn't you say they were filled with the Holy Spirit? But the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out! But what did they have? They had the command. They were not empty. The command also has power. So if God tells you to do something, don't stress if you are "doing it with Christ" or not. Just do what God's word says. It is very plain. The "inner life" will follow. The command is in black-and-white.
Don't put the cart in front of the horse. If you focus on the cart, you will be led astray by your feelings, and those who'd manipulate you based on your feelings. Haven't we seen this played out in full?
(The above is my attempt to say 'amen' to OBW's post.)
One of the more troublesome things in Galatians to me is that Paul says Christ becomes of no effect to them if they put their trust in works of the flesh. But I believe that this is being sent to people who first believed in Christ, then were hoodwinked into following after Jewish rituals. So the question is whether Paul really means that Christ is of no effect (as in some kind of losing, or almost losing of salvation) or is he saying that their continued life has ceased to follow on according to Christ and the Spirit, and become stagnant because they have put their daily trust in those rituals.
I know that someone will suggest that doing the kinds of "works" that even Christ directly commands is included in these works of the flesh, but I do not agree. This is about the befuddlement brought on by the Judaizers, not by obeying the commands of Christ. And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.
What is God's economy? it is living the life commanded as the result of what we are taught. As examples:
Being poor in spirit.
Hungering and thirsting for righteousness
Being generous and loving to your neighbor as you would to yourself
Being salt and light in the world
Showing "justice" to those in need (e.g., the widow, orphan, alien, etc.)
Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law
Being a servant to all
Obeying all that God/Christ has commanded (continue in my word then you will know the truth . . . . That means follow it; do what it says; not just read it a lot)
All the "one anothers"
And so on.
UntoHim
05-04-2021, 09:58 AM
I would suggest that if God does have "an economy" (a dubious notion I believe), then it cannot be in contention with, much, much less, antithetical to the Gospel as presented to us in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is great danger in taking the teachings and theology of the apostle Paul, and taking them to be superseding those teachings, sayings and parables of Jesus Christ during his life and ministry here on earth.
There is a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Laying aside for a moment the identity of the messenger (which is questionable anyhow) I have always considered this stinging condemnation of us modern day Christians as a legitimate indictment from God himself. Also, taking into consideration the life and times and history of the main proponents of this notion (God's economy) - Witness Lee and his followers - we should all find it painfully obvious that this teaching is not only unbiblical, it is virtually antithetical to the Gospel.
Witness Lee claimed that Paul's teachings in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were "the heart of the divine revelation". Well I would contend that the heart of the divine revelation can only be discovered in the heart of the divine Revelator, and the heart of the divine Revelator is originally, and most profoundly, revealed to us in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Our beloved apostle Paul did not teach "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48) "You therefore" follows 5 crucial verses: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"
Brothers and sisters, friends, enemies, lurkers. There is a very good reason why the wise men who decided to order the books of the New Testament in the order that they did. The Gospels are first.
-
And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.
I think this is a very important point, and can hopefully be seen by some out there who are currently being recruited to chase after the experience via ritualistic noisemaking, what they call "exercise your human spirit." I was caught into this trap, and was in it for years. Even when I was in the FTTA and heard "Don't waste your time" with the widows and orphans, which I knew to be a direct reversal of the gospel message, I stayed. Even when it was clear that I wasn't getting better, and my problems were not magically disappearing, like I'd been told - "Just eat Jesus, brother", I hung on, convinced there was no other way. Even after I left, in disgust and discouragement, after years of 24/7 immersion in the so-called "church life", I still went out to the Community Church in my town and told them (politely of course) how they were deficient by not following "God's economy."
If you can see what OBW's words represent, before you get sucked into the LC vortex, you might find a path more true to the NT text. Because once you are in the house of mirrors that is the LC Hive Mind, it can be very hard to get out. Your thoughts are gone, and you run on their programme. It is hard to rewire yourself.
Witness Lee claimed that Paul's teachings in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were "the heart of the divine revelation".There was a participant several years back who drove us crazy with some of his dogmatic views on things. But one of his dogmas, while overdone, was to assert that the core of the NT is the gospels. In this one item he was (and probably still is) right.
During the recent era of "emerging" and "emergent" church thinking, there was a general disdain for Paul because they see in the bulk of Christianity a tendency to use Paul as the gospel and almost dismiss the actual gospels. Turns out that they didn't really dislike Paul, but rather the inverted way of viewing the NT. So many start with Paul and try to shoehorn the gospels to fit what they think they are getting out of Paul. And they mostly ignore the parts of the gospels that they cant fit into their "Paul" narrative.
But the real way to look at the NT should be similar to what the Jews say about the OT. They essentially say that there is the Law and the Prophets, and the rest is commentary. Layered over the NT, that would be "The gospels are the Gospel. The rest is commentary."
Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels. It is that kind of focus that has brought me to realize that Paul's letters are not about uber-spiritual stuff with a side helping of discipline about their issues. Instead, virtually the whole of each letter is about correcting the totality of the lives of the believers and the rest is very sound spiritual facts that are in their toolbelts for the purpose of succeeding in their daily lives in all aspects. For Paul, there is no spiritual-secular divide. Driving in a manner displaying the image of God is as spiritual as praying — or any other item we think of as "spiritual" when we are considering activities in the totality of our lives. There is no secular living unless we are failing to set our minds on the Spirit and therefore failing to fulfil the righteous requirement of the law.
UntoHim
05-04-2021, 01:22 PM
Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels.
Great point! I would add that if you consider the epistles of Paul as the "higher gospel" and the 4 canonical gospels as a "lower gospel", then you are reading both Paul and the gospels wrong. - ;)
I should hasten to add that the term "the heart of the divine revelation" is virtually synonymous with the thought of "a higher gospel".
-
Covert
05-04-2021, 03:48 PM
I see a lot of good post going on here recently in this thread. I want to expand on the highlighted post done by OBW.
OBW recent post- "Christians engaged in life and Godliness as image-bearers of God is a good description of "God's economy"
The core teaching of the lord’s recovery is to live as Godmen or be like God. Yet if anyone who knows the bible knows and reads it. Can clearly see that the lord’s recovery cuts off a lot of scripture to pertain to not "Gods" image but "their" image of the Christian life. It is just not the lord’s recovery thing, or I should say witness lee since the modern-day lord’s recovery is an offspring of witness lee doctrine.
Witness lee is one of the many people who use the bible to fit their narrative. Putting aside witness lee for a second, let us take another group of believers who believe that Jesus Christ is their savior and only way to salvation. But these group of believers are practicing sexual immorality and think that the sins described in 1 Corinthians 6 are just minor and not significant to the Christian life. They think to themselves this is just a little flaw of mine and it needs no correction because Jesus has my back, and he is savior. These individuals I have meet lots of time in my life, have their narrative of the bible that does not have an emphasis on correcting sexual immorality and believe the "central line" of the bible does not have an emphasis or include abstaining from sexual immorality. For these people, the commandment of God regarding sex between a married man and woman is of no relevance.
Let us to back to witness lee now. Witness Lee and his narrative of the Christian life/bible, de-emphasizes and contests the commandment of God regarding caring for your fellow man/neighbor. He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does include things such as good works. Yet, there is no scripture to be found that will contradict the act of doing good works. Jesus Christ and the teachings of his apostles reaffirm the act of good works in the Christian faith. It is not a necessity for salvation but the fruits of the Christian faith in practice. Just like those group of believers who in their narrative and agenda of the bible does not emphasize or value abstaining sexual immorality, there is also witness lee, who has his agenda/narrative of the bible does not value good works.
The local churches like to say that they practice the "central line of Paul’s Ministry". As if there are only 14 books in the bible/new testament? Where do you even get the idea that the practice of the Christian life is restricted only to Paul's Epistles? Well as I said the local churches in modern day are witness lee offspring. So, the real question why did Witness Lee personally try so hard to condemn good works to the extent of tarnishing much scripture in the bible to fit his agenda/narrative? Honestly, I am sure I can answer this question in full as I am not witness lee himself but from various testimony of local church history, I can make my guess and probably will make a post about it one day.
Regardless, to the coworkers, dcp, local church lurkers. There is no such thing as the "central line" or "only this part of scripture matters". It is not biblical, and really is just a tool used by certain men who just to propagate their agenda/narrative of the Christian life. The local churches are really no different than those group of believers who try to tarnish the commandment in regard to sexual practices. While one group of believers tarnish the commandments regarding sex and marriage, there are another group of believers who tarnish the commandments of God regarding caring for your neighbor/ good works. Can witness lee/local churches honestly say they are full of Christ and have his life and nature when they perpetuate evil with no rebuke/repentance and say things like “don’t waste your time with the poor/orphans/widows/suffering ones since they don’t have good building material”. Can you honestly say this of God? When the Co-workers sully and demonize John Ingalls year after year and exalt Philip Lee, can you say this is full of Christ? When you make your atonement before the lord will you not bow your head in shame for your slanderous and murderous tongue that slays men of God, sheds innocent blood, and fortifies evil doers and wolves in sheep skin? You think you got away with everything because you can fool everyone in the lord’s recovery, yet you surely cannot fool the lord? You honestly think that in the end when judgement comes, that fooling many men throughout the years will matter and or save you?
I know that the lord’s recovery the famous verse of “love covers all sins”. They abuse and use it perpetuate evil. Yet, while indeed the love of Christ is merciful and boundless, but before forgiveness comes rebuke and repentance and you (LR/LC) have none of that. I mean how is the love of Jesus Christ going to forgive you when you have no rebuke and repentance. You can try to pluck verses that fit your practices, but you know as well as I, that there are many other verses in the bible that exposes your narrative/agenda. Yes, the love of Jesus Christ covers all sins, but you have to rebuke and repent (much scripture detailing this).
2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for [a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205%3A10&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28875a)]his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.
The verse speaks truth, I could care less that the lord’s recovery has this off the rail interpretation of TOTKOGAE. Again, witness lee your narrative/agenda of the bible is hogwash. I do not care if you do not like practicing the Christian life with any emphasis with the words of “good or bad”. You will appear before the judgement seat of Christ in accordance with your deeds whether “GOOD OR BAD”. You can cry yourself to sleep at night or vent of frustration or whatever, but it is going happen, I have to say to those who perpetuate evil in the local churches and refuse repentance/rebuke along with murdering brothers and sisters with hateful/tarnishing/deceitful words- are you ready for the time of judgement?
So OBW gave a brief explanation of what Gods Economy is in “theory” the local church doctrine. Here is what is in reality/practice- “Gods Economy in the local churches is a false doctrine/agenda of witness lee that describes a practice of the Christian life that tarnishes the commandment of God in relations to good works. While also attempting to practice being amoral, which inevitably leads further downward to being immoral and perpetuating evil doers with no rebuke and or repentance. Just one of the many false teachings from a false prophet who is spoken well by many and propagates his agenda/narrative of the bible. The local churches are one of many strange groups that has this weird and skewed/obscured practice of the Christian life. They usually try to hide and are very open to their beliefs cause of blatant biblical contradictions and rely on deceiving gullible and uninformed new believers to maintain their numbers. That is all it really is.
Gods Economy in practice of the Lords Recovery- A false doctrine that tarnishes the commandment of God in relations to good works/caring for one’s neighbor and perpetuates evil with no rebuke and or repentance.
Some verses to take away
Ecclesiastes
13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012%3A13-14&version=ESV#fen-ESV-17537a)] 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012%3A13-14&version=ESV#fen-ESV-17538b)] every secret thing, whether good or evil.
1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God
John 15:10 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A10&version=ESV) ESV
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
John 14:15 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A15&version=ESV) ESV
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
1 John 5:3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5%3A3&version=ESV) ESV
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
John 14:21 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A21&version=ESV) ESV
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
1 John 2:4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him
2 John 1:6 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+John+1%3A6&version=ESV) ESV / 1
And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.
Hebrews 13:16 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A16&version=ESV) ESV /
Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
1 Timothy 6:17-19 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A17-19&version=ESV) ESV
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
Titus 2:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+2%3A14&version=ESV) ESV
Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Message to Ephesus, Revelations Chapter 2
2 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks [a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&version=NASB#fen-NASB-30707a)]among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
2 ‘I know your deeds and your labor and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil people, and you have put those who call themselves apostles to the test, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have [c (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&version=NASB#fen-NASB-30709c)]perseverance and have endured on account of My name, and have not become weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Therefore, remember from where you have fallen, and repent, and do the [d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202&version=NASB#fen-NASB-30711d)]deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. 6 But you have this, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will grant to eat from the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.’
These delusional people think they are the church in Philadelphia, when in reality they fall very far from even the church described in Ephesus. Witness Lee doctrine is so flawed, the bible really is the truth and the way. Anyone who reads the bible consistently can see the flaw of witness lee doctrine. He tries to throw all these false man-made teachings/doctrines like “central line of Gods economy”, “don’t keep the law/commandments” and “good works are dead works” but the bible will show you the truth and eviscerate false doctrines that attempt to twist and tarnish it. Read the bible with in spirit and not of witness lee false doctrine corrupting you. Look at all those verses destroy witness lee false doctrine.
Every servant of God whether going from the old testament to Solomon and or the apostles in the New Testament all reaffirm the same thing. They don’t contradict each other trying to put forth their own agenda or narrative on how they think the life of believers should be. They speak the words God has unveiled to man since long ago. For those who try to pit the books of the bible/scripture against each other as if they contend with each other for the truth, are liars. Those who say they know God and say strange things like only they have the “high truth”, and do not keep his commandments and worse, teach against them is a liar and false teacher, this reaffirmed in the warning John gives in his epistle. There is no Paul vs Jesus or Paul epistles are above everyone else.
I will end with this scripture- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; [B]17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
Covert
05-05-2021, 03:22 PM
Minor typos from previous post
Original Sentence- He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does include things such as good works
Fix-
He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does "not" include things such as good works.
(im pretty sure there are some other minor typos, these post take a long time and I hope it does not bother you too much).
Now continuing my thoughts on this thread.
1. Aaron, I got your back brother, you are indeed correct works are part of the christian life. I just had to help my brother out and give economy pitches it cannot hit and strike it out.
2. The idea that God only wants you to seclude yourself, and sit around with a bunch of narcissistic and vainglorious group of delusional individuals 4-6 times a week is a lie. Unless someones bible is corrupted and missing tons of scripture, I don't know how someone comes that conclusion. Well although the recovery bible is not missing pages/scripture, it sure is filled with endless footnotes that takes up more space than scripture. All that corrupted agenda destroying the word of God.
3. Got some threads coming up and look forward for all these wonderful posters contributing
Aaron, I got your back brother, you are indeed correct works are part of the christian life. I just had to help my brother out and give economy pitches it cannot hit and strike it out.And to my point of Paul supposedly being apart with "salvation by faith", what "work" does James keep stressing? Circumcision? Dietary laws? Observing feasts, weeks and new moons? No - he says to visit the widows and the orphans in their afflictions. That's pretty much it. James' listed work is to be generous, and share with others. You know, what that guy Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection".
That's James' idea of "works". And per Galatians 2:10 that's what both Paul and James were eager to do. When the gentile churches gave to Paul, he then brought those alms to Jerusalem, to James and the rest, who distributed it to the widows and orphans.
Another term might be used here: 'sign'. A sign that Jesus was the Messiah, was the work which he did in the world, culminating with the sign of resurrection. The gospel record pointing to Jesus' signs, or works, is too numerous to cite. And a sign of discipleship was established early in Acts, with all disciples selling what they had and giving to the aid of the poor, and then Paul carried this messgage out to the world. Be generous to those who lack. That is the sign, that you believe, that you obey the gospel message. Love others, not merely in word but in deed. Again, read 2 Cor 8, 9 - the "lost writings" of Paul.
Another example is Cornelius. The angel said, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial offering to God." Now, was that angel in error? He hadn't read the Epistle to the Romans? Here is a gentile, not a believer [yet], but whose gifts to the poor were praised by God! In fact I'd argue that his position as a God-fearing and right-behaving gentile positioned him to hear the gospel from Peter! So his gifts to the poor were not vain. They were received by God. Of course he needed the gospel - we all do - but to think that "works were vain" is flat nonsense in that story.
So that's the first pitch to give them - that there are other ways to interpret "God's economy" than what WL proposed. OBW in #429 has also given some good ways to look at it. His list is relevant, and the last point of "one another" dovetails neatly with my take on both Paul and James following the lead of Jesus to think of others. They're all in lockstep, Peter/Paul/James/John, there is no "high" versus "low" gospel. And the "one another" part means, the gospel is NOT self-oriented, but other oriented. It's not about you but your neighbour.
(I was right up front going, "IIIIIYYYYYEEE CANNNN EXERCISE MMYYYYYY SPIIIIIIRRIIIIIITTTT!!!!" [AYYEEEEMMEEENNNNN!!]. No, sorry, the "I" and "my" of the gospel isn't Aaron. It's Jesus Christ.)
The second pitch that I offer up is to ask, Where does Paul include 'intensification' as an essential component of his "oikonomea theou"? Where's the basis for saying that "oikonomea theou" as taught by Paul and Timothy included intensification? And if Paul and Timothy can't be seen teaching this, why are you including it?
There are of course other points to be made as well, and I'm not being comprehensive. But even my few notices serve to show that the "economy of God" as taught by WL and disseminated the Local Churches beholden to his ministry was deficient and unsatisfactory at best, and complete mis-aiming and stumbling at worst.
Trapped
09-24-2022, 11:18 AM
Well, this is a massive thread, which is not surprising given that "God's economy" was almost Witness Lee's magnum opus. But I'll throw into the discussion mix here what was presented on God's economy on the YouTube channel "The Lord's Recovery Unchained", in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalxSHAj_II
I won't reproduce all the details, but basically he makes a very compelling case from scripture that the economy of God is not God dispensing Himself or anything that Witness Lee said it was, but is actually "the stewardship that God gave to Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles". A responsibility entrusted to Paul that Paul carried out. I had previously concluded that the economy of God was some kind of way that the believers were supposed to relate to each other in the church, an overarching love, a sharing of possessions, etc, but the video goes through the context of all the times "oikonomia" is used in the New Testament, and it's pretty obvious it is the stewardship Paul was given to make the gospel known to the Gentiles.
I continue to be blown away just how far Witness Lee's teachings are from what the book he CLAIMS his teachings are based on actually says, and how much wasted brain space I have of those totally meaningless and useless teachings!!
Trapped
Sons to Glory!
09-24-2022, 01:19 PM
(FYI - I made this post as a response to Trapped's post, and then realized that I was part of significant dialog in this thread over a year ago! So this response was not a continuation of any of that previous rather complex communication - just a simple response to another brother. BTW - I did watch the linked video, which makes a good point in the Greek grammar.)
I must admit this was one teaching of WL's that I didn't look at that much - it always seemed a little esoteric, or at least I didn't have much of an inner registration to look into it deeply. Perhaps the Anointing was preserving me in this area and thereby not exposing me (He did that in several ways during my time in the LC). So not sure exactly what the finer points were that WL was espousing here . . .
But what I do see in the Greek usage in this verse (1 Tim 1:4 oikonomia) is simply the administering or stewarding of God's house . . . whose house we are (Heb 3:6). And since the main principle in the Bible is love, to me this just means to make sure everyone in the house is loved, cared for and supplied as they need. Now, by extension, what God is supplying us is the "bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ," (Phil 1:19) along with, of course, our physical/psychological needs as well. To the end that we will all be transformed into His image, a perfected* counterpart with "no spot or wrinkle or any such thing."
I don't know if this aligns with what WL taught or not - this is just what I see in scripture (and which I believe the Lord has shown me). In the opinion of those here, is this view very far off the mark?
* LOVE = perfection
...many start with Paul and try to shoehorn the gospels to fit what they think they are getting out of Paul. And they mostly ignore the parts of the gospels that they cant fit into their "Paul" narrative.
But the real way to look at the NT should be similar to what the Jews say about the OT. They essentially say that there is the Law and the Prophets, and the rest is commentary. Layered over the NT, that would be "The gospels are the Gospel. The rest is commentary."The gospel version of God's economy was plainly laid out in Matthew 6- “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
The epistolic commentary of Paul aligns with this fully. I list 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 as the canonical example, spelled out in liberal detail but it's consistently referenced in his epistles (e. g., Rom 15:25-29, 1 Cor 16:1-4) and in his Acts.
Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels. It is that kind of focus that has brought me to realize that Paul's letters are not about uber-spiritual stuff with a side helping of discipline about their issues.Paul's acts show him bringing food for the widows of Jerusalem. "11:29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul...12:25 When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.."
Then there is the "right hand of fellowship" scene portrayed in Galatians 2, where the pillars of the Jerusalem church ask Paul to remember the poor, to which he replies he's eager to do so. Then to Acts 24:17 where he says that he has returned to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation."
Then all the epistolic enjoinders to set aside something for the poor of Jerusalem make perfect sense. Paul was doing a continuation of the gospel message of Jesus, giving the gentile believers a chance to store up riches in heaven, by giving to the poor while on earth. This is God's economy. Paul told Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach things which result in God's economy, which is in faith, believing that while they are deprived on earth, they have treasure in heaven, where moth cannot consume, and rust cannot destroy, and thief cannot steal.
It's simple, it all fits together, and the gospels and Acts and epistles fit together in lockstep. Jesus, Paul, James, Peter and John are all teaching and doing the same thing.
I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum
Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?
While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.
Thanks.
I'm not sure if others have touched on this, I haven't read every comment on this thread, but the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself. But I do have an issue if it's used to gloss over everything else about our lives. If it's used as a scapegoat for things ("just turn to your spirit brother" in any given scenario), and i do have an issue if it brainwashes people into being automatons and live robotic lives. Which I have experienced myself from time to time while meeting with the LC
Another way to look at God's economy, as told by Lee, is that God became a man in order to make man God in life and nature but not in the godhead. To accomplish this he was incarnated, lived a human life, was crucified, died and resurrected, ascended and descended as the spirit to get into man. All of this is covered by Lee extensively and repeated over and over again in the LC. Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself
The economy of God is NOT the same thing as the recovery of the church ground, the local meetings, or calling on the Lord. Those things are merely practical parts that are related to the economy of God insofar as the recovery of the local church was necessary for God to get his unique meeting place (Deuteronomy 12:11), for the believers to have a practical way to meet (at the homes as seen and practiced in the book of Acts), and have a practical way for God to infill them with the spirit by calling on the Lord. I find all of this to be doctrinally sound and one of the best things about the recovery in general. As far as theory goes at least, it is a fantastic biblical discovery and I see no fault in implementing it's practice
Now maybe others saw these things and practiced them before Nee and Lee. But we can say that Nee and Lee consolidated these truths and practices and implemented them in a practical way for a large group of people. Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means- Proverbs 29:18 When there is no vison the people cast off restraint
But the economy of God does not directly touch on any kind of unique oracle or all powerful human leadership. We might see what looks like examples of these concepts in the word, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can and should be applied to people like Nee/Lee, the elders, the speaking bros, the blended bros etc. And that doesn't mean that what Lee said is a 1:1 comparison with what actually happened in the word. Yes God can and did raise up one person to lead at certain times. But if we read the Bible carefully we can see that that's not always the case. Many times God raised up two or three people to take the lead at any given time. And also we see that most often when God raises someone or a couple of people up it's for a specific purpose at a specific time. To say that because someone was used by God at one time that somehow this makes them "the oracle or unique leader of an entire generation for as long as they live" is as dangerous as it is unbliical
That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)
That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)
Jay, concerning the abuse of power, I have found issues with both doctrine and practice, as they go hand in hand. For example, much power was secured by the exclusive appointment of elders by “apostles.” Yes, that was described in scripture, but never prescribed as Lee taught. This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.
Jay, This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.
Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?
Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.
I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up
Now if Lee and co. encroached into that territory, which it sounds like they absolutely did (and I myself have experienced this with other leaders in the church), then they are just flat out wrong. And it sounds like this is Lee's lifetime major fault, and those who covered him at the expense of the body of Christ are complicit in his errors. And those who stood up against it were right to do so. It's possible he should have stepped down from any type of leadership position he held, and just relegated his sphere of function to speaking. But I suppose ultimately that's up to God. When king David sinned God didn't remove his kingdom from him, but he punished him in other ways and ultimately David's kingdom was split in half between his son's fighting. So there were major major consequences. Also with his seed Solomon, who eventually became degraded to the inth degree. But then why would I even be talking about Lee as if he was the king or ruler of the recovery? That's a funny thing right? It just means that the recovery revers Lee as if he was a king in a way. Which maybe is human nature, but it's something that is kind of hidden but obvious too. Strange thing. At any rate, how much Lee's failures damaged the church is what it is. I think at this point in time it's in the past mostly. Granted many who were caught up in the problems had their church life ruined and there should be accountability for that before God. Jesus said clearly that the stumbling blocks would be judged harshly
The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know
Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father
The problems I have with these two examples is:
1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be
With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway
2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position
Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father
The problems I have with these two examples is:
1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be
With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway
2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position
I don't say any of this to say that I believe Lee was a false prophet or a cult leader etc. I don't believe he was. I do believe he was used by God to set up the local churches and to speak a lot of great things with regards to the deeper meanings in the Bible. However it sounds like his personal life had a lot of major drama in it and that carried over into the church when he appointed his unworthy sons with high positions, of which they misused and abused. This was no doubt nepotism on Lee's part, and it sounds like this was his major flaw- his love for his sons. So despite the great things Lee did he also did a lot of damage and probably should have lost his position. But then we get into another argument of what exactly should the positions in the church be, and how should they be maintained and how should they function. This is something that is not talked a lot about in the recovery. But I think it's safe to say that if you have a position it should not be permanent and if you behave badly you could and probably should lose your position. Are positions hierarchy? Such a grey area right. I have also heard of elders being asked to step down. So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors. Which he clearly made huge ones and they were just covered up because of this prevailing thought that the lower ranking members shouldn't expose the wrongs of the higher ranking members. Well this led to many lives being ruined and many thousands of people leaving the recovery
So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors
I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them ;):xx::rollingeyesfrown:
Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?
I’m referring to one of the mechanisms used by them which ensure total control over member churches.
I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up
Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.
Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.
I've heard the story of his excommunication, but I haven't heard of the "handing over" part. Do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on this?
Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.
Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits
TLFisher
01-23-2024, 08:58 PM
I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them ;):xx::rollingeyesfrown:
I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".
Zezima
01-23-2024, 11:37 PM
Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself.
A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?
Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means-
There is irony here is that your proposed consequence is in itself the result of a personal interpretation of the Bible.
Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits
Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.
We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.
Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.
(https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgettable-Memories-Watchman-Shanghai/dp/1625099401/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R020GAP11QNP&keywords=lily+hsu+my+unforgettable+memories&qid=1706119235&sprefix=lily+my+unforgettable+memories%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1) My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgettable-Memories-Watchman-Shanghai/dp/1625099401/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R020GAP11QNP&keywords=lily+hsu+my+unforgettable+memories&qid=1706119235&sprefix=lily+my+unforgettable+memories%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1)
Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.
I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".
Another Philip Lee saying, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life." And another, "Even when Brother Lee is wrong, he's right."
Concerning Bill Mallon, I heard this condemnation: "Bill Mallon said we should return to the pure word of God, but that is a tactic of the enemy."
A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?
Zezima, great points, I love this tried-and-true maxim about knowing the Bible:
A text without context is a pretext for a proof text.
How I wish we all knew this years ago!
Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?
2 Corinthians 3:18. Romans 12:2. 1 Corinthians 2:16. Colossians 3:10. 1 Corinthians 15:49. Etc.
Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.
We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.
Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.
(https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgettable-Memories-Watchman-Shanghai/dp/1625099401/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R020GAP11QNP&keywords=lily+hsu+my+unforgettable+memories&qid=1706119235&sprefix=lily+my+unforgettable+memories%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1) My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgettable-Memories-Watchman-Shanghai/dp/1625099401/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R020GAP11QNP&keywords=lily+hsu+my+unforgettable+memories&qid=1706119235&sprefix=lily+my+unforgettable+memories%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1)
Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.
I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?
...the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself.
I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.
I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.
First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.
Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.
My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.
My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.
I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.
Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?
I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.
I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.
First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.
Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.
My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.
My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.
I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.
Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?
As far as I can tell the economy of God is a fully Biblical. And yes transformation is implied in the economy of God if the believer taps into the spirit. This is like describing the components of an engine to determine how it works. If a believer doesn't turn to their spirit and let the spirit of God saturate their inward being then how could they be transformed? The "engine" won't work. With that said, even if a believer is turning to their spirit for many years, it does not annul their dormant flesh which will always be with us until our body dies. This is also biblical. If "the engine" of the spirit isn't turned on then the "car of holiness" won't go forward
Here is a quote from a website on the economy of God-
The Greek word for economy is oikonomia (Ephesians 1:10; 3:9), which means a household government or a household administration. God's economy is His plan to dispense Himself into man so that He can gain a household to express Himself. This household is the church, the Body of Christ (1 Timothy 3:15)
https://amanatrust.org.uk/post/what-is-gods-economy/#:~:text=The%20Greek%20word%20for%20economy,1%20Ti mothy%203%3A15).
Some people might make it hard to understand, some might leave out key elements. But the basic gist is that if we turn to our spirit and live our lives in the spirit we will receive God's dispensing and we will live by him (John 6:57), this will bring transformation (2 Corinthians 3:18). Does it mean that we will be infallible? No. But insofar as we have partaken of and assimilated God we should be transformed to that degree. I see no fault with this concept and it is very Biblical. I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God
If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it
Zezima
01-24-2024, 09:59 PM
I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God
The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life
Genesis 2:16-17 “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
If you approach this text as is, it’s clear that man is allowed to eat of EVERY tree in the garden apart from the TOKOGE. If you approach this text with the concept you’re referring to, then you’re inferring onto the text that since man is commanded to not eat of the TOKOGE, then man must have been commanded to eat of the TOL.
If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.
This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.
UntoHim
01-25-2024, 09:47 AM
If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?
Another double-take......complements of Jay!:eek:
For decades the followers of Nee and Lee have vehemently denied that they consider or treat the writings of these two men as equal to the Word of God. And now our new friend Jay has confirmed this inevitable conclusion for us in real time.
In all fairness to Jay, many (prob most?) of us who were in the Local Church of Witness Lee for any significant length of time held this view of Watchman and Witness, conscientiously or unconscientiously, even if we didn't shout it from the rooftops to a world-wide Internet audience. To be sure, this should not be considered as a mere "Freudian slip" - I am quite certain that Jay actually believes that the 20th century ministry and writings of these two Chinese gentleman are equal in value and authority to the living and abiding Word of God. It is this kind of attitude that caused the late Benson Phillips to proclaim that any Local Church member who leaves the movement will become "spiritually bankrupt and will never be a great spiritual person on earth" (close paraphrase) and that also caused the most blended of Blended Brothers, Minoru Chen, to boldly declare that he is "altogether filled with the spirit of Witness Lee". This is what happens to people who give over their hearts and minds to the person and work of mere, mortal men, and abandon the the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, AKA the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the actual, genuine teaching of the Apostles, and the current leading and fellowship of the Spirit of Truth. May God have mercy on us all.
-
Another double-take......complements of Jay!:eek:
For decades the followers of Nee and Lee have vehemently denied that they consider or treat the writings of these two men as equal to the Word of God. And now our new friend Jay has confirmed this inevitable conclusion for us in real time......-
You're just taking what I said and running with it, and adding your own twist with cute little sprinkles of extra layers of things I never said or even implied. Which is whatever. You're a hurt person, I get it. I'm hurt too. I'm just trying to be fair
I believe that the local churches are biblical in concept. But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that. But please don't put all this extra crap on me that I'm not saying or implying
The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life...
Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?
If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with itBefore this, you're quoting my post so I'll respond as if the "you" in this sentence refers to me. Nowhere in my writing did I say to throw out the concept of the economy of God. I said to throw out Lee's concept. Instead I offered mine, "Give to those who have no means to repay you in this age" which is surely just as Biblical as "God's plan to dispense Himself into His chosen people".
First, it was a core teaching of Jesus, repeated over and over. Love your neighbour as yourself. Give, and it will be given to you. Second, it was repeated by the disciples. It is better to give than to receive. How can you say that you love your neighbour if you don't share? Third, it was done, even in a focused way, by those same disciples. In his account in Galatians 2, after Paul describes himself as the openly recognized "apostle to the gentiles", he's told by the Twelve to "remember the poor".
How many footnotes did that get, even after he replies that he was eager to do this very thing? Paul's mission to the gentiles is tied to reconnecting them with the poor of Jerusalem, and this enthusiastically affirmed by Paul, and yet how many conferences did WL give on this matter, even though it was being presented as the "central lane of God's New Testament economy" in Paul's own account?
Talk about throwing out the Bible! WL's concept of God's economy is like asking someone after watching a western movie, what it was about, and hearing, "It was about men with hats riding horses". True enough - the whole movie, you could see men, hats, and horses. But by insisting that was the unique and central theme, it necessitates ignoring a lot else! In this case, pray-reading and repetitive shouting get lots of attention, and the poor are not remembered but instead dismissed.
Trapped
01-25-2024, 04:49 PM
I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?
Jay, the questions you ask at the end of your post here are the kind of questions the co-workers rhetorically ask in their articles, as if the obvious answer is "no" and the juggernaut of the ministry and the local churches should just continue on unabated, crushing all the victims in its path forever. But there are real answers to those questions.
What is the difference between David, Solomon, and Paul's sins versus Nee and Lee's sins?
REPENTANCE.
This distinguishes these two camps as far as the east is from the west. Rather than genuinely repent after committing sins and perpetuating evil, Nee and Lee would instead double-down, dig in further, and tighten the controls even more, driving out and slashing/burning anyone with a conscience who got in their path. This behavior does indeed annul the message, disqualify them from leadership, and throw the entire concept of the local churches -- founded on the shoulders of two abusive, controlling, unrepentant predators and predator-protecters -- into question.
Trapped
Zezima
01-25-2024, 05:52 PM
Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also?
Yes, that would be appropriate for this thread.
Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?
Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.
In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.
Nell
UntoHim
01-25-2024, 09:39 PM
If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.
Ya know Jay, if you really want us to believe you when you say you don't hold the ministry and writings of Witness Lee as equal to the Bible, you might not want to go around making statements like this. That being said, I will refrain from giving any "cute little sprinkles" on this doozy for the time being.
....But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that.
Oh Jay, we've been talking about many things very wrong and unrighteous in your little sect for about 20 years now on these Internet forums. Unfortunately, "the leadership and clergy-laity aspects" are the very least of these very wrong and unrighteous things. But I think you've probably figured that out by now.
Don't know if you'd consider this as just a "cute little sprinkle" or not, but this is the best advise I've seen on this thread so far:
This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.
Such a novel idea! "Let the Bible tell you what it's about". Of course Nee and Lee were not the only well-intentioned people who were so self-aggrandizing as to think they were the only guys on the planet uniquely qualified to tell everyone what the Bible is about, (and they won't be the last) but since they are the ones we are all most familiar with, then our sites are going to be squarely set on them and their teachings.
-
Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus so that certain ones don’t teach myths, genealogies and such things as lead to speculations and controversy, rather than God’s economy, which is in faith. Nothing about pray-reading, just that it is in faith. To understand what Paul meant in referencing God’s economy, one must look at the ministry of Jesus, of which Paul was disciple, herald, and apostle. Jesus had taught, “Don’t store up for yourselves on earth, where moth consumes and rust destroys, and where thief breaks through and steals. Rather, give to those who can’t repay you on earth, and your reward will be great in heaven.” Clearly this is an economy based on faith. If you don't believe in a heavenly reward, why would you give, on earth? Remember, there was no 7-11 corner store, no Social Security or Medicaid. If you gave away your stuff, you died.
It is also clear that this economy or dispensational arrangement was at the forefront of the gospel work of the early church. In addition to the selling of all things and leaving the proceeds at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-35), a clear mark of discipleship, and the feeding of the widows (6:1-7), there was the case of the collection in Antioch for the hungry of Jerusalem, sent through Paul and Barnabas (11:29,30), even called in the RecV a dispensing (12:25) “And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having completed the dispensing; they took along with them John, who was surnamed Mark.”
The dispensing was to give food to the hungry. Again, look at Jesus’ command: “Blessed is the servant whom the Master returns, when he finds him so doing, truly I say that he will set him over his whole house.” Doing what? Pray-reading? No, “…to give them (i. e, dispense or distribute) their food at the proper time" (Matt 24:45). That, according to Jesus, is God’s dispensation. Those who have, should give to those who do not. And it surely requires faith (and love) to do this!
According to Paul’s account in Galatians 2, when the Twelve acknowledged him as apostle to the gentiles as Peter was to the Jews, they only asked one thing – that he remember the poor. Did he cry, “No! That’s not God’s economy!”? No, rather he said that he was eager to do so! Then, when writing the Corinthians, he opens this up. Remember that in 1st Corinthians he was dealing with many critical issues in the church, but in 2 Cor these were now resolved (7:11) and he could really express his heart's full burden to the gentiles, as seen in chaps 8 and 9.
And he concludes with this: “This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (9:12-15) The obedience of the gentiles to the gospel of Jesus Christ was their generosity for the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.
To conclude, while the scripture (cf Jer 15:16) does say that God's word is food, and gives life, it never says that this occurs via pray-reading. Instead, Jesus says that his food is in his obedience to the Father's will, expressed in His word (John 4:34). And now, just as he obeyed God’s command (or, word) and lives in the Father's love, so likewise we obey Jesus (15:10). Our obedience to God's will as expressed by Jesus' commands becomes our food, and the basis of our life.
Humankind was made in God’s image but disobeyed, and fell, with the ruinous trail of murder, theft, and lies. Then, just as sin entered through the disobedience of one man, so through the obedience of One, the redemptive path was opened (cf Rom 5). Our singular work is to believe into him, and in his one righteous obedient act, the death on the cross, and then we follow this with our obedience to the gospel, working it out by cooperating in being generous to one another, just as gentile churches were to Jerusalem through Paul.
That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God." This is our daily bread.
ACuriousFellow
01-27-2024, 12:59 PM
That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should allow, and follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God."
Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.
Jeremiah 15:15-17
15 LORD, you understand; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. 16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty. 17 I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation.
Jeremiah speaks of when the word of God came to him. This is exactly what we see in the first chapter of his book. “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah initially shows apprehension at such a word, but the Lord insists. “‘Alas, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). We can see that Jeremiah immediately proves that he “ate” God’s word by showing that he was keeping God’s word and doing what God asked of him. As our Lord Jesus declared, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). In James we also see the importance of keeping God’s word rather than just hearing it: “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it — not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it — they will be blessed in what they do.” (James 1:19-25).
The scriptural concept of “eating” can never be divorced from “doing,” yet somehow Lee has conjured up this doctrine of pray-reading which is effectively just a doctrine of verbal phylacteries (Matthew 23:1-12). There is indeed precedent for praying over the scriptures, but Lee’s specific formula for “pray-reading” and for “eating” God’s word is no better than the vain and repetitive actions that Jesus warned against.
Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.Yes I think we're in full agreement on this. And yes, we were warned explicitly not to follow the repetitive noisemaking path, yet on it we went most of us anyway... it was so enjoyable! But at the end, no transformation, just frustration. I mean, group chanting was such a head rush. I was 'in spirit, on the ground'!
But really, I was just in a state of heightened suggestibility in which I sat through meeting after meeting, training after training, conference after conference, absorbing all the Lee teachings. At that point, he could have sold us fried eggs, told us it was God's economy, and we would have congratulated ourselves on being so fortunate. It was a golden opportunity, his cheerleaders would say, as we sat raptly, transfixed.
ACuriousFellow
01-27-2024, 04:03 PM
Yes I think we're in full agreement on this. And yes, we were warned explicitly not to follow the repetitive noisemaking path, yet on it we went most of us anyway... it was so enjoyable! But at the end, no transformation, just frustration. I mean, group chanting was such a head rush. I was 'in spirit, on the ground'!
But really, I was just in a state of heightened suggestibility in which I sat through meeting after meeting, training after training, conference after conference, absorbing all the Lee teachings. At that point, he could have sold us fried eggs, told us it was God's economy, and we would have congratulated ourselves on being so fortunate. It was a golden opportunity, his cheerleaders would say, as we sat raptly, transfixed.
I must admit that for a time I subscribed to this as well. By the end of my tenure, I saw how vain it was when it all came together: their obsession with Lee's ministry, the neglect of scriptural study, the neglect of their members, their history of intimidation and litigation. My trust in The Lord's Recovery died slowly but surely, and all the while painfully.
As I exhorted thee to wait at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a differently, neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than *God’s Economy” which is in faith. But the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith
God’s economy, God’s household arrangement, God’s plan, God’s stewardship, etc. has been diversely translated by every translator of the Bible. WL preferred the transliteration of “economy” from the Gk. Oikonomia. That’s fine. Many Greek words just don’t have perfect English words to use and convey the Apostle’s thought.
What really troubled me about WL’s and the Blended’s insistence here was yanking it out of context. We can argue words, but remember the old adage: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text. This saying never was so true as with these verses. How many times (e.g. “a faithful word”, “shepherding words”, etc to start) have I read LSM articles using God’s Economy as a sledgehammer to beat others down? Concerning LSM and DCP how true is another saying: A little knowledge is dangerous.. Never think that LSM is gifted in knowledge from God because they exclusively teach what others do not. Knowledge merely puffs up. But what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?
Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.
what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?
Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.
A good example of this is the story of Dorcas/Tabitha. She sewed cloaks for the widows. Again, think about what it meant to be a widow back then. No husband, no children, no income, no Social Security and social safety net. No human rights. You didn't exist. It never mentions "God's economy" in the narrative, but the outreach of real help based on real love is palpable.
Or the flip side, with the rich man with Lazarus the beggar. There was no love there... there was enjoyment, but it never reached outside the walls. Jesus says, "When I was hungry, you didn't feed me..." (Matt 25:42) You may tell me, that's not God's economy, but I would reply, if that isn't God's economy, then what is?
A question that I'd asked previously, which LSM (to my knowledge) has never answered: If Paul told Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus to make sure that they taught things that resulted in God's economy, how can we say that part of the charge included the teaching of intensification? If there's no evidence that Paul included intensification as part of his oeuvre, why did WL say it was part of the teaching of God's economy? It must have been added in later, by somebody else - namely WL.
As a recent example of discrepancy, I found myself reconsidering "God's economy" as taught by WL: where does Paul promote intensification? If not, why pretend that Paul was urging Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach it? And if Paul wasn't telling Timothy (or anyone else) to teach it as part of "God's economy", why the presumption that we should? (And, where to broach such questions as a basis for respectful and mutually profitable exploration? Not in the Local Church!)
Perhaps John "saw" or "taught" intensification based on his vision of seven spirits on Patmos, but if we can't see John passing this on to Paul somewhere (and of course Paul was deceased by then), how can we include it in Paul's teaching, or imagine that Paul wanted Timothy to make sure it was taught in Ephesus? Unless we see Paul teaching a sevenfold intensified Holy Spirit, we can't assume that he wanted it taught in Ephesus as part of God's economy. And if Paul didn't, neither can WL or anyone else. It's pure fabrication. The only reason WL got away with this amateur-hour theology is that he preached in an Echo chamber, where all he could hear was "Yes, amen" from the crowd. A critical audience would have called this out.
Psalm 29:7 (kjv) says that the voice of the LORD divides the flames of fire. To me, that hearkens to Moses and the seventy elders eating before God, seeing Him as recorded in Exodus 24. Then, in Exodus 25, God told Moses to build everything according to the pattern seen on the holy mountain, and he built a candlestick with seven flames.
God "divides the flames of fire" according to His good pleasure. We were conditioned to see "division" according to negative cant, but in this case the division is according to divine fiat.
So I think "One Spirit, sevenfold intensified" is not a necessary leap of logic. Second, there are seven Angel's, seven churches... does one imply one angel sevenfold, or seven Angel's? Likewise, churches? Why have one interpretation in one verse, then abandon that method in the next? The only consistency here is inconsistency.
Back to my first point - even if one took "One Spirit sevenfold" on face value, where does any NT usage indicate this was taught as God's NT economy? Rather, it looks like a late 20th- century creation, passed off as though it was formulated in the 1st century. Even if it were, it's doubtful that Paul taught it. There's simply no scripture.
"All Asia has abandoned me" doesn't mean that Paul taught intensification. It just means Witness Lee taught it.
Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?
Jay? Where are your verses?
Nell
gr8ful
01-29-2024, 09:59 AM
I find this one of the best treatments of the way 1 Tim 1:4 is used by some today.
...
What really troubled me about WL’s and the Blended’s insistence here was yanking it out of context. We can argue words, but remember the old adage: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text. This saying never was so true as with these verses. How many times (e.g. “a faithful word”, “shepherding words”, etc to start) have I read LSM articles using God’s Economy as a sledgehammer to beat others down? Concerning LSM and DCP how true is another saying: A little knowledge is dangerous.. Never think that LSM is gifted in knowledge from God because they exclusively teach what others do not. Knowledge merely puffs up. But what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?
The use of an obscure reading on a single verse to condemn every other teaching other than one's own teaching should be a red flag enough. Grabbing a single word and deciding the entire Bible must be read through the lens of that word as interpreted by a 20th century Bible expositor should be another red flag.
Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.
All the other red flags aside, this here is the only standard by which we need measure the proponents of "God's Economy" as promoted by partisans today: the plain words of the biblical author in context of the touted verse. We need not fear the brow-beating podium thumping partisans demanding fealty to their leadership; we only need to read the "goal of the charge" and discern the real situation with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.
Jeremiah 15:15-17
15 LORD, you understand; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. 16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty. 17 I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation.
Jeremiah speaks of when the word of God came to him. This is exactly what we see in the first chapter of his book. “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah initially shows apprehension at such a word, but the Lord insists. “‘Alas, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). We can see that Jeremiah immediately proves that he “ate” God’s word by showing that he was keeping God’s word and doing what God asked of him. As our Lord Jesus declared, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). In James we also see the importance of keeping God’s word rather than just hearing it: “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it — not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it — they will be blessed in what they do.” (James 1:19-25).
The scriptural concept of “eating” can never be divorced from “doing,” yet somehow Lee has conjured up this doctrine of pray-reading which is effectively just a doctrine of verbal phylacteries (Matthew 23:1-12). There is indeed precedent for praying over the scriptures, but Lee’s specific formula for “pray-reading” and for “eating” God’s word is no better than the vain and repetitive actions that Jesus warned against.
John 6:57 He who eats me, he also shall live because of me
Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out through the mouth of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God breathed
John 4:24 God is spirit, and he who worships him must worship in spirit and truthfulness
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God
John 1:14 And the word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the father), full of grace and reality
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
These verses all talk about spiritual eating. The Bible is a spiritual book, God himself is spirit (John 4:24), the Bible is actually God himself (John 1:1). If God is the word, then surely the Bible is good for eating (John 6:57). It's not only biblical to say this, it's literally what God wants from us. He wants to be assimilated into our being so that we express him. Otherwise what are we saved for? Simply for our own ticket to heaven? That's not the scope of what the Bible says. From Genesis chapter 2, directly after creating man he put man in the garden in front of the two trees with the idea that man would eat him. This is the major running theme throughout the entire Bible, and it's how God accomplishes his goal. The Bible is one big book of eating, from the beginning to the end. If you don't think so I'd encourage you to read your Bible more often
Modern Christianity loves to say God's goal is to do things, and to accomplish works. This is a common trope in mainstream Christianity. But actually God didn't tell Adam and Eve to do much. They only had to upkeep the garden. But his central goal for them was focused around their eating. "God cares more for what we are than what we do." -Watchman Nee. God cares for the quality of his craftsmanship. What better material to build with than with himself
But with that said, yes there's more to the Christian life than eating. And works are something that is talked about a lot in the Bible. I went into detail about this on another thread regarding the oneness of the body. Someone said that he experienced oneness in the works. I contend that without the spirit the works are something of the soul. Whether it's the soul or the spirit matters (Hebrews 4:12)
Lee says in the footnotes for Hebrews 4:12-
According to the Bible, man is a tripartite being — spirit, soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23). Here, in this verse, are the joints and marrow — which are parts of the body — and the soul and spirit.
The foregoing verses describe the children of Israel as falling away from entering into the rest of the good land. With them there were three places:
1) Egypt, from which they were delivered;
2) the wilderness, in which they wandered;
3) Canaan, into which they entered. Their history in these three places signifies the three stages of their participation in God's full salvation.
This is a type of us, the New Testament believers, in our participation in the full salvation of God. In the first stage we receive Christ and are redeemed and delivered from the world. In the second stage we become wanderers in following the Lord; our wandering always takes place in our soul. In the third stage we partake of and enjoy Christ in a full way; this is experienced in our spirit. When we pursue the pleasures of material and sinful things, we are in the world, typified by Egypt. When we wander in our soul, we are in the wilderness. When we enjoy Christ in our spirit, we are in Canaan. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they were always murmuring, reasoning, and chiding. This surely took place in their soul, not in their spirit. But Caleb and Joshua believed in the word of God, obeyed the Lord, and pressed toward the goal. This surely took place not in their soul but in their spirit. At that time the receivers of this book, the Hebrew believers, were wondering what they should do with their old Hebrew religion. This wondering in their mind was a wandering in their soul, not an experience of Christ in their spirit. So the writer of this book said that the word of God, i.e., what was quoted from the Old Testament, could pierce into their wondering like a sharp two-edged sword and divide their soul from their spirit. As the marrow is concealed deep in the joints, so the spirit is deep in the soul. The dividing of the marrow from the joints requires mainly the breaking of the joints. In the same principle, the dividing of the spirit from the soul requires the breaking of the soul. The Hebrew believers' soul, with its wondering mind, its doubting concerning God's way of salvation, and its considering of its own interests, had to be broken by the living, operative, and piercing word of God that their spirit might be divided from their soul.
Our soul is our very self (Matt. 16:25; cf. Luke 9:25). In following the Lord we must deny our soul, our very self (Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:23). Our spirit is the deepest part of our being, a spiritual organ with which we contact God (John 4:24; Rom. 1:9). It is in our spirit that we are regenerated (John 3:6). It is in our spirit that the Holy Spirit dwells and works (Rom. 8:16). It is in our spirit that we enjoy Christ and His grace (2 Tim. 4:22; Gal. 6:18). Hence, the writer of this book advised the Hebrew believers not to stagger in the wandering of their soul, which soul they had to deny, but to press on into their spirit to partake of and enjoy the heavenly Christ that they might participate in the kingdom rest of His reign in the millennium. If they staggered in the wandering of their soul, they would miss God's goal and suffer the loss of the full enjoyment of Christ and the kingdom rest.
In this complex footnote we see how intricate our being is, and how closely related to God's plan the faculties of our being is. We see that the soul life is asked of us to deny (Matthew 16:24) and we see the spirit is the focal point of the Christian life (Romans chapter 8). All of these clues are indicators of what God wants- EATING. God wants us to eat of him as the spirit and to exercise our spirit. The works come out of this practice
Now, as I said on the other thread I believe that the local churches are short in the works department. I believe this is a shortage or a lack that they have for whatever reason. But we can't contend with their theology on eating of Christ as the spirit. To do so would be to contend with the Bible itself. It may be that in fact they themselves are short on eating and enjoying the Lord and this is why they lack in works. But the error of modern Christianity is to focus only on works and totally ignore eating Christ as the spirit. This is a defunct situation. Dead works like Thyatira. However many in the local churches exhibit the condition of Laodicea. They have the knowledge but they've lost the first love. They are in a stagnant condition with no works. Both scenarios are wrong. Christ was balanced in both life and his humanity that exhibited love and care for people through his works of healing, helping, loving, etc. This is short in the local churches from my experience. But we can't say that the Bible is not a book of eating, and we can't say that eating isn't the central theme of God's plan
Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.
In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.
Nell
Ephesians 3:9 And to enlighten all that they may see what the economy of the mystery is, which throughout the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things
Ephesians 1:10 Unto the economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him
1 Timothy 1:4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith
1 Timothy 2:4 [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth
Economy is a Greek word meaning household law, implying distribution (the base of this word is of the same origin as that for pasture in John 10:9, implying a distribution of the pasture to the flock). It denotes a household management, a household administration, a household government, and, derivatively, a dispensation, a plan, or an economy for administration (distribution); hence, it is also a household economy. God's economy in faith is his household economy, his household administration, which is to dispense himself in Christ into his chosen people that he may have a house to express himself, which house is the church (1 Timothy 3:15), the body of Christ. The apostle's ministry (Paul) was centered on this economy (Colossians 1:25; 1 Corinthians 9:17), whereas the different teachings of the dissenting ones were used by God's enemy to distract his people away from this economy. In the administration and shepherding of a local church, this divine economy must be made fully clear to the saints- Witness Lee, 1 Timothy 1:4 footnote
As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works
As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works
Jay, then what do you do with these verses? This short section encapsulates the whole of God’s Economy - God’s Plan of salvation, the goal of His redemption, our Hope and our living in this age, with His final desire that we be “zealous of good works.”
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2.11-14
No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.
Jay, then what do you do with these verses? This short section encapsulates the whole of God’s Economy - God’s Plan of salvation, the goal of His redemption, our Hope and our living in this age, with His final desire that we be “zealous of good works.”
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2.11-14
No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.
I never threw out good works. My point is that if we are not abiding in the Lord (John 15:4) then we cannot produce good fruit (good works). Jesus said 'apart from me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). So as I said before, good works ties into God's economy in the sense that good works or good fruits are the result of God dispensing himself as the spirit in his economy. Also righteousness and sanctification are results of our abiding in the spirit. Otherwise our Christian walk and righteousness would just be an outward performance. Which is a major problem with modern Christianity and the denominations. They do things FOR God but ignore God's method of sanctification and transformation. Essentially they ignore Christ and they ignore their spirit. Or we could probably say that they are ignorant of Christ in their spirit. satan loves to keep people in ignorance
We all have to solemnly read Matthew 23:27-28 and question whether we have God's subjective righteousness through the transformation of the spirit, or our own kind of outward righteousness according to the dead letter of the law. One has life, the other is death-
2 Corinthians 3:6b for the letter (the law) kills, but the spirit gives life
The letter of the law, which only requires of man. It is unable to supply man with life (Galatians 3:21). Because of man's inability to fulfill the requirements of the law, the law kills man (Romans 7:9-11) - Witness Lee, footnote 3:6, 2 Corinthians
The law was able only to demand and condemn; it could not give life. (See note Rom. 7:101.) There is no life in the law; there are only commandments. Life is in Christ (John 1:4). He is the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45), the only One who is able to give life. The giving of life is the focal point of the apostle's revelation. We should take only the One who gives life
There must be righteousness in order for life to be given. Righteousness, however, is not of law but in Christ (Rom. 5:17-18). Hence, the law is not able to give life. Furthermore, since the law cannot give life, it has no power to fulfill its requirements so that righteousness may be produced. Hence, in this sense also, righteousness is not of law- Witness Lee, footnotes 3:21, Galatians
What Lee is basically saying here that works (whether righteousness or whatever) that is not out of the spirit, is out of the law. Most Christians fail at this one point. They are unable to gain their good works from out of abiding, and their righteousness doesn't come from the spirit of Christ, it comes from somewhere else. They think they have to DO for God and to be approved by God through their DOING. This is fully wrong according to the Bible. The doing and the working comes out of the spirit (Philippians 2:13). If the spirit is not the source then it's wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Unfortunately most of modern Christians are to some degree caught up in this major error
Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.
In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.
Nell
Non-answer.
You just couldn’t do it could you? You had to get all wordy and quote Lee. No surprise there.
Lee’s “ministry” consists of taking verses describing something in the word and turning it into a prescription that must be followed for all time ……”eating” for example.
Nell
Non-answer.
You just couldn’t do it could you? You had to get all wordy and quote Lee. No surprise there.
Lee’s “ministry” consists of taking verses describing something in the word and turning it into a prescription that must be followed for all time ……”eating” for example.
Nell
I think I answered very adequately and concisely. It's not my fault if the answer wasn't according to your palate
No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.
I believe Paul was an eater of Jesus. I believe his ministry focuses on eating the spirit. Read Romans 8:6 and Romans 10:13
I believe Paul was an eater of Jesus. I believe his ministry focuses on eating the spirit. Read Romans 8:6 and Romans 10:13
Jay, you are reading “eating” into these scripture. Had the Spirit of God inspired Paul to minister about “eating” then we would see it in his writings. Please try to understand the word of God using the context, instead of the ministry of WL.
Remember that Text without Context is a Pretext for Proof Text. Whether you know it or not, that’s what you just did.
I never threw out good works. My point is that if we are not abiding in the Lord (John 15:4) then we cannot produce good fruit (good works). Jesus said 'apart from me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). So as I said before, good works ties into God's economy in the sense that good works or good fruits are the result of God dispensing himself as the spirit in his economy. Also righteousness and sanctification are results of our abiding in the spirit. Otherwise our Christian walk and righteousness would just be an outward performance. Which is a major problem with modern Christianity and the denominations. They do things FOR God but ignore God's method of sanctification and transformation. Essentially they ignore Christ and they ignore their spirit. Or we could probably say that they are ignorant of Christ in their spirit. satan loves to keep people in ignorance
We all have to solemnly read Matthew 23:27-28 and question whether we have God's subjective righteousness through the transformation of the spirit, or our own kind of outward righteousness according to the dead letter of the law. One has life, the other is death-
2 Corinthians 3:6b for the letter (the law) kills, but the spirit gives life
What Lee is basically saying here that works (whether righteousness or whatever) that is not out of the spirit, is out of the law. Most Christians fail at this one point. They are unable to gain their good works from out of abiding, and their righteousness doesn't come from the spirit of Christ, it comes from somewhere else. They think they have to DO for God and to be approved by God through their DOING. This is fully wrong according to the Bible. The doing and the working comes out of the spirit (Philippians 2:13). If the spirit is not the source then it's wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Unfortunately most of modern Christians are to some degree caught up in this major error
When the Blendeds decided to excommunicate the Midwest LC’s some 20 odd years ago, one of their chief criticisms was that our young people’s conferences were engaged in “good works” rather than sitting around and “eating” the ministry of WL.
What you say here may sound “balanced” to you according to the Bible, but has never been practiced in a “balanced” way by LSM. Operatives from LSM/DCP literally came to Midwest LC’s and held divisive training sessions for young people using WL’s teachings about “works” to undermine the leadership in these churches.
It’s not “most of modern Christians” who are “caught up in major error,” but evil workers, what Apostle Paul called religious “dogs,” following WL’s teachings who are in error, and should be “marked out” for causing divisions and stumbling the saints. Read Romans 16.
As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply worksI've been in the Christian assemblies for decades and don't recall anyone teaching that the point and goal of salvation is simply works. Faith is usually stressed along with behaviour. The two are integrally related. It appears as though Jay is constructing a "straw man" and then saying, "We don't want to be like that." When no Christian assembly is promoting simply works.
And yes, God is concerned with our eating. But the Local Church tactic in discussing our eating is to leave out verses that indicate it's something other than what they say. I will bring them forward, again, with germane sections capitalized for emphasis. I am paraphrasing by memory but I doubt that I'm distorting the meaning much if at all.
"My food is to DO the will of the Father in heaven" [which will is expressed in scripture] Here eating is obedience to God's will, explicitly stated.
"Even as I DO the will of the Father [as written in scripture] and live, so you [disciples] should DO my will [expressed in my commandments] and live"
"Behold, I come to DO Thy will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book [God's command written in scripture] it is written concerning me [the Messiah, Jesus Christ]"
"Blessed is the servant whom the Master comes and finds so doing . Behold, I tell you that He will set him over His whole house"
Peter, in preaching to the gentiles, said, "Jesus of Nazareth went around DOING GOOD, for God was with Him"
Remember that pray-reading and calling on the Lord repetitively are also a doing, based on another faith, that Witness Lee was a "seer of the divine revelation" (his own words for Watchman Nee, which he associated with himself explicitly, as well). We believe in WL as MOTA, go to his supposed "proper ground" and incessantly call, shout, and amen, thinking that in our multiplicity of words we somehow fulfill the divine command. No, the divine command was to be kind to one another, distributing (dispensing) to those who lack. Again, I remind of the [I]RecV translation: "And when Paul and Silas were finished with this dispensing [of food to the poor of Jerusalem], they left..."
Being obedient to God's command to love one another, which obedience is fueled by our faith in Jesus as God's Obedient Lamb (and our King) and our obedience to His commands to love one another (in deed [DOING] and not just in word). Confession of faith is naturally followed by obedience in activity.
It’s not “most of modern Christians” who are “caught up in major error,” but evil workers, what Apostle Paul called religious “dogs,” following WL’s teachings who are in error, and should be “marked out” for causing divisions and stumbling the saints. Read Romans 16.
You can say what you like, but I know from first hand experience that modern Christianity is very focused on works, and very lacking in the eating Jesus department. I said it before and I'll say it again; most of them don't even know they have a human spirit, nor do they know they are a soul, let along how to differentiate the two
I'm for balance. As I said before I believe there is a lack of works in the recovery
Jay, you are reading “eating” into these scripture. Had the Spirit of God inspired Paul to minister about “eating” then we would see it in his writings. Please try to understand the word of God using the context, instead of the ministry of WL.
Remember that Text without Context is a Pretext for Proof Text. Whether you know it or not, that’s what you just did.
We don't need to see the word "eating" in his writings though sir. Jesus himself said it (John 6:57). Who has precedent-Jesus or Paul?
In Matthew 15:26-28 Jesus likened himself to bread crumbs for the dogs (gentile sinners) to eat. Yet another example of the blatant and obvious running theme of eating Jesus which permeates the Bible
With basic Bible study we know that Paul persecuted those who called on the name of the Lord in the book of Acts before his conversion, which is how he identified them. He literally heard them calling audibly and that's how he caught them. And later on he was taught in the ways of the church life by the same people who called on the name of the Lord. Calling on the name of the Lord is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. It's a basic practice of the church. It's also how we touch our spirit. And it's how we eat and assimilate the Lord. This is all pretty clear unless someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing
You can say what you like, but I know from first hand experience that modern Christianity is very focused on works, and very lacking in the eating Jesus department. I said it before and I'll say it again; most of them don't even know they have a human spirit, nor do they know they are a soul, let along how to differentiate the two
I'm for balance. As I said before I believe there is a lack of works in the recovery
Jay, I agree. Serious lack of balance and focus.
A while ago I read that half of the professing Christians spoke in tongues and half did not. Basically split down the middle. While I never spoke in tongues, I have met with a mildly Pentecostal community church. I found it sad that there was no balance, no crossover, no learning, from one side to the other. A huge wall existed. Unfortunately.
The same wall exists around the Recovery. I definitely felt that many riches in the Recovery could have benefitted the greater body of Christ. That definitely was more true in the early days of the 60’s and 70’s. Now, however, many Recovery practices have become so robotic, so structured, so mandated by headquarters. Eg, the last LSM meeting I watched was the Quarantine meeting of Titus Chu some 15 years ago. Things went quite long, and someone said “let’s rise and call on the Lord 5x.” That was vain, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and made me sick.
That’s why in his later ministry Paul exhorted us to call on His name out of a pure heart. No practice should become mechanical, void of faith, void of reality. Like Jesus said, “this people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far away.” The Recovery boasts in their unique practices and teachings, yet they are puffed up. Their ministry now conveys a feel-good pride that makes them feel so special, better than everyone else.
During that quarantine excommunication meeting they should have been crying. So intolerant of meany differences. They totally lost sight of our common faith, the real oneness of the Spirit. We in the Midwest were like 98.6% identical to them, but that was not adequate. They demand 100% submission to their authority. That is more totalitarian than Christian. But that was one thing that opened my eyes to see how far off things had become.
When I was young, recruited off the college campus, during the New Way era push for good building materials, I was just what they wanted: vulnerable, impressionable, and uncertain. Witness Lee was anything but uncertain. So I borrowed his certainty. He would show us a verse or two or three, and say, "This shows us that..." or "This indicates that..."
It was not until years later, after immersion in this world of reflexive non-thought, that there are other Bible verses, indicating other possible narratives, should one reflect, and consider. And when I showed these "other" verses to the LSM-affiliated brethren, a curious thing would happen.
If it was a public meeting, there would be silence. I had brought out the "wrong" verse, that couldn't be used in the Lee narrative. Or, I'd be told that I was confused. Or, in a private conversation I might be told that I was being stubborn, argumentative. But in all cases there was a refusal to consider the scripture that I had offered. If it couldn't be made to fit the Lee narrative, it couldn't exist. What kind of a Bible is that?
I would remind our readers that to assemble in Meeting Hall 3 of the Church in Taichung and read Week 8 of HWFMR is also a work, based on faith. You believe the WL narrative and it alters your behaviours. Pray-reading is an action, with a hoped-for result.
But the NT is about Jesus, in fact both Testaments look to him. He said, "These things were written of me"
We don't need to see the word "eating" in his writings though sir. Jesus himself said it (John 6:57). Who has precedent-Jesus or Paul? In Matthew 15:26-28 Jesus likened himself to bread crumbs for the dogs (gentile sinners) to eat. Yet another example of the blatant and obvious running theme of eating Jesus...Calling on the name of the Lord is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. It's a basic practice of the church. It's also how we touch our spirit. And it's how we eat and assimilate the Lord. This is all pretty clear unless someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing
I wasn't able to finish my previous post because the cows got out & had to break off. But I was attempting to approach the above. I have repeatedly shown Jesus equating eating with obedience, and divine bread and the eternal life which follow the result of obedience to God's word. But those verses are never acknowledged but rather a few others are repeated which "show" the desired position. But even those proof texts lack. Where does it show calling on the name of the Lord as eating? Or, pray-reading? Yes, it says to do them, but never that they constitute the focus of our Christian life, that they equate in any way to God's economy. WL made that association. It was a confidence game, and we fell for it.
And if one brings up other verses which "show" alternative paths of understanding, like "my food is to do the will of the Father", those verses are ignored and aspersions are cast on the person who prefers them, as if they are a rebellious lot. One gets the distinct impression that the promotion and survival of the WL thought- world is much more important than the text, or mutual fellowship & learning based on said text.
And the person may be brave & honest enough to admit that significant issues exist, which is commendable. But the concept remains that superior teachings are somehow marred by poor practices. But many here have gradually realized that bad teachings produced bad fruit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace. But we found little. Instead we were whipped into excitement and then fed bad teachings.
That such cut-rate theology can survive and even flourish brings an obvious question: How can such poor thinking get disseminated, accepted, promoted, and vociferously defended? It's really striking at first glance.
Case in point - intensification as the 3rd stage of God's economy. Where is the basis for consideration of intensification of the HS as something Paul either taught or asked Timothy to safeguard, as LSM teaches? Because it's said to be revealed to John in the Apocalypse account due to degradation, yet it was an integral part of God's NT economy, per Paul? It was clearly added on by WL. There's no trace of Paul (or Jesus) teaching intensification, much less as part of God's economy. It was manufactured by WL, clearly. There's no justification for saying otherwise. (And there were 7 lamps burning in Exodus 25, so degradation & intensification is also theologically wobbly).
Or, the role of women in the ekklesia. Foundational to Nee, but forbidden by Lee. They both can't be logical positions. One or the other is illegitimate, by their own terms. It's theology of convenience, just like the idea of intensification as integral to the God's economy being taught by Paul.
I always...always blamed myself for not agreeing with the message given or the interpretation presented… I never blamed the subject presenting the message. Not only that, but I never thought LSM could be wrong. While those are personal rationalizations, they were developed through a lifetime of being told LSM could not be wrong and a suppression of critical thinking.
First supporting pillar is that the group member is conditioned to think that any error must be on their part. If you see a problem, you are negative or poison or ambitious or divisive. So critical thought is suppressed and illogic is accepted.
For confirmation see Jo Casteel open letter. Witness Lee was Seer of the Divine Revelation, God's Oracle, the Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ, and if he didn't make sense, then you were somehow deficient and defeated. He HAD to make sense, even when he didn't seem to. He was Spiritual Man, able to discern others while his thought was cloaked in mystical impregnability. You just needed the vision, we were told.
The second pillar is that everything - everything - that you see in print from WL was introduced publicly in an atmosphere of heel rocking, groaning, sighing, neck rolling, arm waving, repetitive chanting, modulated intonations with fist pumps to put the audience into a state of heightened suggestibility. At that point, they'll overlook the most obvious illogic.
How can there be multiple centers of the universe? It's by definition a singularity. Yet look how often WL publicly reintroduced the concept, continuing to offer new and incompatible centers. Just google "Witness Lee center of the universe" and you'll see what I mean. And there are many such examples. A ministry of thousands of messages that is riddled with inconsistencies. The only constants that are seen are convenience and self- interest. The (ahem) revealed truth is whatever expediencies will tickle the audience today, and keep the game rolling.
That such cut-rate theology can survive and even flourish brings an obvious question: How can such poor thinking get disseminated, accepted, promoted, and vociferously defended? It's really striking at first glance.
Case in point - intensification as the 3rd stage of God's economy. Where is the basis for consideration of intensification of the HS as something Paul either taught or asked Timothy to safeguard, as LSM teaches? Because it's said to be revealed to John in the Apocalypse account due to degradation, yet it was an integral part of God's NT economy, per Paul? It was clearly added on by WL. There's no trace of Paul (or Jesus) teaching intensification, much less as part of God's economy. It was manufactured by WL, clearly. There's no justification for saying otherwise. (And there were 7 lamps burning in Exodus 25, so degradation & intensification is also theologically wobbly).
Or, the role of women in the ekklesia. Foundational to Nee, but forbidden by Lee. They both can't be logical positions. One or the other is illegitimate, by their own terms. It's theology of convenience, just like the idea of intensification as integral to the God's economy being taught by Paul.
First supporting pillar is that the group member is conditioned to think that any error must be on their part. If you see a problem, you are negative or poison or ambitious or divisive. So critical thought is suppressed and illogic is accepted.
For confirmation see Jo Casteel open letter. Witness Lee was Seer of the Divine Revelation, God's Oracle, the Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ, and if he didn't make sense, then you were somehow deficient and defeated. He HAD to make sense, even when he didn't seem to. He was Spiritual Man, able to discern others while his thought was cloaked in mystical impregnability. You just needed the vision, we were told.
The second pillar is that everything - everything - that you see in print from WL was introduced publicly in an atmosphere of heel rocking, groaning, sighing, neck rolling, arm waving, repetitive chanting, modulated intonations with fist pumps to put the audience into a state of heightened suggestibility. At that point, they'll overlook the most obvious illogic.
How can there be multiple centers of the universe? It's by definition a singularity. Yet look how often WL publicly reintroduced the concept, continuing to offer new and incompatible centers. Just google "Witness Lee center of the universe" and you'll see what I mean. And there are many such examples. A ministry of thousands of messages that is riddled with inconsistencies. The only constants that are seen are convenience and self- interest. The (ahem) revealed truth is whatever expediencies will tickle the audience today, and keep the game rolling.
Well one thing I'll say is that how many times can you repeat the same thing over and over. I enjoy a reiteration and I enjoy the major points of God's economy. But it's pretty obvious that LSM repackages the same points over and over again from every possible angle and then puts out these publications as if they're "new" or fresh revelation from God. They call it "the current speaking." Which is why I struggle with the morning revival. I agree with the concept of reviving my spirit in the morning and the concept of eating Bible verses with prayer. But then you read a large portion of Nee and Lee ministry which again, is just the same stuff repeated over and over. It took me a lot of years to get through all of their concepts. But once you do you realize it's all the same stuff. I guess some would say that Paul says to only pay attention to God's economy (1 Timothy 1:4), which I guess is well and good, but many times I find myself just utterly bored reading the same theology from a remixed perspective. And you can just read Lee forever and it's mostly all the same stuff. Idk maybe it just is what it is. I suppose the thought there is to have the same diet and to help attune the body into the same mind and thinking
But then also it gives ground to call it a cult and that's where the concept of "mindbenders" comes in. It's very homogenous. Almost like an Amish community. I remember in college I went on a field trip to an Amish community and it was eerily similar to the local church where I was meeting. They all dressed the same and they all had the same kind of fear of outsiders and fear of "the world" there, just like in the local church at that time. Maybe now it's gotten more normal but it's just kind of funny how similar that type of thing was. And I've heard many "tape recorders" of brother Lee who just say and repeat the same lines and stuff he said. Like they don't even have their own mind. You can tell there's no "writers voice" with these people. I was like that for awhile myself. Not really having any personal uniqueness or personal flavor in what I was saying. Just rehashed and repeated doctrine and theology that was copying something Lee said. Many in the recovery are just kind of clones of one another or clones of Lee, and Lee for sure encouraged that type of thing and behavior. I've read him many times say "I hope all of you brothers will be little tape recorders of me." What he meant was that he loved God's economy and he just wanted the brothers to speak only God's economy. Which I suppose is theoretically correct in a sense according to the Bible. But they took him so literal that they literally just repeat things he's said over and over again. Like how many different ways can you cook chicken? But anyway
When I was young, recruited off the college campus, during the New Way era push for good building materials, I was just what they wanted: vulnerable, impressionable, and uncertain. Witness Lee was anything but uncertain. So I borrowed his certainty. He would show us a verse or two or three, and say, "This shows us that..." or "This indicates that..."
It was not until years later, after immersion in this world of reflexive non-thought, that there are other Bible verses, indicating other possible narratives, should one reflect, and consider. And when I showed these "other" verses to the LSM-affiliated brethren, a curious thing would happen.
If it was a public meeting, there would be silence. I had brought out the "wrong" verse, that couldn't be used in the Lee narrative. Or, I'd be told that I was confused. Or, in a private conversation I might be told that I was being stubborn, argumentative. But in all cases there was a refusal to consider the scripture that I had offered. If it couldn't be made to fit the Lee narrative, it couldn't exist. What kind of a Bible is that?
I would remind our readers that to assemble in Meeting Hall 3 of the Church in Taichung and read Week 8 of HWFMR is also a work, based on faith. You believe the WL narrative and it alters your behaviours. Pray-reading is an action, with a hoped-for result.
But the NT is about Jesus, in fact both Testaments look to him. He said, "These things were written of me"
Well as far as the subject of Lee's ministry, I believe absolutely that it's focused on Jesus. It introduces you to your human spirit, which is the practical way to contact Jesus in real time. I am very grateful for Lee for that. I never would have known that or heard that from anywhere else. Who else talks about the human spirit? And in such a concise and to the point way? I know there have been books on it for sure. But who else links it to calling on the name of the Lord? I know Andrew Murray wrote some good books on the spirit of Jesus. Some very spiritual works from him, but I never heard anyone explain how to "turn the light on" to our spirit by calling on the name of the Lord. Only Lee did that
But you bring up some other good points insofar that BECAUSE his ministry was so unique it caused a very homogenous type of behavior amongst the body, which you talk about in saying that your attempts to shine light on different verses were shot down. Which is a valid point. That lends to the LC acting cultish for sure. And it also goes against Lee's own words when he talks about accepting all believers who may think or practice different than we do. But I believe he draws a hard line when it comes to the ground of the church and certain fundamental doctrines similar to that. Which one could argue is necessary. But the point is that maybe because he was so right and they were so used to being lied to by the world or mislead by flimsy denominational doctrine that once they got on some solid ground of Lee's teachings they voraciously fought against anything else. But then on the other hand I am pretty sure Lee had conferences teaching them to reject and repudiate anything but God's economy. So you're right there's a lot of inconsistencies. Maybe we could call them paradoxes that need the grace of God and the love of Jesus humanity? Idk, maybe some of those members should have said "amen" to your prophesying, but because it had a different tone they felt afraid of it. Which, seems culty
I've definitely seen and experienced a lot of homogenous behavior like that when it comes to sharing. I've even seen elders ask certain ones to sit down if their prophesying is too long or doesn't have the flavor of the spirit in it. There's probably a lot to critique there. I believe they love to hear the God's economy phrases and words and something that doesn't seem along that flavor elicits crickets. But I personally used to LOOOVE the prophesying in a certain locality. And I loved when it seemed very natural in tone and voice. In fact I usually could tell when it was a performance. And maybe over the years it became more perfunctory because of the super emphasis on training. And I think ones who go to the training become very homogenous in their thinking, talking, and behavior and they lose their uniqueness. I think that's personally very boring. And probably defeats the purpose to a great deal. Like they just kind of get indoctrinated into set patterns and behaviors that are supposed to build up their character and pursuit of the Lord but actually just kind of conform them to the image of whatever mannequin ideal is the norm for what a "brother" and "sister" in the church should look and act like. Which I think kills the uniqueness of each member. If when we come together and "each one has" (1 Corinthians 14:36) but it's kind of just all the same stuff rehashed and reheated in different "pots and containers" then how can it be enjoyable? I've found myself just really going through the motions so much in this way, and I'm sure a lot of the reason young people particularly get disenfranchised is related to this
However with all of that said, I think what makes the recovery unique is the enjoyment of the spirit. So while although all of these things I just said may be true and diminishing to the uniqueness with regards to functioning, we can't also throw out or overlook the spirit, which I do think is there, and I don't think it's really anywhere else. At least for certain not in the same degree. And this comes out of meeting on the correct ground. Which is why the meetings, although maybe boring and droll in function, are unique in regards to the enjoyment of the spirit. Which is one of the main reasons why I probably could never meet anywhere else
Jay, I agree. Serious lack of balance and focus.
A while ago I read that half of the professing Christians spoke in tongues and half did not. Basically split down the middle. While I never spoke in tongues, I have met with a mildly Pentecostal community church. I found it sad that there was no balance, no crossover, no learning, from one side to the other. A huge wall existed. Unfortunately.
The same wall exists around the Recovery. I definitely felt that many riches in the Recovery could have benefitted the greater body of Christ. That definitely was more true in the early days of the 60’s and 70’s. Now, however, many Recovery practices have become so robotic, so structured, so mandated by headquarters. Eg, the last LSM meeting I watched was the Quarantine meeting of Titus Chu some 15 years ago. Things went quite long, and someone said “let’s rise and call on the Lord 5x.” That was vain, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and made me sick.
That’s why in his later ministry Paul exhorted us to call on His name out of a pure heart. No practice should become mechanical, void of faith, void of reality. Like Jesus said, “this people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far away.” The Recovery boasts in their unique practices and teachings, yet they are puffed up. Their ministry now conveys a feel-good pride that makes them feel so special, better than everyone else.
During that quarantine excommunication meeting they should have been crying. So intolerant of meany differences. They totally lost sight of our common faith, the real oneness of the Spirit. We in the Midwest were like 98.6% identical to them, but that was not adequate. They demand 100% submission to their authority. That is more totalitarian than Christian. But that was one thing that opened my eyes to see how far off things had become.
Lots of solid points you make here. Especially the part about they should have been crying. I fully 100% agree on that. These are not only just our brothers and sisters in the Lord, these are whole entire families with children etc. attached to them. Very very solemn thing
And maybe you're right in a lot of that assessment. Maybe they had become totalitarian. Maybe that's human nature when leadership privilege gets mixed with ambition. On the other hand from their perspective Titus Chu was leading a rebellion against the entire church itself. I don't know enough about him and what he was actually saying and doing to have any perspective on HIS side of things. I don't know what type of poison OR truth he was saying in order to say one way or another how they should have reacted to him. But they felt strongly enough over his behavior that they considered him a type of cancer in the body to be quarantined and cut out
But yeah they should have been weeping over that situation, not puffed up and aggressive. This is a shortness of the humanity in the leadership, which I've found consistently a problem in the LC
My mom used to always say that "Laodicea comes out of Philadelphia." I see a lot of Laodicea type behavior in the LC
PriestlyScribe
02-03-2024, 12:06 AM
Well as far as the subject of Lee's ministry, I believe absolutely that it's focused on Jesus. It introduces you to your human spirit, which is the practical way to contact Jesus in real time. I am very grateful for Lee for that. I never would have known that or heard that from anywhere else. Who else talks about the human spirit? And in such a concise and to the point way?
Well Jay, maybe I was just really lucky for this to happen to little old me - but a couple of years after I walked away from the LC here in my hometown (the same one I migrated from San Diego to help establish in 1985) I found myself in the midst of a well attended multi-church Prayer Conference less than 5 miles from the LC Meeting Hall and then this shocking image flashed up on the screen...
https://blendedbody.com/4LCD/Dsc04514g.png
What do you think ran through my mind in that moment?
No Jay, I was NOT thinking "What the hell are these degraded lifeless Babylonians doing stealing such rich insights from the Ministry Of The Age and failing to give credit where credit is due?"
Actually Jay, I was rejoicing that someone had gone beyond simply knowing that human beings have a spirit! These people were actually doing something practical with a truth that we in the LCs had simply been content to know & beat our chests about. They were pressing on to maturity in Christ - and helping others along the same path!
Please STOP painting believers outside the LC with such a broad negative brush. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
P.S.
My sense of the chief deficiency in WL’s ministry – and others may see differently – is that he made the Bible about himself, when it’s really about Jesus. WL held WN as de facto Minister of the Age – he called him Seer of the Divine Revelation – and then as WN’s purported close acolyte, WL then became the new Seer, the new MOTA. The believers’ relationship with God was defined by their relationship with him – if they were on the “proper” ground or not, and then if they were “independent” or even worse, “ambitious” or “rebellious”, versus being “one” with “God’s oracle”, and to what degree of “practical oneness” they exhibited. All these factors determined one’s proximity or involvement to the supposed flow from the throne of God.
It was a Chinese [cultural] guanxi network, with a patina of Christianity on top for recruiting purposes. A Caucasian on this forum (DR) wrote “when the Chinese brothers realized I was tight with WL, they completely changed their attitudes towards me and became very deferential.” In a large conference, I personally saw WL publicly calling out TC, who replied “I am ashamed…” and confessed the shorcomings of his local churches. Relationships were strongly mediated by unexamined cultural biases, which determined who’d kow tow to another.
That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.
This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage. And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.
The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.
..if the process of learning the lost teachings then opens us up to more and more new revelation, is that evidence of something of God, or of something else? When the result is that we come to believe things that are not soundly found in the scripture, and in some cases stand in opposition to it, do we need an overlay (like "God's economy") to allow us to assert that actual scripture does not mean what it clearly says, but something else?Bringing this from another thread. WL's reading of God's economy had supposedly been lost by Christianity, and the meaning behind Paul's words was now unveiled, or recovered, to the church via God's Oracle. Our recovered understanding of the divine economy was that it was God's household administration to dispense Himself as life, and life supply, and everything, to His believers to make them small-g "god", or godlike - pure, holy, glorified, reigning in life.
God had been reduced to an object, processed for personal use - mastication, enjoyment, assimilation. We had become the center and focus of the narrative. We fixated on our overcoming, or not... our "making it" versus being "in a dark room" for 1000 years. Witness Lee, at the center of the religious enterprise (really, a personal 'guanxi network' per cultural affiliation), manipulated us by making us introspective. He gave us a puzzle - ourselves - and the only way out is to regard the MOTA and his message. His version of "God's economy" was central to that exercise. It was all about you, exercising your spirit, enjoying, reigning in life. It is really a subjective maze, a hall of mirrors, manipulated by the MOTA... are you "enjoying" today? Or, headed for the "dark room"?
This deviation in focus can be seen in his treatment of scripture: where forced by NT usage, WL toed the party line - "I come to do thy will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me" is understood to be Christ, per the epistle to the Hebrews. But where he thinks he can deviate, it is about WL and his putative NT believer. "Thy words were found and I did eat them" was now held as LC members pray-reading Bible verses. And yet where Jesus had show an alternative focus - "My food is to do the will of the Father", that was ignored. The "I" of Jeremiah 15:16 isn't Christ here, who'd been reduced to a cipher for our own manipulation. The focus had shifted from Jesus Christ to self. The "I" of Jeremiah 15:16 had now become the LC Christian: subjective, introspective, uncertain, manipulable.
Jesus had said, referring to OT scripture, "These things were written concerning me" - therefore, he was either deluded megalomaniac or really God's Messiah. There is no way to equivocate his claims. He had said, effectively, "It's all about me" - either myopic delusion or revelation of divine truth. Clearly the NT comes down on the side of the latter, as do subsequent Christian teachers. But it looks as if WN and WL made it about themselves, and their own personal events. Now, with this personal bias, WL looked at the OT text, and either saw the fallen human writer trying vainly to be good, or he saw the NT believer "enjoying Christ". But it missed the person of Christ Himself. There's a big hole in the middle.
God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.