Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical [Archive] - Page 2

Nell

09-11-2016, 10:11 AM

James wrote his letter to the 12 tribes…Jewish Christians. His book to the Jewish Christians addresses faith and works, so he references Abraham and Rahab—two people they know quite well, but were clearly non-Christians.

James 2:20-24 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Abraham and Rahab were not regenerated but they both believed in Jehovah God. They both performed good works to/for Him and his people because of their belief. James’ discourse on faith and works, was not to pick which one “wins”, but to emphasize that both are necessary.

James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

In the New Testament it can be the same: faith and actions without salvation (as Ohio noted). However, unlike the OT, in the NT, “you must be born again.” Your salvation includes faith in Jesus Christ who died for your sins. This puts the book of James in perspective for me. Faith and works in the book of James was in the context of the Old Testament, exclusive of eternal salvation. Since the Jewish Christians didn't need the gospel of salvation, that wasn't James' emphasis. Moving on from salvation, James' book covering faith and works makes perfect sense to me.

Nell

DistantStar

09-11-2016, 10:12 AM

A better question to ask is "does it contain spiritual value?". To that I say yes, so it is inspired.

So you believe it to be inspired but not authoritative?

If James is wrong in that instance, how can we know which other parts have value?

DistantStar

09-11-2016, 10:21 AM

As for faith = salvation + works, you are confusing cause and effect.

Yeah, math does not apply to reasoning.

Faith leads to works.
A leads to B
A -> B

That does not mean that works lead to faith
B -> A

This is called affirming the consequent and it is a logical fallacy.

Or rather, the argument seems to be:
Faith leads to salvation
A -> B

Faith also leads to works
A -> C

That does not mean that works (C) leads to either A or B or both.
C -> B, or C -> A, or C -> A+B
Once again, this would be affirming the consequent.

If James is considered authoritative, then the general Christian view that works is a result of faith, but not necessary for it, is the acceptable view.

Edit: To make it clearer, consider this.
If it rains, there will be clouds
A -> B

That does not mean that if there are clouds, that it will rain
B - A

It could be possible, but it is not contingent.

ZNPaaneah

09-11-2016, 01:09 PM

You seem to be making a round about argument that because Lee's doctrines have an old testament flavor, then James must apply to them?

I was responding to your post, which was not clear. You say that James is showing partiality because the book is written to the "twelve tribes in the dispersion". It wasn't clear -- what was the partiality? But here you make it clear, the fact that James is writing to them is the partiality.

By this reasoning if you call for the elders to lay hands on the sick, they come, pray, lay hands, and the sick get healed then the elders were showing partiality to the sick.

Or if a person wanders from the truth and James were to go to this one and turn them back to the truth then he is showing partiality to those who wander from the truth.

Yes, James burden is for those who are sick and have wandered from the truth. He is burdened for the Jewish believers that have wandered from the truth, as he also has had that experience and can share the word he received that helped him (just as Paul taught that a minister can minister the comfort they received to comfort others).

None of this is evidence of partiality.

If a doctor has penicillin, and it can heal many different ailments and I go to that doctor and he says sorry, this is not going to help your diabetes. That is not partiality, it is discernment.

My point is that the errors that a false prophet makes will have several things in common.

1. Jesus said that you can know a tree by its fruit. The fruit of a false prophet will be distinctive, it will result in a group of Christians being a "tribe". Mormons, Jehovah Witness and Lord's Recovery are all distinct tribes. That is very clearly a result of their teaching.

This is not considering the plain meaning of the text.

James verse 1 is clear : "To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" can only be Jewish believers.

Bensen commentary on this verse says
"to the twelve tribes — Of Israel; that is, to those of them that were converted to Christianity, and with an evident reference, in some parts of the epistle, to that part of them which was not converted; which are scattered abroad — In various countries; ten of the tribes were scattered ever since the reign of Hoshea, and a great part of the rest were now dispersed through the Roman empire, as was foretold Deuteronomy 28:25; Deuteronomy 30:4. That the twelve tribes were actually in existence when James wrote his epistle, will appear from the following facts. 1st, Notwithstanding Cyrus allowed all the Jews in his dominions to return to their own land, many of them did not return, but continued to live among the Gentiles, as appears from this, that in the days of Ahasuerus, one of the successors of Cyrus, who reigned from India to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, (Esther 3:8,) the Jews were dispersed among the people in all the provinces of his kingdom, and their laws were diverse from the laws of all other people; so that, by adhering to their own usages, they kept themselves distinct from all the nations among whom they lived. 2d, Josephus considered the twelve tribes as being in existence when the Old Testament Scriptures were translated into Greek, (namely, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about two hundred and fifty or two hundred and sixty years before Christ,) as he says that six persons were sent out of every tribe to assist in that work."

I don't dispute that the 12 tribes in the dispersion can be understood to apply to Jewish believers.

What I am disputing is that this book is therefore not written to non Jewish believers. If there is no Jew nor Greek in the new creation, then that means I also am a river crosser, I also, through faith, am a son of Abraham.

I agree 100% that for Jewish believers to consider themselves the "twelve tribes in the dispersion" is off from the New Testament vision. I also feel very strongly that just because a believer has wandered from the truth is not a justification to condemn someone that has a burden to turn them back to the truth. These Jewish believers were the Lord's sheep, they had gone astray, so he sent his bondservant to go bring them back. That is not partiality, that is obedience.

My point, which you clearly misstated, is that all those who follow a false prophet have turned from the truth and the book of James will help all those who have turned from the truth to return.

There are many examples of how the book of James can help anyone confused by Witness Lee. How do you explain his abhorrent behavior in manufacturing the "Sister's rebellion", falsely accusing saints of rebellion and booting them out of the church without explanation? On the other hand how can you say he didn't have a burden for God's move on Earth? In the end, if you apply James it is simple, he was a double minded man. This is the second rule -- 2. You can't serve God and mammon, the result is that you are a double minded man and will be unstable in all your ways. Say what you want, Witness Lee was clearly an unstable man in all his ways.

How do you know if Witness Lee had faith or not? He surely knew the Bible and taught on every book of the Bible? We cannot see his heart, we cannot see if he "believes in God". We can't see is his faith. The only thing we can see is his works. If he had trusted in God when Watchman Nee was excommunicated it would have been similar to Abraham offering up Isaac. It would have been as though he had sacrificed everything because he is obeying a righteous God. It would have demonstrated faith in a God of resurrection. But he didn't do that, he fabricated a story about how a bunch of idiot elders excommunicated the leader of the Lord's move in China because his mom was staying with him. We can see his works and it reveals that he did not have faith in a God of resurrection and was not obedient to a higher law. 3. This is the third way, I can't see your faith, I can't see your heart, but I can see your works. Witness Lee (and all other false prophets) tried to show us his faith by his words. James says that you can see his faith by his works, just like with Abraham. Read Genesis again, when he offered up Isaac God intervened and said "now I know". His obedience to God was a public demonstration of his faith, just like Baptism is.

ZNPaaneah

09-11-2016, 01:20 PM

You said in post #227 that the only work required is a mouth confession. Do you consider a mouth confession a good enough evidence of life change? I think I would.

Of course it isn't. Read the Apostle Paul -- you have to "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart".

A liar, a fraud, a false prophet can say anything. That is not evidence of a life change. You have to believe in your heart, otherwise you will not be saved.

I do not know if anyone else has believed in their heart nor is it important for me to judge other brothers and sisters on this.

However, if you are being influenced by a false prophet, say a Hitler, or some other teacher then it is important to take heed to the teaching which you have received. How do I discern between a Donald Trump and a Hillary Clinton?

This is when you do need to know.

Coke Stevenson was the former governor of Texas. He was famous for refusing to make campaign promises or even put forth a platform. He said "I have a record, judge me on that". That is the point that James is making.

If you are willing to listen to every promise that Witness Lee makes about "high peak revelation", etc. then you are willing to be deceived. He has a record, look at his record of deceit, fraud, and abuse. That should be more than enough to figure this out.

ZNPaaneah

09-11-2016, 01:36 PM

No they should be called the church in New York. To do what you described is compromise.

Thank you for a fair and honest assessment.

So, let me ask you a question:

If we compromise about "One God and Father of all" would that mean that we were no longer on the ground of the church?

If we compromised about "one Lord" would that mean we were no longer on the ground of the church?

How about if we compromised about "one faith"?

Yes, the ground of the church is a very important aspect of the church according to typology. The reality of that typology is the 7 ones in Ephesians 4, not the name that you find in the phone book for a Christian meeting.

Jesus is Lord of all. Why can't He authorize more than one meeting? I teach at a high school with 40 teachers. I am involved in a number of different meetings each week. I have a content meeting, a grade team meeting, I meet with the principal each week with all the content team leaders, I am mentoring a new teacher with several meetings a week and I am on the accreditation committee and we also meet twice a month. On top of this I attend the PTA meeting each month. In addition to this there are many other meetings at the school that I don't attend. This is for a community of 500 people. If Jesus is Lord and you have a city of 500,000, isn't it reasonable that there would be 1,000 times as many meetings, all with different names?

ZNPaaneah

09-11-2016, 03:06 PM

Does James 2:24 say in plain English that we are justified by works? - yes.
Is the meaning of "justified", "make righteous" , as referring to salvation? - yes, as evident by the preceding verse 23.

Does Paul say in plain English that we are justified by faith only and not works in Ephesians 2:8-9? - yes.

So there we have a dilemma. James contradicts Paul, yet the gospels support the view that salvation is by faith without works (the thief on the cross, John 3:16, etc etc), and never once says that salvation is faith + works.

This is a very simplistic view.

Here is the section in James that you refer to with the context:

James 2:14-24 14What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, 16and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. 19Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?

"If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food" -- this is the context. He is not referring to eternal salvation, he is referring to a person in need of a meal, or a coat, or a place to stay.

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; 23and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. 24Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

Here the term justified is a very clear reference to Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.

This is not equivalent to justified from sins. Paul refers to Genesis in his doctrine of justification by faith when he quotes the verse "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto hims as righteousness".

These are two completely different justifications. One, refers to justification by God, who can alone can see what we believe in our heart. The other refers to justification by people who cannot see our hearts, but can see our actions.

A living faith is expressed in our daily living. If you claim to have faith but don't have any expression of that faith, then it is dead.

Ohio

09-11-2016, 05:27 PM

It's not complicated folks, it's just like today's politicians. I don't care what they say. They are not even honest under oath, so how can I expect them to be honest while reading from the teleprompter?

Shouldn't Christians be different? How about Christian teachers? How about one who claims to be the last spiritual giant, the final MOTA, the oracle of God, today's Apostle Paul.

That's why these endless discussions about mingling, economy, dispensing, deification, sonification, church ground, one city one church, etc. are of little consequence. They are just a distraction. Lee claimed that he and his program were different. Claimed that he and his program were the best. Claimed that all others were off the mark, and much worse.

I heard him and believed him for decades, along with all the others around me. I would defend Lee and the LC's till my dying breath. Then I learned what he was really like. Like so many politicians he could talk a good talk. Talk is cheap. Character matters, as does honesty and integrity. Apostle Paul would stand before Roman leaders and speak of a good conscience. Witness Lee could not.

ZNPaaneah

09-12-2016, 08:23 AM

aron

09-12-2016, 01:42 PM

James is the writer of a book in the Bible. The apostle Paul, a recognized authority in the church, testified that James had a vision of Jesus Christ in the book of Corinthians. . .

We don't know what Jesus told James. But in order to relegate James to second-tier status, we'd need to presume that either Jesus didn't tell James very much, saving the 'good stuff' for Paul, or that Jesus told James the truth but James corrupted this with his natural Jewish concepts. None of this was clearly indicated anywhere else.

Yes, "some came from James" in Paul's Galatians letter, but how does that force James' epistle in any way?

No, the only safe thing is to assume Jesus gave James revelation concerning Himself, the so-called 'straight skinny', and that James was as obedient to the heavenly vision as Paul was to his. To begin to differentiate based on our own meta-narrative is unwise. To do so is creating a conclusion to the New Testament, and reading those conclusions back onto the text.

http://www.ministrybooks.org/conclusion.cfm

Drake

09-12-2016, 06:54 PM

I like your analogy. But it's important again to realize by ducks we mean "churches" not "Christians." All churches are part of the city church. None has a higher status nor standing.

There is another part of the analogy. Those are the ducks that call themselves ducks and claim to be be the only true ducks (let's call them "uber-ducks"), and claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks. These uber-ducks also do not really recognize any other ducks even if they just call themselves ducks until those ducks agree to follow the uber-duck leader and agree to read and publish only the uber-duck leader's quacks. These uber-ducks also insist that all ducks who are truly ducks only quack a certain way. Any ducks who do not conform are declared to be false ducks. Uber-ducks also never cooperate or meet with with other ducks unless it serves some ulterior motive.

Obviously, in this analogy, the uber-ducks are LCM churches.

Recall again in this analogy that "ducks" are churches, not believers.

I like the duck analogy. Thanks for introducing it. Evangelicals' characterization applies to churches/groups even better than it does to individuals.

I have not encountered the "claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks". Rather, it is one of the basic tenets of the local churches that ALL christians in a city are really members of the one church in that city. That is emphasized over and over. All are ducks essentially even if they call themselves chickens or turkeys.

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys. But then one day they chanced upon a pond with ducks who were apparently enjoying themselves thoroughly eating tasty plants, drinking fresh clear spring water, and living in a lush green garden. Then they realized that the chicken coop was no longer the place for them so they decided to take up residence in the duck pond. So pleased were they with their good fortune that they started to declare "Praise the Lord, we are ducks! We're so happy in this lovely place!"

That ruffled some feathers.

UntoHim

09-12-2016, 09:18 PM

Drake? That's cute, but as usual, you are really "ducking" the real issue at hand.

You sound like someone who hasn't been on the other side of the pond for quite a while...you know...where the vast majority of ducks hang out...you know...where the birds of a feather flock together.

You see, just because a few ducks decide to huddle over at some small, distant, exclusive part of the pond, they don't get to proclaim themselves the ONLY LEGITIMATE DUCKS. And to make things worse, they think they have a right to proclaim that all the other ducks in the pond are turkeys (if they're lucky, on a good day) but usually the other ducks get called way worse by these exclusive ducks...maybe...oh...let me think...DAUGHTER OF THE GREAT HARLOT! Remember that one, Drake? Oh, that little ditty didn't make it into the hymnal or supplement, did it?

Bottom line, it is God and his Word that have proclaimed that there really is just one pond. One Lord, One Spirit, One Baptism and One Pond! How cool is that? All other man-made boundaries, borders, limitations, provisos and exceptions based upon race, sex, national origin, former religious affiliations, or (wait for it..gasp..) your physical location, (or wait for it again, gasp, gasp) what minister, teacher, apostle or grand poobah you choose to follow...all these are not recognized, much less approved by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels or the Scripture writing apostles.

You see, my friend, the "splendid church life" did not start with the Local Church of Witness Lee. No, it started about 2,000 years before this brother or sister penned that song, and it's been going strong ever since. And anybody who says anything else is just winging it.;)
-

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 09:29 PM

Evangelical

In post 180 you made several claims that you have not backed up:

1. James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone…James teaches [salvation is by] faith+works…

2. James as Jesus's half-brother was basically a second-class apostle who was not an authority in the church…

3. James was really written to the Jews who had been dispersed amidst the Roman Empire during a time of intense persecution. Instructions for Gentiles were different (Acts 21)

I welcome your input because it demonstrates what many believers think. What I want to know is if you have any valid basis to make these claims or is this just hot air?

James reference to justification was clearly, according to the context, not about eternal salvation but rather justification in the eyes of people. So your “proof” to support point 1 is not valid.

James is the writer of a book in the Bible. The apostle Paul, a recognized authority in the church, testified that James had a vision of Jesus Christ in the book of Corinthians. So as far as I am concerned his book carries the weight of “the fellowship of the apostles”. Please explain why that is not true. Paul wasn’t one of the original 12 disciples, he describes himself as “less than the least”, so how does any of that discredit James? I really do not understand what you mean when you say James “was not an authority in the church”. I also do not understand what a “second class apostle” is?

I am completely mystified by this comment that “instructions for Gentiles were different”? What does this have to do with the book of James? Are you saying that “gentile believers” can ignore this book, even though you have already stated that in the church there is no such thing as a Jew or Gentile.

ZNPaaneah,

I have given scripture and bible commentaries in my previous posts to back up what I say. The one in Galatians about Judaizing Christians coming from James is notable. It is notable that Peter was afraid of them. Whether James sent them himself or they came of their own accord, it shows that James was complicit with Law-keeping Christians. In other words, James was not quick to deal with the problem of Judaizers, and may have been one himself.

The early church was going through a period of confusion where it was not known what to do with gentile believers. There were Jewish believers who kept the law, and gentiles who didn't. Some Jews demanded that gentiles must keep the law as well. Paul was strongly against this, James was perhaps complicit.

Acts 15 clearly shows a disagreement between Jewish believers and gentile believers that had to be resolved.

The Judaizers could have been disciples of James. If not, it seems they used James as an example of a law-keeping Jewish Christian (Acts 15:13). Paul on the other hand forsook his Jewish religion and took the way of the gentiles. Peter was somewhat on the fence, until Paul had to take him aside and point out his hypocrisy.

You can read more about it here:
https://readingacts.com/2009/09/18/acts-15-who-were-the-judaizers/

In 1865 J. B. Lightfoot argued against Bauer and the Tübingen school. The Judaizers were not authorized at all by Peter or the Jerusalem church, although the Jerusalem church were slow in stopping them. The Jerusalem Church wanted to find a way to compromise between the radical teaching of Paul and the traditional teaching of the Judaizers. J. F. A. Hort suggested that these Jewish opponents of Paul were lead by James, although mistakenly so. James himself did not authorize the teaching in direct opposition to Paul, but his followers took James’ example of a Law-keeping Jewish Christian to the logical extreme and forced Gentiles to keep the law.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 09:36 PM

This is a very simplistic view.

Here is the section in James that you refer to with the context:

James 2:14-24 14What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, 16and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. 19Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?

"If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food" -- this is the context. He is not referring to eternal salvation, he is referring to a person in need of a meal, or a coat, or a place to stay.

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; 23and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. 24Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

Here the term justified is a very clear reference to Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.

This is not equivalent to justified from sins. Paul refers to Genesis in his doctrine of justification by faith when he quotes the verse "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto hims as righteousness".

These are two completely different justifications. One, refers to justification by God, who can alone can see what we believe in our heart. The other refers to justification by people who cannot see our hearts, but can see our actions.

A living faith is expressed in our daily living. If you claim to have faith but don't have any expression of that faith, then it is dead.

You could be correct that James is speaking from the point of view of humanity. I can see that working in conjunction with what Paul wrote.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 09:47 PM

Thank you for a fair and honest assessment.

So, let me ask you a question:

If we compromise about "One God and Father of all" would that mean that we were no longer on the ground of the church?

If we compromised about "one Lord" would that mean we were no longer on the ground of the church?

How about if we compromised about "one faith"?

Yes, the ground of the church is a very important aspect of the church according to typology. The reality of that typology is the 7 ones in Ephesians 4, not the name that you find in the phone book for a Christian meeting.

Jesus is Lord of all. Why can't He authorize more than one meeting? I teach at a high school with 40 teachers. I am involved in a number of different meetings each week. I have a content meeting, a grade team meeting, I meet with the principal each week with all the content team leaders, I am mentoring a new teacher with several meetings a week and I am on the accreditation committee and we also meet twice a month. On top of this I attend the PTA meeting each month. In addition to this there are many other meetings at the school that I don't attend. This is for a community of 500 people. If Jesus is Lord and you have a city of 500,000, isn't it reasonable that there would be 1,000 times as many meetings, all with different names?

It makes sense that there might be many meetings with different names. But a denomination is more than that. It is often an organization that spans the globe. Why would Jesus establish a church of Rome in London, for example, only to create another church of England in London, and then the Baptists and Presbyterians. Why would he make those distinctions? It is as if he said to Peter "upon you (or your revelation) I will build my rock", and to John "upon you I will build another rock", and to James "I will build another rock upon you". We can note Jesus said I will build my church, not build my churches.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:04 PM

You see, just because a few ducks decide to huddle over at some small, distant, exclusive part of the pond, they don't get to proclaim themselves the ONLY LEGITIMATE DUCKS...

Well the "legitimate" ducks are huddling in one corner of the point because it's the only area which is clean. The majority of the ducks have polluted the pond with their filthy pagan ways. If a church has adopted many pagan and unclean things or founded by a pedophile, how are they not the daughters of the harlot? Denominations are the man made borders, boundaries and limitations which you describe. To bring borders and boundaries closer together does not stop the borders and boundaries to exist.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus founded the real church, all churches founded by men are not real churches.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:14 PM

But "the church in <locality>" is not a description of what YOU are; it is a description of what ALL the believers are in that place. It is a spiritual reality that simply is--regardless of who calls themselves what. Yet, you incorrectly reduce the significance of that spiritual reality to a name/title (or description) of a particular meeting or group.

Your post does not make sense. Aren't we part of "ALL believers" as well?
So how can you say that it is "not a description of what WE are?"

I believe you are right, it is ALL believers. That's why ALL Believer should be calling themselves that like WE do.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:16 PM

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:25 PM

We don't know what Jesus told James. But in order to relegate James to second-tier status, we'd need to presume that either Jesus didn't tell James very much, saving the 'good stuff' for Paul, or that Jesus told James the truth but James corrupted this with his natural Jewish concepts. None of this was clearly indicated anywhere else.

Yes, "some came from James" in Paul's Galatians letter, but how does that force James' epistle in any way?

No, the only safe thing is to assume Jesus gave James revelation concerning Himself, the so-called 'straight skinny', and that James was as obedient to the heavenly vision as Paul was to his. To begin to differentiate based on our own meta-narrative is unwise. To do so is creating a conclusion to the New Testament, and reading those conclusions back onto the text.

http://www.ministrybooks.org/conclusion.cfm

Not "some came from James". but "some JUDAIZERS came from James". If James was a Paul, then I'm sure that James would have sorted out those Judaizers and told them it's not right for you to circumcise Gentiles. To me the answer is obvious, it is the reason why 48% of our New Testament is written by Paul, and only 4% by James.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:43 PM

How does CRI deal with these issues? Your interest in CRI's blessing for local churches flies against your determined ignorance toward their view of other believers. How can one request the same thing (legitimacy, approval) that they deny every other assembly? It doesn't make sense.

The CRI knows the truth about denominations:

http://www.equip.org/article/what-denomination-should-i-join/

They state the truth bluntly: denominationalism is sin.

Even though they are in error regarding the possibility of being a true church. They seem oblivious to the fact that if one leaves the denominations, they come back to the true church, the reality, again. The true church is like the ocean, and denominations are like boats in the ocean. The boat keeps one separated from the reality of the ocean. If a person jumps out of the boat and into the ocean, they are in the reality again. They do not have to choose which boat to jump into, or jump from one boat to another boat. This is why I disagree with the premise that if one wants to be part of the church, they need to find a suitable denomination. Many people have this view because they see only all of the boats and don't see the one ocean.

Koinonia

09-12-2016, 10:44 PM

Your post does not make sense. Aren't we part of "ALL believers" as well?
So how can you say that it is "not a description of what WE are?"

I believe you are right, it is ALL believers. That's why ALL Believer should be calling themselves that like WE do.

Evangelical, yes, if you are a believer, then you are part of the church, just like every other believer. That's all there is. It is a spiritual reality. It does not have anything to do with Witness Lee, with meeting halls, with 501(c)(3) corporations, with church directories, etc., etc. Every born again person is part of the church. That's what the church is. There is nothing bigger, and there is nothing smaller.

Evangelical

09-12-2016, 10:50 PM

Evangelical, yes, if you are a believer, then you are part of the church, just like every other believer. That's all there is. It is a spiritual reality. It does not have anything to do with Witness Lee, with meeting halls, with 501(c)(3) corporations, with church directories, etc., etc. Every born again person is part of the church. That's what the church is. There is nothing bigger, and there is nothing smaller.

The practical expression of that ,the local church, should look the same as the spiritual reality. Nee writes in his book "God prizes the inner reality, but He does not ignore its outward expression. ". That is, we cannot ignore the issues of denominationalism and division, neither should we simply stay at home and have "spiritual fellowship".

least

09-13-2016, 03:01 AM

That is, we cannot ignore the issues of denominationalism and division, .

Issues of division include:
(1) pledge absolute adherence to our ‘One Publication’ (which btw, is not biblical)
(2) denounce T … C _ _ (who btw, is one of the BIGger ducks in the pond)

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 05:24 AM

ZNPaaneah,

I have given scripture and bible commentaries in my previous posts to back up what I say. The one in Galatians about Judaizing Christians coming from James is notable. It is notable that Peter was afraid of them. Whether James sent them himself or they came of their own accord, it shows that James was complicit with Law-keeping Christians. In other words, James was not quick to deal with the problem of Judaizers, and may have been one himself.

The early church was going through a period of confusion where it was not known what to do with gentile believers. There were Jewish believers who kept the law, and gentiles who didn't. Some Jews demanded that gentiles must keep the law as well. Paul was strongly against this, James was perhaps complicit.

Acts 15 clearly shows a disagreement between Jewish believers and gentile believers that had to be resolved.

The Judaizers could have been disciples of James. If not, it seems they used James as an example of a law-keeping Jewish Christian (Acts 15:13). Paul on the other hand forsook his Jewish religion and took the way of the gentiles. Peter was somewhat on the fence, until Paul had to take him aside and point out his hypocrisy.

You can read more about it here:
https://readingacts.com/2009/09/18/acts-15-who-were-the-judaizers/

In 1865 J. B. Lightfoot argued against Bauer and the Tübingen school. The Judaizers were not authorized at all by Peter or the Jerusalem church, although the Jerusalem church were slow in stopping them. The Jerusalem Church wanted to find a way to compromise between the radical teaching of Paul and the traditional teaching of the Judaizers. J. F. A. Hort suggested that these Jewish opponents of Paul were lead by James, although mistakenly so. James himself did not authorize the teaching in direct opposition to Paul, but his followers took James’ example of a Law-keeping Jewish Christian to the logical extreme and forced Gentiles to keep the law.

How many times must we go around in circles?

Yes, everyone on this forum has stipulated that the account in Galatians depicts James, and those coming from him, as being "judaizers" which we accept was a negative, dare I say, cultic influence on the early church.

Everyone also agrees that the worst offender of all Judaizers was Saul of Tarsus. There is no debate on this, and even Paul confesses that "he is less than the least". Yet I don't see you using that as evidence that Paul's epistles don't have an up to date view of salvation? Why not? How is this any less relevant that James apparent failure?

Is it because in the book of Galatians, Paul's first epistle, written very close in time to the epistle of James, Paul rebukes Peter for showing partiality and having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons? If so, then why not give the same credit to James for saying the same thing?

You quote Galatians as proof that James did have this failure, but why don't you also quote Corinthians that James, last of all, did receive a vision of Jesus Christ. If the vision he received was "last of all" and not "first" as you insinuate with your order in which books of the Bible are written then why would Jesus give him a vision that is not up to date, even though it was "last of all" and not "first of all".

I am not asking for evidence that James was a Judaizer at one point in his life, I am asking for evidence that the book of James has this influence. Quoting commentaries on Galatians is completely irrelevant in responding to this question and this is now the 2nd or even the third time you have done this.

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 05:31 AM

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 05:35 AM

Well the "legitimate" ducks are huddling in one corner of the point because it's the only area which is clean. The majority of the ducks have polluted the pond with their filthy pagan ways. If a church has adopted many pagan and unclean things or founded by a pedophile, how are they not the daughters of the harlot? Denominations are the man made borders, boundaries and limitations which you describe. To bring borders and boundaries closer together does not stop the borders and boundaries to exist.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus founded the real church, all churches founded by men are not real churches.

Good, so we have finally come to an agreement that the teaching of "deification" is a filthy, pagan teaching. Nothing is more pagan and filthy than deification, likened to Jezebel teaching the believers to eat things sacrificed to idols and commit spiritual fornication. OK, we are getting somewhere.

Of course, as James says, the one thing "above all" that we should never do is to sign a loyalty pledge. Witness Lee required the elders to sign a loyalty pledge to him. That is blasphemous. Our loyalty pledge is our baptism into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. The Romans required a similar pledge to the Caesar, Hitler required a loyalty pledge from the German Army, and of course the False prophet will stamp everyone with the number 666.

Yep, those are two very filthy pagan practices that have fouled the Christian pond.

Cal

09-13-2016, 05:49 AM

The logical error you see time and time again with those arguing for the LCM view is what is known as "begging the question." That is, they start with the conclusion that want (usually something Lee taught them to believe) then proceed to try to prove that conclusion. They do this rather than starting with the evidence and seeing where it leads.

One area the do this blatantly is the "local ground." The assumption that the local ground is binding is assumed in their arguments for it. Nee did this when he presumed house churches were really just local churches, even with no evidence to support that.

But again, as ZNP points out, the fact that James was a Judaizer at one point is used against his writing, but the fact that Paul was is not.

The reason LCMers do this is because what they are arguing for--that Lee's teachings are correct--is presumed before they even examine the evidence. And so they try to force evidence to show that Lee is right, rather than objectively accepting that some evidence shows he was wrong.

It's a severe bias that undermines their integrity as debaters.

Cal

09-13-2016, 06:18 AM

I like the duck analogy. Thanks for introducing it. Evangelicals' characterization applies to churches/groups even better than it does to individuals.

I have not encountered the "claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks". Rather, it is one of the basic tenets of the local churches that ALL christians in a city are really members of the one church in that city. That is emphasized over and over. All are ducks essentially even if they call themselves chickens or turkeys.

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys. But then one day they chanced upon a pond with ducks who were apparently enjoying themselves thoroughly eating tasty plants, drinking fresh clear spring water, and living in a lush green garden. Then they realized that the chicken coop was no longer the place for them so they decided to take up residence in the duck pond. So pleased were they with their good fortune that they started to declare "Praise the Lord, we are ducks! We're so happy in this lovely place!"

That ruffled some feathers.

No, what ruffled the feathers was that the LCM could not stop there enjoying the oneness. They felt they had to declare that the other ducks weren't really ducks after all, even though the Bible doesn't teach that. They declared they were the only legitimate duck and that all the other ducks need to be absorbed into them, the one true duck.

But the Bible doesn't support this in any way. The Bible says that there is a church in a city, but it never says that church cannot be comprised of smaller churches. The existence of house churches within a city churches shows this is possible. At the very least it casts reasonable doubt on the LCM claim that legitimate churches are only at the city level.

Further, if the LCM came to a city already with a church just claiming to be the church in the city, the LCM would eventually find a way to discredit it, push it aside and set up their own churches. Time and again doing this and thus establishing themselves as dirty ducks.

God values oneness. But he never said or came close to making it clear that one church could declare itself the true expression of oneness while discrediting all other churches. The LCM might like to think they have some outward form of "oneness" technically. But their proud, dismissive and exclusive attitude is anti-oneness, and so disqualifies them as any kind of standard. You might as well argue that the Pharisees were the standard because technically they did some outward things right.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:48 AM

Witness Lee required the elders to sign a loyalty pledge to him. That is blasphemous.

I never heard about the loyalty pledge, is there somewhere I can read about it, or is that your own experience?

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:49 AM

Issues of division include:
(1) pledge absolute adherence to our ‘One Publication’ (which btw, is not biblical)
(2) denounce T … C _ _ (who btw, is one of the BIGger ducks in the pond)

Right, so those activities were in themselves divisive.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:51 AM

You didn't answer my question. I'll take your avoidance of the question to mean that yes, of course, if a congregation of believers compromises on "one Lord" or "one God" or "one Father" or "one Faith" then they are no longer standing on the ground of the church. This also indicates that such an important issue as "the ground of the church" was not taught using obscure inferential language, but in very clear black and white teaching of the apostle Paul. Where is this teaching? In the Epistle to the Ephesians, a book completely focused on the church, where it should be. Where does Watchman Nee get his teaching from? Two books that concern evangelists and missionary journeys.

On the other hand, thank you for admitting that there might be many different meetings with different names in a single city, and that alone does not indicate you are not standing on the ground of the church.

Those things you mentioned are the oneness of the faith. The ground of the church being the locality is something different. A person can believe in the 7 'ones' yet not be on the ground of locality. Or they can be on the ground of locality and yet not believe in the 7 ones.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 07:13 AM

How many times must we go around in circles?

Yes, everyone on this forum has stipulated that the account in Galatians depicts James, and those coming from him, as being "judaizers" which we accept was a negative, dare I say, cultic influence on the early church.

Everyone also agrees that the worst offender of all Judaizers was Saul of Tarsus. There is no debate on this, and even Paul confesses that "he is less than the least". Yet I don't see you using that as evidence that Paul's epistles don't have an up to date view of salvation? Why not? How is this any less relevant that James apparent failure?

Is it because in the book of Galatians, Paul's first epistle, written very close in time to the epistle of James, Paul rebukes Peter for showing partiality and having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons? If so, then why not give the same credit to James for saying the same thing?

You quote Galatians as proof that James did have this failure, but why don't you also quote Corinthians that James, last of all, did receive a vision of Jesus Christ. If the vision he received was "last of all" and not "first" as you insinuate with your order in which books of the Bible are written then why would Jesus give him a vision that is not up to date, even though it was "last of all" and not "first of all".

I am not asking for evidence that James was a Judaizer at one point in his life, I am asking for evidence that the book of James has this influence. Quoting commentaries on Galatians is completely irrelevant in responding to this question and this is now the 2nd or even the third time you have done this.

It is only logical. Galatians was written around 55-60 AD. James was written around 50 AD. Galatians mentions Judaizers coming from James circa 55-60 AD. Therefore, James, written in 50 AD most likely contains a Judaistic influence.

Yes, James witnessed the resurrected Christ. But he did not receive the gospel that was given to Paul. Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that he did not receive the Gospel from man but from God, Paul received a new gospel. The others, including James, did not. Paul received a special commission and calling from God to take his gospel to the Gentiles. James did not.
That is why the book of James and Paul's writings have a distinctly different flavor. That's why almost half of the books of the NT are Paul's and not James's. This is testament to the fact that Paul's books were more widely read and accepted in the early church, than Jame's.

If we look into the history of the new testament Canon, we can find that James was one of the disputed books. That is, there were a number of believers who did not think it should be part of the Canon.

aron

09-13-2016, 07:59 AM

The CRI knows the truth about denominations:

They state the truth bluntly: denominationalism is sin.

So the CRI imprimatur is valid, or no? If no, then why does LSM seem to need it so badly? If yes, why ignore it, and continue to place restrictions on fellowship? It seems that CRI's acceptance of legitimacy only applies to the True Church of LSM. Elsewhere it has no validity, and can be safely and profitably ignored? Why so selective?

"CRI's approval of legitimate NT expression only applies to us, because we're the local church, and everything good and true can by definition only apply to us." Um, okay. . . now I get it. Thanks.

Even though they are in error regarding the possibility of being a true church. They seem oblivious to the fact that if one leaves the denominations, they come back to the true church, the reality, again. The true church is like the ocean, and denominations are like boats in the ocean. The boat keeps one separated from the reality of the ocean. If a person jumps out of the boat and into the ocean, they are in the reality again. They do not have to choose which boat to jump into, or jump from one boat to another boat. This is why I disagree with the premise that if one wants to be part of the church, they need to find a suitable denomination. Many people have this view because they see only all of the boats and don't see the one ocean.

Ducks and churches, boats and oceans. Witness Lee's School of Homespun Theology is now in session. On such fantastic landscapes the True Church is built. "It's like the moon over Miami. There, the tea is mingled with the water, and sonization becomes intensified." Yes, thanks. Got it.

I like the duck analogy.

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys. But then one day they chanced upon a pond with ducks who were apparently enjoying themselves thoroughly eating tasty plants, drinking fresh clear spring water, and living in a lush green garden. Then they realized that the chicken coop was no longer the place for them so they decided to take up residence in the duck pond. So pleased were they with their good fortune that they started to declare "Praise the Lord, we are ducks! We're so happy in this lovely place!"

That ruffled some feathers.

Yes, tasty plants, and fresh clear spring water, and a lush green garden. Reminds me of those nice paintings on the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower tracts. So inviting, no? I mean, who in their right mind could refuse such an attractive vista?

aron

09-13-2016, 08:14 AM

Not "some came from James". but "some JUDAIZERS came from James". If James was a Paul, then I'm sure that James would have sorted out those Judaizers and told them it's not right for you to circumcise Gentiles. To me the answer is obvious, it is the reason why 48% of our New Testament is written by Paul, and only 4% by James.

I get your point, but to be fair we must eliminate Paul as well. Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, and penned one of his most famous and enduring epistles to them, and yet John, writing after Paul had passed, said that the Ephesian church only had objective doctrine but no reality. No first love, merely letters.

So Paul also fell short. And since Timothy, next in line as MOTA, never lived up to the billing, Paul's lineage fell off and the True Apostle John then assumed control, via his disciples Polycarp and Irenaus.

Of course I am being facetious. But that is the Just So Stories we get from Lee. A completely biased and subjective, and self-serving understanding is read back upon the text, and leads the captive followers (stuck on the One True Ground, and unable to move because, "even if he's wrong he's right") away from the text and into fable-land.

The whole thing is a Jungian dream, where unresolved fears are placed onto the Shibboleth, or Other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

All this was supposed to end with the advent of Jesus, who tore down all walls of separation. Instead we place faux walls of purity, as if that was the name of the game. Of course denominations are horrible! So is the world. So is politics, art and sport. So is everything. I know - let's create our imaginary worlds in the corner, where we're free to condemn everyone else as grossly deformed, and expel all who doesn't get it, and conform absolutely, in order to maintain our putrid - sorry, purity - freudian slip! Yes, indeed.

And what was the problem with James, again? He had concepts, right? Natural, fallen human concepts. Thank God for raising up His Humble Bondslave on the virgin soil, free from all natural concepts. Now we are free in the duck pond. On the proper boats.

Cal

09-13-2016, 08:40 AM

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys.

Nope, they all thought they were ducks. They just had different names for their duckdom. But then one duck came along said, "You can't be duck unless you call yourself a duck. That means I'm the only duck!"

To which the other ducks in a very duck-like fashion replied, "Quaaaaaack!!"

Which was the duck version of a raspberry.

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 08:43 AM

It is only logical. Galatians was written around 55-60 AD. James was written around 50 AD. Galatians mentions Judaizers coming from James circa 55-60 AD. Therefore, James, written in 50 AD most likely contains a Judaistic influence.

Yes, James witnessed the resurrected Christ. But he did not receive the gospel that was given to Paul. Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that he did not receive the Gospel from man but from God, Paul received a new gospel. The others, including James, did not. Paul received a special commission and calling from God to take his gospel to the Gentiles. James did not.
That is why the book of James and Paul's writings have a distinctly different flavor. That's why almost half of the books of the NT are Paul's and not James's. This is testament to the fact that Paul's books were more widely read and accepted in the early church, than Jame's.

If we look into the history of the new testament Canon, we can find that James was one of the disputed books. That is, there were a number of believers who did not think it should be part of the Canon.

So then the timeline is the proof.

Here are the relevant passages from Galatians:

Gal 1:18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; 24and they glorified God in me.

Gal 2:9and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; 10only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. 12For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. 13And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.

The first passage says that Paul was a relative unknown at that time, certainly this was long before he wrote the epistle to Galatians, so we can eliminate that. But the second passage refers to a time 14 years later.

To be fair to James this passage is a specific rebuke to Peter and Barnabas, and is less clear about the influence of James. Still, I am willing to say that "coming from James" is enough to say that he was a Judaizer at this point.

What was the rebuke? The rebuke was that Peter's dissimulation was evidence of showing partiality. Peter and Paul's visits to Jerusalem were to prove that the gospel was open to both Jews and Gentiles. That was decided. To then show partiality between Jews and Gentiles was hypocrisy.

This very same rebuke shows up in the book of James where James says that "do not have the faith of the Lord Jesus with respect of persons" (i.e. those who came from James) and that "showing partiality" is evil.

Therefore the logical person would agree that both Peter and James had received the rebuke given to Peter, embraced it, and put it into each of their epistles (Peter's epistle commends Paul's epistles). It is also very reasonable that Paul would want James to write the epistle first, since if he were to write Galatians first it could cause a schism in the church. It is also very reasonable that after James writes his epistle Paul writes Galatians to demonstrate a oneness among the ministers of Christ.

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 08:45 AM

ZNPaaneah

09-13-2016, 08:49 AM

Those things you mentioned are the oneness of the faith. The ground of the church being the locality is something different. A person can believe in the 7 'ones' yet not be on the ground of locality. Or they can be on the ground of locality and yet not believe in the 7 ones.

Thank you for clarifying your understanding.

So a church on the proper ground can compromise on Jesus being Lord (perhaps by requiring that elders and congregations sign a loyalty pledge to the "ministry"). They can teach that there are other Gods (deification). They don't have to embrace the one faith (Jehovah Witness and Mormons could conceivably be on the proper ground?)

And where is this teaching about the "proper ground" in the New Testament (verse references)?

Does this teaching trump the 7 ones? (By that I mean if you worship other Gods and have preach a different Jesus but are on the "proper ground" what are you?)

Cal

09-13-2016, 09:08 AM

I never heard about the loyalty pledge, is there somewhere I can read about it, or is that your own experience?

I provide the reference and the entire letter in the book "Carry Up My Bones from Here" -- a PDF file on this forum.

The entire letter with signatures is published in Witness Lee's ministry. I'll get the reference for you.

(Witness Lee published this letter from 419 elders who signed this pledge. It is published in Elder’s Training, Book 8, The Life Pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, Chapter 10, Section 5. He also included a thank you letter from him showing that he approved of this special pledge.)

That thread with ZNP's pdf is found here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=5636

The text of the loyalty letter is here (annotations in bold are mine):

Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders' training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder [this refers to Lee] among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life and big meetings for educating the saints in truths. We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God's New Testament economy.

Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end.

Your brothers for the Lord's recovery

[Signatures]

April 11, 1986

Cal

09-13-2016, 09:44 AM

By the way, this re-dedication and and "new move" were flops. They effectively killed any spontaneity of the Spirit that had marked the early days of the movement in the US in the 60s and early 70s, but that had been steadily squeezed out since the mid 70s. Lee tried to revive things in the early 90s with the "high peak teachings," but they were just a repackaging of his proprietary teachings he'd already shared over and over.

Lee contracted cancer and died in 1997, and was buried in the creepy cemetery the movement had developed to raise money by selling plots to its members. Ironically Lee's last business venture became his final resting place.

The bloom was quickly leaving the rose of the movement. None of Lee's successors could match his charisma or command. In ever more turgid banners ("the consummation of the completion of the divine goal of the the glorious purpose of the...") and teachings expressed in outline form reaching sub-references never before plumbed, a succession of dreary leaders in gray garb and ever-graying hair parroted Lee's teachings, and every today became like yesterday, only more so.

A major schism occurred in the mid-2000s, when churches in the mid-west US attempted to return to something resembling the original promised vision of the movement. LSM targeted all these "rogue" churches, and with nothing but an obscure verse in Leviticus to guide them, gutted the "leperous houses" and established new "local" churches loyal to them.

This was the fruit of the loyalty letter and the "new move."

Drake

09-13-2016, 09:53 AM

No, what ruffled the feathers was that the LCM could not stop there enjoying the oneness. They felt they had to declare that the other ducks weren't really ducks after all, even though the Bible doesn't teach that. They declared they were the only legitimate duck and that all the other ducks need to be absorbed into them, the one true duck.

But the Bible doesn't support this in any way. The Bible says that there is a church in a city, but it never says that church cannot be comprised of smaller churches. The existence of house churches within a city churches shows this is possible. At the very least it casts reasonable doubt on the LCM claim that legitimate churches are only at the city level.

Further, if the LCM came to a city already with a church just claiming to be the church in the city, the LCM would eventually find a way to discredit it, push it aside and set up their own churches. Time and again doing this and thus establishing themselves as dirty ducks.

God values oneness. But he never said or came close to making it clear that one church could declare itself the true expression of oneness while discrediting all other churches. The LCM might like to think they have some outward form of "oneness" technically. But their proud, dismissive and exclusive attitude is anti-oneness, and so disqualifies them as any kind of standard. You might as well argue that the Pharisees were the standard because technically they did some outward things right.

Igzy, you appear to be advocating any basis for assembling together is valid except if that basis is that all believers make up the one church in that place. You also don't appear to recognize the boundary of a city as counting for anything anyway.

To you any church group is acceptable, no matter the reason they divide themselves, except this one group who take a stand against those divisions. That group are dirty ducks to you.

Ohio

09-13-2016, 10:01 AM

Nope, they all thought they were ducks. They just had different names for their duckdom. But then one duck came along said, "You can't be duck unless you call yourself a duck. That means I'm the only duck!"

To which the other ducks in a very duck-like fashion replied, "Quaaaaaack!!"

Which was the duck version of a raspberry.

Hence the origins of Duck Dynasty!

Ohio

09-13-2016, 10:12 AM

That pledge letter was written and excessively promoted by now President Benson Philip and Ray Graver. Many have testified how much coercion and arm-twisting took place behind the scenes. Don Rutledge spoke of this in his writings. Steve Pritchard of Toronto published his official retraction of his signature in an open letter (http://concernedbrothers.com/Toronto/Reconsideration.pdf).

By the way, this re-dedication and and "new move" were flops.
I'm not so sure. Definitely spiritual "flops," but on the other hand, political genius.

Benson later succeeded Lee, and the letter laid the foundation for subsequent quarantines.

Drake

09-13-2016, 10:22 AM

Yes, tasty plants, and fresh clear spring water, and a lush green garden. Reminds me of those nice paintings on the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower tracts. So inviting, no? I mean, who in their right mind could refuse such an attractive vista?

aron,

Those colorful JW tracts are wallpaper in another chicken coop. Anyone enjoying the pond recognizes the difference immediately.

You reject JW imagery, yet, do you also reject the idolatrous paintings, idolatrous stained glass and pagan statues in Catholicism?

So pretty, no?

OBW

09-13-2016, 12:31 PM

It makes sense that there might be many meetings with different names. But a denomination is more than that. It is often an organization that spans the globe. Why would Jesus establish a church of Rome in London, for example, only to create another church of England in London, and then the Baptists and Presbyterians.Denominations are not "more than that" except for the purpose of declaring it to be more so that it can be excised by some made-up formula.

Jesus established the church in the broad sense. People meet and are therefore responsible for the existence of any particular assembly. That there are assemblies that choose to follow certain doctrinal beliefs and others that follow slightly modified versions of those doctrines does not preclude them from status as "church" in both the sense of an assembly and of the broader church to which we all belong.

The idea that overlaying a political boundary requirement on the establishment of separate assemblies is nothing short of arbitrary. What if there is such a group and for some reason they no longer decide that purchasing materials from the LSM will be high on their list of imperatives? And they order only what individuals ask for, no longer permitting the forced consumption of a volume of material based on the number of persons. And what if they stop having "ministry station meetings" or whatever they are called, and simply meet as the "church in [city]." What would happen then?

I can tell you what will happen. The denomination that lays claim to the doctrine of the ground will find a way to invalidate the standing or "lampstand" in that city, and they will eventually send a few to start a different meeting. The first meeting will be a table meeting in which it will be declared that "the Lord once again has a lampstand in [city]."

If it was truly about the ground, they could never do this. But it is not. That is a ruse to lay claim to some special unity that they are not truly willing to abide by.

Did I just say that the Local Churches are a denomination? Want to prove me wrong? See if your local elders are able to cease having virtually every meeting (maybe excluding the Lord's table) according to the dictates of Anaheim, all the way down to the number of songs that will be sung and which ones they will be. And what will be covered at that meeting.

They may say that they like doing what the others are doing. But can they admit that they have no say in the matter? That they would be called to Anaheim, or summarily dismissed if they did not?

And you say anything about denominations! The Baptists are less of a denomination than the Local Churches. If one decides to leave the group, they can leave. And they take their building with them. Can't do that in the Local Churches without the expectation of a lawsuit.

OBW

09-13-2016, 12:37 PM

The true church is like the ocean, and denominations are like boats in the ocean. The boat keeps one separated from the reality of the ocean. If a person jumps out of the boat and into the ocean, they are in the reality again.An analogy does not create truth.

Truth begins with actual truth. Once you have established something as true, and analogy can be used to help understand it.

You have not established any truth to which the analogy of the ocean with boats in it would be a reasonable fit or descriptor.

Lee and Nee were both pretty good at doing this. They both told stories that sounded good. Then they said that some particular truth was like the story. Truth created by example.

Not from scripture.

Cal

09-13-2016, 12:53 PM

Igzy, you appear to be advocating any basis for assembling together is valid except if that basis is that all believers make up the one church in that place. You also don't appear to recognize the boundary of a city as counting for anything anyway.

To you any church group is acceptable, no matter the reason they divide themselves, except this one group who take a stand against those divisions. That group are dirty ducks to you.

No, I recognize the city church. But to me it is possible the city church is an abstraction, much like the "universal church," but at the city level. The Bible gives no clear word that any of the city churches ever met together as a whole, nor that in doing so they called themselves "the church in <wherever>." The Bible never makes it clear that a city church is a "practical church" in the way the LCM envisions it. Nor does it say it is the only legitimate practical manifestation of the church. Further the NT records instances of house churches, thus casting doubt on the idea that the city church is the only valid "ground."

You are throwing out a red herring. I do not, as you claim, recognize any church "no matter the reason they divide." The actual fact is that you have no proof that just because there are multiple practical churches in a city that the Lord sees that as "division." This is a template you have imposed on the NT, not one it itself clearly contains.

Further, I do not think the LCM has truly "taken a stand against divisions." What the LCM has done is taken a stand against other church's legitimacy by claiming they are divisions, something they have no clear biblical ground to do. So if anything the LCM churches are divisions themselves. They have no right to speak for the whole church in the city and to claim to be the sole legitimate manifestation of the church in that city. Claiming to be the only legitimate place for the city church to meet is itself a divisive act.

All groups that meet together in the Lord's name and receive all believers are valid manifestations of the church in the city. What they call themselves matters little. Their attitude matters much more, and from why I've seen the LCM attitude is very sectarian. If you want to meet together in the spirit of the church in the city that's fine. But claiming to be the only legitimate manifestation of the church is taking it a step too far.

TLFisher

09-13-2016, 01:06 PM

I recall a movie where Dustin Hoffman played an out-of-work actor. He went to an audition. After his reading the conversation went something like this:

Director: "Thank you. But we're looking for someone shorter."
Hoffman: "I can be shorter. I'm wearing lifts!"
Director: "We're looking for someone younger."
Hoffman: "I can be younger!"
Director: "We're looking for someone else."

The way the LCM treats any group which happens to actually meet as the church in a city before the LCM got there is similar:

LCM: "You need to meet as the church in the city."
Church: "We do!"
LCM: "You can't have a name."
Church: "We don't!"
LCM: "You have to receive all believers."
Church: "We do!"
LCM: "You have to have fellowship with the other churches."
Church: "We are willing to fellowship with any church."
LCM: "No, we mean our churches. And by fellowship we mean come to all our conferences, teach only our doctrines, sell only our materials and obey our headquarters in California."
Church: "Uh, we don't think we should have to do that."
LCM: "Then you are not a genuine church. "

The LCM then feels free to set up its own "city church" in that city, and ignore and discredit the other group, calling it a sect, etc, etc. This kind of thing has happened so many times it would make you puke.

The LCM local ground doctrine is nothing but a means to discredit all other groups and set itself up as the one true manifestation of God in a city. It is a means of control, exclusion and division, not unity.

Right on Igzy. It's not about unity, but uniformity.

TLFisher

09-13-2016, 01:14 PM

Leaving denominationalism to go to the ground of locality, is not creating a new denomination. I know that is hard for some to understand, because they are so used to the idea of a divided Christianity.
Leaving denominationalism, to create a new church called "the such and such non-denominational free church", IS creating a new denomination.

So based on this, I would say that if both are on the ground of locality then they are both the "one church in Toronto".
An imperfect local church is a church on the ground of locality.
An imperfect division is a church on the ground of a denominational organization or institution. This is a human addition to God's plan.
Even if such a denomination were perfect in terms of brotherly love and sin, it cannot be truly perfect as it is a division.

Maybe at one time there was something resembling ground of locality. Now? In current time those that call themselves local churches resemble more of ministry churches. The fellowship that exists in these so-called local churches is entirely based upon LSM publications. Without it, there is no fellowship.
While it is possible to have multiple assemblies in a given city meet on the ground of locality saying they receive everyone, it's only lip service.
Say with the church in Seattle, to the extent they receive is limited. If you or I were to suggest, "let's set side ministries and ministry publications and just take the Bible". How far would that go? That would be an indicator what the ground really is.

aron

09-13-2016, 02:35 PM

aron,

Those colorful JW tracts are wallpaper in another chicken coop. Anyone enjoying the pond recognizes the difference immediately.

You reject JW imagery, yet, do you also reject the idolatrous paintings, idolatrous stained glass and pagan statues in Catholicism?

So pretty, no?

Drake,

Why do you act as if we only have Lee's theology, or the RCC ? This isn't 16th century Germany. LSM devotees seem convinced that there are only two options: "Babylon" or "splendid church life."

You know what local church terminology says? "I got caught for the local church." By your own admission you're in captivity. What's so splendid about that?

Drake

09-13-2016, 03:02 PM

"The Bible gives no clear word that any of the city churches ever met together as a whole, nor that in doing so they called themselves "the church in <wherever>."

Igzy,

Your argument is one of nuance when you claim "as a whole". Also, in your quest to dismiss the local churches you have embraced unsound and shaky teaching and rejected the straightforward revelation of the Bible.

For example. many of the cities addressed with letters in the New Testament were large and spacious and logistically not possible to meet as a whole. Rome, Smyrna, Laodicea come to mind. This is still true today with localities such as Taipei and London that have several districts but meet separately in oneness. However, you are taking a logistical situation of time and space applying it to the divisions of today to justify the existence of denominations. This violates the clear prohibition in the Bible against divisions and the explicit teaching and spirit concerning the oneness of the believers by the Lord Jesus.

Now setting the "as a whole" argument aside and allowing that you did not mean it that way then here is the crux. There is no biblical justification for the existence of denominations. On the contrary it is forbidden and is sinful.

Both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul addressed the church in the singular as in Ephesus, Smyrna, Laodicea, etc. If you wish to ignore those obvious references in favor of some biblically unsubstantiated doctrine that teaches divisions are valid and a good and perhaps even wonderful arrangement then that is your prerogative. That doctrine should roll off folks in this forum like water off a duck's back. Sadly, it does not. Therefore, if anyone holds those beliefs I encourage you to follow Watchman Nee's advice and create even more denominations and build those denominational walls even higher! Be faithful to your beliefs before the Lord. If a divisions are good then more are even better.

In both these arguments you obfuscate the clear teaching of the Bible to justify denominations and division.

Good luck with that.

Drake

09-13-2016, 03:29 PM

Drake,

Why do you act as if we only have Lee's theology, or the RCC ? This isn't 16th century Germany. LSM devotees seem convinced that there are only two options: "Babylon" or "splendid church life."

You know what local church terminology says? "I got caught for the local church." By your own admission you're in captivity. What's so splendid about that?

aron,

I think you are trying to have it both (or several) ways and thereby straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

You toss out JW marketing literature in an attempt to dismiss the experience of many christians who are enjoying the experience of life in the local churches. You obviously are "loading" your argument knowing that everyone in this forum understand JW's and their colorful booklets are heretical and they are using sinister attempts to draw in the unwary. Guilt by association is your tactic.

That is the gnat.

And yet, so many in this forum will stand up for the "churches" that embrace obvious idolatry in paintings, stained glass, statues, and relics, as in the Catholic Church and for that matter in many Protestant churches such as Lutheran. What is your position with those christian churches? Do you recommend them or are you indifferent? This is a 21st century question, not a 16th century one.

If you cannot come right out and condemn that idolatry and spit it out then that would be your camel. And if you condemn them then you are in the same space as me, only you draw the line in a different spot.

Which is it?

Ohio

09-13-2016, 04:41 PM

And yet, so many in this forum will stand up for the "churches" that embrace obvious idolatry in paintings, stained glass, statues, and relics, as in the Catholic Church and for that matter in many Protestant churches such as Lutheran. What is your position with those christian churches? Do you recommend them or are you indifferent? This is a 21st century question, not a 16th century one.

If you cannot come right out and condemn that idolatry and spit it out then that would be your camel. And if you condemn them then you are in the same space as me, only you draw the line in a different spot.

Which is it?

Since you brought up the subject, who are "the many on this forum" standing up for "churches" that embrace idolatry?

But LSM loves to twist their definition of "idols" to condemn all other Christians. There was a time when some in the LC's declared that all TV's were idols, then they later declared these TV's to be "holy" when Witness Lee was on TV at the video conferences.

So Drake, how do you define an idol? Is the "cross" on my shelf an idol? Is the picture on my shelf of my late mother an idol? How about the CD's and the CD player? If "anything that takes our heart" is an idol, then should some of us be also smashing even our loved ones?

Koinonia

09-13-2016, 04:46 PM

The boat keeps one separated from the reality of the ocean. If a person jumps out of the boat and into the ocean, they are in the reality again. They do not have to choose which boat to jump into, or jump from one boat to another boat. This is why I disagree with the premise that if one wants to be part of the church, they need to find a suitable denomination. Many people have this view because they see only all of the boats and don't see the one ocean.

Evangelical, the "one ocean" is the "My church" that Jesus is building. This is not the same thing as the Local Church system.

aron

09-13-2016, 05:10 PM

If you cannot come right out and condemn that idolatry and spit it out then that would be your camel. And if you condemn them then you are in the same space as me, only you draw the line in a different spot.

Which is it?

Drake, if you condemn then you stand condemned. Unless of course you're perfect, if so then by all means carry on.

aron

09-13-2016, 05:13 PM

So Drake, how do you define an idol? Is the "cross" on my shelf an idol?The "ministry" is an idol by nearly any measure. And it's inability to share the room with any other witness stinks to heaven. Whatever happened to, "Consider others more highly than youself"?

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 05:40 PM

An analogy does not create truth.

Truth begins with actual truth. Once you have established something as true, and analogy can be used to help understand it.

You have not established any truth to which the analogy of the ocean with boats in it would be a reasonable fit or descriptor.

Lee and Nee were both pretty good at doing this. They both told stories that sounded good. Then they said that some particular truth was like the story. Truth created by example.

Not from scripture.

The truth is the "one church" which the ocean represents.

Drake

09-13-2016, 05:41 PM

Drake, if you condemn then you stand condemned. Unless of course you're perfect, if so then by all means carry on.
The "ministry" is an idol by nearly any measure. And it's inability to share the room with any other witness stinks to heaven. Whatever happened to, "Consider others more highly than youself"?

aron,

The irony of your last two notes confirms what I observed before. You want it both ways.

On the one hand, you refuse to condemn the in your face IDOLATRY in the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church for by doing so, according to your own words, you would condemn yourself because you are not perfect.

On the other hand you brazenly condemn what you characterize as idolatry in the local churches because apparently you are perfect after all.

And the duck liver pate that tops the irony all off is your question "Whatever happened to, "Consider others more highly than youself"? "

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 05:45 PM

No, I recognize the city church. But to me it is possible the city church is an abstraction, much like the "universal church," but at the city level...

You believe in the "God doesn't see division" heresy, I presume. Well everyone else can see it, God is blind? if the only legitimate ground for a church is the locality, and if there is no other church in that area that is practicing that, then it is true that it is the only legitimate place for the city church to meet.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 05:51 PM

Denominations are not "more than that" except for the purpose of declaring it to be more so that it can be excised by some made-up formula.

Jesus established the church in the broad sense. People meet and are therefore responsible for the existence of any particular assembly. That there are assemblies that choose to follow certain doctrinal beliefs and others that follow slightly modified versions of those doctrines does not preclude them from status as "church" in both the sense of an assembly and of the broader church to which we all belong.

The idea that overlaying a political boundary requirement on the establishment of separate assemblies is nothing short of arbitrary. What if there is such a group and for some reason they no longer decide that purchasing materials from the LSM will be high on their list of imperatives? And they order only what individuals ask for, no longer permitting the forced consumption of a volume of material based on the number of persons. And what if they stop having "ministry station meetings" or whatever they are called, and simply meet as the "church in [city]." What would happen then?

I can tell you what will happen. The denomination that lays claim to the doctrine of the ground will find a way to invalidate the standing or "lampstand" in that city, and they will eventually send a few to start a different meeting. The first meeting will be a table meeting in which it will be declared that "the Lord once again has a lampstand in [city]."

If it was truly about the ground, they could never do this. But it is not. That is a ruse to lay claim to some special unity that they are not truly willing to abide by.

Did I just say that the Local Churches are a denomination? Want to prove me wrong? See if your local elders are able to cease having virtually every meeting (maybe excluding the Lord's table) according to the dictates of Anaheim, all the way down to the number of songs that will be sung and which ones they will be. And what will be covered at that meeting.

They may say that they like doing what the others are doing. But can they admit that they have no say in the matter? That they would be called to Anaheim, or summarily dismissed if they did not?

And you say anything about denominations! The Baptists are less of a denomination than the Local Churches. If one decides to leave the group, they can leave. And they take their building with them. Can't do that in the Local Churches without the expectation of a lawsuit.

Denominations are highly organized companies or corporations with a clear leadership structure. In many churches they top guy is called the President like any other business empire.

The local churches are not like that. If Jesus established his church in a "broad sense", why did he specifically choose Peter and Paul as chief instruments to build it? He also gave specific instructions to Paul and the apostles about which elders to appoint in each city. That does not sound like a "broad sense" to me.

My local church is in full fellowship with LSM and the BB, but no one tells us what songs to sing and which number to sing. This only proves that your claims about the LC being a hierarchical organization are false.

Your argument that it is a denomination is as logical as trying to say that Jesus and the 12 disciples were a denomination. Well they could be and are/were considered a sect of Judaism, but in reality they were the genuine church.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 05:54 PM

That thread with ZNP's pdf is found here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=5636

The text of the loyalty letter is here (annotations in bold are mine):

Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders' training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder [this refers to Lee] among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life and big meetings for educating the saints in truths. We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God's New Testament economy.

Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end.

Your brothers for the Lord's recovery

[Signatures]

April 11, 1986

Thanks Igzy. Can you show me from the Bible where it is a sin to sign a pledge letter?

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 05:59 PM

So the CRI imprimatur is valid, or no? If no, then why does LSM seem to need it so badly? If yes, why ignore it, and continue to place restrictions on fellowship? It seems that CRI's acceptance of legitimacy only applies to the True Church of LSM. Elsewhere it has no validity, and can be safely and profitably ignored? Why so selective?

"CRI's approval of legitimate NT expression only applies to us, because we're the local church, and everything good and true can by definition only apply to us." Um, okay. . . now I get it. Thanks.

Ducks and churches, boats and oceans. Witness Lee's School of Homespun Theology is now in session. On such fantastic landscapes the True Church is built. "It's like the moon over Miami. There, the tea is mingled with the water, and sonization becomes intensified." Yes, thanks. Got it.

Yes, tasty plants, and fresh clear spring water, and a lush green garden. Reminds me of those nice paintings on the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower tracts. So inviting, no? I mean, who in their right mind could refuse such an attractive vista?

LSM does not "need it so badly" as you suggest. CRI and the Christian community were wrong, and that was more or less their admission of guilt for lying and slandering the local churches, hence the title "we were wrong".

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:01 PM

I provide the reference and the entire letter in the book "Carry Up My Bones from Here" -- a PDF file on this forum.

The entire letter with signatures is published in Witness Lee's ministry. I'll get the reference for you.

(Witness Lee published this letter from 419 elders who signed this pledge. It is published in Elder’s Training, Book 8, The Life Pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, Chapter 10, Section 5. He also included a thank you letter from him showing that he approved of this special pledge.)

But a pledge is not a sin, is it?

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:12 PM

To be fair to James this passage is a specific rebuke to Peter and Barnabas, and is less clear about the influence of James. Still, I am willing to say that "coming from James" is enough to say that he was a Judaizer at this point...

Oh, I don't believe James was a Judaizer. He was a Law-abiding Jewish Christian. He rather may have tolerated or was weak towards the Judaizers. The Judaizing groups within his church probably had influence, just like the Pharisees had influence in Judaism (but not all Jews were Pharisees).
Perhaps James was as afraid of them as Peter was. Perhaps he wanted to keep the unity in the church and not make a fuss about it. I think it may not be too different to the situation today with Jerusalem, and which has always been. Most Jews are moderates, but then there are the zealots or ultra-orthodox as well.

The book of James was accepted into the new testament canon. So we should respect that. It is useful to us today like any other book of the Bible. The problem comes if we make the gospel around his "faith+works" verse like the Catholics do, and ignore the majority "grace alone" writings by Paul. We could try to reconcile the two, but in my view if we are not careful that could be a step in the Catholic direction. Of course it is always possible to go to the other extreme as well with Paul's writings, and for that reason James provides some balance.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:13 PM

Maybe at one time there was something resembling ground of locality. Now? In current time those that call themselves local churches resemble more of ministry churches. The fellowship that exists in these so-called local churches is entirely based upon LSM publications. Without it, there is no fellowship.
While it is possible to have multiple assemblies in a given city meet on the ground of locality saying they receive everyone, it's only lip service.
Say with the church in Seattle, to the extent they receive is limited. If you or I were to suggest, "let's set side ministries and ministry publications and just take the Bible". How far would that go? That would be an indicator what the ground really is.

I am understanding that the issue with the local churches is mostly around the hypocrisy (whether perceived or real, people have a wide variety of experiences). From my experience the local churches are more receiving than those in denominations. Often the people in the local churches will never try to engage or debate with them in a negative way. But rather the denominational people will try to start a debate or argument over some trivial issue. I recall my last argument with a denominational someone was about whether regular Christians can do evangelism. They said they can't, only the church leaders or specifically trained or called people can preach the gospel.
This is most often the case in denominations, it is only the specially ordained or appointed positions that can do anything meaningful.

That is the reason we have denominations - people are too uncomfortable in catholic so they go to baptist. If too uncomfortable in baptist they go to Lutheran. Denominational people are individuals seeking comfort and a church service that caters to their needs and perceptions of what a church should be. For the same reason they will reject the local churches because it is too this or too that or not enough this or not enough that. They largely see the church as something that caters to their needs, to provide a service. In history this is traditionally what church was about - it was the place you went to if you needed shelter, protection or food. If you wanted a blessing, want to get married, have a funeral, or bless your children or animals. So when they are confronted with a church that encourages everyone to function, when there is no church pastor or priest, and have to actually interact with and engage with people, perhaps even pray or sing in front of other people, of course they will find that confronting.

OBW

09-13-2016, 06:27 PM

The truth is the "one church" which the ocean represents.But you have not established that "one church" is something that is defined in a manner that causes two different groups in a city, regardless of name or lack thereof as being other than part of that ocean rather than separated into boats on top of that ocean.

In other words, that "the church" is the ocean and any group that has a disqualified name has somehow been isolated from participating in that ocean and is in a metaphorical boat is a construct that you have not established as valid. You have failed to establish that those who meet with the name of Coppell Assembly, or Hampton Roads Baptist, or St Rita Catholic, or Grace Bible has cause their assembly to be excluded from participation within the broader, universal group that is the "one church."

And a cute analogy does not make it so. And saying that the ocean is the "one church" does not exclude anyone. You do. The names don't separate the rest of Christianity from each other as much as the Local Churches separate from everyone else over those names. So on who is the onus for unity placed? For everyone it is "me." That means it is your responsibility to be one. It is not your responsibility to declare everyone else as "not one" and only you are. That is proof that you are refusing to be one with all others. They are not so exclusive relative to others outside of their denomination.

But your denomination is exclusive to the highest degree. It couldn't find a better way to divide, so it created one that was not there prior to the 1900s.

OBW

09-13-2016, 06:30 PM

But a pledge is not a sin, is it?Without any discussion as to the content of the pledge, the answer is "no." A pledge is not, by itself, a sin.

But a pledge to raise someone higher than he ought to be is to become among those that the Apostle Paul would refuse as even elders. And the one that accepted that pledge would be likewise among them.

The problem is not that there is a pledge, but what is pledged.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:32 PM

But you have not established that "one church" is something that is defined in a manner that causes two different groups in a city, regardless of name or lack thereof as being other than part of that ocean rather than separated into boats on top of that ocean.

In other words, that "the church" is the ocean and any group that has a disqualified name has somehow been isolated from participating in that ocean and is in a metaphorical boat is a construct that you have not established as valid. You have failed to establish that those who meet with the name of Coppell Assembly, or Hampton Roads Baptist, or St Rita Catholic, or Grace Bible has cause their assembly to be excluded from participation within the broader, universal group that is the "one church."

And a cute analogy does not make it so. And saying that the ocean is the "one church" does not exclude anyone. You do. The names don't separate the rest of Christianity from each other as much as the Local Churches separate from everyone else over those names. So on who is the onus for unity placed? For everyone it is "me." That means it is your responsibility to be one. It is not your responsibility to declare everyone else as "not one" and only you are. That is proof that you are refusing to be one with all others. They are not so exclusive relative to others outside of their denomination.

But your denomination is exclusive to the highest degree. It couldn't find a better way to divide, so it created one that was not there prior to the 1900s.

You have failed to establish that those who meet with the name of Coppell Assembly, or Hampton Roads Baptist, or St Rita Catholic, or Grace Bible has cause their assembly to be excluded from participation within the broader, universal group that is the "one church."

When they take such a name and organize themselves in such a way, they have just excused themselves from participation in the universal "one church". To participate in the universal one church is to not take any name at all. It is simply to see yourself in the ocean and others in the same ocean as you are.

Evangelical

09-13-2016, 06:35 PM

Without any discussion as to the content of the pledge, the answer is "no." A pledge is not, by itself, a sin.

But a pledge to raise someone higher than he ought to be is to become among those that the Apostle Paul would refuse as even elders. And the one that accepted that pledge would be likewise among them.

The problem is not that there is a pledge, but what is pledged.

Yeah it all reads fine except for that pledge to the master builder.

OBW

09-13-2016, 06:37 PM

. . . I recall my last argument with a denominational someone was about whether regular Christians can do evangelism. They said they can't, only the church leaders or specifically trained or called people can preach the gospel.
This is most often the case in denominations, it is only the specially ordained or appointed positions that can do anything meaningful.I don't know what denomination you are referring to. Most among those who are of the "evangelical" bent are always encouraging their people to evangelize. And they want their people involved in everything. Probably in ways that the Bible really didn't expect everyone to be involved.

So do you think that most of us here are old-school Anglicans and Catholics — or something like that? You clearly don't know what "most denominations" teach on things. Probably just what someone (not from within those denominations) tells you they teach.

OBW

09-13-2016, 06:44 PM

You have failed to establish that those who meet with the name of Coppell Assembly, or Hampton Roads Baptist, or St Rita Catholic, or Grace Bible has cause their assembly to be excluded from participation within the broader, universal group that is the "one church."

When they take such a name and organize themselves in such a way, they have just excused themselves from participation in the universal "one church". To participate in the universal one church is to not take any name at all. It is simply to see yourself in the ocean and others in the same ocean as you are.Only once you establish that the using of such a name actually causes the thing that you think happens. And you haven't done that. Just said it is so.

The exercise was to provide more than a personal declaration that taking a name and having a denomination excludes anyone from participation in the universal "one church."

And there is the begging of the question. You bring out a metaphor to show how a doctrine you cannot establish is actually in the Bible works. You say it works because you say it works. Until you can establish that it is actually in the Bible, not just say it is, then you have no basis to say anything about whether the majority of the churches in the world are not actually part of the one universal church. You are using your doctrine to prove the effects of the doctrine that you cannot prove actually exists.

OBW

09-13-2016, 06:50 PM

Yeah it all reads fine except for that pledge to the master builder.So you agree that part is a problem?

I find it interesting that the pledge declares itself to be valid and biblical based on their own declaration as to what "God's New Testament economy" is. But there is a problem with what Lee taught them that such a term actually means relative to any such words in the Bible. So the basis of the pledge is flawed form the start. It is a pledge predicated on the following of someone of questionable authority and integrity.

Cal

09-13-2016, 09:27 PM

Thanks Igzy. Can you show me from the Bible where it is a sin to sign a pledge letter?

I don't think it is a sin in general to pledge. It's the contents of the pledge that matters.

What makes this sinful is it is a pledge of allegiance to Witness Lee. It's essentially a declaration of oneness around him rather than Christ.

Also, it must be understood that this pledge was signed in conjunction with a purging of those who weren't willing to rally around Lee. So it was a two-pronged deal. One was the over-the-top dedication to Lee. The other was intolerance toward those who weren't on board. There was a Nazi feel to it.

Koinonia

09-13-2016, 10:06 PM

In as much as they are an organization called Local Church (which they are not), I would agree. But there is no such thing as a Local Church organization.

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that "coworkers" with regional territories who meet every year during "seven feasts" that are put on by an international publishing company whose senior editors determine the ministry content and daily devotional material for church members is not organization?

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 12:23 AM

Only once you establish that the using of such a name actually causes the thing that you think happens. And you haven't done that. Just said it is so.

The exercise was to provide more than a personal declaration that taking a name and having a denomination excludes anyone from participation in the universal "one church."

And there is the begging of the question. You bring out a metaphor to show how a doctrine you cannot establish is actually in the Bible works. You say it works because you say it works. Until you can establish that it is actually in the Bible, not just say it is, then you have no basis to say anything about whether the majority of the churches in the world are not actually part of the one universal church. You are using your doctrine to prove the effects of the doctrine that you cannot prove actually exists.

You are wrong about that because the bible condemns sectarianism and taking different names is sectarian. "I follow Paul, I follow Silas".etc. "I go to this church, you go to this church" etc.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 12:24 AM

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that "coworkers" with regional territories who meet every year during "seven feasts" that are put on by an international publishing company whose senior editors determine the ministry content and daily devotional material for church members is not organization?

You are talking about the ministry not the churches.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 12:27 AM

I don't know what denomination you are referring to. Most among those who are of the "evangelical" bent are always encouraging their people to evangelize. And they want their people involved in everything. Probably in ways that the Bible really didn't expect everyone to be involved.

So do you think that most of us here are old-school Anglicans and Catholics — or something like that? You clearly don't know what "most denominations" teach on things. Probably just what someone (not from within those denominations) tells you they teach.

It's called the practice of the Nicolaitans which Jesus said he hates. (Revelation 2:6). Jesus hates the Catholic and Anglican churches. Jesus loves us because we hate them as well.

least

09-14-2016, 04:23 AM

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that "coworkers" with regional territories who meet every year during "seven feasts" that are put on by an international publishing company whose senior editors determine the ministry content and daily devotional material for church members is not organization?

Seems to fit what Angelical said:
It's called the practice of the Nicolaitans which Jesus said he hates. (Revelation 2:6).

ZNPaaneah

09-14-2016, 05:10 AM

The book of James was accepted into the new testament canon. So we should respect that. It is useful to us today like any other book of the Bible. The problem comes if we make the gospel around his "faith+works" verse like the Catholics do, and ignore the majority "grace alone" writings by Paul. We could try to reconcile the two, but in my view if we are not careful that could be a step in the Catholic direction. Of course it is always possible to go to the other extreme as well with Paul's writings, and for that reason James provides some balance.

Every single writer in the New Testament is consistent, never once are we told that you can be saved merely by confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, nor are we told that you are saved by believing. Rather you are saved by believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth. Baptism is an act of confession and an act of obedience. So some times it says that you are saved by "believing and being baptized", that is equivalent to believing and confessing. It is a step into the Kingdom similar to Abraham's act of obedience and confession when he offered up his son.

Every single writer makes it clear that we are saved by both. Paul was adjusting to those who thought we were saved by good works without any faith. But, it is also possible to go off on an extreme where your faith has no tangible expression. Baptism signifies the forming of a new Kingdom, crossing over into a new realm, expressing God's kingdom on Earth. The goal for Christians is to become kings who rule and reign with Christ and who bring in the kingdom to this earth. If there is no tangible expression of that then those are empty, dead words. Paul even said that he was given the right hands of the fellowship, "only not to forget the poor, which very thing he also agreed was very important". Everyone in the NT is in agreement, from the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, James, etc that "pure religion is to visit orphans and widows in their trouble". This isn't a Catholic view, or a Judaizer view, or James OT flavor, it is the consistent NT view. This is what the Lord meant when He said to "love your neighbor as yourself".

The only NT characters to disagree were Judas (because he was a thief), Balaam (taught Balak how to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel) and Jezebel (stole people's vineyards by false accusations). Jezebel called herself a "prophetess" so all three of these are examples of false prophets in the New Testament.

To me the problem comes when we do not accept the entire Bible. Once we start to pick and choose the parts we like and don't like we allow a false prophet the opportunity to scam us.

aron

09-14-2016, 08:23 AM

You are talking about the ministry not the churches.

This is the shell game at play. Which cup is the pea under? The ministry, or the church? With such small craft we dazzle the simple.

Wikipedia: The shell game (also known as Thimblerig, Three shells and a pea, the old army game) is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is almost always a confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud. In confidence trick slang, this swindle is referred to as a short-con because it is quick and easy to pull off.

Koinonia

09-14-2016, 08:34 AM

Evangelical, first--I do appreciate that you take the time to answer each post. Thank you.

Now, regarding this:

You are talking about the ministry not the churches.

The very point I am raising is that "the ministry" does exercise jurisdiction over those churches. You may not realize this, but each of the coworkers is assigned regions of churches under their oversight so that they can serve as the channel of information and policy from the body of coworkers/LSM/DCP, etc., to the elders within their region. Elders and churches are tacitly expected to comply with the "direction" of the ministry, and everyone knows this. You know this too.

But this leads me to a larger question--you use the term "the ministry," and seem to suggest that it is okay for "the ministry" to be organizational. But what is "the ministry"? And, is it really okay that "the ministry" is organizational?

Cal

09-14-2016, 08:48 AM

You are wrong about that because the bible condemns sectarianism and taking different names is sectarian. "I follow Paul, I follow Silas".etc. "I go to this church, you go to this church" etc.

As if the LCM is not of Lee... You think because you don't say the words "I am of Lee" that it isn't true?

I'm not talking about you personally. But you must admit that it is true for every leader loyal to LSM. None of them dare disagree with Lee on anything. How is that not being "of Lee??"

aron

09-14-2016, 08:57 AM

As if the LCM is not of Lee... You think because you don't say the words "I am of Lee" that it isn't true?

I'm not talking about you personally. But you must admit that it is true for every leader loyal to LSM. None of them dare disagree with Lee on anything. How is that not being "of Lee??"

If you find the testimony of Lee before Judge Seyranean (sp?) in the lawsuit, he actually used these words, "In our church, we teach, etc etc..." Freudian slip? Or concession to convenience? Then why blanket condemnation of all others for not being biblical, and proper (in your eyes)?

ZNPaaneah

09-14-2016, 10:54 AM

But a pledge is not a sin, is it?

James 5:12But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but [e]let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.

Hebrews 6:16 For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation.

When we are baptized calling on the name of the Father, Son and Spirit that is our oath. As the Bible says, we swear by the greater. When we enter into the kingdom we are recognizing that Jesus is Lord and He is the greatest.

To then require an additional "loyalty pledge" to Witness Lee is to establish "another Jesus". As James says, you will fall under judgement for this.

The false prophet does the same thing when he requires everyone to have the number 666 put on them in order to buy or sell.

The Caesars did this when they required Christians to swear to the Genius oath for the Caesar. Hitler did this when he required Nazi Germany to swear an oath to him.

It is the single biggest indicator, "above all" others, of a false prophet.

This is no different than the Judaizers requiring you to be circumcised.

So in this context, if the act of making the pledge is to "preach another Jesus" then yes, that is rebellion, it is blasphemy, and it is sin.

Drake

09-14-2016, 11:11 AM

So Drake, how do you define an idol? Is the "cross" on my shelf an idol? Is the picture on my shelf of my late mother an idol? How about the CD's and the CD player? If "anything that takes our heart" is an idol, then should some of us be also smashing even our loved ones?

Hi Ohio,

How would I know that? Anything can become an idol. Are those things idols to you?

Yet what about the obvious idolatry? The idols in the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church are to be condemned.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 01:09 PM

Hi Ohio,

How would I know that? Anything can become an idol. Are those things idols to you?

Yet what about the obvious idolatry? The idols in the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church are to be condemned.

You have no idea how many friends and family I lost when I entered the LC and began to denounce the idols in the Catholic Church and in my family home.

You condemn Catholics and Lutherans for their idolatry, yet you cannot even define what idolatry is. Something smells a little fishy.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 01:17 PM

But this leads me to a larger question--you use the term "the ministry," and seem to suggest that it is okay for "the ministry" to be organizational. But what is "the ministry"? And, is it really okay that "the ministry" is organizational?

Read II Corinthians. There is nothing about "THE MINISTRY" that is organizational. Nearly every verse there exposes the Blendeds and LSM as organized frauds.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 01:32 PM

The Caesars did this when they required Christians to swear to the Genius oath for the Caesar.

I never heard of this Genius Oath, so I found this in the Biblical Cyclopedia (http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/G/genius-of-the-emperor.html).

Genius Of The Emperor

In the early centuries of the Church, one of the tests by which Christians were detected was, to require them to make oath "by the genius or the fortune of the emperor;" an oath which the Christians, however willing to pray for kings, constantly refused, as savoring of idolatry. Thus Polycarp was required to swear by the fortune of Caesar; and Saturninus adjured Speratus, one of the martyrs of Scillita, "at least swear by the genius of our king;" to which he replied, " I do not know the genius of the emperor of the world." Minucius Felix reprobates the deification of the emperor, and the heathen practice of swearing by his "genius" or "demon;" and Tertullian says that, although Christians did not swear by the genius of the Caesars, they swore by a more august oath, "by their salvation." We do not, says Origen, swear by the emperor's fortune, any more than by other reputed deities; for (as some at least think) they who swear by his fortune swear by his demon, and Christians would die rather than take such an oath.

This oath of allegiance to Witness Lee is absolutely pathetic. The early church, with many of the church fathers, would consider this oath as idolatry to Witness Lee or his demon.

Unbelievable! And then LC leaders have the nerve to condemn Catholics and Lutherans for their idolatry.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 03:26 PM

This is the shell game at play. Which cup is the pea under? The ministry, or the church? With such small craft we dazzle the simple.

Wikipedia: The shell game (also known as Thimblerig, Three shells and a pea, the old army game) is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is almost always a confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud. In confidence trick slang, this swindle is referred to as a short-con because it is quick and easy to pull off.

You are being delusional again aron. Watchman Nee describes the difference between the church and the work (ministry) in his normal christian church life book.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 03:31 PM

Evangelical, first--I do appreciate that you take the time to answer each post. Thank you.

Now, regarding this:

The very point I am raising is that "the ministry" does exercise jurisdiction over those churches. You may not realize this, but each of the coworkers is assigned regions of churches under their oversight so that they can serve as the channel of information and policy from the body of coworkers/LSM/DCP, etc., to the elders within their region. Elders and churches are tacitly expected to comply with the "direction" of the ministry, and everyone knows this. You know this too.

But this leads me to a larger question--you use the term "the ministry," and seem to suggest that it is okay for "the ministry" to be organizational. But what is "the ministry"? And, is it really okay that "the ministry" is organizational?

Aren't the New Testament books of the bible written by Paul to the churches the same thing? These were Paul's writings to the churches he established and they were expected to follow his instructions. Even though each church was run by elders appointed by the Holy Spirit through Paul. Oversight of churches is the duty of an apostle.

Watchman Nee describes the difference between the church and the work (ministry) in his book Normal Christian Church Life.

We can see in Acts 18:3 that Paul was a tentmaker by trade to support himself and his work for the churches. No problem if he wanted to call that "Paul's Tentmaking Services" or whatever, or if he wanted to hire people, no problem.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 03:33 PM

As if the LCM is not of Lee... You think because you don't say the words "I am of Lee" that it isn't true?

I'm not talking about you personally. But you must admit that it is true for every leader loyal to LSM. None of them dare disagree with Lee on anything. How is that not being "of Lee??"

Again, you are talking about the ministry (you know what the M in LCM stands for, right?) , and not the church.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 03:36 PM

James 5:12But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but [e]let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.

Hebrews 6:16 For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation.

When we are baptized calling on the name of the Father, Son and Spirit that is our oath. As the Bible says, we swear by the greater. When we enter into the kingdom we are recognizing that Jesus is Lord and He is the greatest.

To then require an additional "loyalty pledge" to Witness Lee is to establish "another Jesus". As James says, you will fall under judgement for this.

The false prophet does the same thing when he requires everyone to have the number 666 put on them in order to buy or sell.

The Caesars did this when they required Christians to swear to the Genius oath for the Caesar. Hitler did this when he required Nazi Germany to swear an oath to him.

It is the single biggest indicator, "above all" others, of a false prophet.

This is no different than the Judaizers requiring you to be circumcised.

So in this context, if the act of making the pledge is to "preach another Jesus" then yes, that is rebellion, it is blasphemy, and it is sin.

You just contradicted yourself (or someone elses view) in saying that a pledge is a sin.

I say to that nonsense. Otherwise signing a marriage contract, mortgage contract, or an employment contract would be a sin according to your view.

Cal

09-14-2016, 03:47 PM

Again, you are talking about the ministry (you know what the M in LCM stands for, right?) , and not the church.

The Bible does not distinguish between "the ministry" and the church. It's all part of the same thing. Again, this is Nee's fabrication. TNCCL is not scripture. You'd do well to figure that out.

Besides, it was mostly church elders that pledged allegiance to Lee, not LSMers.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 03:56 PM

The Bible does not distinguish between "the ministry" and the church. It's all part of the same thing. Again, this is Nee's fabrication. TNCCL is not scripture. You'd do well to figure that out.

Besides, it was mostly church elders that pledged allegiance to Lee, not LSMers.

Yes, it does, Nee explains everything from the Bible. For example:

Normal Christian Church Life:
The meeting which was held immediately after the Church came into existence was an apostolic meeting for unbelievers (Acts 2:14). The gatherings in the portico of Solomon (Acts 3:11) and in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10) were of the same nature, and there are still other records of similar meetings in the book of Acts. They were clearly apostolic meetings, not church meetings, because one man spoke and all the others listened. Paul’s preaching at Troas was to the brethren (Acts 20).

To use an analogy, if Christ is the husband, the church is like a wife, and the ministry is like the wife's doctor. The wife's doctor can name themselves and their service whatever they like. But the wife can only take the name of her husband.

Unregistered

09-14-2016, 04:04 PM

You are being delusional again aron. Watchman Nee describes the difference between the church and the work (ministry) in his normal christian church life book.

But in practise now, the relationship between 'LSM Ministry Publisher' and so called 'local churches' deviates from the Watchman Nee theory, and actually edging more and more towards catholic or Anglican type organisational style.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 04:09 PM

Every single writer in the New Testament is consistent, never once are we told that you can be saved merely by confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, nor are we told that you are saved by believing. Rather you are saved by believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth. Baptism is an act of confession and an act of obedience. So some times it says that you are saved by "believing and being baptized", that is equivalent to believing and confessing. It is a step into the Kingdom similar to Abraham's act of obedience and confession when he offered up his son.

Every single writer makes it clear that we are saved by both. Paul was adjusting to those who thought we were saved by good works without any faith. But, it is also possible to go off on an extreme where your faith has no tangible expression. Baptism signifies the forming of a new Kingdom, crossing over into a new realm, expressing God's kingdom on Earth. The goal for Christians is to become kings who rule and reign with Christ and who bring in the kingdom to this earth. If there is no tangible expression of that then those are empty, dead words. Paul even said that he was given the right hands of the fellowship, "only not to forget the poor, which very thing he also agreed was very important". Everyone in the NT is in agreement, from the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, James, etc that "pure religion is to visit orphans and widows in their trouble". This isn't a Catholic view, or a Judaizer view, or James OT flavor, it is the consistent NT view. This is what the Lord meant when He said to "love your neighbor as yourself".

The only NT characters to disagree were Judas (because he was a thief), Balaam (taught Balak how to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel) and Jezebel (stole people's vineyards by false accusations). Jezebel called herself a "prophetess" so all three of these are examples of false prophets in the New Testament.

To me the problem comes when we do not accept the entire Bible. Once we start to pick and choose the parts we like and don't like we allow a false prophet the opportunity to scam us.

What you stated there is really a false gospel of works. It does not surprise me that you believe that because you hold the book of James to the same level as Paul's. Yes we accept the entire bible but we also have to rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15).

"nor are we told we are saved by believing":

Galatians 3:2 "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? "

So you see as Galatians 3:2 says we are saved when we "hear with faith". Nothing more than that really.

Also John 3:16, thief on the cross, Acts 16:31, Romans 10, 1 John 3:23, John 6:29.

The only "work" shown in Romans 10 is calling on the Lord, or prayer. That could be considered a confession with the mouth, I think.

It does not add baptism, or doing good works etc. What you described is basically the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith+works. But it's a slippery slope from there, Christ alone is the only reason we are saved and never our own works.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 04:37 PM

You are being delusional again aron. Watchman Nee describes the difference between the church and the work (ministry) in his normal christian church life book.

And in LC circles, Nee's book is supposedly the official hand book for church and ministry.

On this forum, the Bible alone is authoritative.

Whether Nee's book is good or not, neither Lee nor the Blendeds practice anything like the book.

Nee's book creates an entity organization called THE WORK, which exists no where in scripture, and which does more damage to the LC's than good. Their LC's exist solely to support their ministry.

Drake

09-14-2016, 04:41 PM

You have no idea how many friends and family I lost when I entered the LC and began to denounce the idols in the Catholic Church and in my family home.

You condemn Catholics and Lutherans for their idolatry, yet you cannot even define what idolatry is. Something smells a little fishy.

Oh, I can imagine how many you might have lost. You think your experience is unique?

To address your questions on idolatry: Almost anything can become idol. If you worship your ancestors, as in some cultures, then a picture of your mother might be an idol to you. Some people worship nature so a simple thing like a bush, tree, a rock, or a dog might be an idol. To some, beetles, or the Beatles, may be their idols.

Then there are obvious religious idols: Pictures of "Jesus", Statues of Jesus on a cross, Baby Jesus and the Virgin, religious bronze statues are an idol (specially to those who kiss them), etc. as in all the atrocious and blatant idols found in the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church.

I doubt most people think their cross jewelry is an idol. Depends on how they think of it I reckon. Maybe its a just a symbol to them though I don't understand why someone would wear a symbol of the murder weapon used to kill the Lord Jesus Whom they love. If someone murdered my family member with a gun I would not display a symbol of the 9mm semi-automatic Glock that took their life around my neck.

Sometimes I wonder if some millennials have turned the internet into an idol.

Here's why it matters to the us in this forum: Why should the church and God's people be indifferent to idols especially where there is no doubt about it? The local churches are criticized for taking a stand against them and accused of not embracing all churches including those who worship idols. Does the Lord hate those idols and the system that produces them? Then where should we stand on it? If we don't then who will? Shouldn't we feel the same as the Lord feels about them as He does in the book of Revelation? Yet, by drawing a line that excludes those "churches" the local churches are accused of causing division. I am not sure where the idea came from that to be one as the Son and Father are one that we must embrace every thing in Christendom?

Cal

09-14-2016, 04:45 PM

And in LC circles, Nee's book is supposedly the official hand book for church and ministry.

Except for the parts that Lee overrode. Those parts are wrong. :yep:

Ohio

09-14-2016, 04:51 PM

Aren't the New Testament books of the bible written by Paul to the churches the same thing? These were Paul's writings to the churches he established and they were expected to follow his instructions. Even though each church was run by elders appointed by the Holy Spirit through Paul. Oversight of churches is the duty of an apostle.

Who authorized any of the Blendeds to become Apostles?

Their authority is illegitimate. It is self-assumed and self-appointed.

The apostle Paul was many things to the churches he founded, none of which are seen in the Blendeds.

For example, the Blendeds sent operatives into the Ohio area working with dissidents to overthrow and discredit the established eldership, sue the elders in the court of law, and seize all church assets including their name. That's right they sued to get their church name.

None of these Blendeds nor their operatives at LSM or DCP ever spent any time in the Ohio area. They were just like the Judaizers who claimed allegiance to Jerusalem. Instead of saying, "unless you are circumcised, you cannot be saved," they effectively said, "unless you are subject to Anaheim, you cannot be a local church."

Ohio

09-14-2016, 04:57 PM

But in practise now, the relationship between 'LSM Ministry Publisher' and so called 'local churches' deviates from the Watchman Nee theory, and actually edging more and more towards catholic or Anglican type organisational style.

The Exclusive Brethren (under John Darby initially) also modeled the Anglican organizational style.

Many have noted that Darby became a far worse pope than the one in Rome which he regularly condemned. The same could be said of Lee.

Drake

09-14-2016, 05:04 PM

least

09-14-2016, 05:20 PM

Who authorized any of the Blendeds to become Apostles? Their authority is illegitimate. It is self-assumed and self-appointed.

I see your point.

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 05:27 PM

And in LC circles, Nee's book is supposedly the official hand book for church and ministry. On this forum, the Bible alone is authoritative.

Oh, I doubt that this forum truly believes in the authority of the Bible. If they did, no one would doubt that denominationalism and sectarianism is a sin. Rather, a more pragmatic viewpoint would be to say "On this forum, our individual interpretations of the Bible is authoritative".

least

09-14-2016, 05:35 PM

Oh, I can imagine how many you might have lost. You think your experience is unique?

WL pictures in conferences (wonders whether in church halls and homes), and play his video message for all to remember him and his words at large global blending conference, WL name and books promoted following free bibles (LSM version), even WL FB (haha, WL outdo dead idols like Elvis and movie stars gods and goddesses)

We MUST NOT embrace everything in Christendom; reject idols in Catholic churches, reject idols in any church including churches under the LSM umbrella.

ZNPaaneah

09-14-2016, 05:39 PM

What you stated there is really a false gospel of works. It does not surprise me that you believe that because you hold the book of James to the same level as Paul's. Yes we accept the entire bible but we also have to rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15).

"nor are we told we are saved by believing":

Galatians 3:2 "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? "

So you see as Galatians 3:2 says we are saved when we "hear with faith". Nothing more than that really.

Also John 3:16, thief on the cross, Acts 16:31, Romans 10, 1 John 3:23, John 6:29.

The only "work" shown in Romans 10 is calling on the Lord, or prayer. That could be considered a confession with the mouth, I think.

It does not add baptism, or doing good works etc. What you described is basically the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith+works. But it's a slippery slope from there, Christ alone is the only reason we are saved and never our own works.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

You quote Gal 3:2, but this talks about receiving the Spirit, not salvation. Find me a verse in the New Testament where the apostles say we are saved solely by believing.

Rom 10:9because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: 10for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: 13for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Believing in the heart results in righteousness and justification, not salvation. It is with the mouth that confession is made unto salvation.

Phil 1:18 What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. 19 For I know that this shall turn out to my salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing shall I be put to shame, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life, or by death.

The word salvation in the New Testament does not merely refer to justification by faith. When you assume that it does you trivialize the apostle's fellowship.

Phil 2:12 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

And you must ignore verses like this. Your simplistic view is like operating on a person with a butter knife. Your mistake is that you equate "justification by faith" with "salvation". Clearly Paul and James and Jesus had a much higher goal in mind for salvation.

In your version of salvation there is no need for endurance. But that is not Jesus' version:

Matt 10:22 but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

In your version you cannot explain how someone can be "cut off". You can't explain how people in the church in Sardis could have their names "blotted out of the book of life". You can't explain how the false prophet can be in the Lake of Fire before the Great White Throne judgement.

Rom 11:22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

This is why you have to have a "2nd class apostle" and parts of the NT that are suspect, etc. Because you can't explain them with your simplistic approach. Everything that doesn't fit your mold you merely throw away as unimportant.

1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

This is the real reason Witness Lee did not continue with the apostle's fellowship. Deification, MOTA, loyalty pledges and Ground of the Church manifest that he is not of the apostles.

James 1:25 But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing.

The Lord's only command to us is to "love our neighbor as ourself" and you write off the Lord's commandment as "the false gospel of works". Jesus life and ministry manifested what He meant by "love your neighbor as yourself".

ZNPaaneah

09-14-2016, 05:51 PM

Oh, I doubt that this forum truly believes in the authority of the Bible. If they did, no one would doubt that denominationalism and sectarianism is a sin. Rather, a more pragmatic viewpoint would be to say "On this forum, our individual interpretations of the Bible is authoritative".

How does a "forum believe"? The forum is "an open discussion of the Local Church Movement and the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". There is no statement of faith, there is no prerequisite. There is some moderation, which is probably greater than it might be due to the litigious nature of the Local Church Movement, but I have never been told what to believe.

If a post seems completely off the topic of a forum on a discussion of the Local Church Movement then it might be moved or even deleted. But please explain this bizarre comment of yours.

Also, why do you assume that everyone on this forum doesn't believe that sectarianism is sin? Galatians says plainly that it is. However, the point most have tried to share is that: judging that my brother is sectarian is not the solution, that is the problem.

We all met with the Local Church, I was there for 20 years. We were hearers of this word on oneness, but we weren't doers.

2Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation

We are in the process of working out a repentance unto salvation concerning this matter of being a judge of our brother rather than a doer of the Lord's commandment to love our brother.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 06:12 PM

Oh, I can imagine how many you might have lost. You think your experience is unique?
To address your questions on idolatry: Almost anything can become idol. If you worship your ancestors, as in some cultures, then a picture of your mother might be an idol to you. Some people worship nature so a simple thing like a bush, tree, a rock, or a dog might be an idol. To some, beetles, or the Beatles, may be their idols...

The LC's are not the only ones that speak out about idolatry. In this regard the whole of the evangelical community is together. I never heard of anyone criticizing the LC's for speaking out against idolatry, at least when idols are limited to graven images. I'm also surprised you have not addressed the Eastern Orthodox churches for their icons.

Regarding causing division, however, LSM goes way beyond idolatry in their condemnation of other churches. The LSM "Blended" leadership caused divisions for not adhering to their One Publication edict. They really can't get along with any other churches. That is why they should be judged for causing division.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 06:37 PM

Ohio

09-14-2016, 06:49 PM

Ohio said: "Nee's book creates an entity organization called THE WORK, which exists no where in scripture,.."

Of course it does.

Act 13:1 Now there were in Antioch, in the local church, prophets and teachers; Barnabas and Simeon, who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Acts 13:2: And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "SET APART for Me now Barnabas and Saul for THE WORK to which I have called them.

Barnabas and Saul and others were prophets and teachers in the local church (v1). Then Barnabas and Saul were set apart for THE WORK to which the Lord set them apart for. They went out announcing the Word of God to unbelievers, first to the Jews and eventually the Gentiles.

This is almost laughable. The Lord Jesus called some for the work He intended. Many others in church history have also been called to the work He intended for them.

Now from this overwhelming Biblical support, we get a tax exempt publishing house that "trains" elders, fires elders, spies on elders, gives trainings, demands cash support from churches, defines the truth, condemns all other churches, demands the use of their books in every church meeting, runs a seminary, prints its own version of the Bible, etc. It's simply amazing what you got out of that one verse.

They are THE WORK. None of the Bible refers to them. They can do whatever they please. Lee basically told us this when he placed his reprobate son Philip in charge of LSM, bringing all other elders and workers under subjection to an unsaved, profligate, immoral man.

But, hey, it's THE WORK. We make our own rules. Even when we are wrong, we are right! By definition, we are always right.

Drake

09-14-2016, 07:06 PM

The LC's are not the only ones that speak out about idolatry. In this regard the whole of the evangelical community is together. I never heard of anyone criticizing the LC's for speaking out against idolatry, at least when idols are limited to graven images. I'm also surprised you have not addressed the Eastern Orthodox churches for their icons.

Yup Ohio, throw in the idolatry of the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican church for good measure.

I also agree that the local churches are not the only ones that speak out against idolatry of the aforementioned. Though you "...never heard anyone criticizing the local churches for speaking out against idolatry,..." nevertheless the local churches are frequently criticized in this forum for not embracing such groups for a variety of objectionable practices and matters of belief or conscience.

I'd concur with the perception that the local churches are narrow in what they ingest but that is their prerogative according to their understanding of the scriptures. There is nothing in the beliefs and practices of the local church that is sinful, idolatrous, or divisive. Toward all believers they are the most open to receive them and do not apply the criterion that denominations often do as a condition of fellowship and membership.

By definition, the church and the churches are not ecumenical, yet, many times the false accusation of division leveled against the local churches in this forum sound like an argument in favor of ecumenical unity and not the oneness spoken of in the Bible.

Drake

09-14-2016, 07:16 PM

Ohio,

We can rest assured that the truths in the Bible are a sure foundation. Men fail but God is true.

Paul and Barnabas were clearly set aside for the work showing a unique and special commission. Though it merged out of the church in Antioch, the church in Antioch was not spread to the cities Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the Word of God in.

Ohio

09-14-2016, 07:39 PM

WL pictures in conferences (wonders whether in church halls and homes), and play his video message for all to remember him and his words at large global blending conference, WL name and books promoted following free bibles (LSM version), even WL FB (haha, WL outdo dead idols like Elvis and movie stars gods and goddesses)

We MUST NOT embrace everything in Christendom; reject idols in Catholic churches, reject idols in any church including churches under the LSM umbrella.

They turned Lee's home into a museum with a curator.

"Now look at these folded socks all neatly arranged in the drawer. This is god-man living for all to see."

Did anyone go to Lee's funeral meeting. None of the apostles even got a decent burial, but Lee's was worthy of a head of state. How much money did that cost the saints?

Have you seen his burial shrine. For a sizable donation, you can get buried near the god-man. His is not just a shrine fitting a king, but a whole wing of the cemetery. It cost millions. Does every know that LSM is also in the funeral business. But not if you have been quarantined by the Blendeds, because they took your name out of their "book of life."

For those unaware of where this "humble slave" is buried. Please peruse the Grace Terrace Memorial Assoc. website (http://www.graceterrace.com/en/site/index). It is across from the Buddhist Memorial Columbarium in beautiful Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier, CA. You too could be buried on the Highway of Transfiguration or perhaps you prefer the Terrace of Exaltation or the Crescent of Glorification. There are so many great options here!

least

09-14-2016, 08:10 PM

They turned Lee's home into a museum with a curator.

huh? museum?
Anyone knows what happened to the 'beautiful stuttgart church building' (three decades ago), which Minoru Cheng mentioned in a video about LSM 'move in Germany'.

Minoru Cheng said three decades ago in that beautiful meeting hall were about three hundred German German saints meeting. Then there was a rebellion ...

UntoHim

09-14-2016, 08:32 PM

I think you probably are referring to Minoru Chen.
-

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 08:38 PM

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

You quote Gal 3:2, but this talks about receiving the Spirit, not salvation. Find me a verse in the New Testament where the apostles say we are saved solely by believing.

Receiving the Spirit IS salvation (Acts 10:44, Romans 8:9).

Rom 10:9because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: 10for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: 13for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Believing in the heart results in righteousness and justification, not salvation. It is with the mouth that confession is made unto salvation.

Righteousness and justification, IS salvation

https://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification

The cults consistently blur the meanings of the two terms and misapply the truths taught in God's word. The result is a theology of works' righteousness--of earning their salvation, which only leads to damnation. This is because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16). Man cannot contribute to his salvation (Gal. 5:1-8). Man is sinful, and even his best deeds are stained and filthy before God (Isaiah 64:6). Therefore, making a person right before God can only be God's work (Gal. 2:20).

You would condemn Witness Lee for teaching deification but here you are espousing a doctrine of works like a Catholic.

NewManLiving

09-14-2016, 08:43 PM

Grace Terrace looks very Catholic to me. Even has its own Patron Saint. Much like St Peter's Basilica in Rome

Cal

09-14-2016, 09:15 PM

Oh, I doubt that this forum truly believes in the authority of the Bible.

Evangelical, I take the Bible very seriously. It's you I no longer take seriously.

OBW

09-14-2016, 09:38 PM

It's called the practice of the Nicolaitans which Jesus said he hates. (Revelation 2:6). Jesus hates the Catholic and Anglican churches. Jesus loves us because we hate them as well.OK. First, in Revelation the deeds of the Nicolaitans did not disqualify them from inclusion as a church.

Second, the idea that Nicolaitans is simply a code for clergy-laity is a presumption made by way less than half of the commentators. And most of the ones that like it are from exclusivist and extreme groups.

So throwing out the dreaded "Nicolaitans" code-word does not create your presumed ocean of church in which denominations are excluded because of metaphorical boats. And Lee saying it is not meaningful. Let the Bible actually say it.

And it doesn't.

Try again.

Jesus did not presume no leadership. It was always presumed. He told certain things to everyone and other things only to the closer group. And not just those couple of places where He said he was hiding truth from those who would not see. Compare the sermon on the mount to the upper room discourse. Or the final words at the end of Matthew. Just a few examples.

Not saying that everything said only to a few was not to everyone. But some of it was clearly about the leadership of the flock while other parts were about the life of the flock.

OBW

09-14-2016, 09:54 PM

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 11:05 PM

That is about all you can say for your position because you can't even back it up with real scripture. Just sayings and metaphors and presumptions. I have asked in more than one place to back up your position with the scripture and you through out catch-phrases.

Saying "Nicolaitans" is not clearly about clergy-laity.

Saying "To the Church which is in . . . " does not establish a naming convention.

The fact that someone uses common language of "my church" does not corrupt the fact of a church.

It is all answers without evidence used to deny evidence that it is not the correct answer.

I have given many scriptural references against denominationalism:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

It is you who choose not to believe them. So how can you say the Bible is your authority?

Evangelical

09-14-2016, 11:16 PM

OK. First, in Revelation the deeds of the Nicolaitans did not disqualify them from inclusion as a church.

Second, the idea that Nicolaitans is simply a code for clergy-laity is a presumption made by way less than half of the commentators. And most of the ones that like it are from exclusivist and extreme groups.

So throwing out the dreaded "Nicolaitans" code-word does not create your presumed ocean of church in which denominations are excluded because of metaphorical boats. And Lee saying it is not meaningful. Let the Bible actually say it.

And it doesn't.

Try again.

Jesus did not presume no leadership. It was always presumed. He told certain things to everyone and other things only to the closer group. And not just those couple of places where He said he was hiding truth from those who would not see. Compare the sermon on the mount to the upper room discourse. Or the final words at the end of Matthew. Just a few examples.

Not saying that everything said only to a few was not to everyone. But some of it was clearly about the leadership of the flock while other parts were about the life of the flock.

Matthew 23:8-9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Rules out every denomination that calls their leader 'father', 'reverend' etc. That is most of Christianity.

ZNPaaneah

09-15-2016, 05:08 AM

Receiving the Spirit IS salvation (Acts 10:44, Romans 8:9).

Righteousness and justification, IS salvation

https://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification

The cults consistently blur the meanings of the two terms and misapply the truths taught in God's word. The result is a theology of works' righteousness--of earning their salvation, which only leads to damnation. This is because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16). Man cannot contribute to his salvation (Gal. 5:1-8). Man is sinful, and even his best deeds are stained and filthy before God (Isaiah 64:6). Therefore, making a person right before God can only be God's work (Gal. 2:20).

You would condemn Witness Lee for teaching deification but here you are espousing a doctrine of works like a Catholic.

Yes, righteousness and justification are salvation. One form of salvation. Salvation from sins that you have committed.

But there is another form of salvation -- indicated by "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling".

If you ignore this form of salvation you are willfully ignorant.

There is a form of salvation that comes from godly sorrow which works in repentance unto salvation.

When Paul says that "I know that this will work out to me unto salvation" in Phillippians he isn't referring to the justification he received from Jesus shed blood.

Now you are the one who is confusing "justification" and "righteousness" with salvation. Because salvation includes confession. As Paul said in Romans "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation".

It is faith in the Lord's redemptive work on the cross that is reckoned as righteousness, not confession. These are not the same thing and should not be confused. You cannot have salvation without justification. You cannot have salvation without righteousness. This is what gives us a standing before God to seek for salvation. This is why James says that "the prayers of a righteous man avails much". Answered prayer is a form of salvation. Healing the sick is a form of salvation. Visiting orphans and widows in their trouble is a form of salvation. None of this counts as a work of faith unless it is standing on the faith in the Lord's redemptive work.

But if you claim you are standing on that redemptive work, then where is the salvation? If I cannot see any salvation that is a dead faith.

So then, without faith it is impossible to please God but that should not be understood to mean that a "faith without any expression" pleases God. The Bible doesn't say that.

ZNPaaneah

09-15-2016, 06:03 AM

You just contradicted yourself (or someone elses view) in saying that a pledge is a sin.

I say to that nonsense. Otherwise signing a marriage contract, mortgage contract, or an employment contract would be a sin according to your view.

I contradicted what someone else said, not me, and the only reason for that is that your questions are vague and without context. For example, I say that the loyalty pledge Witness Lee required of 419 elders is sin, and you then assume this means that all contracts are sin. This is a major flaw in your analysis, you are unable to understand context and nuance.

Yes, if you sign a marriage contract with a person when you are currently married to another person, that would be a sin. That is what took place when elders in the church had to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee when they had already been baptized, recognizing the Triune God as their sole authority.

Yes, if you sign a mortgage contract for a property that is already purchased by someone else that would be a sin. That is what took place when those redeemed by the blood of Jesus were required to pledge their loyalty to Witness Lee and his ministry.

Yes, if you sign an employment contract when you are currently the bondservant of someone else, and in that contract it specifically forbids partaking of the Lord's table and the table of idols, yes that is a sin.

Once again, I say anyone who thinks that this loyalty pledge to Witness Lee was not sin is clueless.

Ohio

09-15-2016, 06:06 AM

This is because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16).

You just failed basic bible 101.

It was very common for Lee to conflate good works with the works of the law.

They have nothing in common.

Works of law are things like sabbath, passover, circumcision, feasts, offerings, washing of hands, etc.

Good works are like caring for the poor, widows, orphans, the hungry, the sick. This is to love your neighbor as yourself, and is often the obedience of faith.

Today the Spirit never directs the believers to perform the works of law.

Today the Spirit constantly directs the believers to perform good works.

Ohio

09-15-2016, 06:08 AM

Ohio

09-15-2016, 06:16 AM

Once again, I say anyone who thinks that this loyalty pledge to Witness Lee was not sin is clueless.

Many of the signatures on that pledge were obtained by deceit, by back-biting, by arm- twisting, by politicking, etc.

Hundreds of those who pledged, today would have nothing to do with Lee.

ZNPaaneah

09-15-2016, 06:53 AM

Many of the signatures on that pledge were obtained by deceit, by back-biting, by arm- twisting, by politicking, etc.

Hundreds of those who pledged, today would have nothing to do with Lee.

Yes, their conscience testifies that it was sin. That is why some are ashamed and others have renounced this.

Prior to this event I could never have thought that Ray G or Benson P could be disciples of a false prophet. Even when they held their ears at PL sins I was trying to excuse that.

Cal

09-15-2016, 10:06 AM

I'd concur with the perception that the local churches are narrow in what they ingest but that is their prerogative according to their understanding of the scriptures. There is nothing in the beliefs and practices of the local church that is sinful, idolatrous, or divisive. Toward all believers they are the most open to receive them and do not apply the criterion that denominations often do as a condition of fellowship and membership.

You guys keep talking about "the denominations" like you really know something about them. Times have changed. Most denominations these days and all community churches I know of have no criteria for attending meetings or even for membership.

Superficially the LCM does not have any criteria for membership. But the fact is the LCM expects a lot of conformity to be a member in good standing. There is really, when you get right down to it, not much generality in the LCM.

The LCM is "most open" in the sense that they are looking to capture whomever they can. And since the LCM can't seem to get anyone saved they have to grab existing Christians where they can get them. So yeah, if you want to call that "open"... But the fact is the LCM is really not tolerant of differing beliefs. If you don't conform you will be dealt with in one way or another.

When you get right down to it, most non-LCM churches are much more open and tolerant of differing (not sinful) beliefs. They truly practice generality. Lee used to teach generality, but I never saw evidence of its practice. And the "one publication" bull pretty much put an end to any hope of it. The kite strings go all the way back to La Palma, and we know who is holding them.

Cal

09-15-2016, 10:26 AM

Here's another thing, Evangelical, Drake, etc. There's no way the LCM is open, tolerant and general if you guys are examples of the LCM attitude. You guys are so narrow in your beliefs, so biased about groups you really have little knowledge of, so devoted to conformity to Lee and Nee, so seemingly incapable of thinking outside the LCM box, that I would surmise that it is really impossible for you to be tolerant of much of anything differing from your beliefs. You can't just turn generality and tolerance on and off like that.

No, you guys are tailor made for the LCM. Locked-down, we're-right, don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts kind of guys. Great for narrow, we-are-it groups (and I'm sure the LCM appreciates that about you), but incompatible with a group that is truly general.

Nope, it just doesn't fit.

ZNPaaneah

09-15-2016, 01:01 PM

I have given many scriptural references against denominationalism:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

It is you who choose not to believe them. So how can you say the Bible is your authority?

OK, so one of the verses is this:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

So Evangelical, here is where I am having a hard time following you.

I understand that you are saying if a denomination says "they are of Luther" then that is denominationalism and is sin. This position could be supported by this verse and verses in Galatians.

But if the LSM has 419 elders sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee as the "master builder" then that is not sin.

I don't understand. How is that not an example of saying "I follow Witness Lee"?

According to you all denominations should be condemned, but I don't understand why the Local Church Movement wouldn't also be considered a denomination?

OK, here is another verse that from your reference on Denominations:

Galatians 1:6-10

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

I have taken issue with Witness Lee, saying that his teaching on MOTA was "a different gospel", that his teaching on "deification" is contrary to the teaching we received from the apostles, that his teaching on the "ground of the church" doctrine is a distortion of the gospel. Why aren't these verses applied to him?

Here is another verse reference you gave me:

2 John 1:9

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

This has been my point, that Witness Lee went beyond what was taught by the apostles and you told me you don't care. So when Witness Lee does it you don't care, but when anyone else does it they are sinning and disqualified. Do you see where I am getting confused?

Here is another verse you gave me that is confusing me:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

You see? Jesus Christ died for us, and we were baptized into the name of the Triune God, so why are we being asked to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? He didn't die for us. This just bothers me, I can see how it is contrary to the NT and I can see how it is sectarian. I agree with you that sectarianism is sin, but somehow you agree that this verse is sectarian but that what they do in the Local Church is not sectarianism? I don't get it.

TLFisher

09-15-2016, 01:02 PM

I am understanding that the issue with the local churches is mostly around the hypocrisy (whether perceived or real, people have a wide variety of experiences). From my experience the local churches are more receiving than those in denominations. Often the people in the local churches will never try to engage or debate with them in a negative way. But rather the denominational people will try to start a debate or argument over some trivial issue. I recall my last argument with a denominational someone was about whether regular Christians can do evangelism. They said they can't, only the church leaders or specifically trained or called people can preach the gospel.
This is most often the case in denominations, it is only the specially ordained or appointed positions that can do anything meaningful.

That is the reason we have denominations - people are too uncomfortable in catholic so they go to baptist. If too uncomfortable in baptist they go to Lutheran. Denominational people are individuals seeking comfort and a church service that caters to their needs and perceptions of what a church should be.
When you use the word denomination, keep in mind LC usage of denomination is much different than how a general non-LC Christian would use it. In the Local Churches, any assembly that is not taking LSM as their one publication is a denomination.
For most Christians a Lutheran church is a denomination. A community church is not. A Presbyterian church is a denomination. A Bible church is not.
Though having known brothers who meet with Lutheran and Baptist denominations, they do share practices one might see in the local churches.
At work I have a brother in Christ who will not meet with any church that is not Lutheran. Just as I know brothers in the local churches that won't meet with any church that is not taking LSM publications.
I know a brother in Christ whose only Christian experience is being raised in Baptist assemblies. Just as I know brothers and sisters from local churches whose only Christian experience is the local churches.

Ohio

09-15-2016, 02:04 PM

That is the reason we have denominations - people are too uncomfortable in catholic so they go to baptist. If too uncomfortable in baptist they go to Lutheran. Denominational people are individuals seeking comfort and a church service that caters to their needs and perceptions of what a church should be. For the same reason they will reject the local churches because it is too this or too that or not enough this or not enough that. They largely see the church as something that caters to their needs, to provide a service.

Evangelical you really need to get out more. You are a sectarian "bigot." You make the same stereotypical characterizations so typical of other types of "bigots." I don't know where you are from, but you seem to have quite a "sheltered" view of the LC's. It seems like your knowledge of them is based on some books you bought on the internet.

The exact same issues which so characterize "them denominations" also describe the LC's. There is adultery in both, there are pleasure seekers in both, there are gays in both, there are thieves, liars, and cheats in both. There are bad elders and bad ministers in both.

If I had never spent decades in the LC's, I might think you have something special and I might think you have some ground to critique others, but after all these years I know better, and so do the other posters here.

Let me also say that in both the denominations and the LC's (and community churches and home churches and whatever) there are precious saints, who love God, love His word, love His people and love their neighbors. They struggle against sin, the world, idolatry, and hypocrisy. Don't think for one second that the LC's have the market on spiritual goods, spiritual people, or spiritual teachings.

aron

09-15-2016, 02:23 PM

Jesus also commands us to pray in our closet.

Rules out every local church and especially LSM.

Paul said every elder should have believing children. Lee's children, by his own admission, were "unspiritual". Yet he made one CEO of a company set up with local church "investors", which went belly up quicker than a beached RV. The other one was in charge of LSM until his immorality finally was too much.

John said, "Diotrephes loves to be first". Fits WL's profile to a 't'.

John wrote that unless you held the mark of the beast, you couldn't buy or sell. In the local churches under the "One Trumpet" edict, you can't buy or sell unless it has the mark of the LSM on it. (To avoid confusion, of course.)

Paul said that he didn't permit women to teach. Watchman Nee was taught by at least a half-dozen women, from ME Barber, to Jesse Penn-Lewis, to Elizabeth Fishbacher, Jean Guyon, you can look them all up.

James said that we shouldn't be respecters of persons and give chief seats to wanna-be satraps. I saw people posing by Witness Lee's chair, like they were at Mount Rushmore. Getting family photos around "the chair". This kind of misplaced zeal was only winked at.

Paul said, Don't be "of Paul, of Cephas, of Apollos", yet the individual LC websites all had on their headers, "Lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee." What is "affiliated with" except "of".

1 Timothy 3:3, 6:10, 2 Timothy 3:2, and Hebrews 13:5 all warn about a love of money. Lee's many business ventures give lie to his orientation. Eventually he found the perfect captive market - The True Church and God's Oracle. All high peak truths, all for sale, for only a few dollars. No competitors allowed.

All of these things, and many more, disqualify the LC to represent God's Christ. Worst of all is the constant despising attitude towards "poor Christianity". What happens is that if you sit in a meeting, and silently receive the words of condemnation, or worse yet "amen" it, you are now under it's power. You have assented to condemnation of all outside the LC. So you then have to overlook all those reasons that disqualify the LC as a legitimate NT Christian expression, and live with all the obvious contradictions that entails.

Just sing "splendid church life, His green garden" three more times and everything will be fine.

Ohio

09-15-2016, 05:22 PM

James said that we shouldn't be respecters of persons and give chief seats to wanna-be satraps. I saw people posing by Witness Lee's chair, like they were at Mount Rushmore. Getting family photos around "the chair". This kind of misplaced zeal was only winked at.

I wanted a picture next to Witness Lee's impeccably arranged sock drawer.

How can I ever forget that citation I received in Taipei for not aligning my paired socks in a tidy row in my underwear drawer?

Just think how that photo with me next to his sock drawer would help me be transformed. Isn't orderliness next to godliness?

least

09-15-2016, 05:36 PM

Ohio,
We can rest assured that the truths in the Bible are a sure foundation. Men fail but God is true.
Paul and Barnabas were clearly set aside for the work showing a unique and special commission. Though it merged out of the church in Antioch, the church in Antioch was not spread to the cities Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the Word of God in.

LSM work and foundation:
MOTA
God's Economy

Cal

09-15-2016, 05:54 PM

A prerequisite for being MOTA is an impeccable sock and underwear drawer.

aron

09-15-2016, 06:01 PM

I agree with you that sectarianism is sin, but somehow you agree that this verse is sectarian but that what they do in the Local Church is not sectarianism? I don't get it.When others do it, it's sectarianism, but when we do it, it's not sectarianism."

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 06:56 PM

OK, so one of the verses is this:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

So Evangelical, here is where I am having a hard time following you.

I understand that you are saying if a denomination says "they are of Luther" then that is denominationalism and is sin. This position could be supported by this verse and verses in Galatians.

But if the LSM has 419 elders sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee as the "master builder" then that is not sin.

I don't understand. How is that not an example of saying "I follow Witness Lee"?

According to you all denominations should be condemned, but I don't understand why the Local Church Movement wouldn't also be considered a denomination?

OK, here is another verse that from your reference on Denominations:

Galatians 1:6-10

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

I have taken issue with Witness Lee, saying that his teaching on MOTA was "a different gospel", that his teaching on "deification" is contrary to the teaching we received from the apostles, that his teaching on the "ground of the church" doctrine is a distortion of the gospel. Why aren't these verses applied to him?

Here is another verse reference you gave me:

2 John 1:9

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

This has been my point, that Witness Lee went beyond what was taught by the apostles and you told me you don't care. So when Witness Lee does it you don't care, but when anyone else does it they are sinning and disqualified. Do you see where I am getting confused?

Here is another verse you gave me that is confusing me:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

You see? Jesus Christ died for us, and we were baptized into the name of the Triune God, so why are we being asked to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? He didn't die for us. This just bothers me, I can see how it is contrary to the NT and I can see how it is sectarian. I agree with you that sectarianism is sin, but somehow you agree that this verse is sectarian but that what they do in the Local Church is not sectarianism? I don't get it.

I have to agree with you that any statement about "following Lee" that is more than Paul's "follow me" in 1 Corinthians 11:1 , is sectarian and a sin.

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 06:58 PM

You guys keep talking about "the denominations" like you really know something about them. Times have changed. Most denominations these days and all community churches I know of have no criteria for attending meetings or even for membership.

Superficially the LCM does not have any criteria for membership. But the fact is the LCM expects a lot of conformity to be a member in good standing. There is really, when you get right down to it, not much generality in the LCM.

The LCM is "most open" in the sense that they are looking to capture whomever they can. And since the LCM can't seem to get anyone saved they have to grab existing Christians where they can get them. So yeah, if you want to call that "open"... But the fact is the LCM is really not tolerant of differing beliefs. If you don't conform you will be dealt with in one way or another.

When you get right down to it, most non-LCM churches are much more open and tolerant of differing (not sinful) beliefs. They truly practice generality. Lee used to teach generality, but I never saw evidence of its practice. And the "one publication" bull pretty much put an end to any hope of it. The kite strings go all the way back to La Palma, and we know who is holding them.

You are right denominations have changed a lot, if you are talking about the baptists or community churches, perhaps the presbyterian as well. The more mainstream institutionalized churches have not changed that much and in fact have gotten worse in some ways by aligning themselves with the Catholics and not preaching the Bible. But I do know that I heard more negativity towards other churches in the Presbyterian church I used to attend than I ever have in my local church.

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 07:00 PM

least

09-15-2016, 07:29 PM

It's not called the "narrow way" for nothing :)

Narrow Christ way, or narrow LSM way? :):D

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 07:35 PM

You just failed basic bible 101.

It was very common for Lee to conflate good works with the works of the law.

They have nothing in common.

Works of law are things like sabbath, passover, circumcision, feasts, offerings, washing of hands, etc.

Good works are like caring for the poor, widows, orphans, the hungry, the sick. This is to love your neighbor as yourself, and is often the obedience of faith.

Today the Spirit never directs the believers to perform the works of law.

Today the Spirit constantly directs the believers to perform good works.

But not for salvation as ZNPaaneah is saying. That is a Catholic doctrine.

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 07:39 PM

Yes, righteousness and justification are salvation. One form of salvation. Salvation from sins that you have committed.

But there is another form of salvation -- indicated by "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling".

If you ignore this form of salvation you are willfully ignorant.

There is a form of salvation that comes from godly sorrow which works in repentance unto salvation.

When Paul says that "I know that this will work out to me unto salvation" in Phillippians he isn't referring to the justification he received from Jesus shed blood.

Now you are the one who is confusing "justification" and "righteousness" with salvation. Because salvation includes confession. As Paul said in Romans "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation".

It is faith in the Lord's redemptive work on the cross that is reckoned as righteousness, not confession. These are not the same thing and should not be confused. You cannot have salvation without justification. You cannot have salvation without righteousness. This is what gives us a standing before God to seek for salvation. This is why James says that "the prayers of a righteous man avails much". Answered prayer is a form of salvation. Healing the sick is a form of salvation. Visiting orphans and widows in their trouble is a form of salvation. None of this counts as a work of faith unless it is standing on the faith in the Lord's redemptive work.

But if you claim you are standing on that redemptive work, then where is the salvation? If I cannot see any salvation that is a dead faith.

So then, without faith it is impossible to please God but that should not be understood to mean that a "faith without any expression" pleases God. The Bible doesn't say that.

How do we know when we have done enough works to guarantee our salvation? Do you believe we can know we are saved right now?

What do you believe happens if a person is saved as in justified but not saved in the second sense that you mean it?

That salvation is only of faith and not of ourselves means we cannot measure ourselves against others for salvation or boast in our good works.

OBW

09-15-2016, 07:43 PM

Matthew 23:8-9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Rules out every denomination that calls their leader 'father', 'reverend' etc. That is most of Christianity.And on what authority is it that anyone that does something that is not approved is dismissed from status as "the church"?

What about people who knowingly break the traffic laws, even in small things? Who know that the police won't ticket them as long as they are no more than about 9MPH over the speed limit?

Or what about those that practice the deeds of the Nicolaitans? Even that didn't get anyone's lampstand pulled in Revelation.

Yet you stand ready to do worse than God Himself.

On what basis does any of your positions justify dismissal from the "one church"? Seems that there is only one body. Do you think that some actual believers in Christ are not in that one body? When Paul said that about the one body, he was saying to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." All those "ones" that followed were not bases for exclusion, but the things to be careful to be inclusive about. They were what should be seen in our position if we are truly keeping the unity.

It seems that the Local Church's position is to seek bases for breaking the unity of the Spirit. You insist on reasons to exclude who you chose. Or declare that there are deficient people who have not lived up to your version of the rules so you can relegate them to observers of the body and not participants.

I suggest that you carefully read the passages that you use. Not just a few words selectively chosen, but the entirety of any passage to determine what is actually being talked about. I began to be bothered many years ago when I saw first one, then another portion of scripture that did not actually say what I have been taught by Lee and the Local Churches. Their teachings stood in opposition to the "clear" words that were there on the pages (in any translation).

Don't start with the assumption that what you have been taught is right. Start with the assumption that there are words that need to have real meaning and see what they say. Not just understand them in some different way just because someone else says that is how to understand it.

OBW

09-15-2016, 08:02 PM

Paul said that he didn't permit women to teach. Watchman Nee was taught by at least a half-dozen women, from ME Barber, to Jesse Penn-Lewis, to Elizabeth Fishbacher, Jean Guyon, you can look them all up.I wouldn't take that one too far. The majority of the problems in Christianity over the centuries have been the product of imaginative, hungry, and even evil men.

And like a lot of things, there is debate over how far to take that "women can't teach" thing. It might be for real. But it might have been a societal norm of the time. Tough to tell. Even from Paul's own words.

Evangelical

09-15-2016, 09:11 PM

And on what authority is it that anyone that does something that is not approved is dismissed from status as "the church"?

What about people who knowingly break the traffic laws, even in small things? Who know that the police won't ticket them as long as they are no more than about 9MPH over the speed limit?

Or what about those that practice the deeds of the Nicolaitans? Even that didn't get anyone's lampstand pulled in Revelation.

Yet you stand ready to do worse than God Himself.

On what basis does any of your positions justify dismissal from the "one church"? Seems that there is only one body. Do you think that some actual believers in Christ are not in that one body? When Paul said that about the one body, he was saying to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." All those "ones" that followed were not bases for exclusion, but the things to be careful to be inclusive about. They were what should be seen in our position if we are truly keeping the unity.

It seems that the Local Church's position is to seek bases for breaking the unity of the Spirit. You insist on reasons to exclude who you chose. Or declare that there are deficient people who have not lived up to your version of the rules so you can relegate them to observers of the body and not participants.

I suggest that you carefully read the passages that you use. Not just a few words selectively chosen, but the entirety of any passage to determine what is actually being talked about. I began to be bothered many years ago when I saw first one, then another portion of scripture that did not actually say what I have been taught by Lee and the Local Churches. Their teachings stood in opposition to the "clear" words that were there on the pages (in any translation).

Don't start with the assumption that what you have been taught is right. Start with the assumption that there are words that need to have real meaning and see what they say. Not just understand them in some different way just because someone else says that is how to understand it.

We can see that the words about the Nicolaitans was to the church in Ephesus. They were one church but the Nicolaitans were most likely a sect within following (Acts 6:5). It appears as yet they had not broken away from the locality. The Nicolaitans once they left the ground of locality and became a religio-political entity, became the Roman Catholics.

Clergy-laity distinction is a distortion of the truth. Then all churches that practice that are a distortion of Christianity, or what Lee would call a degradation.

Ohio

09-16-2016, 02:26 AM

Ohio

09-16-2016, 02:50 AM

It's not called the "narrow way" for nothing :)

At least you have a sense of humor about it. :)

ZNPaaneah

09-16-2016, 05:02 AM

But not for salvation as ZNPaaneah is saying. That is a Catholic doctrine.

The reason you can't understand the doctrine is because you try to simplify it to the extreme.

When Paul says "work out your own salvation" this is not referring to justification. Our justification is not worked out by us, it is something that we receive by faith.

When Paul says that "this will work out to me for salvation" he again is not referring to the Lord's shed blood on the cross, that has already been done.

When James says that Abraham was also justified by works he is not referring to justification by faith in the Lord's redemptive work on the cross that was reckoned to him by God, but rather the justification that was reckoned to him by those who saw him walking according to his faith.

If you accept that the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith based on the verses in Genesis concerning Abraham then you would be a hypocrite to not also accept that we are justified by works based on the verses in Genesis concerning Abraham.

The context in which James says this is if you see someone who is hungry or naked and tell them to "go in Peace", "be filled", etc. yet you don't provide them with the food or clothes they need. The point is that when we appear before the judgement seat of Christ we will be judged based on our believing in the Lord's redemptive work, faith in our heart. This will determine our eternal salvation. But on a daily basis people judge us, not by what is in our heart which they cannot see, but by our actions which they can see.

Yes, this is contrary to what Witness Lee taught, but is completely in line with what Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and James taught. The false prophet, like Judas, does not want the believers helping widows and orphans because his goal is to get any and all donations for himself. He is motivated by covetousness and intends to make merchandise of the saints. This is why Witness Lee promoted the idea that "being a hearer of the word only" was the way to be "deified". Read his ministry, pray over his ministry, listen to his ministry, attend his conferences, etc. (because you can't do that without buying his ministry). This is a distortion of the gospel.

ZNPaaneah

09-16-2016, 05:10 AM

How do we know when we have done enough works to guarantee our salvation? Do you believe we can know we are saved right now?

What do you believe happens if a person is saved as in justified but not saved in the second sense that you mean it?

That salvation is only of faith and not of ourselves means we cannot measure ourselves against others for salvation or boast in our good works.

"Guarantee our salvation" -- this indicates you can only see one form of salvation -- eternal salvation.

If you are homeless and someone provides you with a place to stay, that can be a temporary salvation. Consider the story the "Pursuit of Happyness". He later came back to that church that was providing the homeless shelter to thank them for their "salvation" to him. That is how the story became known, a man that had been in the homeless shelter later became a millionaire.

That man is not going to judge them for their eternal salvation, at most he will be a witness that appears before the Lord's throne when they are judged. Yet in this lifetime he has justified them by their works.

The same is true of soup kitchens, Clothes bins, etc.

You trivialize this aspect of the Christian life because the Local Church Movement is completely devoid of any charitable giving. Why? Because their donations are going to LSM standing orders to buy books to be put into boxes and stored in the closet, and also for the Legal Defense fund to sue other Christians and other publishers so that no one dares call them a cult.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 05:19 AM

It is the height of reckless speculation to equate Nicholas from Antioch, a former convert to Judaism, and appointed as one of the seven deacons by the Apostles in Jerusalem, to be the leader of the Nicolaitams in Ephesus a half century later. You built your theories around Acts 6.5?

The so-called "clergy" were established by the apostles when they decided to order the churches with elders and deacons.

Equating "clergy" with clergy is equally as reckless and ignorant of the bible and history.

Firstly, the apostles did not decide that, the Holy Spirit did and the Spirit chose the elders and deacons. Did the Holy Spirit choose the Pope and his cardinals, bishops etc?, or any other heirarchy? No, they were completely from man's decisions.

Secondly the Holy Spirit did not divide the church into clergy and laity, or put a separating or so called "altar rail" between them, or "altar calls".

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit did not suppress the function and use of gifts and callings by unqualified people.

Fourthly the Holy Spirit did not create a system in which only theologically qualified people can preach or handle the communion bread and wine.

I could go on.

ZNPaaneah

09-16-2016, 05:31 AM

We can see that the words about the Nicolaitans was to the church in Ephesus. They were one church but the Nicolaitans were most likely a sect within following (Acts 6:5). It appears as yet they had not broken away from the locality. The Nicolaitans once they left the ground of locality and became a religio-political entity, became the Roman Catholics.

Clergy-laity distinction is a distortion of the truth. Then all churches that practice that are a distortion of Christianity, or what Lee would call a degradation.

There is no reason to speculate about who or what the Nicolaitans were or taught. This is the error of Witness Lee and others. The New Testament makes it very clear -- Rev 2:6But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Rev 2:14But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. 15So hast thou also some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner.

The teachings of the Nicolaitans are like unto the teachings of Balaam, a false prophet, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols and to commit fornication.

These can also be considered works — eating things sacrificed unto idols, making others eat things sacrificed unto idols, committing fornication, and making the children of Israel commit fornication.

For example, forcing the 419 elders to sign a loyalty pledge is a form of spiritual fornication. As you have agreed, this is the same thing that Paul condemned when he said “you say you are of Paul, or of Peter”. Our loyalty pledge is to Jesus, when you give a pledge to anyone else that is spiritual fornication, which the Lord hates.

Now if you purchase the ministry from this “master builder” who you have pledged to that is “eating things sacrificed unto idols”.

Witness Lee has not presented himself as merely fellowship from a brother in Christ. No, he is the “wise master builder” that everyone must pledge their loyalty to, he is the “Minister of the Age”, a person who has been “deified” as a result of his years and years in the presence of God (like Moses). This is not just fellowship from a brother in Christ, no it is the “unique ministry of the wise master builder for the accomplishment of God’s eternal purpose in this age”. As you say "clergy laity is a distortion of the truth". This distinction that Witness Lee makes concerning himself and his ministry is a distortion of the truth.

These are the teachings and works of the Nicolaitans, these are things that Jesus hates.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 05:35 AM

It is the height of reckless speculation to equate Nicholas from Antioch, a former convert to Judaism, and appointed as one of the seven deacons by the Apostles in Jerusalem, to be the leader of the Nicolaitams in Ephesus a half century later. You built your theories around Acts 6.5?

The so-called "clergy" were established by the apostles when they decided to order the churches with elders and deacons.

No I actually do a lot of reading these are not my speculations.The view was held by a number of early church fathers

Consider Irenaeus:

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.
— Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

ZNPaaneah

09-16-2016, 05:38 AM

It's not called the "narrow way" for nothing :)

Matt 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. 14 For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits ye shall know them.

The narrow way is found sandwiched between the golden rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and being aware of false prophets based on their fruit.

The reason few find the narrow way is that there are few who are faithful to the Lord concerning loving your neighbor as yourself, and of those who do desire to follow the lord many will be deceived by a false prophet.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 05:39 AM

There is no reason to speculate about who or what the Nicolaitans were or taught. This is the error of Witness Lee and others. The New Testament makes it very clear -- Rev 2:6But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Rev 2:14But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. 15So hast thou also some that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner.

The teachings of the Nicolaitans are like unto the teachings of Balaam, a false prophet, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols and to commit fornication.

These can also be considered works — eating things sacrificed unto idols, making others eat things sacrificed unto idols, committing fornication, and making the children of Israel commit fornication.

For example, forcing the 419 elders to sign a loyalty pledge is a form of spiritual fornication. As you have agreed, this is the same thing that Paul condemned when he said “you say you are of Paul, or of Peter”. Our loyalty pledge is to Jesus, when you give a pledge to anyone else that is spiritual fornication, which the Lord hates.

Now if you purchase the ministry from this “master builder” who you have pledged to that is “eating things sacrificed unto idols”.

Witness Lee has not presented himself as merely fellowship from a brother in Christ. No, he is the “wise master builder” that everyone must pledge their loyalty to, he is the “Minister of the Age”, a person who has been “deified” as a result of his years and years in the presence of God (like Moses). This is not just fellowship from a brother in Christ, no it is the “unique ministry of the wise master builder for the accomplishment of God’s eternal purpose in this age”. As you say "clergy laity is a distortion of the truth". This distinction that Witness Lee makes concerning himself and his ministry is a distortion of the truth.

These are the teachings and works of the Nicolaitans, these are things that Jesus hates.

Nice try to bring it back to Lee, but I'll try and explain what real idolatry and spiritual fornication is. The idolatry = Pope worship, Mary idols, prayers to saints, angels. Fornication - spiritually symbolizes friendship with the world, which the RC church is, worldly and materialistic, hence Luther's Reformation due to Papal indulgences. And of course the paganizing practices and beliefs such as Christmas and Easter and everything else pagan in their great cathedrals, all of the grotesque statues and idols.

Ohio

09-16-2016, 05:51 AM

Equating "clergy" with clergy is equally as reckless and ignorant of the bible and history.

Firstly, the apostles did not decide that, the Holy Spirit did and the Spirit chose the elders and deacons. Did the Holy Spirit choose the Pope and his cardinals, bishops etc?, or any other heirarchy? No, they were completely from man's decisions.

Secondly the Holy Spirit did not divide the church into clergy and laity, or put a separating or so called "altar rail" between them, or "altar calls".

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit did not suppress the function and use of gifts and callings by unqualified people.

Fourthly the Holy Spirit did not create a system in which only theologically qualified people can preach or handle the communion bread and wine.

I could go on.

The Holy Spirit did not create the system we now have at LSM and their member churches either.

LC folks always like to compare their best to the worst of Christianity. I watched Lee constantly do this for years. You have the same dirty laundry as the rest of Christianity, only some of the stains are different.

Nell

09-16-2016, 05:56 AM

ZNPaaneah

09-16-2016, 06:07 AM

Just a reminder that the church is described in the Bible as a "great mystery".

Religious organizations, such as the LC, RCC, Lutherans, etc., have little mystery and even smaller amount of "greatness." True church membership is "Christians Only". One can be a Lutheran, RCC or LC member and not be a Christian.

Man-made organizations range, in practice, from denominations to clubs...no mystery there. So, equating 'church' with church is "equally reckless".

Nell

Yes, I love this. Great mystery is not a Cathedral. A great mystery is when you see someone who looks like nothing, a peasant, meeting with kings like Ghandi did with the Queen of England.

Great mystery is when this peasant tells the biggest superpower they will pack up and leave on their own, they think that is a joke, and yet a few years later they pack up and leave on their own.

Great mystery is when you say unto this mountain be taken up and cast into the sea and it does it.

Cal

09-16-2016, 06:17 AM

It's not called the "narrow way" for nothing :)

As ZNP said, the narrow way is the way of selfless sacrifice for others. Only Pharisees think the narrow way is enforcing narrowness on others. You just exposed what you really are.

Cal

09-16-2016, 06:37 AM

Nice try to bring it back to Lee, but I'll try and explain what real idolatry and spiritual fornication is. The idolatry = Pope worship, Mary idols, prayers to saints, angels. Fornication - spiritually symbolizes friendship with the world, which the RC church is, worldly and materialistic, hence Luther's Reformation due to Papal indulgences. And of course the paganizing practices and beliefs such as Christmas and Easter and everything else pagan in their great cathedrals, all of the grotesque statues and idols.

As usual you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. (So interesting that you have so much in common with the Pharisees.)

Do you really think at this point God hates Easter and Christmas more than he hates his people treating Witness Lee like a demigod? Or the way the LCM uses Lee as the standard to aggrandize itself and divide itself from everyone else?

Let me spell it out for you.

Christmas and Easter = gnats
Witness Lee veneration = camel

What's that big lump going down your throat anyway?

Ohio

09-16-2016, 07:54 AM

You are right denominations have changed a lot, if you are talking about the baptists or community churches, perhaps the presbyterian as well. The more mainstream institutionalized churches have not changed that much and in fact have gotten worse in some ways by aligning themselves with the Catholics and not preaching the Bible. But I do know that I heard more negativity towards other churches in the Presbyterian church I used to attend than I ever have in my local church.

For the record, we in Greater Ohio were much influenced by Titus Chu, who made it a habit of never criticizing other Christians, other churches, or Christianity in general. Our local church leadership actively practiced the same. It was only when some of our members would hear those from LSM that these bigoted characterizations about the greater body of Christ would emerge in their testimonies or "prophecies."

In public Titus Chu would regularly criticize his own church, the church in Cleveland, (he never seemed to have anything nice to say about them,) or target individual brothers. He also used coded words to often blast the Blendeds, a favorite hobby of his.

aron

09-16-2016, 08:02 AM

As ZNP said, the narrow way is the way of selfless sacrifice for others. Only Pharisees think the narrow way is enforcing narrowness on others. You just exposed what you really are.

Amen. The narrow way is continual, selfless expression of love for others. Jesus was paragon: "He went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, for God was with Him", per His closest earthly follower, Peter (Acts 10:38).

The narrow way is NOT creating an arbitrary set of rules that - surprise! - only apply benefit to you, and seemingly to those whom you convince to come under your yoke. I say "seemingly" because the dupes who come under the rule set will find the rug continually pulled out from under them.

aron

09-16-2016, 08:14 AM

I wouldn't take that one too far. The majority of the problems in Christianity over the centuries have been the product of imaginative, hungry, and even evil men.

And like a lot of things, there is debate over how far to take that "women can't teach" thing. It might be for real. But it might have been a societal norm of the time. Tough to tell. Even from Paul's own words.

OBW,

Two things, here. First is that I'm not saying women can't teach, and thus Nee was basing his theology falsely. I'm saying that if the LC of Nee/Lee is so adamant on cutting off everyone who doesn't follow the Bible, then they also are cut off. Because Watchman Nee and the Little Flock deliberately, consciously, and consistently varied from the word of Paul, here (ironically, once the Nee/Lee church was well-established, they did forbid women to teach! Go figure).

I do know certain groups who take this literally, and require head-covering of women, and if they have any questions or comments to do so at home, per Paul's 2,000 year-old advice. To them, the LC of Nee/Lee would be a "worldly, fleshly abomination" where women wear all sorts of immodest attire, jump up and down and yell and scream.

These groups also deny "church membership" to any who are divorced. Again, they have verses, both Jesus and Paul. The LC of Lee, which actually fosters and facilitates divorce if the couple can't agree on ministry orientation, would again be seen as an evil abomination.

This comes to my second point - that if you draw the line too fine it will backfire, and eventually you'll also be disapproved. Of course we do draw the line - there is such a thing as rightness, holiness, and truth. But there is also love and forbearance. Those who cast stones will eventually get bonked. Those who make a living casting stones will find themselves under a pile.

Jesus didn't say the woman had no sin. She did. Jesus said, "Who among you has no sin, cast the first stone."

aron

09-16-2016, 08:29 AM

The LC of Lee, which actually fosters and facilitates divorce if the couple can't agree on ministry orientation, would be seen as an evil abomination.

If you don't believe me, there are dozens of testimonies out there. I have seen them. Here is one from the comments section of a blog post. Please note the 2nd sentence. Life in the LC is a pressure-cooker of appeasement and manipulation.

I was born in to the Local Church cult and spent my entire childhood under the insane teachings of Witness Lee. That cult destroyed my life and the lives of so many, including sanctioned divorces and pre-arranged marriages.

I grew up in a bubble, in a world painted by Lee. I only knew what lies he spread and that is was us against the world. The God he showed us was a condemning scary God, not at all like the One I have come to know in my later years. We had to be constantly baptized to erase our sins – not sure what sins we could possibly commit in a bubble. We had to shout and scream the Lord’s name in meetings and then were accused of not being in our spirit. We were publicly shamed and humiliated. I was even put before thousands of people in Irving, Texas while Witness Lee told everyone that I had refused to sign the “new way” promise of going to Taiwan and said he would make an example of me.

I am so grateful that for all the turmoil of the late 80s that allowed so many of us to see the lies and brainwashing that had taken over our lives. Leaving the cult was like stepping out into the unknown sinful world, no place to plant your feet, no understanding at all of the people in the world or even how it worked. I had to learn to function all over, to think differently, to act differently, and most importantly to read a real Bible, not the Living Stream recovery version, but a real one that introduced me to an amazing God.

I can never get back my childhood and still find myself at times reverted to my childhood scripting but thankfully I love a God who is bigger and mightier than Witness Lee, the Living Stream Ministry, and any of the LC cult teachings. I have experienced great healing.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/the-false-gospel-of-witness-lee-and-the-living-stream-ministries/comment-page-5/#comments

Cal

09-16-2016, 08:35 AM

This comes to my second point - that if you draw the line too fine it will backfire, and eventually you'll also be disapproved. Of course we do draw the line - there is such a thing as rightness, holiness, and truth. But there is also love and forbearance. Those who cast stones will eventually get bonked. Those who make a living casting stones will find themselves under a pile.

Jesus didn't say the woman had no sin. She did. Jesus said, "Who among you has no sin, cast the first stone."

I think you've really hit on something and I think it goes to the core of the problem in general.

We have this need to be right. I'm not just talking about ego, though that comes in, too. I'm talking about this need to think that if we find truth we will know what to do in every situation. We will "be clear." We will "have it down." We think we will know how to think, how to meet, how to dress, how to "be one," how to interpret the Bible--everything.

Isn't that what truth does? Doesn't it tell you what's right in every situation? So if some person or set of people think they've really, really found the truth, they naturally will feel that they have this certainty, or will want to feel like they have it, and can tell others what to think and do. It's just fallen human nature. How can you say you are in "God's best" if you don't know what to do in just about every situation?

Well, actually God does tell us what to do in every situation, but it doesn't play out like the Pharisees thought it would, where you feel you are right about everything and can tell everyone else what to do. It's actually very different. What we know to do in every situation is this: Love God, love people and be ready to sacrifice for both. THAT is the truth that always applies, and if we don't have that, we don't have anything. It doesn't matter how much you think you know or are right about. If you can't speak it in self-sacrificial love it's worthless. That's what 1 Cor 13 tells us.

Ohio

09-16-2016, 09:03 AM

Amen. The narrow way is continual, selfless expression of love for others. Jesus was paragon: "He went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, for God was with Him", per His closest earthly follower, Peter (Acts 10:38).

The narrow way is NOT creating an arbitrary set of rules that - surprise! - only apply benefit to you, and seemingly to those whom you convince to come under your yoke. I say "seemingly" because the dupes who come under the rule set will find the rug continually pulled out from under them.

The narrow way has to be obedience, as Jesus said He only does what the Father does.

Ohio

09-16-2016, 09:29 AM

Ohio

09-16-2016, 10:01 AM

No I actually do a lot of reading these are not my speculations.The view was held by a number of early church fathers

Consider Irenaeus:

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.
— Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

There's dozens of theories out there.

I'm surprised you have not endorsed the official interpretation from headquarters. See Revelation 2.6 footnote 1 of the Recovery Version.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee rejected Irenaeus' view. Have you read that? Read the end of that footnote again!

But I must say that if you and Irenaeus are correct, then you just shot yourself in the foot, losing your case against the so-called clergy-laity system.

Cal

09-16-2016, 10:16 AM

The narrow way has to be obedience, as Jesus said He only does what the Father does.

While I agree, I think it's too easy to mistake following the dead letter for "obedience." Were the Pharisees "obedient?" According to the letter yes. According to the Spirit of truth? Most definitely not.

Love is the test because you can't fake love. But you can call your dead religion "obedience."

And, oh by the way, LCMers, don't say you show love to people because you push your doctrines on them, else the Pharisees loved more than anyone.

OBW

09-16-2016, 01:00 PM

I have given many scriptural references against denominationalism:

It is you who choose not to believe them. So how can you say the Bible is your authority?(I will not re-link your list.)

These are all part of larger discussions. And even without context they do not simply say what you declare them to say.

What is "division" as used in the various passages? Is it any difference of opinion? Or is it refusing to fellowship. Or even disputing the very basics of the faith?

And which of the various groups you bring up to mention actually refuses to fellowship? And which disputes the very basics of the faith? So you think that the Baptists cannot tolerate Presbyterians?

But it is clear that you can't. And you really can't tolerate the Catholics.

And if you want to complain about the number who meet with any particular group that are not actually Christian, do you think that there are none like that within the LCM? I can assure you that there are unsaved in every group. So do you then parse based on a presumption of numbers or percentages that are unsaved? And if so, do you think you really know what percent of any of those groups are unsaved?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." So do you think that many really don't believe but just put themselves through all that stuff anyway? They may typically not have some kind of Damascus road experience. But there is nothing that suggests everyone will have such a clear demarcation between belief and unbelief. Some are taught and come to believe. Some are faced with a crisis and come to believe. Both ways work. How you move forward in worship and obedience is not relevant to it. And it is not an indicator of what "kind" of Christian you are.

But going back to refusing fellowship, it would appear that you are looking for reasons to refuse fellowship with others. They have to come to you. You will not go to them.

When you pray for the church in the city where you live, do you see only one group, and possibly a huge mass of unaffiliated Christians because you hate the way they group? Is your group the only acceptable group? And if so, why?

And isn't it difficult to somehow declare that yours is the right group when it is not even among the first on the scene? I mean, the RCC was there before you. And the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, the Baptists, the Bible churches, the Congregationalist, the Pentecostals and Charismatics of various types, the Vineyard churches, the Matt 29 group, and so many others. And among all of those, named and unnamed, yours is one of the last, yet somehow declares that it is the only one that is "proper" and therefore the only true church. And why is that? It's in the name. Your name is "proper." The name. The very thing that you declare that no one should have.

And don't tell me you have no name. You have sued in that name many times. And you have sued to get the right to that name in certain jurisdictions. And before you say that maybe some location incorrectly did that, the money and support for that suit came from the LCM (or more probably, the DCP).

And when it comes to suing other Christians, your group is among the most active (or at least was until the Harvest House loss).

And you see the true church as an ocean of LCM people while those in the denominations are kept out of that ocean by boats. The problem with your metaphor is that your ocean would be a drop on the beach and those boats would have nothing to float in.

You say that we are not loving the LCM and should therefore disband, yet you tell us that everyone that is not with your little sect is not eve part of the true church. Our goal is not to chastise you for failing to follow any particular way, but to awaken to the evidence that everything you claim about the others is more true of yourselves than it is of us. We don't agree about everything, but we can fellowship with each other. And that can be said at the individual level, at the assembly level, and even at the denominational level. We are not declaring that the LCM or any other group is not part of "the church." We are striving to keep the unity of the Spirit." It would seem that you are looking for ways to avoid it. Excuses to avoid us. Our problem with the Local Churches is mainly that they throw up artificial barriers that are not even about the Bible. Mostly about Lee and the LSM.

You don't want anyone to follow a name. The Lutherans follow Luther less than the LCM follows Lee. The Presbyterians follow Calvin less than the LCM follows Lee. All the other groups use the writings of many, including those outside of their group. But your group is afraid to allow you to read anything that wasn't repeated by, or originally said by, Lee. Your group claims that you can't really understand the Bible without Witness Lee's footnotes. Not just footnotes. Can't read Scofield's, Or commentaries by others. The only things good there have been included in Lee's notes.

You really think highly of Lee. And based on the things he said about himself, he thought highly of himself.

I know that I have somewhat scatter-gunned here. But there is just so much to take note of rather than just ignoring and pointing at others. I was part of that group for 14+ years. I thought leaving was just because of people problems. But eventually, I began to see that for almost every claim about the errors of denominationalism, or clergy-laity, or whatever, there was more wrong with the LCM on the same issues than even might be wrong with the others. Denominations are a red herring. Your list of verses have clear meanings that do not obviously go to simply denominations, if they go there at all.

But you have been told that is the way to read them, so you do. You need to realize that there really is a garlic room. And you are in it.

Freedom

09-16-2016, 02:48 PM

Nice try to bring it back to Lee, but I'll try and explain what real idolatry and spiritual fornication is. The idolatry = Pope worship, Mary idols, prayers to saints, angels. Fornication - spiritually symbolizes friendship with the world, which the RC church is, worldly and materialistic, hence Luther's Reformation due to Papal indulgences. And of course the paganizing practices and beliefs such as Christmas and Easter and everything else pagan in their great cathedrals, all of the grotesque statues and idols.

Many people take issue with the RCC, and if the problems mentioned are legitimate issues, then the RCC has already been called out for what it is. In places like the U.S., the RCC has a particularly limited amount of influence. I don't get the point in a repetitive rehashing of complaints about the RCC when there are more important things to worry about.

You see, things like idolatry are legitimate concerns. There is often a tendency for us Christians to project things on other groups without first looking at ourselves. We point to groups like the RCC and use them as the poster child for what not to do. But doesn't this miss the point? All of us are capable of idol worship. We don't need a Mary statue to make that happen. If we become obsessed over what the Pope is doing, then perhaps we will fail to see the other 'popes' that are much more subtle and worse.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 06:05 PM

There's dozens of theories out there.

I'm surprised you have not endorsed the official interpretation from headquarters. See Revelation 2.6 footnote 1 of the Recovery Version.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee rejected Irenaeus' view. Have you read that? Read the end of that footnote again!

But I must say that if you and Irenaeus are correct, then you just shot yourself in the foot, losing your case against the so-called clergy-laity system.

The footnote is wrong that there is "nothing in church history", I just provided a quote from early church history, and besides Irenaeus there are others too.

I have "endorsed" the footnote as I said the Catholic adopted this system and the Protestants too I beileve. Whenever you have one man such as a church pastor leading a service and no one else doing much at all, that is the clergy-laity system. Doesn't matter whether it's a house church or a baptist or a catholic, it's the same Nicolaitan spirit, and I can almost guarantee they all celebrate the pagan Christmas as well. Did I mention the irony that santaNicholas shares almost the same name as Nicolaitan?

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 06:07 PM

Many people take issue with the RCC, and if the problems mentioned are legitimate issues, then the RCC has already been called out for what it is. In places like the U.S., the RCC has a particularly limited amount of influence. I don't get the point in a repetitive rehashing of complaints about the RCC when there are more important things to worry about.

You see, things like idolatry are legitimate concerns. There is often a tendency for us Christians to project things on other groups without first looking at ourselves. We point to groups like the RCC and use them as the poster child for what not to do. But doesn't this miss the point? All of us are capable of idol worship. We don't need a Mary statue to make that happen. If we become obsessed over what the Pope is doing, then perhaps we will fail to see the other 'popes' that are much more subtle and worse.

I agree - btw the RCC is used as a poster child because they are the largest Christian organization and the one from which many of these false doctrines and practices originated.

For example there are baptist churches with a very controlling pastor and these are mini RC churches in a sense, with the Nicolaitan spirit. This is partly due to the clergy-laity church model which they have adopted which encourages this sort of thing. That is, everyone in a congregation dependent upon the individual leader.

aron

09-16-2016, 06:28 PM

For example there are baptist churches with a very controlling pastor and these are also mini RC churches in a sense, with the Nicolaitan spirit.

Ray Graver to Tom Cesar: "We do what we are told!"

Guess who's running the LSM, now?

least

09-16-2016, 06:57 PM

Ray Graver to Tom Cesar: "We do what we are told!"
Guess who's running the LSM, now?

WHO?

I only wanted to post 'WHO?'
This forum functioning would not let. Required 20 words. ... count count count count

aron

09-16-2016, 07:11 PM

I agree - btw the RCC is used as a poster child because they are the largest Christian organization and the one from which many of these false doctrines and practices originated.

For example there are baptist churches with a very controlling pastor and these are also mini RC churches in a sense, with the Nicolaitan spirit.

Follows a letter to Witness Lee, in 1987.

In the Spring of 1986, the office purchased a house near Davison campus, just north of Charlotte. Their fellowship with the brothers was not only withheld, but the brothers were also censured as being unfit for coordination and too slow for cooperation. Roger Fiero was selected by the office to take charge as a full-time worker, a brother of whom everyone in the South was extremely reluctant. I suggested that we should go slow with this brother, but upon hearing this, the office deliberately and hastily purchased the house and installed this brother into position, flagrantly declaring that when the Lord moves, He moves quickly, that time is important and the door is now open to North Carolina, and that we have only a little time to be faithful. They utilized this brother and went on a promotional campaign to push this project by means of video tape.

Later, at an Irving training, the office called on the carpet Brothers who represented the churches in the South. With video cameras trained on them, the office reprimanded them for not financially supporting Roger, berated them for not being one with the ministry, and pressured them for monthly pledges under a cloud of intimidation. In fact, the brothers were asked to write out checks totaling $6,000 right on the spot for his personal debts, and then to pay monthly amounts for his pledged support. But before this time, not once was the opportunity for fellowship given to the brothers, for they were not aware of this matter. Afterwards, when Tom Cesar asked Ray Graver for an explanation for the seriousness of the meeting, Ray sharply answered, "we do what we are told!" This incident is contrary to your fellowship with the churches in that the full-timers should be approved by the churches. (Recently, it was discovered that Roger had received double, overlapping support for a few months after this training from both the office and the churches--what a bungled mess!) Several months later, Roger Fiero was manifested to be the wrong brother, because of such weaknesses as fabricating stories and practicing opportunism. Once Tom Cesar and John Little called the office about problems he was causing; they were accused of an impure heart, being not supportive of the work on Davison campus. Later, Tom was told that the ministry never makes a mistake!

http://www.twoturmoils.com/SettingRecordStraight.pdf

WHO?

If you don't know who Ray Graver is, then you don't know much about the LSM.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 07:26 PM

As usual you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. (So interesting that you have so much in common with the Pharisees.)

Do you really think at this point God hates Easter and Christmas more than he hates his people treating Witness Lee like a demigod? Or the way the LCM uses Lee as the standard to aggrandize itself and divide itself from everyone else?

Let me spell it out for you.

Christmas and Easter = gnats
Witness Lee veneration = camel

What's that big lump going down your throat anyway?

I can easily show you are not being logical or rational in your assessment of what is a gnat and what is a camel.

Consider, the number of people celebrating Christmas and Easter since it was introduced. Let us assume it is the whole of the world's current Christian population - 2.2 billion. This is an underestimate and approximation because
it doesn't consider every year by year since these celebrations were introduced.

The number of people treating Lee as a demi god - assume, hypothetically, it is every local church member.. approximately 1 million people. A million is probably an over estimate, actually I have no idea how many Witness Lee followers there are.

Now, let's do the maths, size of demi god worshippers compared to size of paganizers. 1 million divided by 2200 million, is about 0.0454%.

So, only 0.0454% of people treat Lee as a demi god.
99.954% of people celebrating Christmas and Easter.

I think it is clear what is the real gnat and what is the real camel.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 07:42 PM

Your claim that I or local churches believe that there are no unsaved people in denominations is a misrepresentation of what we believe. We believe they are true believers but they are in the wrong place, they are in the "house of the prostitute". Madame Guyon and other Catholics, were highly respected in the recovery, as being full of Christ, yet she was in the Roman Catholic church. Her position in Christ was right, her position in the church was wrong.

Your other claim that we do not fellowship with those of other denominations is equally wrong. We will and do fellowship with those in denominations, we just will not meet in their houses of prostitution. I have been in many meetings with people of various denominations. We pray, read the bible, have a meal, as it should be. Yet you think it is wrong for us to not attend a Catholic mass? Do you expect us to hold the Lord's table meting in front of the statue of Mary? I have been unfair to use Catholics as an example. So I will use the mega churches... should we hold the Lord's table meeting at the same time the rock concert is going on? How can we see the bread and wine for all the smoke-machine generated fog flashing lights and darkness? Then should we hold the prophesying meeting at the end after they have passed the bucket around for "miracle donations"? This is the denominational concept of "fellowship" - to attend a specially arranged service and have some kind of program. Of course we cannot fellowship in that environment.

When the New Testament was written, churches were one church per city. There were sects and parties forming within those one churches, hence Paul's instructions to the church against divisions, within a single city. We should read those verses against divisions with Paul's mindset, as one who was trying to preserve the whole city unity, before it fractured into various denominations.

Now, if we read the Bible with a modern mindset, we might consider division to be those who do not accept and play nicely with denominations. That is what you are saying. That is backwards looking, that is not the truth. Denominations are the divisions, to leave denominations is to leave divisions. To accept denominations is to accept divisions.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 07:52 PM

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 07:58 PM

The Holy Spirit did not create the system we now have at LSM and their member churches either.
LC folks always like to compare their best to the worst of Christianity. I watched Lee constantly do this for years. You have the same dirty laundry as the rest of Christianity, only some of the stains are different.

That's the difference between a real city or locality ground church with problems and a paganizing false church (denomination) pretending to be the real church. That is, we all have our stains, but that doesn't mean we live in the "house of the prostitute". And if people stay in that house too long, before long they will be lining up to get a mark on their forehead. Now, some attempts have been made to equate the real church with a house of the prostitute, but until there is a systematized child abuse, REAL idol worship (not some concocted fairytale about Lee worship), prayers to dead saints and angels, and acceptance of pagan celebrations or other practices can we start to see the commonalities.

Cal

09-16-2016, 09:08 PM

Your other claim that we do not fellowship with those of other denominations is equally wrong. We will and do fellowship with those in denominations, we just will not meet in their houses of prostitution. I have been in many meetings with people of various denominations. We pray, read the bible, have a meal, as it should be. Yet you think it is wrong for us to not attend a Catholic mass? Do you expect us to hold the Lord's table meting in front of the statue of Mary? I have been unfair to use Catholics as an example. So I will use the mega churches... should we hold the Lord's table meeting at the same time the rock concert is going on? How can we see the bread and wine for all the smoke-machine generated fog flashing lights and darkness?

Evangelical,

While I understand your misgivings about idols of Mary, I ask you: Do you really think Jesus would have had a problem meeting with people who had such idols if he thought by doing so he could lead them to something better?

The point is not whether idols of Mary are bad. They most definitely are. The point is rather what are you really accomplishing by not meeting with people where they are if you can help them by doing so? Just because an idol is there and you meet there does not mean you give approval to the idol. It means you care enough about the people there to reach out to them and meet with them. Meeting in a place with an idol is no different that going into the house of someone who takes drugs to try to reach him with the truth. Jesus said go and disciple the nations. He did not say stay in your clean house and don't get dirty. The world is a dirty place, both for unbelievers and some Christians. But we are charged to reach out, connect and minister. How sad that you think Jesus is so fastidious that he cannot tolerate a little dirt around him.

There is a difference between holiness and fastidiousness. I do not see what your fastidiousness accomplishes, and I don't think the Lord himself is impressed with it much, because however much you think you are being holy, I think it's just a cover for not having to care and remaining in the comfort of your superiority and judgmentalism.

Again, you come across to me as a religious Pharisee, not at all like Jesus who ate and drank and was friends with sinners. You spirit is all wrong. It's very sad because I believe you love the Lord, the problem is you don't know what he is really like or wants.

And, frankly, what is wrong with rock music and smoke machines, really? Get over it and get involved. Rock on.

Evangelical

09-16-2016, 09:44 PM

Evangelical,

While I understand your misgivings about idols of Mary, I ask you: Do you really think Jesus would have had a problem meeting with people who had such idols if he thought by doing so he could lead them to something better?

The point is not whether idols of Mary are bad. They most definitely are. The point is rather what are you really accomplishing by not meeting with people where they are if you can help them by doing so? Just because an idol is there and you meet there does not mean you give approval to the idol. It means you care enough about the people there to reach out to them and meet with them. Meeting in a place with an idol is no different that going into the house of someone who takes drugs to try to reach him with the truth. Jesus said go and disciple the nations. He did not say stay in your clean house and don't get dirty. The world is a dirty place, both for unbelievers and some Christians. But we are charged to reach out, connect and minister. How sad that you think Jesus is so fastidious that he cannot tolerate a little dirt around him.

There is a difference between holiness and fastidiousness. I do not see what your fastidiousness accomplishes, and I don't think the Lord himself is impressed with it much, because however much you think you are being holy, I think it's just a cover for not having to care and remaining in the comfort of your superiority and judgmentalism.

Again, you come across to me as a religious Pharisee, not at all like Jesus who ate and drank and was friends with sinners. You spirit is all wrong. It's very sad because I believe you love the Lord, the problem is you don't know what he is really like or wants.

And, frankly, what is wrong with rock music and smoke machines, really? Get over it and get involved. Rock on.

I am not talking about simply meeting in a place with an idol, we know an idol is nothing, but a "service" which is a ritual with prayers to Mary. We should not participate in that.

Anyone who knows God and the bible knows that God wants separation not mixture (2 CORINTHIANS 6:17).

This is a satirical article about smoke machines:
http://babylonbee.com/news/holy-spirit-unable-move-congregation-fog-machine-breaks/

But it is true, if the smoke machine broke many in these churches could not have a "spiritual" experience. The Holy Spirit is someone who "comes down" in that place only when there is the atmosphere, music, lights and smoke.

By your use of the term "rock on" you have just exposed yourself as someone influenced by that spirit. Would you like to do a rock hand gesture as well?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_horns

R.J. Dio – "I doubt very much if I would be the first one who ever did that. That's like saying I invented the wheel, I'm sure someone did that at some other point. I think you'd have to say that I made it fashionable. I used it so much and all the time and it had become my trademark until the Britney Spears audience decided to do it as well. So it kind of lost its meaning with that. But it was.... I was in Sabbath at the time. It was a symbol that I thought was reflective of what that band was supposed to be all about. It's NOT the devil's sign like we're here with the devil. It's an Italian thing I got from my Grandmother called the "Malocchio". It's to ward off the Evil Eye or to give the Evil Eye, depending on which way you do it. It's just a symbol but it had magical incantations and attitudes to it and I felt it worked very well with Sabbath. So I became very noted for it and then everybody else started to pick up on it and away it went. But I would never say I take credit for being the first to do it. I say because I did it so much that it became the symbol of rock and roll of some kind.

The rock and smoke machine churches are really places of "magical incantations". Prayers for blessings, prosperity, miracles, there are all incantations of magic. They resemble more of a magicians stage show than a true biblical assembly.

Here is one example of saying magical incantations over the people for healings, blessings and miracles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4As7qxqZjak

Here they are again laughing about kicking an old lady in the face, because they are too "drunk in the spirit" to not laugh at anything he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9zIj4IMzwc

The so called "atmosphere" is the emotional trick to dupe people into thinking they are having a spiritual experience, and then to extort money from them with promise of financial miracle or blessing. Take away the music and atmosphere and they've got nothing, they can't have a "church service", people wouldn't come, because it is too "boring".

Ohio

09-17-2016, 04:22 AM

That's the difference between a real city or locality ground church with problems and a paganizing false church (denomination) pretending to be the real church. That is, we all have our stains, but that doesn't mean we live in the "house of the prostitute". And if people stay in that house too long, before long they will be lining up to get a mark on their forehead. Now, some attempts have been made to equate the real church with a house of the prostitute, but until there is a systematized child abuse, REAL idol worship (not some concocted fairytale about Lee worship), prayers to dead saints and angels, and acceptance of pagan celebrations or other practices can we start to see the commonalities.

In all my life I rarely have met such a dogmatic extremist.

To you, every single gathering of Christians, other than those sanctioned by LSM, are houses of prostitutes.

Only you are the "real church."

Can you hear yourself?

Cal

09-17-2016, 05:58 AM

Anyone who knows God and the bible knows that God wants separation not mixture (2 CORINTHIANS 6:17).

Anyone who knows the Bible knows God wants perfection, too. So should I stop talking to you because you are manifestly imperfect?

The fact the there are extremes of error in some churches does not explain why the LCM is failing to reach out an find common ground with more mainstream churches. I can tell you've never visited a community church. While denominations have been declining, the community churches have been booming. That's where you should focus your attention because that's where God has been working. I don't want to hear any more about "the denominations." The fact that you still harp on them shows you are getting your cues from Witness Lee circa 1965. It's time to upgrade your knowledge and perspective.

God is working toward oneness and generality, but he's not doing according to the LCM blueprint. He's doing it in the community churches. While you guys are talking about it and judging everyone else, God is actually doing something.

Again, you seem like a fastidious Pharisee to me. I don't see much in common with your attitude and that of Jesus I see in the Bible. Being judgmental and holier-than-thou is easy, and there are no rewards for it, despite what you seem to think. Otherwise, Jesus would have praised the Pharisees.

Cal

09-17-2016, 06:19 AM

What were the characteristics of the Pharisees.

They were very legal and thought they were doing everything right.

They set themselves up as the judges and final arbiters of what was of God.

They rejected any seeming manifestation of God if it in any way contradicted their understanding of the Bible.

They were intolerant, self-righteous and holier-than-thou.

They totally missed the point of what God really wanted from people.

They did not recognize God when he came as Jesus.

I'm sorry, Evangelical. But to me this describes you. You have your set of rules, you are convinced you are right and you are using them to say how you are good and holy and others aren't and why you are justified in staying clear from them. You cannot recognize the many amazing things that God has been doing in the community churches and in the lives of people through those churches because they do not line up with your "rules." You do not recognize Jesus in the community churches.

Christ has "come again," so to speak, in the community churches. He is doing amazing things. But like the jealous Pharisees of old, LCMers like Evangelical are missing him. Oh sure, they can find some detail to supposedly "invalidate" a church or Christian group, just like the Pharisees did with Jesus. "He can't be of God, he healed on the Sabbath." "They can't be of God, they have rock music." Whether the meeting with the rock music had salvations and baptisms, too, is irrelevant to Pharisees. In the end they are exposed. They don't care about God, they care about their rules.

So stay away from "mixture" if it makes you feel special. What you can't explain is if Jesus is there--and he is--why you can't be also.

A seminal moment came for me years ago. I went to my mom's Catholic service. It wasn't a Catholic church with statues. It was a modern, clean and bright one. Even so I expected it to be dead, like the old cathedral I grew up on. Imagine my shock when I sensed the Lord's presence strongly in that meeting. He was there, there was no mistaking it. Jesus himself was there with those Catholics in their service. Make no mistake, I'm not talking about him being there in his omniscience. He was there in his tangible, living presence. He was meeting with those Catholics because they were meeting in his name.

So who was I to argue with that? Who was I to say that I shouldn't be there if Jesus was? To argue that would mean I could only be one thing. A Pharisee.

Drake

09-17-2016, 08:25 AM

While denominations have been declining, the community churches have been booming. That's where you should focus your attention because that's where God has been working.

God is working toward oneness and generality, but he's not doing according to the LCM blueprint. He's doing it in the community churches. While you guys are talking about it and judging everyone else, God is actually doing something.

On what scriptural basis should everyone focus their attention on community churches? What is the scriptural blueprint to use your terms?

What is God actually doing in community churches? What is His work in community churches? Please describe it.

What evidence do you have that community churches are booming? Why is booming a relevant criteria for defining what God is doing?

UntoHim

09-17-2016, 08:47 AM

Sorry my fine feathered friend, but the onus is on you and the sect of the Local Church. It is they who claim to be God's one move on earth. It is they who claim to be the only legitimate church meeting on the only legitimate ground. It is they who claim that their guru/founder/apostle, Witness Lee, to be the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age. It is they who teach that one has to be a member of their little sect to go through the process of sanctification, and if you leave their religious organization you will never become a great spiritual person.

Point us to a community church that claims for themselves any of these things, and then maybe you'll have an argument. Until then, you're just laying some rotten eggs.

-

Cal

09-17-2016, 09:32 AM

On what scriptural basis should everyone focus their attention on community churches? What is the scriptural blueprint to use your terms?

What is God actually doing in community churches? What is His work in community churches? Please describe it.

What evidence do you have that community churches are booming? Why is booming a relevant criteria for defining what God is doing?

http://i64.tinypic.com/hspefm.jpg

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/june/rapid-rise-of-non-denominational-christianity-my-most-recen.html
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/june/rapid-rise-of-non-denominational-christianity-my-most-recen.html)
You should focus your attention on nondenominational community churches because that's where the growth is, that's where people are getting saved and baptized and that's where the people who are getting saved and baptized are going to meet.

The fact that you seem clueless about this phenomenon, and the way you continue to harp on "the denominations" as if they are the trend shows how out of touch you are.

Scriptural basis? Christians are to meet together in churches. There is no mandate for localism in the NT. House churches are fine, community churches are fine as well. Experiential evidence: Christians are getting saved. baptized, are being taught the truth and are growing in these churches. The church is being built there. I see it all the time. Trying to ignore these facts is, again, the stuff of Pharisees.

What is the evidence the LCM is important? That is has the "right" doctrines? Says who? The LCM is in decline, it has no gospel impact, it has experienced fracture after fracture, it is increasingly self-absorbed and out of touch with what God is doing outside of its walls. Yet its ever-shrinking number of true believers continue to hold whomever they can there by fear, lest their numbers shrink to zero. Which they would if the unrighteous threats of judgment for leaving were removed.

You can can plug your ears and cover your eyes all you want. The facts speak against you, and they are speaking louder and louder every day.

As UntoHim said, unless your goal is simply to preen in your claims of specialness, the onus is on you to convince others that you are "God's unique move." It certainly is not a given nor the baseline of any public discussion. If you don't care to convince anyone of that, but simply need to claim it as if it is beyond question, then you are not really interested in outreach, but simply in preening, self-satisfaction and the condemnation of others.

Groups down through church history have made such claims. They all came to nothing. The odds that your fate will be any different are extremely slim. Meanwhile, God is working outside your walls and you don't seem much interested. In fact you seem resentful of it. Again, that's a characteristic of ... a Pharisee.

Drake

09-17-2016, 09:34 AM

Sorry my fine feathered friend, but the onus is on you and the sect of the Local Church.

I will be happy to contrast the beliefs and practices of the local churches with Igzy's Community Churches once I understand what Igzy means by "Community Church". Because based on his description I doubt he is referring to the traditional definition of a community church.

Cal

09-17-2016, 09:52 AM

I will be happy to contrast the beliefs and practices of the local churches with Igzy's Community Churches once I understand what Igzy means by "Community Church". Because based on his description I doubt he is referring to the traditional definition of a community church.

Drake, I don't mean to be rude. But the fact that you don't know what a community church is shows again how out of touch you are.

I'm sure you can "contrast" things. But really all that will be is you claiming you are right and better than everyone else, while ignoring what God has been doing in tens of thousands of churches all over the world.

Until you get out of your sealed house and go about and honestly see what is going on you are really not qualified to have this discussion. I'm not interested in discussing things with someone who embraces ignorance. Life is too short.

We love having discussions with LCMers here. But I personally do not love having discussions with people who don't know what they are talking about and don't care to know.

Drake

09-17-2016, 10:22 AM

Cal

09-17-2016, 02:58 PM

Igzy, that chart is an indictment against denominations not the local churches. If anything, this demonstrates that christians are seeking something other than what denominations are providing. Or to be more precise to the article, more evangelicals are identifying as nondenominational because the thing that dIvides them from other denominations is not resonating as it once did.

I'd agree more or less with that. Christians want the simple gospel. They don't want proprietary, superfluous doctrines (including those of the LCM). Evangelical community churches are providing them with a place where they can just be Christians, and focus on Jesus and the basics of the truth.

That is a case for the local churches or perhaps community churches depending which community church you mean because they are not all the same.

No, they are not all the same. But there is a "flow" now in them and they take cues from one another. Though there are some differences between them superficially by and large many are following the same template. Basically it's about getting back to what's essential, not majoring on the minors, and loving God and people. And, sorry, the LCM is too proprietary, too narrow, too much for Lee and Nee to qualify. Whether you like it or not the LCM is neither general nor really open. It's quite strictured, though it likes to pretend it isn't.

Community churches don't have much trouble having fellowship and cooperating with each other because their emphasis is on the basics and the essentials. You won't find much "deep theology" there. What you will find is a practical, applicable theology that keeps the focus on proper living and mission. The LCM left that for the heady world of "high peak" gibberish a long time ago.

Therefore, you have not made the case for the "Community Church" that which you stated is the happening place for God's work and doings nowadays and the place we should all focus our efforts on. For that matter, you have yet to define what you mean by "Community Church" Do you mean the community churches that are also referred to as the "Emerging Church"?

Well, I think if any movement has the kind of increase the nondenominational community churches have had in the last 20 years we do well to take it seriously and try to understand why. Yes, people are looking for many of the things the LCM once offered: simplicity, generality, an experiential God, unity, love and purpose. The LCM, however, decided long ago to go proprietary with Witness Lee, which essentially made it a denomination--and it became so removed, quirky and contradictory that most people will pass on it. You can count on that. Basically the LCM blew it. I believe God really wanted to use it to help accomplish what he is now working out in the community churches. The LCM has the idea that God can't get along without it. That's a joke. But I guess some have to learn the hard way.

As for the Emerging Church, it's basically a kind of liberal, neo-Catholicism. Very experimental and though I cannot write it off, not for me.

I really think God's move today is with the community churches. That's where the growth is. That's where the Spirit is. That's where the salvations and baptisms are. That's where the seekers are going. Will it be that way in the future? No guarantee of that. None of us have a monopoly on God, though the LCM likes to think it does.

aron

09-17-2016, 05:53 PM

I can show you from the Bible it is not "tough to tell" at all. It is perhaps tough to admit, given the "peer pressure" in this age to conform to societies expectations at the risk of being labelled a sexist or otherwise.

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

is it societal or cultural? Easy to tell

1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Paul believed a woman should not teach because she was made after Adam.

There's nothing cultural about that, it's according to God's creation order.

If it's so easy to tell, then why did Watchman Nee fail so badly, overturning God's creation order and leaning heavily on the efforts and teachings of ME Barber, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Miss Fishbacher & Miss Groves? And if you define narrowly "teach" as to "define doctrine" then why did Nee learn about the three parts of man from Mary McDonough? And I didn't even get to Jesse Penn-Lewis or Madame Guyon!

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

For that matter, one of your so-called apostles of the age apparently sourced his secret rapture idea from a woman.

By their own measure, these movements are illegitimate abominations.

.................................................. ........
The Secret Rapture

It may come as a surprise but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 C.E. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned it before 1830 (though a sentence in Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. could be so interpreted). Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it ceased being taught for some unknown reason at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century.

The lateness of the doctrine does not necessarily mean the teaching is wrong (only the plain statements of the Bible can reveal that). It does show that thousands of eminent scholars over seventeen centuries (including the most astute “Christian Fathers” and those of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods) must be considered prophetic dunces for not having understood so fundamental a teaching. This lapse of seventeen centuries when no one elaborated on the doctrine must be viewed as an obstacle to accepting its reliability.

The Beginnings of the Doctrine

The result of a careful investigation into the origin of the Rapture was published in 1976. This was in an excellent research book that deserves to be read by all people interested in the subject. Its title: The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin by Dave MacPherson. 3 He catalogs a great deal of historical material that answers the doctrine’s mysterious derivation. I wish to review the results of his research.

In the middle 1820’s a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London, England which proved to be the catalyst from which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced. This was no new thing, but what was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters 12–14 just before Christ’s Second Advent. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of prophetic utterances motivated by the spirit.

Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the “gifts.” Once this happened, opposition from the organized churches set in. It resulted in Irving’s dismissal from the Presbyterian Church in 1832. His group established themselves as the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued the teachings of Irving. These events were the beginnings of what some call present day Pentecostalism. Some church historians referred to Irving as “the father of modern Pentecostalism.”

What does this have to do with the origin of the Rapture doctrine? Look at what happened in the year 1830 — two years before Irving’s dismissal from the Presbyterian Church. In that year a revival of the “gifts” began to be manifested among some people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speak*ing in “tongues” and other charismatic phenomena. Irving preached that these things must occur and now they were.

On one particular evening, the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret Macdonald while she was ill at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under the “power” of the spirit) for several successive hours she experienced manifestations of “mingled prophecy and vision.” She found her mind in an altered state and began to experience considerable visionary activity.

The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His Second Advent, and not a single occasion as most all people formerly believed. The spirit emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to those who look for Him and again later in a final stage when every eye would see Him. This visionary experience of Miss Macdonald represented the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson reveals.

The Influence of John Darby

Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world which has perpetuated down to the present day. All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. These early men helped pave the way particularly for the renewal of modern lexical studies in the biblical languages.

This renewal of language studies was not the only thing they produced. The doctrine of “dispensationalism” was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world. And then, there was this new doctrine termed the “Rapture.” While many Christians long thought the Rapture doctrine originated with John Darby, it is now known that this was not true. Darby did popularize it. Scofield and others took it over. But Darby provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable. Many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity today are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. His source was Margaret Macdonald.

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm

aron

09-17-2016, 06:11 PM

Doesn't matter whether it's a house church or a baptist or a catholic, it's the same Nicolaitan spirit, and I can almost guarantee they all celebrate the pagan Christmas as well. Did I mention the irony that santaNicholas shares almost the same name as Nicolaitan?

Then it doesn't matter if it's the Lord's recovery church either, the same controlling, needy, manipulative spirit is seen. Dominating the flock. The leech has two daughters: "Give, give!" Never satisfied.

Witness Lee to Judge Leon Seyranian: "Here we don't control anyone. Here we are so free."

Ray Graver to Tom Cesar: "Here we do what we are told!"

So who was providing the window dressing, and who was telling it like it is? And why the acuity to see the spirit manifested elsewhere, but the blindness to its operation under your very nose?

ZNPaaneah

09-17-2016, 07:15 PM

Evangelical

09-17-2016, 09:28 PM

I'm sorry, Evangelical. But to me this describes you. You have your set of rules, you are convinced you are right and you are using them to say how you are good and holy and others aren't and why you are justified in staying clear from them. You cannot recognize the many amazing things that God has been doing in the community churches and in the lives of people through those churches because they do not line up with your "rules." You do not recognize Jesus in the community churches...

Here is a video of people experiencing "God's presence", yep they call it "Jesus" too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA9lQCnmZ2A

You are relying too much on your feelings and experiences to define truth and what is a church and what is not, and that will inevitably lead you into error. Even the bible says Satan can enter God's presence (Job), so what? It is possible for demons to give god-like experiences too. Anyone who goes to any religion feels something and calls that "God". These feelings reinforce their belief and commitment to that religion. Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and New Agers can all have tears running down their face as they experience the presence of God. They all feel what they believe is "gods presence". Even people at homosexual weddings can "feel God's love and approval". I could post countless youtube videos of people having "religious experiences". But if they don't line up with biblical truth they are not the truth.

Evangelical

09-17-2016, 09:44 PM

Really, "Paul believed a woman should not teach"? Then why does he charge the aged women to teach in Titus 2:4?

You are really scary the way you handle the bible, as though it were a meat cleaver.

1Tim 2 is not about church meetings, it is about dealing with Kings and those in authority. He isn't talking about teaching sisters, or younger saints, he is talking about speaking on behalf of the church to government authorities.

2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

so then in verse 12

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The context is no different than today where a company will forbid employees from talking to the press, only the person highered for public relations gets to speak to the press on behalf of the company. It is the same with the church, there should be two or three "elders" who speak on behalf of the church to the press and to government officials. Think how much damage has been done to the testimony of Jesus by people, like yourself, proclaiming loudly that Paul "believes a woman should not teach".

I believe the context I am speaking of is women teaching men. That verse you posted is women teaching younger women, and that's fine. Anyhow the context is authority, a woman can prophesy which is a kind of teaching, but leadership should be male only. It is noteworthy that all of the closest disciples Jesus chose were men.

Your view that preaching Paul "believes a woman should not teach" causes damage to the testimony of Jesus is as ludicrous as saying that gay marriage is wrong is damaging the testimony of Jesus. And some people believe that because they have become corrupted in their minds and Satan has clouded their better judgement.

Consider that women could not become church leaders for years until around the 1980's/ 1990s (depending on the church/denomination) when it was gradually being adopted. The major denominations like Orthodox and Catholic still hold to this principle. It's not damaging anyone and doesn't hurt anyone, except maybe the pride of the feminists and liberals who think the church should conform to the world.

Evangelical

09-17-2016, 09:55 PM

In all my life I rarely have met such a dogmatic extremist.

To you, every single gathering of Christians, other than those sanctioned by LSM, are houses of prostitutes.

Only you are the "real church."

Can you hear yourself?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that, "systematized child abuse, REAL idol worship (not some concocted fairytale about Lee worship), prayers to dead saints and angels, and acceptance of pagan celebrations " constituted a real church.

Perhaps you struggle with absolutes. There is a pervading relativistic culture in Christianity that says we cannot say this is right and this is wrong, or this is a real church and this is a false church.

Ohio

09-18-2016, 01:39 AM

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that, "systematized child abuse, REAL idol worship (not some concocted fairytale about Lee worship), prayers to dead saints and angels, and acceptance of pagan celebrations " constituted a real church.

Perhaps you struggle with absolutes. There is a pervading relativistic culture in Christianity that says we cannot say this is right and this is wrong, or this is a real church and this is a false church.

This is a little disingenuous.

I pointed out your extremism concerning ALL churches of Christianity as "houses of prostitutes," and you point out the egregious sins in the Catholic church, and permissive cultures of others.

These gross characterizations, using the sins of few to condemn the whole, is bigotry. You apparently cannot understand this concept.

Ohio

09-18-2016, 01:48 AM

Igzy, that chart is an indictment against denominations not the local churches. If anything, this demonstrates that christians are seeking something other than what denominations are providing.

Are you aware of the shrinking size of the Recovery. By excommunicating Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lon, by demanding that only LSM can publish only what the Blendeds speak or write, you have lost upwards of 10K saints. No matter how the Blendeds spun this, facts are facts. The Recovery has a continuously shrinking enrollment accented by 10 year purges.

Quite an indictment.

ZNPaaneah

09-18-2016, 06:01 AM

I believe the context I am speaking of is women teaching men. That verse you posted is women teaching younger women, and that's fine. Anyhow the context is authority, a woman can prophesy which is a kind of teaching, but leadership should be male only. It is noteworthy that all of the closest disciples Jesus chose were men.

Once again your cavalier attitude towards what you proclaim as true is outrageous. You did not give any context to your speaking, you merely proclaimed as true that "women should not teach".

Now you try to weasel out and say the context is that "women should not teach men". This also is never provided as a NT command. The context, that you are so clearly missing, is that during the NT women were in leadership roles, they were having a big part in the ministry, and this in a culture where this was revolutionary, and in a time when only men were educated.

The reason for 1Tim 2 is because of the danger to the church and the ministry based on the perception given to the unbelievers and government authorities.

1. "all in Asia have forsaken me" -- why do you think that was?

2. Look at the frequent stoning, imprisonments, riots caused by those who worshipped Diana.

The church was being persecuted by Jews, Pagans and the Roman Government. It is quite reasonable that Paul would not want the church or the ministry being misrepresented.

Yet you ignore what he clearly proclaimed, which is that in the church there is no male or female.

You condemned James for writing to the "twelve tribes in the dispersion" because in the church there is no Jew or Gentile. You said he was making a distinction that he wasn't supposed to make.

Yet you are making clearly making a distinction between male and female that Paul said you are not to make.

You have also muddled church leadership with teaching. These are two separate things which Paul makes clear when he says that an elder that teaches well should be given double honor.

You don't cut the word straight, you hack it up with a butter knife.

ZNPaaneah

09-18-2016, 06:09 AM

Are you aware of the shrinking size of the Recovery. By excommunicating Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lon, by demanding that only LSM can publish only what the Blendeds speak or write, you have lost upwards of 10K saints. No matter how the Blendeds spun this, facts are facts. The Recovery has a continuously shrinking enrollment accented by 10 year purges.

Quite an indictment.

But I thought this was the year that all 8 billion people on Earth were going to be evangelized for the church? I have Witness Lee's calculations, he published them. You see, if only one third of the saints go door knocking, and the convert at a rate of about 400%, then the church doubles in size every year since 1990.
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/smilies/scratchhead.gif

Ohio

09-18-2016, 07:45 AM

By your use of the term "rock on" you have just exposed yourself as someone influenced by that spirit. Would you like to do a rock hand gesture as well?:

You got all that from Igzy commenting "Rock On" referring to contemporary Christian music? Unbelievable!

Did you know how "worldly" your piano is? Just ask the Church of Christ (if you ask me that's more scriptural than the name you promote.) Exclusive Brethren (God's last so-called "move of the age") call it a "wooden brother." MOTA John Darby condemned all instrumentation as being "sensual" and fleshly. For centuries pianos along with all classical hymn music was condemned as being "too worldly" by the Pharisees of their day. Go read some church history beyond Lee's self-serving misinterpretations.

But Lee liked pianos. So pianos are thus "sanctified" by the MOTA. How convenient. So let's splurge and get a grand piano. A Steinway, of course. How many meals could that piano have bought? Perhaps some dear sister's "alabaster jar" of love went into that monster wooden brother only good for signaling some other poor sister has exceeded her 30 second prophesying allotment of time in the meetings.

Oh the hypocrisy!

Nell

09-18-2016, 09:49 AM

Cal

09-18-2016, 11:07 AM

You are relying too much on your feelings and experiences to define truth and what is a church and what is not, and that will inevitably lead you into error.

Who said anything about "feelings." Where did you get that? The presence of the Lord is manifestly experiential and spiritually tangible. The LCM has no monopoly on the Lord's presence nor on the ability to detect it. He said his sheep hear his voice. I'm one of his sheep. I can detect his voice, and when you speak in extreme judgement of everyone but (surprise!) your group, I don't hear his voice in your speaking.

ZNPaaneah

09-18-2016, 12:57 PM

Truly amazing trying to follow Evangelical's defense of Witness Lee's ministry.

1. Christmas is pagan and idolatrous. That is the origin. We cannot compromise with Christianity on this point. Christianity's tradition on this point doesn't change the pagan history of this practice.

2. That said, with Deification yes we know that it is a pagan practice with a pagan definition, but there is no "true sense" of the word, (not after Witness Lee says that if you understand the word according to its definition it is blasphemy, but we will just redefine this word to mean sanctification instead. This way we can claim to be God while claim that we aren't heretical).

3. Condemns denominations because they "claim to be of Paul or Peter or Apollos".

4. That said, when the 419 elders pledge their loyalty to Witness Lee that "isn't sin, is it"?

5. He says I'm playing semantics with Witness Lee's "deification doctrine".

6. However, he ignores that it was a Witness Lee quote that said a pagan derivation is demonic, evil and idolatrous.

7. He assures us that "Paul believes women should not teach".

8. Yet when I ask him about Paul's charge to the elder women to teach the younger women he says I was supposed to infer his context of "women are not to teach men".

9. Yet this is the same guy who condemns James for writing to Jews because according to Paul in the church "there is no Jew nor Gentile". Didn't Paul also say there "is no male or female"? So if James is supposed to be condemned for writing to Jews shouldn't Evangelical be condemned for making a distinction between male and female?

Let's get real, it is much simpler to interpret Witness Lee as a double minded man.

Christmas had to be condemned to encourage saints to spend 10 days at his training. 10,000 training fees twice a year is a very nice paycheck. Throw in some books that have to be purchased and he can make a living. But, by 1994 he needed something "new", a revelation, so he repackaged his "God man" doctrine into traditional Christian teaching. When it was convenient he condemned all traditional Christian teachings, but now he needs the traditional teachings to validate his idolatry. Before he condemned them for bringing in idolatry, now he uses these same ones to support his bringing in idolatry.

He has to condemn Christianity for "being of Paul, Apollos, Peter" so that he can establish his monopoly in the book room and make merchandise of the saints. On the other hand at the height of the John Ingalls fiasco he needs to seize control of the church and demand a "loyalty pledge".

Sins committed 500 years ago disqualify churches from "the proper ground" yet sins committed by Witness Lee 20 years ago are "ancient history".

Ohio

09-18-2016, 01:58 PM

Christmas had to be condemned to encourage saints to spend 10 days at his training. 10,000 training fees twice a year is a very nice paycheck. Throw in some books that have to be purchased and he can make a living.

But, by 1994 he needed something "new", a revelation, so he repackaged his "God man" doctrine into traditional Christian teaching.

Let's not take your comments here "out of context."

Firstly, WL changed from conferences to paid trainings after the Daystar Disaster went belly up and Stream Publishers went broke. With his new found revenue "stream" under Phillip Lee's careful "guidance," WL could jump start his dying ministry with a new name and a new city and a new headquarters on Ball Road.

WL then launched his "high peaks" teachings in the aftermath of the so-called global rebellion of ambitious "lepers," who actually were godly shepherds like John Ingalls simply protecting God's children from the ravenous Phillip Lee, who loved to prey on the sisters and abuse the brothers.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 12:20 AM

Who said anything about "feelings." Where did you get that? The presence of the Lord is manifestly experiential and spiritually tangible. The LCM has no monopoly on the Lord's presence nor on the ability to detect it. He said his sheep hear his voice. I'm one of his sheep. I can detect his voice, and when you speak in extreme judgement of everyone but (surprise!) your group, I don't hear his voice in your speaking.

Yet again you are appealing to your subjective experience to determine truth.
His presence is not the determining factor of right or wrong. You know he is present everywhere. His presence may manifest when we are doing something wrong as well, it does not indicate his approval.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 12:23 AM

You got all that from Igzy commenting "Rock On" referring to contemporary Christian music? Unbelievable!

Did you know how "worldly" your piano is? Just ask the Church of Christ (if you ask me that's more scriptural than the name you promote.) Exclusive Brethren (God's last so-called "move of the age") call it a "wooden brother." MOTA John Darby condemned all instrumentation as being "sensual" and fleshly. For centuries pianos along with all classical hymn music was condemned as being "too worldly" by the Pharisees of their day. Go read some church history beyond Lee's self-serving misinterpretations.

But Lee liked pianos. So pianos are thus "sanctified" by the MOTA. How convenient. So let's splurge and get a grand piano. A Steinway, of course. How many meals could that piano have bought? Perhaps some dear sister's "alabaster jar" of love went into that monster wooden brother only good for signaling some other poor sister has exceeded her 30 second prophesying allotment of time in the meetings.

Oh the hypocrisy!

Surely you know the difference between a musical instrument which itself is neutral, and an ideology normally associated with sex and drugs.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 12:29 AM

This is a little disingenuous.

I pointed out your extremism concerning ALL churches of Christianity as "houses of prostitutes," and you point out the egregious sins in the Catholic church, and permissive cultures of others.

These gross characterizations, using the sins of few to condemn the whole, is bigotry. You apparently cannot understand this concept.

Really? The funny thing is you are using the "sins of few" Lee/BB etc, to "condemn the whole". You better watch where that crooked finger of yours is pointing.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 12:36 AM

Now you try to weasel out and say the context is that "women should not teach men". This also is never provided as a NT command.

You seem to have found a few liberal theologians to support your view.

In plain black and white:

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Matthew Pool commentary:

But I suffer not a woman to teach; not to teach in the public congregation, except she be a prophetess, endued with extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as Mary, and Anna, and Huldah, and Deborah, and some women in the primitive church, concerning whom we read, 1 Corinthians 11:5, that they prophesied.

Nor to usurp authority over the man: ordinary teaching of the woman was a usurpation of authority over the man, who is the head, which the apostle also forbade in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and here repeateth. It is probable that the speaking of some women in the church who had extraordinary revelations, imboldened others also to aim at the like, which the apostle here directs his speech against. Nevertheless women may, and it is their duty to instruct their children and families at home, especially in the absence of their husbands.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 12:41 AM

ZNP,

Excellent points, ZNP.

Paul also said in 1 Cor. 7:7 "For I would that all men were even as I myself." Was Paul telling men, for all time, that they should not marry? Noooooooo! 1 Cor. 7:28 "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;" Or, did Paul simply give his personal opinion?

Because of the dangerous times you describe in context of Paul's letter to Timothy, would it be a reach to suggest that Paul's remarks about women not teaching was to women...for their own protection during this dangerous time?

We already know Paul's thoughts about marriage; he also advised Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach; and "next time you go to Troas, pick up my coat I left there and bring it with you". So it would seem that Paul's letters to Timothy were...to Timothy. Of course, not all was personal, but the letters obviously contained some personal comments to Timothy...assuming we don't all need to drink wine as a Christian practice for all time, and we all don't need to go to Troas to pick up a coat.

So, to your point, context is important!

Nell

It was said by some that on this forum, the Bible is the authority. Presumably this is because it is God's Word. Now, because you disagree with God's Word, you try to make the case that it was merely Paul's opinion.

Where Paul gives his personal opinion, he does so:
1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):..."

Where he doesn't, we should assume it is God's Word.
Even if it is Paul's opinion, it is still God's Word since he was inspired by God to write his opinion.

And you people claim to use the bible as your authority? That's funny. You try your best to explain away what is clearly written when it suits you.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 03:19 AM

You seem to have found a few liberal theologians to support your view.

In plain black and white:

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Matthew Pool commentary:

But I suffer not a woman to teach; not to teach in the public congregation, except she be a prophetess, endued with extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as Mary, and Anna, and Huldah, and Deborah, and some women in the primitive church, concerning whom we read, 1 Corinthians 11:5, that they prophesied.

Nor to usurp authority over the man: ordinary teaching of the woman was a usurpation of authority over the man, who is the head, which the apostle also forbade in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and here repeateth. It is probable that the speaking of some women in the church who had extraordinary revelations, imboldened others also to aim at the like, which the apostle here directs his speech against. Nevertheless women may, and it is their duty to instruct their children and families at home, especially in the absence of their husbands.

No verse is of its own interpretation. Yes, it is easy to look at this single verse and come to that conclusion.

But, Paul also said "in the church there is neither male nor female" -- you have not responded to this even though you used this very same concept to proclaim that James was wrong for writing to Jewish believers because "he was making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles" and in the church there is no "Jew nor Gentile".

There are other verses which charge older women to teach the younger women. Therefore there is no prohibition about teaching.

Matthew Pool tries to explain that "teaching a man" is equivalent to "usurping authority over a man". That is rarely ever true, though the one example I gave would be. Just like a company appoints a few individuals to have authority to speak on behalf of the organization (to the press, to the government, in response to certain public events) so too the church could. If you took it upon yourself to do this that would be equivalent to "usurping authority".

Then there are other verses that talk about the woman prophesying and praying in the meeting. You try to make a distinction between prophesying and teaching. I don't buy it. In my experience prophesying has much more authority than teaching.

Witness Lee understood that so he interpreted the teaching here as "defining doctrine". I don't buy that, it seems contrived.

The bottom line is that you are pushing an interpretation that is full of problems and does little to explain what is being said. Why, for example did Paul have female coworkers who were mentioned in a way that suggests they were leading coworkers?

Why do the NT teachings and the epistles of Paul support the women's suffrage movement?

You are the one who is forcing the square peg into a round hole.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 03:28 AM

It was said by some that on this forum, the Bible is the authority. Presumably this is because it is God's Word. Now, because you disagree with God's Word, you try to make the case that it was merely Paul's opinion.

Where Paul gives his personal opinion, he does so:
1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):..."

Where he doesn't, we should assume it is God's Word.
Even if it is Paul's opinion, it is still God's Word since he was inspired by God to write his opinion.

And you people claim to use the bible as your authority? That's funny. You try your best to explain away what is clearly written when it suits you.

You are the one who is ignoring God's word. You have not explained how your interpretation does not contradict Paul's word that in the church "there is no male or female", nor have you explained the distinction between "charging the women to teach". He didn't say "they can't teach men, but it would be OK if they teach women". He charged them to teach. Even if they don't want to, they must. You ignore his word that in the meeting when women pray or prophesy they need to have their head covered. Prayer and prophesy can have much more authority than teaching. You haven't explained how Paul could have leading coworkers be women in a culture where that does not happen. You claim that this verse refers to women teaching men in a church meeting, yet the chapter has nothing to do with church meetings, but rather dealing with Kings and Queens that we may live in peace. You didn't explain why "all who are in Asia forsook Paul".

You are the one who ignores the Bible. Instead you support your interpretation about women teachers with Matthew Pool. He is not the Bible.

You support Witness Lee's teaching on deification with Athanasius, he is not the Bible.

In one place Christian tradition is a solid support for a practice that would otherwise be pagan. You have no Bible support, rather the Bible condemns this repeatedly from every single angle, doesn't matter to you, "stone me" was your response.

There is no Bible support for a loyalty pledge. Doesn't matter to you, instead you ask "is it sin"?

The only Bible support for MOTA are OT types of Jesus Christ. Applying them to Watchman Nee is the same as preaching "another Jesus". Doesn't matter to you. Simple matter of ignoring the Bible.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 03:34 AM

Yet again you are appealing to your subjective experience to determine truth.
His presence is not the determining factor of right or wrong. You know he is present everywhere. His presence may manifest when we are doing something wrong as well, it does not indicate his approval.

Fair enough. Answered prayer does indicate his approval. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

So then, show that God approves of LCM through answered prayer.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 04:49 AM

You are the one who is ignoring God's word. You have not explained how your interpretation does not contradict Paul's word that in the church "there is no male or female", nor have you explained the distinction between "charging the women to teach". He didn't say "they can't teach men, but it would be OK if they teach women". He charged them to teach. Even if they don't want to, they must. You ignore his word that in the meeting when women pray or prophesy they need to have their head covered. Prayer and prophesy can have much more authority than teaching. You haven't explained how Paul could have leading coworkers be women in a culture where that does not happen. You claim that this verse refers to women teaching men in a church meeting, yet the chapter has nothing to do with church meetings, but rather dealing with Kings and Queens that we may live in peace. You didn't explain why "all who are in Asia forsook Paul".

You are the one who ignores the Bible. Instead you support your interpretation about women teachers with Matthew Pool. He is not the Bible.

You support Witness Lee's teaching on deification with Athanasius, he is not the Bible.

In one place Christian tradition is a solid support for a practice that would otherwise be pagan. You have no Bible support, rather the Bible condemns this repeatedly from every single angle, doesn't matter to you, "stone me" was your response.

There is no Bible support for a loyalty pledge. Doesn't matter to you, instead you ask "is it sin"?

The only Bible support for MOTA are OT types of Jesus Christ. Applying them to Watchman Nee is the same as preaching "another Jesus". Doesn't matter to you. Simple matter of ignoring the Bible.

I have to laugh at your claim that I "ignore God's Word". I think you mean "ZNPaaneah's Word". Whatever angle or spin you want to put on it, my view is straight from the bible, I gave the verse, read it, apply it like any other verse such as John 3:16, then you would be following God. Reject it, and you aren't following God.

I could post any respected website such as gotquestions that says the same:
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function.

CARM (Christian apologetics and research ministry):
https://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.

If you're in a church where there is a woman pastor, then ask for the biblical reason for her being in that position. of course, to do this is to go against the status quo and you will be met with resistance. Therefore, consider leaving that church. After all, if they can't get this simple truth right, how can you trust them to get other things right?

If you're the husband of a woman pastor, then hold your wife to biblical standards as revealed by Paul the apostle. it does not matter if she likes it or not. The issue is the submission to the word of God.

If you're a husband and wife pastor team, then submit to God's word and do things right. She needs to stop being called pastor. She needs to stop taking the role of the man.

Catholic and Orthodox churches still hold to it today, most Protestant churches used to hold to it until around the 1980's. It was almost universally recognized that women could not be pastors or priests, until fairly recent times. About the same time that homosexual marriage was coming to the fore. Coincidence? I think not. The Jezebel spirit is running rampant and weak Ahab's support it.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 05:01 AM

Fair enough. Answered prayer does indicate his approval. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

So then, show that God approves of LCM through answered prayer.

Nope. Not even answered prayer or God speaking to us shows God's approval. In the Old Testament God reluctantly answered people's requests, but possibly with some consequence or suffering on their part. Numbers 11:30-33 is one example. The only thing, or person, rather, that gains God's approval, is Christ. You see, if we think God approves of us because we sense His presence in the catholic church or even a Buddhist temple, that is because He approves of the Christ in us, nothing more and nothing less.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 05:21 AM

I have to laugh at your claim that I "ignore God's Word". I think you mean "ZNPaaneah's Word". Whatever angle or spin you want to put on it, my view is straight from the bible, I gave the verse, read it, apply it like any other verse such as John 3:16, then you would be following God. Reject it, and you aren't following God.

I could post any respected website such as gotquestions that says the same:
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function.

CARM (Christian apologetics and research ministry):
https://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.

If you're in a church where there is a woman pastor, then ask for the biblical reason for her being in that position. of course, to do this is to go against the status quo and you will be met with resistance. Therefore, consider leaving that church. After all, if they can't get this simple truth right, how can you trust them to get other things right?

If you're the husband of a woman pastor, then hold your wife to biblical standards as revealed by Paul the apostle. it does not matter if she likes it or not. The issue is the submission to the word of God.

If you're a husband and wife pastor team, then submit to God's word and do things right. She needs to stop being called pastor. She needs to stop taking the role of the man.

Catholic and Orthodox churches still hold to it today, most Protestant churches used to hold to it until around the 1980's. It was almost universally recognized that women could not be pastors or priests, until fairly recent times. About the same time that homosexual marriage was coming to the fore. Coincidence? I think not. The Jezebel spirit is running rampant and weak Ahab's support it.

You brought this up before. Leadership, Elders and Teach are not equivalent terms.

Just because someone teaches does not make them a leader. These are two completely separate issues, because you confuse the two you think verses about one support the other. They don't.

The church is a hospital for those who have been broken and hurt by sin. Broken families are a very big result of this. The church needs to be a place where all those who come from broken and dysfunctional backgrounds can get healed, this involves having good examples of fathers and mothers. As a result it is far more important that an elder be the husband of one wife and one who is able to lead his own family well than it is that he can teach.

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Laboring in the word and doctrine is not a requirement for an elder, but being a good example of a husband and father is.

Yes, an elder will have to teach, but elder sisters also have to teach. This is a verb, not a noun.

Elders must be men because they must be husbands and fathers.

Cal

09-19-2016, 05:25 AM

Yet again you are appealing to your subjective experience to determine truth.
His presence is not the determining factor of right or wrong. You know he is present everywhere. His presence may manifest when we are doing something wrong as well, it does not indicate his approval.

I never said his presence was a determiner of right and wrong. I said if Christ is present in a meeting then what is your excuse for not attending? Are you more holy than him?

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 05:27 AM

You brought this up before. Leadership, Elders and Teach are not equivalent terms.

Just because someone teaches does not make them a leader. These are two completely separate issues, because you confuse the two you think verses about one support the other. They don't.

The church is a hospital for those who have been broken and hurt by sin. Broken families are a very big result of this. The church needs to be a place where all those who come from broken and dysfunctional backgrounds can get healed, this involves having good examples of fathers and mothers. As a result it is far more important that an elder be the husband of one wife and one who is able to lead his own family well than it is that he can teach.

Teaching is not a requirement for an elder, but being a good example of a husband and father is.

I thought it was a requirement:

1 Tim 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

The word is "must be... able to teach"

Cal

09-19-2016, 05:28 AM

Surely you know the difference between a musical instrument which itself is neutral, and an ideology normally associated with sex and drugs.

To the pure all things are pure. It's not your place to judge in such a way. There is nothing inherently sinful about rock music, electric guitars or drums anymore than there is something inherently sinful about wine or dancing. You have a persona religious bias, plain and simple, just like the Pharisees did.

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 05:43 AM

To the pure all things are pure. It's not your place to judge in such a way. There is nothing inherently sinful about rock music, electric guitars or drums anymore than there is something inherently sinful about wine or dancing. You have a persona religious bias, plain and simple, just like the Pharisees did.

Did rock music come from God or Satan ?

Evangelical

09-19-2016, 05:47 AM

I never said his presence was a determiner of right and wrong. I said if Christ is present in a meeting then what is your excuse for not attending? Are you more holy than him?

You could ask any Protestant the same thing. If Christ is present in a meeting that is only more reason to do away with the idols and superstitions than to tolerate them. Every Roman Catholic service I've been to has invoked or named Mary or the saints or angels at least once. They might downplay it a bit if it is an ecumenical service. But their devotion to Christ is only equaled or surpassed by their devotion to Mary. What an insult to Christ and to his humble mother.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 05:56 AM

I thought it was a requirement:

1 Tim 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

The word is "must be... able to teach"

Well you responded within 5 minutes of my post, I was still in the process of editing. I have modified it, but will respond here:

1. A leader is a noun, it is a person. Teach is a verb. These are not equivalent. An elder "must be able to teach" which certainly implies they will have to teach at times. Elder sisters are also "charged to teach". As a result the fact that elders must be men is not because they teach. They must be men because they must be good examples of fathers and husbands.

This is crucial because one of the biggest impacts of sin is broken families. A man breaks the law, he goes to prison = broken family.

Fornication results in single mothers = broken family.

Adultery results in divorce = broken family.

Hitler starts a war, this results in many men killed = orphans and widows.

The church must be a place that takes care of widows and orphans. A place where people from dysfunctional backgrounds can be healed. Therefore they need proper examples of fathers and husbands for the entire body to see.

This man must be "above reproach", "husband of one wife", "one who leads his family well". But there is no requirement to be a "gifted teacher" or "talented teacher". Merely "able to teach". This man must be able to stand up in front of the congregation and speak to them, otherwise what is the point. But there is no requirement for elders to be "gifted", "talented" or "charismatic" teachers.

But even more important to our discussion, saying an elder "must be able to teach" is no different than "charge the elder women to teach". These verses you refer to about elders do not support your thesis that men are to be elders because only men teach.

There is another reason that is hinted at in this idea of women "usurping authority from a man". In the church the majority of the members are women, often outnumbering men 2:1 or 3:1. If it were not for these charges by Paul it would be very likely that the church would become completely dominated by women. Already most of the functions are carried out by women, if elders were not required to be fathers and husbands there would be the possibility for a much greater domination by women in the congregation. That in turn would probably turn off many more men so that you would get a negative feedback loop. Many men would chafe under this kind of regime, as a result instead of 3:1 it might be more like 6:1 outnumbering by women. The women in turn would complain that if it were not for them nothing would be done. etc. etc.

Ohio

09-19-2016, 06:28 AM

Did rock music come from God or Satan ?

Lots of rock and roll music came from old African American jazz blues spirituals which originated on the plamtations.

Did Bach and Beethoven classics, used in church music including your Hymnal, come from God or Satan?

Your question is just a game. Electric guitars and drums are neither holy nor evil. If these were available to King David and King Solomon, they would have included them in the temple worship.

Every culture has their own musical instruments. None of them are holy or evil. None is more spiritual than another. The Bible instructs us to do all to the glory of God. That determines everything. An electric guitar used to glorify the Lord is better than a piano or pipe prgan used for other purposes.

Ohio

09-19-2016, 06:42 AM

Really? The funny thing is you are using the "sins of few" Lee/BB etc, to "condemn the whole". You better watch where that crooked finger of yours is pointing.

Absolutely not!

I constantly distinguish between LSM and its leaders and the precious saints in the LC's.

Read my posts.

I am here posting because the unrighteousness of evil leaders in the LC system has hurt many precious children of God.

Ohio

09-19-2016, 06:45 AM

Cal

09-19-2016, 07:12 AM

You could ask any Protestant the same thing. If Christ is present in a meeting that is only more reason to do away with the idols and superstitions than to tolerate them. Every Roman Catholic service I've been to has invoked or named Mary or the saints or angels at least once. They might downplay it a bit if it is an ecumenical service. But their devotion to Christ is only equaled or surpassed by their devotion to Mary. What an insult to Christ and to his humble mother.

The question was not whether they should get rid of anything or not. The question was that if Christ is meeting with them there why won't you. You said you would not meet them in their place. My question is, if He meets with them there, and he does, why won't you? Again, are you holier than him?

Cal

09-19-2016, 07:21 AM

Did rock music come from God or Satan ?

God, of course. God created music. Satan can't create anything. He can only corrupt what God creates.There is nothing inherently bad about fast, energetic music with a back beat. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dramatic performance in a play, TV or a movie, either. It depends on what values are being presented with the form.

Rock music like anything else can be corrupted. I mean, you are a perfect example. Theology is of God and look how you've corrupted it. You've turned it into a weapon.

To borrow from the other thread, do smartphones and computers come from God or Satan? Look how they can distract people. Look at the evil that can be transmitted by them. Surely Satan made them!! Omigosh!

Heck, you might as well ask if sex came from God or Satan. God made sex. Satan corrupted it. That's the sequence. Does that mean we should act as if sex is of the Devil? It's like you are some 19th century puritan. Like in that movie, the religious guy who cut off his wife's hand with an ax because she played the evil piano.

To the pure all things are pure. I've noticed the LCMers like to focus on the Song of Songs as an allegory, because they are uncomfortable with the sex. They don't like to talk about what the book is plainly about. It's about sex. It's a sex book. Deal with it.

Cal

09-19-2016, 08:11 AM

Nope. Not even answered prayer or God speaking to us shows God's approval. In the Old Testament God reluctantly answered people's requests, but possibly with some consequence or suffering on their part. Numbers 11:30-33 is one example. The only thing, or person, rather, that gains God's approval, is Christ. You see, if we think God approves of us because we sense His presence in the catholic church or even a Buddhist temple, that is because He approves of the Christ in us, nothing more and nothing less.

Okay, now I'm confused. If God only approves of Christ then that means he doesn't approve of anything else. So it means he doesn't approve of guitars or pianos, or pizza or pot luck dinners, or blue jeans or even white shirts and gray ties. So that either says we can doing anything so long as we have Christ or we can do nothing even if we have Christ.

So this undermines your argument. Because we must be able to do some things. So if we can do some things then that means there must be some things God approves of other than Christ.

By the way, a lot of pizza is consumed at parties where alcohol and maybe even drugs are. Does that make pizza bad? Just wonderin'. If spiced drinks are bad then spicy pepperoni must be awful.

I would argue that to the pure pepperoni is pure.

ZNPaaneah

09-19-2016, 08:54 AM

The Bible also teaches that men should not usurp authority over other men or women.

Interesting how he latches onto the "women" part of the verse and skips over the "usurp authority" part.

If an elder must be a man, since he must be a father and a husband, then it stands to reason that those who have the authority to speak to the government and press concerning the church must be men.

It has nothing to do with women not teaching, but rather with women not having the authority to speak to the press.

micah6v8

09-19-2016, 09:16 AM

Cal

09-23-2016, 01:03 PM

This is a rock song. But it's probably one of the deepest and most spiritually perceptive songs ever written. It's about a couple, or family members, or friends, but probably a couple, who have had one of those fights that go on into the night and whose relationship is breaking down. The singer is appealing to the oneness they share and what that means, and why their relationship must go on no matter what.

There is no doubt in my mind that God had a hand in writing this song. Bono, the U2 singer, is a true Christian. That might be hard for some religionists to swallow, but his faith is genuine and passionate.

I've been listening and praying with this song for awhile, and I believe it is helping save my marriage. People who think all rock music is inherently bad... I just feel sorry for them... :sad:

U2 - One (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxIP76E0zbeabUtDTDVxenRhd0k)

The devil wants to divide us, and division is matter of the heart, not of what you call your church or its "ground."

Do you have someone to blame? Are you blaming someone?

One.

For he himself is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition. Eph 2:14

OBW

09-23-2016, 04:17 PM

For he himself is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition. Eph 2:14He made both one.

Not creed.

Not doctrine.

Not Bible translation.

Not political boundaries or ground.

Not worship style.

Neither old hymns nor contemporary worship songs.

Neither well-established liturgy nor "go with the flow" extemporaneous singing/speaking/praying.

He did it.

Cal

09-23-2016, 05:23 PM

He made both one.

He did it.

In his very self. He HIMSELF is our peace.

Evangelical

09-24-2016, 02:10 AM

God, of course. God created music. Satan can't create anything. He can only corrupt what God creates.There is nothing inherently bad about fast, energetic music with a back beat. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dramatic performance in a play, TV or a movie, either. It depends on what values are being presented with the form.

Rock music like anything else can be corrupted. I mean, you are a perfect example. Theology is of God and look how you've corrupted it. You've turned it into a weapon.

To borrow from the other thread, do smartphones and computers come from God or Satan? Look how they can distract people. Look at the evil that can be transmitted by them. Surely Satan made them!! Omigosh!

Heck, you might as well ask if sex came from God or Satan. God made sex. Satan corrupted it. That's the sequence. Does that mean we should act as if sex is of the Devil? It's like you are some 19th century puritan. Like in that movie, the religious guy who cut off his wife's hand with an ax because she played the evil piano.

To the pure all things are pure. I've noticed the LCMers like to focus on the Song of Songs as an allegory, because they are uncomfortable with the sex. They don't like to talk about what the book is plainly about. It's about sex. It's a sex book. Deal with it.

Nope. God created music, Satan created rock which is corrupted music.

Everyone knows that "Rock and rolling" originally was a term frequently used in predominantly black neighborhoods to mean "having sexual intercourse".

@Song of Songs being a sex book - lol people with dirty minds read the Bible like a sex book. Jewish tradition reads it as an allegory of the relationship between God and Israel. Shows you know nothing about it if you just read it as a "sex book", shows the true state of your spirituality.