Originally Posted by Ohio

I have sent my personal condolences to the former First Lady who, like me, has also had her underwear drawers searched and ransacked yesterday by over zealous "inspectors."

Originally Posted by Nell

I think we’ve gone to another place in this country where Perfect fear casts out all love.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have sent my personal condolences to the former First Lady who, like me, has also had her underwear drawers searched and ransacked yesterday by over zealous "inspectors."

Originally Posted by Ohio

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?

Originally Posted by aron

Speaking of which, you know what is interesting? A lot of Lee's more inflammatory statements got santized by his editors. But you know where you can find the real speaking? In the Supplemental Hymns. Because the local church saints would take Lee's messages and make songs of them.

"It may be that you will find with us a better way." What is the better way? Christ? No, the "local church life". Etc. There is some pretty interesting theology in the supplemental hymns. You can really hear what Lee was speaking, thru the songs the LSM-affiliated saints were putting out.

Anyway, just an interesting thought.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you should give the same dose of sarcasm to testallthings first? Because in post #555 testallthings said " First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?" which he could have found using Google.

Originally Posted by testallthings

to Evangelical,

there is one question you did not answer. Do you think that U.S.A. will be the wilderness (as taught by W. Lee) during the great tribulation?

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Evangelical,

what I was trying to say is that to take Lee's words without any critical analysis the risk is that they might be considered as precise and infallible as the Word of God.

By the way, there is one city called Sodom and Egypt in the book of Revelation, and certainly it is not US.

Originally Posted by testallthings

After hearing about the earlier overcomers and about the later, quicker overcomers, you may think that all the believers will be overcomers, and you may wonder who will be included in the harvest. Recently I heard that in the United States there are fifty million regenerated Christians. Thus in the United States alone there will be tens of millions for the Lord Jesus to reap...
One proof of this is in Revelation 18, which shows that Antichrist's capital, Rome, will be a center of capitalism. The record of that chapter, which even speaks of selling souls, or people, is a record not of communism, but of capitalism. The whole earth is under God's sovereign control. I believe that the United States will be fully preserved by God until the Lord comes back. As I have already mentioned, I believe that the United States will be the wilderness spoken of in Revelation 12. It will be a place of safety and shelter for so many refugees. Out of the tens of millions of Christians in the United States, not many will be overcomers. Certainly they will not be killed by Antichrist, because the United States will not be in Antichrist's territory. Since the United States will be a place of safety and refuge, the Christians in this country will not become the quick overcomers. Instead, they will be in the harvest....

Now I am living in the country of the great eagle. Although there are many sinful things in the United States, nevertheless, with the exception of the nation of Israel, there is no other country that has been formed according to God's Word. I have a copy of the first Constitution of the United States. It is composed of verses from the book of Exodus. Furthermore, each session of Congress opens with a prayer. I was present for such an opening prayer in 1958. Although that prayer was formal, it was still quite good. Moreover, the words, In God we trust, are engraved upon our coins. In the Bible, all the other nations are symbolized by beasts. But there is one country, the United States, that is symbolized by an eagle, not by a beast...

Two matters are sovereign of the Lord. The first is that He has prepared the United States to be a great eagle, and the second is that He has sent His recovery to this country. During the great tribulation Christians certainly will no longer pay attention to the Catholic Church, to the denominations, or to the free groups. Rather, they will say, “There is no time to waste. Let us take God's way.” God's way is the local churches. Hallelujah, we are in the local churches! Hallelujah, we are in the United States! We are in the genuine church life and we are in the country of the great eagle. I was deeply saddened by the loss of mainland China. I truly loved the work there. But how I praise the Lord that He has brought me to the country of the great eagle and that I am in the genuine church life here. Praise Him for sending His recovery to this country!
(Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 48, Section 2 [emphasis added])

This is only a little quotations. You can dig for more and meditate some more.

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Evangelical,

I am glad you're back. I was going to apologise for something I have said that had offended you.
It seems that with you here there is a lot going on.
God bless you.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

The Lord's Recovery's hymnal's hymns 10-55 fall under the section "Worship of the Father"

In the local church I am at, (and I think this is characteristic of LSM churches), we close the Lord's Table meeting by "worshiping the Father", whereby we sing hymns that are usually in this section.

Do you then consider the singing of such hymns as "not worshipping"?

I believe in the adage "Talk is cheap; action speaks louder than words". But I would consider singing hymns acknowledging God's supremacy as a form of worship.

Take another context:- Love

Suppose I was asked to comment on whether my friend Jack loves his girlfriend Jill.

There could be different kinds of evidence
1) A love letter Jack wrote to Jill
2) Jack always offering a lending ear to Jill when she has problems
3) Jack visiting Jill everyday when Jill was hospitalised for one month for a disease
4) Jack donating his kidney to Jill when her kidney failed.

True, I would place greater weight on Evidence 4 since there is a greater element of sacrifice involved by Jack. The love letter would have less weight since anyone can write a love letter.

But it would not be right to say that the love letter is not an evidence of love.

Originally Posted by aron

There are these things called search engines. Google is well-known by most, but there's also yahoo, Bing, etc.

I put in "Witness Lee wilderness eagle persecution" in Google, and the first hit read, "European Christians will flee to the United States to escape the persecution of Antichrist. The wings of the great eagle will fly them into the wilderness." It was from "ministrybooks.org" web site.

As testallthings said, you can also search for yourself and find more. It's really not that difficult.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is true.

But I think worship means sacrifice. What many people think of as worship (singing songs and expressing joy to God) I think is more correctly called praise.

So "praise and worship" together means sacrifice and expression to God at the same time.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I tried to find your reference to Revelation and wilderness but can't

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I tried to find your reference to Revelation and wilderness but can't, can you please provide the reference (book or bible verse footnote)?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I told you it was not legislated.

Liberal activist courts decided the matter.

It was never voted on, just like the legalization of abortion.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Let's use common sense then (what have we been using so far?). If U.S.A. is Sodom why W. Lee said that U.S.A. would be the wilderness described in Revelation? Why people fleeing Antichrist and his persecution will end up in Sodom? a place cursed by God? I am using common sense, and common sense tells me that this is absurd. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Three times you said the government legislated homosexuality, a democratic process, then you say it was only a "technicality."

I don't know what country you live in, but this same technicality is coming your way too. You seem to love taking pot shots at the usa, and I'm not defending it, but why not tell us where you are at, just in case some posters have issues with your country.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are talking about legal technicalities. Doesn't change the reality that the majority want it and that homosexuality is rampant in the USA.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings, I think this point can be cleared up by plain common sense...

Originally Posted by Ohio

I told you it was not legislated.

Liberal activist courts decided the matter.

It was never voted on, just like the legalization of abortion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings,

I think this point can be cleared up by plain common sense.

In a dictatorship, if 99% of the people are against it and the government decided to legislate it, then I would agree with you that this does not turn the country into Sodom.

But the USA is not a dictatorship. Governments want to legalize homosexuality because the majority of the people want it. I already provided facts before that the majority are for homosexual marriage.

The fact that the government legislated for it is because the majority of the people wanted it.

It is on the basis of the majority wanting it and the government legislating it, that indicates USA is Sodom in a spiritual sense.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I agree with you to some extent:-
1) Sacrifice can be part of worship (see also Romans 12:1).
2) It is possible for people to get carried away by the music tunes/melody and be detracted from focusing on God.

However, singing can be a form of worship too. See Rev 5 v 8 to 14.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I like to share this which I found thought-provoking
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...mmation-of-joy

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that we have seen what worship is, we should consider what the purpose of worship is.
Why does God need us to tell Him that He is God? He knows who He is. Does God have such an ego? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The following is inspired by Genesis 22:2-5. 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham is about to make a sacrifice to God. But Abraham tells the servants in verse 5 that they are going to worship. So worship is about sacrifice...

Originally Posted by testallthings

Brother Evangelical,


Thanks for the quotations. As I said in a previous post, without evidence I am not going to believe whatever W. Lee, Nee, Darby, Evangelical, OBW, Ohio, aron, testallthigs, etc., said. From your quotations Lee was just stating what he believed was true. I might use his argument and change it to prove the opposite (actually, it is not the opposite, but you get my point). When Constantine “legalized” Christianity the Roman Empire became Christian (in that case that was a real Holy Roman Empire). You see the absurdity of this kind of logic. this would give the legislators the power to turn a nation in one way or the other just by legalizing something (aren't Buddhism, JW's, New Age, Islam and so on legalized?)

You said that now you believe God judges based upon what people believe, not only based upon their actions. Would you mind providing some proof for your statement? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I provided reference to his quotations in a (much) earlier post:
In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded. In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped. In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

I understand this to mean not because the majority of people in those countries are practicing homosexuals, but because those countries believe it is okay. Lee often tries to get at the heart or spirit of the matter. It may be true as you say that in a practical sense, the USA is not like Sodom at all. But in a spiritual sense, it is more like Sodom than not. In the old testament God seemed to judge cities based on their actions. Now I believe he judges based upon their belief. Now, God judges the heart and spirit of the matter that is the root cause of the sinful actions.

I think we could proceed with a discussion about whether God judges a city because of its heart and belief, or because of its actions alone? (ignoring for a moment, that legalizing redefinition of marriage is itself a sinful action). If it is actions alone, then USA is not a Sodom, for the reasons you stated. But if it is the heart and belief of the nation that God considers, then I believe Lee is right, USA (and other countries) is Sodom.

A heart that is on the one hand for God, and on the other hand is for homosexuality and gay marriage, is not a pure heart.

Now some biblical support that God cares about the heart of the nation:
1 Samuel 16:7 "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Romans 12:9 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical, You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

And by the way, I've loved my homosexual local church brothers and sisters, and likely would you if I knew you, gay or not.

And while I'm thinking of it. This may sound funny, but I wish the later addition to John, of the adulterous woman (cast the first stone), were a lesbian woman. Then we wouldn't have all these concerns with gayness for fear of being considered one to cast the first stone. Aren't you casting stones brother Evangelical?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When we discussed James earlier you said "The fact remains if we try to follow parts of the Bible that were not meant for us, we will fall into error. Whether that is building the temple, offering sacrifices, calling for judgement on our enemies or appealing to our own righteousness. This is all that Lee was pointing out. I find it nothing more than that. He did not call James an "epistle of straw", rather he indicated that was wrong by stating that the brethren did accept James. Neither did he try to remove it from the Canon."

The context was that you were referring to the book of James and explaining to us Witness Lee's exposition of this book. Are you now saying that James is meant for us?

Also, you called down judgement on the US as a result of different States legalizing gay marriage. Are you now saying that calling down judgement on sinners is meant for Christians?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry, I don't get this. Witness Lee taught that the US would become Sodom if they legalized gay marriage. You quoted that. TestAllThings points out that the reason for God's judgement on Sodom was that He couldn't find 10 righteous men. Witness Lee missed this. If you want to equate the US to Sodom saying that it will call down God's judgement on us (this is what you did, quoting Witness Lee) you have to point out that there are not 10 righteous men in a city.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's your opinion.

There is no such definitions in the scriptures.

Look at Corinth. A Real Christian slept with his stepmother. A Real Christian sued his brother. A Real Christian committed fornication. A Real Christian worshiped at the idol temple. A Real Christian came to the Lord's Supper drunk. A Real Christian said there is no resurrection.

This list could go on and on. Read your Bible again. You really should get out more. Do some research concerning young Christian girls. You would be amazed at how many have had abortions.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is not me who is exaggerating, but you!

Which you purposely have done to dodge the relevant issues at hand.

It all depends on what "support" and "supporter" means?

To you, they can mean anything.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Spirit-led person would not support a gay rights supporter or say they are a true Christian. Just as a Spirit-led person would not support an abortionist or say they are a true Christian. Unless you believe a person can be a Christian and an abortionist?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I am clear, redefining marriage is the "spirit of lawlessness" or "anti-Christ spirit". A Christian who redefines marriage is equivalent to "giving a drug user a drug, or an alcoholic a glass of wine".

But, redefining the term "deification" that is perfectly fine? Not idolatrous because you redefined the term. Not the spirit of Jezebel because you redefined the term. Not like giving a pagan a drug or glass of wine because you redefined the term.

Is this correct? Is this your position?

(BTW what Christian are you referring to who "redefined marriage"?)

[PS -- have you noticed how many times you and Witness Lee condemn others for "redefining terms" like Christmas and marriage, yet justify yourselves when you do that?]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Please respond to posts 547, 548 and 552.

Abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Paul's explanation of homosexual sex being sex that is done outside of the purpose for which it was created is sufficient to explain why God would view it as an abomination. If there are other New Testament verses relevant to the discussion I am open, but using an OT reference that it is "an abomination" as though this is a second aspect of why it is a sin is merely your spin.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are exaggerating things, I have not condemned you for being a gay rights supporter, because I know you and Igzy are not, but for supporting a gay rights supporter.

In case you think that supporting a gay-rights supporter is harmless, consider this - if a person supports an abortionist and an abortionist is a murderer, what does that make the supporter of the abortionist?

Originally Posted by Ohio

That is not true at all.

The majority of Americans do not accept the redefinition of marriage, in fact just the opposite. Americans, along with congress, enacted the defense of marriage act, i.e. DOMA. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, actually it is not just against nature but nature and God. For example, God no where says not having children is an abomination. But God says homosexuality is an abomination.

Originally Posted by Ohio

By your own definition, you disqualify yourself.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Reminds me of Paul's word about this. Homosexual sex is condemned by Paul for being against nature. Sex is for propagation, since homosexual sex does not result in propagation it is against nature.

But by that reasoning everyone who has used contraceptives would also be condemned. In fact, any sex at all that is not for the purpose of propagation would be condemned.

This is probably why Paul concludes saying:

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce].

Originally Posted by Ohio

What about abortion? The murder of the most innocent of the offspring of God? To me, abortion is far worse than the gay issues, not that there is good or bad sin, but even Jesus standing before Pilate spoke of those who had the "greater sin."

Here the hypocrisy and heterodoxy of Evangelical is continually on display. The same hypocrisy which is so manifest in LC/LSM leadership.

Evangelical condemns me for being a gay rights supporter ... my association is thrice removed thru Igzy and Bono ... while he refuses to address any hypocrisy, sin, and unrighteousness at LSM. To Evangelical, Lee and the Blendeds enjoy the same "immunity" from accountability as the Pope in Rome, the so-called Papal Infallibility.

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

And by the way, I've loved my homosexual local church brothers and sisters, and likely would you if I knew you, gay or not.

And while I'm thinking of it. This may sound funny, but I wish the later addition to John, of the adulterous woman (cast the first stone), were a lesbian woman. Then we wouldn't have all these concerns with gayness for fear of being considered one to cast the first stone. Aren't you casting stones brother Evangelical?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Free groups, Christians, all Christian congregations other than his very small group, etc.

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee could spew his venomous hatred and condemnation upon any one he wished, especially upon those of the household of faith. In the Genesis Life-Study on Lot (#54 or so), he likened every American "free group," essentially all those genuine believers outside of the Recovery or the denominations, to the incestuous children of Lot born in that cave. It was perhaps the most pathetic teaching I ever read.

Some of these recent posts by Evangelical, condemning all Americans and American Christians are right up there with it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda. That is what the bible calls the spirit or mystery of lawlessness, or anti-Christ spirit. A Christian helping to redefine marriage for the gay rights movement is equivalent to a Christian giving a drug user a drug or an alcoholic a glass of wine.

But for now I will comment on the topic of Christian homosexuals.
With prostitutes, please consider the context of Jesus's words. That prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, means that the prostitutes were repenting of their sins and turning to Christ before the high priests would. Did Jesus say a prostitute who did not repent and turn to Him would enter heaven? Of course not. I could quote the many verses stating homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Did Jesus say it is OK to redefine the meaning of marriage? Of course not, Jesus Himself said marriage is between a man and woman, He would not support a Christian to believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although not what Evangelical quoted, this quote is interesting:

"Do you think that God will allow His people to dwell in such a wicked city? Certainly not. Thus, under God's sovereignty, Chedorlaomer led the attack against Sodom. God allowed that war to take place. Four kings fought against five kings. Humanly speaking, the five kings should have been victorious since their number was greater. But the four kings defeated the five kings, and the city of Sodom was taken. The Bible stresses the taking of Sodom because Lot dwelt there. This fighting was not merely a matter of four kings against five kings; it was a fighting for one of God's people. Lot might have been peaceful as he dwelt in Sodom, but God was not peaceful. God would never allow Lot to stay there in peace. God might have said, "Lot, you may have peace within, but I will stir up some disturbance from without. I will send the four kings to defeat the five kings and capture your city. They will capture you, your family, and all that you have." This is in fact what happened to Lot. Lot suffered defeat after defeat. Eventually, as the last step of his defeat, he fell into the hands of the enemy. He was captured, and the king of Sodom could not help him." (WL, Life Study of Genesis, Chapter 43, Section 1).

Based on this theory you might feel that 9/11 and the various wars in the Middle East were a result of God not allowing the US to dwell as Sodom in peace.

It seems to me this might have been a more interesting discussion than the one about Gay Pride.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical,

You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We are the promised seed, so this example of God's judgement, like the Red Sea, like Noah's flood, can certainly be for us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is my personal feeling that Sodom was judged in order to protect Abraham's promised seed, Isaac, a notable type of Christ.

Note that the announcement for both events occurred at the same time.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As we discussed when we discussed the book of James, a Christian is someone who has faith AND works to show his faith.
A Christian is someone led by the Spirit. The Spirit would not lead someone to support gay marriage rights. This is because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and Christ already told us the meaning of marriage in the gospels. Jesus would not contradict himself.
I recall a discussion I had on here a little while ago about the fruit showing the nature of the person. A good tree does not bear bad fruit, it was said. Someone bearing the image of God would not roll out a rainbow gay pride flag on a stage and declare their support for gay marriage as the video shows. A person does not "accidentally" do such a thing because it was all pre-planned and pre determined for him to do so from the start. So his action was a deliberate action against God and not something a Spirit led Christian would do. It is compromise with the world in one of the most public displays possible - instead of preaching the gospel as a real Christian rock star would have, he decided to declare his support for an anti-Christ movement.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a great point, what really caused God's judgement to fall on Sodom was the lack of any righteous men. God had said that if there had been 10 he wouldn't have destroyed it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Christian is someone led by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding your percentages, you are forgetting that the majority of Americans believed in accepting the redefinition of marriage. On that basis America is more Sodom than not. We could say that democratically (i.e. majority wins), America is a "Sodom". America is not a Sodom because of the percentages of people engaged in evil behavior, but because of the beliefs of the people.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings, this forum is supposed to be about Lee/Nee that is why I did not focus on others like Spurgeon etc. But I would say "all of the above" could be considered an "Abraham".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda. That is what the bible calls the spirit or mystery of lawlessness, or anti-Christ spirit. A Christian helping to redefine marriage for the gay rights movement is equivalent to a Christian giving a drug user a drug or an alcoholic a glass of wine.

Originally Posted by testallthings

[SIZE="4"]Again, there is a striking difference between U.S. and Sodom. There are millions of believers in the U.S. There was not 1 (except Lot) righteous man in Sodom.

Originally Posted by OBW

And by definition a gay-rights defender cannot be a true Christian?

I don't want to get into the theological issues surrounding gays in general. I believe the very conservative position myself. But I am humble enough to decide that, in this world, sinners are sinners doing all kinds of both immoral and sometimes moral things. And we are all sinners, even when saved. So I would expect that there will be some who might have issues coming to what I think is the correct stance on the issue. But salvation is based on belief in Christ, not the absolute cessation of sin and the agreement with everybody else what that is.

The commandment on me is to love God and love others. If there is judgment to come, it is God's job. If I were asked about it, I would counsel that it appears to be considered outside of God's norms. Will it disqualify you? Not my call. But for a true follower, seeking to be more and more like Christ, and to be more and more in line with his righteousness would seem to be a goal. I think that includes "sexual preference."

But punishment in this age for it is not mine to mete out.

When it comes to loving others, who is more loving, the one who does, or the one who does not, shout curses at those we think are sinners?

So no matter what you think of Bono's position with God, he exemplifies and bears the image that God would have us bear more nearly than many that I know are Christians. Yet you dismiss him over a position on something? So salvation is by grace, through faith, by those who agree on the homosexual issue with your position?

First its dirt. Now homosexuality. What about those who allow sexual predators to lead religious institutions?

Originally Posted by testallthings

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I've already quoted the shocker by Jesus, that prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, as proof that we don't know everything about God's judgment.

I've also pointed out that "whisperers" are listed along with "without natural affection" in the opening chapter in Romans.

So, according to your apparent judgment so far, are whisperers also anti-Christ's?

There are, brother Evangelical, Christian homosexuals. I've personally known some. I've known some that have been born again .. and remained homosexuals. Say what you will but that it a far cry from being an antiChrist.

I personally know of homosexuals in the LSM local church ... deep in the closet, of course ... attending elder's conferences. Are they anti-Christ's?

Originally Posted by OBW

And by definition a gay-rights defender cannot be a true Christian?

First its [the doctrine of] dirt. Now homosexuality. What about those who allow sexual predators to lead religious institutions?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Igzy did not just say they appreciated a song. They said that Bono is a true Christian when he is in fact a gay rights supporter as evidenced by his many interviews and videos. The fact that you are defending Igzy's views means you also share a part.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your suggesting that we are privy to only part of God's plan... does this mean you believe gay marriage rights is part of God's plan?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Igzy did not just say they appreciated a song. They said that Bono is a true Christian when he is in fact a gay rights supporter as evidenced by his many interviews and videos. The fact that you are defending Igzy's views means you also share a part.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now can a person be a Christian and live in Sodom?

Yes. The situation of today's Christians living in the USA is that of Lot.
Lot was a genuine follower of God who lived amidst a world of sin and depravity. Unfortunately he was afraid and complicit to his environment to the extent that he offered his daughters to be raped. This is equivalent to Christian parents who give their children over to the depraved situation in the environment out of fear or weakness.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Sodom had legalized gay marriage, would Lot have supported it?
Of course he would not. God called Lot out of Sodom to flee, just as God rained his judgement upon them. Therefore if there is a Christian who supports Sodom, they are in fact no Christian at all.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This puts American Christians in a difficult situation.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well if this was true then I wouldn't have asked you to register, now would I? This forum is about whatever one wants to post regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church movement, and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee...

-

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your response. But I doubt very much that anyone on this forum ever promoted the redefinition of marriage. That was settled by the Supreme Court. So I'll just ask everyone, "Did any of you submit an amicus to the Supreme Court regarding samesex marriage.

And claiming that someone who likes Bono's "One" song is promoting redefining marriage is a red herring.

All I was doing, or trying to do, with my "homosexual post," was to point out how using the Bible as the law -- selectively using it, btw, aka, rejecting gays, but not whisperers -- may turn out to be wrong ; that God may have something else in mind that we're not privy to ; since we're privy to only a very little of what God thinks, is doing, or will do.

From reading the OP this thread has gone completely off the rails. But carry on brother. Let's hear more of what you have to say. I'm curious of what you are really driving at.

Now back to something ZNP presented ... that I think relates to the OP.

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... let me get this right ... I am to be condemned because I said that Igzy appreciated a song written by a Christian singer who is sympathetic to the gay movement. That's guilt by association thrice removed!

Sounds to me like you have decided to no longer defend the indefensible teachings and deplorable actions of Lee and other LSM leaders, and have taken us on the gay tangent, where you can now condemn us all one by one for being too tolerant and almost "supportive" of gays. Straw man on a wild goose hunt.

You sure have learned well the ways of your leaders. They too are never accountable for their teachings or actions. Like the Pharisees of old, the self-righteous can only attack those who shine a light on the darkness.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was a main theme with the books "the God Men" and "The Mind Benders". These books came out when I first came into the Local Church. I heard from Ray Graver directly how they had twisted and intentionally misunderstood Witness Lee's teaching. I watched video tape from Witness Lee boasting of how they ran circles around the lawyers in the depositions.

There was a very strong defense at that time that Witness Lee had a fundamental, Bible based understanding that had been misinterpreted by these writers. At that time he condemned the Eastern Orthodox view, warned us that it was off, and warned us that the use of terms like deification could be pagan and idolatrous.

However, 14 years later he embraces the term "deification" even though it could easily provoke the "misunderstandings" that prompted the earlier books. He also switched, saying that the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Deification supported his use of the word (even though his teaching would be considered heretical by them).

I feel this is his MO, to be intentionally provocative, to play with heretical terms yet fill his teachings with caveats and redefinitions so he could stir up a controversy and then say we didn't understand.

Why? Witness Lee's main teaching is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the builded church, that he alone is building the church and you know it by the intense spiritual warfare over the church. Therefore he had to do something that would provoke a response from others to maintain this pretense that there was a spiritual warfare over his teachings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's been about many different things in the journey of discussion. Yet like Ohio and Igzy you are merely trying to avoid the issue. Why don't you just admit that this forum is merely a front for liberal emergent church views, that supports the redefinition of marriage and the gay pride movement, by promoting gay-right supporters as true Christians? This is why people are trying to change the subject, because Igzy has let the "cat out of the bag" and now all genuine Christians can see what sort of a forum this is. This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views. It does not surprise me however because there are only a limited number of degraded church models and theologies you could appeal to once you leave the Lord's recovery.
I think my point was that this forum and this thread are not about those things.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not because [Igzy] appreciates a song, but because he states that a gay-rights supporter is a true Christian.

Now to add to his folly, you also explain away Bono's commitment to gay rights as a "flaw", for which you ought be condemned.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou for your input regarding homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality itself, this is about promotion of the redefinition of marriage, the support of the 'gay pride' movement which is 100% anti-Christ. This is what Bono and U2 stand for. This is what some on this forum claim is an example of a "true Christian". When they make these statements they are basically promoting the redefinition of marriage.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's been about many different things in the journey of discussion. Yet like Ohio and Igzy you are merely trying to avoid the issue. Why don't you just admit that this forum is merely a front for liberal emergent church views, that supports the redefinition of marriage and the gay pride movement, by promoting gay-right supporters as true Christians? This is why people are trying to change the subject, because Igzy has let the "cat out of the bag" and now all genuine Christians can see what sort of a forum this is. This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views. It does not surprise me however because there are only a limited number of degraded church models and theologies you could appeal to once you leave the Lord's recovery.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I must have missed some very important posts. Your "local church experience" and "your testimony" is about the gay pride movement and the redefinition of marriage?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou for your input regarding homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality itself, this is about promotion of the redefinition of marriage, the support of the 'gay pride' movement which is 100% anti-Christ. This is what Bono and U2 stand for. This is what some on this forum claim is an example of a "true Christian". When they make these statements they are basically promoting the redefinition of marriage.

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, I'll chime in here, with my measly two cents.

While in the local church I was getting together with another brother to study Jessie Penn-Lewis on the cross. I didn't know it at the time but we were studying the cross for two different reasons. I was studying it to learn more, but he was studying it hoping that it would deal with his homosexuality. At the time I had no clue that he was gay. He was married with 3 children.

About 6 months after I left the local church he came out and admitted to his wife, parents, kids, and the local church, that he was gay.

By that time it was to late for me. I had come to love the brother and remained friends with him for years. His sexuality wasn't my business. But I made it my business. Being heterosexual, I didn't understand homosexulity. So I spent years digging into his brain trying to figure out what made him gay.

In the process I learned a lot. I even learned that the guy he had his first sexual experience with was in the local church and was an elder on the west coast (sneaking out to pull tricks with boys -- that blew my mind).

In short "John" revealed that it wasn't a choice he made. He was certain that he was born that way. Well I'm pretty liberal but I thought, how can that be? The Bible says that homosexuals will be judged by God. So to me God couldn't make some homosexuals.

Years later John's lover died from aids. So John became asexual, and contacted me to go back to Jesus and the local church. I hooked him up and he attended a meeting but was rejected by the elders who knew him. (Funny how Christians reject homosexuals but don't reject whisperers (gossipers) that Paul lists along with homo's.)

So now I'm not sure if God makes some gay or not. Does God make those born with ambiguous genitalia, or both sex organs? They certainly don't chose to be both. Paul doesn't mention hermaphrodites. He prolly didn't know about it. But if God makes them He certainly can't judge them.

In the end it is God that judges. In Matthew 21:31 Jesus tells the chief priest and elders, ""Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you." That had to be a shocker, and against all that the chief priest knew about the Torah.

And for all we know that may be the case for homosexuals. God didn't seem to hold it against king David for getting naked with Jonathan, kissing him, and loving him more than women.

In Romans Paul asks : "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?"

So I say, be careful judging homosexuals. Cuz you may be judging someone that God doesn't judge.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't speak for Igzy, but his appreciation for Bono's song "One" in no way makes him (Igzy) a promoter of gay rights. Neither does my appreciation for Martin Luther (an avid anti-Semitic) make me a promoter of the terrorist organization called Hamas.

All men are flawed.

It is good for all men to know this simple truth. It is even better for all men to know that only Jesus Christ was flawless. The good news and saving truth of the Gospel of grace is simply that the Flawless died for all the flawed, the Righteous for the unrighteous. (I Peter 3.18)

This forum basically exists because we (and yes, I was an active member of 3 LC's for some 30 years) were led to believe that Witness Lee was also among the short list of Flawless men. Lee was even referred to as a "god-man" and the "acting-god." As a result of these blasphemous assertions, much like the Roman Catholic papal "vicar-of-Christ" heresy, many LC members were confused, deceived, and ship-wrecked in the faith. This forum is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lasting carnage in the wake of Lee's ministry.

Both Bono and Lee are flawed, difference being that Bono never claimed to be flawless. Lee basically did. His Blendeds definitely did. And many beloved children of God have been subsequently hurt. Stumbled is the Biblical word. Think about millstones around the neck. Hence the subject of this forum. Like you said, "know them by the fruit."

Sadly Witness Lee is known more for what he was against, than what he was for. Sure he was an avid promoter of his pet doctrines, but when it came to the basic truths of "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," (I Tim. 1.15) Lee was known to refer to this as the "low gospel." How disgusting.

Your message to the world (and to the greater body of Christ) should not be that you hate all denominations, hate all free groups, hate homosexuality, hate the clergy, hate all names of churches, hate contemporary Christian "rock" music, etc. and etc. but that you love Jesus, you love Christ crucified for all sinners. This is also part of my "recovery" from the Recovery.

Originally Posted by awareness

Theosis is not new with Lee. It's a main theme in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for a long time.

However, no one has ever become Christ ... except in their imagination. All it ends up being is, dancing with ghosts.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think it's dangerous that God has given you the Holy Spirit and wants you to become like Him? It's not dangerous, that's Christianity in a nutshell. Even Catholicism teaches that. If you aren't like Him, then you get to go to hell where people who "aren't like God" live.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every normal reader would know from his posts, that Igzy has never promoted homosexuality.

But you seem to be obsessed with it. It has never been a point of discussion on this forum, but you, however, take every opportunity to introduce the topic. Why is that? Why do you constantly change the subject and introduce homosexuality, as if this forum needs it.

Perhaps this is an issue that constantly plagues you personally. I have heard this about others who struggle with homosexuality. Most of the posters on this forum, however, are in normal long-time man-woman marriages.

Originally Posted by Igzy

In his very self. He HIMSELF is our peace.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am a normal reader, I can read and speak English very well. If you read the past discussions in this thread, Igzy has held up a gay-rights supporter as an example of a true Christian. That in itself amounts to promoting homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every normal reader would know from his posts, that Igzy has never promoted homosexuality.

But you seem to be obsessed with it. It has never been a point of discussion on this forum, but you, however, take every opportunity to introduce the topic. Why is that? Why do you constantly change the subject and introduce homosexuality, as if this forum needs it.

Perhaps this is an issue that constantly plagues you personally. I have heard this about others who struggle with homosexuality. Most of the posters on this forum, however, are in normal long-time man-woman marriages.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be saying that gay sex is good? You better explain yourself what you really believe about homosexuality I'm sure a lot of people other than me would like to know.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Torture is evil. Sex is good. Except to religionists who have hidden sins and try to cover them up by being self-righteous.

Do you believe sex is evil?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree that supporting gay marriage is a mistake. But a proper stance on that is not a requirement for salvation. Also, Bono has the right idea about caring for people rather than judging them. Something you could definitely learn from him, Mr. Pharisee.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you had been there you probably would have picked up a rock and chunked it at the woman.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is gay marriage a minor or a major according to you? A redeemed believer would not support gay marriage.

Have we seen this video where he turns one of his songs into a gay marriage anthem:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...-united-center

He really is majoring on the majors.. he's got the gay pride flag there, unrolling it on the floor, he's really showing "Christ's love" here. That's a "true Christian" according to you?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is gay marriage a minor or a major according to you? A redeemed believer would not support gay marriage.

Have we seen this video where he turns one of his songs into a gay marriage anthem:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...-united-center

He really is majoring on the majors.. he's got the gay pride flag there, unrolling it on the floor, he's really showing "Christ's love" here. That's a "true Christian" according to you?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many words and items in culture began with questionable origins, shall we then sanitize our lives of all these?

If so, just as Balaam was the first prophet for hire, then all those who charge for their "ministry" must also be rejected. (II Peter 2.15; Jude 11)

Anybody you know charge for their ministry trainings?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many words and items in culture began with questionable origins, shall we then sanitize our lives of all these?

If so, just as Balaam was the first prophet for hire, then all those who charge for their "ministry" must also be rejected. (II Peter 2.15; Jude 11)

Anybody you know charge for their ministry trainings?

Originally Posted by Igzy

He's a true Christian because he has made and continues to make the confession of faith. He works spreading Christ's love put yours and mine to shame I'm sure.

Yes, his comments about gay marriage are unfortunate. But that doesn't effect his position as a redeemed believer. He is one. He majors on the majors. He doesn't quibble about minors like rock and roll.

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOQClgNRoPc

Originally Posted by Igzy

Who said sex was dirty? There is nothing wrong with sex. God created it. Yes, the SoS can be seen as an allegory, but it is also about sex. There is no doubt. If you have a problem with that the problem is with you. Which makes my original point...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But Bono and U2 supports gay marriage, and so I don't see the connection between a person who supports gay marriage and a "true Christian".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

err.. maybe should I say "very few" or "most Christians don't know".

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible also teaches that men should not usurp authority over other men or women.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Some translations read "apt to teach". To be an elder, you should be good at teaching.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everyone knows?

I never heard that, and I grew up in Cleveburg.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nope. God created music, Satan created rock which is corrupted music.

Everyone knows that "Rock and rolling" originally was a term frequently used in predoQminantly 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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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:...

Originally Posted by Igzy

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...

U2 - One

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

He made both one.

He did it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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"

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible also teaches that men should not usurp authority over other men or women.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did rock music come from God or Satan ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did rock music come from God or Satan ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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"

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Surely you know the difference between a musical instrument which itself is neutral, and an ideology normally associated with sex and drugs.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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!

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?:

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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".

Originally Posted by Igzy

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...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

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?

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows God and the bible knows that God wants separation not mixture (2 CORINTHIANS 6:17).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Bill Mallon

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!

Originally Posted by least

WHO?

Originally Posted by aron

Ray Graver to Tom Cesar: "We do what we are told!"
Guess who's running the LSM, now?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The narrow way has to be obedience, as Jesus said He only does what the Father does.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Originally Posted by aron

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."

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Originally Posted by Survivor

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus also commands us to pray in our closet.

Rules out every local church and especially LSM.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Originally Posted by least

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Originally Posted by Drake

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...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by Igzy

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??"