|
|
|||||||
| Apologetic discussions Apologetic Discussions Regarding the Teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| 10-17-2017 07:15 PM | |||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Thanks Mr. E for that enlightening soliloquy. I knew there was a reason I started this forum.  - |
||||||
| 10-17-2017 04:49 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
The laws of physics in heaven? A chair is for sitting, because people get tired if they stand too much. They get tired if they stand too much because of gravity. Therefore if chairs exist in heaven then gravity exists in heaven. Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. Therefore, if a chair exists in heaven, then heaven is possibly located on a planet in our universe. This is what the known laws of physics tell me. |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 06:55 PM | |||||||
| A little brother |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Sure, will do. |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 06:47 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? alb>"It was meant to be a polite way to ask Evangelical not to be so sure about "the laws of physics" and instead trust the Lord's words more." I don't believe there is a difference. Evangelical is not referencing Stephen Hawkings. But, look, please stimulate conversation anyway you please. Sometimes I might even join in. Drake |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 06:24 PM | |||||||
| A little brother |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? It was meant to be a polite way to ask Evangelical not to be so sure about "the laws of physics" and instead trust the Lord's words more. At least I am not aware of such laws that decribe what it would be like in heaven while he seemed very sure about what heaven is like. I started with the common use of "physical" (vs "spiritual"), as something related to material, something you can see and touch. Luke 24:39 describes what Jesus said and it exactly matches the meaning of being physical. You were right, it's mystery to me. But I am not arguing as if I do know. I simply throw out what I think I know and see whether there are better ideas. Isn't that what discussion is about? I often use 2 Cor 8:2 to remind myself, 2 Cor 8:2 If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he has not yet come to know as he ought to know; |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 02:12 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
It's all a mystery? If you feel that way then why are you arguing as if you do know? Drake |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 08:20 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Physics just don't work so well in God's kingdom. |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 06:49 AM | |||||||
| A little brother |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Dear brother, in front of the creator of heaven and earth, I am afraid we both know nothing about the laws of physics. |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 02:21 AM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? A physical body would obey the laws of physics. Jesus's resurrected body did not, suggesting it was not physical in that sense. Yet it is not a spirit either, it is a spiritual body. Physical bodies like ours cannot live in heaven, just as I'm sure a physical chair cannot exist in heaven or if it can, is made of the same substance Jesus is made of. |
||||||
| 10-16-2017 02:05 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Perhaps it is just too wonderful for him to believe that the spiritual body of Jesus is beyond his limited mental apprehension. Apparently Jesus may have flesh and bones, yet not flesh and blood. I also doubt that the first mention of flesh is identical to the second. The story on the road to Emmaus has always been quite telling to me. The resurrected Christ can completely blend in with humanity. In His resurrected body, Jesus walked and talked with the two brothers for miles, yet without halos and flashing lights to bring alarm to His true nature. This constantly blows all my theological fuses. How can it be? But it is! There always seems to be a tinge of irony with EvanGee. How is it that he can blindly accept, though not mentioned in scripture, that he will become g(G)od? as W. Lee taught during his "high peak" period, yet struggle with what Jesus became? |
||||||
| 10-15-2017 07:05 PM | |||||||
| A little brother |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-15-2017 06:58 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. 1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. |
||||||
| 10-15-2017 06:47 PM | |||||||
| A little brother |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-15-2017 04:17 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-14-2017 05:18 AM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? -1 Aron>"But I'd prefer to act as if there's a real, physical chair somewhere." It's how the Lord conveys His thoughts and ideas to us. The Bible is filled with imagery to express some reality. It's like looking at a picture of crashing waves on a beach and then actually being there where you hear the sounds, smell the salty air, feel the breeze, and watch the waves swell and roll. The throne, the crystal river, the tree of life, the fruits, the street, the wall, etc, are the imagery of a reality for us to enter into. Sometimes I feel Ike a kid in a theme park where the wonders never end. Drake |
||||||
| 10-12-2017 02:51 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Evangelical says a throne is just a chair and God doesn't need a chair - why, is God tired? No. So no chair, no throne. A throne is a metaphor, like tree, or river, or city. Perhaps so. But I'd prefer to act as if there's a real, physical chair somewhere. Just like Jesus ate a real, physical fish after resurrecting from the dead. This is why - it gives me a metaphorical peg on which to hang my metaphorical hat. A conceptual center, if you will. It makes me more resistant to charlatans and wordsmiths who come anong with their own metaphorical centers, like "flow of oneness". Witness Lee gave us a new so-called center every other month. They all flowed out from one center - Witness Lee. |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 06:48 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Except : I took a stand against what was called The Flow of Oneness, brought by the lead elder from Anaheim. The flow of oneness didn't take the throne, river, and tree of life as a metaphor. It was explained that, the river flows from Christ on the throne, carrying the authority of the throne, to, The Apostle on the earth, Witness Lee. So you say, it's all metaphor, but Witness Lee took it as literal to establish himself as The MOTA. Another Bible reference used to support The Flow of Oneness was : Psa 133:1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! Psa 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; In this reference the precious ointment (the Holy Spirit) was poured upon the head, Witness Lee, then ran down the beard (the elders) and finally down to the garments (us little potato's). I got the boot for disagreeing with The Flow of Oneness. The verses they used from Revelation and Psalms were not taken as metaphorical, but as literal, to established Witness Lee as the MOTA. |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 06:31 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Christless Protestantism Quote:
So ... your justification for Witness Lee is now King Henry VIII? The English king who went thru woman after woman just to get a son. And to think that WL ended up with sons like Phillip and Timothy. I've heard it all! 
|
||||||
| 10-10-2017 05:31 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Christless Protestantism Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-10-2017 03:43 PM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? -1 Drake, Good advice, thanks. I'll receive it. Certainly applicable to us both. Not to mention the person who said he had the ministry of the age, and was deputy God. To whom much is given, much is required. |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 01:03 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? -1 aron>"Now, Drake mentions that I also lack charity. Mea culpa. But you know what - I'm not presuming to be something. I'm just calling out someone who is." Well, hold on there aron. Bitte, bitte. I don't think you can ignore the principle of "mote in the eye" in judging others. We all have faults and if you knew me personally you would exhaust yourself listing mine. However, when you condemn the believers in the local churches in this forum for some shortcoming or fault you better know your own as relates to that. Judge with the judgement you would like to be judged with... because you probably will be. For example, if you condemn others from the pulpit for drinking, smoking, and cussing but after the show go pour yourself a strong one, roll your own, and swear like a sailor then I think you would be in more danger of the judgement than had you not condemned others for the very infractions you also are guilty of. Or, if you condemn an FTTA trainer for not remembering the poor but you do nothing personally to help the poor then that too is an issue. We judge things in life but how we pass judgement on others and fellow believers is important. To apply this back to this topic I have no hesitation before the Lord to condemn the reformed churches for their unbiblical embrace of the gay agenda. That is Christless. However, neither do I have the peace before the Lord to be aggressive or militant towards gay people though I am not gay. Some may not see the difference but it is pretty clear to me. Drake |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 06:56 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: Christless Protestantism Quote:
"They asked me to remember the poor, which thing I was eager to do", said Paul. The FTTA trainer told us, "Don't waste your time", quote-unquote. Instead, go after the "good building material". How is that not also Christless Protestantism, or Christless Post-Protestant Personality Cult, or whatever label we want to call it? How did Lee get the temerity to re-write the Bible and put various labels on people and groups while avoiding them on his own? With what measure you measure, you are measured. Only God comes out of this one unscathed. God and His Christ. The rest of us, while we are yet in the flesh of sin, would behoove ourselves to take the last place and not to presume a position of judgment of others. Where is the love? I don't see it. Now, Drake mentions that I also lack charity. Mea culpa. But you know what - I'm not presuming to be something. I'm just calling out someone who is. "They have creeds - we have the subjective experience of Christ." Yes, so subjective that you pan scripture as fallen, mixed, and natural. So subjective that you dismiss the poor, the sick and the weak. &c. |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 06:09 AM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: Christless Protestantism Quote:
Ok getting back on track. In defense of Lee's view of Christless Protestantism, let us consider the intended meaning of the term Christless as used by Lee: Christless refers to the places or gatherings that name Christ but are merely social clubs or ritualistic performances. Where the sermons are mostly on ethical, political or social issues, rather than welcoming Christ's presence and authority. Christless means churches where Christ is "outside the door" knocking: Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear My voice and open the door, then I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. Typically this verse is misapplied to mean Christ knocking on the door of one's heart, for salvation. But the context is clearly Laodicea. The term "Christless" can be applied to the church of Laodicea where Christ is outside knocking. The other meaning of Christless is in reference to Christ having no authority in the Protestant churches: In the Book "God Tells the Man Who Cares" by A. W. Tozer it says: My grief is simply the result of a condition which I believe to be almost universally prevalent among the churches…. Let me state the cause of my burden. It is this: Jesus Christ has today almost no authority at all among the groups that call themselves by His name. …I do mean Protestant churches generally, and I include those that protest the loudest that they are in spiritual descent from our Lord and His apostles, namely, the evangelicals…. Lee is more or less stating the same thing that Tozer stated, that being a general observation regarding the state of the Protestant churches as not having Christ's authority, and therefore, Christless. Did Lee ever say that Protestants were going to hell or not Christians? Of course not, never did. Christless is in reference to the church gatherings not individual spirituality. If anyone thinks that just because some Christians get together to do whatever they like, then "Christ is in their midst" then think again. Scripture never says that. Rev 3:20 proves it is possible for a gathering of two or three (a church, by most people's definition) to not have Christ in their midst. It is possible for a church to not have Christ, and therefore be Christless. Is Christ really "in the midst" of the Reformed churches that ally themselves with the Catholic church and homosexuals? Does a church have Christ if it holds to the 1689 Confession of Faith or some other Creed ? Did Christ say in Rev 3 that a Creed or Confession is the answer to their problems? On this point there is no where in the bible where Christ condemns or praises any particular church for having a particular Confession of Faith, Creed, or similar. Unlike many Protestants/Reformers who consider it a noble thing to hold to a particular Confession or Creed, the bible does not seem to place much importance on it. |
||||||
| 10-10-2017 01:12 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Center of the Universe Quote:
There is a thing called "agency". Something comes out from something else, and expresses it. But the thing that comes out is not the thing that sent it. The President sends the Secretary of State, who speaks for the President. But the SS is not the President. Likewise, the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, but the message, even from God, was not carried by God, but by a designated representative. I wear shoes and gloves, but my shoes and gloves are not the same thing. All of this is fairly common sense reading, and can be expected to be understood, unless you are mesmerised by someone's pseudo-spirituality. Quote:
1. Lee put out 6 different "centers of the universe" at various times, speaking about different aspects of the same thing, and I just don't get it, in spite of your repeated attempts to help. This just shows my obstinacy. 2. Lee put out ideas at whim, and the LC masses were too befuddled to notice when the ideas didn't line up with each other. My "brainwashed" hypothesis. 3. Many in the LC did notice that Lee and Nee occasionally (often?) contradicted themselves but were afraid to point it out. Don't want to be seen as being negative. "Even when he's wrong he's right" - how could this saying emerge if Lee was not wrong, sometimes? This is seen in the gospels with the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Christ but wouldn't openly say it, for fear of being put out of the synagogues. Back to the first post. How can Protestantism be 'christless' if "Everything is Christ"? This requires a different reading. And under this new reading, if Protestantism is christless then the Lord's Recovery of Lee is perhaps doubly so. With what measure you measure, you are measured. |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 10:02 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Center of the Universe Quote:
For example, typically God is pictured as a man with a long white beard sitting on a big chair, called God's throne. I don't think God sits on an actual throne. A throne is a human invention, an ancient piece of furniture, and monarchs in different ages and cultures have different ways to show their status and power - not necessarily a big fancy piece of furniture. Humans created chairs, and why does God have to sit anyway, does He get tired? And does the throne have any meaning when God is not on it? Can we consider a big chair in heaven as distinct from God? I don't think so. A picture of heaven with a big chair on it and God not there on the throne does not make much sense or mean anything. Symbolically it means "God is not on the throne", and this is related to God, not the chair. So the throne in itself has no meaning. So I understand "throne of God" to mean one aspect of God and not referring to a piece of "heavenly furniture". Similarly, the river in and of itself has little meaning, unless it is related in some way to God. So it is correct to say that "the throne is God" and "the river is God". It makes sense if we understand that they are metaphors for different aspects of the same Person. It is like saying "my arm is me", and "my leg is me", the arm is distinct from the leg but in a way they are just "me". You said before "Let me suggest a subtitle: "Everything is Everything"." Actually Lee believed "everything is Christ". So the tree of life is Christ, the altar is Christ, everything is Christ. Similarly, the cross or crucifixion without Christ has no meaning. |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 04:15 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
We are all dependent upon our imagination to relate to the infinite. I guess we can get carried away tho. So it would be wise for us to keep it tied to reality as best we can. However, reality is different for each of us, and different even for each of us at different times in our life. At one time Christ and the Church Witness Lee style was my reality. That "reality" is long gone. I suspect that that is not true for you, I don't know. Lee's reality is dependent upon some future fulfillment, to know if it's real reality. If that doesn't happen then it's not real reality. If that's your reality good luck with that. Blessings bro ... |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 05:04 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Center of the Universe Quote:
In the first chapter of the same book we see the Christ walking in the midst of the seven golden lampstands, in front of the throne. I see distinct items, and feel that most readers would also. The Centurion in Capernaum (Luke 7) was "one" with Caesar in Rome, and could speak and the servants would obey. But the Centurion was not Caesar. They are distinct. One is in Rome, and one in Caesarea. But from an operational perspective (that of the functioning servant) they are one. All of this is fairly common sense. |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 05:01 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Lee is the one who said God was a tea-bag in water. At least I'm not charging you money for my parables. |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 02:58 AM | |||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
As to the initial post -- I would respond to this mindset belief by carefully walking through the verses in Revelation 2&3. I agree with you that the issues could fit the church in any time and see them more as necessary stages to growth. One fundamental error I see in WL's doctrine is the idea that Laodicea is a fallen form of Philadelphia. Instead the key verse in that line of interpretation is where the word to Philadelphia is they will not need to go out anymore. If you look at Sardis and other churches preceding Philadelphia you can see warnings and rebukes. These warnings and rebukes continue to get worse and worse. So, in my understanding the Christian church meets a fork in the road, in each case you have those within the church being influenced by their flesh to turn it into a human organization run by men for their benefit, and you have the overcomers. Ultimately the overcomers have to leave and ultimately find themselves in Philadelphia. I see Laodicea as those who do not leave the corrupt situation, hence the Lord's word to them that He is at the door, outside. By the time you progress to Laodicea the Lord has already left. I see these 7 churches as a process by which we are matured and perfected to exercise dominion over the world. Hence, each experience (church) is necessary for that growth and perfection. I don't see "good" churches and "bad" churches, another error in WL's interpretation. instead I see those who overcome the world and those who don't. You can't be an overcomer if you don't "overcome" hence the situations in these churches are necessary for our growth and maturity. Finally, I think WL's brand of "Elite Christianity with a MOTA" is something we need to overcome. There are no "MOTAs" in Philadelphia, instead every single member is a pillar. |
||||||
| 10-09-2017 01:52 AM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
The "reality" that aron resides in is real to him. I don't recognize his reality where leadership kills people like Pilate did., where boogeymen are pulling levers behind the curtain, where Princess Leia is more relevant than Scripture. I assume he is not deliberately lying so his colorful imagination is a reality to him. Drake |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 07:11 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Why would any sound minded person ever want different realities? Different realities aren't reality. |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 07:05 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Center of the Universe Quote:
I once read a story of a man, an unbeliever, who died and saw the spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm he saw streams of light connecting all living things and flowing from God. So I think there is some metaphysical reality behind all these things, that people are connected in some way. Animals also exhibit some sort of invisible connection with humans and other animals as well, somehow they know or sense things. How else to explain the sixth sense or gut feeling that many people have when their friend or family is in trouble? There's lots of things that science can't explain but the bible can. |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 05:28 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Drake |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 05:26 PM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-08-2017 05:21 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Aron>" Let me suggest a subtitle: "Everything is Everything" No aron . Brother Lee never stated, suggested, or taught the little circular logic you crafted. Not even close. Drake |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 05:13 PM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Aron> "How come Lee got to give his opinion, and nobody else does?" This is an example, aron, of the victim paradigm.... it is platform you use often perhaps to invite sympathy for your argument and yet it is a completely false assertion. Folks in this forum express anti local church opinions day in and day out. Occasionally someone will cite Brother Lee here too. But it us much less frequent. So your assertion is not factual. But don't misunderstand me. I for one think it is valuable for you to make outrageous assertions and mischaracterizations about everything to do with the local churches... gives an opportunity to present a different reality. Thanks Drake |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 04:41 PM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Center of the Universe Thank you for making it O So Clear. I think you have a long and distinguished career ahead of you as a Lee translator. "Witness Lee for the Dummies", aka the Mooing Cows who didn't immediately grasp the great man's impeccable logic. Let me suggest a subtitle: "Everything is Everything". Makes it that much easier for the feeble minds out there. The Father is the Son who is the Spirit, who is [at] the Cross, the Altar, as a Man, which is the Tree of Life, which is the Throne! And it's all at the center of the Universe!! And since I'm a Man, I'm also the Father (not in the Father-hood, mind you) and since you're also the Father, you and I are one: I'm Evangelical and Evangelical is Aron. You and I are one just as Jesus is one with the Father, fulfilling the prophecy in John 17:21. So easy, neat and simple. (I feel a song coming on.) No wonder Christianity waited 2,000 years for someone to wrap it all up in a slogan or two. Couple of bullet points - training outline - ta da! (Not everyone can do this, you know.) Keep up the good work. You'll go far with this one. |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 02:19 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
The Center of the Universe In a couple of places Aron has brought up the matter of the centers of the universe. It only shows his lack of understanding of the matter rather than any lack of logic on Lee's part. I can easily show it is not contradictory or inconsistent, it is very logical - Lee has only ever put forward Christ and the cross as the Center. Every other center mentioned is related to those aspects or could be considered the same from a symbolic point of view. Christ, the cross and humankind is the main purpose and plan for everything God has done, does and will do in future (this is something they don't stress in Reformed Churches I'm sure, well, not the ones accepting gay marriage etc. I think some Reformed churches that are very Christ/cross centric might). It is in this sense that Lee used the phrase "Center of the Universe". If we think he is talking about the physical world or think there are multiple centers of the universe (as Aron has done) we won't get it. There are not many centers of the Universe, there is only one. There is only one Center - Christ crucified. It might make it easier to see the logic behind the Center of the Universe if I break it down like this: -Christ is the Center -and moreso the cross because without the cross we cannot have Christ -and life because Christ is life -the altar because it symbolizes the cross -the tree of life because it symbolizes Christ -the throne of God because that is where Christ is -humanity because Christ is a man. Humanity is also at the center of God's plan - the Earth is at the center because mankind is central to God's plan. Now I understand that the center of the universe is where God and mankind meet. God and (perfect) mankind meet in the Person of Christ, but for us sinners, God and sinful mankind meet at the cross (altar). If we say Christ is the center without the cross then it doesn't have much practical application for us. That's why emphasis is on the cross/altar. Astute observers will note that in Genesis 2:9 the Tree of Life is in the center of the Garden of Eden. Logically, there is nothing wrong with Lee's "multiple centers" of the universe, if we understand there is only one Center - Christ crucified, and all the other "centers" Lee mentions are related to that. Aron has said "How could Lee minister such inconsistent and obviously self-contradictory things, and never get called on it? Sounds like intimidation at work, to me. Fear." Of course the fault lies with Lee doesn't it, rather than Aron's lack of understanding? Well maybe everyone "gets it", except him. |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 01:25 PM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
How could Lee minister such inconsistent and obviously self-contradictory things, and never get called on it? Sounds like intimidation at work, to me. Fear. "That's not the LC I know", says Drake. Not much of a dialogue Quote:
I'm just a little nobody who got caught in the local church meatgrinder and came out the other side. I know my comments don't resonate with you but they seem to with a few here who've tried to pick up the pieces and go on. But thanks for boldly presenting the minority view. Your opinion counts, too, just like everyone else's. Quote:
Who gets to function in the local church of Lee? No one. Just recite the catechism from the HWMR. And if you want to "exercise your spirit", just shout the catechism from HWMR. Anyone who tries to genuinely function, with a true revelation from God, and not a "ministry" derivative, is viewed with suspicion, as if they were "ambitious" or "drawing others to themselves". No, only Nee & Lee could do that. And forgiveness - who have I forgiven? I dunno - who harmed me? I'm talking about bad ideas, here. Am I supposed to forgive a bad idea? No, I call it like it is. A bad idea. Here's a good idea: "God loved the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son, that all who believe might not perish but have everlasting life" Good idea. Here's a bad idea: "God sends out one apostle per age - one spiritual giant. And the last spiritual giant, Witness Lee, was the last MOTA, and now the age has turned." That's a bad idea - one of many, noted here on this forum. Sorry for calling it out. But that's what I see - a bad idea. How can I be nice to a bad idea? It's just not any good. It's harmful to the Christian polity, to the Christian journey. Please excuse my impoliteness. I wish there were a "nice" or "charitable" way to say, "Bad idea". Quote:
My life and peace is found in Jesus Christ alone. Not winning an argument online. I'm simply sharing what I've seen. I have my opinion, just like Witness Lee had his, and you have yours. I'm sharing my subjective impressions, just like Witness Lee did with his. How come Lee got to give his opinion, and nobody else does? |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 09:15 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
If LSM actually ministered Christ as life, peace, food, and fresh air leading to genuine spiritual maturity, then this forum would not need to exist. And, btw, where is Drake's ministry of Christ when wounded and hurting LC-members visit this forum seeking to understand LC craziness? Drake acts like the quack doctor who dismisses every patient with a curt "it's all in your head." And Drake, old friend, where is the "real dialogue" you propose when posters address serious issues at LSM? Suddenly you vanish like a puff of cyber-smoke. |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 07:47 AM | |||||||
| leastofthese |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Very interesting observation from Drake. Matthew 7 |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 05:19 AM | |||||||
| Drake |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? -1 Aron, I see you quoting yourself so allow me to chime in so you can engage in a real dialogue about these matters with someone other than just yourself. "At best, the place is a perpetual spiritual kindergarten where people aren't allowed the room to breathe, to move, to grow, to find their destiny in Christ." Fortunately we have you to enlighten, water and nourish us, provide fresh air, and guide us to find our destiny in Christ. From your posts I don't recognize any of those essentials in you or in your teachings but no doubt you do. To my observation the victim/oppressor paradigm you live in demonstrates you are stuck. Really stuck. Perhaps being stuck prevents you from actually experiencing all the essentials you describe. I don't know for sure because I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I just know that when you talk about forgiveness it rings hollow because you have not forgiven. Though you talk about growth I cannot find spiritual maturity in your expounding of scripture. You speak of freedom yet you appear to be the most bound. What destiny in Christ do you propose to lead others to? Is that destiny what the modern reformed churches promote today? If you have found life, peace, and your destiny in Christ I am very happy for you. It just doesn't seem like it from what I read. Your description of the Lord's Recovery is, in so many ways, completely foreign. Drake |
||||||
| 10-08-2017 01:34 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function Quote:
I say again, What got recovered, here? There's a "paper recovery" of the items supposedly recovered in the LC - the "truths" - then there's the reality that members endured day by day. At best, the place is a perpetual spiritual kindergarten where people aren't allowed the room to breathe, to move, to grow, to find their destiny in Christ. |
||||||
| 10-07-2017 06:44 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function Quote:
The Lord's Recovery is a gulag archipelago, a spiritual mausoleum, a ring of vassal client states. I would take my faith elsewhere. What got recovered here? Oriental feudalism? "We do what we are told", said Ray Graver, in transmitting Philip Lee's demands. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 11:59 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-05-2017 11:55 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function Quote:
However disagreement with the majority or disagreement with the Creeds/Confessions, as ancient as they may be, are never said to be heresies in the Bible. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 11:55 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-05-2017 11:50 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function I see you changed your mind about what a heretic is. Good idea, since acc. to your definition, W. Nee was also a "heretic" by forming a school of opinion and breaking away from first the Methodists and later the exclusive Brethren. And btw don't be too hard on those Lutherans. Your own sordid history gives you little ground for criticism. Now what would your own leader think about now sharing the bed with the "Bible Answer Man?" |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 10:47 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function Quote:
 . What is the condition of the Reformation today? Probably Luther would turn in his grave if he knew about the plans for shared mass between Catholics and Lutherans. Not to mention the acceptance of gay marriage by the Lutheran Church of Norway and churches in Germany. For example, the Evangelical Church in Germany (German: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD) is a federation of twenty Lutheran, Reformed (Calvinist) and United (Prussian Union) Protestant regional churches and denominations: In the year 2000, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) passed the resolution Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken, in which same-gender partnerships are supported.[8] In November 2010, EKD passed a new right for LGBT ordination of homosexual ministers, who live in civil unions.[9] Most churches within the EKD allowed blessing of same-sex unions.[10] If the Reformed churches weren't pandering to Catholics and the world during the Reformation, they seem to be doing it now. I can't really blame 1689er for wanting to go back to 1689, since the Reformed churches today seem to be going against everything Luther and the Reformation represented. It's a shame really that these churches even bear Luther's name, I personally don't think he would stand for any of it. Luther might even stand with Lee and say how degraded they are. The irony is that people like 1689er are holding fast to Confessionals and doctrines from 400 years ago, meanwhile the churches which have their origins in the Reformation and which bear their founder's names, are supporting the cause of homosexuals. It only shows that the Reformation today is virtually nonexistent. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 10:31 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
If I'm using the meaning of the original Greek word how is that not using the Bible to define it? The original word in Greek means heresies. A number of English versions translates the word in Galatians 5:19-21a as "heresies". One notable version which does that is the English Revised Version which is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version. So either way, in English or Greek, I am correct about its meaning. Cambridge bible commentary says: heresies] Rendered rightly ‘sects’ by Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, and also in the Rhemish N. T. The Vulgate has ‘sectæ’. It means the formation of ‘distinct and organized parties’—a further development of ‘divisions’; see 1 Corinthians 11:18. It is applied to the Sadducees, Acts 5:17; to the Pharisees, Acts 15:5; to the Nazarenes, Acts 24:5. I actually did not "alter my definition" at all. In my first post I only defined it using two verses. In my later post I expounded and included many more verses. Anyone can see that my first post relates to point 3) in my second post without any alteration of its meaning. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 06:57 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function Quote:
All of the evangelical church appreciates Martin Luther's ministry, but Nee/Lee distort history by claiming Luther was a MOTA (Minister of the Age) and they too are 20th century MOTA's in succession to Luther. How absurd is that, knowing what you now know about Luther? The exaltation of Luther in the Recovery supersedes that of the entire body of Christ. I have been to Lutheran churches, and they speak less about Luther than Lee did. Lee used Luther to exalt himself as MOTA. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 06:49 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Quote:
This is such a common ploy of LSM -- once exposed as being outside of the mainstream, they quickly attempt to attach themselves to orthodox Christianity, which they otherwise regularly condemn. Folks, I have watched LSM do this for 40 years. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 05:41 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
The Problem with the Reformers: Not allowing every member to function While the Reformers themselves contributed much and were used by God to restoring or recovering God's truth to Christianity such as salvation by faith alone, these were not perfect men. In many cases, they were crude, vulgar and violent men and they retained a number of unbiblical beliefs, such as that in church only the priest or pastor can function and the laity cannot. I don't really care about the type of person they were, as I understand that it was common for men to be vulgar and violent in the 16th Century, even Christians - it was a matter of survival or culture. However to retain the dated beliefs that not every member can function is one reason I do not follow the Reformers or the Reformed churches, in particular, Calvinism and Lutheranism. The concept of the "lay preacher" is thought to originate with Arminianism and the work of John Wesley. Although Luther believed in the priesthood of all believers "every man is a priest", this did not seem to carry through to the church services. Today, a Lutheran church service is still very much like a Catholic one, with one notable difference being doing more standing than sitting (I have even observed Lutherans wearing fitness apparel to church and carrying water bottles, as all that standing and sitting must constitute some form of physical workout). This post by Frank Viola shows the attitude of Luther towards other reformers and the Anabaptists. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...fmartinluther/ It explains Luther's views on a Christian's right to stand up and speak in a church meeting: The Anabaptists believed it was every Christian’s right to stand up and speak in a church meeting. It was not solely the domain of the clergy. Luther was so opposed to this practice that he said it came from “the pit of hell” and those who were guilty of it should be put to death. In addition, Luther felt that if the whole church publicly administered the Lord’s Supper it would be a “deplorable confusion.” To Luther’s mind, one person must take on this task—the Protestant pastor. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...dTWBJCxWljM.99 The poster who seems stuck in the 1689 era may do well to proclaim the virtues of the Reformation in terms of giving us access to the bible and the various truths it recovered. But in church they might find the pastor telling them to shut up and wait until the end of the service if they want to say something or even shout a holy Amen during the prayer time. In this sense, there is not much difference between a Catholic Priest who does not allow a church member to function, and a Lutheran Priest who does not allow a church member to function. This is one reason why we in the local church view the Reformed churches as sub-par according to the truth of the Bible and why the Reformation was not the be all and end all of what God wanted to accomplish. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 05:24 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Try as some (just Ohio I think ) might, to claim that I use some sort of fallacy to explain the term heresy, the fact is I have only used the Bible and the Bible alone to define the term. The way the Bible defines heresy is I believe the way God defines heresy, and not as man has defined heresy (in relation to man-made Creeds, Confessions etc). In short, the Bible defines heresy as denial of who Christ was and what Christ did (the gospel), and those who stir up divisions in relation to the denial of Christ. The early church faced two main types of heresy - gnosticism and Judaism. Gnosticism was heretical mainly because of its denial of the person of Christ - that Christ did not come in the flesh. The book of 1 John combats this heresy. Judaism was heretical mainly because of its denial of what Christ did on the cross - by claiming that grace through faith alone was insufficient. The book of Galatians combats this heresy. Gnosticism was more than just a theological threat - the production of many "gnostic gospels" such as gospel of Judas etc could well have derailed the church if not for the works of the early church fathers. The church fathers themselves, had a variety of strange opinions and ideas themselves, but they weren't considered heretics because they held to the teaching of the apostles regarding the person and work of Christ. For example, some believed in infant baptism, which some Christians today may consider heretical. We should remember that the Creeds were written to combat these serious threats to the Church, and not meant to be a "catch-all". We can see that none of these early church concerns pertain to a theological argument about the Trinity. People who "disagree with the Trinity" does not even rate a mention in the Bible, meaning it was not seen as important by the Apostles. A complete list of verses pertaining to heresy is found here: https://www.openbible.info/topics/heresy A quick review of these verses show clearly that heresy is defined as: 1) denial of Christ in the flesh, another Jesus, or another gospel (2 Peter 2:1-22 , Galatians 1:8-9etc). - this is heresy by denying the person of Christ or the gospel which pertains to the work of Christ. 2) Wicked works of the flesh, (2 John 1:11, Gal 5:19) 3) Division and rebellion (1 Samuel 15:23 and verses I quoted in previous post). This denotes divisions or schisms in "the church". Points 1) and 2) should be obvious as to their application - anyone denying Christ and claiming to be a Christian is a heretic. Point 3) is trickier because it is coupled with our view of "the church". The misapplication of point 3) by Catholics, Protestants and Reformers was to claim to be "the church" and thereby claim that those who disagree with them are heretics. In this way, Catholics viewed Luther as heretic, Luther viewed Catholics as heretic, and Church of England viewed both as heretic (a rather entertaining history and origin with King Henry VIII etc). There was also some heresy dynamic going on between Calvinists and others. It does not make much sense that any group can claim to be "the church" and claim others to be heretics. If that were the case, I could start a new church tomorrow and claim others are heretics if they do not accept my new church's Creed or Confession. The definition of heresy in relation to the Creeds or the Trinity etc is more strictly, theological heresy and the Bible is relatively silent about that. It is not biblical heresy and in God's eyes maybe isn't heresy at all. God is mainly concerned with what we believe about Christ. Some, may think of the Reformation as a noble act of God, a single, well defined event that gave us Christianity in its purest form. However the reality was that the Reformation was a mess, a flurry of activity as people tried to break from the Catholic church, complicated by the involvement of governments, politics, and kings (King Henry etc). None of these groups decided to sit down together and agree on the biblical definition of heresy - they were too busy calling each other heretics and killing them for it. I personally believe that during the time of Constantine, genuine believers were outcast or even killed as heretics simply for not agreeing with the dogmatic definition of the nature of God, known as the Trinity or the Nicene Creed, as defined. While the Creeds served their purpose in resolving obvious heresies such as gnosticism and Judaism which deny the person or work of Christ, I believe the early church had a wide variety of opinions about the nature of God which may not have disqualifed them as heretics according to the biblical definition (points 1),2),3) above). |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 11:22 AM | |||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Hey 1689er, When you get a second could you please shoot an email to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com requesting registration. (the UserName 1689er is ripe for the takin!) We'll then shoot you back an email with a temporary password which you can change to something only you will know. As a registered member, your posts will not have to go through the inconvenience and delay of the moderation queue. Also you will have access to the Private Messaging system where you can communicate privately with any other registered member. Thanks again for your participation! - |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 09:30 AM | |||||||
| 1689er |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? let's crack into ephesians 4:1-7 "1Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called," What calling? the call to faith. THE CALL. not a call, a church, a belief. 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, though the reformation was not a time of tolerance generally, there were some that were. John Calvin was generally tolerant. Servetus, despite popular belief, was given many responses, 30 or so, in correspondence to his non-trinitarian heresy. we call that heresy because the bible teaches it, not because its in a creed. and John Calvin clearly warned him not to come to Geneva. This is about the most intense thing you can lay on the man. Luther has a much bigger rap sheet. 3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. The faith is one. There is one God here, and one way of understanding the scriptures: not through the "holy mother church". While Luther may very well have been talking about reforming the church, it was a matter of sola scriptura. not creeds. not councils. He was an Augustinian doctor of the church and was bent on putting scripture first. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. We were all saved by the singular God of this singular faith and church, through his singular spirit, 3 persons, one God. and we are all to seek, in one way or another, to harmonize and get down to the truth. And we've all been given a measure of grace to believe the true gospel and follow it, some more, some less. The reformation was the birth of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and all their offshoots. these three wings of faith are very close depending on which topic we're talking about, and all these backgrounds are valid forms of faith. all of them agree on God in the basics. So a heretic is someone who is an anti-christ. a person who does not accept the plain revelation of scripture and the God of scripture. They twist and contort the bible to their own ends. Now, THE EARLY CHURCH was in no way perfect. we had a few extra books floating around, the theologians had their rough edges but by and by, the pauline theological position that the reformers sought to reclaim -again, not just because of creeds- was greatly diminished, and people who tried to believe according to orthodox scripture were branded heretics and burned at the stake. the scarlet whore of babylon had reigned for a time. But God, even in that pagan age, produced scholars who regarded the scripture and loved the Lord, and they preserved the bible more than adequately. The bible has been handed down as it was from 2000 years ago, in the original greek and hebrew and aramaic. An act of God for sure. The reformation was a great time of revival for christians because never before have we had our bibles in the common tongue. never before had we been given freedom to read the scriptures for ourselves. If it were not for them, there would be no witness lee movement, no assemblies of god, no southern baptist church... the majority of the world would still believe in heresy. And make no mistake, just because the catholic church believes certain core values of christian faith does not make the institution any less heretical. "vicar of christ" "perpetual virginity of mary" "purgatory" "indulgences" "confession" "penance". the institution is heresy. people in the church may still be in faith, its possible to be deceived and be saved to a certain extent, but if the plain truth of scripture is there and being rejected those people will be held accountable. The aim of the reformation was not ONLY to bring the catholic church to sound teaching because of the burden as mentioned in ephesians, but to make scriptural, sound theology the dictator of how we run the church. John Calvin, in my opinion, was the most faithful man of the reformation. His church was not merely an overhaul, it was a schism. 2 sacraments, both symbolic, 3 biblical leaders; the lead-elder or pastor, elder, and deacon. no funny clothes or funny prayers or traditions of men (with the exception, also in my opinion, of the continued paedobaptism) http://www.1689.com/confession.html the 1689 particular baptist confession is neither catholic, nor appealing to catholics to change. it is not based in traditions of men, nor of creed worship. It is the plain, scriptural statements of faith as set forth by the holy scriptures. In my opinion, it is the most faithful and specific creed of the protestant era. the westminster confession is like it, but less specific the heidelberg catechism was made for children to understand, so is generally faithful and many more. the reformation was not pandering to catholics, it was pleading with a sinful institution to repent. it did not, therefore, protestantism. and any good church ought to have one bible, and only that bible, for forming all of its practices and regulations. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 09:23 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Witness Lee's and Evangelical's error here expounding the word "heresy" or "heretic" is called genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits. I should add that Lee and LSM have longed used this flawed exposition of the word "heretic" as a basis of their many excommunications over the decades, including the expulsion of Titus Chu in the GLA. Here is one such article. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 09:04 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
One can also accurately state that the Lord stands at the door of every LC in the Recovery and knocks, hoping to come in and dine with each of them. As you posted, "with what judgment you judge, you will be judged." It is totally unbelievable that his followers once believed that the entire body of Christ (outside of earshot from Lee) was absolutely Christless. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 08:15 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Jesus continually taught the disciples to take the last place. Paul confirmed this by urging us to think of others more highly. Those who thought of themselves great on earth will not be great in heaven. Those who are great in this age will not be great in the age to come. Those who point out how 'christless' other believers are, are in danger of the same judgment on themselves. With what you judge others, you will be judged. Lee gave free reign to his subjectivity in making such sweeping statements. I daresay it's unwise to follow. Just my two cents. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 04:37 AM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? The "true meaning" of the English word heretic is not entirely defined by its etymological source, in this case the Greek word hairesis. There are literally millions of words in every language which become nuanced over the centuries, and may become source words for other lanuages with altered semantics. Word etymology can always be an informative starting point, but cannot overrule prevailing language semantics. Though LSM loves to define all error in terms of so-called oneness or deviation from their ministry, the words heresy and heretic today are not at all related to ecclesiatcal unity. Rather they are they are defined by a deviation from the orthodox faith and truths of scripture. In this regard, Evangelical is correct in saying that the creeds of Christianity are not definitive to our faith, but are indeed an excellent starting point. For example, definitive verses such as I John 4.1-3 are far more useful to the believing church to delineate heresy and heretics. Though these verses do not specifically use the word heresy, John exactly addresses heresy for the church. These verses in John are a far better working definition than the ones Evangelical quoted. All dictionaries confirm what I am saying about heresy. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 02:56 AM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
I think many Christians believe in the Creeds first and the Bible second. They presume that the Creeds are the foundation for the Christian life and the Bible, such as this poster has indicated. They think that if they believe certain things, and agree with all the Creeds, that they are not a heretic. Well I will show this view to be wrong, from the bible, towards the end of this post, and show how the Bible defines the word heretic or heresy. There are a few things to realize about the Creeds. Firstly, at the time the Nicene Creed (AD 325) , 7 books we have in our bibles today were not Canonical. It wasn't until A.D. 397 that the Council of Carthage determined that the 7 books should be part of the Bible. Secondly, the Creeds are a result of the pagan Emperor, Constantine, deciding about what Christians should believe about the nature of God and so forth. Protestants unquestionably accept these teachings as if they were Catholics themselves, but I think during the Reformation they had bigger things to worry about than arguing or defining the nature of God, like trying to not get caught by Catholics and making the bible available for all people. Regarding this poster's statement that those who disagree with the "majority of other Christians"are heretics, I have these questions: 1) Roman Catholicism at 1.2 billion people, is "the majority of other Christians". Should we be Catholics? 2) The Reformation itself would not have happened if Luther, Calvin etc agreed with the majority of Christians. This definition of heresy does not seem right ot me. The term heresy, for centuries, meant those who disagreed with the teachings of the "true church", the Roman Catholic church. In this sense, Luther, Calvin etc were considered heretics for not staying with the Catholic church's teachings. However the term heresy was redefined by the Reformers, as this poster has also done, to mean those who disagree with the majority. In that sense, those who did not agree with Luthers teachings were called heretics. Those who disagreed with the Church of England were heretics. Those who rejected Calvin's teachings were called heretics. Obviously, the term heresy became relative to whoever laid the charge of heresy at others. So when someone says "heresy" we must ask the question - in relation to what? Common sense tells us that if God is true, never changing, and if absolute truth exists, then heresy cannot be a relative thing, there must be an absolute definition of heresy, and I will show that the bible provides an absolute definition of the word in two verses: Galatians 5:19-21a says, "And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, faction, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, carousings..." The Greek word for "parties" is hairesis which literally means heresies, and means various schools of opinions, or sects. Titus 3:10 uses the same word hairesis meaning factious man, or one who is inclined to dissension. So we can see that according to the Bible, that 1689er 's definition of heresy, though standard in Protestantism, is wrong and not scriptural. A heretic is not one who "disagrees with the majority", but one who separates into parties, dissension, schools of opinions or sects. So in this biblical sense, the Catholic useage of the word, as any who break away from the "true church", is more correct and biblical than the Protestant use of the word which defines it as a thing relative to the majority of opinion. This is ironic given that the Protestants claim to be "Sola Scriptura". But actually if we go back to a time before Catholicism, when all believer in the city were considered to be "the church", and not those who held to Roman Catholic teachings or otherwise, then the true biblical definition of a heretic and heresy is clear - a heretic is one who separates into a party, sect, even a denomination. The real heretics are those who separate from "the church", and it is nothing much to do with what they believe about the nature of God and such or whether or not they agree with the majority. What this biblical definition shows is that a person could believe in all the Creeds, yet be a heretic if they are a divisive person like described by "I follow Paul" (1 Cor 3:4). Note that I did not use the term "the true church" because it is a nonsensical argument - in God's eyes there are only two types of people - believers and unbelievers. Believers are the church, and unbelievers are not. The so-called denominational churches are more correctly, organized sects, as they are cuts/divisions in the church which did not exist in the time of the apostles. Anyone who wishes to be a "noble berean" can search Galatians 5:19-21a and Titus 3:10 in Greek for themselves, and see the true meaning of the word heretic according to the Bible. Even if they disagree with it on the basis of its implication regarding the local church/Lee/Nee and the teachings on the one church per city, it should hopefully be clear that a heretic is not those who disagree with the majority. |
||||||
| 10-05-2017 02:52 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
In this case 'christless' meant ( I think) an experience that was merely objective, outward. Though not untrue, being associated with a confession that was true (that confession being based on the scriptures), the 'chistless' person still lacked the 'rich and full' inward, subjective apprehension of the Christ in glory. This 'so subjective' Christ cared little for the poor, who could not repay in this age, but rather cared for the "good building material", who could support the ministry. Etc. I could list many such things. This forum is full of them. I was there and came under the thrall of that argument. But over time I began to appreciate more and more that the 'subjective Christ' proclaimed there, as being "real in me, and rich and sweet" was little like the man Jesus revealed in the gospels, explained in epistles, and pointed to in the OT. |
||||||
| 10-04-2017 08:40 PM | |||||||
| Kevin |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-04-2017 04:02 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
And renaming the college of cardinals the "Blended Brothers." And the daily devotional in the Catholic Missal into the HWFMR. And bringing the capital of the church out of fallen Rome into the new world of Anaheim, CA. Great Recovery! |
||||||
| 10-04-2017 03:46 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? I think many would agree that Reformation is a continual thing. We cannot remain stagnant however that is what the Reformed churches became. They stopped at the matter of salvation by faith but did not recover the gifts of the Spirit. The charismatic movement tried to restore the spiritual gifts to the church because they saw that the bible is not just about Calvinism vs Arminism. However let us be clear. The aim of Reformation was to reform the Catholic church..not to go back to the time of the apostles.. A better word is Recovery. To reform the church is to say that the early Catholic church was the right one..and that is all the world knew for hundreds of years. The aim of Recovery is to recover even the things corrupted and lost by the early Catholic church. I can say with some degree of confidence that no Reformed church has the goal of bringing Christ back or recover the church condition. They have become as much about forms and rituals as Catholics before. Which is why I guess they can blend so well with Catholics in ecumenical services. But i think the reformers Luther Calvin etc would be shocked at how catholic the reformed churches have become. |
||||||
| 10-04-2017 01:43 PM | |||||||
| 1689er |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? So I have been following this closely and I'm just going to say some things here that some people may or may not appreciate. Firstly let's start with who Christian is according to the Bible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed The Apostles Creed is the admittance of God is Savior and Lord and truly God and his gospel testimony in its plain simplicity. It also is highlighting the importance of God's Church. The Holy Catholic Church it says. Catholic merely means Universal. So God In His Infinite Wisdom has instituted the Universal Church as the communion of Believers across the Spectrum. If anybody believes these things to be true generally speaking they will be Christian. This is a very Broad and simplistic confession. There are some notable things that are missing from this Creed. The big one is the nature of God in three persons. This is remedied in the next confession. https://www.crcna.org/welcome/belief...s/nicene-creed This Creed is a little different in that it explains the nature of God the Father God the son and God the Holy Spirit as God from God, not being created but rather preexisting. But it doesn't quite spell it out. http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html The anastasian Creed is clear and concise. Any man who disagrees with these is in the deception of the devil and believing a lie. The Christians are trinitarian, believing in God is three persons separate and Jesus Christ is one person. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin died for our sins and it through him we receive forgiveness and him alone. Ask for anybody claiming to have an authority on Truth the only truth is the truth that Jesus Christ proclaimed, and as he said so himself he is a fulfillment of the law and Prophets. He is the Messiah that was promised in the Old Testament and witnessed by the books we now know in the Old Testament., the New Testament is the history of the Apostles Ministry and their confessions and thoughts, and are the inspired word of God. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible are held to be 100% inerrant, divinely given. No such people who believe in Jesus and the Bible can be called christless. This is in no way Bible worship or false piety that we have confessions and creates that are based solidly in scripture and we believe the words of God's Own truth. Anybody who says otherwise himself is a heretic. Anybody who claims do you have a very specific Church or view of scripture not held by the majority of other Christians is himself a heretic. Anybody who claims to have a special Revelation from God that is not in accordance with scripture or 6 to add or remove from spiritual truth of the Bible, that was given to them and them alone is himself a heretic. Furthermore any persons who look at the plain truth of scripture and it's clear unambiguous meanings and reject the truth for a lie are Heretics. There are people who believe in things that are not quite biblical and these beliefs are called heterodox. It is possible to believe in heterodoxy rather than Orthodoxy which is the mainstream accepted forms of belief of the Bible and its interpretation. anybody who reject God's truth for selfish reasons in plain rebellion of scripture is a heretic. |
||||||
| 10-04-2017 01:24 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Is it a Cargo Cult thing ; if we just get the early church just right God will send the cargo? Is that how it works? Please explain. |
||||||
| 10-04-2017 08:12 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Because you see, the age turned. Subsequent to Nee et al, protest was not good, but bad. Any protest, subsequent to Nee's establishment as Maximum Brother, was rebellion, an insidious attack by God's enemy. You have to watch the timeline carefully in this recovery narrative. Because the rules change, over time. |
||||||
| 10-03-2017 04:36 PM | |||||||
| Kevin |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-03-2017 02:13 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-03-2017 10:35 AM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Amen to that bro Untohim ... AMEN !!! |
||||||
| 10-03-2017 09:48 AM | |||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Make no mistake, the Local Church's deplorable treatment and attitude towards their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is a direct result of the teachings, practices and attitude passed on from the person and work of Witness Lee. - |
||||||
| 10-03-2017 08:59 AM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Lee was right, I thought back then. I had had enough of Christianity by the time I ran into the local church. I grew up in it, and eventually I saw, in short, that they had no Spirit ... or as Lee said, "Christless." Now I've come to see that Lee was just another Protestant ; a super Protestant in fact. But in the end just another protestant in a long list of protestants ... and along the way Witness Lee and his movement will suffer the blows of other Protestants. And Protestantism will go on like nothing happened ... protesting everyone but themselves. |
||||||
| 10-02-2017 03:51 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-02-2017 03:44 PM | |||||||
| Kevin |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-02-2017 03:38 PM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
In this way the Reformers became just like the Catholics by holding onto teachings and traditions. One thing you can't deny because its a fact of history is that the Reformation became political and the Reformed denominations existing today are from that political upheavel. So to say they were or are Christ alone is incorrect. |
||||||
| 10-02-2017 02:36 PM | |||||||
| Kevin |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? It's not up to LC to authoritatively determine who's alive or not. Let scripture show who's living and dead. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-02-2017 02:36 AM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
| 10-02-2017 01:27 AM | |||||||
| Kevin |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Yet LCers can't determine these distinctions instead believing that all those in the reformed faith are Christless and dead. Quote:
Quote:
Evangelical: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
R.C Sproul John Macarthur Voddie Baucham James White Alistair Begg Todd Friel Jeff Durbin Steven Lawson |
||||||
| 10-02-2017 01:24 AM | |||||||
| aron |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
"Oh, that's experientially, not defining doctrine." I always felt the "Recovery" narrative leaned on slender reeds; and at the end, the tale-bearer exclaimed, "Hey! Look everyone! I'm the center of the universe!!" Yes, how convenient. My own, equally arbitrary (but I admit it) narrative of church history runs thus: In the beginning (e.g., Pentecost in Acts 2), the Church was nearly 100% Jewish. Within a few centuries the Church was not only nearly 100% non-Jewish, but even anti-Jewish in tone (see Justin's 'Dialog with Trypho the Jew'). Not coincidentally, the Church subsequently fell into disarray over ideals like the meaning and application of the word "nature" ('ground of the church', anyone?). By 450 CE the Church had split itself apart at the Council of Chalcedon. Six regions left: the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Persians, and the Indian churches. Remember that at this time the Christian mission had engulfed what is today Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, etc. With the infighting and rancor, the stage was set for Islam to replace Christianity as the dominant force in the Levant. It nearly swallowed Europe at one point. (Its European resurgence bears note, today). And so, the Recovery (or Reformation, or Restoration) narrative lurches forward, fitfully. Going back to my point about the Church vis-a-vis the Jews, our narrative has coherency and/or legitimacy only inasmuch as it doesn't try to de-legitimise all the rest. Remember, what you do to others will be done to you. |
||||||
| 10-02-2017 12:22 AM | |||||||
| Evangelical |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
This is a local church definition of Christless: Rev 3:20a "Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” It is referring to the church organization not the individuals within that church. As believers, Piper and Washer would be alive in Christ. |
||||||
| 10-01-2017 07:35 PM | |||||||
| awareness |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
I picked up on it while following Lee, and way back in the 1970's, when I was contesting Lee as THE Apostle/Oracle/MOTA. Even way back then I was heavily burdened to save the local church from falling into Laodicea. I failed. Now I see that relating the 7 churches like that is a contortion of those scriptures ... that's used to teach that "their" church is the final stage ... like Lee claimed about The Recovery. |
||||||
| 10-01-2017 05:32 PM | |||||||
| Ohio |
Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Do they really think only LSM/LCers have Christ. How could any one with a sound, sober, and renewed mind of Christ actually believe that? Did the LSM/LC "have Christ" when they filed all those lawsuits and excommunicated all those former elders and co-workers? How about when Philip Lee ran the LSM Office and was molesting the volunteer female staffers? Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ purposely avoided every child of God outside the LC because they all had the wrong name on their church building? Do you really think the Lord Jesus Christ remained with every LSM/LCer (despite their sins) because they had the right name on their church building? |
||||||
| 10-01-2017 04:53 PM | |||||||
| Kevin |
The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation? Quote:
Are we to attribute a "spirit" to the seven churches of Revelation or necessarily compare a church today to one of the seven churches of Revelation? The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches at the time that John the apostle was writing the book of Revelation. Though they were literal churches in that time, there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today. The LCM use the seven churches to foreshadow seven different periods in the history of the Church. The problem with this view is that each of the seven churches describes issues that could fit the Church in any time in its history. So, although there may be some truth to the seven churches representing seven eras, there is far too much speculation in this regard. I can't articulate to defend my position as a Reformed Baptist. |
||||||
