Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Some of the latest, from the summer training:

Originally Posted by OBW

I haven't seen enough of Zesima's posts to have an opinion on the subject, so I'll take your word for it.

I remember years ago when I made a comment about something on the other forum (before this one had started) in which I quoted a line from a song by The Who, and one of our Philippino hosts responded with something like "we don't get our theology from songs."

Originally Posted by OBW

Dodging the question(s) are we? You realize that the standard method of study and teaching for a rabbi, including Jesus, was to ask questions of those who came with answers.

I make no pretense of being at the level of either a rabbi or Christian theologian, but if either wants to convince me, they need to answer some questions, not make bare statements like "Christianity is filled with the divisive differences" or "impossible for Christians outside the recovery."

And the first questions to come to mind are:

1. What are the divisive differences?
2. If differences must be qualified by the word "divisive," are there differences that would not be divisive?
3. Are you sure they are divisive in the way you mean it?
4. Are your differences any less divisive (or possibly even more so)?
5. Are you sure that the declarations of your leadership, both past and present, is not fully divisive when they declare all of the rest of Christianity to be mooing cows and the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon?
6. How do you define this "church life" that you declare no others can have?
7. Are you sure that it is the goal of the life of a true church?
8. If so, are you sure that no one else has it?

Maybe the real issue is that lack of critical thinking is the result of darts from Satan.

Originally Posted by OBW

Dodging the question(s) are we? You realize that the standard method of study and teaching for a rabbi, including Jesus, was to ask questions of those who came with answers.

I make no pretense of being at the level of either a rabbi or Christian theologian, but if either wants to convince me, they need to answer some questions, not make bare statements like "Christianity is filled with the divisive differences" or "impossible for Christians outside the recovery."

And the first questions to come to mind are:

1. What are the divisive differences?
2. If differences must be qualified by the word "divisive," are there differences that would not be divisive?
3. Are you sure they are divisive in the way you mean it?
4. Are your differences any less divisive (or possibly even more so)?
5. Are you sure that the declarations of your leadership, both past and present, is not fully divisive when they declare all of the rest of Christianity to be mooing cows and the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon?
6. How do you define this "church life" that you declare no others can have?
7. Are you sure that it is the goal of the life of a true church?
8. If so, are you sure that no one else has it?

Maybe the real issue is that lack of critical thinking is the result of darts from Satan.

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of really interesting questions, but before engaging I’d ask you to pray. The question mark is an upside down serpent, and critical thoughts are darts from satan.

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of really interesting questions, but before engaging I’d ask you to pray. The question mark is an upside down serpent, and critical thoughts are darts from satan.

Originally Posted by OBW

You mean divisive differences like only learning from the Oracle of the age? Believing that churches named according to cities are the only legitimate ones?

I guess my general understanding of the church as the body of Christ and the assembling of those that comprise that body was wrong. I need a new Bible that teaches their way.

But the thing that is missing in quotes like this one is: "What is the church life?" How is it defined such that not being all-in with whatever the LRC is selling constitutes a "divisive difference" that denies that there is a church with any kind of life, therefore "impossible . . . to have . . ."?

Originally Posted by Nell

Do Christians outside the LC have a goal of “having the church life” as defined by Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Zezima

“Christianity is filled with the divisive differences among the various peoples. For this reason, it is impossible for Christians outside the recovery to have the church life.”

-Life-study of Ephesians, msg. 23: The Breaking down of the Middle Wall of Partition

Originally Posted by Zezima

“So many things in Christianity are leaven. These include Christmas, Easter, idols, pictures, images, rock music, drama, and the entire Y.M.C.A. system”

Life Study of Matthew ch. 38 section 3

Originally Posted by Zezima

“We do not want the divisive practice of the Protestant denominations, and neither do we want the pagan customs, such as Easter or Christmas. Today what most Christians preach is a shallow gospel”

- CWWL, 1994–1997, vol. 2, "Talks with a Seeking One," ch. 2: The Way of the Church and the Practice of the Lord's Recovery

Originally Posted by Ohio

That leaven has also leavened the entire Recovery.

Originally Posted by Zezima

“So many things in Christianity are leaven. These include Christmas, Easter, idols, pictures, images, rock music, drama, and the entire Y.M.C.A. system”

Life Study of Matthew ch. 38 section 3

Originally Posted by Trapped

This "regardless of right or wrong" stuff just hacks me off. So Witness Lee's ministry can be full of poisonous stuff, and we are just supposed to apply the "chicken versus bones/feathers" principle, but with other non-ministry things, we are supposed to forsake EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS of the right parts or not.

Why on earth would anyone forsake something that is actually right? That's ridiculous. What happened to "test all things, hold fast to what is good, reject what is evil"?

Trapped

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you not read that both “right and wrong” are both from the same tree? Or so we were told. It all made so much sense when I was there.

Originally Posted by Trapped

This "regardless of right or wrong" stuff just hacks me off. So Witness Lee's ministry can be full of poisonous stuff, and we are just supposed to apply the "chicken versus bones/feathers" principle, but with other non-ministry things, we are supposed to forsake EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS of the right parts or not.

Why on earth would anyone forsake something that is actually right? That's ridiculous. What happened to "test all things, hold fast to what is good, reject what is evil"?

Trapped

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

And this is the new version of it:

“Instead of Bible study classes, we need weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness. We must listen to the Spirit—not just read what is written. We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” To read the writings is not sufficient. The age has been turned to the Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided? It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines. The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be. All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church. I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines. May the Lord have mercy on us that we may forsake all those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Let us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit. Our mentality has done much damage to the Lord's recovery. We simply need to turn to the Spirit.”

Originally Posted by Trapped

That makes no sense to me....to believe that an infant with absolutely no awareness of right and wrong and who, ostensibly, would not have actually committed a sin, would perish/be judged by God. For what exactly? What offense did they commit? Being born? That's not a just God....but that concept of God is what fuels some of the anger of some people who reject Him.

Additionally, it makes no sense to me that we would be born with an inherent sin nature, a tendency or drive to sin that we have no control over, and then Jesus, who is supposed to be like us in every way, has a completely different human nature than us....one without inherent sin. This is not "like us in every way"; this is, rather, a massive leg up on the problem! His not ever committing a sin, given his distinct advantage in that regard, ends up being more of a cop out than an encouragement or amazing feat. It's only if His and our human natures are the same that His being sinless is actually meaningful. If His and our human natures are the same, then either He had a sin nature like us, or we do not have a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He not only did not have a sin nature, He also did not commit acts of sin, so the former option goes out the window. So......that leaves the latter, and this puts the thought that WE have an inherent sin nature up for question.

(Note: in case it is not clear, I am making a distinction between a sin nature versus actually committing acts of sin.)

I think, honestly, that we are the same as Adam and Eve, pre-fall. They had a human nature that was granted free will to sin or not sin, to obey or disobey. And we have the same choice. I don't recall some kind of "nature change" of Adam and Eve in the Bible, or a "nature change" that ever came over me when I willfully sinned for the first time.

As an aside, I get a kick out of the fact that Jesus making a whip and driving them all out of the temple and overturning tables.......was not a sin! In the local church you end up apologizing for intangible things like being "too much"!

Trapped

Originally Posted by Ohio

Original sin is a Catholic concept, namely that sin was passed down genetically to all newborns. That's why they rush to baptize infants when young, so they will not perish due to "original sin."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
G.K. Chesterton


My goodness, I would never have imagined that such a light-hearted quip would cause such a stir! I like to occasionally throw in a quote from people like Chesterton, who was not a trained theologian per se (He was a Christian philosopher/critic/comedian) because sometimes it really helps to look at Biblical/theological concepts and ideas from a more pragmatic, even cynical, point of view.

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car! Sometimes it takes a little standing back from the actual black and white of Scripture, and then combine scriptural concepts and ideas with our common human experiences and observations, and thereby come up with an axiom that expresses a biblical truism, and at the same time matches our human experience.

Whether or not the term "original sin" is a Catholic concept is not as relevant, I believe, as the fact that it is based upon a scriptural/historical event - the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their abject disobedience to God. The apostle Paul clearly and strongly teaches that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin were as devastating as they were enduring - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Coming back to Chesterton, he was simply making a claim based upon his human experience and observation.
-

Originally Posted by Trapped

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - G.K. Chesterton

Has this concept of "original sin" been discussed anywhere here on the forum?

I'm not sure what Chesterton means by original sin.....but I'm also not sure how much I agree with it either. I believe it means things like:

Originally Posted by JJ

Great quote, Nell. Thanks for sharing it.

Originally Posted by Nell

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before.

The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view.

Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation that follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

B. B. Warfield
1851-1921

Originally Posted by aron

The above isn't a doctrine or teaching but a story of experience.

Originally Posted by OBW

Adoption is a very informative descriptor for the relationship of God with man. He not only put his life into us, but he also did it despite the fact that without it we were already his enemy. Yet he chose to take us anyway.

To miss or dismiss this aspect of our relationship with God would be a travesty.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sorry, StG, I was too myopic in my response and didn't include a "granted" or an "I can see that xyz" anywhere. I'm very, very tired so if this doesn't quite make sense.....please have mercy and don't blast me.

If what Nee is trying to say by that first sentence is something like "the success of our Christian life is not determined by whether we do everything right" or "we are not justified by keeping right and wrong" or "the Christian life is not based on law-keeping" (I think you get the thrust of what I'm trying to say), then yes, I agree. If that's what he meant, again, he needs to work on his communication skills, but if I squint my eyes, I can grant that he may have meant that.

If I have to follow Nee's structure, I would edit the first sentence to say "Our Christian living is based on an inner life, which guides us to live in submission to His commands." Or something like that, my brain fails me at the moment. I know I'm emphasizing the commandments, and it's a little knee-jerk in response to Nee's wholesale tossing them aside, but they are a guide for us, to be sure.

Christian living is to know God and love God, and to love people. Christian living is not all inner and it's not all outer either. Nee and Lee sometimes liked to uplift one side of things and completely soak in oil and light on fire the other side of things.

I personally have always had trouble with vague spiritual language, and something like "live Christ" doesn't mean much to me. In other words, it's too ethereal. Too mystical. Too "what does that mean in actuality?" I can't chase after "living Christ". What I CAN do is talk to God, trust God, put the next minute/hour/day/week/month/year in God's hands, throw myself at the mercy of God, try to grasp who He is from what creation and the Bible speaks of Him, listen to His voice, etc......and in so doing, live in step with Him in my human life. And all this is done and is only possible through Christ. That I can grasp and try to do. But I can't go off and "live Christ" and have any idea what that looks like or entails (unless someone explains it to me in a way that turns the lightbulb in my head on and I come to understand what it means better than how I understand it now.)

For the record, I googled "what does it mean to "live Christ"". Note that I put "live Christ" in quotation marks so that specific two-word phrase would have to be present on any returned page. In other words, not the phrase "to live is Christ" but the phrase "live Christ". From the first two pages of results:
-some sites did not have the phrase on them, but had "to live is Christ" instead.
-some sites had "live Christ" but were just noting that that's the literal Greek...."for me to live Christ and to die gain". Not the usage we are dealing with.
-two sites were a personal blog that used the phrase but did not handle it the way Nee/Lee did.
-other sites had the phrase "live Christ-centered" or "live Christ-like" which is not what I was looking for.
-the sites that actually said "live Christ" were BfA, agodman.com, holdingtotruth.com, ministrybooks.org, and ministrysamples.org. In other words, all LC saints or LSM related sites.

(As an unrelated aside, in looking at the Greek for that verse, I think it's better rendered "For me, to live is Christ and to have died is gain." The verb forms for "to live" and "to die" are both infinitives, but are different tenses of infinitives. "To die" is a tense that indicate something that has happened, which I think is better said "to have died". Not related, but just something I noticed.)

Originally Posted by Trapped

John 14:15 - “If you love me, keep my commands.

John 15:10 - If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

Christian living is in no way NOT not an outward standard of right and wrong. All I see is a young big-headed kid (Nee, not you, StG) wanting to create a moving line of right and wrong, and wrapping it up in spiritual sounding language to justify himself.

"Christians are different because we do not live by an outward standard or law"? No, Christians are different because they have been shown the mercy of God and granted the free gift of eternal life. We still live by all the outward standards and laws non-Christians do.

If the point that Nee is making is that without having the life of Christ inside of us, the Christian life is impossible, he sure missed an incredibly easy way of saying that!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I'll "take the bait" on this one. I can see where someone might abuse this saying, especially the last part (I'll let others elaborate on that, if they care to). But I see nothing wrong with the opening sentence. It says, "God's word tells us that Christian living is based on an inner life, not an outward standard of right and wrong." This is 100% right. Now one might measure the manifestation or fruit of this inner life by what a person does, and that is certainly applicable I think. But trying to live the Christian life by outward right & wrong instead of the indwelling Christ, is pure folly, and a trap the enemy would surely like to see us all fall into more.

Without the inner life of "Christ in us, the hope of glory," the Christian life is unequivocally impossible. And that is the point I think Nee is making.

Originally Posted by Nell

Unto is trying to trick us...again...

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree. Great analysis.

Impartiality is a positive action to treat others fairly, without being a respecter of persons. God Himself has promised to treat us accordingly. Church elders were exhorted to do the same.

Not sure what GKC was referring to. Perhaps some language nuance?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'mmmmmm not sure I agree with G.K. Chesterton's quote on the side of the LCD main page today:

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."

The ones hearing accusations against elders are charged to be impartial, which certainly is the appropriate thing to do. Maybe Chesterton is speaking of remaining impartial even in the face of facts? I suppose impartiality is the correct way when hearing the details of a situation, but once you know the facts, it's THEN that continued impartiality is indifference? But in that case, if you are still impartial in the face of facts, then that seems by default to actually be PARTIAL, because rather than side with the truth you are remaining "impartial", which is de facto siding with the lie, which is by definition partiality. In that case impartiality is actually partiality, which to the victim's side is experienced as indifference. Which means I do partially agree with GKC. Maybe.

Not sure if I thought myself off a cliff there or if that sounds right.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whenever I see statements like this one Lee made, I have to ask whether the intention was to convey some Biblical truth or to deliver something for shock value. All too often it was the latter.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well I took the context to be that Moses and Paul "were both well-versed in the language, the thinking, and the philosophy of their cultures".

Originally Posted by Freedom

Very true. I've always felt that often times WL said things mostly for shock value. In other words, he could of expressed certain things in much more meaningful ways.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The quote stated on the homepage of LC Discussions today is: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God." (From CS Lewis' Mere Christianity)

This is a much better way to state this mystery than, "God became man so that man could become God." The relationship of father and son is a close one, to be sure, but the Bible doesn't say that sons become the Father. Jus' sayin'

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good ol' Bonhoeffer! Man has such a propensity to allow himself to be exulted. This is because Adam is of his father, the prideful devil.

Originally Posted by JJ

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s speech on “The Fuhrer Principle” or “The Leader Principle” delivered two days after Adolph Hitler was elected President of Germany:

“If [the leader] understands his function in any other way than as it is rooted in fact, if he does not continually tell his followers quite clearly of the limited nature of his lack and of their own responsibility, if he allows himself to surrender to the wishes of his followers, who would always make him their idol – then the image of the leader will pass over into the image of the misleader, and he will be acting in a criminal way not only towards those he leads, but also towards himself, the true leader must always be able to disillusion. It is just this that is his responsibility and his real object. He must lead his following away from the authority of his person to the recognitions of the real authority of orders and offices….He must radically refuse to become the appeal, the idol, i.e. the ultimate authority of those whom he leads…. “

Originally Posted by Ohio

Simplistic, mechanical, robotic, scientific ... goes back to that "perfecting training" and Lee's scientific analysis of Romans 8 about "flipping the switch" and "turning on" your spirit. It was all some get-spiritual-quick-scheme unfolding before our eyes.

But where was love? Where are relationships with God or man? Where is faith? To be blunt, it really all was about the volume. Louder meant more spirit. Louder meant more "amens."

I remember one brother, whom I thought was spiritual, stand and gave a little demonstration. He said to walk by the spirit, is to say "Oh Lord Jesus" as he took 3 steps. Huh? So simple an unbelieving caveman could replicate this.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember one brother, whom I thought was spiritual, stand and gave a little demonstration. He said to walk by the spirit, is to say "Oh Lord Jesus" as he took 3 steps. Huh? So simple an unbelieving caveman could replicate this.

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic, in the same way that some people might find a get-rich-quick scheme appealing.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I get it. But to be fair to that statement by itself, what I hear in this is that if we walk in spirit, then we allow Christ's life to live through us, which gives life and peace and causes problems to flee away.

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic, in the same way that some people might find a get-rich-quick scheme appealing.

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . Some others coined these young Christian leaders as "The Young, Restless and Reformed".

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I don't know the whole extent of his teaching on prayer. But being around people who pray I see the prayer pendulem swing way on the other side. Don't beat me up or stone me here. My observation is there is way, way too much prayer on healing. Not that it is wrong. IT IS NOT!! For the record, my body has been riddled with RA for 18 lonnng, lonng years so I know about healing prayers etc. From James 5:16b pray for one another so that you may be healed.

I will give more of my thoughts in a bit.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Personally, I don't like the 'standard' Christian way of praying. The pastors / preachers are not teaching people how to pray. I have a small intimate bible study group of friends. I try to help them spiritually and practically speaking. Not boasting here, just letting you know what I do practically, I text, call, make meals for those who are sick..worst than ME! We have game nights every other week which includes munchies. We are friends not just 'congregants'. This bible study group which is made up of about 8-12 people are my 'church' family.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Lee condemns prayers where you bring your situation to the Lord and ask Him for help. He condemns "heal my son who is sick" prayers. There is a portion where Lee talks about coming to the Lord and waiting in silence and then tentatively asking for permission to pray, and then only praying what the Lord would like us to pray.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This quote of Nee also caught my attention. Nee makes two faulty assumptions: 1) Christians only pray simplistic or 'tiny' prayers and 2) There is something wrong with praying for the more trivial things.

I remember as I was growing up in the LC, we were always told that we need to develop a relationship with the Lord through prayer. However, those leading us would always come in and try to qualify things. They told us not to pray "help me" prayers, because the Lord doesn't want to help us, he wants to be our all. They told us not to pray for trivial things because it didn't advance God's economy. It thus left us in a state of wondering what we could pray for. One of the things that this resulted in is that we developed a tendency to try to come up with prayers that would 'impress' everyone, especially in large gatherings.

I am reminded of what Jesus said:
Matt 6:5-7 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

The Bible would suggest that what some in the LC might call 'weighty' prayers are nothing more than vain prayers. I'm not saying that all such prayers are vain, however, it could be a lot more than people in the LC realize. I remember attending prayer meetings, we would pray for an hour or more - God's economy this, Lord's move that. Most of the time I had no clue what specifically anyone was praying for. But it did sound impressive.

Originally Posted by Ohio

At my 2nd LC in Columbus, we had a gifted minister named Philip Comfort. He was passionate, loved the word of God, and loved to teach the church. But unwittingly he became a "threat" to TC, and so TC demanded that he relocate to Cleveland where he could receive "further perfecting." In plain words, TC mercilessly beat poor Phil into submission, accusing him of a host of shortcomings and flaws, all the while shaming him in front of all the other Midwest leaders. Poor Phil returned to Columbus a broken man, and all the leaders there lost all respect for TC. 25 years later one of these elders was instrumental in successfully suing both Columbus and Mansfield for their meeting halls for LSM. TC has this way of producing more "enemies" than "perfected" brothers. The last I heard Phil's name in the LC, TC was shaming an elder brother in Hanover Park, IL for not restoring him to the "fellowship," as if it was all his fault.

Slowly Phil Comfort and his gift got "recovered" by the Lord, but not in the LC's. He went back to school, honing his writing and teachings skills, and today Dr. Philip Comfort has become a Wheaton College professor, an established author, and a well-respected Greek scholar, benefiting the entire body of Christ. To God be the glory.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The quote from Nee was taken from here:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/597...uidance-of-the

Many times I will pull a quote from Nee which was posted by a reliable source. If it is a quote like the one put up yesterday, I have never seen the need for context because it is extremely representative of what the man taught throughout his ministry. Same goes for Witness Lee.

In doing some further checking, it seems that this quote was pulled from "The Spiritual Man". Not sure of what page or paragraph.

Hope this helps.
-

Originally Posted by JJ

Today’s quote from Watchman Nee: “How true it is that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit intellect not only is undependable but also extremely dangerous, because it often confuses the issue of right
and wrong.”

Where did this quote come from, Unto Him?

I don’t want to say anything about it without context.

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL frequently made statements like this, that is, he would insist that not accepting his position is the equivalent of something like 'unbelief'. It put his followers in the awkward position of both having to accept his claim and also having to automatically discredit those who didn't hold that view. I don't know many Christians who would accept the claim that Lee made about becoming the same of God. Thus, when such statements are accepted uncritically, it leads to the disparaging view of Christianity that exists in the LCM.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

To say that we are the same as God in His Godhead is a great blasphemy, but if we say that we cannot be the same as God in life, nature, expression, and function, this is unbelief.

Originally Posted by Steel

No... Eating chicken won't make you a chicken.

In the organic realm, that's what DNA is for.

But according to scripture...

In a spiritual sense, the more time we spend before the Lord considering the Lord... And doing so in and through the life of the Lord... We will be like Him.

Which is the reality that the following scripture verse is speaking to...

1 John 3:2... "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is."

To "...see Him..." is akin to our eating Him.

Originally Posted by Steel

In 1989 my sister, older than me by one year+, drank Draino in an attempt to commit suicide. She was born again, but had become involved with an older man if Indian (from India) heritage...

Originally Posted by Steel

How can I love a God who would allow this to happen to His own child... My sister who was just 27 years old.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask you where is the scriptural support for these ministerial abuses, i.e. shaming, belittling, and humiliating brothers and sisters, which is far too common in the LC's.

Originally Posted by Steel

Do you think God allowing this brother to go through the experiences He allowed him to go through... Including his LC experience... Benefited him... And has by extension benefited "...the entire body of Christ..." as a result?

Or do you think that all that God allowed our brother, Phillip Comfort, to experience before God "recovered" him after his experience with the LC, was of no value... And just a loss of time to his growth in the life of God?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Slowly Phil Comfort and his gift got "recovered" by the Lord, but not in the LC's. He went back to school, honing his writing and teachings skills, and today Dr. Philip Comfort has become a Wheaton College professor, an established author, and a well-respected Greek scholar, benefiting the entire body of Christ. To God be the glory.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Steel, sorry that I would be off-topic here. I think brother Igzy also asked earlier about your use of the ellipsis. May be you would like to refer to the following link:

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html

Specifically, "Like the exclamation point, the ellipsis is at risk of overuse."

I did a rough count, there are about 78 ellipses in your previous post.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is something I found to be utterly frustrating in the LCM. On the one hand, the elders would make us feel insignificant, claiming that we were all too passive. Then, when anyone tried to initiative anything, they were there waiting to shoot down the initiative.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The above quote caught my attention, and got me thinking as to just how much WL's view of Bible interpretation differed from how most people would approach the Bible.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Anyone could allegorize a story, but just because there is the potential for that doesn't mean the allegory is correct or that an allegory was ever intended.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those who follow Lee's ministry operate upon the notion that he had some sort of insight that others didn't.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whether they will admit it or not, they believe that there is something esoteric about the Bible which prevents the average person from being able to understand or interpret the Bible.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think this notion was largely due to the fact that WL introduced all kinds of allegories that seemingly made sense of complex passages.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No one else would have thought of these allegories, simply because they were unique to WL. So that is what made his teachings seem so 'unique'. But had people sought to question what he was doing in the first place, maybe they might have realized that he could just have easily been making all those allegories up.

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

Originally Posted by UntoHim

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

Billy Graham surely valued character over spirituality. Maybe, just maybe, this is why God blessed his ministry so much, and maybe this is why he lived until the age of 99. Just me thinkin out loud.
-

Originally Posted by aron

Stop obeying the Lord for 3 days and let us know what happens to your "sense of life".

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If pray reading was talked about in the Bible- fine. But, it's not. To push this practice just isn't right. It's not going to work for everyone and every personality- and that's ok.

If some people like it, fine. I personally don't- and that's fine too.

My issue is mainly on the practices being forced in a group setting. It caused more harm to me spiritually than it ever helped me!

Originally Posted by Steel

Or maybe you simply stopped a day early and therefore came up a dollar short.

Originally Posted by HERn

Not really. The protein gets broken down into amino acids, the lipids get broken down into fatty acids, the carbohydrates get broken down into sugars, the nucleic acids get broken down into phosphate groups and nucleotides. None of these are chicken-specific, they all come from the corn and grains the chicken eats. But, when we contact the Lord Jesus in our spirits by prayer somehow he sanctifies us and transforms us; which occurred before WN/WL/LSM and continues today and tomorrow with or without LSM. LSM may play a part, but it is not essential to what God is doing on the earth today.

Originally Posted by Steel

Actually...

What is contained in the chicken we eat actually becomes a part of us.

Perhaps you take some time to check out the science behind nutrition and how it affects the human body.

Originally Posted by Steel

To "...see Him..." is akin to our eating Him.

Originally Posted by aron

Stop obeying the Lord for 3 days and let us know what happens to your "sense of life".

Originally Posted by Drake

Stop eating. After 40 days let us know what happened to your genetic constitution.

Originally Posted by awareness

In let's also use the God given gift of sound reasoning.

With that we can clearly see that transubstantiation is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Drake

uh ....Freedom,

Stop eating. After 40 days let us know what happened to your genetic constitution.

thanks,
Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agreed!

I remember one training meeting, huge audience, and a young brother was all excited to prophesy "we are what we eat!"

He then went on saying, "If you eat chicken, you become ..."

He caught himself at that point, and stopped momentarily. The audience chuckled.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution.

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution.

Originally Posted by awareness

It didn't work. All it did was make me look and act silly. It was grasping at vapors.

Originally Posted by awareness

Freedom, I remember a song in the Supplement, with the words "eating, eating, eating." We sang it with great gusto and enthusiasm -> "Oh Lord Jesus!"

The way to eating Jesus was : "Calling on the Lord," and "Prayreading the scripture."

And we were told that by doing those things we would be transformed into the image of Christ.

I was excited about that. I was becoming divine! And all I had to do was call on the Lord, and prayread the Bible! Yea! Lord! Amen!

Spoiler alert: It didn't work. All it did was make me look and act silly. It was grasping at vapors.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution. It is a matter of necessity. That is why we eat. WL seemed to have ignored that fact. In the LC, they will make declarations like "eating is the way!" Or the lyrics of a song come to mind "eat, eat more of Jesus..." They make such declarations all the time, encouraging people to 'eat'.

But absent from the equation is the 'why' part of it all. That is why I called it eating for the sake of eating. If someone literally had a motto of "eating is the way" then it would be safe to assume that they have an eating disorder. That is what I'm trying to get at here. All WL's talk about eating was imbalanced. He claimed other Christians didn't understand or pay attention to the matter of eating. I would argue instead that he was overly focused on it, thus creating the illusion that others didn't give it any thought.

Originally Posted by Steel

But both sustenance and growth are matters/aspects of constitution.

Nothing I have read in WL's ministry says or even suggests that eating Christ is only for the "...sake of eating...".

And more...

There is no such thing as "...eating for the sake of eating...".

Eating has a spontaneous result regarding its effect on the person doing the eating.

A person cannot eat Christ without a result of being both sustained by Christ in doing so and growing by Christ by doing so.

And this from my experience is fairly common understanding among believers who meet as the local church.

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

Originally Posted by Steel

And yet... Today we know from science that organically speaking, we are in fact, what we eat...

Originally Posted by Steel

And yet... Today we know from science that organically speaking, we are in fact, what we eat...

Originally Posted by Freedom

...will often say things like "you are what you eat." That is hyperbole, however, and it is the context under which they intend to understand the concept of eating Christ.

Originally Posted by Freedom

...He was also clear that to eat Him is to abide in Him, which would suggest a metaphorical view of eating Christ for sustenance/growth. What He never spoke about was eating for the mere sake of constitution - what I would call “eating for the sake of eating.”

Originally Posted by Freedom

...Simply put, LCer have the wrong goal in mind.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the gospels Jesus said they searched the scriptures but didn't come to Him. The warning being that simply reading and studying the Bible might not lead you to a closer walk with the Lord.

Hebrews says that the word of God is a sharp two edged sword that is able to discern the thoughts and intents and separate the soul from the spirit.

Being able to do something doesn't presuppose that it will do it. A tuned piano is able to play very beautiful music, doesn't mean it will.

The word of God is the sharp two edged sword able to do this, but just because you are handling the Bible doesn't mean you will discern the spirit (just like those who didn't come to Jesus). We need to understand that this is a goal for us.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember attending prayer meetings, we would pray for an hour or more - God's economy this, Lord's move that. Most of the time I had no clue what specifically anyone was praying for. But it did sound impressive.

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, great verse. I don't get how that balances Heb 4 on the topic of discerning soul from spirit though.

I understood the antennae and ground wire thing though. Heard that quite a few times in TLR

I'm loving what the rest of you are saying on this topic

Originally Posted by W. Nee

Why do so many Christians pray such tiny prayers when their God is so big?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted Heb 4, you also need to balance that with the verse "you search the scriptures but won't come to Me".

Originally Posted by aron

Another thing that is interesting about the development of thought in the LC: I notice that they're not terribly interested in the actual person of Jesus Christ. Instead, "Christ" is some feeling like "peace" or "joy". So they chase sensations, hoping that it brings transformation and eternal reward.

Originally Posted by aron

Instead, they'll sit in a circle in someone's living room and go over today's theological template. Instead of a person they get a concept.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I had a few memorable "charismatic" experiences before contacting the LC, and many after. If they are truly of the Lord, then they will be life-changing and transformational. I wish every believer's experience was filled with these.

Unfortunately, like tongue-speaking and other charismatic experiences, it becomes our tendency to replicate them without the Lord. This can be very dangerous to our faith, because as soon as we face fiery trials, we may only know feelings, and before we know it, can have become spiritually bankrupt.

Originally Posted by aron

In spite of the lack of tongue-speaking and healings, the LC is experientially charismatic: it whips members into an excited and altered state.

Originally Posted by awareness

I felt like Jesus failed me.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

Originally Posted by aron

I completely agree with the point. This has been one of my biggest problems with Lee the expositor. His message is self-focused. And he tries to get you to focus on self, on 'making it'.

Originally Posted by JJ

2. It ends up being so self centered (I count eight “we”s) instead of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit centered.

Originally Posted by JJ

Need both what?

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

Originally Posted by JJ

Need both what?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You need both. When I was in High School my brother and I decided to put a new stereo into the family car. We installed it ourselves and for hours could not get it to work. We went over the instructions repeatedly. Finally I asked my brother "what is this wire here?" He said "oh that is just the ground wire". I said "well let's attach it anyway, what do we have to lose?" Immediately the car filled with music.

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

Originally Posted by JJ

Right. When I read the end of 1 Corinthians 2 in which Paul talks about what it is to be spiritual, he says the spirit of man knows the things of man, but The Spirit knows all things, and that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t see a place for Lee’s type of thinking in it. http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/2.htm

Originally Posted by JJ

3. This type of thinking leads to comparing oneself to other believers (“I know my spirit better than you” or “I don’t know my spirit like he or she does”) which leads to division.