Originally Posted by awareness

I think Kangas made it thru that turmoil because he wasn't anything in those days, and voiced no strong position against Philip's sin. Else he would have been gone too. But why didn't he leave out of disgust?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not only did Max travel around the churches as the "Universal Coordinator of the One New Man" with Witness Lee's blessing, he also did this with Lee's active bidding.

Funny thing is Max repented for what he did, Lee never did.

Originally Posted by OBW

He might read this periodically, though I kind of doubt it. While there may have been some characteristics of the man that were not perfect, in hindsight he was clearly doing all that he did with Lee's blessing. And the minute that they shoved him out the door, all of the supposed errors that he introduced were the ammunition that Lee used to elevate himself from just a travelling minister into the Grand Poohbah of the Local Churches.

Originally Posted by awareness

Max Rappaport was the quintessential salesman, a pitchman. No wonder he became Lee's mouthpiece. But anybody that took a stand against Philip Lee's immoralities -- sleeping with married sisters in the Living Stream Ministry office & drunken sex parties (long term, going way back) -- no matter if they had been Lee co-workers from the earliest days in America or not they got thrown out, or left in disgust. And then they were badmouthed and slandered by Lee.

I think Kangas made it thru that turmoil because he wasn't anything in those days, and voiced no strong position against Philip's sin. Else he would have been gone too. But why didn't he leave out of disgust?

Originally Posted by Ohio

After the so-called Max-rebellion of the late 70's, which btw was another Lee spin job to deceive us, Lee changed his tone from life to truth. Supposedly all the LC's were fooled by Max because we only knew life, and not truth. Actually it was Lee who constantly fooled us, since Max was thrown under the bus for exposing Philip's immorality.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Ohio, Igzy, thank you, brothers.

I have never heard about Max. Do you mean they killed him? Let's make this statement "softer". In other words, do I get it right that something bad happened to Max after he had exposed Philip's immorality?

Originally Posted by Igzy

They want to appear like they have a deeper understanding of things. "Reality" sounds deeper and more profound. It also make them different and sets them apart from other Christians. They like to be different and set apart because they are so much for oneness.

BTW, the same reasons apply for preferring "oneness" over "unity."

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I have never heard about Max. Do you mean they killed him? Let's make this statement "softer". In other words, do I get it right that something bad happened to Max after he had exposed Philip's immorality?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Ohio, Igzy, thank you, brothers.

I have never heard about Max. Do you mean they killed him? Let's make this statement "softer". In other words, do I get it right that something bad happened to Max after he had exposed Philip's immorality?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years back Lee embarked on a campaign of promoting "life" and denigrating "dead doctrines." Btw, early-Lee also condemned all seminaries as cemeteries, while later-Lee established FTT's all over.

The Greek work "alethia" can really be translated as truth or reality, but since Lee was down on doctrines and up on life, it was suitable to be down on truth and up on reality.

After the so-called Max-rebellion of the late 70's, which btw was another Lee spin job to deceive us, Lee changed his tone from life to truth. Supposedly all the LC's were fooled by Max because we only knew life, and not truth. Actually it was Lee who constantly fooled us, since Max was thrown under the bus for exposing Philip's immorality.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Brothers, does anybody know why leeists don't call Jesus the Truth, but the Reality? I know it has something to do with the Greek word that can be translated as "truth" and "reality". In my native language the word "truth" means "higher reality". So to me "Jesus is the truth" is not just some reality but the entire truth. There are several realities but only one Truth.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Brothers, does anybody know why leeists don't call Jesus the Truth, but the Reality? I know it has something to do with the Greek word that can be translated as "truth" and "reality". In my native language the word "truth" means "higher reality". So to me "Jesus is the truth" is not just some reality but the entire truth. There are several realities but only one Truth.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You seem to think that I think that all the blessing came thru Lee because he thought that he was the source of all the blessing but I don't think the way you think I think because I think that the blessing was upon the members' seeking the Lord and serving Him in the Spirit like it says in Psalm 133.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They asked him not to come back.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

1 I am not sure. I have stopped listening. When they start prophesying, I fish out my phone and start reading the news.

Originally Posted by Terry

As for The Holy Word for Morning Revival, it's just clanging cymbals. Sure someone can prophesy from it on Sunday morning.
1. Do they comprehend what they're prophesying?
2. Does it correspond into daily life situations?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"A fish rots from the head down".

Originally Posted by Terry

Usually I define as Early-Lee has messages spoke prior to 1974 and later Lee as 1974-1997.
As for The Holy Word for Morning Revival, it's just clanging cymbals. Sure someone can prophesy from it on Sunday morning.
1. Do they comprehend what they're prophesying?
2. Does it correspond into daily life situations?

By comparison, I find more value for example in Proverbs, the Book of James, etc in providing depth for daily living.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.

Originally Posted by OBW

As Ohio has pointed out, I am becoming very cynical about the perception of any so-called blessing of the early days, or the freshness of it all.

Originally Posted by OBW

As Ohio has pointed out, I am becoming very cynical about the perception of any so-called blessing of the early days, or the freshness of it all.

With respect to the idea of everyone becoming a functioning member, I am now more likely to understand that people who think they have a part in what goes on are more committed to it than if they are less involved. While I actually agree with participation, the kind of participation that was so fresh and enlivening appears more like the actions of children when not corralled than something that I find patterned in the words of the Bible. So the hook was not necessarily spiritual participation, but enjoyable participation.

And there are many who are still trying to grind it out. I have heard from a now somewhat former member that the way things go now is almost disgusting. Remember the days of actually being the one to call a song? It is over. There is often only one song and LSM dictates which one it will be.

That is surely not so enticing. But those who are hanging on have their memories to comfort them as they dutifully stand in the dirt . . . er, on the ground.

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro InChristAlone to tell it like I see it : Yer goose is cooked. Yer mind has jumped the LRC fence. It's free now. And can't go back.

And if your wife loves you more than the local church your marriage will make it. If not yer in fer a break up. Either way hang in there bro.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Early-Lee had an effect on our lives and our personal walk with Christ, made the scriptures alive, emphasized the individual local churches, allowed for other ministers to develop, and basically his ministry served the churches.

Later-Lee was filled with tedious doctrines and systematized theology, indoctrination about "the body" to manipulate us and keep us in the fold, allowed no other ministry, stifled the leading of the Spirit, and basically all the churches existed to serve his ministry.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.



Thanks for such a thoughtful and interesting observation!

WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.

Originally Posted by OBW

My impression is that other than an occasional turn aside to someone with a sort of smile when walking through the crowd, he was aloof relative to everyone but his closest circle. And from what they now tell, it was really no different with them. He, like his predecessor Nee, was a loner. He was all-inclusive as to his source and ministry. He never even considered that anything he taught or said was anything but the gospel truth. God's word for the day.

The only thing he displayed that we took to be of the spirit was all of this "wealth" of teaching. We were sure that that much "good stuff" could only come from the spirit. . . . And we were right. From whatever it is that Lee called his spirit came all this stuff. In hindsight, not much Spirit in so much of it. Just different.

Sometimes I think that some of those lines in movies, like "it depends on your point of view" (when Obi Wan was talking to Luke about Vader) are very meaningful. Our perspective in the early days has colored our ability to be objective about it. Because we had a different sense about it then, our sense must be valid. We didn't like the old ways of Christianity, so a new way was better and "of the Spirit." Whether it was actually any more of the Spirit than what we left. But it was our perspective. If we refuse to take a different perspective, we may fail to discover that we have been standing three inches from the left hind leg of an elephant trying to describe the whole of the animal. It was surely different than the trunk. But it was still elephant. But what if we were now standing three inches from the trunk of a dead tree but thought it was still an elephant?

No, the metaphor does not prove anything about the content. But it may shed light on the condition of things as we observe that content. Are we sure that our perspective is clear? That we have honestly reassessed the perspective with which we made our original assessment?

I honestly think that the LRC could go through crazy phase after crazy phase because too much of our feeling was euphoria and not the Spirit. We mistook good feelings for God. We thought that it meant blessing. Instead, we were blessing ourselves with endorphins. And calling them God.

Not saying that everything we were taught was bogus, error, heretical, etc. But we were blind to any of that because our focus may have been called God, but it was too often a feeling. And we still look back in awe at the times because we felt so good then.

Originally Posted by OBW

Was there a "fresh anointing" on him or was his message just new and different? One can be mistaken for the other.

Originally Posted by Ohio

During his early days in the US, many have testified that Witness Lee was a humble servant of God. Even though he was very knowledgeable concerning the scriptures, he had a fresh anointing as he ministered the word. Sometimes change came slowly, and sometimes it came abruptly, but Lee definitely changed.

The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Okay, I've taken it out, sorry for that. I'm gonna be gone this weekend and returning to work next week, so I'll be posting less from now on until I come across the next break. It's been nice chatting with y'all even though it's been tense. I'll still be here but not as one who is frantically posting and responding to every single message God bless you all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

These kind of statements drive me crazy.

How can we fellowship when you are of Calvin, Igzy is of Paul, and I am of Lee?

Originally Posted by bearbear

As a Calvinist ...

Originally Posted by Igzy

bearbear, I have to apologize if I've seemed rude. It's just frustrating to deal with what appears to me to be a lack of faith.

When the golfing great Bobby Jones first witnessed the play of a young Jack Nicklaus, in awe he commented, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar." He meant that as a compliment. I could say the same when observing you, only it would be less of a compliment. I'm not familiar with the type of faith you have, because it seems to me to be a lack of faith.

At the same time I respect your earnestness and seeking. This discussion has been very helpful to me. It's made me rethink some things. The understanding of Matt 7:23 cf. John 10:27 came to me today. That was an amazing revelation God gave me, that Christ can never say to me "I never knew you," because John 10:27 says he already knows me. Wow! I might not have realized that without your pointed challenges. So, thanks.

You are on the path God wants for you. I pray he will bring you into a deeper understanding of his faithfulness, love and assurance, and cast out all unnecessary fear, while leaving you with the needed fear (awe) that is the beginning of wisdom.

Igzy

Originally Posted by bearbear

To some extent you can't blame us folks who are not as sure about our own salvation. There's quite a few passages in scripture where Paul admonishes us to have holy fear and desire our best to be blameless and innocent by the grace of God all within the context of salvation, perhaps because there are eternal consequences if we let our vigilance down from guarding our good deposit:

Philippians 2:12-16
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

Paul seems to have a fear of laboring in vain. Perhaps that's why it seems he's trying his best to instruct the Philippians of every spiritual safeguard to ensure he'll see his spiritual children in eternity?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think God wants us to go around wondering if we will end up going to hell after we've professed faith. I don't think that mindset is one of faith, I think it is one of fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's the FUD Christian gospel.

I don't think God is trying to trip me up. I think he plans to never let me go. You can believe in a God who is looking for reasons to flick you off like a booger if you want to. I don't believe in that kind of God. I used to, and let me tell you doing so didn't make me much of a testimony of anything other that being a head case.

Originally Posted by awareness

bearbear, are you suffering panic attacks over your salvation?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Sam,

Billy Graham makes a key point: Its simple and child-like. I generally take Occum's Razor to the Scripture, through the lens of the central gospel.

I am sure that there are those (I know some) who abuse grace as license to sin. There are still others who sit on the laurels of their cultural faith (shared upbringing) and master a culture rather than pursue a faith (many in the LC). But most Christians who aren't usurping the CHristian message for their own agenda, are attempting, imperfectly, to follow Him.

This desire to follow Him, based on the revelation that He is God and Savior, is the foundation for a Christian life. It is born in humility and continues there. Sure, there is some fear. But, I don't believe God in Christ to use fear as a primary manipulator. That is just my experience. Christians pursue doing what is right because they are motivated by love to do so. But they also fail miserably. And God helps scoop them up, as soon as they return to a prayerful need for a Savior yet again. There is a process, to be sure. But my belief (credence) told God that I wanted to live my life together with Him. Personally, I take no account of my eternal state. Call me crazy. I pursue Christ as my Savior, because He has given me a rich life in Him, even as hard as it can be.

If you told me I had to deny Jesus in order to get into heaven, I'd likely say I don't care about your threat. I don't need the "carrot" to tell you to go pound salt. I won't deny Jesus because of the rich life I have in Him. Not because I might or might not get some future reward.

Thoughts?

Peter



P.S. I'll respond to your thoughtful post regarding Peter's denial soon. Thanks for it.

Originally Posted by OBW

Be careful with the use of Occam's Razor. It is too often a simplistic way to stop the inquiry because of an assumption that simple is better and more likely right.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus gives more detail here:

Matthew 18
33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,[e] until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

The servant has no way of paying back the master if he is in jail so he'll stay there until he rots. The Father will probably doing the same to us in eternity if we do not forgive. We have no way of paying back the wages of sin which is death since only Jesus could do this for us.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm open to your point of view and I think I'm capable of nuance. This is a subject I haven't spent a long time studying and I think I can learn from you guys. But maybe it's not a subject worth delving into. The process of being born again does seem quite a bit controversial and it does seem like splitting hairs if you look at all the verses that talk about receiving the Holy Spirit, being born again, receiving a new heart and new spirit etc. Even Billy Graham lists some formulaic steps saying you have to repent of your sins, believe and try to obey the Lord. In my case, those all result from a desire for obeying and loving the Lord once convinced enough to trust in the message of the Gospel.

http://billygraham.org/story/how-to-be-born-again/

"Jesus Christ says that we must be born again. How do we become born again? By repenting of sin. That means we are willing to change our way of living. We say to God, “I’m a sinner, and I’m sorry.” It’s simple and childlike. Then by faith we receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Master and Savior. We are willing to follow Him in a new life of obedience, in which the Holy Spirit helps us as we read the Bible and pray and witness."

I will say this however. Maybe it's all bit of a mystery and that's why Jesus left it at "the wind blows where it wills". But it still wouldn't hurt to make sure your heart is good earth via repentance and loving Jesus with all your heart in full surrender would it? Why take any chances? Shouldn't we encourage people to do so?

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus told us to judge people by their actions because it gives an indicator of the condition of their heart. In the same way James said works was an indicator of the condition of our faith.

Originally Posted by OBW

And I return to an even shorter portion of the quote I just used.

What does this mean?

Is it eternal or in time?

Does it override everything else, or is it like finding some wood among your gold and therefore be "saved, yet as through fire"?

We are clearly commanded to forgive others because even the prayer we were given declares that we forgive others as the Father forgive us.

Are we so certain that the isolation of those few words means what it seems to when it remains in isolation? Or if someone suggested a different meaning for what it means in isolation, might we find ourselves changing to that one. Or arguing about which "out of context" understanding is correct, only to put it back in context and discover both are wrong.

This is what I am complaining about when i mention "fortune cookie" reading of scripture. That kind of approach assumes that whatever we come up with by taking a sequence of words that happen to occur in that way in scripture must be a word from God. Might go like this: "Look! Mine says 'You shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Jesus!' Wow, I'm going to bear the Son of God!!" "No you're not. You a guy!!" "Hey! Mine says '10 15 22 37 39 51' . . . . Ooops! Wrong side."

I know that is a little too tongue-in-cheek. But it might help to look at the side of the map (Google maps or Mapquest) where the "+" and "-" are and back out on your view. See a little more than the roof of the house that some guy keeps asserting belongs to Bill Gates. It might be that as you back out you discover that you are looking a poor part of Tupelo, Miss. Or Sarbourg, France.

Originally Posted by Igzy

None of these verses have anything to do with being born again.

bearbear, you read the Bible like someone who is colorblind. You just see black and white. To you, either the verses are about getting eternal salvation or about losing eternal salvation. It's outside of your concept that the Lord could be talking about anything else.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus said if you do not forgive someone from your heart, the Father cannot forgive you.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm not sure of which verses you are referring to but I know that Jesus says in John 14 that he will send the Holy Spirit to us after we love him and keep his commandments ( such as forgiving and loving your enemies, etc.).

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

Jesus repeats this again in verse 23 and says he and the Father will make his home in our hearts once we love and obey him, presumably via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

What level of love and obedience is required exactly? He did tell us to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and that this was the greatest commandment.

By loving God we also love those who are made in his image.

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Paul says the law is fulfilled by loving our neighbors, perhaps with the love that comes from Christ living in us.

Galatians 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

So this is my understanding of when you become born again, when you surrender your heart to Jesus and in doing so love him with all your heart.

Originally Posted by OBW

Then Lordship Salvationists believe in a salvation that can be lost. It is never certain until you die on the right side of the ledger. The life of any "believer" can be on and off again throughout their life. Just because death does not occur we don't have to take the status into account. But under that understanding, I have no assurance of my salvation. If something is done to me and I for a short period withhold forgiveness, but a meteor falls on me, I have passed from life to death (not talking about the meteor) due to becoming temporarily unforgiving but having insufficient time to return back to life.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus said if you do not forgive someone from your heart, the Father cannot forgive you. According to Lordship Salvationists if you die with unforgiveness, you do not receive forgiveness from God.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Hi Sam:

How do interpret Matthew 16? Peter confessed with his mouth (essentially)that Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus said that it was upon this revelation of who Christ is - this belief - that He would build his church. Would you contend that, at that point, Peter was "saved"?

If so, how do you reconcile Peter's denial of Jesus 3 times when fearing persecution?

If not, when did Peter get saved?

Thoughts?

Peter

Originally Posted by Igzy

You become born again when you initially truly believe and the Spirit comes in and makes you alive in Christ. I'm not going to quote the verses because you know what they are.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for (God performed the ten plagues and parted the red sea, so he should be a trustworthy Guy we can base on assurance in) and the conviction of the unseen things (We have conviction in God's integrity so we don't have to trust in what we see).

Say a person believes Jesus is the son of God and died for his sins and has gone to church all their life by attending Tuesday night prayer meeting, Friday night small group and Lord's Day meetings. One day the beast government prophesied by Daniel has taken over his country and he is forced to renounce his faith or his children will be killed. He renounces his faith due to wanting to preserve the lives of his children and he lives out his life with his family in retirement conforming to the pagan culture that he lives in and dies. He figures that he is saved after all, because eternal life is not something that can be lost due to his earlier "faith". Is such a person going to heaven?

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing with your position. I just don't see that example as being truly revealing of the truth you think (and I think) is in the Bible.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I agree faith is actually gifted to us by God but it comes when we fully surrender to him. I can look at all the miracles God has done in my life and use that as a basis of his perfect integrity to trust him in the future.

At what point do you become born again? Is it by mere credence that Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins? How do you arrive at this from the scriptures?

Originally Posted by OBW

BB,

And of course, if it is mere credence, then it is not much. But it does take some credence. It takes some mental acceptance of the facts as presented. That is part of the deal.

Like I mentioned in another post, pointing to creed, or declaration of faith, and declaring it is "mere" is a distractor. It is a misdirect. It is possbily a misrepresentation of the facts. Just because you only know of the statement of belief does not make it unreal. Or the works non-existant. Just not visible to you.

I fear that there is too much desire in some to seek the scirptures for a formula rather than seeking God. You don't have to find a formula to believe in the "creed" of Jesus, and obey what he commanded (or at least keep trying) as you seek Him for your help in achieving.

And expecting that at death you will still not be fully there.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think this is where you got stuck. You don't see real faith as the scripture does. You continually discredit faith as "mere credence," which is probably due to one verse in James which says "even the demons believe."

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think this is where you got stuck. You don't see real faith as the scripture does. You continually discredit faith as "mere credence," which is probably due to one verse in James which says "even the demons believe."

"Mere credence" is not saving faith. No one here, or in the LC's for that matter, is saying this. Mere credence is closer to the situation of the tares, who outwardly look like real believers, but do not have eternal life within, and thus are not real "wheat."

You remind me of some extreme tongue-speakers. Since they spoke in tongues when they first got saved, they hold every one else up to that same standard. They see tongues in every verse of the bible, which just reinforces their stance.

Originally Posted by awareness

Mat_21:31 .... Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you guys are over-analyzing.

Look, if there was any chance that salvation wasn't eternal then do you think God would deliver his message in a way they gave anyone but fringe nuts the idea that it is eternal? But a huge portion of his people do believe it's eternal. Why? Because there is a whole bunch of Biblical evidence that it is! Don't you think God knew how that would be interpreted?

What's worse, believing salvation is eternal and finding out it isn't, or believing it isn't and finding out it is? Obviously it's those believing the first option that have the big problem. So that being the case it stands to reason that God would not give people any reason to believe the first option. But he does. That tells me something.

God isn't trying to trick us. Salvation isn't a puzzle. He isn't trying to keep us guessing to keep us on our toes. What kind of God do you guys know, anyway? I believe in a God who wants to save people, not in one who is trying to trip them up.

Originally Posted by bearbear

At what point do you become born again? Is it by mere credence that Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins? How do you arrive at this from the scriptures?

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you've been born again, and most people who have know it when it happens and the rest figure it out soon afterwards, then you had faith. How could you become born again without faith? So you must have had it. Pretty simple unless you have an over-complicated mind.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I am open to your view. If free grace is the correct view then I am all for it! I can stop worrying about my relatives who called on the Lord twenty to thirty years ago and fell back into their normal lives.


What is your definition of faith? And how do you arrive at it from scriptures?

Originally Posted by Igzy

True. But that doesn't mean your definition is his, thanks very much anyway.

Originally Posted by bearbear

God wants us to receive his free gifts by his definition of "faith" not ours.

Originally Posted by bearbear

If you view this as works why don't you assign "belief" in terms of mere credence as works? They all fall into the realm of

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you guys are over-analyzing.

Look, if there was any chance that salvation wasn't eternal then do you think God would deliver his message in a way they gave anyone but fringe nuts the idea that it is eternal? But a huge portion of his people do believe it's eternal. Why? Because there is a whole bunch of Biblical evidence that it is! Don't you think God knew how that would be interpreted?

What's worse, believing salvation is eternal and finding out it isn't, or believing it isn't and finding out it is? Obviously it's those believing the first option that have the big problem. So that being the case it stands to reason that God would not give people any reason to believe the first option. But he does. That tells me something.

God isn't trying to trick us. Salvation isn't a puzzle. He isn't trying to keep us guessing to keep us on our toes. What kind of God do you guys know, anyway? I believe in a God who wants to save people, not in one who is trying to trip them up.

Originally Posted by Igzy

That is not a Spirit-inspired exposition as far as I'm concerned.

"Make every effort to enter in through the narrow gate for many I tell you will strive to enter but not be able to."

This isn't saying that it's hard to get saved. It's saying it's impossible without Jesus. It's saying the "many who strive" are those who are trying to get to heaven by a way other than the Gate, Jesus.

God wants to save people. He is not looking for excuses to condemn people, as the writer of this "interpretation" seems to think.

Really, bearbear, you are starting to sound like Mormon or something. Truly, this stuff you are preaching is not the gospel. It's salvation by works.

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, an unclear example.
...
In other words, the thief does not possess enough characteristics common to that of a healthy, 21st century person who manages to live another 50 years after some kind of serious encounter with God to provide a definitive answer.

Originally Posted by bearbear

http://eternityinourheart.com/heart

Originally Posted by Igzy

Salvation by faith alone is proven by the thief on the cross. Do you think he had overcome all his shortcomings? No. He reached out in desperate faith and faith alone and was promised paradise with the Lord.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's exactly what we have been trying to tell you.

Originally Posted by bearbear

The word needs to be handled carefully, with humility and allowing the Spirit of God to speak to us during. It's possible to take Jesus at his word and still make everything work. That's why we need the Spirit of God to guide us to truth because to take Jesus at his word would be insane when held against our human wisdom.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to lay it on thick, add injury to hurt, and cause you, Sam, more fear and loathing but:

Fear based Christianity does work. For example it's likely fear drove the First Great Awakening in the mid-18th c.

Here's a quote from Jonathan Edwards, one of the movers of the first great awakening :

From "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," by Edwards

Originally Posted by bearbear

Those people were calling him Lord, Lord, Lord. They were doing many works for him that Jesus commanded they do (eg Matthew 10:8). These aren't even lukewarm Christians, but they're out on the streets doing mighty works in Jesus name. Yet they were deceived into thinking they had a real relationship. They misunderestimated Satan's ability to deceive. I wrote a whole article on this

http://eternityinourheart.com/heart

Here is a related testimony of a Ugandan pastor who had a ministry of 4000 and thought he was saved because of his works. Yet God told him he would be one of those in Matthew 7:21-23 if he didn't repent. God told him he had self ambition and was lusting after women in his ministry in his eyes, so he repented. Now he travels the world preaching the need to repent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tsrCVvkn6U

Originally Posted by Igzy

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

The Greek root of knew and know in Matt 7:23 and Jonn 10:27 are the same--ginosko. Which means personal, experiential knowledge.
http://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/ginosko

Do you think there is any Christian who has be born again and had the simplest, nascent relationship with Christ of whom Christ could say "I never knew you," however much he or she eventually failed?

These are his words "I never knew you," not "I used to know you, but don't know you now."

I know the Lord knows me. So he can never say to me, "I never knew you." That would be a lie. He does know me. (John 10:27)

Originally Posted by bearbear

Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, did you not know that Jesus was in extraordinary pain and shock at this point. Most certainly He was suffering from the horrible effects of repeated concussions, and perhaps early stages of chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

So we should not read too much into that story of the "thief" on the cross next to Jesus. Remember that robber did not properly repent for his sins, and live a faithful life in Christ, crucifying all the lusts of his flesh. Jesus probably did not hear both robbers on the other crosses reproach Him and mock Him, as the gospel writers Mark and Matthew record.

We all know that mockers and revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God, so this thief could not possibly enter into eternal life.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, did you not know that Jesus was in extraordinary pain and shock at this point. Most certainly He was suffering from the horrible effects of repeated concussions, and perhaps early stages of chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

So we should not read too much into that story of the "thief" on the cross next to Jesus. Remember that robber did not properly repent for his sins, and live a faithful life in Christ, crucifying all the lusts of his flesh. Jesus probably did not hear both robbers on the other crosses reproach Him and mock Him, as the gospel writers Mark and Matthew record.

We all know that mockers and revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God, so this thief could not possibly enter into eternal life.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Salvation by faith alone is proven by the thief on the cross. Do you think he had overcome all his shortcomings? No. He reached out in desperate faith and faith alone and was promised paradise with the Lord.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If only a couple people out of every hundred are truly born again, and have starved their flesh of every lust, then it sounds a lot more difficult then you are letting us on to believe. Personally I would question whether even 2% can make it into the kingdom for reasons I mentioned before.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Salvation by faith alone is proven by the thief on the cross. Do you think he had overcome all his shortcomings? No. He reached out in desperate faith and faith alone and was promised paradise with the Lord.

Not overcoming porn before one dies, as much as anyone should do that, is not an unforgivable sin. There is only one unforgivable sin--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And that sin boils down to the ultimate rejection of truth. And anyone who has received the Lord can no longer ultimately reject the truth because the truth, the Spirit of Truth, has been joined to their inner being, i.e. part of their being is now truth.They are no longer their own. They are chosen, bought, redeemed, they are sanctified, they are glorified. That's what Romans says.

It seems the only one lacking faith around here is bearbear. Who seems to think in some cases God is not able to keep that which we've committed to him concerning that day. You need an infusion of faith, son.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If only a couple people out of every hundred are truly born again, and have starved their flesh of every lust, then it sounds a lot more difficult then you are letting us on to believe. Personally I would question whether even 2% can make it into the kingdom for reasons I mentioned before.

I think we should tell everyone about how truly difficult it is to enter heaven. It seems to me that if more people knew the real facts about how many others have failed in their best attempts to live by faith, then they would not even have started on the journey. If, as you say, most Christians have not truly repented, then why even try?

Have you ever considered how all the evangelists on earth have failed in their message? They continually emphasize how by faith the blood of Jesus takes away all our sins, while they should be informing us of the demand to depart from unrighteousness, how your fruit must be a strong evidence of your being born again, that we should not attend funerals (let the dead bury the dead,) and so forth.

If one is not willing and able to meet all the demands of scripture, then that one should not even be allowed to hear the gospel, since the Lord has told us that "no one who puts his hand to the plow is fit for the kingdom of God."

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's actually not as hard as it sounds because our flesh is like a monster which requires food to survive. All you have to do is stop feeding it and feed your spirit instead. In the beginning it is hard because the monster will be hungry and ask you for food. You just keep ignoring that thing and run to Jesus and others who call on his name out of a pure heart instead. Eventually it will die and we will realize only Jesus could ever satisfy us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just don't see how you can say that you have surrendered all of your life to Jesus, when you still have not "left all" to follow Him. Neither have you taken to heart the Lord's command to sell all. Following this, the Lord tells Peter about leaving homes, wives, families, grandmas, and children for the sake of the kingdom of God. He also compares this to eternal life in the coming age.

You are also living in the Bay Area of NoCal, which surrounds the present day Sodom and Gomorrah. I don't see how realistic it is that you would extrapolate these statistics of your limited experience there to the rest of the inhabited earth.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I give the most credence to 2.5% which is from Howard Pittman's testimony which reads to me as one of the more credible accounts. This implies about 10% of Christians are born again if you divide by 1/4 since about one quarter of the population self identifies as Christian.

This number seems realistic since about this ratio of Christians seem to have surrendered their life to Jesus from my personal experience. This is what I hope for but maybe I'm biased for the sake of my own sanity. Regardless Jesus made it sound like it wouldn't seem like a whole lot and if it turns out that way we can't really blame him because he warned us.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are surmising that the rich young ruler made material wealth his idol. Jeus never said that. Compare that to people today. I seriously doubt that idolatry in this world has shrunk since Jesus first walked the earth. Are you trying to say that Jesus' command to "sell all" only applies to this one person? If that is true, then please tell me how many other verses only apply to the audience spoken to, and not to me?

I don't understand how you can say that Jesus never placed this burden on us. Even those hearing what Jesus said commented, "who then can be saved."

Originally Posted by bearbear

He never placed that burden on us but only on the ruler who made material wealth his idol. We do however have to surrender everything to him from our heart. If God asks us to give, we have to give. Yet his yoke is easy and his burden is light. He will lead us to love him more and become less attached to the temporary possessions of our world as we build our faith and trust in him and thereby enter his rest.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am beginning to think that Lee was not as narrow as I once thought -- his teachings only condemned the whole of Christianity.

Based on bearbear's latest teaching, it seems impossible for any to enter into the kingdom of God in heaven. With all the demands and evidences of salvation placed upon mankind, none can be saved. It is only the hypocrite who believes that his life is somehow satisfactory.

Jesus has commanded us to "sell all and follow him." All we need to do is find just one item in a person's possession, and he is deemed disobedient and unfaithful, and is not worthy to enter into life.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It must be more than that since I never met any who have plucked out their eyes or cut off their arms.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Sam,

I don't mean to be flippant (truly, I am in the midst of reading everything you're referencing), but here's how I read this:

Those enslaved by the LC background need to be liberated in order to be properly gripped by the fear of hell.

Originally Posted by james73

So 99.9% of people are Lake of Fire bound?

Originally Posted by james73

So 99.9% of people are Lake of Fire bound? Isn't it terribly irresponsible to have children, in that case?

Originally Posted by bearbear

In other words between .1% to 2.5% of folks make it to heaven versus hell.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Sam,

I don't mean to be flippant (truly, I am in the midst of reading everything you're referencing), but here's how I read this:

Those enslaved by the LC background need to be liberated in order to be properly gripped by the fear of hell.

I just had a longer questioning post deleted in another thread , so I'll ask, in short, here:

Is there any humanly recognizable indicator of salvation or is that for God to sort out? In other words, can you asses whether you're saved? Can you assess whether I'm saved? Or is it ongoing? Does the presence of continued sin (as Jesus describes in Matthew 5) have any bearing on that question? If not, why not?

What is the relationship between sanctification and salvation?

Still open questions.

Thanks,

Peter

Originally Posted by bearbear

T

Since then I've been concerned not only about my own eternity but those of others. This may be hard to relate to for someone from an LC background, but once I disbelieved in free grace from my heart, the fear of hell overcame me.

If you are interested in how I came to leave free grace and believe in Lordship Salvation, I have a website here that compiles my thoughts:

http://eternityinourheart.com/salvation

And also my blog:

http://nodustybunnies.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Thanks for responding, Sam.

As I said before, I don't have particular comment on your UFO discussion. Rightly or wrongly, I just don't have much interest (to my detriment, perhaps).

I did hone in on your desire to reach certain people with a particular ministry. Paul did make him self a man for all men. To the Athenians, he argued from a philosophical base. To the Jews, he even had his companion circumsized, just to fit in.

That said, I wonder the value in our age in doing so. Unlike Paul's time, the message of Christ is not rare. Our public message perhaps falls on tainted ears, even to targeted audiences who we are catering to.

Instead, I wonder if the message is best carried by how we live our lives, and how we engage with our fellows.

I did notice in your YouTube that you have a particular concern for the afterlife. Can I ask you, I all sincerety, how come? I know this is an odd question, given the stakes at issue in the afterlife (heaven or hell). But I am curious why the afterlife theology takes precedence over how to live richly today (if you don't think these are incongruous, tell me so). Of course, they might not be contradictory. I'm open.

What do you think?

Peter

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi Peter,

I have revealed my identity already so it's alright and I respect that you wear your name so proudly. I realized later it is better to come forward with my identity and be transparent because God works best in the light and I have nothing to be afraid of because God is my protector. That's not to say I respect others for staying anonymous because that has advantages for those who feel it would help them open up about their struggles.

I don't feel dogmatic about my view of aliens and really it's not something I bring up in conversations unless I'm talking to other like minded folks who are deeply studied in bible prophecy and end times. However when the verse was brought up, I felt like I had to respond to it. I feel like it always helps to have an open mind as long as the theories do not violate the bible. Being close minded makes it likely we'll be rejecting truth and also stumble others when it's not necessary.

One of my hobbies is delving into bible prophecy. I've studied a lot of bible prophecy teachers such as Chuck Missler, LA Marzulli, Gary Stearman, Tom Horn, Cris Putnam. The book that got me interested in the subject of UFOs being an end-time demonic deception is Exo-Vaticana. So my process of getting into this was a gradual one.

The benefit of course is that this knowledge could be a witnessing tool for the gospel to those who are involved in new age and believe in UFOs. I have a DVD that clearly exposes the UFO phenomenon as being demonic and I prayed a short prayer once for the Lord to show me a person to give the DVD to. He hasn't given me an answer yet but it's the kind of prayer God always answers from my experience.

This is a legitimate concern because according to a recent National Geographic survey more Americans believe in UFOs than they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/mor...the-son-of-god

Here's a video from a Christian perspective in case I have piqued your interest enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EbhHRxmLrA

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Hey Sam!

(I use your name only as you revealed it publically in another thread)

I don't write, here, to challenge any of the content your writing about (aliens etc...). I only ask this:

In what way, if at all, does it change the way you live your life each day as a Christian? Would you live it differently if there were no aliens? Do you change your behavior (not just your thoughts) to think that there are aliens?

In other words, what is riding on your belief in this regard, aside from a theological playground (regardless of how interesting or even sound).

These are not challenges. They are questions, as posed.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. What's Paul up to these days?

Originally Posted by bearbear

That's assuming the aliens sinned. I know I am going off the deep end here so take this with a grain of salt. In NDEs of people who've been to heaven where God showed them beings from other worlds, it was made known to them that the aliens never sinned and fell like we did, we are the exception.

But Because humans had to go through much more by overcoming sin, we'll also be rewarded with much more. God gave us the right to be royalty as his children, an offer that was not extended to anyone else.

Now the bible says we are royalty and we will rule and reign with Jesus. In eternity he is The Lord of lords and the King of kings. Who are these lords and kings? They are us. This concept of us being royalty would have much more meaning if we also reigned in life over other all types of beings in eternity as servant-kings.

Of course I could be wrong and I certainly would not die for this theory

1 Cor 2:9
But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

Originally Posted by Ohio

If only I was a Juris Doctor.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by awareness

bb ... LOL ... so are LCers aliens or not?

Originally Posted by awareness

True. Unless we can find even just a claim that Witness Lee was an alien from outer space, or a closet pagan, such talk is off topic.

I apologize for my part in it. Sometimes I get carried away. My bad. Thanks for your kindness Untohim.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by james73

If you accept there are different paths to salvation for different alien races, why is it so hard to accept there are different paths to salvation right here on earth?

Just think how complicated things would become if alien visitors with different salvation belief (but holding that belief directly from the same God you believe) came to visit earth. How would you discern whether they were in fact alien "Christians" and not alien "Muslims" or alien "Buddhists". How would you discern whether they even actually believed in the same God?

Or maybe they have a picture of a tablet with "YHWH" written on it, which you could claim to be proof they are of the same God - how do you then prove they are not alien "Jews" or alien Jehovah's Witnesses or alien Lord's Recovery? (oh, that one's easy, they'd all be wearing the same clothes )

Would you try to convert them to Jesus or accept that they have a different salvation model?

Philosophical questions for you, not to be taken too seriously but fun to ponder

Originally Posted by bearbear

I actually lean towards this being a reference to aliens in other worlds and universes that God may have created.

http://youtu.be/jqJECcP04Ls

That said for our world, I still believe Jesus who is the logos become flesh is the only way to salvation for this plane of existence. Before his incarnation it may have been a different story, but to much has been given much is also expected. Jesus came to die for us already, we either accept him as Lord and savior or we don't. I would never budge from this even if a gun were pointed to my head, or that of my daughter.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, Jesus is the Logos. That's how Abraham, and all the OT patriarchs, even the pagan King priest of Salem, Melchizedek, came to the Father.

The Logos is a real force in the universe. It created the universe and sustains it ; as the pagan philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus, who coined the word logos, 600 yrs before the gospel of John was penned in Ephesus, defined it.

Our minds aren't capable of understanding the universal extent of the Logos, all it does, and who it comes to. The wind blows where it will. Shame on us for being so arrogant to think we can pin down the Logos. Just who do we think we are?

Joh_10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Originally Posted by bearbear

This sounds like new age teaching .. we should be careful because the new age movement is definitely birthed by Satan.

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation

* Jesus' name in Hebrew, Yeshua, means the Lord is our salvation! The bible authenticates who Christ is by his fulfillment of 351 prophecies.
* Just as there is only one telephone number you can use to reach a house, there's only one way you can reach the God of heaven.
* Jesus confirms this unequivocally in John 14:6 saying "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Originally Posted by bearbear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=157UxWDprFQ

Originally Posted by james73

And what is the "Gospel"? Isn't it the good news that the Law is not necessary for salvation, that eternal life is not reserved exclusively for Jews? That literally anyone, gentile, tax collector, can be saved and all they need is love for God and their fellow man to achieve that?

In which case we are entirely free of religious dogma and biblical canons. So what if I read Hindu scriptures and meditate in Buddhist monasteries? Eternal life is too wonderful to constrain to one religion. The "way" should not be caged and paraded around like an animal, it should be lived and shared.

Originally Posted by james73

When I was with LC, there was a young guy being sent to India, he joined our English speaking group first to practice his English (which was poor). All he really knew in life was Cantonese and the Witness Lee Life Study. And he was being sent as a missionary . I advised him to read the Gita, so he could relate to the Hindus he would be meeting. I am sure by the expression on his face that this advice was ignored. He's probably still praying for my soul…..

But it's important. Jesus COULD NOT have liaised with the Jewish people in such a way had he not been a Jew. Likewise, a dogmatic Christian is going to get nowhere with people of other faiths. If you wanted to relate to a Buddhist, bearbear, how would you go about it? Start quoting them verses from a bible they don't believe in? Scare them with stories of hell? Tell them resistance is futile? "You will be assimilated…"

Originally Posted by bearbear

Amen. I'm reminded of scriptures that say all good things come from God (James 1:17). Paul even quoted Greek philosophy in Titus.

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

That said I will still contend that the basis of discernment should still rest on the word of God. We shouldn't be pouring our time into things like Hindu scriptures, unless it's just to understand them for the sake of Gospel.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Agreed. it's always better to get revelation straight from the Guy who authored the bible, and that's why the Jews were stumbled when Jesus seemed to violate their interpretation of Torah when he violated the Sabbath according to their traditions.

That said Jesus made a bold statement when he said heaven and earth will pass away but my words never will. He also told us the only way we could bear fruit and not be cast into the fire was to remain in him and his words in John 15

Originally Posted by awareness

Well we're not a bunch of Hebrews sticking to 613 laws found in the Torah. The gospels have Jesus quoting scripture but I don't think he lived by matching everything to scripture. I'm pretty sure that he was guided by The Father directly ... which is the living word, not the dead letter.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I think there is some nuance involved in how we balance our own thinking against applying the word of God, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression of promoting one of those extremes.

Originally Posted by awareness

I think Satan has a better shot at us if we don't think.

For this reason critical self thinking was more than suppressed in the local church. The hive mentality bettered allowed Lee to usurp Christ, and replace his headship in our life ... which is a trick of Satan. Satan hates self thinkers. Cuz we have free will we are able to reject him ... just as we're free to reject God.

Bro bearbear, and for this reason I think you should go with as much gusto to think for yourself as you put into pinning everything to the Bible, book chapter, and verse.

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's because as I wrote in another thread that if we rely on our own human wisdom we can become easily deceived by Satan.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think all kinds of knowledge can be helpful. Wisdom (and humility) also comes with experience, some hard won.

Originally Posted by bearbear

That's not to say we shouldn't use develop our minds. I think God had mercy on my Grandma because she was a new believer. We should still come to the full knowledge of the truth, and I agree it's possible to build up our own Godly wisdom by interpreting and digesting the scriptures according to the Spirit of God who gives us understanding and guides us to all truth.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think what awareness is saying is that our wise discernment needs to be our own, not someone else's. Reading the Bible is not enough to avoid deception. Ultimately one must be able to trust one's own interpretation of what the Bible really means. We should be open to other's ideas, but ultimately we are on the hook for what we decide to do. So our decision must be our own, not something inherited. Certainly this requires prayer and the Holy Spirit. But when push comes to shove the decision just what is truth is ours to make. No way around that.

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's because as I wrote in another thread that if we rely on our own human wisdom we can become easily deceived by Satan. Satan is the Father of lies, the ancient dragon who's been deceiving people for ages. He's been living for a lot longer than we have and he knows which lies work and which don't.

The only hope we have is to rely on the wisdom which comes from God's word and his spirit. And the word of God teaches us to beware of false teachers in many places. It also provides guidelines for us to discern whether or not someone comes from God or the devil. Many of these are in 1 John and in Jesus' teachings.

Originally Posted by awareness

Why don't we just learn to be independent critical self thinkers and then false teachers and prophets will have no power over our hearts and minds.

Originally Posted by awareness

Why don't we just learn to be independent critical self thinkers and then false teachers and prophets will have no power over our hearts and minds.

Originally Posted by bearbear

My theory here is that if we learn how to identify false teachers and prophets according to scripture, it will help a lot of us heal because we'll be able to trust again after building up our own discernment in the word and by the Spirit of God.

Originally Posted by bearbear

My theory here is that if we learn how to identify false teachers and prophets according to scripture, it will help a lot of us heal because we'll be able to trust again after building up our own discernment in the word and by the Spirit of God.

Originally Posted by OBW

So how sure are we concerning the actual spiritual condition of everyone around you? Are we really sure that the person that seems to just attend church and go home is really not engaged in the true spiritual living? How do we tell?

Originally Posted by james73

I disagree. I agree we should never give up on loving them, but it should be without any hope or condition of repentance. I love the Hindu scriptures on this, the Bhagavad Gita - never be attached to the results of your actions. Do your job, let it go

Originally Posted by bearbear

My understanding also is that the angels have perfect knowledge and by spending time in the undiluted presence of God, they knew exactly what they were turning against so they have no excuse for turning to sin and rebelling against God. Humans on the other hand all have to look through a mirror dimly. Plus we are God's children and He loves us like family so Jesus came and died for us.



How would you respond to the verses here?

http://christianity.stackexchange.co...-for-salvation

Originally Posted by bearbear

Good observation That Jesus ate and drank with the sinners confused the Pharisees but he explained he was simply a Physician looking for sick patients to heal. Now if sick people go to the hospital but stay sick, that's not normal. Jesus was trying to win them over to repentance through love. These guys were getting little love because the Pharisees went to extremes to avoid them.

We should never give up loving on them, but we do so with the hope that they will be won over to repentance. But to turn a blind eye to unrepentant sin that hurts others is to accept it. We wouldn't be doing that person any favors if he went to his grave while practicing immorality without him realizing the need to repent.

1 Cor 5:12
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

Originally Posted by Lisbon

At 83 I appreciate almost everything I read on this forum. I am not enough of a theologian to even understand all that is written but. My wife and I were raised for 30 years in the Assemblies of God and of course they are Armenian. We both switched to the other side somewhere along the way. Our teaching was such that you could be a believer for 40 years and just before the end someone throws a rotten banana in your face, you curse, and thereby go to hell. Believe me I have heard this sort of thing spoken. Where is the eternal life of John 3? If you live with the constant fear of either living a good life and going to heaven or being like most of us and certainly going to hell, what a living. On his death bed, David told Solomon to kill Joab. That has never set well with me, but the Lord quite clearly tells us he will make it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

God never sent His Son to become an angel, and to die for fallen angelic sinners.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In this regard, it really is the law of God that condemns us for our sins. God is the righteous judge who administrates the penalty for sin acc. to the law. Our repentance for sin, no matter how sincere and heartfelt, actually would mean nothing to God. It is our identification with His Son, the Lamb of god, thru faith, which releases us from the penalty of sin. It is strictly a legal matter when it comes to sins and the law.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I've heard all sorts of theories on the mark of the beast. All I can say is I would still by all means necessary not take the mark!

On the topic of God's forgiveness, did you know some bible scholars say that the fallen angels tried to repent but God wouldn't forgive them?

2 Peter 2:4 alludes to this
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Peter was making a reference to the book of Enoch which was read by all the NT writers and Jews at that time. In the book of Enoch, the fallen angels who had sex with the women on earth producing the Nephilim, or giants asked Enoch to petition God for forgiveness. Enoch brings the petition to God but Yahweh will have none of it and chooses not to forgive the fallen angels.

Jude also alludes to this and quotes Enoch in two places:

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

Jude 1:14
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Originally Posted by Ohio

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit precludes any repentance as you have indicated. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as I understand it, is to condemn the Spirit of God for all the good He does, and then give all the credit and the glory to Satan.

Taking the "mark of the beast" is another matter. Unfortunately I think too many Christians will take this mark out of necessity or ignorance. I hope I am wrong. Revelations speak of "taking the mark and worshiping the beast and his image." That is a huge difference. I have always imagined Christians repenting ("coming to themselves, like the prodigal son") during this time, and removing the mark from their hand or forehead.

Originally Posted by james73

At risk of getting into verse wars… how did Jesus treat pagans or tax collectors? Luke 5:27:



He ate with them. He did not give up or shun them.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm all on board with you on forgiveness. We should forgive even when folks don't repent.

But still, these are the words of Jesus which I cannot deny.

Matthew 18:17
If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won't accept the church's decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.

Originally Posted by bearbear

In the case of unforgivable sins like blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and taking the mark of the beast, I believe at that point the person's heart is so hard that it is impossible for them to repent since only the Holy Spirit can convict someone to repentance-- so it's kinda self fulfilling.

Originally Posted by james73

Nope I was thinking of Matthew 18:21-22, and I got the number wrong, it was 77 not "7 times 77" as I remembered. Still, the message is: forgive, a lot and much more than you think is reasonable. Peter probably thought seven times was being a "good" person, amply forgiving. Jesus showed him the way.

If you are looking for excuses to not receive someone as a brother, you won't find them in the words of Jesus. There's no limit to the number of times you must forgive a brother; even if he keeps on saying "I repent" and then goes back to whatever he was doing, you cannot get frustrated with him, you gotta keep on accepting (as the verse you gave from Luke shows).

Originally Posted by Ohio

After you put on your LSSC hat, bearbear, what do you think about those horrific serial killers like Jeffrey Dalmer and Ted Bundy who repented for their sins and believed in Jesus before their deaths? Will they go to hell or does God forgive them their sins?

Originally Posted by james73

Interesting question. The easy answer (easy to write from a place with less than one or two gun deaths per year) is, there is no line. In theory, we should let the law handle the machine-gunner, but we need to keep loving the guy, still accept him, forgive him 77 times 7 or whatever that number was...and I don't mean, his 540th victim or rampage we say, OK, that's enough, you crossed a line buddy, you're out! 77 times 7 is pretty much infinite forgiveness, no matter what.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I agree we should always forgive (even if the person doesn't repent) and we should always accept a brother back into fellowship after they repent.

But what if they continue to sin against others and refuse to repent? Should we still fellowship with them as a brother? In the case you brought up, the brother is asking for Peter's forgiveness, implying that he repented.

Luke 17:4
and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

I believe there's a difference between forgiveness, which means to cancel all the debt the person owes you (and is necessary to remove bitterness from our soul), and actually receiving someone as a brother if they haven't repented of a heinous ongoing sin.

Originally Posted by Ohio

At the time, I was smoking too, so I never had the thought to confront the brother. On the contrary, I was set free from condemnation -- so I'm not the only Christian with problems, praise God! Not praise God for smoking, but praise God I'm not condemned for smoking.

But what about my other questions ...

Is there any sin(s) by God's children which is (are) too great for God to forgive? Too horrible for the sacrifice of His Son on the cross? Too grave that God would be forced to send His child to the lake of fire?

Put on one of your hats and answer that. I'd like to know, since you seem to disagree with all my other beliefs on salvation.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Sorry I should have specified. I meant in the context of when do you start confronting the brother since you said you realized you shouldn't have confronted the smoking brother which was the right call IMO.

Originally Posted by james73

Interesting question. The easy answer (easy to write from a place with less than one or two gun deaths per year) is, there is no line. In theory, we should let the law handle the machine-gunner, but we need to keep loving the guy, still accept him, forgive him 77 times 7 or whatever that number was...and I don't mean, his 540th victim or rampage we say, OK, that's enough, you crossed a line buddy, you're out! 77 times 7 is pretty much infinite forgiveness, no matter what.

I'm aware it's very easy to preach forgiveness when the crime is remote from you, or hypothetical. Still, I believe it's a powerful message and one which can also prevent us becoming too judgmental.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not understanding this post. Perhaps you been *multitasking* again.

I gave a more serious example than smoking ... suicide. What do you mean, "would that be okay?" I am not condoning any sin or damage done to God's children.

Where do we draw the line? The line for what? Sin is sin, and some sins are far worse than others. But we should address the real point here -- Is there any sin(s) by God's children too great for God to forgive? Too horrible for the sacrifice of His Son on the cross? Too grave that God would be forced to send His child to the lake of fire?

I'd like to know where you stand on this. Maybe we should have had this discussion long ago.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Cigarette smoking is one thing, but whatabout sins that involve hurting your brother or sister deeply? If this brother went and set up a money laundering operation to defraud saints of money would that be okay?

I guess at what point do we draw the line? What if Ron Kangas pulled out a machine gun and started mowing all the FTTA grads down during the winter training? Could we still accept him as a child of God and brother in Christ if he didn't repent and continued his murderous rampage?

Originally Posted by bearbear

Cigarette smoking is one thing, but whatabout sins that involve hurting your brother or sister deeply? If this brother went and set up a money laundering operation to defraud saints of money would that be okay?

I guess at what point do we draw the line? What if Ron Kangas pulled out a machine gun and started mowing all the FTTA grads down during the winter training? Could we still accept him as a child of God and brother in Christ if he didn't repent and continued his murderous rampage?

Originally Posted by bearbear

Another perhaps more sadder perspective on this is provided by the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:20-21
As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.

Originally Posted by bearbear

We never know what happens before someone dies. It's possible the Holy Spirit will convict everyone to repentance before they die.

Originally Posted by Igzy

In his defense--and I guess in the defense of current leaders--he did not ask for such a mindset. It was passed onto him by a mentor he dared not question. That is how such a baffling mental stronghold can get formed.

The question is, where did Nee get it?

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi Igzy, I appreciate your hope for Witness Lee's soul. I should say the same and hope that he's in heaven from repentance in his later years. God desires that all men be saved and does not delight in the punishment of the wicked.

Your analysis is intriguing and not something I considered.

But then he was using his MOTA license to do whatever he wanted? This sounds like something the devil would do to me more than our Lord Jesus who submitted himself to the Father's will in all things.

1 John 3:8
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all due respect to your grandmother, there are many exceptions to this rule. Elvis Presley comes to mind. He loved God and would sing gospel and love songs to the Lord. (We had this CD.) Yet he later became swallowed up in the sinful indulgences of stardom. So Elvis was never born again, nor saved?

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSS+C hat?

Originally Posted by bearbear

My grandma is still a free gracer and she told me this when I was discussing Lordship salvation with her haha.

Gonna put my LSS+C hat on again:

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all due respect to your grandmother, there are many exceptions to this rule. Elvis Presley comes to mind. He loved God and would sing gospel and love songs to the Lord. (We had this CD.) Yet he later became swallowed up in the sinful indulgences of stardom. So Elvis was never born again, nor saved?

Originally Posted by Ohio

bearbear, many of us were also idealistic in our younger days ... and judgmental. I have heard that a Christian could never commit suicide, yet a close friend of mine in the LC did just that not too long after I left. He loved the Lord and spoke the gospel to all his friends and family. Will he then go to hell for such a massive failure on his last day on this earth?

Shortly after I got saved, I visited a brother who was filled with love and joy. He greeted me with a big hug when I first walked in his door. I felt so special in his presence. He loved the word and was sharing with us. About an hour or so later, he sheepishly asked to be excused to go out smoke a cigarette. I thought how could this be? Well ... buddy ... wake up, were not perfected yet, but we are on a wonderful journey!

Things happen. The Christian life is not perfect. God is much bigger than we are. We all are prone to failure. Who is without sin? So we have nothing to boast in but the Lord who loves us and has saved us.

Originally Posted by bearbear

My Grandma once told me a true christian would never live in sin because the spirit of God in them would bother them so much that they would eventually repent. I've experienced this many times after my born again experience, including recently on this forum. When I got into an unhealthy argument with some on the forum earlier, I felt no peace or rest in my soul and was instantly driven to repent so I could find peace again.

Originally Posted by Igzy

In short, Lee's view of himself and his movement was "Too Big to Fail," thus a whole different set of rules existed for him and it.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Now place yourself in Witness Lee's shoes. Could any of you really do the same things he did without repentance? How long could you live with the shame of using church funds to pay off your debt, pilfer the life savings of saints in a money laundering scheme, overlook your son forcing himself on women in your ministry etc? Would any of you have the gall to proclaim yourself to be the MOTA and have no shame?

Originally Posted by bearbear

It's possible Witness Lee was never born of the spirit of God until maybe the end of his life where he mouthed an attempt at repentance. The reason why so many of us here and elsewhere who've left the LCs have become so disgusted with the debacles produced from Witness Lee is because we have the spirit of God inside us! The Holy Spirit hates sin and cannot stand it. A sign that witnessing sin grieves you is a sign that you are born again because the Holy Spirit is grieved by unrepentant sin.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think I can speak for others here -- we are only uncomfortable with falsehood and hypocrisy.

I have found that most "prophets" can say most anything you want them to say, mainly quoting O.T. promises made to Israel. Recently the pastor (because the church needed money to pay their bills) fellowshipped with the congregation about sowing a special seed offering to the Lord. The pastor promised that we all would receive our blessing from the Lord within 90 days.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Actually that's interesting you say this because of a recent event that happened to me. Since I know you guys are uncomfortable with charismatic stuff I haven't shared it, but here goes.

Originally Posted by Terry

If your grandma is still living, perhaps she knew of the events Richard Chi wrote about (in Chinese). Basically in the 50's church property in Taipei was used to pay Lee family debt (another failed business venture). After what apprently happened in the Philippines and Taiwan, he wasn't well-received which led to the 1962 World's Fair in Seattle.

Originally Posted by bearbear

The irony in all this was Witness Lee wrote and spoke several times that the saints should read his and Watchman Nee's ministry exclusively because he did not want the church to possibly go astray due to their lack of discernment. Who knew that it was Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's own ministries that required tremendous discernment for filtering out the leaven found in their teachings.

Originally Posted by bearbear

My grandma had similar stories of her experience in the LCs in the 50s and 60s in Taiwan. I wrote a blog post about some of the stories here:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not really. But never mind. I'll just say that if you interpret every warning in the Bible as a threat to be sent to hell, then I can see why you believe the way you do. But it is not necessary to do that. It's basically a stance motivated by deep fear and uncertainty. But, suit yourself.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The biggest danger to the church of God are her leaders. The ones who are most blessed by god, are the ones we should fear the most. The ones who appear to be the most influential and fruitful, are the same ones who have the potential to do the most damage.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not really. But never mind. I'll just say that if you interpret every warning in the Bible as a threat to be sent to hell, then I can see why you believe the way you do. But it is not necessary to do that. It's basically a stance motivated by deep fear and uncertainty. But, suit yourself.

Originally Posted by bearbear

It seems like whenever there is a good thing born of the Holy Spirit, Satan always focuses his attacks on this work. All Satan needs is a little opening. He knows if he can tempt a church leader into obeying his temptation, he'll have the legal right to control him if he doesn't repent (Romans 6 says we are slaves of the one we obey).

Whenever a spiritual leader has entered in the kingdom of darkness it seems like the whole congregation is often doomed if he was the only man in charge. Perhaps that's why popery was not encouraged in the early church, instead they had a plethora of leaders and apostles.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Didn't I do this in post #32,34 and 37 ?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do I think the culture I grew up in was any less passive? It was a sexual revolution of new found liberties and casting off long accepted social mores, without the fear of some 35 known STD's. Alcohol was more than prevalent ... without the limitations of DUI's. Drugs were everywhere, and they were cheap. You could smoke cigarettes anywhere you wanted, even on airplanes.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was born again via the living and operating word of God. I was instantly a new creation unrecognizable to my family and friends. My heart changed, along with my personality. I no longer lived a life in darkness. God gave me a love for Him, His word, and His people, which I never had before. After less than a year, however, I was struggling to follow the Lord by myself in a world contrary to God. One day I heard about being baptized in the Spirit. That night in bed I prayed fervently to receive this from the Lord. I was filled with the Spirit. Almost immediately after that, I was driving by the Cleveland meeting hall, and met the saints planting flowers in front on a Sunday afternoon. That was an answer to my prayer based on I Cor 12.13, "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."

bearbear, the churchlife which you and I left, was no longer recognizable to those of us who remember those early days. It was the Spirit of god who led me to salvation, and it was the Spirit who led me to the local church. Both were accompanied by great joy, and an enlightening of the scriptures. In between those early days and my final days in the LC's, was all the sad stories of Witness Lee and company usurping absolute control of the Recovery, elevating himself to a place of highest prominence, hiding a history of corruption, and attempting to destroy any and all who got in his way.

Originally Posted by bearbear

From my understanding, it's this passive culture that is preventing many from being truly born again.

Originally Posted by bearbear

It wasn't until I left and fully surrendered my life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ that I believe I became born again and a new creation. I could have stayed in the LCs all my life and lived in this deception, missing out on the beginning of a new transformation.

Originally Posted by awareness

There was nothing easy in the local church. I eventually developed a consistent knot in my stomach from trying so hard. Seemed I couldn't give enough to Christ and the church. I was, in fact, working out my salvation. Easy-believism wasn't part of the local church when I was in it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

"easy-believism"

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee's teachings about overcomers placed us all under a bondage of never being able to do enough to please God. Coupled with his exclusive views about the Recovery, we also believed that every effort we expend in serving God must be directed towards building up his ministry and churches. All other service was a waste of time and not pleasing to the Lord.

I don't think that the second generation in the LC's got this teaching of "easy-believism" directly from Witness Lee. Perhaps I am wrong. It seems to me that a passive youth culture inevitably developed as a result of promoting Witness Lee and his ministry rather than Jesus Christ and His word.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm sorry I didn't mean to attribute easy-believism to everyone here, but I do believe it's what Witness Lee taught and he should be held responsible for it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

bearbear, I've been realizing lately that perhaps you don't have the same view of us ex-LC members as we do. You attribute it to "free grace" errors which came from "dispensational circles" such as those loosely connected with Darby. As a passive, entitled, 2nd generation, know-it-all, who has recently come of age, I believe your views are quite different from many of us, at least for me.

I jumped into the LC in Cleveland headlong in 1976. After my first meeting, I stayed the whole weekend at the "farm house" on the church property. I soon moved in with Norm M. and his family, attending morning watch every morning and some meeting or service every night. Many of us preached the gospel regularly, if not every day. No one could say that I (or others) enjoyed some "easy-believism," which you are constantly assigning to us.

In those days, we nearly made no decisions on our own. Everything we did was surrounded by much prayer, fasting, and fellowship with the brothers. Twice I totally uprooted my life to join a migration to another city in order to start a new church from scratch. I seriously suffered much from outsiders because of my faith and the narrow way I was pursuing. Most ex-LC-members I know from the "old days" have similar experiences.

For you to come along and project your past life in the LC to ours is neither fair nor justified. I consider myself more like an aging, wounded veteran of foreign wars, wondering if the wars were even worthwhile. I constantly battle a life of discouragement and disappointment, all the while struggling to keep my love and faith fresh and new. This is why you are struggling so hard to convince us of your point of view. You are like a newly saved messianic Jew coming to us every day with the message that circumcision, Sabbath, and kosher are now meaningless. Who knew?

I do think, however, that you have a message for other second generation Christians. And I have taken to heart the message you have brought to the forum. I thank the Lord that you have found your "voice" in Christ. Take heed to your ministry from the Lord. That said, it is not the only message in the Bible. All men need to repent and believe, but Jesus did not use that same message with every person He met on earth. He knew the audience, and matched the message to them. Paul also said he was all things to all men.

And yes, you do add some very nice "color" to the forum.

Originally Posted by Igzy

bearbear,

You answered neither of the questions I asked in post #23.

Originally Posted by Ohio

bearbear, I've been realizing lately that perhaps you don't have the same view of us ex-LC members as we do. You attribute it to "free grace" errors which came from "dispensational circles" such as those loosely connected with Darby. As a passive, entitled, 2nd generation, know-it-all, who has recently come of age, I believe your views are quite different from many of us, at least for me.

I jumped into the LC in Cleveland headlong in 1976. After my first meeting, I stayed the whole weekend at the "farm house" on the church property. I soon moved in with Norm M. and his family, attending morning watch every morning and some meeting or service every night. Many of us preached the gospel regularly, if not every day. No one could say that I (or others) enjoyed some "easy-believism," which you are constantly assigning to us.

In those days, we nearly made no decisions on our own. Everything we did was surrounded by much prayer, fasting, and fellowship with the brothers. Twice I totally uprooted my life to join a migration to another city in order to start a new church from scratch. I seriously suffered much from outsiders because of my faith and the narrow way I was pursuing. Most ex-LC-members I know from the "old days" have similar experiences.

For you to come along and project your past life in the LC to ours is neither fair nor justified. I consider myself more like an aging, wounded veteran of foreign wars, wondering if the wars were even worthwhile. I constantly battle a life of discouragement and disappointment, all the while struggling to keep my love and faith fresh and new. This is why you are struggling so hard to convince us of your point of view. You are like a newly saved messianic Jew coming to us every day with the message that circumcision, Sabbath, and kosher are now meaningless. Who knew?

I do think, however, that you have a message for other second generation Christians. And I have taken to heart the message you have brought to the forum. I thank the Lord that you have found your "voice" in Christ. Take heed to your ministry from the Lord. That said, it is not the only message in the Bible. All men need to repent and believe, but Jesus did not use that same message with every person He met on earth. He knew the audience, and matched the message to them. Paul also said he was all things to all men.

And yes, you do add some very nice "color" to the forum.

Originally Posted by bearbear

With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible!

That said I have given up trying to convince anyone and am perfectly content with writing down my viewpoint to add color to the discussion in this forum.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Do "non-free-gracers" practice taking back birthday and Christmas gifts if recipients don't measure up? One would think they should, since this would indeed be the "living out" of their theology and expression of what they think God is like. Unless of course they are embarrassed to behave as shabbily as they believe God does.

Originally Posted by james73

"So quickly"?? Haha. Delete those two words and you might be onto something.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I recently repented before the Lord for expecting others to adhere to my view of salvation so quickly.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Presumably your association of these verses has something to do with the use of the English word "destroy" in them.

However, the words translated "destroy" in 1 Cor 3:17, 1 Cor 6:13 and Matthew 10:28 are actually three completely different Greek words.

In 1 Cor 3:17 the word is phtherei, which means literally "SHALL BE CORRUPTING." The meaning is that if you attempt to corrupt the temple of God you will only succeed in being corrupted yourself.

Originally Posted by Igzy

In 1 Cor 6:13 the Greek word is katargEsei, which literally means "SHALL BE DOWN-UN-ACTING" or, anglicized, "shall be discarding." It implies doing away with something that isn't needed anymore. It isn't about judgment. Food and stomachs will not be needed in the next age.

Originally Posted by james73

Indeed, and it was worse than just the parts he didn't like. I think all preachers have pet philosophies, ideas and theses they like or avoid, and this should be welcomed in a diverse faith community; if this was all Lee was doing, espousing his different view, then fine, his books would have likely earned a place on many a Christian or spiritual bookshelf…. but, with Lee, there is more to the LifeStudy than this.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The free (gracious) gift of God is eternal life. But eternal life implies living forever. So if the gift is revoked, one was never given eternal life in the first place, because one didn't live forever. But the Bible says we were indeed given this gift. Therefore it cannot be revoked.

"For God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Romans 11:29

Originally Posted by james73

What value there was in Nee's theology, Lee poisoned it in trying to make the books serve his purpose. And it's difficult to see where the poison ends and the clear water begins, so stirred up has it been over a couple more generations of cult members . . .

Originally Posted by Terry

This has been my sense too. Especially when it comes to the Life-Studies. Hardly authoritative or comprehensive. When tested, the Life-Studies are a prime example of parts of the Bible he didn't like were left out.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Acts 20:29
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

A sign of a false shepherd is that he is more than willing to slaughter his own sheep to save his own life. This fairly describes what happened to John So, John Ingalls et al who were thrown under the bus when they confronted witness lee.

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that Lee teaches the God of the Bible, but ignores the parts he doesn't like.

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does someone like me know if he lives in a "dispensational circle?"

Originally Posted by Igzy

bearbear,

I appreciate you being such a good sport.
...
Just keeping you on your toes, son.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I'm just presenting my views as I see it and don't mean to push it on others. I think my "pet doctrine" while possibly viewed as heresy in dispensational circles is widely considered to be orthodox in Christianity as it is held by those in both Reformed and Armininist schools.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi Igzy, I'm just presenting my views as I see it and don't mean to push it on others. I think my "pet doctrine" while possibly viewed as heresy in dispensational circles is widely considered to be orthodox in Christianity as it is held by those in both Reformed and Armininist schools.

When I explain to other Christians how I grew up with free grace but changed to where I am now, they often look at me like I was ignorant for adhering to this doctrine in my youth. However when I do the same here it seems like everyone is ready to raise their pitchforks which I expect because maybe I would have done the same. The background of salvation doctrine a Christian was raised under has a huge effect on the way they perceive other teachings and how they read the bible.

According to wikipedia, adherents of Free grace doctrine are the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Grace_theology

"Its prominent present-day expressions are the Grace Evangelical Society, the Free Grace Alliance,[11] the Plymouth Brethren, and the local churches."

Outside of evangelical Christianity, it seems like free gracers are in the minority. Yet even then there are tons of other evangelicals who openly say that free grace is heresy such as Francis Chan.

If you think my espousal of this doctrine is heresy, would you also brand other well known Lordship salvation believing servants of God such as David Wilkerson, John MacArthur, John Piper and Paul Washer as heretics?

What I like about you guys though is that you respect the word of God and aren't afraid of having a debate from scriptures. It's sometimes hard to have the same level of conversation and debate with other Christians because they just believe whatever their pastors say. This is something I really appreciate from those that come from LC backgrounds.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This reminds me of Calvinists who argue (cleverly they think) that "free will" is not found in the Bible. Well, duh. Will is not will unless it's free. If it's not free it's programming, not will. Likewise grace isn't grace unless it's free. Let's try to keep things straight.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This reminds me of Calvinists who argue (cleverly they think) that "free will" is not found in the Bible. Well, duh. Will is not will unless it is free. If it's not free it's programming, not will. Likewise grace isn't grace unless it's free. Let's try to keep things straight.

Originally Posted by bearbear

My dad said the same things to me when we were discussing 1 Cor 3. I'll just describe my understanding of this matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

BB,

In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is continuing his discussion about the teachers that they have been lining up behind and fighting over. Now he keeps making mention of three pretty good ones. But I suspect that these were not the only ones in play. He mentions Peter, Apollos, and himself. At one point he makes a turn in his rhetoric. He refers to the teachers as farmers and builders. And he refers to the Corinthians as the farm and the building.

He then turns back to the teachers and discusses how they might build (continuing with the metaphor of building). Sort of a Three Little Pigs comparison. Straw, sticks, or brick. You know the materials he actually mentions.

Paul does make mention of their foundation in the faith which was Christ. (And while Paul was the one who had brought them that foundation, he is not suggesting that only he could provide it.) Then he talks about how the teachers might build. In the end (on "the day") their work would be tried. In terms of their reward, or lack thereof, the nature of what they built would be the evidence for or against them. The building that met the standard would gain them favor, while the building that did not would cause them loss, but not of salvation.

Now if the building in such a poor manner does not result in the loss of salvation of the builder, do we suppose that those on whom he built are still, nonetheless, lost? It might be easy to confuse the materials with which the teacher built as being the people. But then it would indicate that the materials (wood or stones) are the people rather than what was added to them.

There was a foundation of Christ. That is not burned in the fire. So the core of the believers' faith withstands the fire of the day. However, Paul does not provide any hint as to their fate. But he does not seem excessively concerned about it. At least not within this particular passage. He does provide them a lot of sound advice for moving forward. Things about a sinner, gifts, meetings, the life to come, and other things.

But he never suggests that their status before God is at risk.

Since we are talking about Christians (mostly) I can only accuse Lee of being a purveyor of flammable materials. Outside of the question about those who wandered into a Love Feast, got excited and stood and called "Oh, Lord Jesus" three times then disappeared, I believe that we are talking about people who have the foundation that Paul laid. Even those who started in that tenuous position of simply calling three times, but who stayed and began to mature a little, surely they came to truly believe in the one that they only sort of met by chance when those 9 words were spoken.
...

Originally Posted by Ohio

At this point in time, one whole week after the resurrection, two of the twelve original disciples were not yet believers. The first was Judas, who had perished by his own hand. The second was Thomas, who would not believe, not until he could "see" and "put his finger into the nail holes" of our risen Savior.

So this would not be a good verse to use in order to prove that the disciples, who have genuinely believed, could eventually go to hell.

Originally Posted by bearbear

571 ápistos (from 1 /A "not" and 4103 /pistós, "faithful," see there) – properly, not faithful because unpersuaded, i.e. not convinced (persuaded by God). 571 /ápistos ("faithless, unpersuaded") does not always refer to the unconverted – see Jn 20:27. 571 (ápistos) describes someone who rejects or refuses God's inbirthings of faith (note the root, faith, 4102 /pístis).

This is the same word used in John 20:27 when Jesus described Thomas, someone who was his disciple!

John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

Originally Posted by awareness

I have found that there are certain types of people that tend to jump to condemning others -- usually disagreeable's -- to hell.

I think hell is a side-track. Take a look at every instance of the word hell in the Bible and tell me with no ambiguity what hell is.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi OBW, I can see where my statement about Witness Lee leading people to hell would have been confusing and I should have expounded on it, but I was afraid of getting side-tracked.

Originally Posted by OBW

In your second post, you said:
I honestly believe that this is an overstatement. This is a thought that grows out of the discussion that has already been set aside a few weeks back concerning loss of salvation.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Acts 20:29
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

This fairly describes what happened to John So, John Ingalls et al who were thrown under the bus when they confronted witness lee.

Jesus showed an example of what a true shepherd would do by laying down his life for the sheep, the exact opposite of the work of a false shepherd. Satan always turns things upside down.

Originally Posted by Terry

To my awareness, there has never been any repentance and asking of forgiveness for what has been in print (against John Ingalls) or what has been spoken (against Steve Isitt among many others). Steve Isitt in particular Ron Kangas singled out at an international conference.

Originally Posted by bearbear

The Blended Brothers who are carrying the mantle of Witness Lee's teaching and living shamelessly lie and slander folks like Steve Issit and others who have brought to light the history of their iniquity.