Originally Posted by UntoHim

koinonia is right. The work of ministry is a spiritual principle. . . . Drake is also right. To the followers of Witness Lee, the work of ministry is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim California.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In reality, "the word of ministry" should be both "spiritual" and "earthly". After all, we know that God wants his will done "on earth as it is in heaven".

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Yes! Better yet... Drake can invite members from his “locality”.

That should be easy enough, right “Drake”

Originally Posted by Drake

kumbaya,

Because the work of ministry does not equal the local church.



You'll have to provide the specific use case then I can answer.



It is not paraded around because that work isn't about Witness Lee.


kumbaya, you did ask me to leave you alone. Are you sure about this?

Drake

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

My view is that WL both was largely instrumental in raising up LCs in the US and also wholly responsible for tearing them down, and he did this through insisting that every LC would be married to the LSM. The LSM is the husband of every proper LC. Without being wed to and staying married to the LSM, an LC becomes a divorced or shamed woman. This marriage actually produces a dysfunctional family which destroys the whole idea of the local church that should have been established. In reality, the local church should have been local, with Christ as the head, but in actuality, and it doesn't matter how you want to bend and weave around it, WL/LSM is the head of the LC.

I, for one, write this post because I am quite saddened that this is the case- that what could have been a real work of the Lord, was usurped by the work of a man. I did go and read the W Née "What are we?" writing. This really stood out to me. "When we consider the present-day church organizations, we see many human traditions and opinions and little direct leading of the Holy Spirit. This is not according to God’s desire. In God’s will, the church should not be under man’s control; it should be directed only by the Holy Spirit. All those who belong to the Lord should learn to be led by the Holy Spirit and should not follow man’s direction. These are all truths discovered by the Brethren.".

If only WL would have learned this lesson from WN; the LCs could have been truly a recovered truth. Instead, a man created a business out of "ministry", married it to a Bible truth and destroyed the work that had been a long time making. It will only be that when the LCs divorce themselves from LSM that the truth will be restored.

Drake- look at the C in SD web site- history of section- no mention of WL, LSM? Come now, the married woman is afraid or ashamed to mention her husband! She wants to attract the lonely seeker with a smiling face, while sitting at home is the mean old man that will put the innocent seeker into indentured servitude. The seeker will then find out the attractive woman is a trap to catch souls for the husband's business. The seeker will either submit to the husband or run away and have a certain fear of ever trusting a simple Christian message again.

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio, don't you know that Daystar & PL are tired, old claims?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whether or not Eastern Lightning was birthed by W. Lee's self-exalting teachings and practices is still questionable, his profligate sons Timothy and Philip are not.

Originally Posted by Drake

Actually aron, I have learned a few things from your oft repeated false argument to associate the riotous, murdering, head stomping, blasphemous female Christ, know as Eastern Lightning with the Living Stream Ministry.

First, I learned that the false argument of guilt by association is alive and well in your posts.

Second, I learned that even christians can and do fabricate the truth and through thoughtlessness and carelessness have no consideration for the persecution they potentially heap on dear brothers and sisters in China who living under a repressive regime may suffer as a result of their false accusation.

Third, I learned that stories about Bat Boy though patently fabricated yet purport to be factual can gain traction if repeated often enough.

Drake

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, I heard the Bema exhortation before from a local church member when, after meeting one of their members a number of years after I walked away from the LC. I asked the person "are you still following WL?", his response was "we don't follow a man". We had a small discussion about that point and he eventually said " if you were an Israelite in Egypt wouldn't you follow Moses?", justifying the following of WL. Then came the "meet you at the bema seat" statement.

My view is that WL both was largely instrumental in raising up LCs in the US and also wholly responsible for tearing them down, and he did this through insisting that every LC would be married to the LSM. The LSM is the husband of every proper LC. Without being wed to and staying married to the LSM, an LC becomes a divorced or shamed woman. This marriage actually produces a disfunctional family which destroys the whole idea of the local church that should have been established. In reality, the local church should have been local, with Christ as the head, but in actuality, and it doesn't matter how you want to bend and weave around it, WL/LSM is the head of the LC. I, for one, write this post because I am quite saddened that this is the case- that what could have been a real work of the Lord, was usurped by the work of a man. I did go and read the W Née "What are we?" writing. This really stood out to me. "When we consider the present-day church organizations, we see many human traditions and opinions and little direct leading of the Holy Spirit. This is not according to God’s desire. In God’s will, the church should not be under man’s control; it should be directed only by the Holy Spirit. All those who belong to the Lord should learn to be led by the Holy Spirit and should not follow man’s direction. These are all truths discovered by the Brethren.". If only WL would have learned this lesson from WN; the LCs could have been truly a recovered truth. Instead, a man created a business out of "ministry", married it to a Bible truth and destroyed the work that had been a long time making. It will only be that when the LCs divorce themselves from LSM that the truth will be restored.

Drake- look at the C in SD web site- history of section- no mention of WL, LSM? Come now, the married woman is afraid or ashamed to mention her husband! She wants to attract the lonely seeker with a smiling face, while sitting at home is the mean old man that will put the innocent seeker into indentured servitude. The seeker will then find out the attractive woman is a trap to catch souls for the husband's business. The seeker will either submit to the husband or run away and have a certain fear of ever trusting a simple Christian message again.

Drake, I think there is one standing outside a closed door knocking, saying be zealous and repent. The question is, is the LC movement so filled that they don't want to open that door? I hope not. I think the first thing would be to admit the real relationship between the LSM and the LC is the work of man, not the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I learned that the false argument of guilt by association is alive and well in your posts.

Second, I learned that even christians can and do fabricate the truth and through thoughtlessness and carelessness have no consideration for the persecution they potentially heap on dear brothers and sisters in China who living under a repressive regime may suffer as a result of their false accusation.

Third, I learned that stories about Bat Boy though patently fabricated yet purport to be factual can gain traction if repeated often enough.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Sorry you couldn't learn anything from that.

But I know the party line is "No connection whatever" with the cultic spin-offs. Anything otherwise, as the LC elder put it, and we have a "PR problem." Well, you have a lot of them, so keep on manning the pumps.

But I see the opening gambit, "We are just Christians" used by those who have long since left the simplicity of the gospel and are looking to drag others along. Both EL and LSM.

And it's true, Christianty is devilish, satanic, fallen, dark and all the rest. But your proposed alternative makes people worse off than before. At least sinners know they're enslaved.

I know this wasn't your experience, but it was for many. What do you suppose the churn rate is for LC youth, who have 18+ years of close observation?

Originally Posted by Drake

Nice reporting aron. Right up there . . .

Originally Posted by Drake

thanks Boxjobox. You raise some excellent conversation points...

Originally Posted by Drake

It is not paraded around because that work isn't about Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Drake,

In your opinion, why do Christians on campus (college ministry of LC) not call themselves, "The church in <BLANK> Student Center?"

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Why do they use terms like "inoculate" (personally heard this) when teaching you how to minister to college students about not only the Bible, but the writings of WL.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

My point is, there's a reason why WL's name isn't paraded around. If it drew people in, they'd be using it.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

When you say "They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately." this, to me, is the same as putting WL in the same category as Paul, Luke, John etc. you are saying he is special and that his interpretations are as important as scripture. It is the same as Peter's explanation “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” II Peter‬ *1:20-21‬ *NKJV‬‬.

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox >”Drake- is this a good summary of what you believe and what the LC believes and practices?”

Therefore, we do not elevate Brother Lee above the Apostles, rather we accept that he was an apostle to the local churches raised up under his and Nees ministry for this era. We do not elevate the writings of these two servants above the scripture. They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately. We also recognize the Christian life and work is carried out according by the Holy Sprirt as the ultimate authority through men who are less than perfect yet nonetheless bear responsibility as the Lord sees fit and has arranged.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

We do not elevate the writings of these two servants above the scripture. Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think he was just referring to the difficulty in meeting those requirements (the half-truth), especially Micah didn't mention the "gift". MacLaren didn't mean it is human concept.



May be next time when you read the bible, please take note of how many times the apostles advised the believers to do good and stay away from evil. If the only requirement is believe and it doesn't matter whether the believers follow God's standard, probably a large portion of the epistles would be unnecessary.

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your heart having been enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry;

Col 3:6 Because of which things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience;

Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering;

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox, There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Originally Posted by Drake

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, if they did not deviate from the scriptural model of a local church, did not become a denomination, received all believers, etc. However, having rejected the work of ministry they were receiving up and to that I would be keen to understand what work of ministry we would now be part of. I shared before that I lived in a city that had broke away from the ministry of Brother Lee and started their own ministry for their region. When I asked to join their meetings, not wanting to start a new local church they said "we'll ask our leaders, don't call us we'll call you". They never called. At that point, they lost the basis as a local church since they refused to accept all believers in that city. So the answer is yes, but if that local church became something different then of course I would not meet with them no matter whose ministry they adopted (their own or another).

Originally Posted by Ohio

I felt it was quite shameful in Ingalls' book to have Lee's wife on the board of directors. Obviously W. Lee was used to having his closest associates disagreeing with his methods, so he could never trust anyone.

LSM has $20Million in annual revenue, and $100Million in tangible assets, mostly real estate!!! Pretty incredible for this "humble little publisher of the ministry of Nee and Lee." And to think that LSM fronted a handful of loyalists in Mansfield and Columbus, Ohio to file lawsuits to confiscate meeting halls worth perhaps a couple hundred grand. This is Ohio, land of cheap real estate, and LSM couldn't just obey the scriptures in I Cor 6 about lawsuits, and use that money to help their people get another place to meet? So pathetic!

Drake constantly tries to guilt-shame the posters here for exposing corruption at LSM, yet never owns what his people do. Think millstone!

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

You are twisting the question. I am not going to follow you. You have my explanation and can read it again if you care. Whether you do or don't it is fine with me either way.

In any case, you have not provided a sliver of scriptural evidence for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a "spiritual principle".

None, nada, nunca, zip..... because you can't.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

The form showed 15 voting directors, 13 of whom received reportable (W-2) wages from the same non-profit business (Living Stream Ministry) which they direct. No small conflict of interest, here?

But then they learned from Witness Lee, so what else would one expect.

Also makes one wonder how many shell companies are out there, as well: entered "Bibles for America" and found a separate entry on the same site. 2+ Million $$ donations. $120+K in salaries.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

You are twisting the question. I am not going to follow you. You have my explanation and can read it again if you care. Whether you do or don't it is fine with me either way.

In any case, you have not provided a sliver of scriptural evidence for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a "spiritual principle".

None, nada, nunca, zip..... because you can't.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Our friend Drake wants to pretend that "The One Publication" does not exist. He wants to pretend that there is no OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration regarding "the work of of ministry" in the Local Church of Witness Lee. The work of ministry has been OFFICIALLY and PUBLICLY personalized and memorialized in the person and work of Witness Lee. There is an OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration that there is a "Vision of The Age", a "Ministry of the Age" and a "Minister of The Age" The vision of the age is given by Witness Lee. The Ministry of the Age is the personal ministry of Witness Lee. The minister of the age is of course Witness Lee.
-

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, maybe if you would answer some questions, I could get a better feel of your working definitions of some terms and ideas you present:

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What is your history with LSM, how have you interacted with them?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What is the affiliation of the church in your city with LSM, and on what basis do they interact?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If the elders (I'll add with the fellowship of the local saints) decided not to have any interaction with LSM, would you still meet with them?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If LSM closed shop, what do you think would happen to your definition of ministry?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, you have not provided any scriptural basis whatsoever that LSM is the work of the ministry--because--you can't.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

And the underlying premise of your assertion is faulty.... the work of ministry is not merely a "spiritual principle". This is not a disagreement about terminology. There is no scriptural basis for the notion of a spiritual principle for the "work of ministry" without an earthly practice. Scripture is clear on that. On that point, I agree with UntoHim's first sentence in#253 The argument you are making, incomplete as it is, is dismissing the clear testimony of scripture concerning the work of ministry and if what you assert is true, then as regards the work of ministry just about anything will do.

You may not agree with how I have explained it, you may not agree with anything I have said about it but please Koinomia, don't act like I did not offer a scriptural based explanation for the work of ministry, and don't ask me to refute an argument that you have yet to make. Really, there is enough to disagree on about what has been said already without disagreeing on incomplete arguments.

As I said, it is a moot point to discuss what role Living Stream Ministry plays in the work of ministry to produce and build up the local churches (though I have offered my view on this) if you do not believe there is a work of ministry and if you do not believe that the new Testament model of local churches in each city is valid.

Thanks,
Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

This tells us what we already know, that LSM is just big business, peddling the word of God.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ Just type in living stream ministry

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

And the underlying premise of your assertion is faulty.... the work of ministry is not merely a "spiritual principle". This is not a disagreement about terminology. There is no scriptural basis for the notion of a spiritual principle for the "work of ministry" without an earthly practice. Scripture is clear on that.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Boxjobox,

Please provide the link to this document.

Thanks
-

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, if you don't like my wording about "a spiritual principle," it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't even affect my point.

My point is that there is no scriptural basis for asserting that LSM is the work of ministry. And your assertion as such is astounding.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! This is LSM?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Starting my research on LSM

(b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of assistance (d) Type of assistance (e) Purpose of assistance
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ. Cat. No. 50056ASchedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Part IV Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 28a, 28b, or 28c.
(a) Name of interested person (b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of transaction (d) Description of transaction (e) Sharing of organization's revenues?
Yes No

(1) KERRY ROBICHAUX SECRETARY/DIRECTOR 31,200 RENT No
(2) TIMOTHY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 55,141 W-2 WAGES No
(3) AMY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 29,854 W-2 WAGES No
(4) THEODORE HAGE IN-LAW OF OFFICER 60,102 W-2 WAGES No
(5) NICOLE DUSSELJEE CHILD OF OFFICER 30,541 W-2 WAGES No
(6) JOSEPH PRIM IN-LAW OF OFFICER 62,804 W-2 WAGES No
(7) YIN FONG LEE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF FOUNDER 81,101 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(8) SAMUEL LEE GRANDSON OF FOUNDER 59,406 W-2 WAGES No
(9) JOANNA KUO DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 28,553 W-2 WAGES No
(10) PHILEMON LEE SON OF FOUNDER 51,835 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(11) RACHEL LEE DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 6,840 RENT No
(12) VALENA WARDEN WIFE OF OFFICER 43,204 W-2 WAGES No
(13) SHARON WARDEN DAUGHTER OF OFFICER 2,671 W-2 WAGES No

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

I did already. I gave my explanation and rationale.

Then, you made an assertion that the work of ministry is merely "a spiritual principle".

It's not my responsibility to chase every unfounded assertion made in this forum.

You made the assertion so please validate your assertion from the Bible. Maybe you are right and we will all learn something.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

..that the work of ministry is merely a spiritual principle.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

...that "the work of ministry" is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim, California.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it would be on you to provide a scriptural explanation for your remarkable assertion that "the work of ministry" is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim, California.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia, Please provide a scriptural explanation for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a spiritual principle.
Thanks Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, "the work of ministry" is a spiritual principle. LSM, as a totally outward and temporal organization, cannot equal "the work of ministry." That is basic.

Originally Posted by Drake

Not in the same way as the vision I received. I have said in this thread that, it is not only a historical fact but if the contribution and service of a LSM is not the work of ministry then please show me where it is.

Yet, if you dont believe the local church is the New Testament model or that there is the work of ministry to build up those churches then frankly a discussion about the role of the Living Stream Ministry in the work is irrelevant..... a non-starter.

Drake

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, I seem to have to read your posts over a few times and then still am not sure of your meanings, probably because I'm not sure we would define words the same. The history that I lived through in the LC doesn't match what you say about LSM. LSM became a dividing point between the saints in my city. Most would have been happy to meet without the LSM affiliation, yet were forced to make a choice between carrying on in the LC with LCM at the helm and walking away. Many walked away. The LSM did not build up the church- it was a point of division.

It is true that WL was probably most responsible for the concept of the LC coming about in my city, but when I started meeting in 1976, he was not the main influence, rather the elders were the ones who ministered along side the saints. As time went on, the influence of WL/LSM increased until there was no more room for anything else. Eventually this overt interference broke the Christian oneness the saints enjoyed. Where the ministry of the elders, who were apt to teach and encourage and set the example built the church, LSM divided it. That is historical.

I live in San Diego; if you look up the church in SD website, you do not find speaking about WL nor LSM being the building ministry- neither are written about in their statement of belief, practice or history. You seem to say that WL/LSM are the center and circumference of all things local. It also makes no sense to me that you talk about the gifts and inspirations of the members of the local assembly yet see a need for a business to oversee the functioning of the saints. It seems to me that- and I may be mixing your opinions with others, or my own, that the real function of LSM is to supply content for the meetings and to insure that all participating in the meetings (functioning?) use that content. And that LSM is in the business of selling that content. I don't see a ministry, but a business.

When I left the LC in the late 80's, it had become this sort of thing, and appears that it has only continued. Those who did not like the content had no choice but to leave. The meeting hall we had all contributed our time and money to maintain for the use of all the saints was turned over to the LSM business through some crafty elders- others left. The meeting hall was stolen from the saints. This is the history I went through.

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, there is a difference between accepting (in your terms) the "scriptural definition of a local church" or that there is a "work of ministry to produce local churches" and believing that LSM is the "the work of ministry."

Do you believe the Lord showed you that LSM is the work of ministry?

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

And it is also okay and good for christians to believe that there is a work of ministry that produces local churches according to the scriptures and to accept that ministry. If a Christian does not accept the scriptural definition of a local church, does not believe there is work of ministry to produce local churches, or does not believe that Living Stream Ministry is that work of ministry for those local churches, then that is between them and the Lord. They need to be faithful to what the Lord has shown them.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was mistaken. MacLaren (not Piper) commentary on Micah 6:8 says the word require is a harsh (not strong) word which to me has negative connotation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me there are no requirements to keep the law for a few reasons

a) As a gentile I do not understand God's laws. I have a sense of morality in my heart but it is no use talking to me about the 534th law of the Torah.
b) Christ fulfilled the law on my behalf. If I break even just one law then I break them all. There is no chance of me keeping all of them so it is not worth trying to keep one of them. The only requirement is to believe.
c) the law is given for the unrighteous. In Christ God says I am righteous, so the law "does not apply".
d) there is no difference between a believer who tries to keep the law and a believer who doesn't.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Isn't half-truth part of the truth? Hasn't God been progressively revealing His truth? If you constantly think you don't need to keep the law, all these requirements are not even in you radar screen. How would you then earnestly try to live up to God's standard? That earnestness would lead you to Christ according to MacLaren.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it's okay for Christians not to believe that LSM = "the work of ministry." In fact, it's okay and good to reject that view.

Originally Posted by Drake

K,

I think the intolerance is found in your post, not mine.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is where it gets crazy. And why LC diehards see no room for legitimate disagreement.

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You wrote previously:

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.


There is a difference between fulfill the law and keeping it. Note how many verses you quoted say fulfill the law. Sometimes Christians say "keep the law" but this is normally understood in the context of Christ fulfilling it on our behalf.

See what Piper says about being free from law-keeping for justification OR sanctification:

When the fulfilling of the Law it is called the “law of liberty” it means that as Christians we pursue love in liberty from law-keeping as the ground of our justification or the power of our sanctification.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...n-romans-8-3-4

As I mentioned before, some Christians think they need to keep the law to be sanctified. But the truth of the bible is that the law is fulfilled in Christ.


Here Piper writes how any effort to keep the law is a transgression of the law itself:

The effort to keep the law as a means of obliging God or man to bless you is a transgression of the law itself (2:18), and it brings a person under the law's curse (3:10). So the Judaizers are wrong to teach the Galatian Christians to supplement their faith with works of the law, and Paul is bending all his efforts in this book to cure Christians of such deadly legalism.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...ul-the-promise


Keeping the law through efforts as you wrote, is contrary to what Piper taught.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now let's compare what Piper wrote with Micah:

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

In Micah 6:8 the word "require" is a strong word.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

MacLaren commentary says

The Prophet read off rightly God’s requirements, but he had not anything to say about God’s gifts. So his word is a half-truth, and the more clearly it is seen, and the more earnestly a man tries to live up to the standard of the requirements laid down here, the more will he feel that there is something else needed, and the more will he see that the great central peculiarity and glory of Christianity is not that it reiterates or alters God’s requirements, but that it brings into view God’s gifts. ‘To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God,’ is possible only through repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, it sounds like you are saying that because WL brought forth the idea of the churches being a locality and that people began to meet as such, that somehow the churches are his, and all meeting as the church in a city must accept all of his other teachings. Now, because he is dead, all the churches must accept LSM and any teachings and practices that LSM may administer. In considering this, I still do not have a grasp of what you feel comprises a clergy/laity system. And What exactly do you mean by "We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.". What exactly does each one have in your opinion?

Originally Posted by A little brother

1 Cor 9:21 To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law.

Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will impart My laws into their mind, and on their hearts I will inscribe them; and I will be God to them, and they will be a people to Me.



Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves the other has fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:10 Love does not work evil to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5:13-14 For you were called for freedom, brothers; only do not turn this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."



Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ completely.

Phi 4:13 I am able to do all things in Him who empowers me.

1 John 3:9 Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.



Mat 7:21 Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of My Father who is in the heavens.

1 John 2:3-4 And in this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in this one;

2 Pet 2:21-22 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb: The dog has turned to its own vomit, and the washed sow to wallowing in the mud.



2 Cor 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound unto you, that, in everything always having all sufficiency, you may abound unto every good work;

Col 1:10 To walk worthily of the Lord to please Him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work and growing by the full knowledge of God,

1 Thes 4:1 Furthermore, brothers, we ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that even as you received from us how you ought to walk and please God, even as indeed you do walk, that you abound still more.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a gross darkness to attribute every LC to Lee. None of the Midwest churches, the NYC church, and dozens of others. Many of these churches existed before Lee's operatives moved in to take over. Now the Blendeds, many of whom never birthed any church, are now the apostolic authority over all LC's?

Paul and Timothy, however, clearly delineated between what church they actually birthed, and which they did not, like Rome.

Originally Posted by Drake

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling?

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”

Boxjobox,

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”

Boxjobox,

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually what Piper believes in is keeping the law, and Paul says we are not under law but under grace. People misinterpreted this to mean that we should sin more so that God's grace may increase. However Paul made clear that we have died to sin, so we cannot live in it any longer.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Christ we died to the law (Gal 2:19, Rom 7:4), that's what Paul taught. Paul did not teach the concept of keeping the higher standard of law.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus showed the higher standard to show people that they cannot keep the law - keeping 600+ laws was hard enough, but now even the "heart-laws" are too much to bear.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christians do not "keep the law". They live in God's grace through Christ. Their sins are forgiven and the only work which God requires is to believe in Christ (John 6:29).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul is not an example of one who couldn't keep the law but after conversion could keep it according to Christ's standard. Paul is an example of someone who couldn't keep the law but "through the law died to the law" and found grace through Christ.

After believing in Christ it is not possible for a person to please God anymore through their own good works or keeping a higher standard of morality (whether by God's power or not).

Originally Posted by A little brother

Well, actually I don't disagree with Piper's view.

As I mentioned earlier, it depends on which standard the person uses to judge Paul and how that person treats the standard he is using.

Piper uses Jesus' higher standard and then he believes we should live out our lives according to that standard, not as requirement for justification, but as fruit of good tree.

Your view, if I understand correctly, is different. You use the higher standard as the law to condemn Paul a murderer. At the same time, you say as believers we don't need to keep the law - in which you generalize the "old" law as what was referred to in "keeping the law" and ignore the higher law.

Your reference to basic law indicates one important point - Time. Which law was Paul aware of when he did what he did? Certainly not the basic law of the modern world. When he was persecuting Christians, he did not commit the type of murder mentioned in the written law in the Pentateuch. And after he was converted, he became aware of the higher standards revealed by Jesus. And he lived a different life since then, just like other truly saved Christians.

So was Paul a murderer by the written law in the Pentateuch? No.

Was he a murderer by the standard of God more clearly revealed by Jesus? Yes. But God judges not only by those murderous acts Paul performed, also whether there is a change in his heart and in his life. Isn't that what His grace is about?

Did Paul abandon keeping the "old" law after his conversion? This could be another topic of debate but I don't think there is any solid evidence in the scripture to prove he did. He understood those shadows would not justify him righteous, but neither keeping those shadows would make him unrighteous as long as his faith is true. By keeping the old but not considering this a gain, he could be as under the law before those under the law and as without law before those without law. He emphasized "I am not without law to God but within law to Christ" (1 Cor 9-20-21)

Also, as I mentioned earlier, if he did violate the "old" law and claimed himself sinless (By the laws of the Jews, temple and Caesar. He didn't mention the law of God) in Acts 25, he would be a lying Christian, and a lying MOTA from LC perspective.

So I believe he was keeping both the "old" and the "new' after his conversion. In fact, he kept all the laws including those of the Jews, the temple, and Caesar. Would he fail from time to time keeping the "new" law? Probably (Rom 7:22-24). That's when he would apply God's grace to help himself back on track in his heavenly journey.

Last but not least, let's not forget the more important matter - what do we do now that we have no excuse anymore - the higher standard was already revealed by Jesus.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I suspect many of us have a vision of the church- it would be really good if those who claim to meet as the "LC" would repent, drop LSM and start meeting in that vision again. They stole the meeting hall from the church, they stole the simplicity of meeting as the church, and turned it over to LSM. I don't want to meet with delusional thiefs. If repentance ever comes, I would be one of the first to return to breaking bread, fellowship, preaching the gospel, love feasts, meeting in the home, and enjoying the saints as the simple church in the city.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I read it. Why you disagree with Piper that Paul was a murderer?

Originally Posted by awareness

But bro Evangelical you're perchance kicking the toe of their idol. Paul founded Christianity. All us gentiles are followers of Jesus because of him.

Paul should have been locked up for life, or executed, for his murderous crimes ... but he gets a pass ... a get out of jail free pass, for founding Christianity.

Christianity was founded by a murderer, and that's very hard to swallow.

But unless he's preaching Lee these days, on mainstream media, that murderer has very little to do with how many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery.

Conversely, that Lee hasn't been heard of, in the whole world, is hard for LCers to believe, and therefore also a hard pill to swallow. He's their idol.

All idolaters of Lee, please speak up. Just admit the truth and be done with it. That would be refreshing.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Seems you didn't even carefully read what I last wrote...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It says Paul was breathing murder, as if that is all he lived for. He didnt just crack one day under pressure, he had murder in his heart. Stephens death was not enough to quench his murderous zeal. He had a name for himself as one who helped murder Christians. He probably had people under him who did his dirty work like a crime boss. He would conspire and arrange to put people to death.

I dont know what planet leastofthese and Ohio live on but this would be enough to send someone to jail for felony murder. They talk about Gods law but seems they dont understand the basic laws.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Verrrry interesting that you mention John Piper. Here some articles where John Piper said Paul was a murderer:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...ome-a-murderer

https://www.christianpost.com/news/j...-christ-69994/

It's very simple. If Paul was a murderer then He broke God's laws. That's why he needed Christ. Paul was never ever sinless in the eyes of the law, neither old testament or new testament law.

By the way, another example of a murderer is David. David conspired to kill Uriah, yet Nathan said David himself struck him down:

2 Samuel 12:9 ".....You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own."

You don't seem to understand that conspiracy to murder is the same as murder in God's eyes. It doesn't matter whether Paul or David actually held the knife or not, it's still murder.

Also, the "higher standard" of the New Testament was actually Jesus explaining the full, spiritual meaning of the Old Testament Law.

Matthew Henry commentary:
5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now.

You are talking like one of those Pharisees when you disagree that Paul was a murderer:

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

The concept of "direct murder" versus "indirect murder" is a Pharisee concept. Jesus made clear that all forms of murder, even hatred, is murder in God's eyes.

This is why I said that Paul was a murderer. John Piper agrees with me.

You are clearly wrong when you said

"He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law."

Paul was never sinless according to the law in God's eyes. Whenever his heart started to hate a Christ-follower he became a law breaker as a murderer.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Great, two types of law are not enough for you, now you have to turn to "basic law".

Ohio has pointed out earlier that different people has different view of what "law" is. Some think it is the old covenant law like cicumcision, some think it is what God requires of us in the new testament.

Actually either view is fine, as long as a person is consistent in how he treats the law according to how he understands it. If you refer to old testament law, you cannot accuse Paul of murder or other violations of law. If you are using the new standard from Jesus, that you cannot igore this new standard and say you don't need to keep this. Why would Jesus reveals to you a higher standard if it has no significance?

You asked for reference from bible teachers. Let's talk about John Piper as you mentioned his name. If I understand him correctly, he considers Paul murderous using the higher standard set by Jesus. And how he views this higher standard?

I just did a quick google search and find the following from him. Not very different from what I have been saying, right?

Faith is required by the law. Faith is the sole means of union with Christ whose righteousness vindicates us at the judgment. All the other obedience that comes from that faith is fruit — fruit of that union, not the means of that union. That is so crucial. Let me say that again. All the obedience that the Christian performs, all that obedience, is fruit that comes from a faith-established union, not a works-established union, a faith-established union with Christ, and so that fruit is not a means of being a good tree. It is the result of being a good tree. And you get to be a good tree by faith alone in union with Jesus. And then the Holy Spirit is moving. So Romans 2:13 is not a contradiction on my reading either of Paul’s teaching of justification by faith alone.

Source: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...christian-life

That is what I call consistence.

When I asked you whether Paul kept the law, I don't think you have thought about what law we are talking about. You just pick whatever kind of law that helps support your own argument. This type of thinking could be fruit of WL's teaching as well because that's what he did to commonly understood terms. He changed the definitions and turned godly matters (law, justice, mercy, humility) into human natures that have no value.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dont you know that an accomplice to murder can be charged as felony murder in many countries? Why are you ignoring the standard of Jesus and not defining murder as he did?

I could quote almost any bible teacher now who would agree that Paul was a murderer. Who you got to support your view? Which bible teachers? Show me yours I show you mine.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Boxjobox,

Two very big and two very important topics. I will offer my point of view for both in two posts.

Both a clergy laity system and a proper local church according to the scripture have authority, practice/function, and a result. Though they both possess these characteristics one is according to the scripture and one is not. One builds up the church and one inhibits the building up of the church.

I think you recognize and agree with me that a clergy laity system does not build up a local church as it anuls the functioning of the members of the Body. Hence, the members become laity, members that for the most part are not in service to the Body, therefore it cannot be built up.

In a proper local church, one according to the scripture, there is also authority, practice/function, and a result. I believe you also agree with me on the practice/function in a local church of “each one has” according to 1 Corinthians 14:26 and the result is the service to the Body according to each members function and exercise of gifts as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12 and it’s building up according to Ephesians 4:12. Perhaps you still strive to practice this based on the second question you asked. Your issue is with the matter of authority... who has it, how is it to be exercised and most importantly on what basis does any extra local person(s), local person(s), or organization have rights to engage in a local church in a position of authority. I believe your argument also is that extra local interference, unsolicited or solicited, is an indication of clergy laity. And that a strong local leadership is also clergy laity. Yet, the scripture shows that workers, those involved in the work of ministry, engage in a local church to appoint elders and to train them, to teach them how to teach, and how to manage various affairs. Scriptural examples include.... Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach different things:

“Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things.” 1Timothy 1:3

Paul left Titus in Crete to set things in order:

“For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you:” Titus 1:5

Neither Timothy or Titus were elders in those places Paul left them. Paul as the lead apostle in establishing these churches through his work of ministry delegated his apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus, neither of them being elders, yet they were instructed to charge some in those local churches what to teach and what not to teach, speaking, exhorting, appointing, training, reminding, admonishing, receiving, refusing, convicting ..,.

“These things speak, and exhort and convict with all authority. Let no one despise you.” Titus 2:15

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

Therefore, a ministry that establishes churches also has the responsibility for supporting those churches directly in appointing elders and charging what should and should not be taught, etc. as evidenced by Paul’s authority and the delegation of that authority to two co-workers, Timothy and Titus, and their involvement in the local churches where he left them. Perhaps some in those local churches objected to Paul and his coworkers having a strong hand in local affairs but their purpose would have been to bring members into the service of the Body and avoid a clergy laity system from emerging.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont know what planet leastofthese and Ohio live on but this would be enough to send someone to jail for felony murder. They talk about Gods law but seems they dont understand the basic laws.

Originally Posted by awareness

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dont you know that an accomplice to murder can be charged as felony murder in many countries? Why are you ignoring the standard of Jesus and not defining murder as he did?

I could quote almost any bible teacher now who would agree that Paul was a murderer. Who you got to support your view? Which bible teachers? Show me yours I show you mine.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do you have to resolve to twisting the meaning of a verse to prove your point? Is this how you intrepret the scripture?

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

Do you see your double standard here? When you say we don't need to keep the law, you take law as the old covenant law already replaced by Jesus. Now you have to resolve to new testament standard from Jesus to prove Paul was not keeping the law.

You know what the bible says about your attitude? Lawlessness.

Originally Posted by Ohio

A L B thanks for pointing this out. It displays ... Once again ... How little most LSMers really study the actual details of scripture.

It also reveals the vast differences in heart attitudes between Paul and Lee. Paul demeaned himself in humility when speaking of the Lord Jesus. Lee and his minions, however, regularly elevated him and his ministry high above all.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do you have to resolve to twisting the meaning of a verse to prove your point? Is this how you intrepret the scripture?

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

Do you see your double standard here? When you say we don't need to keep the law, you take law as the old covenant law already replaced by Jesus. Now you have to resolve to new testament standard from Jesus to prove Paul was not keeping the law.

You know what the bible says about your attitude? Lawlessness.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't feel I am discussing with someone who knows the bible. Rather someone who needs to go back to Sunday school. Most Christians from John Piper to Benny Hinn think that Paul was a murderer or at least an accomplice to murder which makes him a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus):

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

If you can't get these basics right how can you properly interpret the prophets?

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I think the problem in the Lord’s Recovery is that many in the local churches have not set aside the “sacred-secular” divide:- As a result, they see that the only way to “function” is by participating in the “sacred” sphere. Eg if he is not speaking in a meeting or doing some church-related work (e.g. Serving in Bread and Cups/ Serving the Youths in church), he thinks he is not doing God’s work and “not functioning”. Not prophesying in the Lord's table meeting is seen as "not functioning"! And who wouldn't want to do God's work/function? Everyone has heard the parable of the Master admonishing the slave who did not use his one talent.

Originally Posted by Drake

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Check Romans 14:20-21. Would Paul cause his brothers to stumble? So eating pork is only your guess. Act 8:1 didn't say he murdered anyone either.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, a couple of things to consider/discuss: I would say that a clergy/laity system would be practiced where you have a leader or a few leaders who set the agenda of a Christian gathering and their viewpoint and agenda rules over those meeting. The speaking of those meeting is not important or practiced other than the clergy's because the clergy are the ones assuming the position being trained in or possessing the truth which the assembly needs to receive. The position and authority of the clergy would trump anything the non clergy would or could offer. How would you define clergy/laity system as it seems to be important to your definition of a proper church meeting?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nothing was unclean for Paul, indicating that if Paul was offered pork by a gentile (highly likely considering Paul ate and drank with gentiles) he would have eaten it.

Romans 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

Acts 8:1 - murder

Originally Posted by A little brother

Have you found the evidence yet? Did Paul eat pork or murder someone?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason is:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Whether Paul kept the law or not. I do not think he kept the whole law all the time after he became a Christian. I think he ate pork with Gentiles and other such things, so technically he was breaking the law.

Actually, Paul did not keep the law before he became a Christian either. He was a murderer.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Is this a quote from Witness Lee?

This paragraph makes it sound like this is the prevailing thought in modern evangelical Christianity. Is that what you are trying to communicate here? This would go against my experience.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio,

This is a serious discussion. Stop dismissing my conversation as game playing. Stop flying off the handle. You are being disruptive. This is what I meant before by not engaging with you. I really want to discuss matters with you and I value your perspective but not this vitriol.

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

That is the working assumption we are using for this part of the conversation. "Everywhere" does not fit the working assumption. If you don't agree that is fine. I don't mind. Just say that you don't then so I know where you are coming from in the conversation.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a misconception in Christianity that the law is required for believers to "keep them accountable" or keep them from sinning. This is a wrong concept based on Romans 6:14 - the law is never said to be the answer for sin. Only grace is the answer for sin. Also, the more law there is, the more sin there is. It's counter intuitive to the fleshly mind, but the solution to the problem of sin is less law and more grace.

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no way to discuss the "LAW" unless we define what "LAW" we are discussing.

Few words in scripture create so much confusion. Another related confuser is "works."

One may say "LAW" and think circumcision, and another may say "LAW" and think about loving his neighbor to please God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason is:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Whether Paul kept the law or not. I do not think he kept the whole law all the time after he became a Christian. I think he ate pork with Gentiles and other such things, so technically he was breaking the law.

Actually, Paul did not keep the law before he became a Christian either. He was a murderer.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Sorry for barging in but this is also related to what we are discussing....

As far as I currently understand, your "keep the law" is related to "effort by the work of flesh". Removing that part from the statement could be dangerous to untrained ears. (I am afraid the kind of freedom Evangelical referred to is a result of certain misunderstanding of the character of God.)

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Aren't they supposed to be once saved always saved? Why could they turn away from Christ and go back to all the things you mentioned? By what standard are these things wrong?

I hope I am not carrying this discussion too far away. I am still waiting for your reply on whether you agree Paul kept the law.

Originally Posted by Drake

I see the confusion. I'll need to clarify my statement.
...
It is only by this life that we as believers can live a life that satisfies God. God does not want us to keep the law but to live Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe Drake meant that.

Only Christ can satisfy God, the law has nothing to do with it. " Only Christ can satisfy God." ~ "The Crucified Christ", W. Lee.

Read this verse carefully again:

Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?


It is only by belief that we satisfy God. God shows His satisfaction with us by granting us His Spirit, while we are still "law-breakers" -

The law is not for the righteous (i.e. believers) but for unbelievers:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous...

Believers are not under law but grace:
M
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Drake seems to be referring to practical Christian perfection but so far in this discussion we have not been discussing about practical perfection but saving righteousness so I don't see that as relevant. Lee's footnote in Micah is clearly about salvation, that it is man's concept (Micah's) that keeping the law satisfies God (for saving righteousness).

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are lots of reasons. If I were going to evangelize a park I might meet with 3 or 4 others who have the same goal. If I were going to have a Bible study I might wish to meet with 8 or 12 others to do the same. Morning watch might be better to meet with those in my home. Prayer meeting at work with those I work with. To have a meeting hall that can handle more than a thousand is rare, yet a city of 500,000 is not that big a city. Some people work at night, others during the day, some on the weekend, others during the week. The Lord said "20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." this is the conclusion of the Lord's word on the church which began in Matt 16.

So then, what distinguishes this meeting of two or three with the church?

If it is the Lord's table then tell me why this meeting cannot have the Lord's table?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The churches were becoming degraded. Some like the Corinthians were becoming mixed with pagan/worldly things. Others like Galatia were becoming mixed with Judaism - they were turning away from Christ and going back to the Law. Paganism, gnosticism, and Judaism were the main threats to early Christianity and these are the topics mostly addressed in Paul's writings.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Think about this. Who did Paul mostly address to in his epistles? Believers or unbelievers? I hope you agree it's to believers. Then why was Paul pointing out problems in the churches? Have they not already pleased God enough by entering into faith?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But why aren't you linking "pleasing God" and salvation?

Do you think there's a way to please God without being saved?

Do you think after pleasing God by accepting Christ, we must continue good works to maintain or keep His pleasure in us? (a gospel of works, e.g. Catholic gospel)
...

Originally Posted by A little brother

I have asked several times and I now ask again. Where did Micah say it is about salvation? Where but the footnotes?

I think you still cannot distinguish between pleasing God and receiving salvation. You keep linking the two together. Is it too difficult for you to comprehend people would want to please God simply because they love God?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Jew would not listen to Paul if he thought Paul was not religious. So for this reason Paul appeared to keep the law for the sake of the gospel.

Consider the part in bold below:

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.


"I became as a Jew" - "I pretended to be a Jew even though I wasn't (I used to be a Jew)"

"as under the Law" - "I pretended to be under the Law (for the sake of the gospel)."

"though not being myself under the Law" - "but I am not really under the law. I consider myself not obliged to keep the law now that I believe in Christ. I can eat with gentiles, I can eat pork"

Originally Posted by A little brother

Let me make it clear before proceeding further. Do you now agree Paul kept the law, as oppose to what you said before?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see this verse as empathetic. If a certain culture is very strict in the way men and women interact, then you would respect that so that you don't offend them needlessly. There is no pretense. If a group does not eat pork and thinks doing so is unclean, then don't eat pork. Why would you offend them over this? Why would you let trivial matters like this keep you from presenting the gospel? Hudson Taylor dressed as the Chinese dressed, kept his hair as they kept their hair, ate what they ate, etc. Why not? There is no pretense, no deceit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul was keeping the law for the sake of the Jewish converts. Not that he saw any value it in personally for his own righteousness. Compared to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" the law was dung. The bible also calls the law dung in Malachi 2:1-9. "You boast of your holiness, sacrifices, and feasts, but they will turn to your shame and be as vile as dung.".

In Galatians , Paul called out Peter for living as a Gentile and then forcing converts to live as Jews. Strong indication that Paul himself lived as a gentile else it would make Paul a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe Drake meant that.

Only Christ can satisfy God, the law has nothing to do with it. " Only Christ can satisfy God." ~ "The Crucified Christ", W. Lee.

Read this verse carefully again:

Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?


It is only by belief that we satisfy God. God shows His satisfaction with us by granting us His Spirit, while we are still "law-breakers" -

The law is not for the righteous (i.e. believers) but for unbelievers:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous...

Believers are not under law but grace:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Drake seems to be referring to practical Christian perfection but so far in this discussion we have not been discussing about practical perfection but saving righteousness so I don't see that as relevant.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's footnote in Micah is clearly about salvation, that it is man's concept (Micah's) that keeping the law satisfies God (for saving righteousness).

Originally Posted by A little brother

So since when do you think Paul rejected all, if he actually did? You kept on referring to Galatians. The time line shows it is much earlier than Act 25.

Have you thought about how Paul can be both Jew and Gentile without lying? Simple logic - He lived according to the more restrictive law for Jews.

Paul did not see keeping the law as dung. To him, the law is holy (Rom 7:12). He counted as loss all the false righteousness he thought he gained through keeping the law.

And where did Paul say he preferred to live as a Gentile in Galatians 2?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic. It is a form of pretense however. It would be equivalent to a Christian living as a Muslim to try to win muslims.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic.

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

I don't mean to ignore your question on this or any other topic, I just may missed it as a question and saw it more as a commentary. Which is okay as I am not inclined to challenge every commentary. I'll try to answer your question.

My view is simple on this also. It does not matter if the brothers and sisters met physically in different places in a city. Some places are very large and spread out so it is necessary. In Laodicea or Smyrna it would have been very difficult for 1st century christians to physically gather in one place. (Unless they clustered close to each other on purpose). But is there any justification for christians in Laodicea tohave met separately other than the physical distance within the city? There is no biblical justification for it. Corinth too was a little spread out from the center of town to the dock area and could easily have had several meeting places from house to house. However, had any one of those house to house meetings met on any other basis than as members of the local church in Corinth then they would have been a division. But fi meeting on the proper ground I believe they broke bread from house to house. They did not really have a meeting hall at least in the churches of the Gentiles and maybe met outdoors, in or public places and buildings.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A deceitful person would read this as Paul being deceitful (i.e. pretended).

A considerate, empathetic person would read this as Paul being empathetic (i.e. understanding).

Since no verse is of its own interpretation please show us other NT verses that say an apostle or evangelist needs to be deceitful.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I will hold my reply because I was discussing with Drake.

Anyway, you seem to have rejected Drake's idea that by Jesus perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Because you said Paul was in transition from a Jew to half Jew and so on. But Act 25 should be after most of his trips, and after the book of Galatians. He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yeah I know. But when I ask you and Evangelical what requirements do you need to meet before you will accept a person as a brother or sister you are very general. My view is simple, If I meet with another saint that is a meeting. If we are meeting according to the criteria in Matt 18 then the Lord is in our midst, hence we are the Body. So when pushed on this Evangelical and maybe you say that the Lord's table distinguishes a church from "just a meeting".

So if there are 1,000 meetings of the Body of Christ in NYC, all of which are meeting in the name of Jesus and He is in their midst, which meeting is qualified to have the Lord's table and which meeting is not qualified? I have asked for that, no one has given me any answer.

Originally Posted by Drake

alb>"What I want to further explore is about the "keeping the law" idea which you seem to reject. I agree that we do not keep the law in order to be righteous and it is not the condition of salvation. But if we can follow the Spirit and manifest the fruit of the Spirit as you said, do you agreed that we actually have kept the law? "

Alb,

Almost. I agree that by cooperating with the Lord in us, that His life lived out of us will issue in an expression of the Spirit that fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. An important "and" follows here... And when we fail to follow the Lord, when we sin, when we have shortcomings, it is His ever efficacious blood that cleanses us, clears our conscience, and restores our fellowship with Him that we may continue on our journey in His life.

Originally Posted by Drake

I use the phrase "keeping the law" in refering to effort.... in the same way Paul chastised the Galatians who having begun with the Spirit were bewitched into an effort to keep the law... a work of the flesh.

Are we there on this one?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

I believe the testimony of the Bible is very clear on this. Before the Lord, I could not compromise on this. This is test to the genuineness of a local church. Does it match the pattern in scripture? If not, it must be rejected. If an assembly compromises this then they do not stand on the ground of oneness of the believers and do not represent locally the oneness of the universal Body of Christ. Therefore, they are not a local church. A genuine local church has a stand. Laodicea may be large and spreadout and so there may be meetings from house to house, nevertheless, the Lord addresses the church (singular) in Laodicea. Laodicea is lukewarm but there is still one church in Laodicea. Division is sin, therefore denominations are also sin. I could never agree with that either. The scripture is straightforward on this.

I agree with this view. It's my view now too.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we say "no one can obey the Father" this is normally understood to exclude Christ. .

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't fully agree that Jesus was including Himself in the Lord's prayer with "forgive us our sins". This implies that Jesus was a sinner like us.

To me He was demonstrating to his disciples how to pray. As a demonstration, he was not making a prayer to the Father at that time which would include Himself, but demonstrating what they should say.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio,

Your posts are vitriolic and you do fly off the handle. You consistently level charges against me of playing games, being deceptive, and being insincere. Let's me be clear. I am not playing games, being deceptive, nor being insincere. I have full control of my thinking faculties and I believe what I write. I do not expect that we will agree, nor is it my intent to convince you otherwise. I have no problem with your passion, your being candid, or your strong opinion but I do have a problem when you step over the line in basically calling me a liar, a deceiver, or a dope. I am not thin skinned for pushing back on those things. We are brothers in the Lord and this is a public forum... how you say something is as important as what you say. Its on display.

I prefer not to put you on mute as I value your perspective. Nevertheless, unless you can show decent christian behavior in conversing with me then so be it. I had hoped we had a new beginning since a few weeks back but it appears not. I am truly saddened by that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.
Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

This is a serious discussion. Stop dismissing my conversation as game playing. Stop flying off the handle. You are being disruptive. This is what I meant before by not engaging with you. I really want to discuss matters with you and I value your perspective but not this vitriol.

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

That is the working assumption we are using for this part of the conversation. "Everywhere" does not fit the working assumption. If you don't agree that is fine. I don't mind. Just say that you don't then so I know where you are coming from in the conversation.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Sorry Brother Ohio.

It's everywhere it too general. When you say " churches in His Body" are built up everywhere what specifically are you referring to?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?"

Christ kept the law. He was the only One who could and did fulfill it. We don't keep the law, rather we possess the life of the One who did. If we follow the Spirit within there will be an issue, a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit without.

Alb, do you agree with that?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Therefore Brother Ohio.

Where is the work of ministry for the building up of the local churches?

Rather, I should ask you whether you believe that is relevant anymore.

Is it? If do, where is it?

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake,

Either you are being simply deceptive or you have no clue how LSM really works. LSm and their operatives came into the Midwest LC's 10-12 years ago and divided everyone of them. THEY ARE NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP OF LOCAL CHURCHES. That is purely a farce based on decades of actual behavior stemming from the very top of LSM. They care only for those loyal to them, and will readily backstab any brother who refuses to demonstrate visible and tangible loyalties to them.

Every local elder is under their domination, or they will be marked out and expelled. Do we need to remind you of the endless stories of these victims, or did you just refuse to hear their witness? The Blendeds at LSM are far worse "pastors" than the ones out there in Christianity.

The LSM is NOT for the LC's, that is just a bogus saying. In reality, the LC's only exist for LSM, and that's why they are so easily discarded when they no longer exist for your good.

The Midwest LC elders decided long ago that LSM was NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP of the churches. So they decided that you at LSM will be treated as any other publisher. One reason for this was how the Blendeds constantly undermined the Midwest leadership both publicly and privately. This went on for years. The Midwest leaders prayed and fellowshipped much together and decided not to promote any of your trainings, yet not prevent any from going. It was no different than if a bunch of saints went to a Billy Graham crusade, or a Joyce Meyer conference. That was never good enough for you. You had to take action. Divisive, disruptive, legal action.

This is why Apostle Paul said to "Beware of Dogs, beware of evil workers."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The reason we don't follow the law but Christ is because the law is ineffective. The standard of the law is still a fair representation of God and we still need to come up to that standard. However, Jesus is the only way to meet that standard. Christ did not replace one jot or tittle of the law as far as the standard is concerned, he merely made a bridge between fallen, sinful man and a High and Holy God.

So no, I do not agree that Christ has replaced the standard referred to in Matthew.

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

Using your JVM and my follow up examples, the consideration would have to be whether the content of those books support the working assumptions we already agreed with. They may be good bible teachers, or not, yet their ministries are not for the building up of the local churches as we both agreed to. Where will you find a ministry that is for that? If LSM is not for that then they are just another christian publisher and should not be regarded any differently than any other christian publisher.

LSM is not a pastor so could never hold a local position and we know that local churches are managed by elders. If LSM were a pastor the first thing LSM would teach them is that clergy laity is unscriptural and then they would no longer be the pastor. The second thing LSM would insist on is that elders be appointed to manage local affairs further undercutting their own staus as a pastor. And so on.

Rather, LSM is the service entity for the work of ministry which is extra local. The ministry is for the churches not the other way around. If the service that LSM provides is not the ministry for the building up of the local churches, something we both hold dearly, then where is that work of ministry to be found?

Drake

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, when LSM was declared the content of all things local, you would basically have to say that LSM became the clergy and all the saints the laity. Fellowship ended and indoctrination by the clergy (LSM) replaced it. Not to go along with this was to put oneself outside the LC.

This action, in effect, ended the meeting of the church and created a LSM meeting. For conscience and truth's sake, those who wanted to make all things LSM should have departed and gone off and formed their own denominatio.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Originally Posted by Drake

The weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 are referring to weightier matters of the law.

Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Agree?

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I forgot to add.. Paul pretended to be a Jew to win Jews over:

1 Cor 9:19

o the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, when LSM was declared the content of all things local, you would basically have to say that LSM became the clergy and all the saints the laity. Fellowship ended and indoctrination by the clergy (LSM) replaced it. Not to go along with this was to put oneself outside the LC.

This action, in effect, ended the meeting of the church and created a LSM meeting. For conscience and truth's sake, those who wanted to make all things LSM should have departed and gone off and formed their own denominatio.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are some who see the law as a measure or test about a person's spirituality. This is not correct. After believing in Christ the law does not then become a test or standard by which we are judged. The only standard of judgement is faith in Christ:

John 3:10 "He who believes in Him is not judged;

The believer is no longer under the law (either for salvation or for testing their spirituality) -

Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God's grace.

How much of the law is a valid test? Suppose one person does not keep the sabbath but another does. Is the person who keeps the sabbath living more of a life in Christ than one who doesn't? According to you they would be.

The problem is if you think keeping the law is a sign of our life in Christ then you are obliged to keep the WHOLE law (you can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow) -

James 2:10 For whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and then offends in one point is made guilty of all.

To answer your rhetorical question "does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?". The answer is yes according to Paul:

Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

To turn from the law to Christ is to reject the old law:

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Was Jesus misleading the Pharisees or withholding the truth in Mat 23:23?

As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?

Don't get me wrong,keeping the law is not the condition of salvation. But it reflects whether you are truly living a life with Christ in you.Otherwise, you are just boasting empty words that you are in the Spirit.

Keeping the weightier matters of the law becomes the relatively lighter matter now that we know Chirst is our savior. But as Jesus mentioned, these (the lighter matters) you should have done and not neglected the others (the weightier matters).

We can actually combine Mat 23 and John 5 instead of treating them as contradiction or totally different things. You should have done the lighter matters of the law, do not neglect the weightier matters of the law, and most important of all, you should come to Jesus so that you may have life.

The role of law as the child conductor is gone. But does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?

Ecc 7:18 It is better for you to take hold of the one without letting go of the other, for he who fears God will come out of it with them all.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You haven't answered my question about the time line. Are you saying Paul is a liar?

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

JVM... good teacher. A good example for your good question. I brought your whole note forward to discuss so the points don't get lost,

Our working assumptions are the same as before? We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Then, your new hypothetical, while enjoying the church life together in peace and harmony the elders suddenly clear the shelves in the book room of everything except JVM. This hypothetical scenario is a mirror image of what actually happened in your locality only it was LSM not JVM. Because you objected you were labeled divisive. If I have misunderstood feel free to clarify.

First, if you refused to go along by just not participating I would not have considered that as divisive. I wasn't there but divisiveness would need to include some action to divide others or create a faction, set up separate non-WL meetings, etc. Yet I'm not asking you to explain that.... just wanted to offer my point of view about the serious charge of divisiveness. I've seen and dealt with divisiveness firsthand and it is an ugly thing but sitting it out for conscience sake does not rise to the level of divisiveness.

Now to your scenario. Let's say you were one of those elders. A sizeable number of the members came to you and said that since we have JVM, they would also like Joel Olsteen, Rick Warren, and CS Lewis books. As the elder (for the sake of this discussion you have fellowshipped with all the elders and your decision represents theirs) what would you decide and what would you base your decision on?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Since Christ has replaced the law the Pharisees need to come to Christ. The law was a child conductor and no longer required as they could have Christ.

Jesus did tell them to have Christ when He said "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. John 5:39-40

As pertains to the law, the Pharisees should have kept both the small and weightier matters of the law. It was their child conductor and they were teachers of it. However, once Christ came they should have come to Him. Only He fulfilled the law, and kept it perfectly and it is by His perfect life living in us that we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

How about now alb? You agree?

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

If Christ replaced the law, do the Pharisees still need to keep the law? Why didn't Jesus tell them to have Christ? Why did Jesus said they should not neglect the weightier matters "of the law"? Was Jesus misleading them?

Originally Posted by Drake

Because the Pharisees, as Jews under the law, should have.

But now, Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Do you agree?

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why did Jesus said "But these you should have done and not neglected the others."

Originally Posted by Drake

The weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 are referring to weightier matters of the law.

Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Agree?

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

What should I say when you disagreed with my answer and then ask the same question again? So what is actually your idea on the weightier matters?

Originally Posted by Drake

That is not how the Lord Jesus used the term "weightier matters" in Matthew 23:23.

What do the weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 refer to?

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

of whatever God wants us to listen to and obey.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Let's put it this way- so in the local church, the elders send you a letter and say we are one with the ministry of J Vernon McGee. All the books in the book room are gone except JVM books, in the meetings all material is from Through the Bible ministry, if you don't participate and openly show a desire not to participate, you are divisive etc. etc.

Seems to me that those meeting in such a way should give up using the title The Church in XYZ and call themselves the church that follows J Vernon Mc Gee.

For conscience sake, and for the sake of the truth, those who call themselves The Church in XYZ should not have any affiliation with LSM. I'm fine with saints in their own space following LSM, but in the church, it is an offense, it is a denomination factor which we should call sinful, in that it divides the saints according to preference.
Those meeting as the LC in my city should either disassociate with LSM, or change their title to the church of LSM. Each creature after its own kind! If those of the LC wish to produce others who will follow LSM then call the creature and the offspring LSM and not the LC!
As I say, for conscience sake and for truth's sake, this LSM thing needs to be cast out of the LC in my city so that I, as a Christian can come together with the other believers and meet without this divisive element.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I forgot to add.. Paul pretended to be a Jew to win Jews over:

1 Cor 9:19

o the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Originally Posted by A little brother

When did Acts 25 happen?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

His blamelessness in Phi 3:6 indicates a person who became morally righteous but did not have Christ.

That was before he knew better. Paul was on a transition between being a full Jew to half Jew eventually to someone who could rebuke Peter for being too Jewish, and finally creating Christianity as we know it today where we can eat pork and work on the Sabbath if we want to. That's the sort of freedom Christ died for.

Originally Posted by A little brother

How could he then claim himself "as to the righteousness which is in the law, become blameless." (Phi 3:6) and "Neither against the law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I sinned in anything." (Acts 25:8)? How come he followed the ritual law in Acts 21:26?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, Paul did not keep the law. He rejected it as "dung" when he found Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.

Who obeyed the Father? Who saw the Father always before Him? Paul? Witness Lee? Or do we say, rather, nobody? Do we really say that no one ever obeyed? Then what of Jesus Christ? It amazes me that we so assiduously look away from Christ. What happens to our gospel when we say no one can obey the Father?

At one point, you said that I promoted David as a "perfect type" of Christ, or some such (I go by memory). I never said that. David sinned; Christ did not. But even the sinner's prayer in Psalm 51, for example, has NT echoes. Jesus said, "Forgive US our trespasses". Us. Us. Us. I cannot overemphasize that the Son of Man included HIMSELF in the prayer (sorry for the all-caps). No He did not sin, but as the High Priest He prayed, "Us" and the Fathe heard His word. He took on flesh and blood, yet He sinned not. Yet His purity did not separate Him from sinners, but brought sinners near to God. Christ prayed, "forgive us" and the Father heard. Suddenly humanity had an advocate.

So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

>"Mat 23:23 reminds me I should not lose sight of either the light or weightier matters."

Alb,

A weightier matter of what?

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.

Who obeyed the Father? Who saw the Father always before Him? Paul? Witness Lee? Or do we say, rather, nobody? Do we really say that no one ever obeyed? Then what of Jesus Christ? It amazes me that we so assiduously look away from Christ. What happens to our gospel when we say no one can obey the Father?

At one point, you said that I promoted David as a "perfect type" of Christ, or some such (I go by memory). I never said that. David sinned; Christ did not. But even the sinner's prayer in Psalm 51, for example, has NT echoes. Jesus said, "Forgive US our trespasses". Us. Us. Us. I cannot overemphasize that the Son of Man included HIMSELF in the prayer (sorry for the all-caps). No He did not sin, but as the High Priest He prayed, "Us" and the Fathe heard His word. He took on flesh and blood, yet He sinned not. Yet His purity did not separate Him from sinners, but brought sinners near to God. Christ prayed, "forgive us" and the Father heard. Suddenly humanity had an advocate.

So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you can't accept a straight forward message from God and even Jesus' words don't carry enough weight for you, I don't know whether you are capable to understand the more excellent way.

But I can test the water first. Let me start with this question...

Did Paul keep the law? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.
...
So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on your interpretation of Micah 6:8 you seem to believe in obedience /law-keeping for salvation rather than by faith alone:

Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Originally Posted by A little brother

As I found out during the discussion with Evangelical, they do not pay attention to Matthew 23. They have taken it lightly what Jesus referred to as weightier matters.

I am yet to find one example in the bible where God/prophets/apostles blame someone who is just, merciful and humble - the "human morals" so to speak.

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on your interpretation of Micah 6:8 you seem to believe in obedience /law-keeping for salvation rather than by faith alone:

Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The matters Lee speaks of in the footnote are even weightier than the "weightier matters" Jesus refers to in Matt 23. Remember you're a Christian not a Jew. Next time you tithe you don't have to donate 10% of your cumin.

Originally Posted by A little brother

As I found out during the discussion with Evangelical, they do not pay attention to Matthew 23. They have taken it lightly what Jesus referred to as weightier matters.

I am yet to find one example in the bible where God/prophets/apostles blame someone who is just, merciful and humble - the "human morals" so to speak.

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?



Hurray, we finally come full circle. Micah 6:8 says obey the Lord to be saved and this is just the prophet's own concept because the footnote said so. Right?

Once again I failed to convince you. But I think I've said enough. Nice talking to you.

Originally Posted by A little brother

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

Originally Posted by aron

Here is "what is good" - that Jesus Christ did what the Father required of Him; that Jesus Christ executed (and will execute) justice; simultaneously expressed God's lovingkindness; and that Jesus walked humbly with His Father God. We can see it. We know it. Yet Witness Lee spurned it, in his teaching.
...
Witness Lee shut the door on Christ, and would not allow others to enter. What kind of a teaching, what kind of a ministry is this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

So I say present all your best arguments, and when challenged, dig some more. At that point I usually quit. Let them supposedly have the "last word." No one can convince them. I did not remain in the LC because LSM "won" every argument, rather until this forum developed, I never got to hear the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

A Little Brother - you'll find that the use of words like "combative" are being used very intentionally. I love what Ohio said, as it is so true... write for the Lurkers - contributors like Drake or Evangelical are only fooling themselves, their contribution to the forum are ironically the best testament against Witness Lee's church. A casual reader following this thread can read what is going on.

Even though I love seeing this light being shined (albeit unintentionally)... It still hurts my heart to see guys like Drake.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Secondly, I always remind myself that I am also writing for the unknown reader, the lurker. New forum members continually testify that they have been reading the forum, sometimes for years, before working up the courage to actually post. Current members do them a great service by the back-n-forth rehash of the same teachings they hear in the meetings. I say let the reader decide! This forum does not "poison" anyone, rather it gives the reader choices. It's like going away to college and learning all your classmates are atheists. You need to "know whom you believe in."

So I say present all your best arguments, and when challenged, dig some more. At that point I usually quit. Let them supposedly have the "last word." No one can convince them. I did not remain in the LC because LSM "won" every argument, rather until this forum developed, I never got to hear the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I learned long ago that LCers can never be convinced of anything. Remember I was once one myself, and was willing and ready to lay down my life for the cause.

Originally Posted by aron

And not just the Psalms. Here is a quote from the Life-study of the Minor Prophets by Witness Lee


Here is "what is good" - that Jesus Christ did what the Father required of Him; that Jesus Christ executed (and will execute) justice; simultaneously expressed God's lovingkindness; and that Jesus walked humbly with His Father God. We can see it. We know it. Yet Witness Lee spurned it, in his teaching.

Witness Lee turned us away from Jesus. In a recent training I heard Ed Marks talk about how God the Father delighted in Jesus the Son. Ed supplied numerous NT quotes. But he didn't quote Psalm 18's "he [the Father] delighted in Me [Jesus the Son]" because Witness Lee had panned it as fallen human concept.

Witness Lee shut the door on Christ, and would not allow others to enter. What kind of a teaching, what kind of a ministry is this?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

As I say, for conscience sake and for truth's sake, this LSM thing needs to be cast out of the LC in my city so that I, as a Christian can come together with the other believers and meet without this divisive element.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?

Hurray, we finally come full circle. Micah 6:8 says obey the Lord to be saved and this is just the prophet's own concept because the footnote said so. Right?

Once again I failed to convince you. But I think I've said enough. Nice talking to you.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Anyone who was present in the Psalms training was well aware that according to WL some Psalms have the highest revelation, some are merely the natural concept of the writer, and some fall in between.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

In contrast, Amos and Micah used many more chapters than Joel to speak of things other than Christ. When these prophets spoke concerning Christ, they spoke great things, but when they expressed their own natural concept and opinion, they were like some of the psalmists. For instance, Micah 6:8 says, “He has declared to you, O man, what is good; / And what does Jehovah require of you, / But that you would execute justice and love lovingkindness / And walk humbly with your God?” Is this word according to the tree of life or according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Surely it is according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Is this word according to the divine revelation or according to the human concept of the prophet? This word is not a matter of God’s revelation but of the prophet’s concept..

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, so we live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Given that, if you have a vision of Christ and the church and I have a vision of howling at the moon, we are still members of the same local church and would not have a basis for meeting separately. Though you would rightfully require of me to justify my belief from the scripture and respect order in the meetings we are still members of the church in our locality.

In like manner, if you never want to read anything published by LSM, go to a conference or a training sponsored by LSM, read or quote from anything published by LSM, take part in the work of ministry by LSM such as Bible distribution, or evangelical outreach in word, deed, or financial contribution then you are nevertheless a fellow believer in the local church where we both live and are under no obligation to do any of those things. Likewise, you should not prevent me from using LSM materials in my daily study or church life, go to conferences, trainings, contribute to the work of ministry etc.

That would be the guideline in my view.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Hyperlink me to the post in the thread that references the three different levels of revelation. I searched for that thread but could not find it.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ok alb. It just looks like you were becoming combative in the last few posts by disagreeing about teachings and practices I’m sure you already understood. It’s expected we will disagree about most topics but being or having been a member of a local church you already knew the answer to your question. So no need for the banter on those items. Plenty of topics to sort through.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are two threads that deal with this directly (see Post #1 on each thread) and they are both open for discussion. Therefore I would direct you to those threads since they provide references, context and explain why different ones, myself included disagree with Witness Lee's interpretation.

The Psalms are the word of Christ

The book of James and the LRC

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ok alb. It just looks like you were becoming combative in the last few posts by disagreeing about teachings and practices I’m sure you already understood. It’s expected we will disagree about most topics but being or having been a member of a local church you already knew the answer to your question. So no need for the banter on those items. Plenty of topics to sort through.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

If you provide the complete reference in context and explain why you disagree with it I’ll be happy to provide my point of view.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Easy. It's not a quote because it doesn't contain quotation marks.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A verse which says God requires us to obey the Lord to be saved is definitely not revealing Christ which is about His righteousness saving us, not our own works or morals.

Originally Posted by Drake

>alb “Why then the LC keeps insisting every member to "prophesy"?

Alb,

I am really puzzled by this comment. If I recall, I thought you were at some point an active functioning member in a local church. So you would know the answer to the above question and you would also know the difference between that and the old testament prophets. But now I am wondering so please clarify ... when you were attending the local church meetings was prophesying practiced, if so, when did prophesying occur, and what were you told was the purpose?

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you agree with Witness Lee's interpretation of the Psalms that the different psalms were at three different levels of revelation, one of which was merely man's concept.

My issue with Witness Lee was not with the vision of the NT he embraced, it was with the parts of the Bible he disparaged.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why isn't Micah 6:8 a direct quote? It is not direct or indirect. It's just the difference between active/passive voice and present/present perfect tense.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Brother, I have already lost count of how many times you contradict yourself in this discussion. Not long ago you agreed Micah reveals Christ. Now you say Micah does not reveal Christ. Aren't justice, mercy and humility parts of God's standard of perfection? Does Micah have to include all standards of God in one verse?

Originally Posted by A little brother

I asked about Paul because Jesus' words didn't seem enough for you. You asked for Paul's confirmation even though I quoted Jesus' own words that match Micah 6:8.

Let's see what Paul said about mercy:

Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

As Paul said, God is rich in mercy. Mercy is an attribute of God, not just human moral.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I almost feel good seeing this comment from you. I would rather embarrass myself in your eyes than before God.

During this discussion, you tried to divert the topic, you contradicted yourself, you pretended to be scholarly but there is no substance in your argument. You were relentlessly defending the footnote instead of God's truth. This is a perfect demonstration of the fruit of WL.

Yes, I am one of the "32m" who have heard of WL. I have heard of him and also witnessed his fruit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's compare the difference.

Jer 23.1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.

As you can see, this is a direct quote of the Lord. Micah 6.8 isnt, is it.

Consult the bible commentaries about this. The grammar of the verse is Micah's words, not Gods. Maybe you could provide some scholarly backing to your view that Micah 6.8 is Gods words and not the prophet's.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree that Micah 6.8 does not reveal Gods standard which is Christ. Thats essentially what the footnote says. Since it does not reveal Gods standard of perfection how can you say it is divine revelation?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why are you asking me about Paul. You asked why Paul talked about mercy yet I wondered what verse you had in mind, you have not said.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Man, you are embarrassing yourself showing everyone you dont know the difference between old testament and new testament prophecy. You can redeem yourself however by acknowledging that prophesying in the meetings is not the same as old testament prophecy. It would be very awkward with everyone being naked.

Originally Posted by A little brother

In the RecV. What else? Unless you are saying "He has declared" is not "declares the Lord". Or may be the RecV is a bad translation?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what is God's standard:

Matthew 5:48 You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Since when Paul became a greater prophet than Jesus? Because he was the MOTA?

I have to remind you again. We are discussing whether Micah 6:8 was God's word or human concept. You have agreed what Jesus said in Mat 23:23 fits well with Micah 6:8. So probably you should also agree Micah was speaking God's words instead of his own concept.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why then the LC keeps insisting every member to "prophesy"?

Did you notice who were God addressing to when He forbade them from saying the lord saith in Jeremiah? You are equating WL to that group of people? Good point.

Originally Posted by A little brother

In the RecV. What else? Unless you are saying "He has declared" is not "declares the Lord". Or may be the RecV is a bad translation?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think I was ruling out all the other ways we can know it is God speaking. Take Jeremiah 23 for example. The words "declares the Lord" are found in numerous places. Where does it say that in micah 6.8?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Men cannot fulfil the moral law perfectly but they can be moral in the sense that they mostly are good people and do what is right.

Also the bible says there is no one who is good yet it speaks of good and evil people. Some people think God only sees believers as only good and unbelievers as only evil and this is simply not true. God weighs the good and evil of each person.

Ecc 7.20 resolves the apparent contradiction.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It fits well with Micah. What verse of Paul do you have in mind. Is Paul saying God requires justice and mercy for salvation?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Messages are not old testament prophecies are they. Also God forbade people from saying the lord saith because of its misuse. Its in Jeremiah.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am still confused about what you believe. You now say men cannot fulfill the moral law but you also said men can be moral person. I don't see how these two goes together by the standard of God.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Some minor typos - I think the total number of laws should be 613. I believe it was after the flood that men began to eat meat. So Adam and Abel didn't eat pork. For the rest, I can live with it at the moment though it doesn't quite explain why God has to include the moral laws again if they are already in men's heart.

But you haven't answered why Jesus and Paul still need to talk about mercy and humility.

For your reference:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

Does it sound familiar? Does this contradict with Micah?

Originally Posted by A little brother

So we can ignore 99% (don't challenge me on the accuracy. Just a figure of speech) of Lee's messages? I seldom read "that is what the Lord says" from his messages.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am still confused about what you believe. You now say men cannot fulfill the moral law but you also said men can be moral person. I don't see how these two goes together by the standard of God.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Some minor typos - I think the total number of laws should be 613. I believe it was after the flood that men began to eat meat. So Adam and Abel didn't eat pork. For the rest, I can live with it at the moment though it doesn't quite explain why God has to include the moral laws again if they are already in men's heart.

But you haven't answered why Jesus and Paul still need to talk about mercy and humility.

For your reference:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

Does it sound familiar? Does this contradict with Micah?

Originally Posted by A little brother

So we can ignore 99% (don't challenge me on the accuracy. Just a figure of speech) of Lee's messages? I seldom read "that is what the Lord says" from his messages.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Well, I actually spent time to look up the verses that DO contain divine revelation as you mentioned. So what did I find? Sorry, not all of them have "this is what the Lord says". And some actually use "declares". So what do you say?

Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prosper, And every tongue that rises up to judge you, you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness which is of Me, declares Jehovah.

Psa 89:16 In Your name they exult all day long, And in Your righteousness they are exalted.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are apportioned for your people and for your holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make propitiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

Jer 23:5-6 Indeed, days are coming, Declares Jehovah, When I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; And He will reign as King and act prudently And will execute justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, Jehovah our righteousness.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To show you the difference I have found examples of old testament passages which DO contain divine revelation (about the future righteousness of God):

Isaiah 54:17, Isaiah 46:13, Isaiah 51:5, Isaiah 56:1, Isaiah 45:24-25, Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 89:16, , Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 23:6.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When God sent a message to His people, He wanted them to be clear about who the message was from. God did not want the people to think that the message came from the prophet's own hearts. It was God's will for His prophets to say "this is what the Lord says". God specifically instructed them to say "this is what the Lord says:"

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”...presuming to have a higher vision or revelation than the Bible.”

There is no revelation or vision higher than that we find in the Bible.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, men cannot fulfill the law, either moral or written.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a good question. Why did God need to give written commandments to the Israelites?

Because God issued a new covenant - the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was not sufficient for the kind of relationship God wanted to have with the Israelites following Egypt. The Israelites were his special people called from among all the nations. So they received the law of Moses as part of this special covenant between God and the Israelites, which had to cover all of the various matters that a specially chosen people of God would have to abide by. It was a total of 636 laws of which the 10 commandments are only an incomplete summary (the 10 do not include the 2 greatest commandments, for example).

The gentiles on the other hand had the moral law in their hearts but did not need to follow circumcision, eating pork, feast days etc. Adam, Abel, Noah and others lived this way.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When God sent a message to His people, He wanted them to be clear about who the message was from. God did not want the people to think that the message came from the prophet's own hearts. It was God's will for His prophets to say "this is what the Lord says". God specifically instructed them to say "this is what the Lord says:"
......

Originally Posted by A little brother

If the "natural law" is already in men's heart, can men fulfill them?

Why did God have to issue the 10 commandments again?

Why did Jesus and Paul still talk about mercy, humility, ...?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Isn't declared a stronger word than said? Why must a prophet use said when representing God's word? Is this a standard format every prophet needs to follow? Where was this stated in the scripture?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

I think I need to clarify something. You are under no obligation to answer my inquiries. I am not really insisting that you do. It’s up to you. I believe my questions to be relevant to our discussion. However, if you choose to avoid them that is entirely up to you. I will draw inferences and conclusions based on what you tell me and what you don’t. Patience is not relevant on my side. I can let our conversation stand as is and am willing to let the reader decide. I’m not going anywhere just yet so , please take your time. No rush.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible does that for us:
Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming

This is nonsense. The natural law God placed in men's hearts is the same law expressed in the 10 commandments.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In what way was Micah using God's name in Micah 6:8? As I showed previously, it does not say "The Lord saith".

Originally Posted by A little brother

Be patient, Drake, be patient. My discussion with Evangelical is still in progress. I am still waiting for his reply. May be it will eventually lead to the topic you want to know too, who knows.

Meanwhile, I am also waiting for your reply in the "The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age" thread. I want to know what you think too.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So in your view, what should govern the direction of a local church? If some of the saints do not want LSM, should that be thrust on them? If you have a particular vision, and I have a different vision, yet we are both believers in Christ, and we are called to meet as the church, what is the guideline?

Originally Posted by A little brother

I would be more cautious putting things into the "shadows" category and lower their importance.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I take it as you were only referring to human moral law and not God's moral law in the Old Testament. Aren't we supposed to be God-centered people trying to understand things from His perspective instead?

Originally Posted by A little brother

You said "it doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit." Sounds like something else would please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation. May be that's not what you meant. I'll take this back.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Seems you are referring to human moral standards again here.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You have wandered off again. We were specifically talking about Micah 6:8 all the time. What does it have to do with always revealing Christ in everything Micah says in absolutely every way?

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are right about who/what can reveal Christ. Even demons revealed the identity of Son of God. But I am quite confident that Micah is not in that category.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Prophets like Micah simply do not (dare not?) use Jehovah's name lightly to support their own human concept.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think the shadows are more important than Christ then?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course a person can be moral without faith. There are many good atheists, some who put even Christians to shame in their morals.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When did I ever say that pleasing God enough will do that. Did I not say that without faith it's impossible to please God?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree. The bible speaks of good men and evil men (Matt 12:35). A good man would be a moral person.
God's creation is inherently good, even though it was corrupted through the fall.
When Paul writes that there is not a single righteous person, this is in context of pointing us towards our need for a Savior. This does not deny the fact that there are good people and bad people in the world. Sometimes good people are called righteous people, meaning people who do or say what is right. This would be righteousness in character, not righteousness for salvation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The question is, does Micah always reveal Christ in everything he says in absolutely every way? I think only Christ himself can perfectly reveal Christ.
Don't forget that fallen Creation reveals Christ too (Romans 1:20). I'm open to the idea that a person does not have to be led by the Spirit to reveal Christ. I have heard of unbelievers preaching the gospel and this resulting in salvations.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Be very careful on what you say. You are starting to rank God's revelations.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Can someone be a moral person without faith? Are you referring to man's moral law or God's moral law? I begin to doubt whether you believe what you believe. You seems to be saying please God enough and He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are still using human standards. God is perfect, so we have to be perfect. When we cannot do it perfectly, we are not a moral person. That's why Paul quoted the scripture saying there is not a single righteous person.

Originally Posted by A little brother

We are talking about Lee said Micah only spoke his own concept. I am glad you agreed Micah reveals Christ. I suppose you would also agree no one can reveal Christ unless it is led by the Holy Spririt.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I understand Lee's use of the term "divine revelation" to refer to that concerning Christ, our salvation, and the church, and the future. Of course, the Law given to Moses was a divine revelation to him at the time. But compared to the New Testament it pales in comparison. The shadows were not God's will or plan for eternity - they served a temporary purpose.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I meant "being a moral person without faith does not please God". It doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

However, I'm open to God being lenient towards people who have not had the opportunity to hear about Christ who follow their conscience - they might be given an opportunity to believe in Christ at the resurrection.

Unable to keep moral laws refers to our inability to do it perfectly (we always need a Savior). Because humans are created as good-natured (despite the fall), it is possible for people to have a level of morality which is very good, yet insufficient for eternal salvation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Micah reveals Christ yes, even Lee wrote that. But I thought we are talking about this particular footnote. Let us not forget that everyone under the old testament period was veiled, even Moses and the greatest prophets. Jesus said whoever is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (and the old testament prophets).

Originally Posted by A little brother

Are you saying Micah only wrote about the shadow so it is not God's revelation? But you said the law was to point towards Christ. How about the ten commandments? They are shadows and not God's revelation?

Originally Posted by A little brother

You said being only a moral person cannot please God as if it is something that can be achieved by humans alone. Yet you said we are unable to keep moral laws.

Don't you see the contradiction inside your thoughts?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Micah actually did point us to Christ as the Way to fulfill these "moral laws". Perhaps only the veiled Isralites missed the point.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The contradiction is between the shadow (the law) and the reality (Christ). Micah 6:8 belongs to the period when the law was to point towards Christ. The written & moral law for Jews and the moral law for Gentiles. Both types of law are meant to show us our inability to keep it, and move us towards Christ.

Pleasing God is salvation. Being only a moral person does not please Him:

Heb 11: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

You see Micah 6:8 mentions nothing about faith in order to please God.

Micah 6:8 says God requires us to be humble and act rightly.

But Jesus told us what God requires of us here in John 6:29

Jesus told them, "This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If I understand it correctly, you said Micah 6:8 and Eph 2:8 are not good match. Then you used this "contradiction" and the fact that "God is not a liar" to prove one of the verse is not from God's revelation.

Actually what is the contradiction that you see? Did Micah say it is the condition for salvation? May be you have confused yourself between pleasing God and salvation.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you want to pick out contradictions from the Bible, there are many more that seem to be "contradictions". Instead of jumping to conclusion one is from God and the other isn't, we should humble ourselves before God so He can let us see how to find the harmony among the "contradictions". After all, God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So in your view, what should govern the direction of a local church? If some of the saints do not want LSM, should that be thrust on them? If you have a particular vision, and I have a different vision, yet we are both believers in Christ, and we are called to meet as the church, what is the guideline?

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Alb,

Evangelical has provided you a very detailed and scholarly explanation including the grammatical construction of v8. Consider his response thoughtfully and you will be helped. I would add this much...

You can create any narrative you want by taking a snippet as you have done with the slicing and dicing of the footnote in Micah 6:8, but when you consider the entire footnote Brother Lee’s meaning becomes clear. Furthermore, if you read the four short chapters of the Lifestudy of Micah, particularly Message 3, the entire context of this footnote becomes even more clear. Even the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy, must give way to Christ. Brother Lee speaks very highly of the prophets in their speaking concerning Christ but sometimes they fell into talking about small things like weights and measures as Micah does in 6:10-11. This is all part of the context of Micah 6 and the point of the footnote. You have already conceded that not every word spoken by the prophets reflect the divine thought and attitude which is Brother Lee’s point too. If your error is simply misinterpretation of the construct of v8 then it is understandable and the explanation provided by Evangelical should clear that up. However, since you have yet to acknowledge the point of the footnote that Christ has replaced the law and God’s people should follow Christ and not the law then your understanding of this truth of the Christian faith remains dubious. I don’t really know what you think about that. That is why I asked you to establish that so we could find agreement or not because frankly, if you don’t understand that great truth of the Christian faith then contention over your snippets don’t matter at all.

Regards,
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Boxjobox,

My experience was different but appreciate the explanation and the sincerity in your delivery.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,


As to LSM specifically, in my view is it has always been an extension to the work of ministry. It is a reasonable expectation that the role of LSM be defined, yet it will not surprise you that I view their contribution as beneficial to the local churches and not the heavy handed control organization of the local churches you described. And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.

Thanks again for your post. It’s sincerity and lack of malice allowed me to give thoughtful consideration before the Lord. Please accept my response in the considerate spirit in which it is intended.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
For example, these two verses are not a good match, since 6:8 is about being a good boy by our righteousness to please God, and Eph 2:8 is about pleasing God by accepting His righteousness, despite being a naughty boy.

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves
...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
You suggested that the footnote makes Micah a liar. But if God was communicating divine revelation in this verse does that not make "God a liar"(it would contradict all the other verses I quoted previously) ?
...

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't know you brother, but what happened to WL was obvious. He so enjoyed his own spiritual "high" and moved on to create one of the most arrogant ministries, a ministry that could not stop disparaging other members of the body of Christ. He was so blinded by his own "vision" that he missed even the most obvious things when interpreting the Bible. The Bible became just a tool to prove he was right. A couple of examples I recently noticed...

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

RecV footnote: (But) The prophets are great in their speaking concerning Christ but not in their speaking concerning other things. Micah's word here concerning what Jehovah requires of His people is not a matter of God's revelation but a matter of the prophet's concept...

Micah clearly stated "He has declared to you". Unless Micah was a liar, that message was from God.

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb, You introduced the footnote, not me. You chopped it up and are misrepresenting it, not me. I’m simply accommodating your preference to focus on the footnote. This footnote was chosen by you as the centerpiece of your argument. Now you want to run from it?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Your effort trying to refer to the bible to find the truth is appreciated. But I am afraid until the present day the same veil remains at your reading of the old covenant.

Please answer one simple question first:

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

From the plain text, who declared this message?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

.
.
The divine revelation about Christ will relate to the epistles of Paul, as I have shown.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Was my point really so difficult to understand? Micah 6:8 said God declared something but Lee said it was Micah's own concept. There was not a single word mentioning Law in the verse (even the whole chapter) and Lee said it was about keeping the law.

Who was more trustworthy? Simple as that.

I repeat, it has nothing to do with the rest of the footnote.