Originally Posted by Igzy

It is good that you have achieved some balance in your view and I commend you for that!

As to bathwater and babies, the official LR is in no danger of throwing out the baby because it is still protecting the bathwater. If the leaders thought like you it might be different, but they still manifest the siege mentality that the movement can do no wrong. Why do they do that? To maintain the myth that they are the only valid place for God's people, and thus hold people there. But it is based on lies and so is an abuse of those people.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem I have with writings like these is the us-vs-them mentality and the air of superiority they display, as if nothing compares to their little corner of the Church. It's an idealized view. It says nothing of the failures of the movement and the people who have undeniably been hurt by it. It's all sunshine and angel choirs.

They have this extreme attitude because they think part of being faithful is to live in denial. We are not talking about just emphasizing the positive. We are talking about believing that even recognizing the negative is somehow destructive. A mind like that is not reasonable. And such an attitude is self-reinforcing. There is no fail-safe. The bombers are on their way to Moscow, and nothing can call them back.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Us humans like to take things too far in one direction or another. We get something of value from a source and want to hold it up as the best and only thing out there. That's a clear error. But isn't there also a saying about dirty bath water and babies?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Both of these dear brothers the Lord used to far exceed the spiritual writings of "spiritual writers" in the Twentieth Century, as evidenced by the way brother Nee's "inner life" books were all bought up at once when they came out in the 1960s. This brought many Caucasian saints into the local churches in California at that time, because the people experienced so much reality. "The reality is in Jesus." Ephesians 4:21

Brother Witness Lee became the most prolific writer of "inner life" spiritual books in history. He studied the bible for 69 years. He said that outside of what the Gospel book room published in Shanghai of brother Nee's writings in the 1930s and 1940s and what came out of the LSM in more recent times, were not worth reading, because they lacked the experience of the Spirit of Life (reality) who dispenses God's life into man.

This account speaks nothing of the love and life these brothers brought into so many lives, all over the earth, long after both brothers had "fallen asleep" in the unselfish service of the Lord.

I never forgot a revelation brother Witness Lee gave me that has stayed with me for 41 years. "In His Body, there is only room for Christ."
1978

Originally Posted by JJ

Kevin, I can’t read the “thumbnail” of what you posted on Facebook a year ago... too pixelated, and thus can’t respond.

Could you type it out for us?

JJ

Originally Posted by Kevin

I posted this on my Facebook wall a year ago. It's maddening to me that my newfeed is feed up with attacks on Christianity.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've heard a lot of folks here in my place disparaging Christianity.

Originally Posted by aron

And the solution is to come under the ministry of the age? Because if you are local, but not kow-towing to the Generals in Anaheim, you're still deemed "not meeting".

The solution is to blow up Christianity, not with another organizational scheme a la Nee & Lee, but "be burning in Spirit". That and love, a little humility in receiving the Lord's speaking in His Body, not despising the gifts of the little ones and exalting the pseudo-Giants, and all that Evangelical dismisses so categorically might be very different.

Might not. But I'll take that chance, over the latest 5 Year Plan from Chairman of the Body.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They can't wait for the service to end so they can get on with "blowing wherever they like".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you are confusing the difference between the foundation of the building which is Christ, and the ground which the building rests upon which is the locality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are no different. You also are a denomination. Start with yourself. Tear your own church down. Judgment begins with the Recovery.

There is neither anything in the Bible about selling books, selling tennis rackets, selling motor homes, selling seats in trainings, etc. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged.

Are not all the denominations also ministries? Then by your own definition, they are not bound by your rules, just like you give LSM a free pass for all of its corruption.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That rules out the denominations then, because Christ is not their ground. What is the ground of Roman Catholicism for example? I'll give you a hint: (their ground is in their name). Is it standing on the person of Christ? Or is it standing on a doctrine which says that the Roman catholic church is the true church, and "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth". Their ground is not Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God does not build anything other than "His church" (Matt 16:18). There is nothing in the bible that talks about God "having a part in building denominations" or churches (plural). All the other buildings are counterfeits, therefore I have the right to tear them down.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Colossians 2.7 specifically says that we are "rooted and built up in Christ."

Christ is not only our foundation, He is also the ground, and He is also the building.

Please study your Bible again.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Originally Posted by Ohio

What gives you the right to tear down what God had a part in building?

The church has no mandate today to "uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow." You have gone off the deep end.

How about you do us and the LC's a huge favor and tear down LSM. It is nothing but a worldly organization, an obscure denomination, a money-making enterprise scamming God's people, a retail business peddling God's word.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Some, have taken issue with the local church's stance on denominations, saying we should build up and not tear down.

But the bible and common sense tells us that if there is an old building and we want to build a new one, we must tear the old one down first.

Jeremiah 1:10 says: See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."

The churches role on the Earth today is not only to build and plant, but to uproot, tear down, destroy and overthrow.

Some may say, "you are speaking against fellow believers, the bible says to edify and love". The bible says that in reference to individuals but does it say to edify and love worldly institutions? Consider this - the Roman Catholic church - is this not the religious arm of the old Roman Empire? The Anglican church - is this not the religious arm of the old English Empire? How can God destroy the Roman Empire yet leave the Roman church intact?

To tear down various human empires is also to tear down their religious entities. Tearing down these two denominations alone will result in the majority of Christianity without a denomination which will bring a vast improvement.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then what is the point of the term "the proper ground"?

If Jesus purchased the ground, then it belongs to Him and Jezebel has no standing on it. Hence his word that He has this against them that they tolerate the woman Jezebel, since she has no standing to be there they shouldn't have tolerated her.

Obviously if your "proper ground" is the boundary of a city you will have Jezebel's inside the boundary, you have a worldly ground.

But if the proper ground is the ground purchased by Jesus redemption, then there is absolutely no reason why Jezebel would have any right to stand on that ground.

The only sign given of a "true church" is the sign of Jonah.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The church Jesus spoke to about Jezebel was a genuine church because it was a locality church, not a denomination. But in its condition it tolerated Jezebel. It is possible to stand on the proper ground and tolerate Jezebel, the verse shows that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It doesn't exist because everyone is too busy building up their favorite denomination.

Originally Posted by aron

The reason you can't find any real local church or its members is because it doesn't exist. It is just an idea, which was useful to separate the Chinese Christians from the Western yoke (the dreaded Denominations). But shortly after they all came crowding into Nee's Little Flock assembly, he "recovered" the Jerusalem Principle. Lo and behold, the churches weren't local at all, but part of a larger Body! And that Body, lo and behold, needed an extra-local apostle! How convenient! Nee knew just the man for the job. "Centralization" followed "locality" like a tail following a dog. They were part and parcel.

Locality never was real. It was merely an idea, a lever, an engine to bring people from someone else's delusion, into Nee's. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding "beat the sinner" methods. Let's consider an example. Ted and Fred are happily married and want to become Christians. They were raised in a culture where gay marriage is universally accepted as normal (let's say Canada, for example), they don't know it is wrong. They ask you "OBW, I want to be a Christian, what do I have to do?" What would you say to them?

I would say - well you need to repent of your sin first. And they would say "what sin?, I am a good person, I give to the poor, I help bake cakes for the local church". I will say, God does not approve of homosexuality, you need to repent of that. If they repent, great, I can continue with God's grace and assurance of salvation etc etc. If not, it is hardly appropriate to continue the conversation about God's forgiveness etc.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that's something I agree with - hence the reason I quoted the statistics showing Christianity being degraded. So I would be very concerned that majority of Christians in america believe in things against God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are a sinner and in rebellion against God. That is where they are at, is it not? So if I start with the sin I'm starting with where they are at. God started with John the Baptist's baptism of repentence remember. Repentance from what? From sin, from rebellion. So even God started his preaching the gospel with addressing the sin. You can't start or heal a relationship with anyone without addressing the things that divide first. Can learn a lot from watching Dr Phil.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you say that you, unlike others, do not tolerate Jezebel. You also make ground the standard by which you separate.
Several questions
1. Define what you mean by the "ground of the church".
2. How does standing on this ground not tolerate Jezebel?
3. What is it precisely that prevents Jezebel from standing on your ground?

Originally Posted by OBW

The call to repent of your sins can only be relevant to those who recognize that they are sinning. Browbeating people who disagree as to what is and is not sin is not helpful. They have already rejected the understanding of the Bible, or outright rejected the Bible.

Originally Posted by OBW

Where is the requirement to speak up about anything? Not tolerating and speaking up are not synonyms. The requirement is to overcome. To not hold to her teachings. To hold fast to what you have.

And you can be assured that these discussions happen all the time. But it is not everyone's charge to speak out in the open forum of the church. But it is for some and they do just that.

Originally Posted by OBW

He won't be giving countries anything because countries are not Christians. People are. How the country thinks, votes, behaves, and acts is not relevant. Only that of the Christians.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When the Lord returns he won't be giving the USA a candy bar for all the bad things it has done, I can tell you that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All the other Christians in your city is your "house", or do you not believe that you are one body with all the denominations and not divided? If such being the case, you should have no issue with speaking up about the sins and "Jezebels" in your locality, as Christ wishes you to do as per Revelation 2:20.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Telling people that homosexuality is wrong is "hammering people with their sin", is it?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible indicates we have a responsibility for the state of the church, that will not be accomplished through baptism.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is our duty also, not merely to preach the gospel and forget about the state of God's house. When I speak against denominations and particularly the degradation, what I am doing is caring about the state of God's house.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Furthermore, by separating myself from that environment, I am also making a statement that Jezebel will not be tolerated in the church, as much as is up to me.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So far, as far as I can tell you have presented two ways that people are caring about the state of God's house, that is
By baptism -great
By not getting married to someone of the same sex - great also.

Others I'm not so convinced about:
Preaching the gospel - great but this is more for the unsaved than God's house
By tolerating Jezebel- uh oh, not really helping anything here.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I guess right now what I am doing is exercising my senses to discern good from evil:

Heb 5:12For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. 13For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. 14But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

This is based on the rudiments of the gospel. As I have already pointed out, when I was baptized I made a statement that the world is corrupt, has been judged and will be terminated and buried. I am all for being a good citizen who takes part in the legislative process, but that is not the way of salvation for a corrupt and sinful world.

The only way they will be saved from sin is by receiving Jesus Christ.

The "fact" that 60% of "Christians" are either nominal or not walking by the Spirit is not news to me. If you were walking through the desert with Moses and saw the rebellion of Korah, what are you going to do about that? I'll stand with God and let Him judge that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

See the section:
"A Faithful Appraisal of the Degraded System of Christianity"
at
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...istianity.html

Originally Posted by Evangelical

See the section:
"A Faithful Appraisal of the Degraded System of Christianity"
at
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...istianity.html

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, the statistics were 60% or thereabouts of Protestants, see no conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexual marriage. What are you doing about that?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys, the gay marriage argument has run it's course. Actually, I can't remember Witness Lee ever addressing the matter. Same for Nee.

Let's move on.
-

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When the Lord returns he won't be giving the USA a candy bar for all the bad things it has done, I can tell you that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fooled me:
Post #45 Evangelical:
Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
Public opinion on same-sex marriage
In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.
Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. Based on polling in 2016, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% who oppose it. See the latest data on same-sex marriage.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #61 Evangelical:

The government did not invent or create marriage. Marriage came from God (see Genesis), and Christians are supposed to be representatives of God, therefore Christians should uphold the true definition of marriage in the world.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #70 Evangelical

So marriage according to God and marriage according to the government is different. They cannot be both marriage, they must be two different things. Anyone who marries according to the government must not be truly married in God's eyes.

For a Christian obedience to God's law comes first (that homosexuality is forbidden), obeying the government's law comes next.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Recovery is not built upon the foundation of Christ and His revelation in the word of God, rather it was founded on the scathing condemnations of all Christians past and present.

Evangelical is just another proof of this. He has somehow deluded himself into believing that if he can continue his judgmental rants on the entire body of Christ, all things Christian, every Christian gathering big and small, all the world, including the USA, then on the judgment day he will look relatively pleasing to the Lord.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But I am not talking about judging the world.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Supreme court is not "my house", nor is the Whitehouse, nor is Congress. Those houses belong to the world.

You were railing against the laws of the US, the Supreme court, etc. Are you now narrowing your bile to just Christian denominations? More specifically are you now focusing on the Lutheran denomination?

It seems like you are painting with an awfully broad brush when you condemn Christianity for being degraded because of the Lutheran denomination. Lutherans make up 2% of Christians in the US, but you are going to condemn all Christians because of the policy of these 2%?

Please clarify, are you still railing about the US Supreme court, US laws, or have you narrowed down your complaint to just Christianity, specifically Lutherans? Also, are you condemning all Christianity because of what 2% of them do?

I hope you notice that absolutely no one on this thread has defended the Lutheran decision, nor has anyone tried to say that homosexual sex isn't a sin. So far all of the issues raised have been your foray into politics as though that was our calling and your condemnation of a very large group of people because of the stance of a very tiny minority.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, in preaching the gospel how can we tell someone to repent of something they do not know is wrong? We must tell them what is right and what is wrong, so they know what they are repenting of.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You do a very poor job of quoting people. You change what people say, you read in things they didn't say and you misinterpret what they said. It seems there are numerous posters complaining of you doing this, not just me.

Yes, if your word is in the context of the gospel, calling people to repent from sins, that would be great. Whenever you preach the gospel there is a call to repentance, there is also a path for that repentance, the way of salvation, and the good news of the kingdom of God.

The US is not the kingdom of God. Passing laws is not the way of salvation. What works is a new heart.

You are trying to complain about the Supreme court, laws of this land and then somehow tie this into the preaching of the gospel. You have confused "legalism" with Evangelism.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible indicates we should not judge the world. But it does not say we cannot judge Christians. Consider Revelation 2:20 where Jesus condemns a church for tolerating Jezebel. In that passage Jesus is not speaking to a particular denomination but the local church in the locality of Thyatira. If there is sexual immorality among the believers in our city, it is our duty and our right , as members of the local church in the city of wherever we live, to say it is wrong. It is okay for us to say to the Catholics, it is wrong to abuse children, and to the Lutherans, it is wrong for people in same-sex marriages to be ordained. Your view of tolerance for these sorts of things and not judging until the time is not something which Jesus would support, based upon Revelation 2:20. As an analogy, I see it as tolerating an intruder in ones house. And according to the Bible, Christians in a denomination are part of our "house" the body of Christ, or the locality in which we reside. So we are right to judge them as if they were part of our local church meetings. Just because they meet in a different place and call themselves a different name, does not mean they are not in the same church as us.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding preaching the gospel - what is the gospel? The gospel includes: "repent for the kingdom of heaven is near". Telling others to repent because their ways are wrong is part of preaching the gospel. So I don't know why you say on the one hand your job is "to preach the gospel" yet on the other is not to tell others right from wrong. You must not be preaching the gospel of the kingdom, but the significantly shortened version. According to the Bible, it is our job to say right is right and wrong is wrong. This is not for judgement but for warning and repentance.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree. What I disagree with is that this someone is you or me. I have been given a commission to preach the gospel, I have not been given a commission to judge the world. I can judge myself. Judgement does begin with the house of God. If you want to take issue with some denomination marrying gays and having homosexual priests, I would agree with you.

But I do not see the church as a political organization, I do not see our calling as a calling to change the secular laws of a nation, I do not see our calling to condemn the world.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Someone has to say what's wrong is wrong and what's right is right.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

lol you and others here define the LSM by its extremes all the time...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Pianos with the black keys taken out are okay. Joke.

All denominations except the Catholics in the past considered pianos to be unacceptable, including the baptists (C. Spurgeon). The first local church I attended had no musical instruments. If you haven't tried worship without musical instruments before you quickly realize how much of a distraction they are. Multiply that distraction by amplified volume, electric guitars etc and there is the difference between genuine worship and worship induced by sound waves. It's all an act to make the audience part with their money. I'd like to see them draw the same crowds without rock music, then we'd see just how genuine they are.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Would you please try to read what I say, without reading into it.

Would you also please respond with Bible thoughts of your own rather than from Lee.

Music about the Savior is no more a gimmick than giving them a New Testament or taking them to Starbucks.

Note that pianos were considered "sensual" by John Darby and the Brethren. The Church of Christ still rejects them. By their standards Lee used "worldly methods to attrack people."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really, I thought you would like that, I learned that from you with your reference to go read Genesis and learn that God created marriage.

Originally Posted by OBW

You are too busy defining everything by the extremes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sorry but Christian death metal, for example, is not spreading the gospel and they certainly aren't "servants of the Lord". They are not after edification of the spirit in Christ, but entertainment of the flesh.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So marriage according to God and marriage according to the government is different. They cannot be both marriage, they must be two different things.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who marries according to the government must not be truly married in God's eyes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are verses about not loving the world and being separate from the world. (2 Cor 6:17).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You must not believe in 2 Cor 6:17 then. Rock concerts are part of the worldly mixture in Babylon. "Other groups of Christians use natural and worldly ways to attract people. They use the ways of being social, of rock music, and of choirs with colorful robes." ~ W. Lee

Religious people of the degraded denominations use such worldly ways to attract people to "Christ" (merely emotional feelings or experiences), which is spiritual incest.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You would do better without the condescending tone.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't forget the other part of the passage "render unto God what is God's". Marriage is God's, so we must render marriage unto God. Jesus did say we should be separated from the world, however that does not mean we should have no influence in it, as the words "salt" and "light" imply.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sorry but Christian death metal, for example, is not spreading the gospel and they certainly aren't "servants of the Lord". They are not after edification of the spirit in Christ, but entertainment of the flesh.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus said to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars" in reference to taxes. One major reason for the governments "legalization" of gay marriage was for them to be able to collect taxes, clarify rental agreements, resolve issues with health insurance and hospitals, wills, etc. They have the NT authority to do that.



They do that with their own marriage.



The church is not part of the world. We are the kingdom of heaven, Jesus is our Lord and He told us clearly that "His kingdom is not of this world, if it were his followers would fight for Him". Try reading the gospels, it might help you.



Why do some people think the gospel is a matter of law and not of grace? Why do some think that we have been commissioned to condemn the world of sin when our Lord Jesus said that He did not come to condemn but to save? Lack of revelation. They need to hear the gospel of grace.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We were told to take the gospel to the "uttermost part of the Earth". Including music in worship is definitely a Biblical idea.

Who made you the Lord to decide what is and is not of God. If a servant of the Lord needs to be corrected the Lord will do it, not you.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of holding rock concerts for entertainment purposes however is not in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The government did not invent or create marriage.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Marriage came from God (see Genesis), and Christians are supposed to be representatives of God, therefore Christians should uphold the true definition of marriage in the world.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the church is not part of this world then why is the church pursuing worldly things?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why churches hold rock concerts and entertain Christmas trees, Jingle Bells, and Santa Clause? Why many approve or accept gay marriage? Why is the church divided into so many divisions which Paul says is worldly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's your definition?

Sounds like many of LSM's training meetings I attended.

Did you ever see Jake Jacobson go at it? What a performer! Those were the days.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh how you love to condemn all of Christianity based on fringe elements, but why is it you constantly ignore all the genuine concerns that are posted about leadership at LSM????

You remind me of the Pharisee's condemning the Lord Jesus for being a winebibber and a friend of sinners.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's an audience, there's a stage, there's performers,

that's a concert.

Originally Posted by OBW

That is true. But that does not deny the world's governments the ability to use the word in conjunction with something that we do not believe is marriage. Even something that we would stand against as being marriage...

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct. The Bible is silent on it, so there is nothing encouraging or denying such things.
"Not in the Bible" is not an invitation for preclusion. Driving an automobile is not in the Bible. Neither is using an airplane to fly between destinations, or even just around the area for the joy of flying.
There is more than one place where the "preacher" said to enjoy life. Not just enjoy it in poverty and asceticism. But in full living. Today, that would easily include going to a rock concert. Nothing to exclude it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you define a "rock concert" for me?

I kind of think you are making up things to condemn Christians for. If that's the case, you should take your message to Alt-Views sub-forum. They regularly bash all things Christian over there. You'll then be in good company.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you define a "rock concert" for me?

I kind of think you are making up things to condemn Christians for. If that's the case, you should take your message to Alt-Views sub-forum. They regularly bash all things Christian over there. You'll then be in good company.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of holding rock concerts for entertainment purposes however is not in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of holding rock concerts for entertainment purposes however is not in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The government did not invent or create marriage. Marriage came from God (see Genesis), and Christians are supposed to be representatives of God, therefore Christians should uphold the true definition of marriage in the world.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the church is not part of this world then why is the church pursuing worldly things? Why churches hold rock concerts and entertain Christmas trees, Jingle Bells, and Santa Clause?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Where in the NT are we told that we have the authority to tell others what they can and cannot do?

If we prohibit gays from marrying in the church, that is what we have authority over.

We can exercise our right as a citizen by voting, running for office, etc. But the church is not part of this world and vice versa.

We have been given one commission, to preach the gospel to the nations, baptizing them into the name of the triune God.



I wouldn't go that far, that is a little extreme. I would say a bad Christian is one who condemns sinners rather than preaching the gospel of salvation. But go ahead, speak out against it. I am of the persuasion that judgement begins with the house of God. I am focusing my attention on speaking out against the evil in the house of God.



My point exactly.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Today a good Christian is considered someone who doesn't cause a fuss and lets gays marry.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A bad Christian is someone who speaks out against it. The Bible says that in the last days good will be caused evil and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not know how to handle statistics? I did not handle anything. I quoted directly from the website.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You might be blushing a little right now.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Baptists, Catholics, Assemblies of God and Methodist all prohibit same sex marriage. I think that is very clear as to their official position.

I agree with you that Evangelical does not know how to handle statistics accurately or else he is one of those liars that uses statistics to lie which Mark Twain warned us about.

Originally Posted by OBW

First, unless someone is playing with terms, you are talking about mainline Protestants. By reversing the emphasis and saying mainline Protestants you imply all Protestants or something more significant than the group that the term actually implies.

I did not try to dig into the statistics and what they really said, but are you sure that your characterizations are correct relative to the actual data?

Also, there is a difference between favoring gay marriage and being tolerant of such a thing in secular society. Are you sure that the study correctly differentiated between these two positions or that you understood the possibility of such an allowance by those of otherwise strong religious belief?

I would say that there is a significant difference between favoring gay marriage and thinking that it is a correct position for purposes of the church. The government is not the church nor the church the government. If our position with respect to those that do not follow the Christian moral guides is to criticize and insult, then we really need to go back and read the great commandment a few times more.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

Overall, a solid majority of white mainline Protestants (62%) now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, with just 33% opposed, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey. A similar share (63%) say there is “no conflict” between their religious beliefs and homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks ZNP.

I understand the logic you have applied but though I agree your argument is logical and scriptural I am still wondering if it is completely accurate.

I was struggling with the notion that Jesus judged Himself on the cross. I agree that He offered Himself willingly to the cross, subjected Himself to be examined and proved to be spotless before the crucifixion, and that sin, Satan, the world, and us were judged on the cross, etc. However, by the time of the crucifixion He had already proved Himself and all that pertained to Him in life, living, thought, demeanor, etc. as sinless and spotless and without fault. Therefore, what was there for Jesus to judge on the cross concerning Himself that had not already been judged before He was crucified?

That is why I say that your last point about baptism almost persuades me because Jesus judged Himself at His baptism. He stood as a man, though sinless, in the position of death represented by His baptism. If you argue then that the cross is the reality of baptism and therefore since Jesus' representative judgement at baptism was actualized at crucifixion and He judged Himself on the cross then I go along with you for the moment though somewhat reluctantly.

However, as I think through this some more I reserve the right to change my mind.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The altar is the place where all the offerings are offered. Its essential meanings are judgment, redemption, and consecration. When the Israelites offered anything to the Lord, it must be brought to the altar. Everything they offered had to pass through the altar; it had to be killed and burned upon the altar. This signifies judgment. As a Christian you may feel that you have offered yourself quite properly to the Lord. Yes, God needs your offering, but His first demand is that you put everything on the altar. He must judge you by death and by burning. This may seem a frightening prospect, but we must realize that all that is natural about us must be judged. God can never accept the natural man or his living as material for His building. All we are, all we have, and all we can do must be judged by the altar. The altar typifies the cross. We must be checked and judged by the cross. (The Vision of God's Building, Chapter 5, Section 2)

He 7:22*by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. 23*And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: 24*but he, because he abideth for ever, [g]hath his priesthood [h]unchangeable. 25*Wherefore also he is able to save [i]to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26*For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27*who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

Anything belonging to the building of God must be judged by the cross, exposed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise it is outside the building. Anyone who thinks he is clever and adequate for God’s building has not judged himself, and has no boundary line. When there is no separating line, no outer court, then the whole world will be the outer court for the building of the church. That is wrong! We must have the separating line—the judgment of the cross and the exposing and cleansing of the Holy Spirit. (The Vision of God's Building, Chapter 5, Section 3)

Jesus had to be baptized to “fulfill all righteousness”. The process of baptism includes repentance, which is a personal judgment of sins, self, the flesh, the world, and Satan. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is the reality of baptism. God offered up His son, to be examined (judged), convicted, condemned, crucified, dead, and buried. His resurrection and ascension were also God’s judgment. However, according to Hebrews Jesus “offered Himself up willingly”. This term “offered” has the essential meanings of judgement, redemption and consecration.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I agree, but would expand upon this. The church in the New Testament is defined by it's actions which are informed by it's doctrines. For example, Witness Lee's exclusive and extremely sectarian teachings regarding "the ground of the church" influence, or inform as it were, the divisive and damaging attitude and actions his followers have towards their brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the early days of the movement in America, this was exemplified by Local Church members "marching on" the Moody Bible Institute (and church?) with placards announcing "Down With Christianity!" and other such absurd and obnoxious declarations. These followers of Witness Lee didn't just dream up these slogans out of nowhere - they came straight from the teachings of Witness Lee himself.

Although the public actions of Local Church members has become quite a bit more tame and civilized over the years, the underlying horrific and deplorable attitude instilled by the teachings of Witness Lee are still alive and well to this day, especially in the older members. Nothing of this history has been repudiated or repented of. In fact the Blended Brothers have doubled down on this in recent history by their attitude and actions towards members within the movement who disagree in the slightest.
-

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP, I've been chewing on this and I do not understand how you substantiate this from Scripture.

Please explain.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

What about churches that hold to a doctrine of using only publications published by a certain publishing house?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, I would argue that the church in the New Testament is defined by its actions, not its doctrines. Calling yourself the one true proper church who alone stands on the ground against degraded Christianity, etc., etc. does not make it so. Yes, you can argue that the corruption within the Catholic church demonstrates that they are demonic, but by that same logic the corruption within the Lord’s Recovery Church also demonstrates that they are demonic. You can argue that protestantism has a name that they are alive but are dead. But by the same logic you can say the same of the LRC.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A church that does not hold onto Christ but holds onto other things (good works, sound doctrine etc), have become separated from the Head and lost the reality, since the "reality is Christ" (Colossians 2:17).
The RC church is one that has held onto a doctrine and practice of good works, worship of saints/angels etc.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When Jesus was crucified He judged all things. How? By judging Himself.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee condemned religion as “degraded”.

Judaism is Satanic (Rev. 2:9-10. )
Catholicism is demonic (Rev. 2:24-28)
Protestantism is dead and Christless (Rev. 3:1-5, 20-21).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, with some connection to to Lee's book The Overcomers, we could consider his view of church ages in history to be stages of overcoming.

Originally Posted by testallthings

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am really itching to start a discussion with you about "sheep and goats" and a strange doctrine resulting from that which says we can be saved by giving someone a cup of water. But perhaps for another time.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, most people in the world use the term religion to mean a system of man-made beliefs and rituals. Continuing to argue your point of view from the "correct" view of the meaning of religion (as taking care of orphans and widows), is not logical. The Bible says only God or Christ gives (eternal) life. Religions don't give life. Actually, even taking care of orphans and widows does not give eternal life. Both false religion and true religion cannot give life. We are against religion on the basis that it does not give life, everyone will die someday and people without life will go to hell for eternity. Care for widows and orphans all you like but when they die they will go to hell without Christ.

I am really itching to start a discussion with you about "sheep and goats" and a strange doctrine resulting from that which says we can be saved by giving someone a cup of water. But perhaps for another time.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Umm, the majority of churches they don't speak from the word of God but from the Sunday service sheet or prayer book. It is like that in the majors - Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran. What makes this somewhat different from people merely reading footnotes in LSM, is that there is no freedom for a member to pick and choose what they want to say from the book, and the same service is followed every Sunday (there are some variations of course, but usually minor). Since this is the majority then my statement that "Christianity is degraded" is no less true. Most "Evangelical" Christians do not meet in those archaic institutions. Where are you from man?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And where in the New Testament does any of the apostles say this?

Witness Lee's definition is not supported by the New Testament. The word "religion" is never used in the way he describes nor can it ever be defined in his way. He has confused the "Judaizers" with the Jewish religion.

In the church in Smyrna we learn of "the synagogue of Satan", people who say they are Jews and are not. You can't call them the Jewish religion, they aren't. Yes, the synagogue of Satan is accurately described by Witness Lee's definition, but he has incorrectly defined religion as being the synagogue of Satan and that is a mistake.

Witness Lee made a big deal of how the "sheep and goats" do not refer to the believers and unbelievers, but rather to two types of unbelievers. That definition is crucial for understanding eternal salvation.

Well, in the same way he has mashed up "the synagogue of Satan" with all religion. This is a mistake.

To equate pure religion with "the synagogue of Satan" is to denigrate pure religion.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are two very different ways to look at the situation.

Witness Lee's way is that there is a group of elite Christians, they meet in the proper way, on the proper ground, with the vision of the age. These ones alone are faithful to the Lord. We cannot compromise with "degraded Christianity" but instead they need to repent and join us. (I am summarizing many, many quotes of Witness Lee that I have posted already on this and the other forum).

The Second way is similar to how the children of Israel entered the good land. Initially only a handful were ready to enter the land. These were the elite, Joshua and Caleb. But they realized they needed to enter as a nation and not as a few. As a result the Israelites continued to wander for many more years before the second generation was matured enough to enter. Those that tried to enter on their own were wiped out. Instead of "degraded" the issue with this approach is a necessary maturation process. I would argue that you must distinguish between the genuine believers and the false ones (the synagogue of Satan, Balaam, Jezebel, etc). Then, for the genuine believers everything that happens to them is necessary. We need to overcome these various "diseases" but if we do we will be fully matured and the result will be the church in Philadelphia.

I personally do not believe that you can have the church in Philadelphia until you have overcome Jezebel and Balaam. This is why I do not like to look at these churches as "historical" but rather as necessary experiences that you need to go through to be fully matured.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, in all those quotes I cannot find anything which is out to denigrate the term religion.

Religion in this context means a system of beliefs and rituals. If you prefer to use the definition of religion in James, that is fine, but the majority of people in the world do not define religion in this way.
So when Lee speaks of religion he is not speaking about helping orphans and widows, but a system of man-made beliefs and rituals.
Lee is saying that a system of beliefs and rituals cannot give life.

This is what his first quote means
"“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion”

The fact that I found one quote where Lee spoke positively of religion, saying it is good, proves that he did not denigrate the term.

Yes, he said religion is against God. But it is. Hard for you to argue that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc is not against God in as much as they reject Christ.

Lee was not against helping widows and orphans, he was saying that like Paul, it is not the focus of his ministry.

In short, his view is that religion is good from a human perspective, but cannot give life, only Christ can.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh, my bad.

You said "My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term".

are you saying that these quotes of Witness Lee are not on topic or have nothing to do with what you said?


“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)

You said "You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

And to that I responded with the following quotes to show that Witness Lee was against charitable works and was against religion.


"Religion is something formed by the human mentality under Satan's instigation and inspiration in order to oppose God's economy. Apparently, religion is for God, but in actuality, it is fully against Him." (Witness Lee, The Lord's Recovery and the Present Situation of Religion, Chapter 2, Section 1)

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Are you saying that these quotes do not adequately respond to what you said?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Misunderstanding is a two-way street ZNPaaneah, but I should apologise for my confrontational tone and try to stay objective.

I think people can be offended if they identify with a denomination and read Lee say such things about their denomination, they take as a personal attack on them. They might say "I am a Lutheran, Lee said Lutheranism is degraded, therefore he is saying I am degraded".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Others, such as testallthings has already picked up your inability to quote and reference on topic, when you provided a quote to me in another thread from Watchman Nee's book that was nothing to do with what you said it meant.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is because you don't listen to what others say, only to what you assume they will say. Yes, there are false prophets, false Christs, nominal Christians, false churches, Judaizers, Cults, etc.

But when you confuse them with backsliders and Christians who are weak in the faith you cannot accurately discern what is going on. As a result Witness Lee slanders and defames all believers. That is his error.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I thought this thread would be about people's personal experiences of why Christianity is not degraded.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Further, your insistence that it is about nominal Christianity versus degraded is frankly, idiotic (to use a term you used previously). Nominal means "in name only" therefore you are saying these churches in Revelation are "in name Christians" only and not real churches. That is worse than saying they are degraded. You are not the expert of the English language and logic that you think you are, ZNPaaneah.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyway, you seem to be arguing semantics about degraded versus nominal. But the meaning of words are not your strong point (as I and others have pointed out to you before).

Nominal means:
(of a role or status) existing in name only.
(of a price or charge) very small; far below the real value or cost.

Degraded means:
reduced in quality; inferior.

Nominal can mean worse than degraded. Nominal can mean "in name only" and so you could be saying that the church in Smyrna are not real Christians at all. It could mean "far below the real value or cost", or not living up to the standard.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I defined the thread with the first post. If you want to persuade me you will need to do it with the fellowship of the apostles. That is my requirement. You asked me this question, I have started this thread in response to you, and I am willing to discuss this. However, my requirement is that I will submit to the fellowship of the apostles. I will recognize that as having the authority. This is fully in line with Witness Lee's ministry as he also said that the ultimate authority in the New Testament is the fellowship of the apostles. You can quote Witness Lee all you want, but if you cannot make your argument from the fellowship of the apostles it just proves that "degraded Christianity" is a false construct of Witness Lee and not a New Testament truth.


I'm sorry but your credibility is already at rock bottom. Your contention now is that Witness Lee did not denigrate the term "religion"?

“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)



We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Honestly Evangelical, do you even know Witness Lee at all?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived again: 9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life. 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Here we see the dichotomy. We have those who have overcome in Ephesus, they have eaten from the Tree of life, they are genuine believers and they are now following the Lord to the cross of Christ. There is a reward in this church, the crown of life.

But there is also a synagogue of Satan, composed of those who say they are Jews and are not. This is not a "degraded" church, it is a nominal church. They are a church in name only, not in reality.

Genuine believers will suffer tribulation and will be faithful unto death.

But, this is necessary to receive the crown of life. This is something that we must overcome so that we would not be hurt by the second death.

Witness Lee teaches that these churches represent different churches in church history. But this doesn't make sense because he also teaches that we need to partake of the tree of life, and we all want to receive the crown of life.

So although there are some interesting parallels with history, I feel that we all need to experience Christ in all of these experiences. As a child you may have "overcome" measles, mumps and rubella, not just one childhood disease but maybe three, maybe four, maybe five. All of use need to learn to cling to our first love and we need to follow the Lord to the cross and be faithful unto death.

But, if Satan will disguise himself as an angel of light why wouldn't he also disguise himself as a "synagogue of Satan" claiming to be a church when he isn't. The test is if you are faithful unto death.

James talks about this test when he says that Abraham was justified by works. How are we supposed to know which are the genuine Christians and which are those of the synagogue of Satan? Simple, the genuine ones are justified by works. What was Abraham's work? He was faithful to go to the cross and let everything that he had given himself to be sacrificed to God. Satan would never do this.

In our experience with Witness Lee, when Watchman Nee was excommunicated for living with a mistress this was similar to sending Witness Lee to the cross and seeing everything that he had given himself to be sacrificed to God. There is no advantage in being the closest coworker of Watchman Nee if he is an adulterer. Was Witness Lee faithful unto death? No, he created a lie in which he said the elders excommunicated Watchman Nee for living with a woman, but the woman was his mother.

If he had been faithful he would have had tribulation for a season, but in the end the 2nd death couldn't hurt him. But now, not only is he dead, but his legacy is suffering loss as well. That lie is causing his whole ministry to go up in flames.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm confused ZNPaaneah. When I post something not related to Lee or Nee, I am told that this forum is about Lee or Nee's ministry. Now when I post something in reference to Lee, I am told by you that it is not about Lee. It seems this forum has some sort of identity crisis. Or at least, it is convenient for some members to decide when it is about Lee and when it is not about Lee, to suit their own purposes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said

It is very alarming to me that Witness Lee felt it necessary to denigrate this term.

I was not talking about his ministry but refuting what you said. My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term". He spoke positively of religion, even saying Judaism is the true religion. He spoke of religion for what it was - a system of beliefs and rituals. He said that systems of beliefs and rituals do not give life. If we are a Christian we would have to agree with that. Religion does not give life, and from this point of view religion is a negative thing. Even your pet verse in James - taking care of orphans and widows, does not give life. It is a good thing to do, but cannot give life.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, Witness Lee is not the authority, nor is this thread talking about his ministry. We have rebuked and repudiated much of what Witness Lee taught, you responded "what about you"? That is what this thread is about, it is a response to your question.

On this thread it is the apostle's fellowship that is the authority.

There are 6 mentions of the word. Two in the book of Acts, two in Galatians, and two in James. None of them support Witness Lee's definition. His definition is not according to the fellowship of the apostles and I reject it. This is a New Testament term and I will stick to the New Testament definition.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true at all.
The New Testament is filled with verses delineating organizational structure with elders and deacons. There were also many gifted ones named apostles, prophets, shepherds, evangelists, teachers. What do you think they all did in the meetings of the church? Sit in the back row and sleep?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you have any idea how narrow-minded and skewed your definition of "functioning" is? If someone stands up and reads a line from a footnote, you shout and proclaim that all the members can function, and then simultaneously you condemn the body of Christ for being dead .. Because they can't stand up in their assembly and read a footnote by WL.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh the hypocrisy! Why do you think so many of us have left? You have simply replaced the so-called "one-man-speaking" with the "speaking-of-one-man." That is no improvement at all! At least the former speak from the word of God.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've been to many churches, including the LC's. There are always going to be some who sit silently in the meetings, and probably come only on Sundays. I saw that in all the LC's I visited. Who are you to categorically condemn them all? How do you know what they believe or how they function in the body of Christ? I saw far too many showy performances in LSM trainings to believe for a moment that they had the market on spiritual reality and functioning.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Normal for the Jews perhaps, not normal for God's church. Jesus did not desire any sort of clergy-laity structure in the church, all were equal in importance and function. The historical fact is that there was no clergy class in the early church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

from "Misrepresenting Witness Lee’s Critique of Christianity ".
To say that something is degraded simply means that it has fallen below its ordinary standards or that it has negatively changed in its function and structure.17 According to Witness Lee’s teaching in Practice, the system of Christianity is degraded in its standards, function, and structure because it has developed “formalities and rituals,” “regulations and unscriptural practices,” “hierarchy” with “ambition” for position, and the “clergy-laity system.” Today’s Christianity is also full of divisions.18 It is these negative matters that kill the organic function of the members of the Body of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_Lee
This degraded religious system [of Christianity] takes the natural, human, traditional, cultural, and religious way. Humanly speaking, religion is a good thing, but spiritually speaking it is something against God's economy. God does not want a religion, but He surely wants to see His economy accomplished. We are not here for religion but for God's economy, which is to propagate His completed Christ to produce the church as the Body of such a Christ.
— Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy

The church includes all those who share the common faith that saves us, the one faith spoken of in Ephesians 4:5. This faith is held in common by all who are saved (2 Pet. 1:1). This faith causes the believers to be one and does not divide them. Any creed or system of teaching that goes beyond the common faith divides the believers.
— Witness Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 6

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is because the system is wrong.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible colleges of large denominations are producing paid ministers, clergy who are not Christians. Some are Buddhist, some are atheist. They stay in that role because it's a job. They may care for humanity, but they don't believe the Bible. Some are into spirit-ism, some are clairvoyants and spirit mediums. Because they are ordained, they are allowed to handle the bread and wine, but a regular lay person cannot. In a real church it is not possible for a leader to not be a Christian. But the degraded system of Christianity has made this possible. This is because it is about promoting and building up the organization rather than the kingdom of God. For that reason they do not really care if the leaders are Christians or not. As long a they are qualified and experienced to lead a service it is acceptable for them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Social clubs - many churches are essentially just Christ-less social clubs. In my experience Bible studies were actually not about studying the bible but discussion about ones favorite movies in relation to some ethical or human consideration. Most of the discussion was nothing about God or the Bible.

In a Christ-less degraded church service, it is possible to attend a service and never hear the name of Christ mentioned once. It is possible to hear about many things about finance, miracles, healings, how to be a good husband or wife, but nothing about Christ.

I have also been in churches which hold meditation services, very similar to yoga meditation classes. It promotes tranquility and perhaps has some benefit to the soul but again, has nothing to do with Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christians not knowing how to pray or the basics of the Bible - only a degraded system could produce converts or church members who cannot pray or know the basics of the Bible. In many churches the things the members can do or not do is controlled by the pastor or priest. There is actually no freedom to pray in the middle of the service or speak or share a message from the Bible. Everything is controlled by the pastor or priest and order of service. A service cannot happen without the pastor or priest being present. This is a degraded situation.

I could go on with many other examples of the degraded system of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you described in James there is true religion. Lee did not really denigrate this term "religion". In fact, if you read LIFE-STUDY OF JOHN MESSAGE NINETEEN, Lee says that Judaism is the only real, genuine and true religion. Many Protestants would not speak so kindly about Judaism. Lee says that religion is good, but it is not the living person of Christ. It is on the basis of religion not being able to give life, that Lee speaks against it. It goes something like this - religion is good, but life is better. If we have life, then religion is a negative thing.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Normal for the Jews perhaps, not normal for God's church. Jesus did not desire any sort of clergy-laity structure in the church, all were equal in importance and function. The historical fact is that there was no clergy class in the early church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think that and I didn't say that. I said that Witness Lee defines religion as meaning that, but it doesn't mean that. Read the New Testament, the term is defined in the New Testament and it does not mean that.

According to James "religion pure and undefiled with the God and Father is this, to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation".

Now as you point out, according to Jesus "apart from Me you can do nothing".

Therefore a logical person would put these two together to say that the New Testament defines religion as a "looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation by being joined to Jesus as the vine in obedience to the Lord's command to love your neighbor as yourself".

It is very alarming to me that Witness Lee felt it necessary to denigrate this term.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, the New Testament talks about hierarchy that can be negative. You then conclude that it is not normal. But that is not supported by Matthew who also says "since they sit in Moses seat do all they say". Moses seat was set up by God. Since he was unable to care for the millions of people he set up a hierarchy. Try reading the Bible.

Peter also speaks of hierarchy:

5 Elders who [are] among you, I exhort, who [am] a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Christ, and of the glory about to be revealed a partaker,
2 feed the flock of God that [is] among you, overseeing not constrainedly, but willingly, neither for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind,
3 neither as exercising lordship over the heritages, but patterns becoming of the flock,
4 and at the manifestation of the chief Shepherd, ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory.

Elders are a form of hierarchy in a family.

Overseeing is contrasted with "lording it over". The proper function is to oversee, the distorted function is to "lord it over". A proper motive is out of a ready mind of one who is serving the Lord, an improper motive is for filthy lucre. An improper approach is to lord it over, a proper approach is to be a pattern to the flock.

But whether it is proper or improper, it is still organization and hierarchy.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hierarchy is also mentioned in Matthew 23:9 and

Matthew 20:25 "But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them."

So the fellowship of the apostles, no, the words of Christ Himself, tells me that hierarchy is not normal.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you think we can do things for God without God, makes me wonder why God gave us the Holy Spirit, and spiritual gifts etc. And why Jesus said:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee defines religion as anything that we do for God apart from God. I reject this definition as not Biblical. It is very clear from the fellowship of the Apostles that this is not a valid definition.

So, no, I disagree with your assertion. Prove it from the fellowship of the Apostles. Witness Lee's books can be referenced by you all you wish, but the ultimate authority in my opinion, and Witness Lee's opinion, is the fellowship of the apostles.



Once again, you can reference Watchman Nee books if you please, but I will only acknowledge the authority of the apostle's fellowship on this topic.

I find the reference to "hierarchical" and "organized" idiotic. The New Testament provides a lot of discussion on the organization of the church. The idea that "hierarchical" is equivalent to "degraded" is based on a very poor assumption that the term "nicolaitan" refers to a hierarchy that stifles the function of the members of the Body. That is a very poor and self serving example of biblical interpretation. No verse is of its own interpretation, particularly when you have an undefined term that you define a certain way because that is what you want it to mean. Even the term "the body of Christ" implies organization. Our body is highly organized. All life forms are organized. I consider Witness Lee's use of this to be very hypocritical. He condemns all Christian organizations as being "organized" hence degraded. Yet he himself was the head of a very big organization and he put his profligate son in charge of a Christian ministry even though he was well aware of how degraded he was. He condemned seminary and then set up his own seminary. His condemnation was merely self justification.

I also find the term "not normal" to be "not useful". The record in the New Testament is very clear, what we see in all forms of Christian meetings is in fact what has been accurately described with great detail in the New Testament. Therefore it is "typical", it is "expected", it is "anticipated", and it appears to be "necessary". Is it normal for a child to get measles or mumps? It is typical, it is common, and it may be necessary to develop immunity either by getting the childhood disease or by getting a vaccination. But the word "normal" may not apply. Therefore I feel this term is not helpful in understanding this issue.

What you refer to as "degraded Christianity" I see as something that Christians need to experience and overcome to grow into full maturity. You cannot overcome these things if you do not experience them, just as you cannot develop immunity to the mumps unless you experience it, either by being exposed to the disease or to a vaccine. In my understanding the reference to "false prophets", "heresies", "false teachers", all refer to these necessary diseases that we must overcome. Jezebel and Balaam are examples. The teaching of the Nicolaitans is an example. The Judaizers were an example. James is an example of someone who was exposed to this disease, developed immunity to it, overcame it, and then his ministry was a vaccination for the Body of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, to get to the heart of the matter, we should consider these questions:

What is Christianity?

Christianity is a religion comprising 20,000+ denominations.

Did God start Christianity? No, men did. Men start religions, God started His church. Good reference here is "Christ versus Religion - by Witness Lee".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What does degradation mean?

Degradation basically means not normal. Watchman Nee wrote what is a normal church in his normal church life books.

A degraded system -referring mostly to the organized hierarchical church.
clergy/laity distinctions, cathedrals etc.

Does a church have to build a cathedral and have a priest to be degraded? No - any church which has one church leader and no functioning members is essentially degraded.

Degradation means loss of function. If your body's arm stops working you could say the arm is degraded, it cannot function as an arm. The same with the body of Christ.

Degraded Christianity locked up the Bible for hundreds of years, and was released through Luther and others.

Lee holds a view that the church become degraded from the second century.

Is it true?

History would say yes. The degraded system was in place for hundreds of years soon after Constantine made Christianity a state religion.

Is Christianity degraded today?
If we include Roman Catholicism in Christianity, the answer is an obvious yes.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On this forum Witness Lee's disparaging remarks concerning Christianity have been quoted and rebuked repeatedly. Therefore it is only fair and reasonable that those of us who have taken issue with Witness Lee on this point respond to this question. What say ye?