Originally Posted by aron

I believe that poster 'awareness' noted this about Ruth Lee, sourced from Dana Roberts' biography.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

How did you find this out? just curious as I never heard tthis. But I never knew W Lee was twice married either

Originally Posted by aron

Ruth Lee apparently became an atheist when she realized Watchman Nee was a fallen human being like any other, with human frailty and foibles.

Originally Posted by Igzy

It all comes down to: Does your leader seem like your servant, or like your lord? If he seems like your lord, he is not a biblical leader.

Originally Posted by aron

The connection between Watchman Nee, the Latter Rain and New Apostolic Reformation is probably stronger than most realize.

Here is a link to a website that points out the connection.

https://coveringandauthority.com/?fb...aRBmORYX8A_3Mk

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

EXCELLENT insight and info!!! Thanks!

Originally Posted by Jo S

The Lord's Recovery movement's main inertia comes from Dominionism or Kingdom Now theology.

This is a heretical and non scriptural teaching turns Christ's 2nd coming into a works based effort where taking every city for God and establishing a Local Church in each one is a requirement before he returns. Kingdom Now theology exalts man and makes God dependent on man and his faith in order for God to accomplish His will. God’s rule is diminished and His sovereignty is attacked.

People that adhere to this theology view themselves as the end-time army for God with the command to take dominion over three areas; 1) societal, 2) economic, and 3) religious spheres. The Local Churches fall into the third category.

Here's a website explaining Kingdom Now theology which is also a popular belief among charismatic faiths;

https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-now.html

Originally Posted by Ohio

From a small child I was indoctrinated with this evil, called the "infallibility of the Pope." It was never questioned. Endless modifications of this same theme have been used to deceive God's children for centuries.

Originally Posted by aron

The New Apostle side-steps this with a special Untouchable status.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I agree that signs alone don't validate an apostle. But to me they are a minimum requirement. A following means little. Anyone ruthless enough can come up with a way to get a following. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

Originally Posted by aron

But guess what - there are plenty of dupes out there, unfortunately. I was one. A mass of followers doesn't validate an apostle. Neither do signs.

Originally Posted by aron

No matter how many 'signs' and 'proofs' one exhibits of being a Jesus-follower, even a possibly great one (a "spiritual giant" in LC terms), ultimately one's place is given by God at the end, and not by man today. If it's given by people then sin will at some point interpose itself, and we'll see the result: corruption. A Todd Bentley or a Ted Haggard sins, or David Yonggi Cho or Witness Lee son sins, and then what happens to our NA sand castle? It's ruined.

Originally Posted by aron

Now, the "New Apostle" (NA) comes along, thinking that they're the apostolic channel of God's will on earth, and convinces others to subsume their will to theirs.

Originally Posted by aron

Considering the prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven" - Jesus taught that there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19). In heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed New Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the New Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

Originally Posted by boa2014

have anyone heard of the international house of prayer? Living in Kansas, this is huge and I am pretty sure most Christians know about it. I wonder if anyone feels like in some ways ihop is similar to the local church.

Mike Bickle, the founder, focuses much on the book of Song of Songs and the book of Revelation. Lots of college students join the internship (which is ~ the training) and it has a strict schedule. It is a one-man ministry. And, pray-reading is widely encouraged throughout the movement. Also they believe the Lord will not come back until they make their prayer movement a global, international movement. They also stress the need of "forerunners" for Christ before He returns, which is similar of being "overcomers" in LC. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Correct me if I'm wrong but most of you, even though you've protested and left the LC's, still think it is/was something small and unique. I just don't see that and that's what I'm trying to show here so you all don't feel so small.

Originally Posted by aron

They do it a LOT overseas. What they did to the house churches of Nee that survived decades of Communist rule is well-documented. And Jane Anderson has a testimony from India on her site. And look at Ethiopia...

Originally Posted by Igzy

They used to do that if there was a group meeting as the church in the city they wanted to migrate to. I don't think they ever bother with that anymore.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I was under the impression that the LC's also use the practice of supplanting existing churches.

Originally Posted by seeking1

Though I do see some similarities, like incorrect use of the office of Apostle and the idea of an elite group of remnant believers that will bring the Lord back, they differ in a lot of ways. The LR is an exclusive group that looks down on mainstream Christianity as poor and degraded. While the NAR has been mingling (yes, I'm using mingling) itself with mainstream Christianity and has even gained the endorsement of seemingly legit teacher's like Francis Chan, as mentioned in another thread.

Originally Posted by seeking1

In my opinion, what is going on in the LC's is small potatoes compared to what is going on in the Latter Rain/NAR Churches. Just watch this Youtube video on Todd Bentley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDEsXVUQeLo&t=6s then watch this Youtube video of these "Apostles" C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner, Bill Johnson et al, public laying hands on Todd Bentley to endorse his ministry. It Is Nuts.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I suppose my point in this thread was that the Lord's Recovery was never really "new ground" to begin with. Same ground different outgrowth. It's just that members of the LR aren't aware of all the other movements that have happened and are continuing to take place within post denominationalism. Could it be a case of ignorance is bliss? I'll let you be the judge.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I suppose my point in this thread was that the Lord's Recovery was never really "new ground" to begin with. Same ground different outgrowth. It's just that members of the LR aren't aware of all the other movements that have happened and are continuing to take place within post denominationalism. Could it be a case of ignorance is bliss? I'll let you be the judge.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's nothing wrong with wanting to break new ground in following the Lord, and be humbly thankful for any blessings he bestows in that. But is that enough for them? No-ooo! They have to be THE new ground. They have to be the sole recovering move of the Lord, so they can be special and look down their noses at everyone else.

It's human nature, and certainly not the new creation.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jo S, Hi. Do you mean the NAR is a kindred spirit of the LR, or that it has an official association with it? I can believe the former, but the LR is not going to share the stage with anyone. If anything defines the LR, it's that they and they alone are the be all and end all.

The characteristics of extreme and abusive religious groups are common among them. Usually they are based in ideas of unique mission, superior doctrine and vision, and self-assumed, overbearing spiritual authority. Starting from there, whole labyrinths of abusive practices can develop, which are common to the groups--essentially rooted in the compromise of the individual conscience.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Would you rather Lee have been better fit to lead then? Would that have made things better or worse?

Originally Posted by aron

The inability of Bentley and Haggert to control their appetites, and the inability of Cho and Lee to control those of their progeny, indicated their lack of fitness to lead. Yet they were allowed to re-write the Bible to give themselves control. Why?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Another good article talking about the New Apostolic Reformation and their "local church" agenda.

https://churchwatchcentral.com/2018/...ch-government/

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So what's the problem with Christian idealogy (any oxymoron by the way) dominating society anyway? I think most Christians would like that.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just said it; to "seize". Your argument actually validates mine. Here is the definition of seize;

seize
sēz/Submit
verb
1.
take hold of suddenly and forcibly.

To usurp is to forcefully take hold of. This is not what took place in the garden yet it is a term used by Lee and other dominionist movements to appeal to people's emotions.

Satan didn't "take" anything. Through deception he subjected man to himself through sin. So if man was slave to sin how is it that they continued to be masters over creation? Humans as well became slaves to creation because Genesis 3:19 then said after the fall;

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This no longer sound as if they we have mastery or dominion over the earth but rather became slaves to creation.

Originally Posted by Jo S

He also said at the end of Revelation 22:7, "Look, I am coming soon". Christ said this from heaven and remember with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God still does all the work even if he uses our "feet". And this will all occur after the millennial reign, not before like the LC envisions it happening.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just validated my thread. You are by definition a dominionist, Evangelical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The meaning of the word usurp is not "take by force", and so the rest of your assertions are also wrong which are based on this wrong meaning about force.

I know you don't like external references but I must refer to a dictionary because your definitions are so wrong:

Usurp was borrowed into English in the 14th century from the Anglo-French word usorper, which in turn derives from the Latin verb usurpare, meaning "to take possession of without a legal claim." Usurpare itself was formed by combining usu (a form of usus, meaning "use") and rapere ("to seize").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

Take possession of without a legal claim can be by force but it can also be by deception. For example Jacob is also known as a usurper but there was no force, just deception.

Originally Posted by Jo S

"Usurp" means to take by force. The purpose of using this specific word by these movements (Witness Lee also chose to use this term) is to provoke an emotional response as a type of rally cry.

Satan didn't force Eve to take the fruit, she willfully sinned just as Esau willfully gave up his inheritance. He didn't take dominion, it was lost through sin.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The "God of peace" will defeat Satan after his coming and after the millennial reign (Revelation 20), and not a pre-tribulation pre-raptured global church formed by MOTA'S or any other man. The LC looks to restore and organize Christianity in a one church per city model before Christ's coming. This won't happen because it's not scripture. If it does happen, it's not Jesus Christ's church. It's Anti-Christ's.

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is not written so why even consider this hypothetical? This scripturally unsupported mentality is where dominionism comes from. A need to dominate society absolutely through Christian ideology.

The commission given to God's people is to spread the gospel. Good works flow from that but a systematic organization of the church is not one of those works given to the Christians in scripture and it is not a work of ours that will defeat the works of Satan, that is a job for Christ's alone. (1 John 3:8).

Originally Posted by Jo S

I always find myself having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this topic because it's just so easy to get lost in all the terminology, isn't it? I understand the more mainstream view of dominion theology is Christian nationalism but that's not what I'm talking about here. The type of dominionism I'm referring to is along the lines of church restoration and apostolic reformation. Here is the basis for the type of theology I'm talking about;

-Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

These three unscriptural beliefs are essentially the foundation of all dominion theology with the last one having the potential of focus, rather on just church reform, shifted to the political and social realms as well.

I believe all these types of dominionism are occurring simultaneously throughout a good portion of Christianity in one form or another (denomination or not) with the LC focused more on the restoration of the church to it's own exclusive extra biblical revelation of one church one city pattern of organization.

The belief that the members of the LC make up the only true church and all the rest of Christianity is apostate "Babylon" means that by having an LC in every city is having the ambition of bringing all Christians throughout the entire earth under the umbrella of the Local Churches by geographical city wide congregations. Essentially desiring to "dominate" Christendom and define Christianity by their ideology through their MOTA'S unique interpretation of scripture. They're not doing a great job at this because the LC is hardly known within Christianity but this is the driving force of it's organization from my understanding.

I also personally know that members of the LC branch which was quarantined view their leader as an apostle with unique revelation and rely solely on his guidance. This was from their own words. I assume the same was with Witness Lee. This is the mindset that comes straight out of movements like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Kingdom Now, Latter Rain ect which is the type of dominionism I'm referring to.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Let me know your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe that is correct. Satan usurped by deceiving man, rather than "God transferred ownership because man sinned". I am not sure other interpretations are possible.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

Originally Posted by Jo S

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

Originally Posted by Jo S

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Jo S, I think we need to define dominion theology. Example, is dominion theology the Rushdoony type, and Theonomy type?

Like I stated, I'm not familiar with Latter Rain. What type of dominion theology do they embrace?

Originally Posted by Jo S

I welcome your input, Awareness and I'm always up for a challenge, Evangelical.

I wonder if there's anyone else on the forum that would like to share their thoughts on the topic of dominion theology found within the LC's one city one church teaching.

Do you believe it applies or not? Or if you don't have an opinion either way, have you heard this comparison being made before?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Originally Posted by awareness

So now you're comparing Lee to Jesus. Okay. Why not chant Lord Changshou then, instead of Lord Jesus?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I wrote "Educate yourself about". You are talking about "Educate yourself with".

If someone is going to be make claims about Lee's teachings, they should first educate themselves about what he taught before posting unfounded allegations. To not do that would be called ignorance.

If you want to talk about "Why learn from somebody that has no degrees in anything? ", then perhaps ask Jo S that question, as they made it quite clear that Jesus who had no degrees, teaches them everything, and have no need for Lee, CARM, or Gill or other bible scholars, or even this forum.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If Nee and Lee taught that salvation does not come freely by God's grace and that overcoming the world comes by works like praying or reading scripture or setting up a one church per city model like the Latter Rain Pentecostals taught and not by faith (1 John 5:4-5), they taught wrong.

)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know the difference between faith and works. You are preaching to the converted, not a Catholic. Both Nee and Lee taught that it is a mistake to think that salvation comes to us freely while overcoming comes as a result of our own effort.

See Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 24: The Overcoming Life by Watchman Nee

I can provide other ministry material references if you like.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is nonsense because the local churches achieve this by "as the Lord leads".

And on what authority do you say it is heretical other than your own?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Hebrews 11:16 "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city."

God has already prepared us a new body and a heavenly city (the bride). Do you believe this?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Believing it will take some sort of concerted work or effort by Christians, as in the LC's doctrine of locality along with the "bride of Christ" doctrine, to bring about the second coming of Christ is a form of Christian dominionism and it is a heretical belief. The problem is this inadvertently denies the finished work on the cross and God's sovereignty in the ability to establish his own church.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you believe you can overcome the works of Satan by denying the flesh/world, then all the ascetics of all the world's religions have one up on you. This was the mentality of the Pharisees. They fasted twice a week thinking that righteousness came through this type of denial of the flesh. They too thought they were overcoming the world through these types of things.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Christians overcome through Christ's obedience and through his completed work on the cross and not by any works of our own, only faith. Can works accompany faith? Of course but our efforts, like setting up LC's in every city, do not and will not defeat the works of Satan. That is a work left to Christ alone (1 John 3:8).

By your own words you as an "overcomers" believe you will overcome the works of Satan when scripture teaches that Christ is the one that came to destroy Satan's works (1 John 3:8).

Overcoming and our works have no correlation. Overcoming is achieved only by faith in Christ's finished work.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The issue is that Lee's solution to "overcoming" is denying or coming out of denominations and setting up LC's in every city across the globe. This is a concerted works based system meant to bringing about Christ's return and is dominionist in nature. This teaching can also be found in the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement.

The LC's extra-biblical revelation goes that "one church one city" will be the model for Christians before the return of Christ. This reality being a sort of preparation of the "bride". This is where the doctrine of the "bride of Christ" being the church then comes into play. This is all rooted in charismania.

Isn't that what you are doing?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your broad sweeping generalization of Lee's theology under the broad spectrum of dominionism is not a straw man?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Not exactly but by you defining all segments of Dominion theology by using this definition you are setting up a strawman. Lee's teachings do share this characteristic of the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement which is also considered dominionism;

"The Latter Rain taught that God saw the church organized not into denominational camps, but along geographical lines. They expected that in the coming last days, the various Christian denominations would dissolve, and the true church would coalesce into citywide churches under the leadership of the newly-restored apostles and prophets."

Originally Posted by Jo S

Again, Christian dominionism covers of broad spectrum of thought. The main premise being that certain preparations need to be made by Christians on earth in order to usher in Christ's return whether that be in the political, cultural, or religious spheres or all of the above.

Originally Posted by awareness

To me what's disturbing about Christian Dominionism is their desire to bring back Old Testament punishments, like stoning, and all the rest of that dreadful law in the OT.

I don't see the recovery wanting that, not here in America, where our constitution disallows a theocracy, with separation of church and state.

However, offshoots of Lee, like Eastern Lightning, do seem to be Dominionists, and are linked to kidnappings, violence and extortion. So Lee's movement could morph into God knows what ; like becoming a doomsday cult. That's not a far leap. With Witness Lee as their personality cult leader, even while dead, they've got a good start on it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does merely establishing a church in every city fit this definition of dominionism?

Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understandings of biblical law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

If so then every denomination is part of dominionism. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Baptist etc.

To my knowledge Lee had no interest in politics and governing any nation with Christians. Roman Catholicism on the other hand....

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it's nothing to do with eternal salvation then what is the real problem with works again? If it doesn't affect salvation then overcoming by works is a non-issue. It is no different to saying "I will show you my faith by my works". You seem to be saying that overcoming does not require effort on our part, you seem to ignore man's responsibility which seems ultra-Calvinistic.

Originally Posted by awareness

What's nonsense is thinking that we need to educate ourselves with Lee's teachings at all. There's no reason whatsoever to do that. There's many better teachers available to us.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is nonsense and unfounded allegations. Please educate yourself about Lee's teachings first,

Originally Posted by Jo S

The body being the "bride" doctrine and believing certain overcomers will restore what Satan usurped from God are justifications for dominionism, not necessarily evidence.

The extra-biblical belief that Christians need to be organized in a one church per city model is the evidence.

This meant Lee had the great ambition to have an LC in every city on the entire planet. If that's not dominionism then I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The body being the "bride" doctrine and believing certain overcomers will restore what Satan usurped from God are justifications for dominionism, not necessarily evidence.

The extra-biblical belief that Christians need to be organized in a one church per city model is the evidence.

This meant Lee had the great ambition to have an LC in every city on the entire planet. If that's not dominionism then I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Where did I accuse him of that? I'm arguing he teaches a 2nd coming based on works aka dominionism. I never brought up the issue of eternal salvation. Freudian slip?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This would be the first time, to my recollection, on this forum or elsewhere, that Lee would be accused of teaching salvation by works.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Lee's version of overcoming is one that's motivated by setting Satan up as a boogeyman yet to be defeated rather than overcoming through faith in Christ's work knowing Satan has already been defeated on the cross. My bible says we overcome through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:11) and not through an ideal.

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Jo S, I hate to tell you this, but ... if all you got to relate the Recovery to Christian Dominionism is the preparation of the bride for the return of the bridegroom, and that to you is Dominionism, then Christianity is covered up with Dominionism.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is mostly nonsense. You just post wild assertions with no factual basis. For example how do you explain that these movements arose in the 80s well after Lee taught his teachings. And there are key differences such as level of involvement and interest in politics and social work and beliefs about the rapture.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Theocracy? I don't think so but if you have a link to this 10 year scheme I'd like to read into it.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Theocracy? I don't think so but if you have a link to this 10 year scheme I'd like to read into it.

Rather, his theology seems to be in line with Kingdom Now thought which could be an explanation for the effort behind the LC's worldwide church growth.

Kingdom Now is a type of spiritual dominionism which teaches that Christianity has to be setup a certain way in order to usher in Christ's return to earth.

In the case of the LC, Christianity has to be organized in a one church per city model believed to be shown in Revelation. This ideal would be considered a sort of preparatory stage of the "bride" and precursor to Christ's second coming.

It's also a theology many Christian leaders use on the basis of an emotional appeal to justify personal ambition, IMO. It starts with the mindset that Satan forcefully took the dominion that belonged to God so now we as God's "overcomers" have to take it back. Essentially this is setting up Satan as a scapegoat for a leaders own ambition for church growth in their own name.

From Lee's belief that the body of believers are the "bride" with a need as the bride to get ourselves ready for Christ to believing Satan usurped God's dominion of the earth in which "overcomers" will eventually defeat him leads to a works based religion fueled by man's own efforts that, perhaps inadvertently, ignores God's sovereignty and the work already accomplished on the cross.

Originally Posted by awareness

I've read that at one point Lee had a scheme where he thought the local churches would take over the whole world in 10 years.

Are you saying Lee wanted to set up a theocracy?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Christ commands us Christians to only call him teacher (Matthew 23:8)

Also, God through David says in Psalms 146:3;

"Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save"

Therefore calling Christ my only teacher and final authority on truth is scripture.

Aren't you a Christian? I'm not looking for your "I's" or anyone else's "I's". What has Christ revealed to you personally from scripture? Can't you just speak the truth for once?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you could specify how many "I's" you would like me to use in my post, so I can get the balance of personal/impersonal right? How many ? 10, 20? 1? Unless you are willing to consult scholarly sources then aren't you just being willfully ignorant? I don't call that being "taught by Christ" I call that willful ignorance. By definition: Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. So the "Christ" that you say is teaching you is probably just your own inner model of reality. Instead, Christ's teaching comes by improving our own inner models of reality with external evidence. This is why God gifted the church with teachers, and to say "Christ should be your only teacher" is also to deny the role of parents as teachers in a family.

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is exactly what appealing to authority is. My point is I'd rather hear your own thoughts, the thoughts that stay with you according to your own study of scripture rather than someone else's views. Otherwise it all seems a bit too impersonal if you know what I mean. As a Christian, scholars aren't an authority for me. If you claim to be a Christian, Christ should be your only teacher. You should not look to any man to dictate truth for you.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The question wasn't whether the LC's teaching came from any other theology. I was noting the similarities between them and potential influence. The question was whether LC is dominionist or not and judging by your comments you freely admit to it then, correct?.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jo I'm taking an intellectual approach to this topic. I am not good for discussing thoughts and opinions over a cup of tea, maybe others are. I don't post links or appeal to authorities to argue. To argue, in my view, would be to do the opposite (ignore credible evidence, argue ill-formed opinions only). I do that because I don't think we can arrive at the truth of the matter by being ignorant (of CARM, Gill, Ellicott etc). At least, I can show that my opinion is informed by others who have some credibility.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Evangelical, in the future if you decide to commit yourself to a certain position then finish in your own words rather than always deferring to links or appealing to authorities. It just shows you really just look to out argue an opponent rather than getting to the truth of the matter. Pigeon chess comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The transfer of dominion from man to Satan is not really taught in Scripture.

This CARM article explains why and includes scripture that teaches the dominion has always belonged to God:

https://carm.org/adam-fall-dominion

Originally Posted by Jo S

Biblical dominion was a command according to God's will. Before the fall, humans and creation were both still under his will. That's why I say dominion is cooperation between ruler (being God through man) and subject (being the land and animals).

After the fall, Genesis 9 states that creation is now subject to terror and fear which confirms the transfer of dominion from man over to Satan. Dominion is taught after the fall, but it is no longer ours in accordance with God's original intent.

Scripture teaches that all powers on earth are established by God. So yes in order for someone to have dominion over people, those people will have to be in willful cooperation to the established power, in the case of Satan it is a cooperation through sin. This is scripture.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you just making this up as you go? Your meaning of dominion is plain wrong according to any English dictionary.

Dominion means to govern and rule.

It does not require willful cooperation between ruler and subject. You seem to have just added that meaning so you could form your argument.

Originally Posted by Jo S

This verse does not teach dominion. Dominion means to govern and rule which would require willful cooperation between ruler and subject.

God is stating here in Genesis 9:1 that from now on we aren't going to rule over creation as per God's original will before the fall. But because of the fall, now creation is subject to fear and terror introduced through sin.

Genesis 9:1 is declaring subjugation rather than declaring a right to dominion. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dominion is also here in Genesis 9:1

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is after the fall, so obviously dominion was not forfeited by sin.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Dominion is the relationship between man and the earth. Marriage is the relationship between man and women. Scripture says that Satan is the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and not the god of man so you're argument fails by equating these two types of relationships. Marriage is further taught in scripture, dominion is not. Dominion implies mastery over creation. Genesis states that after the fall, man will "eat bread by the sweat of your brow". Does this sound like mastery or slavery?

Either way the type of dominion I'm talking about is religious/political dominion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Genesis 1:28 , there are two commands.
1) be fruitful and multiply - this is by marriage.
2) fill the earth and subdue it - this is achieved primarily by being fruitful and multiplying.

If dominion was forfeited by sin, then marriage would be also. Since there is no indication that marriage was forfeited by sin, I think we can conclude that dominion is not forfeited either.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Wouldn't the whole concept of the Lord having a latter day "recovery" of the Church before the 2nd coming be extra-biblical in itself?

You say don't confuse correlation with causation. Doesn't Paul ask rhetorically, "What relationship does light have with darkness?" Either doctrine is rooted in God's truth or it's a lie. Both predate any official position, denominational or not.

I see God's original intent was for us to have dominion over the land and animals in Genesis but where does scripture teach this kind of dominion after the fall? Isn't it more reasonable to assume this privilege was forfeit by sin? Dominionism is the belief that we are to reclaim that responsibility before the Lord's coming. This doctrine would be considered extra-biblical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its quite different. Pentecostalism gets into extra biblical things. Prophecy in the local churches is more or less expounding biblical truth already known. I think both groups found some biblical truth independently of each other. Eg dominion is biblical. Dont confuse correlation with causation.