Local Church Discussions - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

11-17-2011 09:02 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Dear Ohio,

Yes, that clears up the misunderstanding and confusion. Thank you.

Cassidy

Great. Now let me try to clear up the "misunderstanding and confusion" with our beloved moderator. Methinks his popcorn is laced with preservatives and msg.

11-17-2011 08:28 AM

Cassidy

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Cassidy,

I hope I am following your thought here. Going back to #8, if that is indeed one of your posts, you cited Rom 5.10, "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." I love that verse. The Lord's death has saved us, and here the Lord's life saves us ... "much more."

Having spent many wonderful years in the Recovery, I also appreciated the emphasis on "life," that is the divine life, the eternal life of God, which has regenerated us unto a living hope. I hope you don't think that I have in any way disparaged that wonderful truth in the scriptures. Sorry if there was confusion there.

What bothered me, and other former members also, is the first part of the phrase, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life." This phrase opens the door for a tremendous difference in understanding. What one person thinks is referred to by the phrase "right or wrong," is completely different from what another person considers "right or wrong" is referring to.

Here's a mild example of how this phrase was misused. I have been with brothers who justified speeding, while driving to the meetings by saying "I go for life." In other words, the rules don't apply to us when we are serving the Lord. Once we start down this slippery slope, it's just a matter of time before someone begins to justify serious crimes in the service of God ... and this has happened far too often in the Recovery.

I hope this helps to clear up the misunderstanding.

Dear Ohio,

Yes, that clears up the misunderstanding and confusion. Thank you.

Cassidy

11-17-2011 07:40 AM

UntoHim

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

You're right Ohio, I was just checking to see if you guys were paying attention.

Carry on. :justlurking:

11-17-2011 07:11 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys, here's the opening post by Igzy again. Let's get back on track.

Once again, I'm not understanding how my post to Cassidy was off topic, but OBW's and Igzy's posts were on topic.

We cannot address WL's teachings about transformation unless we also discuss his teachings about "life," which we are now doing. Along with the discussion about "life," we must address errors which exemplify the bad fruit of that extreme teaching, don't we?

Cassidy brought up Romans 5.10 which was a hallmark to WL's later ministry, just as I Cor 15.45 was to his earlier ministry.

How about relaxing the boundaries boss? I thought Igzy was cool with the conversation so far.

11-17-2011 06:52 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

I've read the Bible a lot and I have not found one verse than warns against doing good works in the natural man. Not one. Yet Lee and the LRC obsessed about this kind of thing all the time.

They were simply out of sync with the Bible.

11-17-2011 06:29 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is just one of the many proofs that Lee missed the point of transformation. It is not an outside force (even if we say it is in our spirit) simply working on us. It is the result of us working with the mighty hand of God.

One way the point was missed is how the LRC became exceedingly suspicious of "good works done by the natural man." One example of this was the story as described in Jane Anderson's book of the elder who came home from a meeting to find his sick wife washing the dishes. (I knew both of them, BTW). He didn't offer to help her and later when their marriage collapsed she asked him why he didn't help her that night. He answered that "he wasn't sure doing so would be in life," or something like that.

So this elder didn't help his sick wife with the dishes because he wasn't sure that "life" was doing that. The Bible says to nourish and cherish your wife, not to do abstain from doing it because your faulty spiritual registrations makes you wonder whether you should. If nourish and cherish doesn't mean helping someone who is sick what can it mean!?

This was the mentality that Lee's ministry produced. A mentality that puts spirituality before decency. Which explains a lot of LRC and LSM behavior.

11-17-2011 05:13 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I interpreted OBW's "fortune cookie gospel" characterization of the truth (#10) that we are saved in His life as a statement of disagreement.

I don't think you understand my comment about "cookie cutter gospel" or those of others who take on the kind of things that Lee taught.

When I refer to a cookie cutter gospel, I am referring to the finding of words in a phrase (or sentence), tearing it from its context, and making significant statements of alleged doctrinal importance when those words, placed back in context, are saying something entirely different. An example is Paul's discussion with the Corinthians concerning the nature of the resurrected body that they would receive. The only meaningful example was the recorded observations of the resurrected Christ. So he used that. The discussion was in no way about the nature of the Trinity. But in the middle of it, Paul is alleged to have had a "look! shiny!" moment and declared that Jesus became the Holy Spirit, then just returned the discussion about the resurrected body. I very recently heard the man who wrote The Prayer of Jabez speak. He was actually a pretty good speaker, and fairly sound theologically. But that little book tends to suggest that the example of a prayer by an otherwise unknown person in the OT that was answered means that all we have to do it pray like that and we better watch out because the prayer will come true. Scripture makes no such claim. But he did.

In this case, it is very true that we are saved in His life. But Lee said "Stop! Look no further! We only need his life! We need do nothing!" But if you look at the rest of the letter to the Romans, it seems that there is more than "just life." We have to do something with it. We have to hunger and thirst for righteousness, not just bask in "life." We ultimately must agree with "life" and set our minds according to it. We must step out in the faith that the "life" is going to work in us, so we walk according to it. We don't bask in it and one day discover that we just automatically act righteously.

In fact, all evidence is that those who simply bask and presume that life will take care of everything discover that nothing changes. Yes, there are the testimonies of some who put their faith in Christ and are immediately and permanently freed from alcoholism or drug addictions. But most do not experience that. And it isn't about lack of faith. It is that we mostly become what we set our minds to do, and then practice doing. There is the exceptional pianist who claims to have simply sat down at a piano at age 4 for the first time and began to play and quickly became a prodigy. But most start with difficultly and fits of despair that they will ever play, but with years and years of practice become equally exceptional.

Change can be instantaneous, brought on by an outside force. Or, like medicine, it can be brought on by a healing force added to a body that must be fed and exercised to return to its intended condition. Yes, God does heal a few miraculously. But he mostly allows us to work through our difficulties as he provides the support and will to do what we must do.

Lee denied that we do anything. I may be forgetting what I read several years ago now, but I think I recall that when he came to Romans 8, he pretty much blew right by walking by the Spirit. It suggested that we actually do something, not just take in dispensing. No. He didn't skip it altogether. But I'm pretty sure that he didn't say a lot about it. Just moved on to the next thing he wanted to major in.

We absolutely are saved in His life. But that is not a fact to the exclusion of all other statements about our salvation, sanctification, etc. It is a part of the whole. But Lee would raise it to the level of "this is it . . . . Look no further." If we do not have His life, then there is nothing for us to set our minds on and walk according to. But if we fail to set our minds and walk, it isn't much better. Maybe a little. We can remain spiritual infants forever. And despite all the claims of spiritual superiority, the kind of theology Lee pushed convinced too many to remain spiritual babies, at least in terms of doing the hard work of sanctification.

And this is just one of the many proofs that Lee missed the point of transformation. It is not an outside force (even if we say it is in our spirit) simply working on us. It is the result of us working with the mighty hand of God.

11-16-2011 06:24 PM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Untohim,

I interpreted OBW's "fortune cookie gospel" characterization of the truth (#10) that we are saved in His life as a statement of disagreement. Nevertheless, for sake of argument I'll concede the point and modify my statement to:

"Some said they agree but quickly gravitated to the argument that PL or WL taught that we only need to care for life so they could cover up sin for example. Thereby, diminishing or dismissing that truth."

Regardless of the starting point on any particular topic of the truth the conversations eventually end up in the same place as may be seen in posts 11, 16, 17, 18, 26, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 60, 61, 64, and 65 in this thread.

Cassidy

11-16-2011 02:50 PM

Cassidy

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry, can't let you just slide by with this one. Please point us to the exact post where somebody disagreed that "after the believers have been justified by faith they are saved in His life". I'll deal with this issue IF and when you can point me to the exact post.

11-16-2011 07:14 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible tells us to test all things, and to prove by testing. It also instructs us to try the apostles. WL made many claims for himself. Should not we examine these claims and his teachings? Good healthy teachings will always be received by the body of Christ. There are many teachings by WL that have never been rejected because they are scriptural truths.

This deserves emphasis.

11-16-2011 06:46 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

The fact is much of what Lee taught was just his opinion, particularly the elders trainings. But his loyal followers treated it as ipso facto truth simply because he, WL, said it. In other words, acceptance of it was based on the man WL.

That being the case, his character, motives and acts are certainly relevant when attempting to find some balance on just which parts of what he taught are acceptable and which should be disregarded.

11-16-2011 06:28 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I say scriptural truths should stand on their own merits based on the Bible and if they are believed or not then that is up the individual, but these thematic arguments about PL's sins , BB's, Titus Chu, and WL' motives are not relevant when evaluating these and other truths.

But they are relevant when evaluating WL's unique spin on the Bible.

And as I've said because of his highly questionable behavior those things he taught which are non-orthodox should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

His local ground teaching is a case in point. It was plainly used by him to legitimize his movement while de-legitimizing every other Christian group on earth. His goal was a kind of oneness, but it was not the oneness of the Spirit. It was the oneness of his movement, called the Recovery.

He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt that he was truly for oneness in the Body. Ultimately his behavior undermined what he was trying to accomplish. Some might think that's a shame, but it might also have been justice.

Only a fool would toss out justification by faith because WL taught it. But those things he taught which are unorthodox must be taken on a case by case basis, and his character certainly is relevant when giving or denying them weight.

11-16-2011 06:13 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Very tragic and underscores my point, Ohio. Do you think they will have an excuse for denying the Lord? An unbeliever will not get a pass for the failings of another. You believe that don't you? Any excuse you attempt to make on their behalf will not benefit them, anyone who reads it, nor you.

The issue is not whether some have been given an "excuse" to deny the Lord. The issue is to determine what happened to cause legitimate believers to reach the point of denying the Lord.

It is the opinion of some on this board that WL, LSM, the BBs and other LRC leaders bear much of the blame. By their unrighteous acts, their heavy-handed leadership, their exclusive claims, and so forth.

If that is true, then it is incumbent on us to bring to light their mistakes and learn from them.

That's what this board is about.

11-16-2011 05:23 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The reasons most often cited in this forum for unbelief are about the sins of PL or the alleged power needs of Witness Lee/BB's while noticeably lacking a thorough scriptural study of the truth on its own merits. You say something taught by WL is not scriptural but then in the same breath (the same sentence as in above) you retreat to the comfort zone of your peer group finding fault and blaming others as your primary reason. That is exactly what I mean by allowing the sins and failings of others to color your understanding of the Bible.

At the end of the day you will believe what you believe and laying the responsibility for your beliefs at the feet of PL is the real tragedy at best.

You are correct that it does seem that so much of the problem stems from PL and all the unrighteousness that surrounded him. But that is a mistake. The problems were there without PL. There was unrighteousness over most of Lee's life, especially once he got out of China to Taiwan. His actions scream "beware!"

But without looking at even one of those things that Paul would have insisted proved Lee's unworthiness to be any kind of teacher, there are the teachings themselves. Teachings that major on the minors. Or window dress with results that do not have the underpinnings of what he would insist was "reality." He insisted that the truth (the "reality") would set you free, but didn't bother noting that obedience was a precursor to truth/reality. And it would seem that he despised that precursor because he despised the epistle that focused on obedience and righteousness and dared to suggest that your couldn't have spirituality without it.

But Lee despised the path to truth. He wanted to skip the path and just get the truth. He declared this when he despised the little book of James. When he said things like "it doesn't matter about right and wrong, only the spirit." Oh, you may not find those words in writing. But they are there in essence. And he did say them because I heard it with my own ears.

As Jane so clearly spelled out, and others have noted in other ways, the Bible focuses on righteousness. It does not focus on oneness or spirituality. Righteousness is the pathway to spirituality and oneness. Any oneness that skips righteousness is not truly one. Any spirituality that omits righteousness is window dressing. And any claim of truth that can ignore righteousness is a lie. It is a cancer that will eat at the very core of your being.

Righteousness is demanded. Oneness is prayed for. Righteousness and obedience are mentioned over and over. They are required to get the truth that sets you free. They are required to even start the abiding from which other things will spring. Oneness is not the cause. It is the result. It is a place that we arrive at. It is not where we start.

When I mentioned Harold's cargo cult theory the other day, I was serious. Lee insisted that making the outside look like the results you wanted would cause the infrastructure to simply appear. But if it is a building you are after, the work is long and tedious before it becomes habitable. And still more time before the embellishments are added. If it is a cup, the outside may be beautiful — even gilded with jewels and gold — but unless the inside is clean, what you drink from it will make you sick.

There is no unity in exclusivist teaching. It may unify the faithful under their banner of exclusivity, but it drives a wedge between themselves and all others. It demeans and curses anyone who does not simply climb over the fence that Lee has built and be on their side of the wall. They are not about tearing down walls, but about building them and pointing out which side you are on.

That is not oneness. It is anathema to oneness.

11-15-2011 08:28 PM

TLFisher

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This saying "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life," was a favorite of PL, but this saying is not in the Bible. This saying was used by many at LSM to hide sins and the personal accountability for damaging others. This in no way is a "dismissal of truth." Caring for the Lord's life within us is truthful, but using "good" spiritual-sounding sayings to deny the Lord, cannot be the proper conduct of Christians.

That phrase Ohio is and has been a cop-out. A means of side-stepping accountability. A means of saying" let's not make sin an issue" or "let's just go on positively".

11-15-2011 06:53 PM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The first one was that after the believers have been justified by faith they are saved in His life (Romans 5:10). Some said they agree and others didn't but all quickly gravitated to the argument that PL or WL taught that we only need to care for life so they could cover up sin for example. Therefore, a dismissal of that truth.

I disagree Cassidy. This is a misunderstanding. This saying "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life," was a favorite of PL, but this saying is not in the Bible. This saying was used by many at LSM to hide sins and the personal accountability for damaging others. This in no way is a "dismissal of truth." Caring for the Lord's life within us is truthful, but using "good" spiritual-sounding sayings to deny the Lord, cannot be the proper conduct of Christians.

Quote:

The second one was on the matter of oneness (Acts 2:1-2) where again no matter the initial view it quickly gravitated to an argument that oneness was used as control mechanism of some sort by WL therefore division is better than a "false oneness". So, a dismissal of that truth.

No one has dismissed the truth that we are one in the Spirit. It is interesting that you referenced (Acts 2:1-2). This is a favorite verse of Pentecostal believers who promote tongue-speaking, yet WL spoke against speaking in tongues. Here is an example of where the believers are one in the Spirit, and should neither promote nor forbid a practice of tongues. Don't you agree?

Quote:

The third one was "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) which folks quickly gravitated to the suspicion that I was using that verse to sweep the something under rug.

I seemed to remember that one poster asked what you meant by this? Isn't that a fair question? Quoting a verse without a little explanation can be confusing to the readers. I know I was. I am now wondering who is "gravitating to suspicion?"

Quote:

11-15-2011 06:37 PM

UntoHim

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The first one was that after the believers have been justified by faith they are saved in His life (Romans 5:10) . Some said they agree and others didn't but all quickly gravitated to the argument that PL or WL taught that we only need to care for life so they could cover up sin for example. Therefore, a dismissal of that truth.

Quote:

Since when is "oneness", as it is practiced among Christians, an essential "truth"? Of course oneness with a man and his ministry was used as a control mechanism by Witness Lee, this is a historical fact - it's been well documented on this and other forums for years now. I'd be happy to debate this with you, but maybe not here and now.

Quote:

The third one was "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) which folks quickly gravitated to the suspicion that I was using that verse to sweep the something under rug.

Man, it was already a 2-0 count and you just bounced that one to the plate. As you probably have gathered by now, nothing gets swept under the rug around here, at least not anything that has to do with wrongdoings in the Local Church. But if you have gumption and wherewithal to defend these, then more power to you.

Quote:

I am certain all discussions about these truths will always end up with stories about the sins, failings, and motives of others and thereby dismiss the truth such as was done with the matters regarding the life of Christ, the oneness of the believers, and the undeniable righteousness and truthfulness of God mentioned above.

Nah, you got the wrong forum. You gotta do a lot better then this. No real, biblical truths are dismissed around here, but the mere teachings and practices established by a mere man and his followers have indeed been challenged, found wanting and dismissed on a regular basis though. I have been challenging current Local Church members to come and put up a defense for years now. Not many takers. You sound like you're game and I'm very happy about that.

Quote:

Agreed. We can separate the two. I'm all for it. So long as you are willing to separate essential "scriptural truths" from the non essential interpretations of Witness Lee. If your "thematic arguments" are going to be based upon the assumption that Witness Lee's teachings are to be considered equal to "scriptural truths" then we will probably be spinning our wheels. Just sayin.

11-15-2011 06:30 PM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Let's not confuse the issues here. Each man has responsibility for his own salvation, even as it is written, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Evil leaders, however, also have responsibility for damaging the faith of others, even as it is written, "whoever stumbles one of these little ones who believe in me, it is better for him that a great millstone be hanged around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Quote:

I'm not sure how all the saints have been hurt in the LC's, and I don't have how many hurt ones have left in unbelief. You are right that they "lacking a thorough scriptural study of the truth." Unfortunately many in the LC's were trained to study the Life Studies and not the actual Bible truths.

Quote:

You say something taught by WL is not scriptural but then in the same breath (the same sentence as in above) you retreat to the comfort zone of your peer group finding fault and blaming others as your primary reason. That is exactly what I mean by allowing the sins and failings of others to color your understanding of the Bible.

I have read this sentence 5 times, and still don't understand it. What does this mean? How do I "retreat to the comfort zone of [my] peer group finding fault and blaming others as your primary reason"? Should not leaders be accountable for both their teachings and their deeds? Please clarify.

Quote:

At the end of the day you will believe what you believe and laying the responsibility for your beliefs at the feet of PL is the real tragedy at best.

This is not a fair statement at all. I believed WL and trusted him for nearly 30 of my best years. In 2005 I learned that WL lied to us for many years concerning events which transpired at LSM, and how many godly men like John So and John Ingalls were wrongly quarantined for voicing protests on behalf of churches.

This statement "laying the responsibility for your beliefs at the feet of PL is the real tragedy at best" makes no sense. Where did I say that?

11-15-2011 04:39 PM

Cassidy

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"for unbelief" in what? "thorough scriptural study of the truth"? What truth? If you mean the "truth" found in the major teachings of Witness Lee, most of which contain non-essentials, which he and his followers have turned into essentials, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

Paul C. says it best here:
This all being said, I'd love to engage in a "thorough scriptural study of the truth" with any and all takers. We can leave PL and even the BB's out of it as far as I'm concerned - none of their names are on any of the books or tapes anyway. There are lots of threads with various themes and subjects. People can always open a new thread if they want.

Three examples have been discussed here in as many days, Untohim.

The first one was that after the believers have been justified by faith they are saved in His life (Romans 5:10) . Some said they agree and others didn't but all quickly gravitated to the argument that PL or WL taught that we only need to care for life so they could cover up sin for example. Therefore, a dismissal of that truth.

The second one was on the matter of oneness (Acts 2:1-2) where again no matter the initial view it quickly gravitated to an argument that oneness was used as control mechanism of some sort by WL therefore division is better than a "false oneness". So, a dismissal of that truth.

The third one was "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4) which folks quickly gravitated to the suspicion that I was using that verse to sweep the something under rug.

Three out of three.

I am certain all discussions about these truths will always end up with stories about the sins, failings, and motives of others and thereby dismiss the truth such as was done with the matters regarding the life of Christ, the oneness of the believers, and the undeniable righteousness and truthfulness of God mentioned above.

I say scriptural truths should stand on their own merits based on the Bible and if they are believed or not then that is up the individual, but these thematic arguments about PL's sins , BB's, Titus Chu, and WL' motives are not relevant when evaluating these and other truths.

11-15-2011 03:16 PM

UntoHim

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

I can totally ignore the entire ministry of Witness Lee, lock stock and barrel, and still not fall short of any truth that God has for His Church

This all being said, I'd love to engage in a "thorough scriptural study of the truth" with any and all takers. We can leave PL and even the BB's out of it as far as I'm concerned - none of their names are on any of the books or tapes anyway. There are lots of threads with various themes and subjects. People can always open a new thread if they want.

11-15-2011 11:13 AM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unfortunately, since LSM has brought such shame to the Lord's name, some former members have even rejected "salvation through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood, and His ultimate sacrifice too." These truths were so attached to their teachers in the LC's, that some former members have discarded both in order to move on with their lives. How tragic is that?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But let's get to the pertinent point of our discussion. The only "truths" that are now being examined and rejected by former members are those truths exclusive to the LSM Recovery. The rest of the body of Christ has never accepted these "truths," and now neither do we. There's good reason to reject them, primarily because they are not scriptural, and also they produce lots of bad fruit, including arrogance, judgmentalism, lawsuits, back-biting, hypocrisy, man-pleasing, pride, self-righteousness, etc.

11-15-2011 09:56 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

The view of the LRC has always been that WL was so mature, so "dealt with by the Lord," so transformed, that practically even his sneezes were the breath of God.

I remember when his followers used to slap a microphone on him every time he opened his mouth at dinner. As if some revelation was going to come out between the main course and dessert.

This was all based on WL the man. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If WL's holy condition recommended his every speaking, then his bad behavior calls it into question. That's only fair.

Simply put, he relinquished the right to the benefit of the doubt concerning his teachings. And there is a lot of doubt.

11-15-2011 09:53 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yet, pointing at the sins and failings of others and then rejecting God's Word because the one who failed believed that particular truth is a trick of the devil designed to deprive you of enlightenment. Besides, where do you draw the line or how far will you allow yourself to be carried away like that? Witness Lee spoke of salvation through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood, and His ultimate sacrifice too. Would you also reject that truth because of the sins of PL? Of course, you would not! Therefore, why would you reject any truth because of the sins or failings of another believer?

Dear Unregistered,

LSM leadership over the past quarter century has proven itself repeatedly to be little more than "latter day Pharisees." It is one thing to completely reject Bible truths, and it is completely another thing to reject a ministry because of corruption in its leadership.

Unfortunately, since LSM has brought such shame to the Lord's name, some former members have even rejected "salvation through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood, and His ultimate sacrifice too." These truths were so attached to their teachers in the LC's, that some former members have discarded both in order to move on with their lives. How tragic is that?!? Years ago I saw the same thing happen to those of us who left the Roman Catholic Church -- some rejected the only true God, His word, and His way of salvation.

But let's get to the pertinent point of our discussion. The only "truths" that are now being examined and rejected by former members are those truths exclusive to the LSM Recovery. The rest of the body of Christ has never accepted these "truths," and now neither do we. There's good reason to reject them, primarily because they are not scriptural, and also they produce lots of bad fruit, including arrogance, judgmentalism, lawsuits, back-biting, hypocrisy, man-pleasing, pride, self-righteousness, etc.

11-15-2011 08:03 AM

Paul Cox

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Bil...uh, I mean "Unregistered,"

Who is rejecting truth because of Witness Lee or Philip Lee? I can totally ignore the entire ministry of Witness Lee, lock stock and barrel, and still not fall short of any truth that God has for His Church. It is those of you in the LSM Church who are held as plantation slaves to the notion that the "high peek truths" can only come through Witness Lee's ministry.

Lately I've been enjoying again the ministry of T Austin-Sparks. And you know what? The things I am reading now from him, I was told a couple of decades ago that these only come through Witness Lee. You know what the date is on these messages? Around 1935 - 1937. It was probably at at a time when Watchman Nee was considering Sparks as his mentor. But, of course, Witness Lee systematically did everything he could to discredit Sparks, so he could be considered the king of the hill.

In fact, one could argue that no matter what truths Lee shared, his ministry should be avoided at all cost. Because he distorted many of them and used them for his own purpose. In other words, the stated result of his ministry has to be Local Churches all over the world, exactly according to his prescription. And...that's not good. No sir, not good at all.

P.C.

11-15-2011 06:28 AM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And since that quote has no explanation, we are left to presume what you mean by it. And it comes across to me as a dismissal of Lee's unrighteousness with some kind of "well, everyone is a liar — so what." I hope that is not what you meant.

I am often accused of posting way too long. But too often the short posts do not say what you mean. And in this case, I hope that turns out to be true.

Hi OBW.

There is no attempt to dismiss anyone's unrighteousness, but the fact is that no one is righteous. No, not one. Not you, not me, not PL, not WL, no one in this forum, not anyone.

Therefore, only God is righteous. If you take that as your starting point then you will not allow the failings of others to color your understanding of the Bible or filter out God's truths. God's truths are absolute.

Having said that I do not disagree with the point that a believer, a teacher, a minister, a preacher, etc. can sin in such a way that will cause others to doubt they practice their own message. I am not arguing against that viewpoint, but rather I am endorsing it:

"Let God be true and every man a liar".

Yet, pointing at the sins and failings of others and then rejecting God's Word because the one who failed believed that particular truth is a trick of the devil designed to deprive you of enlightenment. Besides, where do you draw the line or how far will you allow yourself to be carried away like that? Witness Lee spoke of salvation through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood, and His ultimate sacrifice too. Would you also reject that truth because of the sins of PL? Of course, you would not! Therefore, why would you reject any truth because of the sins or failings of another believer?

I am not suggesting that those incidents are to be brushed aside, they are teachable moments. However, if you reject the any truth in the Bible while citing the reason as the sins or failings of others then you are either strongly deluded by the devil or making excuses for your own unbelief.

11-15-2011 05:21 AM

Paul Cox

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The sin or immoral acts of any believer or non-believer do not negate the Word of God. Ever. Allowing someone's immoral behavior to become a filter to receiving the truths of the Word of God is merely a tactic of the Devil to keep one from experiencing God's complete salvation.

When you sin do you allow the Devil to use that sin to filter your Bible reading? Do you prevent God from shining in your heart through Hi Word by recounting your sins before Him? Do you say "why, this can't be true because I sinned"? I doubt it. I don't think you do that else you would not be the active christian that you are. You confess your sins before God and plead the blood of the Lamb like all believers must.

If you do not allow the Devil to use your sins to filter your receiving the truths of the Word of God, then why would you allow the Devil to use the reprobate acts of someone else to deprive you?

Let us never allow our owns sins, nor the sins of others, to become a filter in our reading of the Bible and receiving of the truth.

Actually, "unregistered," your filter analogy has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Probably Watchman Nee put it best in his book, The Ministry of the Word. It's been a while, so I won't quote passages. But he talked about the worthiness of a vessel to be a conduit for the Word of God. No vessel is so anointed, so chosen, so absolutely indispensable to God's later day move that we can overlook the clogs in his pipeline and just say, I'll overlook all that and just go for the Word. "After all, only he has the high peek truths. I'll not let his unrighteousness be a filter to block out the Word."

Of course, if you are a slave to the "One Man" on the Earth, per "age" dogma, then you will have to overlook the unworthiness of the vessel. But, hallelujah, there is freedom from that slavery. God has delivered His word to many worthy vessels, past and present. There is no shortage of ministry out there. The notion that we have to overlook the whole unrighteous mess of Lee and company, because we have no where else to go is a bunch of bull...

The LSM Church, headquartered in Anaheim, would have us believe that God's blessing and "dispensing" is only with that group of Witness Lee bobble head hypocrites who so presumptuously call themselves "The Blended Brothers." To do so we have to totally overlook how they passed on the righteousness of God in favor of a man, his ministry, and his filthy son. The very idea is totally unrighteous, ungodly, and not scriptural.

It's interesting that in your post you talk about confession and forgiveness. Those fellas have yet to repent of anything. Instead, they have double downed, and swelled even more in their pride and presumptuousness. Now they have brought forth wave after of wave of "trainees" who are trained to do just as them. If you want to know what the Lord meant, in Revelation, by having been thrown in bed only to toss and turn without much hope of healing, just study the history of the Living Stream Church from the mid seventies to present.

P.C.

11-15-2011 04:37 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ok Ohio, I understand.

But, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

11-14-2011 01:41 PM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you have described here -- sin becoming a teaching filter -- is exactly what upset me so about WL. I respected WL as a teacher of the Bible for close to a quarter century while he was alive, and more years after that, until I learned the real facts of the events of our history.

Volumes of WL's teachings covered those who left during the "storms" or "rebellions" which occurred from time to time. What WL taught was a "filter" to alter the facts of history and coverup the crimes of his own family. For example, applying the Levitical teachings on leprosy to brothers like John Ingalls, was to use his sin to filter the teachings of his ministry. He plainly lied to all the Recovery about Ingalls true motives and actions surrounding the supposed "rebellion." Then WL taught O.T. principles about those who rebelled. In this way, the whole recovery was corrupted, believing a liar and condemning a righteous man.

Ok Ohio, I understand.

But, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

11-13-2011 06:13 PM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

11-13-2011 05:56 AM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Definitely a good point, and I agree with you. But ... The reason why some former members on this forum lean to the side of righteousness and obedience to the Lord, and the matters of "right and wrong," is that WL and company committed numerous acts of unrighteousness all the while hiding behind the banner of "we only care for life."
It is also reported that Phillip Lee, the reprobate "Office" manager at LSM during the turbulent times of the "new way," who was involved in numerous obnoxious and hideous immoralities, had the same favorite saying in times of crisis, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life." With such an equivocating saying such as that, just about any crime could be swept under the rug at LSM.

10-27-2011 12:27 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think the parable of the laborers has anything to do with transformation. I think it's just the Lord saying that he will judge and reward each of us based on the assignment he gave us, not on the assignment he gave someone else.

My purpose was not to suggest that transformation was irrelevant. But there is an underpinning that is the same for everyone. That does not deny some kind of reward for success v failure in the realm of transformation. But even accepting the idea that the servant that buried the one talent is ultimately returned to service after some kind of punishment (whatever that might be), there is an aspect of the reward for the other two that is the same, and an aspect that is different. They all entered the joy of the Lord. But they received different responsibilities. (Interesting that if this is some kind of hint at reward, it is not about houses, gold, silver, or even position so much as responsibility. Makes me think even more that the New J is more like Eden restored than just a bunch of falling on our faces shouting "holy, holy, holy!")

In your post to which I attached this thought, I was wondering whether the rapture (if that is even an appropriate concept), especially multiple raptures, might be more about the right of everyone who accepted the master's call no matter what transpired and whatever reward there was would be something entirely separate. So even if there are rewards, the so-called rapture is more like what everyone gets (like the parable).

10-27-2011 08:33 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I have not processed the ramifications, but would the parable of the man with the field that keeps hiring workers throughout the day and then pays them all the same have any bearing here? If so, how?

10-26-2011 03:33 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Unregistered (don't have any idea if this is an "unregistered" that has previously been posting),

I like your style. Long, verbose, but worth reading. Like me (well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad).

I liked the part about obedient slaves. There are clearly those who present themselves as slaves to God (to righteousness) and others who present themselves to unrighteousness. Those who just do nothing might be the kind that get spewed. Aren't slaves to anyone.

Of course that is not a correct assessment. They just don't show how enslaved they are to unrighteousness by not giving themselves to righteousness.

10-26-2011 01:34 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the "firstfruits" are taken first, then why? It can't be chronological since the Lord addressed that in a parable. (Matt 20.1-16) It must be related to "ripening" which does indicate growth.

Don't have a lot of time right now, but where is the reference to the first fruits? What is the context? Is it really about some first of multiple raptures? Or is it about those who die now ahead of that time? Is it clearly one or the other, or uncertain?

These are the things I would need to answer (probably among others) before I absolutely accept or reject Lee's version of the first fruit.

10-26-2011 01:30 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another issue I take with Lee's view of transformation is that he saw it as some kind of requirement for gaining a reward--as if to grow to be full grown was required before one could be "harvested." He used this to justify his view of multiple raptures.

But although the Bible encourages us to grow, I don't see the direct connection between growth and being rewarded. Reward is based on works and living. Growth is a consequence of work and living, it is not work and living itself.

There are other problems with tying growth directly to reward:

1) Causes the believer to focus unhealthily on his own progress above all, i.e. become self-centered.
2) What about believers that die shortly after becoming believers?

Although growth is a factor and certainly some kind of indicator of faithfulness, I don't think reward is based on growth directly. I think reward is based simply on the decisions a believer made in his or her life, decisions to obey, or to disobey.

I have not processed the ramifications, but would the parable of the man with the field that keeps hiring workers throughout the day and then pays them all the same have any bearing here? If so, how?

10-26-2011 09:30 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Key word "if." I'm not sure I buy the multiple rapture teaching anymore.

Think about it. If the most mature Christians are taken first, then that's going to leave a big hole in the Church's true leadership. Does it make sense that God would remove most if not all of the leaders from the Church at arguably the time when the Church needs them most?

Make sense?

It may be the best thing that ever happened to the church.

Many believers have become numb to the "signs" of His return. No "sign" would have a greater impact on the body of Christ than the rapture of other believers.

On the other hand, it would make much of the flock vulnerable to the "false Christs," and that has been prophesied too.

10-26-2011 09:11 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the "firstfruits" are taken first, then why? It can't be chronological since the Lord addressed that in a parable. (Matt 20.1-16) It must be related to "ripening" which does indicate growth.

10-26-2011 08:51 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree with mixed feelings.

If the "firstfruits" are taken first, then why? It can't be chronological since the Lord addressed that in a parable. (Matt 20.1-16) It must be related to "ripening" which does indicate growth.

Here is another misdirected thought sourced in WL and evident in his older followers. That is, God will judge us by the size of our fruit, referring to basically the size of one's following. This criteria apparently supersedes essential matters such as faithfulness and righteousness. Hence, we see ministers like WL, BP, TC and others fighting over the flock, to determine "whose fruit" that flock belongs to. In other words, the ends justify all means, and since God will judge (reward?) workers based on the size of their following, quarantines and backstabbing are acceptable means to that end.

This is verified by comments made by WL concerning those who had left. He would ask rhetorically "where is their fruit." Places like mine, situated in the GLA, were "claimed" by both Cleveland and Anaheim. They were fighting over who the church here "belonged to" based on who "raised us up." When I responded that neither Cleveland nor Anaheim "raised us up," I was told that "TC raised up the brothers who raised up the church here." To which Anaheim responded "TC was raised up by this ministry, and the entire GLA is our fruit."

10-26-2011 08:05 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

10-26-2011 07:10 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Also I think God honors sincere efforts to be righteous, whether they are "religious" or not.

10-26-2011 06:15 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree. But what was the sign of the deadness 30+ years ago? Was it that some did "religious effort"? Or was it that they lost the taste to do even that?

I wonder if the true deadness was that there ceased to be any effort. And then along came the LRC (and a lot of other inner-life groups) that put spiritual activity on the front burner, but did little-to-nothing to get people back to actual obedience. In other words, they got active in terms of exuberance (the LRC had that in spades), but not in terms of doing some of that missing "religious effort."

Oddly enough, the only ones engaged in real "religious effort" were the RCC and the "liberal" churches. Maybe many of those liberal churches weren't sure enough about some of the miraculous things, but at least they were obedient to the Christ that they claimed to believe in. They might have been doing a better job at true righteousness than the rest of us. Of course, now everyone is engaged in those things. Well, almost everyone.

Very good point.

Seems like genuine charitable works don't have much to do with "religious effort." I think God honors any selfless act done simply for the sake of caring for another.

"Religious effort" would seem to be something done to advance one's religion rather that simply advancing God, e.g. the Pharisees advancing their flavor of Judaism.

Note in Matthew 7:22-23* Jesus said some would engage in religious efforts but those efforts would do them no good. However, the efforts he cites are all ones of, for lack of a better term, "spirituality." The Lord doesn't cite simple acts of goodness and charity as being in vain.

Also, remember that acts of charity were enough to justify the sheep in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

Never sneer at a simple act of kindness.

*Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’Matt 7:22-23.

10-25-2011 09:57 PM

Paul Cox

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahhh brother Paul ... such a cute little kid ... spoiled by that Tiger hat ... C'mon man!

Gettin my grandson started off on the right foot. Go Tigers. Bring on the Tide.

P.C.

10-25-2011 04:05 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, I believe a certain lack of the experience of the Holy Spirit was indeed a problem in the mid-century Church in America. Tozer talks a lot about it in his book The Counselor. Jesus did cite spiritual deadness as a problem in the church in Sardis. Although I'm not sure those Rev churches are historically prophetic in the way Lee taught, I do think they represent typical errors churches can fall into, one being deadness.

10-25-2011 03:18 PM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a significant group today that actually kind of ignores all that Paul wrote. I think this is too much. We really would not understand it all without the commentaries that Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews had to say. But without the gospels, there is nothing to comment on. But without the commentaries, I bet we could make a pretty good pass at the kind of spiritual and practical obedience that Jesus called for.

I would prefer to say without Christ and His work there would be nothing to comment on. The gospels were being written during and after (John's) most of the epistles were written.

In the early church a congregation might have a copy of one gospel and 2 epistles. Or 3 epistles and no gospel. Things were more fluid then they are today.

10-25-2011 01:04 PM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus and the Apostles spoke differently concerning right and wrong. Paul says the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness. Righteousness is absolutely linked to right and wrong, that is doing right and not doing wrong. If we do not pay attention to matters of right and wrong, then we can never be righteous, and we will bring further shame to his name.

Amen, as it says about God, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne (Ps 89:14)." Righteousness is God himself (1Co 1:30), which is why people in the old testament couldn't do it, because they needed God to help them do it. But now they have help from God to help them do righteousness, so they have no excuse for not doing righteousness. When the Israelites received the law they had an excuse for not keeping the law because they weren't able to. But now that the Spirit was given to the Gentiles, we Gentiles have no excuse for not keeping the law because we are able to. The Spirit gives us the power to do it, and God commanded us to do it (Eph 5:5). This is how God is testing our faith.

Another thing about Lee is that he says to stop our doing, stop doing right and stop doing wrong. But in this they are wrong. God has repeatedly told us to do good but they fail to obey this order from God (see Galatians 6:9, 1 Peter 2:15, 3:6, 3:11, 4:19, and many other places). This is like telling people to not do a single thing on the Sabbath in John 7:23, and Jesus did one work, and was persecuted for it. They say things like now is the Sabbath rest so don’t do anything, when God is the Lord of the Sabbath, and he tells us to do good works. The prophecy concerning this is fulfilled in Revelation 3:14 about the Church in Laodicea: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot (because they say, don't do evil) nor cold (because they say, don't do good), I will spit you out of my mouth (Revelation 3:15-16)." Their saying don't do good cancels out their saying don't do evil, making them right in the "middle," but we know that actually being lukewarm is not acceptable to God. This is like "double-mindedness."

So any church that is grounded in this type of teaching has become the church in Laodicea, thus fulfilling the prophecy. This is also true about them: "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Revelation 3:17-18 " Let me explain:

They say they are rich with all the riches of Christ, not knowing that they don't have any of it because they haven't suffered persecution. Persecution tries out faith until it comes refined, making one rich (see 3:18). Some of you who had meetings with them may have noticed their lack of talking about trials. The reason why they haven't suffered persecution is because they have not desired to live a godly life, because all who desire to live a godly life will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12). A godly life comes from obeying God, but they disobey God about the word that tells them to do good, which makes them ungodly and immoral.

They say they need nothing, because they think God will automatically do the sanctifying work in them but clearly this is not true. Romans 6:16 says "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?" Romans 6:16 So Paul is exhorting us to stop presenting our members to unrighteousness which leads to death and not sanctification. Sanctification can only occur when you present your members to righteousness, which is why Paul is telling us to do it, otherwise he wouldn't.

They say they have prospered, because they say they are the Church in Philadelphia (see Lee's note in Rev 3:8 in the Recovery Bible). The Church in Philadelphia already has a ticket into the heavenly kingdom (Rev 3:11), so they are complacent thinking that they don't need to overcome because they already have, when they haven't, and they certainly are not the church in Philadelphia.

God also says that they need white garments (which symbolize good works) to cover their nakedness (lack of good works) because they are lacking good works due to their doctrine leading people astray. They basically ignored every single verse that says "do good" in it, for example:
"do not grow weary in doing good." 2 Thessalonians 3:13
"Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God." Hebrews 13:16
"always seek to do good to one another and to everyone." 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Those are some of the examples of exhorting us to do good, yet they ignore them!

Another prophecy was fulfilled in the Bible concerning some of them: Paul said that in the last days there will be people who have the appearance of godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). They say it's impossible to stop doing evil until the end of this age, when they have the Holy Spirit to help them do it, thus denying the Spirit's power. To say you can't stop doing evil when you have the power of the Spirit to do so is to make the Spirit a common thing (cf. Hebrews 10:29). God required us to be perfect before we can enter the heavenly kingdom in the next age (Ephesians 5:5). Is this hard to believe? Note that there were already perfect people mentioned in Revelation:
"Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.... and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless." Revelation 14:5
As long as you have a mustard seed of faith, you can become perfect before judgment day, and nothing is impossible for you (Matthew 17:20). Because they don't think this is true, they deny the Spirit's power. What are we to do about them? Paul said to "avoid such people (2ti 3.6)."

They are spiritually blind because they have bad discernment: they say it's impossible to stop sinning completely but it's possible to do certain other things, like stay in school. Which is harder, to stop sinning completely or to stay in school? They put very great value on worldly education, and Lee said to get as much as possible of it. They even require people to have BA's in order to get into their Bible school. But we know that Jesus himself was unlearned when taught in temples (John 7:15). They even say that reading the Bible can be unprofitable if you didn't do it a particular way. Whereas they say worldly education is always profitable at all times. But which is more profitable, to get worldly education or to get Biblical knowledge? So they outweigh the flesh against the Spirit in this way.

10-25-2011 12:38 PM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Who cares about what orthodox Christians think? What orthodoxy are you talking about anyway? Eastern? Western? Catholic? Protestant? There's all kinds of orthodoxy. Please clarify....

You know what orthodox means. It means the orthodox faith. Who Jesus was, what he did.

You should care what orthodox Christians think because that is pretty much the only group who are going to be interested in knowing anything about the LRC. You think earth spirit-worshipping Goths give a hoot about them? You think atheists and agnostics care? Hindus? Zen Buddhists? Think they frequent this site much?

Which audience are you writing to? Or do you even consider things like that?

10-25-2011 12:06 PM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

10-25-2011 12:02 PM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Honestly, I'll bet every charitable work done by church volunteers feels much of the time like "religious effort." If all we needed to excuse ourselves from works of service was to find some reason to call what we were doing "religious effort," then a lot of needed service would never get performed.

This explains why the LRC rarely pitches into help anyone but themselves.

I wonder if helping the abused traveler felt like "religious effort" to the Good Samaritan? Interesting that avoiding "religious effort" did not seem to be on the forefront of the Lord's thought in that parable.

10-25-2011 11:49 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

As an addendum, If you put my final paragraph that makes some reference to the RCC with the earlier one that talks about all those other groups, it might be that the RCC should have been included there. Maybe we should learn to let God be the one to judge their error (assuming they actually have any).

10-25-2011 11:44 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

I was informed by our dear moderator (also referred to recently as the Topiq Natzi) that he inadvertently deleted a post of mine and could not recover it. Upon a close look, I do not have the original, but based upon his quotes from it, I can reconstruct the meat of it.

My first thought was not to bother. But upon reflection, I believe that its content was worthy of some thought. I know that having had those thoughts, I have been challenged concerning my thoughts about others, especially those who are trying to do the “right thing” even when not always succeeding or looking spiritual as they do it.

I initially keyed off of the following statement by Igzy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee's emphasis on "life" was initially a needed pushback to religious self-effort, which if you visited evangelical churches in the mid-20th century was probably the norm.

If you read more of that post, Igsy says “Dead churches are not the problem today.” I did not quote that part originally, but what come to me was the consideration that it might just be that dead churches never were the problem.

And that is where I jumped off into my thoughts.

Is it possible that setting the mind on the Spirit and walking according to the Spirit results in people actually doing things that simply look like righteousness. And the fact that they fail at it sometime is proof that we do not always maintain the “according to” and “set” throughout our day. But the fact that they at least try is proof that they are obedient rather than rebellious.

If we are charged to be holy as Christ is holy, and to teach (or be taught) to obey all that Christ commanded, then I would suspect that there should be a lot of people actually doing a lot that could be seen as “religious effort” when viewed from Lee’s “let the dispensing do it for you” Leeology. And maybe the only people who are wrong are the ones who don’t even try. Who don’t even give it some religious effort. (I am only referring to those who are redeemed, not the heathen and the social Christian.)

Maybe all those Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Charismatics, Bible Churhers, etc., who are trying are the ones that God loves and abides with. Those who refuse to do are not obeying and are not getting that kind of abiding.

And it has always been that way. Lee fed us some kind of nonsense about “religious effort” being bad because it drove a wedge between us and them. And we never bothered to question whether or not he was right.

Then I commented a little (without quote) to this part of Ohio’s post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reason why some former members on this forum lean to the side of righteousness and obedience to the Lord, and the matters of "right and wrong," is that WL and company committed numerous acts of unrighteousness all the while hiding behind the banner of "we only care for life."

It is also reported that Phillip Lee, the reprobate "Office" manager at LSM during the turbulent times of the "new way," who was involved in numerous obnoxious and hideous immoralities, had the same favorite saying in times of crisis, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

With such an equivocating saying such as that, just about any crime could be swept under the rug at LSM.

And he is quite correct. I also note that in his post #17 he took it further, being very direct to state that both Jesus and the Apostles spoke very differently than Lee about right and wrong. “Paul says the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness.”

Spot on.

Unless your righteousness exceed that of Lee, his son, and the BBs, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But Lee taught us that we could be just like them all.

I’m sure that this is sufficiently different than the original post. But I think the question/suggestion that religious effort and the state of Christianity in that matter was never in error, even in the 60s, was the main thrust. Without this, the very foundational reason for the LRC, and all of those claims about Christianity’s horrible state of being, were never correct.

I might even go so far as to suggest that, even with the obvious errors we see in the RCC, it is not as all-out rotten as we were lead to believe. It sort of sticks in my craw as I say it. But I’m beginning to think that I need a new set of eyes for so much of this. There is still way too much Lee in them.

10-25-2011 11:05 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yet when you think about it, it should sound rather strange that we would favor the Gospels over the writings of the apostle Paul, or the other way around. They are both "the living and abiding Word of God" and both "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness".

I understand your point. And I do not disagree. But even within the "living and abiding Word of God" there is a difference between the direct speaking of God and the indirect speaking through men. Between the actions of God, the Son, and analysis provided by others when dealing with specific issues.

My point is that Lee took Paul as the core of the New Testament and reread everything in light of his reading of Paul. (I can't say "in light of Paul" because I see too many errors in his reading of Paul.) But if I have a choice to read what Christ directly said and did, and seek to understand Paul's words in that light, or conversely take what Paul wrote and try to read the gospels as modified by my understanding of Paul, I choose the former. I choose to read the gospels as the source and Paul as commentary. If there seems to be a problem, it is probably a misreading of the commentary because the source was rather direct in his speaking.

After reading Paul, you can argue about whether we are or are not required to fulfill the righteousness of the law, and whether the whole Bible is about dispensing. But read the gospels and Jesus said to be as holy as he is. To love your neighbor as yourself. To care for the poor, widows, orphans, aliens among you, etc. To not even think about adultery. To not even hate your brother.

In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus starts his discussion of righteousness with the following:

Quote:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I'm convinced that so much of Lee's "soak up God an don't just try to do it" theology is a variation on setting aside more than one of "these commands." The penalty falls to him for doing it. But there is a consequence to our lives, even if not as severe as Lee's, for continuing to live as if it is all about being spiritual, and just abiding, and never doing (at least until is just falls on you). Funny thing is that if you are waiting for it to fall on you, I suspect that you will never do — because it doesn't just fall. We actually have to do. Not just abide. Or "care for life."

Jesus didn't suggest that we should be seeking dispensing before doing any of his commands. He said to obey and there would be an abiding. Lee claims Paul said the opposite (in so many words). Who do you take as the source and who the commentator? And if someone is wrong in their analysis, I suggest it is the one who says that you don't have to do. Why? Because Jesus said you do have to do. That means that whoever thinks Paul said otherwise is misreading — unless you want to argue that Paul really shouldn't be in the scripture (which I do not intend to do).

The answer is Christ is the source. Paul is just the commentator. Lee turned so many of Paul's specific comments about how various groups were effectively being unrighteous into theology about how to be spiritual. All while ignoring the righteousness.

There is a significant group today that actually kind of ignores all that Paul wrote. I think this is too much. We really would not understand it all without the commentaries that Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews had to say. But without the gospels, there is nothing to comment on. But without the commentaries, I bet we could make a pretty good pass at the kind of spiritual and practical obedience that Jesus called for.

10-25-2011 09:05 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

When I look back on the local church I see it as very juvenile, and preying on the juvenile. And those that grew old in the LC remain today to be very juvenile minded ...

They jumped down the bunny hole and they're still drinking tea with the Mad Hatter ...

Yeah, but you think that about people who believe the Bible is inerrant and Jesus is God.

Which is why what you think about the LC is not going to carry much weight with orthodox Christians.

10-25-2011 07:39 AM

UntoHim

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

I'm beginning to wonder if there is something about letting the words of the gospels be superior to Paul rather than the other way around that is being missed in the kind of statements that we heard for so many years, and we continue to make ourselves.

Very keen observation, and maybe worth it's own thread. Yet when you think about it, it should sound rather strange that we would favor the Gospels over the writings of the apostle Paul, or the other way around. They are both "the living and abiding Word of God" and both "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". It seems to me, in retrospect, that Witness Lee favored and emphasized the writings of the apostle Paul over the Gospels because he had his own gospel, and many elements of this gospel were different, in some cases very different, than the teachings we find in the four Gospels. We should have been on guard and rejected this "different gospel", yet many of us were very young and gullible. We swallowed the notion that the apostle Paul's writings were somehow a "higher gospel", a further, more advanced gospel. Yet the apostle Paul himself said no such thing, in fact he indicated just the opposite. (cf: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! Gal 1:8 and "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.." 1 Cor 15:3,4)

Quote:

...We really need to awaken from our slumber and see that we have been fed a bad gospel. We have been led astray. I'm not saying that everything Lee ever said was wrong. But too much was and it even corrupted the good.

Which is part of the reason this forum exists.

10-25-2011 07:16 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Ahhh brother Paul ... such a cute little kid ... spoiled by that Tiger hat ... C'mon man!

10-24-2011 07:43 PM

Paul Cox

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Does 1/8 of God indwell us when we become Christians and than we need Lee's ministry as the official God dispenser to increase that amount? Because that's the basic concept behind their transformation ideology. Like you I think this way of thinking is erroneous.

No, Witness Lee taught that we receive all that we are supposed to receive of God, but only in our human spirit. The human spirit becomes a "beach head," according to Lee. From there God spreads out into our soul - thus, the salvation of our souls.

The problem isn't so much with that teaching in essence, but rather Lee's concept of how that is done. As has been stated, he placed much emphasis on complying with all the prescribed mechanics of the Living Stream "church-life," in order for the Lord to accomplish this. So don't worry about anything else, just jump into the "enjoyment." God will be "dispensed" into your being. Get our of your mind and into your spirit. Don't ask questions, the question mark looks like a serpent.

So, the result of all that is that you have a group of gray haired old brothers who in many aspects are in a state of arrested development. You want to know how to maximize your "enjoyment" by engaging in all the the exercises prescribed by the "Apostle for the age?" They can teach you volumes. You want to know how to treat your brother next to you who has come to the conclusion that he can no longer obey the teachings of the Blended Brothers, hook, line and sinker? It's like asking a kindergarten student to explain Einstein's theory of relativity to you. Not a clue.

Witness Lee had to make it this way. If not, the current population of his movement would be a mere fraction of what it is.

P.C.

10-24-2011 04:04 PM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Amen, Amen, and Amen!!

You know what I think we should all do about the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

FAGETABOUDIT!!

We don't need to know "nothing" about righteousness. We need to know righteousness because we know God. To borrow from an old bumper sticker:

No God, no righteousness.
Know God, know righteousness.

10-24-2011 10:47 AM

zeek

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

unregistered

Quote:

Romans 5:10 " For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

This verse states that the salvation after reconciliation is accomplished by His life. This is not the same thing as living according to decisions about right and wrong as you suggest.

The christian life is living out the life of a Person. To miss this is to miss the point of the christian life.

It's remarkable how this corresponds with my experience of abdicating the normal use of my mind when I was in the local church. It's passive and mindless. How do you picture the "life" you are taking in? Is it like clear flowing water? "Don't make decisions just take in life and live out the life of another person." That's what I did all right. Until I woke up and realized I had been duped. The people who will take advantage of you if stop making decisions and just take in and live out "life" are not just people outside the local church. In my experience the majority of the members were sincerely trying to follow this teaching while a minority, the leaders mostly, were using them. Is it an accident that this mesmerizing pacifying teaching renders people vulnerable to be manipulated by the clever rapacious sociopaths in the group? I doubt it.

10-24-2011 10:28 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

If "life" is in opposition to good and evil, it is only that mistaken idea of what is good and evil borne of being independent of God. But the Bible never indicts the essential idea of good and evil the way the LRC has done. And it never indicts genuine acts of goodness which were not borne of "life." Jesus regularly praised people who did the right thing, but those people didn't have access to zoe life. They were simply following God commandments. I.e. doing good.

Following this thought, nothing brings more shame to the Lord's excellent name than when His ministers twist the teachings of the Bible for their own base and selfish gain. How many ministers have been "protected" by their paid underlings so that their own misbehaviors would not be made public. This kind of "protection" only serves to enable further unrighteousness by the minister, since paid lackeys continually assist him to escape culpability.

The Lord Jesus and the Apostles spoke differently concerning right and wrong. Paul says the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness. Righteousness is absolutely linked to right and wrong, that is doing right and not doing wrong. If we do not pay attention to matters of right and wrong, then we can never be righteous, and we will bring further shame to his name.

10-24-2011 10:16 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

WL took many spiritual principles from W. Nee and then distorted them for his own gain -- the establishing of his own empire in the Recovery.

For example, WN taught us not to be focused only on right and wrong as Christians, but rather to center on Christ, who is our life. WL and his son twisted this to say "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life," thus escaping any culpability, when many of the saints were crying "foul."

WN also taught us that dead works were religious works of the flesh without the resurrected Christ of the New Covenant. This was based on part of Paul's teaching. The prime example of the day was that circumcision profits nothing. WL twisted this teaching and applied it to all works. He never mentioned how Paul exhorted us to be "... zealous of good works, these things speak and exhort ..." (Titus 2.14-15) Whereas WN extolled, for example, George's Muller's work of faith and labor of love caring for orphans in 19th century England, WL and his minions warned us against reading books from Christianity.

WN taught that all ministries must serve the churches and the body of Christ, but in practice WL forsook this. Eventually, from the time of the "new way" onward, the only real "noble" work in the LC's was to serve at and for LSM. Many brothers were infected with this thought -- "why are you wasting your time at some little LC" -- you could be a part of God's move at the ministry. Looking at the Recovery objectively, one might rightly wonder if the LC's exist only to serve and support LSM.

There's a decent commercial by Liberty Mutual Insurance, showing how doing good deeds for others can be "contagious" because it is the "right thing to do." The same is true with the opposite practice -- condemning good works -- can also be "contagious." Eventually every member in the LC's takes on WL's condescending and judgmental attitudes towards good works. I know I did.

Without good works mankind cannot see God's love in action. Anybody wonder why people cannot see God's love in the LC's?

10-24-2011 10:13 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Someone please show me where the Bible puts right and wrong in opposition to life.

The two trees in the garden? This is a example of Lee's error. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is representative of independence from God, not of doing good and rejecting evil.

The Bible never indicts focusing on what is right and wrong, only on determining what is right and wrong apart from God. There is a big difference.

If "life" is in opposition to good and evil, it is only that mistaken idea of what is good and evil borne of being independent of God. But the Bible never indicts the essential idea of good and evil the way the LRC has done. And it never indicts genuine acts of goodness which were not borne of "life." Jesus regularly praised people who did the right thing, but those people didn't have access to zoe life. They were simply following God commandments. I.e. doing good.

10-24-2011 09:31 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

One of the Lee's biggest errors was his implication that God saw good works and evil works pretty much the same, and both in opposition to "life" (two trees). Although, as with most of his teaching there is some principle there, he took it way too far. He took it to the point that LRCers had little regard for manifestations of basic human goodness, seeing them as more or less worthless.

But, really, does anyone think that God is not pleased when one human being goes out of his or her way to help another human being, simply out of kindness and concern? To say he is not is almost to say he doesn't honor his own word, because God commands us to do good to one another.

So in the LRC you have a group which as a rule sneers at all the charitable works in the world. It doesn't matter what good churches or organizations do, the LRC is going to find some fault with it, if only because when the groups do good works they don't accompany it with the proper LRC-approved reasons for doing anything (e.g. "for the building up of the Body of Christ so the Lord can have his Bride" yada, yada).

You also rarely see the LRC pitching into help when the community they are a part of has need. Even the early church did this. One ancient Roman historian marveled in writing that the Christians took better care of the Roman poor than the Romans did. You don't think that was a good testimony? You don't think that was pleasing to the Lord?

This indoctrination plagued me for much of my post-LRC life. Anytime I saw good works being done in the Lord name, I had a tendency initially to sneer, thinking it's just "good human works." In the meantime, what was I doing but sneering? It still affects me. It's like a built-in excuse to have a cold heart.

We can't work our way to heaven, and our works should be a manifestation of our relationship with the Lord. But who are we to decide someone else's basic human kindnesses are just works of the flesh? The arrogance is boggling, and I don't think the Lord likes it a bit.

10-24-2011 07:06 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Lee's emphasis on "life" was initially a needed pushback to religious self-effort, which if you visited evangelical churches in the mid-20th century was probably the norm.

The problem is times have changed, and the LRC has never reverted to the mean. They are still jousting with the 1965 Church, while the Church itself has moved on. Christians these days understand grace and needing the supply of the Holy Spirit pretty well. Dead churches are not the problem today. Ironically the problem is churches which want to have joy and peace (enjoy the Lord) but balk from works of service and changing bad behavior (all matters of "right and wrong").

The LRC, because they are stuck on Lee's message, can do nothing but sing the same old song. A song that, when push came to shove and righteousness was needed, let them down.

10-24-2011 06:54 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes the Christian life is living the life of Christ. And we have that life, so we should be living it. Not hiding behind a lack of it. (And if you think that I am suggesting that Lee thought that none of us had enough "life" to do it — contrary to what the scripture says — then you are just plain right.)

Isn't that why all the members in the LC's just need more training!

How many times did we hear that from some "blended" brother.

10-24-2011 06:48 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Definitely a good point, and I agree with you.

But ...

The reason why some former members on this forum lean to the side of righteousness and obedience to the Lord, and the matters of "right and wrong," is that WL and company committed numerous acts of unrighteousness all the while hiding behind the banner of "we only care for life."

It is also reported that Phillip Lee, the reprobate "Office" manager at LSM during the turbulent times of the "new way," who was involved in numerous obnoxious and hideous immoralities, had the same favorite saying in times of crisis, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life."

With such an equivocating saying such as that, just about any crime could be swept under the rug at LSM.

10-24-2011 05:37 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Romans 5:10 " For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

OBW,

This verse states that the salvation after reconciliation is accomplished by His life. This is not the same thing as living according to decisions about right and wrong as you suggest.

The christian life is living out the life of a Person. To miss this is to miss the point of the christian life.

I would suggest that you continue reading Romans. This kind of "fortune cookie" gospel results in skewed (or skewered) understanding of the scripture.

Yes, we are saved in his life. But that does not mean that we simply sit around and soak it up and we are changed. If we do nothing different, then where is the change — other than in theory?

I know that Lee was determined that we don't "do" outside of what we have received to do. I remember such nonsense as "premature revelation." I find no such thing in scripture. But both Paul and Peter (and probably all the others), plus Jesus himself, said to be righteous. Just 3 chapters after the verse you quote, Paul says to set your mind. To walk. If you don't walk, you will not fulfill the righteousness of the law.

How does Romans 5:10 say that we do not "do"? Of course we must have his life. But we do. And once we do, we are commanded to live as if we do. We are never commanded to wait for more. Peter very clearly said we had what we needed. Paul did too. When he spent all of that time talking about things like being crucified with Christ, he didn't say we need more. Or need to get on the cross. He said we are crucified with Christ. And as a result of that, we should behave in a manor more congruous with the life that is within us. Paul didn't tell the Galatians to put off obedience until they got better crucified. He said they were, and so they should (obey, that is).

Yes the Christian life is living the life of Christ. And we have that life, so we should be living it. Not hiding behind a lack of it. (And if you think that I am suggesting that Lee thought that none of us had enough "life" to do it — contrary to what the scripture says — then you are just plain right.)

10-23-2011 06:15 PM

UntoHim

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is not the same thing as living according to decisions about right and wrong as you suggest.
The christian life is living out the life of a Person. To miss this is to miss the point of the christian life.

Mike can speak for himself (and I'm sure he will), but I don't think he is saying that we should be living according to decisions about right and wrong. In fact he specifically mentions "living according to the Spirit".

You say "The christian life is living out the life of a Person". There is lot's to discuss about this. I hope you will take a few minutes and register for the forum so that we can talk about this. You can send an email to LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com. Just tell us what you want to use as your UserName (example: UntoHim), and you will receive a welcome email along with a temporary password which you can change to something only you will know.

10-23-2011 08:58 AM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

10-23-2011 07:25 AM

OBW

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Isn't this an alternate way to think about the old "right or wrong doesn't matter, just the S/spirit"? This is one of those core statements that put living according to the Spirit on the back-burner and just getting more "dispensing" on the front.

And as Peter looks on from wherever he is, he is thinking that we have missed his very clear point that we actually have everything we need for righteousness.

So, YES. Lee missed the point.

10-22-2011 08:43 AM

countmeworthy

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Finally ! A fresh new thread !! 'bout time guys

Actually, I haven't had much time to pop in. But I found this to be a great topic for discussion just as I was going to raise this very subject to some friends of mine.

From the top:
Initially, when I heard this message taught in the LC, my heart and soul rejoiced! I was a young girl who did not have direction in her life, had poor self esteem and was a 'people pleaser' to compensate. For the first time, I had HOPE for my life to change!!! I truly believed w/all my heart (as I still do) God gives us purpose and changes our 'stinking thinking'.

Quote:

Lee had an unusal take on this, however. According to him simply the act of "adding the element of God" through fellowship, prayer and other spritual experience "automatically" led to transformation. Although Lee stressed obedience, he rarely directly tied obeying the Spirit with being transformed by the Spirit. Rather he often seemed to imply that transformation could take place without being obedient, simply by taking in the Spirit.

And that's where his message became convuluted. Lee stressed 2 points throughout my time in the LC: ENJOYING the Lord and the 'vision of the church' (which we all know meant the vision of the LC or LRC). He seemed to convey all you needed to be transformed is to 'enjoy the Lord' & the church life as we knew it. What a disservice he did to the saints. He's responsible for screwing a lot of peoples heads.

We can't simply 'enjoy the Lord' if we have not been convicted by the Holy Spirit to repent. Repentence is not simply 'I repent of all my sins. end of story.' Repentence, I PERSONALLY have learned is an on going process. Until we receive our Glorified bodies, the Holy Spirit will always bring out some dark crevice into the LIGHT. That's been my experience thus far !

An example: the Holy Spirit has convicted me enought times for calling every knucklehead that plucked my last nerve an 'idiot'. I finally got to the point I had no peace until I said to the Lord. " LORD. I'm sorry for calling them knuckleheads and idiots. They may act that way, and in my eyes, they ARE but I probably act that way too at times. You're very patient with me and have forgiven me. Forgive them and have Mercy on them as You have had Mercy and forgiven me.' There's been times when He made me apologize to the person and sometimes it's just between me & God.

"Enjoyment of the Lord," especially the way we did corporately did more harm than good and has damaged or destroyed many lives and marriages. Add to that, Lee instilled in us the 'vision' (more a 'belief') that 'there was nothing better out there than the glorious church life. That 'church life of course was the LC we knew. And had we all learned to abide in Christ and yield to His Holy Spirit as we are instructed to, the church life indeed could have been a most Glorious experience. God's promise to us is old things pass away & HE makes all things new. HE is the Healer of our souls, and HE IS.

Quote:

So LRC faithful would do all kinds of things to get "filled with the Spirit," hoping that the simple fact of "enjoying the Lord" would change them.

In my experience, this is something of a false hope.

Igzy my friend. You hit the jackpot! BINGO.

I want to share some highlights from 2004 that began restoring my relationship with the LORD and thus transforming my life.

1) For many years, I was in a very dark place in my life. Out of desperation I did some deep soul searching I needed answers to questions I had about myself. I needed to know why most of my life people controlled me, manipulated me, walked all over me, used me and verbally/emotionally abused me. I needed to know WHY I allowed this to happen over & over & over again.[/B]

2) I found those answers when I learned Satan used familiar spirits, soul ties, and transfer of spirits to destroy peoples lives (both believers and non believers.) I had never even heard of such things. But once I did, everything made sense to me! I learned somewhere intentionally or not, perhaps even as a child, I opened a window to demonic forces. [B]Windows I never shut because some windows I did not even know they were open much less how to shut.

I learned that even after I was saved, really saved, these strongholds still controlled and wreacked havoc on my life, even while I tried my best to 'Enjoy' the Lord and the church life. Lee's answer to people's emotional problems was 'enjoy the Lord. That is how you get out of your mind and into your spirit.'

But we have to get rid of the strongholds first ! And we did not know how.

3) Now that I understood the strongholds of these evil spirits, I Repented from the deepest, most heartfelt part of my gut, my spirit shedding buckets of tears for having opened those windows inadvertently. I probably opened those windows as a kid and did not know it!! I also renounced those spirits out loud. I didn’t scream or yell. But with a true heart and full assurance of Faith, I renounced those spirits, naming each and everyone of them. I asked the Lord to wash me in His Precious Blood anew.

It was then I began to experience complete Deliverance. Emotional healing and complete Deliverance does not happen over night. But I did feel a heavy weight lift off from me immediately. It was the beginning of my healing process. Within a month, I felt stronger in the Lord and my relationship with HIM began to be so restored, people at work noticed the change in me. I said to the Lord (in a condensed version) this:

“Lord Jesus. You've been so incredibly Patient and Loving towards me. I am soo sorry for hindering Your Work in me. With YOU nothing is impossible. Will You bring me up to speed to be the person I ought to be in Christ had I not hindered what You began in me 25 years ago? Thank You Lord.”

As the saying goes:
I may not be where I want to be but Halleluiah. I'm not where I used to be.

Thanks for reading my testimony and my experience friends !

10-21-2011 11:18 AM

Unregistered

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

But whether that means that "more" of God is added as time goes by I believe is very questionable. In fact, I think it's flat wrong.

10-21-2011 08:38 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Further, a major plank in Lee's theology was that that God got added to or "wrought into" our inner being. I'm not sure this is accurate at all. I think God changes our hearts and the more he does the more he can dwell comfortably in us and be seen in us. But whether that means that "more" of God is added as time goes by I believe is very questionable. In fact, I think it's flat wrong.

If I just come out of a good church meeting and feel filled with the Spirit, people may say "he's got a lot of God." But if thirty minutes later I'm screaming at my kids and losing my temper, what happened to all that "God" that was "added" to me?

I agree with your comments about "false hope" spread by the ministry. This is because the real work of the Spirit was disappearing, and WL had to explain why there was no real change in the saints even though they were doing "all the right things."

The Bible does tell us that we grow with the growth of God. Performing mechanized activities provides little to no growth. Growth is spiritual, and it is always related to our heart. Paul planted the seed of life into the saints. That was an addition of God. Apollos watered the seed. That was "more" of God in the believers. But it is God who gave the growth.

Whatever spiritual exercises we did that at one time helped us to grow, cannot be mechanically reproduced with the same results. Growth does include change. Real change. Firstly changes in thinking, then changes in behavior. Oh how our minds need constant renewing!

I saw much genuine Spirit-changing activity in the earlier years when our center was on Christ. Yes, there were problems, but there was an addition of God in those seeking Him.

One of the serious problems in the LC was highlighted in your final paragraph. The goal and center of our Christian walk was misdirected by WL. He firstly focused us all on the meetings, then he directed us all to himself and his ministry. In this way many, many precious ones were defrauded from their first love, Christ, and many brothers and sisters did not rightly esteem their relationship with their spouses and children.

I, for one, was guilty of this. Interestingly, the more I repented to the Lord, and properly focused on my family, the less appetite I had for WL and his program. That says a lot. But, unfortunately, I learn most lessons thru painful failure.

10-21-2011 07:53 AM

Cal

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you accepting alternative and dissenting viewpoints?

Sure, fire away.

10-21-2011 07:51 AM

Ohio

Re: Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

Are you accepting alternative and dissenting viewpoints?

10-21-2011 07:38 AM

Cal

Transformation: Did Lee Miss the Point?

One of the central themes of Lee's ministry was the transformation of the believer into the image of Christ, meaning the changing of his inner being, spirit and soul, into something that matched Christ.

Lee had an unusal take on this, however. According to him simply the act of "adding the element of God" through fellowship, prayer and other spritual experience "automatically" led to transformation. Although Lee stressed obedience, he rarely directly tied obeying the Spirit with being transformed by the Spirit. Rather he often seemed to imply that transformation could take place without being obedient, simply by taking in the Spirit.

So LRC faithful would do all kinds of things to get "filled with the Spirit," hoping that the simple fact of "enjoying the Lord" would change them.

In my experience, this is something of a false hope. As I've gone on, I've become aware that being changed by the Spirit is directly related to being obedient to the Spirit. Enjoying the Lord and being filled with the Spirit sets the stage and fuels me, so to speak, for acts of obedience, but it seems it is the obedience, the saying Amen and the willingness to be changed, which are crucial.

Lee stressed being transformed (itself a non-typical word, most Christians prefer the less dramatic "changed") as something "metabolic," citing that the Greek word rendered transformed in Romans is "metamorphos" like the metamorphoses of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Although this is not wrong, he stressed that aspect of it so much that LRCers lost sight that God was seeking to change them, that is their hearts and souls, not just on some mysterious metaphysical level (which we couldn't understand anyway, but Lee loved to talk about it), but on the level of what we think, feel and decide--the level of what's important to us, where we actually live.

Further, a major plank in Lee's theology was that that God got added to or "wrought into" our inner being. I'm not sure this is accurate at all. I think God changes our hearts and the more he does the more he can dwell comfortably in us and be seen in us. But whether that means that "more" of God is added as time goes by I believe is very questionable. In fact, I think it's flat wrong.

If I just come out of a good church meeting and feel filled with the Spirit, people may say "he's got a lot of God." But if thirty minutes later I'm screaming at my kids and losing my temper, what happened to all that "God" that was "added" to me?