Originally Posted by TLFisher

Nothing wrong with the practice calling on the Lord, It should not be a mechanical exercise. It should not be a competition display of who can do it the loudest.
If the intent of calling on the Lord is to set our mind on our spirit, that can be done quietly as well. In my post-LSM/LC church experience those that choose do so take time prior to the services to set their minds on their spirit.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't remember any exhortation in scripture for this PUBLIC display commonly seen in LC meetings. On the contrary, what is seen in scripture and referred to as “calling on the Lord,” could only be described as needy, private, genuine, unscripted, and personal prayer from the believer to the Lord.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality...

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

It's apparent to me that the presentation of the whole Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the LC deviates from the Bible. I wonder if anyone else noticed this or have any further thoughts?

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

On a side note, it’s a big red flag to me that the saints in LC rarely direct their prayers to the Father...

Originally Posted by Onlooker

I was also told that unless I pray the way that I did before, as in normal human speaking without any repetitions of Lords name, or allowing others to interrupt and insert amens or some sort of approval, my prayer is very individualistic and soulish without touching God. Go figure where these seers discovered such things, all I know now it’s not anywhere in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Jay

Again calling on the name of the Lord is exemplified many times over in the Bible and yes it's audible and yes those who did it said the name of the Lord in a spirit touching way

Originally Posted by Onlooker

As I was told and taught in my early years of LC, calling on the Lord as according to Lee has prerequisites....

Originally Posted by Jay

Honestly I love being connected to the Lord in my spirit. It's like having continuous access to the well of life. If I don't turn to my spirit by opening up deep within, which is accompanied by calling on his name, then I feel dry and dead. I feel disconnected. I like to stay plugged into God idk about anyone else

Originally Posted by Jay

Why would calling on the name of the Lord to contact him be in vain?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality, rather merely vain repetition, taking His name in vain as we are commanded not to in the 3rd Commandment. This was most unfortunate, but I, and you, cannot deny that it really happened. I talked about this in that lengthy ITERO Midwest quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC.

This is the unavoidable consequence of that public practice. Calling on the Name of our dear Lord should never have become some cheap and commonplace, very PUBLIC, very programmed, very coerced, very loud and repetitive, yet distorted, mechanical practice. I cannot remember any exhortation in scripture for this PUBLIC display commonly seen in LC meetings. On the contrary, what is seen in scripture and referred to as “calling on the Lord,” could only be described as needy, private, genuine, unscripted, and personal prayer from the believer to the Lord.

Originally Posted by Jay

Why would calling on the name of the Lord to contact him be in vain?

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe you should read Ohio’s post again. He didn’t say there were no verses. Here’s a good one…a command.
Exodus 20:7
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively, even chanting, without any semblance of reality, rather merely vain repetition, taking His name in vain as we are commanded not to in the 3rd Commandment.

Originally Posted by Jay

There are plenty of verses in the Bible where calling on the Lord publicly happened…..

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many, way too many, who attended LC meetings or grew up in that system DID call mindlessly, repetitively...

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I'm curious about where the Bible tells us "to exercise our spirits" that involves psychic, yelling, repetitive, and mindless mantras like those practiced in the LC?
I believe W. Lee often mentioned 1 Timothy 4:7, where Paul tells Timothy to "train yourself to be godly" (NIV). I think he meant to focus on prayer, reading the Holy Scriptures, avoiding wrongdoing, living righteously and in obedience to God, practicing charity, being filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.

Originally Posted by Jay

How can one be transformed by the spirit if one doesn't actually exercise their spirit?

Originally Posted by aron

While God's economy, which follows, can also be said to be a further demonstration of God's sovereign grace, and I believe it is, it involves more than calling. If you read Paul's epistles to the gentiles, he wanted some issue, some fruit, and not merely the fruit of yet more lips calling on the name (though that was involved as well).

Originally Posted by aron

The novelty & shock value drew in the young ones & alarmed the more cautious ones. "Don't lay hands quickly on any new believer" is a good warning, and it speaks to what happened to many of us, myself included.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by aron

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is a commonly cited verse. But it also says, If you believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead you shall be saved. So, to believe, to confess, and to call are placed in the same context. If I confess Jesus as Lord, this means that I believe that God raised him from the dead, that he is Saviour of the world, that my sins are forgiven, and that I am one who calls upon the name of the Lord, and that I am saved. All of these are used interchangeably. And nowhere does Paul define any of this as God's economy.

Originally Posted by Jay

...in the past I used to totally ignore the book of James. However recently I have been appreciating this passage from James 2:14-18, which I think touches on this matter nicely....

2:14 What is the profit, my brothers, if anyone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and lacks daily food,
2:16 And any one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, yet you do not give them the necessities of the body, what is the profit?
2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.
2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works


So taken as a whole the Bible is balanced on this. But I think the LC and denominations are not balanced on this point. I think they're both too much one way or the other. The denominations neglect the exercise of the spirit to contact God, and the LC neglects the works which glorify God

Originally Posted by Jay

.. Many times I've read him say that all we need is the spirit and all we need to do is take care of the spirit. In a sense this is sorta true, but clearly there's much more to the Christian life than just that.

Originally Posted by aron

Being filled with the Holy Spirit may be caring for those who are sick. "When I was sick, you visited me..." Was this visiting then self-effort, devoid of Godly connection? Doesn't seem so, from the text.

Originally Posted by Jay

So obviously this means we still live normal ordinary lives and we don't just sit around all day chanting "oh Lord Jesus"

Originally Posted by Jay

These and plenty more verses imply that when we are connected to God we are filled and we drink of him. Really it all makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by aron

Following my last post (#560), let's say the formula "calling ("ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus-ooohlordjesus!") is actually drinking the Spirit, and drinking the Spirit fills us with the Spirit, and being filled with the Spirit makes us transformed into the same image, from glory to glory. Suppose that is your premise.

Then, "Just keep eating, just keep drinking" means "that is all you need to do". The "just" part is critical. And the "simple" part. "It's so simple and easy". God's economy has been reduced to a performance, where if you do this, you get that. Simple, and easy.

But any part of that "simple and easy" formula for becoming filled with all the fullness of God can be interpreted other than what WL said it was. When Jesus said, "Blessed is the one who gives a cup of cool water" in Matthew 10:42 may really refer to giving cold water to a thirsty one who's given up their livelihood, and gone out preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Absolutely not referring to calling, at all. Perhaps it isn't so "simple and easy" as WL said.

And even if, and to some extent, that "calling" can be equated to "drinking" and "drinking" to the "filling of the Holy Spirit" and that to "transformation", there is not one verse to support the idea that any of this is connected to what Paul and Timothy and others were teaching the gentile churches as God's economy. Nothing.

And even moreso, what if you sit around all day, going "Ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus - ohlordjesus!" and you don't give a cup of water to the thirsty one? Are you really a disciple, according to Matthew 10? When I was with the FTTA I distinctly remember this being taught - "don't waste your time" on actual good works, just get the good building materials and get them to call "ohlordjesus" with you.

So WL's teaching of God's economy is wrong on several levels. First, it lacks actual basis, then it doesn't have internal coherence, and lastly it requires ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I think I can understand to some degree how strongly you feel about this....

Originally Posted by Jay

How can one be transformed by the spirit if one doesn't actually exercise their spirit?

Also where's Neil at? The other day I got reprimanded for being half as condescending as you are being now. Or is it only the people who totally bash the LC and Lee are able to get away with blatant mocking like this?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Jay, perhaps it would be good for you take a break and reflect on the discussions you've had here. You're making quite an effort to engage in multiple doctrinal debates at once, and this with multiple people, too. It's clear that you feel outnumbered here, and your exasperation shows......You could also consider private messaging so as not to feel so overwhelmed by this many opposing voices coming at you all at once.

Originally Posted by Nell

It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Originally Posted by Jay

Also it's funny to note that you guys are contradicting yourselves. Earlier someone was saying that the LC is not the only place where they practice calling on the Lord. But now you're claiming that calling on the Lord is a cult practice lol. So are you saying that the LC is not the only "cult" to call on the Lord? That anyone who calls on the Lord is practicing cult behavior?


But then you'll say "oh no it's HOWWWW they do it." Dude you're just bashing because you hate the LC.

Originally Posted by Jay

It's fine, but it would be better if you just admitted it instead of going around in circles contradicting yourselves. I'd bet that if another church that wasn't the LC chanted "ohhhh Lorrrdd Jessssuusss" you would have no issue with it because you're selectively outraged aren't you lol

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm sure you think that I'm bashing you right now huh? lol, now YOU'RE the victims aren't you? lol. Pretty soon that's what it'll turn into. You accuse others of the very behavior you exhibit. I love it dude, good stuff. Just move the goalposts whenever it benefits you and your angle

Originally Posted by Jay

In the book of Acts when Paul was persecuting the Christians, he identified them by hearing their calling on the Lord in their houses. How would he be able to do that if they weren't calling over and over? Doesn't seem logical

At any rate, you can dissect and break it down any way you like, it doesn't and won't ever erase millions of people's experience practicing it. Sorry, we tried it, we liked it, we practice it. You're certainly welcome to attack and cry about it though.....

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm not aware of a post where I, Trapped, have bashed you, Jay. Can you give me an example? If so, I am happy to apologize. Generally I try to make it a point to deal with the teachings and arguments, rather than bash people, but I might have gone too far somewhere. Let me know.

However, if you mean to say that you disagreed with ACuriousFellow's link/document about calling on the Lord, and that you consider my response to you a bashing, what part of it is bashing? I'm genuinely confused by your response where you seem to disregard what it is the Bible clearly says, and so I asked if that is really what you are doing. And I'm genuinely confused by your lifting your experience over the Bible even when it contradicts the Bible. I'm genuinely confused that you consider hearing what the Bible teaches "an attack". As a Christian, who by definition is one who is supposed to hold to the Word of God, if the Word of God gets disregarded, what's the point?

I did ask you several clarifying questions, though, which you did not respond to in favor of saying what you said above. My questions were serious ones, and concerned ones, not bashing ones. If you want to answer those questions and explain further what you meant, I'm listening.

Trapped

Originally Posted by Jay

How are you not attacking though? You're just bashing. Which is whatever I guess. If you've been hurt it's understandable. But at least have some solid points in your attacks. Some of the stuff you all say I agree with, but if I don't agree then you just bash me. That's pretty weak honestly. You can't be objective and classy? You can't be mature? It's almost like you're a hate group with no other goal but to hate, even if what you're saying isn't viable. At least make sense. If it makes sense to you then fine, but if I disagree with it objectively then you attack me. That's silliness. Have you lost all your rationality?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Wait a minute. So even though the Bible plainly shows in 1 Kings 18 what calling on the name of the Lord is (it's not calling over and over) and even though the Bible condemns vain repetitions (which is calling over and over), you would still stick with calling over and over, even though it's what the Bible condemns and never teaches?

From your post above, you make it clear that your experience trumps the Bible even when your experience is in direct contradiction to it. Why bother with the Bible at all?

Those in the local church have every right to practice however they want. But if the local church is going to teach that "OHHHH LORD JESUUUUUS! OHHHH LORRRRD JEEEESUUUUSS! OHHH LORRRD JESUUUUS!" is what is meant in the Bible by "calling on the Lord", then people outside the local church are going to call out that error.



It's a classic marker of a cult to consider disagreement and clear presentation of errors "attacks". I can't even comprehend hearing the truth of the Bible and considering it an attack!! Is that really the position you want to take?

Originally Posted by Jay

In the book of Acts when Paul was persecuting the Christians, he identified them by hearing their calling on the Lord in their houses. How would he be able to do that if they weren't calling over and over? Doesn't seem logical

Originally Posted by Jay

At any rate, you can dissect and break it down any way you like, it doesn't and won't ever erase millions of people's experience practicing it. Sorry, we tried it, we liked it, we practice it. You're certainly welcome to attack and cry about it though.....

Originally Posted by Nell

It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Bzzzt.

This is an incorrect assessment of what was actually written. The premise of your statement is false. You need to drop that habit of putting words in the mouths of others, especially when the text is right in front of us for all to see.

I never said calling on the Lord is erroneous, nor did I imply it. I very explicitly stated that calling on the Lord is crucial and serves several purposes such as calling for the sake of salvation and for the sake of intercession. What is also implied based on the verses I provided is that calling on the Lord also serves the purpose of praising and glorifying the Lord. What fool would say that calling on the Lord is wrong? Only the greatest.

Never did I imply that calling on the Lord is erroneous. What I did was I very explicitly stated that Lee's interpretation of calling on the Lord, which consists of repetitiously calling in a chant-like fashion for prolonged periods of time in order to stir ourselves up, is not scripturally sound and that in addition to there being no scriptural support for the very specific and detailed practice that Witness Lee refers to as "calling," there is a subtle but serious danger to the Lord's people and his church if such a practice is utilized in our personal lives and in the assembly. Vain repetitions do the Lord and his people no good.

To put it as simply as possible: what Witness Lee refers to as "calling on the Lord" is not what the scriptures refer to as "calling on the Lord."

They are two different things that are very thoroughly incompatible with one another.

Originally Posted by Jay

You are wrong for implying that calling on the Lord is erroneous. It's clearly not

Originally Posted by Nell

I'm correct.

All Lee had to do was to acknowledge that his interpretation of the bible was just that...his INTERPRETATION. Everyone who has ever read the bible has interpreted it one way or another, but no one has legitimate claim to THE INTERPRETATION that supersedes all others. Lee did that. You call telling the truth---"bashing"? So be it. You are wrong.

You should welcome a challenge to Witness Lee's doctrines. If he actually is the "minister of the age", he would pass the test with confirmation of the Spirit which would end all doubts. If Lee was who he claimed to be, there should be no abuse by the elders he "trained." None.

Once I was called into a "little dark room" and torn to pieces by some elders. I was terrified. I thought I was going to die. I didn't understand what they are accusing me of. I was so scared, I admitted to some of their accusations that didn't happen. I didn't attack them. They attacked me. (This was Lee's practice which he taught to his elders in those "elders meetings" he had with them.).

A few years later, I was called back into a little room that was full of light. These same elders apologized to me and repented for what they had said to me those years ago.

Bashing and maligning accusations is YOUR way to minimize the sinful behavior of the offending elders AND the errant doctrines/teachings of a man who held himself out to be the "minister of the age". If someone's behavior is wrong, their doctrine should be tested...Acts 17 gives us this charge. Actually, Acts tells us to test all things without qualification.

I was "disciplined" by the elders. They admitted they were wrong, i.e., what they did was sin...not mere misbehavior.

Telling the truth may hurt, but its not the same as bashing and maligning. You are defending Witness Lee's "interpretation". Yet we are told to test all things. We received Lee's "words", now we are testing it with a sober mind which Acts 17 calls "noble".

TEST ALL THINGS
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

We received Witness Lee's word with all readiness of mind. Now we are searching the scriptures and have found that many things Lee says are not so. We should have done this from day one.

Nell

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Greetings, Jay.

It seems I was in luck. I had already prepared a short bible-study some time ago regarding calling on the name of the Lord. I refined it a bit in order to present it to you.

Here is a link to my study.

It has been uploaded as a word document on the site.

Originally Posted by Jay

Welp the Bible tells us to call on the Lord, so idk what to tell you man. I'm sorry that you got hurt by controlling elders or whatever. I have been too and that's a problem. But it's very difficult to bash Lee on his interpretation of the Bible. Verrrrrry very difficult and I haven't seen much if any success on that so far from this site. I think probably the only thing I've seen is the misbehavior of the elders which seems to be backed up by certain old testament verses which Nee and Lee used to justify deputy authority and subsequently misused that so called authority, as I've seen evidence for, and experienced myself in the LC. That's about it. I think everything else is either a stretch or an unfounded attack

Look if you got hurt by elders etc. that's one thing. But to try to malign someone's validity by claiming their doctrine is wrong.....you better be correct in trying that. I haven't seen much correctness with regards to that

Originally Posted by Jay

Here's a bevy of verses that touch on calling on the name of the Lord

Acts 7:59; 9:14; 22:16; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22; Gen. 4:26; 12:8; Deut. 4:7; Psa. 99:6; 116:17; 145:18; Isa. 12:2-4; 55:6; 64:7; Lam. 3:55-57

They all say either "calling on his name" or "calling upon the name of the Lord. Who is the Lord? Is it not the Lord Jesus? So should we not say "Oh Lord Jesus?" Does the Bible not tell us to do this?

Originally Posted by Nell

How indeed...sir. It's pretty simple.

He is GOD. We depend on him, not the other way around. Witness Lee was a "methodist" who taught that we depend on Lee's methods instead of God and God's mercy and his great love for us.

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


I can GUARANTEE you that I don't follow Witness Lee's methods, and haven't for 20 or so years. I don't "call Oh Lord Jesus" and haven't for 20 years. I talk to God. Every day. He talks to me. I listen to him. I obey him. When I mess up, he tells me. I tell him I'm sorry. I don't "exercise my spirit". Oneness with God doesn't depend on "exercising the right organ to contact him". This sounds absurd.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as you, Father, art in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you hast sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me: for you loved me before the foundation of the world.


It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

How indeed...sir. It's pretty simple.

He is GOD. We depend on him, not the other way around. Witness Lee was a "methodist" who taught that we depend on Lee's methods instead of God and God's mercy and his great love for us.

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


I can GUARANTEE you that I don't follow Witness Lee's methods, and haven't for 20 or so years. I don't "call Oh Lord Jesus" and haven't for 20 years. I talk to God. Every day. He talks to me. I listen to him. I obey him. When I mess up, he tells me. I tell him I'm sorry. I don't "exercise my spirit". Oneness with God doesn't depend on "exercising the right organ to contact him". This sounds absurd.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as you, Father, art in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you hast sent me.
22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me: for you loved me before the foundation of the world.


It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

Nell

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Ah… once again discerning the scriptures and judging other groups through the lens of Lee. Of course you’re going to think they aren’t doing such scriptural things because they don’t do it the way Lee prescribed. I’m honestly shocked at how those in The Lord’s Recovery do not realize they are in yet another denomination.

Well, that’s enough pathos for now. It’s time to return to logos, and it’s time to return to the Logos.

As I challenged you with the naming of assemblies, I will challenge you with Lee’s various and unfortunate instances of eisegesis which have led to more unnecessary practices which give the saints in The Lord’s Recovery their distasteful sense of spiritual superiority.

Let’s begin with calling. You say the none of the other denominations apart from The Lord’s Recovery do not do this, and I say many of them do. I am almost certain this disagreement exists because the denominations rarely do it the way that Witness Lee prescribed. Just as well, I’m almost certain your reflexive thought and likely response will be “it’s how the bible prescribed.” If that is so, let’s take a look at the scriptures and continue our duel, shall we?

Here is my challenge to you if you’ll take it:

Show me in the scriptures where “calling on the Lord” is either explicitly or implicitly shown to be a practice of repeatedly chanting “Oh Lord Jesus” or some variation of the like as Lee explicitly taught.

For my part, I will endeavor to show you either/both implicit and explicit scriptures to the contrary.

Whether you answer my challenge or not, I will prepare and publish a response to Lee's doctrinal folly.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Ah… once again discerning the scriptures and judging other groups through the lens of Lee. Of course you’re going to think they aren’t doing such scriptural things because they don’t do it the way Lee prescribed. I’m honestly shocked at how those in The Lord’s Recovery do not realize they are in yet another denomination.

Well, that’s enough pathos for now. It’s time to return to logos, and it’s time to return to the Logos.

As I challenged you with the naming of assemblies, I will challenge you with Lee’s various and unfortunate instances of eisegesis which have led to more unnecessary practices which give the saints in The Lord’s Recovery their distasteful sense of spiritual superiority.

Let’s begin with calling. You say the none of the other denominations apart from The Lord’s Recovery do not do this, and I say many of them do. I am almost certain this disagreement exists because the denominations rarely do it the way that Witness Lee prescribed. Just as well, I’m almost certain your reflexive thought and likely response will be “it’s how the bible prescribed.” If that is so, let’s take a look at the scriptures and continue our duel, shall we?

Here is my challenge to you if you’ll take it:

Show me in the scriptures where “calling on the Lord” is either explicitly or implicitly shown to be a practice of repeatedly chanting “Oh Lord Jesus” or some variation of the like as Lee explicitly taught.

For my part, I will endeavor to show you either/both implicit and explicit scriptures to the contrary.

Whether you answer my challenge or not, I will prepare and publish a response to Lee's doctrinal folly.

Originally Posted by Jay

...How can we receive the dispensing of God if we are not exercising our spirit sir? How can we be one with God if we are not exercising the right organ to contact him?

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

On the matter of "dispensing," most churches know that we receive the dispensing of the Holy Spirit and that we receive this dispensing in many ways. It may appear through gifts or healing or wisdom or the fruit of the spirit mentioned in Galatians. Lee wanted to sound special by turning the spirit into some yummy snack we can munch on every day, but this is not different than what Christians have already known for centuries: we seek the Lord, we receive the Holy Spirit, and we grow as we become one with the spirit. We seek continuously in order to grow continuously. I knew of this even while within the other denominations.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

On the matter of "exercising the spirit," Lee erroneously established a false dichotomy between the spirit and the soul. Look at the function of the spirit of man throughout the bible. Even without the dispensing of the Holy Spirit, man's spirit is what gives him the ability to reason and to think and to feel. Man's spirit is capable of thought and emotion and will. There's a reason the soul an spirit of man are likened to bone and marrow. You cannot reasonably separate one from the other. Lee's concept of "exercising the spirit" is just another way of using new vocabulary to try and sound like he discovered something grand and mysterious, but in reality any man who uses a reasonable mind to know God and seek him and pray to him and follow him is already "exercising the spirit" because he is seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Transformation: are we really having to tell you about this, Jay? The transforming power of the spirit? Really? You're really going to tell me that not a single assembly you've been to outside of The Lord's Recovery has ever in their history spoken on this? Where in the world are you where you can so boldly and foolishly make such a claim? What backwater spiritual desert have you been killing yourself in to feel that no other denomination besides the Lord's Recovery speaks on these things? Your locality must be woefully pathetic if this is the conclusion that the assemblies in your area have led you to. Either that, or you're once again just buying into Recovery dogma and reflexively making unfounded statements like "no one else does this!"

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Prophesying: most churches I've been in give opportunity to their members to speak the word of God through the use of smaller bible studies and gatherings. That many of them get together for a bigger sermon does not negate this. Jesus and the apostles also made use of larger meetings and sermons to teach. Those in the Lord's Recovery have a very similar format whether they admit it or not. They have several days-long trainings and conferences and meetings where there is one main speaker giving an extended message for hours and then they have the prophesying meetings where everyone can have a chance to speak (though often times the only thing that was accepted was Lee's doctrines). The point is that many members of many churches "prophesy" when they get together to study the word of God and build each other up. Iron sharpens iron. Building the body of Christ. This is not something Lee came up with. It is foolish to think that such things do not exist outside of The Lord's Recovery.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

I feel like making a point on "contacting God" would be redundant. Anyone who seeks the Lord is contacting him. Anyone who sets their hearts on God is contacting him. This is nothing new.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

As for "mingling," most churches don't believe we "become God" like Lee taught. There's a reason the word "mingling" fell out of use for centuries. Most of the churches I've been to teach on us becoming closer and closer to God, being conformed to his image more and more as we grow in our Christian life and subsequently becoming more and more like God through the way we live and interact with one another and the world. I could see this even while within the other denominations.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Jay, just take the loss rather than countering with childish sarcasm. You know this statement is not true. I know it's not true. Many denominations speak on the spirit of man, which is what gives us the ability of higher thought and the ability to commune with the Holy Spirit. I've been to Baptist, Pentecostal, and nondenominational churches, and they all touch on the spirit of man and our relation to the Holy Spirit. I was aware of this even while within the other denominations.

Originally Posted by Jay

On the other hand I would say that the denominations aren't at all balanced either, but in the opposite direction. The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, transformation, and the triune God, etc.

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I believe that Witness Lee employed terms like "God's Economy" as a means to draw and then separate individuals from the broader Body of Christ. Additionally, concepts such as the teaching of the local ground of the church and practices like pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord were similarly utilized to create a sense of exclusivity and control. Much like Jehovah Witnesses emphasize the name "Jehovah" and Seventh Day Adventists prioritize observing the Sabbath, Witness Lee emphasized buzzwords such as "God's Economy" and "Lord's Recovery," as well as phrases like "exercise your Spirit”, “sense of life” to isolate and bind believers.

The term "economy" appears only a handful of times in the writings of Paul, indicating that it is not of central importance compared to themes like Christ, the cross, repentance, holiness, and salvation, which are extensively emphasized throughout the Bible. Furthermore, the interpretation of "God's Economy" given by Witness Lee as the mingling and dispensing of the Triune God with tripartite man lacks biblical support and is an erroneous teaching. This perceived exclusivity around the concept of "economy" within the Lord's Recovery hinders genuine fellowship with other Christians outside the movement, creating unnecessary division.

Originally Posted by Nell

NEVER? How do you know this? Have you visited every church congregation in America?

Originally Posted by Jay

……The denominations NEVER talk about the spirit, mingling, dispensing, exercising the spirit, contacting God, prophesying that builds up the church, and the triune God, etc.

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

In my perspective, God's Economy encompasses His grand plan of salvation in Christ and His divine will to establish His kingdom among us. This includes the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the apostles, such as believing in Christ, repenting of sins, living a righteous life, spreading the gospel, practicing compassion and generosity, honoring marriage, and more—all of which contribute to the realization of God's economy. However, within the Lord's Recovery movement, there appears to be a downplaying of these essential aspects, while abstract and mystical concepts like mingling and dispensing are elevated to a central focus. This shift can obscure the simplicity and power of the gospel message and detract from the core teachings of Scripture. It's crucial for believers to discern and recognize the subtle tactics of the enemy to distort foundational truths and sow division among God's people.

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

In my perspective, God's Economy encompasses His grand plan of salvation in Christ and His divine will to establish His kingdom among us. This includes the fundamental teachings of Jesus and the apostles, such as believing in Christ, repenting of sins, living a righteous life, spreading the gospel, practicing compassion and generosity, honoring marriage, and more—all of which contribute to the realization of God's economy. However, within the Lord's Recovery movement, there appears to be a downplaying of these essential aspects, while abstract and mystical concepts like mingling and dispensing are elevated to a central focus. This shift can obscure the simplicity and power of the gospel message and detract from the core teachings of Scripture. It's crucial for believers to discern and recognize the subtle tactics of the enemy to distort foundational truths and sow division among God's people.

Originally Posted by ThankfulForever777

I believe that Witness Lee employed terms like "God's Economy" as a means to draw and then separate individuals from the broader Body of Christ. Additionally, concepts such as the teaching of the local ground of the church and practices like pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord were similarly utilized to create a sense of exclusivity and control. Much like Jehovah Witnesses emphasize the name "Jehovah" and Seventh Day Adventists prioritize observing the Sabbath, Witness Lee emphasized buzzwords such as "God's Economy" and "Lord's Recovery," as well as phrases like "exercise your Spirit”, “sense of life” to isolate and bind believers.

Originally Posted by aron

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God." This is our daily bread.

Originally Posted by Jay

I have no idea how you're tying this into the footnotes about Lee saying David's concept was often natural and fallen. It's just an incredibly weak point you're attempting. It doesn't even make sense logically.

Originally Posted by aron

“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."

We can either say that David was in error in Psalm 16, thinking that God would keep him from Sheol/Hades, or that he foreknew the Seed that would come. Which approach did Peter take?

"The Holy Spirit spoke through David and he himself said: "The Lord said to my Lord, `Sit beside me until I make you master over your enemies.'" Jesus said that the Holy Spirit spoke through David - where does Jesus say that David was in his fallen human self, vainly trying to be good? There's no precedent for this position in the NT usage. It's a position that WL came up with, against NT precedent. Who was entertaining fallen human concepts, here?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" - does NT precedent suggest A) Jeremiah's vanity, or B) NT believers enjoying the processed God, or C) Jesus obeying the Father? Lee gave us a false choice set: A or B, but he skipped C.

Originally Posted by aron

It's in the RecV footnotes. Yet again, the false dichotomy is assumed of either A or B, ignoring option C, which is the option the NT writers took.

"The law here refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, written by Moses. In ruling over the people the king had to be instructed... and controlled by the word of God. The principle should be the same with the elders in the churches. In order to administrate or manage the church, the elders must be reconstituted with the holy word of God. As a result, they will be under God's government, under God's rule and control. Then spontaneously God will be in their decisions, and the elders will represent God and manage the affairs of the church. This kind of management is theocracy."

Originally Posted by aron

You are reading Lee's theology back onto the text as he trained you to do so. But where in the NT is the basis? There are dozens of quotes showing revelation, but nothing that I can find where they (Jesus, Paul, Peter) pan the natural concepts of David. There is no precedent for this interpretive position. It was an approach of selfish convenience to prop up a weak theology. The fallen concepts belong to Lee, not David.

Originally Posted by Jay

That to me is solid proof that David was up and down in his experiences and this clearly came through in his writing

Originally Posted by Jay

Can you quote Lee where he said this? Can you add a link?

Originally Posted by Jay

Are we listening to Christ today? Or are we trying to please God out of our works, which is just a modified version of following the law. Any person who reads the Bible carefully understands that attempting to please God by following the law results in spiritual death and really is an insult to God. Just read the book of Romans up until chapter 8 and you'll see how following the law in order to please God is an error

Originally Posted by aron

And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.

Originally Posted by aron

This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage

Originally Posted by aron

That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.

Originally Posted by aron

The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.

Originally Posted by aron

God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.

Originally Posted by aron

"My food is to do the will of the Father", that was ignored

Originally Posted by aron

God had been reduced to an object, processed for personal use - mastication, enjoyment, assimilation. We had become the center and focus of the narrative. We fixated on our overcoming, or not... our "making it" versus being "in a dark room" for 1000 years. Witness Lee, at the center of the religious enterprise (really, a personal 'guanxi network' per cultural affiliation), manipulated us by making us introspective. He gave us a puzzle - ourselves - and the only way out is to regard the MOTA and his message. His version of "God's economy" was central to that exercise. It was all about you, exercising your spirit, enjoying, reigning in life. It is really a subjective maze, a hall of mirrors, manipulated by the MOTA... are you "enjoying" today? Or, headed for the "dark room"?

Originally Posted by aron

My sense of the chief deficiency in WL’s ministry – and others may see differently – is that he made the Bible about himself, when it’s really about Jesus. WL held WN as de facto Minister of the Age – he called him Seer of the Divine Revelation – and then as WN’s purported close acolyte, WL then became the new Seer, the new MOTA. The believers’ relationship with God was defined by their relationship with him – if they were on the “proper” ground or not, and then if they were “independent” or even worse, “ambitious” or “rebellious”, versus being “one” with “God’s oracle”, and to what degree of “practical oneness” they exhibited. All these factors determined one’s proximity or involvement to the supposed flow from the throne of God.

It was a Chinese [cultural] guanxi network, with a patina of Christianity on top for recruiting purposes. A Caucasian on this forum (DR) wrote “when the Chinese brothers realized I was tight with WL, they completely changed their attitudes towards me and became very deferential.” In a large conference, I personally saw WL publicly calling out TC, who replied “I am ashamed…” and confessed the shorcomings of his local churches. Relationships were strongly mediated by unexamined cultural biases, which determined who’d kow tow to another.

That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.

This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage. And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.

The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Anyone remember that song that showed how Lee was all about centering on Christ and totally not at all about centering on man?

"O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe."

All sarcasm aside, I really do like the tune of the song, if not the message anymore.

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Well Jay, maybe I was just really lucky for this to happen to little old me - but a couple of years after I walked away from the LC here in my hometown (the same one I migrated from San Diego to help establish in 1985) I found myself in the midst of a well attended multi-church Prayer Conference less than 5 miles from the LC Meeting Hall and then this shocking image flashed up on the screen...



What do you think ran through my mind in that moment?

No Jay, I was NOT thinking "What the hell are these degraded lifeless Babylonians doing stealing such rich insights from the Ministry Of The Age and failing to give credit where credit is due?"

Actually Jay, I was rejoicing that someone had gone beyond simply knowing that human beings have a spirit! These people were actually doing something practical with a truth that we in the LCs had simply been content to know & beat our chests about. They were pressing on to maturity in Christ - and helping others along the same path!

Please STOP painting believers outside the LC with such a broad negative brush. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

P.S.

Originally Posted by aron

God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.

Originally Posted by OBW

..if the process of learning the lost teachings then opens us up to more and more new revelation, is that evidence of something of God, or of something else? When the result is that we come to believe things that are not soundly found in the scripture, and in some cases stand in opposition to it, do we need an overlay (like "God's economy") to allow us to assert that actual scripture does not mean what it clearly says, but something else?

Originally Posted by Jay

Well as far as the subject of Lee's ministry, I believe absolutely that it's focused on Jesus. It introduces you to your human spirit, which is the practical way to contact Jesus in real time. I am very grateful for Lee for that. I never would have known that or heard that from anywhere else. Who else talks about the human spirit? And in such a concise and to the point way?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, I agree. Serious lack of balance and focus.

A while ago I read that half of the professing Christians spoke in tongues and half did not. Basically split down the middle. While I never spoke in tongues, I have met with a mildly Pentecostal community church. I found it sad that there was no balance, no crossover, no learning, from one side to the other. A huge wall existed. Unfortunately.

The same wall exists around the Recovery. I definitely felt that many riches in the Recovery could have benefitted the greater body of Christ. That definitely was more true in the early days of the 60’s and 70’s. Now, however, many Recovery practices have become so robotic, so structured, so mandated by headquarters. Eg, the last LSM meeting I watched was the Quarantine meeting of Titus Chu some 15 years ago. Things went quite long, and someone said “let’s rise and call on the Lord 5x.” That was vain, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and made me sick.

That’s why in his later ministry Paul exhorted us to call on His name out of a pure heart. No practice should become mechanical, void of faith, void of reality. Like Jesus said, “this people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far away.” The Recovery boasts in their unique practices and teachings, yet they are puffed up. Their ministry now conveys a feel-good pride that makes them feel so special, better than everyone else.

During that quarantine excommunication meeting they should have been crying. So intolerant of meany differences. They totally lost sight of our common faith, the real oneness of the Spirit. We in the Midwest were like 98.6% identical to them, but that was not adequate. They demand 100% submission to their authority. That is more totalitarian than Christian. But that was one thing that opened my eyes to see how far off things had become.

Originally Posted by aron

When I was young, recruited off the college campus, during the New Way era push for good building materials, I was just what they wanted: vulnerable, impressionable, and uncertain. Witness Lee was anything but uncertain. So I borrowed his certainty. He would show us a verse or two or three, and say, "This shows us that..." or "This indicates that..."

It was not until years later, after immersion in this world of reflexive non-thought, that there are other Bible verses, indicating other possible narratives, should one reflect, and consider. And when I showed these "other" verses to the LSM-affiliated brethren, a curious thing would happen.

If it was a public meeting, there would be silence. I had brought out the "wrong" verse, that couldn't be used in the Lee narrative. Or, I'd be told that I was confused. Or, in a private conversation I might be told that I was being stubborn, argumentative. But in all cases there was a refusal to consider the scripture that I had offered. If it couldn't be made to fit the Lee narrative, it couldn't exist. What kind of a Bible is that?

I would remind our readers that to assemble in Meeting Hall 3 of the Church in Taichung and read Week 8 of HWFMR is also a work, based on faith. You believe the WL narrative and it alters your behaviours. Pray-reading is an action, with a hoped-for result.

But the NT is about Jesus, in fact both Testaments look to him. He said, "These things were written of me"

Originally Posted by aron

That such cut-rate theology can survive and even flourish brings an obvious question: How can such poor thinking get disseminated, accepted, promoted, and vociferously defended? It's really striking at first glance.

Case in point - intensification as the 3rd stage of God's economy. Where is the basis for consideration of intensification of the HS as something Paul either taught or asked Timothy to safeguard, as LSM teaches? Because it's said to be revealed to John in the Apocalypse account due to degradation, yet it was an integral part of God's NT economy, per Paul? It was clearly added on by WL. There's no trace of Paul (or Jesus) teaching intensification, much less as part of God's economy. It was manufactured by WL, clearly. There's no justification for saying otherwise. (And there were 7 lamps burning in Exodus 25, so degradation & intensification is also theologically wobbly).

Or, the role of women in the ekklesia. Foundational to Nee, but forbidden by Lee. They both can't be logical positions. One or the other is illegitimate, by their own terms. It's theology of convenience, just like the idea of intensification as integral to the God's economy being taught by Paul.



First supporting pillar is that the group member is conditioned to think that any error must be on their part. If you see a problem, you are negative or poison or ambitious or divisive. So critical thought is suppressed and illogic is accepted.

For confirmation see Jo Casteel open letter. Witness Lee was Seer of the Divine Revelation, God's Oracle, the Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ, and if he didn't make sense, then you were somehow deficient and defeated. He HAD to make sense, even when he didn't seem to. He was Spiritual Man, able to discern others while his thought was cloaked in mystical impregnability. You just needed the vision, we were told.

The second pillar is that everything - everything - that you see in print from WL was introduced publicly in an atmosphere of heel rocking, groaning, sighing, neck rolling, arm waving, repetitive chanting, modulated intonations with fist pumps to put the audience into a state of heightened suggestibility. At that point, they'll overlook the most obvious illogic.

How can there be multiple centers of the universe? It's by definition a singularity. Yet look how often WL publicly reintroduced the concept, continuing to offer new and incompatible centers. Just google "Witness Lee center of the universe" and you'll see what I mean. And there are many such examples. A ministry of thousands of messages that is riddled with inconsistencies. The only constants that are seen are convenience and self- interest. The (ahem) revealed truth is whatever expediencies will tickle the audience today, and keep the game rolling.

Originally Posted by Zezima

I always...always blamed myself for not agreeing with the message given or the interpretation presented… I never blamed the subject presenting the message. Not only that, but I never thought LSM could be wrong. While those are personal rationalizations, they were developed through a lifetime of being told LSM could not be wrong and a suppression of critical thinking.

Originally Posted by Jay

We don't need to see the word "eating" in his writings though sir. Jesus himself said it (John 6:57). Who has precedent-Jesus or Paul? In Matthew 15:26-28 Jesus likened himself to bread crumbs for the dogs (gentile sinners) to eat. Yet another example of the blatant and obvious running theme of eating Jesus...Calling on the name of the Lord is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. It's a basic practice of the church. It's also how we touch our spirit. And it's how we eat and assimilate the Lord. This is all pretty clear unless someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing

Originally Posted by Jay

You can say what you like, but I know from first hand experience that modern Christianity is very focused on works, and very lacking in the eating Jesus department. I said it before and I'll say it again; most of them don't even know they have a human spirit, nor do they know they are a soul, let along how to differentiate the two

I'm for balance. As I said before I believe there is a lack of works in the recovery

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, you are reading “eating” into these scripture. Had the Spirit of God inspired Paul to minister about “eating” then we would see it in his writings. Please try to understand the word of God using the context, instead of the ministry of WL.

Remember that Text without Context is a Pretext for Proof Text. Whether you know it or not, that’s what you just did.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It’s not “most of modern Christians” who are “caught up in major error,” but evil workers, what Apostle Paul called religious “dogs,” following WL’s teachings who are in error, and should be “marked out” for causing divisions and stumbling the saints. Read Romans 16.

Originally Posted by Jay

As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works

Originally Posted by Jay

I never threw out good works. My point is that if we are not abiding in the Lord (John 15:4) then we cannot produce good fruit (good works). Jesus said 'apart from me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). So as I said before, good works ties into God's economy in the sense that good works or good fruits are the result of God dispensing himself as the spirit in his economy. Also righteousness and sanctification are results of our abiding in the spirit. Otherwise our Christian walk and righteousness would just be an outward performance. Which is a major problem with modern Christianity and the denominations. They do things FOR God but ignore God's method of sanctification and transformation. Essentially they ignore Christ and they ignore their spirit. Or we could probably say that they are ignorant of Christ in their spirit. satan loves to keep people in ignorance

We all have to solemnly read Matthew 23:27-28 and question whether we have God's subjective righteousness through the transformation of the spirit, or our own kind of outward righteousness according to the dead letter of the law. One has life, the other is death-

2 Corinthians 3:6b for the letter (the law) kills, but the spirit gives life

What Lee is basically saying here that works (whether righteousness or whatever) that is not out of the spirit, is out of the law. Most Christians fail at this one point. They are unable to gain their good works from out of abiding, and their righteousness doesn't come from the spirit of Christ, it comes from somewhere else. They think they have to DO for God and to be approved by God through their DOING. This is fully wrong according to the Bible. The doing and the working comes out of the spirit (Philippians 2:13). If the spirit is not the source then it's wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Unfortunately most of modern Christians are to some degree caught up in this major error

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe Paul was an eater of Jesus. I believe his ministry focuses on eating the spirit. Read Romans 8:6 and Romans 10:13

Originally Posted by Ohio

No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.

Originally Posted by Nell

Non-answer.

You just couldn’t do it could you? You had to get all wordy and quote Lee. No surprise there.

Lee’s “ministry” consists of taking verses describing something in the word and turning it into a prescription that must be followed for all time ……”eating” for example.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.

In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.

Nell

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, then what do you do with these verses? This short section encapsulates the whole of God’s Economy - God’s Plan of salvation, the goal of His redemption, our Hope and our living in this age, with His final desire that we be “zealous of good works.”

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2.11-14

No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.

Originally Posted by Jay

As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.

In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.

Nell

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.

Jeremiah 15:15-17
15 LORD, you understand; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. 16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty. 17 I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation.

Jeremiah speaks of when the word of God came to him. This is exactly what we see in the first chapter of his book. “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah initially shows apprehension at such a word, but the Lord insists. “‘Alas, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). We can see that Jeremiah immediately proves that he “ate” God’s word by showing that he was keeping God’s word and doing what God asked of him. As our Lord Jesus declared, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). In James we also see the importance of keeping God’s word rather than just hearing it: “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it — not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it — they will be blessed in what they do.” (James 1:19-25).

The scriptural concept of “eating” can never be divorced from “doing,” yet somehow Lee has conjured up this doctrine of pray-reading which is effectively just a doctrine of verbal phylacteries (Matthew 23:1-12). There is indeed precedent for praying over the scriptures, but Lee’s specific formula for “pray-reading” and for “eating” God’s word is no better than the vain and repetitive actions that Jesus warned against.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...
What really troubled me about WL’s and the Blended’s insistence here was yanking it out of context. We can argue words, but remember the old adage: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text. This saying never was so true as with these verses. How many times (e.g. “a faithful word”, “shepherding words”, etc to start) have I read LSM articles using God’s Economy as a sledgehammer to beat others down? Concerning LSM and DCP how true is another saying: A little knowledge is dangerous.. Never think that LSM is gifted in knowledge from God because they exclusively teach what others do not. Knowledge merely puffs up. But what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

Originally Posted by aron

As a recent example of discrepancy, I found myself reconsidering "God's economy" as taught by WL: where does Paul promote intensification? If not, why pretend that Paul was urging Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach it? And if Paul wasn't telling Timothy (or anyone else) to teach it as part of "God's economy", why the presumption that we should? (And, where to broach such questions as a basis for respectful and mutually profitable exploration? Not in the Local Church!)

Originally Posted by Ohio

what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?

Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.

Originally Posted by aron

Yes I think we're in full agreement on this. And yes, we were warned explicitly not to follow the repetitive noisemaking path, yet on it we went most of us anyway... it was so enjoyable! But at the end, no transformation, just frustration. I mean, group chanting was such a head rush. I was 'in spirit, on the ground'!

But really, I was just in a state of heightened suggestibility in which I sat through meeting after meeting, training after training, conference after conference, absorbing all the Lee teachings. At that point, he could have sold us fried eggs, told us it was God's economy, and we would have congratulated ourselves on being so fortunate. It was a golden opportunity, his cheerleaders would say, as we sat raptly, transfixed.

Originally Posted by ACF

Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.

Originally Posted by aron

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should allow, and follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God."

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.

Originally Posted by Jay

....But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that.

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also?

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it

Originally Posted by Zezima

The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Jay

If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God

Originally Posted by aron

I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.

I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.

First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.

Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.

My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.

My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.

I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.

Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?

Originally Posted by Jay

...the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.

We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.

Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.

My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".

Originally Posted by Jay

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself.

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means-

Originally Posted by Jay

I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

Originally Posted by Jay

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Originally Posted by Jay

Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?

Originally Posted by Jay

So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

Originally Posted by Jay

The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.

Originally Posted by Jay

That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by OBW

...many start with Paul and try to shoehorn the gospels to fit what they think they are getting out of Paul. And they mostly ignore the parts of the gospels that they cant fit into their "Paul" narrative.

But the real way to look at the NT should be similar to what the Jews say about the OT. They essentially say that there is the Law and the Prophets, and the rest is commentary. Layered over the NT, that would be "The gospels are the Gospel. The rest is commentary."

Originally Posted by OBW

Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels. It is that kind of focus that has brought me to realize that Paul's letters are not about uber-spiritual stuff with a side helping of discipline about their issues.

Originally Posted by Covert

Aaron, I got your back brother, you are indeed correct works are part of the christian life. I just had to help my brother out and give economy pitches it cannot hit and strike it out.

Originally Posted by OBW

Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee claimed that Paul's teachings in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were "the heart of the divine revelation".

Originally Posted by OBW

And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.

Originally Posted by OBW

Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by OBW

But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is there real aversion on this forum about how different ones see inner-life teachings?
. . . .
Or am I overreaching in this?

Originally Posted by aron

These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life. Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you understand my problem with the inner-life teachings? Especially when they are the predominant diet of an assembly? It is an extremely off-balance view of a small part of the truth in the Bible which effectively rejects other truths that don't fit its view. It is truth so divorced from the rest of truth that it begins to resemble a lie. And the lie is the idea that it is the whole thing rather than only a part.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.

Originally Posted by aron

A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.

With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?

Originally Posted by aron

In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.

I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?

I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

.. it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture... What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?

Originally Posted by OBW

I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic "this means that" kind of reading is too close to it for my comfort.

StG, if you think the fruit in Revelation 22:2 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being more explicitly spelled out in msg #44. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 in context, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

Originally Posted by Trapped

That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.

There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

Originally Posted by aron

And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus interpreted by Jesus as obedience. Do you ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it looks like.

The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The problem is that you end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that the theology was built on.

What came afterward, cited heavily in NT commentary, is a continuation of Genesis 3: some connection with God, to be continued through obedience to God's command, yet disobedience followed, and there was separation from God, and the consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish. And in none of it is "eating" linked to the disobedience.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

Originally Posted by OBW

I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.

To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'

Originally Posted by OBW

So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).

Originally Posted by Trapped

IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.

Originally Posted by OBW

A recent post quoted a post from a month earlier, so I will just provide the one sentence that I am commenting on:As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction. If something is true yet its contradiction is true, then it is also false. And that is impossible. If it is true it is not also false. Therefore Lee's "two sides of truth" which he used to tie together all kinds of contradictions together as truth cannot actually represent the truth.

If it appears that there are two things that are contradictory yet true, then either:

1. one is actually not true and we have not yet figured that out, OR

2. we have not yet figured out how the two are not actually talking about the same thing.

I did not try to back-track to find the thing that is compared to the Calvinism/Arminian issue, but my study on that issue is that Calvinism is taught as a kind of over-arching lens that colors other things. Some of the passages that they use to claim that it so does not so easily read as they want unless you start with the assumption that it is true (classic begging the question or circular reasoning). Yet there are clearly some aspects to which a kind of predestination is applied. The Calvinists take their predestination, and application of grace so far as to make the very act of desiring God completely given. In fact, for someone to suggest that they had to believe to be saved is, to a Calvinist, wrong because you cannot believe unless it is also part of what is given to you. (And in my book a bit beyond what any of the scriptures actually say.)

Originally Posted by OBW

As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction...

And since Lee seemed to like to keep everyone off-balance and willing to accept anything, even if it seemed contradictory, having a "two sides of truth" teaching to get people to stop trying to analyze what was wrong came in real handy.

Originally Posted by aron

Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?

I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

Originally Posted by Toronto

...there are many groups like this and the people who fall for it are gullible and ignorant college age kids with hardly any real world experience. Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee. They did not have the capability to cross reference with sound orthodox teachings because of their ignorance, so they literally think Lee doctrine is the Golden standard of Christianity...

Originally Posted by Toronto

Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee

Originally Posted by aron

Paul never even read the Apocalypse, so how can the "seven-fold intensified Spirit" be part of this "God's economy"? You're left with the notion that nobody but WL truly understood God's economy - not even Paul... we focused on a half-verse, 1 Cor 15:45(b), and on writings not penned by Paul, probably not even read by him (John 1:14, Rev 1:4). Somehow this WL construction was the revelation of the age, and yet Paul gave no evidence of teaching this as "God's economy"..

Originally Posted by aron

The collection for the poor of Jerusalem was not incidental, to be ignored, as the first few chapters of Acts and Jesus' "give and it shall be given" and "store up treasure in heaven". .. Paul was right in the middle of it, and preaching this "economy of God" to every church.

Originally Posted by aron

In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul was in crisis mode and made his point briefly, but his second letter allowed expansion, and in chapter 8 he did...

By contrast, where's the chapter that Paul wrote on masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature.

Originally Posted by Trapped

A few verses after the LC-famous verse on God's economy, Paul says "the end of the charge is love". Some translations say "the goal of the command is love."

In other words, he charged Timothy not to teach the unhealthy things which produce questionings, but to teach the healthy things which produce God's economy. And that charge.....the charge to teach healthy things which produce God's economy.....the end of that charge, Paul says, is love.

The whole point of that charge is love.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Obedience to His commands, love God, love your neighbor, give honor to those who are uncomely, care for the needy, eagerness to take care of the poor, widows, hungry, etc.......I absolutely agree that is God's economy as shown in Scripture.

I'm the first to admit I'm so short in those areas.

Originally Posted by zeek

It would take me several lifetimes to investigate and understand all that was/is wrong with the Local Churches. I don't have that much time. Do you?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)

Originally Posted by Nell

Welcome to the club.

What about us? You do understand that anyone who leaves the LC has been judged, categorized and "found wanting"? Right? (e.g., "negative", "opposers")

We didn't acquire an appetite either...for being cursed with the end of our walk with Jesus for leaving the "non-recovery".

What is your definition of "real fellowship"? Anything "real" has to be TRUE. We hold all posters to this standard.

We are here to discuss the Local Churches, which includes its so many, vast teachings of hypocrisy. This is what we focus on, because this is the LocalChurchDiscussions.com forum. There is sometimes a little heat in this kitchen.

Nell

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)

Originally Posted by Nell

So the real question is not "what is man" but "who is this one with the excellent name in all the earth!" What is man...in his lowly, fallen state...who, in his own lineage, brought forth the Savior of mankind.

So, when you say, "I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture?" I think man is fallen, sinful, narcissistic, and thinks of himself more highly than he ought.

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, "Christ loves the Church" but the Church should not love the Church lest in a flash she become the Great Harlot. Just as Peter instantly fell by looking away from the Master, so can the Church. She should only look to Him. Pretty simple, really.

Originally Posted by Awoken

Wesley's note:

"Jesus answered - In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been even possible) even Judas himself. The sop - Which he took up while he was speaking. He giveth it to Judas - And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession."

Originally Posted by Awoken

I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."

Originally Posted by Awoken

I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."

Originally Posted by Trapped

You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory,

If the Word of God tells us to test all things, and discern the truth, and divide the word rightly, I can almost all but guarantee you that it's not the Lord who's telling you to not pursue the truth further.

You may have re-read those passages I asked you to read, but from everything you've said so far, there's no indication you have. You'll make unrelated statements, you'll try to distract by referencing "richer" portions, you'll make claims that are not supported by the Bible, and you'll go ask other people, but you won't read the words of Scripture. It's telling.

No one is disputing that "something got into [man's] vessel". The discussion was about where that something came from. This is not an unimportant thing. Particularly when the false teaching at question has been used to depress, oppress, and distress your fellow brothers and sisters for decades.

You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.

Trapped

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I did have some initial fellowship with a brother, whose immersion in the word I greatly respect. I told him what we were looking at on here and then came back to him this weekend about it. At that time he said, "Honestly, I don't have much appetite for this sort of thing." When I heard that it caught me off guard a bit, but I must admit that I came to believe this was a word from the Lord and my appetite for it is mostly gone now too. Sorry, but it's just not in me to pursue further. I think part of this has to do with a rich word that a brother shared this Sunday here, about the amazing riches of the fullness of Christ in Colossians chapter one. I guess after having a taste of that, that is what my appetite is toward right now.

However, I think I owe you one last comment, so I will share what came to me this morning. I realized that I probably short-changed the "much more . . . saved in His life" aspect I mentioned in my last post. What came to me, and I hope this helps, is that there is a comparison of the two Adams. There are two main aspects of the final Adam (Christ) - His justification work and His life-giving. To fully return us to God's purpose both are needed - the cleaning and then filling of the vessel. And this is to correct what happened with the first Adam. He disobeyed, and through that act something got into his vessel. So there's a two part problem with the first; and a two part solution with the last. Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by aron

If "God's economy" involves subjective, selfish enjoyment, why doesn't that "eating" and "enjoyment" lead to personal transformation? Why then are leaders crafty and manipulative and bullying? Why are members miserable and depressed? Why are teens leaving in droves? Why are we "covering drunken Noah"? I though Noah was supposed to be getting transfigured - why is he getting drunk? Even the Christian basics get upended.

Just look at the fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we've plenty of evidence to see where this unbiblical practice has taken people.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)

Originally Posted by aron

Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. Because of sin, she only saw the gilt, and missed the guilt (a pun, yes)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.

Originally Posted by aron

I completely and strenuously disagree. There is one Christ. No one else has his status. Nobody should elevate themselves. In due time, yes he'll elevate his servants at the Bema. But any who elevate (or 'centers' as in, 'I'm the center') themselves will err. Only Christ is sinless obedient Lamb of God. He has status unshared. We are excluded. We believe, and vicariously do share in some sense, but only as we believe in him. To focus on ourselves, our faith, our status, our position, is to fall away from him.

It's like the Gorgon. If you look at the Gorgon you die. Only by looking at the Shield (Christ) you live. The only 'reality' is through the Shield. Everything else, including and especially us, is tainted. Because of sin we are the Gorgon. Because of his sinless obedience is the Way.

You just have to look at Jesus. Look at nothing else.

(when I say 'you' of course that is self-talk. Anyone is free to do whatever they please)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What Christ says in Luke 24 cannot be construed as about Him to the exclusion of mankind.

Originally Posted by aron

The "him" in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ. "These things were written concerning me" - Luke 24:27;44. He is the Sinless One. We are the believers into his status as Obedient Lamb of God. But if we put the focus on ourselves or our faith, we're near to error if not already in it. He's errorless, we are error-prone. Why gaze on ourselves?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

A little side note if I may: I agree that WL goes too far in many of his prognostications regarding man. I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture? The Bible describes man in the lowest terms, but also in very high terms, such as sons of God. (i.e., unregenerate vs. regenerated)

It says in Psalms 8:3-6 (NASB):
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You have him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put everything under his feet"

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by OBW

The Lord's economy, or "God's Economy" is taken heavily from the opening verses in 1 Timothy. Specifically 3 & 4. If you read the opening chapter of his book on the subject, Lee mentions no other verse and argues a peculiar meaning that is essentially not taken by any other. And he uses some tricks of argumentation to stop the listener/reader from questioning his certainty of position. For example, he says something like "a thorough investigation of the entire Bible will reveal that . . . ." Of course, no one is going to actually do such an investigation. And he has hinted that he has done it. And declared that it will reveal his answer. So you either go along or you have to start into just such an investigation.

In the realm of logical discussion, his method is designed to provide no actual information but suggest that the requirements to contradict are so difficult as to be impossible, thus shutting off debate. The astute arguer will simply reject such an assertion and ask for actual evidence that it is so.

Originally Posted by aron

Yet what if Chicago believers sent funds to help the poor of Detroit, and Detroit's believers helped the poor of Flint...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Economy refers to the administration in God's house to minister the riches of Christ to God's children. To this end the apostles were given a stewardship, which is the office of this administration to minister, shepherd, teach, preach the gospel, etc. for the household of God.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory,

I think it would be really great if you responded accordingly as you said you intended to a few posts ago, and didn't peace out without facing the discussion. I honestly think this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who has had any instruction by Witness Lee about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly here is the most important thing.

Your response about "much more being saved by His life" really doesn't have much to do with the discussion of the TOTKOGAE, as far as I can tell. Kind of a non sequitur.

Did you cancel your planned fellowship with another person about it? Or did you have fellowship, and if so, how did it go?

Trapped

Originally Posted by Trapped

this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who's had instruction by WL about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly is important

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One more comment on this, then I think I'm done as I have little heart to engage in endless whatever. Justification is toward sin - it cleanses the vessel and makes it right/fit for filling. Then, after being saved by His death, there is the much more of being saved by His life. So there are both these aspects.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.

..The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient. We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's [sic] Economy?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory.. it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me.

Originally Posted by ESV

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” Psalm 41:1-2

“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Proverbs 19:17

“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7

“For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.” Psalm 9:18

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:19

“The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all.” Proverbs 22:2

“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10

“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5

“Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people.” Psalm 113:5-8

“A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.” Proverbs 29:7

“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16

“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23

“The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Psalm 37:14-15

“Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.” Proverbs 14:21

“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13

“Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.

But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?

Originally Posted by Awoken

Or Lee's (and maybe also Nee's, and maybe also the Plymouth Brethren's) prescriptive teaching about the "ground of locality" based on a very shakily discerned descriptive pattern in the NT epistles.

Originally Posted by Nell

Example: Lee’s delegated authority prescriptive teaching based on the verses describing an event among Noah and his sons.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.

But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?